Originally posted by no1marauder BTW, calling Navy and the other service academies' teams "garbage" is offensive and uncalled for. First, these guys are not just playing football but will soon be risking their lives for their country; that doesn't rate them as "garbage" to me. And perhaps you missed it, but both Navy and Air Force had winning records last year and played in bowl games and put up credible performances though losing.
When you look at schedules, you don't look at whether they are good people or not, you look at the quality of their football playing and Notre Dame simply does not play the teams they used to play. The armed forces don't have the quality of teams they had sixty years ago and if Notre Dame plays them now, they won't get the same strength of schedule respect they once had.
It was not that long ago when they added teams like Miami (as good as anyone to their schedule). Notre Dame simply no longer does that and part of the reason is there is not enough incentive to play a tough schedule. ND refuseS (and I understand the money reasons) to join a conference. When conference teams go 7-4, they play in a bowl game but could be a fourth place team. We do not have the same basis of comparison for Notre Dame. Especially if/when they lose to USC, they won't have any great wins and they won't be able to show they beat the same competition other teams didn't.
Unlike yourself, nothing I said is offensive.
Originally posted by quackquack When you look at schedules, you don't look at whether they are good people or not, you look at the quality of their football playing and Notre Dame simply does not play the teams they used to play. The armed forces don't have the quality of teams they had sixty years ago and if Notre Dame plays them now, they won't get the same strength of schedule respe ...[text shortened]... at the same competition other teams didn't.
Unlike yourself, nothing I said is offensive.
The bottom line is that they are Notre Dame and, therefore, if they win out they would be considered for the NC for political reasons. However, the same would not be trie for a team like Utah who ran circles around last years first place team Alabama. Its a little thing called political correctness within college football.
Originally posted by quackquack When you look at schedules, you don't look at whether they are good people or not, you look at the quality of their football playing and Notre Dame simply does not play the teams they used to play. The armed forces don't have the quality of teams they had sixty years ago and if Notre Dame plays them now, they won't get the same strength of schedule respe at the same competition other teams didn't.
Unlike yourself, nothing I said is offensive.
Obviously you have your mind made up and refuse to look at the actual teams they play. So be it.
Originally posted by whodey The bottom line is that they are Notre Dame and, therefore, if they win out they would be considered for the NC for political reasons. However, the same would not be trie for a team like Utah who ran circles around last years first place team Alabama. Its a little thing called political correctness within college football.
I agree. I'm a Notre Dame fan, and I do believe that ND is treated more favorably than other teams. I'm not sure why, but they are.😕
Originally posted by quackquack Seems more like you have your mind made up.
Do you have any logical response to these points I raised:
I'm somewhat puzzled why anyone considers ND's schedule "weak". Going by last year's results, the Irish play 7 teams that made it to bowl games. Besides USC, they play three BCS Conference teams that won 9 games last year - Michigan State, Boston College and Pitt. The two teams that they play that aren't in a BCS Conference both made it to bowls last year. And does anyone expect Michigan to go 3-9 again?
Originally posted by bill718 I agree. I'm a Notre Dame fan, and I do believe that ND is treated more favorably than other teams. I'm not sure why, but they are.😕
In 1993, Notre Dame beat Florida State, they both finished with one loss yet Florida State was declared National Champion. How's that fit into the "Notre Dame gets favored" theory?
Two teams had the same record in 1993. The team that played the tougher schedule won the National Championship. I think that's the way it should be.
Perhaps we just disagree on the quality of the teams on ND's schedule and maybe as the games are played we will agree on whether the teams are good or not. Preseason picks are really just guesses anyway.
I'm a Michigan fan and while I hope they are better than 3-9 with two
true freshman quaterbacks and I am guessing that they will be below .500 in the Big 10. In fact, I would not be surprised if Michigan lost to Western Michigan in week one.
It would not shock me to see Michigan and Purdue in the bottom half of the Big 10 and for Michigan State to finsh about fourth. If Michigan State continues to develop than its completely different but it would not surprise me if Penn State, Ohio State and another team also beat Michigan, Michigan State and Purdue.
Originally posted by quackquack Two teams had the same record in 1993. The team that played the tougher schedule won the National Championship. I think that's the way it should be.
Perhaps we just disagree on the quality of the teams on ND's schedule and maybe as the games are played we will agree on whether the teams are good or not. Preseason picks are really just guesses anywa ...[text shortened]... me if Penn State, Ohio State and another team also beat Michigan, Michigan State and Purdue.
The point is merely that ND's schedule doesn't appear particularly weak at this point in time. USC appears to be a challenger for the National Championship. Pitt is the favorite in the Big East, meaning ND could easily play two BCS teams perhaps three as Michigan State is generally picked to have an outside shot in the Big Ten (every place I've looked has them predicted 3rd). Even UCONN might contend in the Big East. On the other hand, it is assumed that BC will not be as good as last year and many are predicting Michigan and Purdue to finish well down in the Big Ten standings. But college football seasons are full of surprises.
Notre Dame would have to beat USC to be considered a National Championship contender and I don't see that happening. Still, 9-3 might land them in a BCS bowl and that's not out of the question though we'll have a better idea after they play a Nevada squad that I don't think will be the pushover that many assume.
Originally posted by no1marauder In 1993, Notre Dame beat Florida State, they both finished with one loss yet Florida State was declared National Champion. How's that fit into the "Notre Dame gets favored" theory?
I believe FL played a very strong schedule. ND's was strong, but there were a few weak teams in the mix.
Two teams have the same record; Notre Dame had the weaker strength of schedule. They should finish second. It should not matter who beat whom that over emphasized one game one week.
Originally posted by quackquack Two teams have the same record; Notre Dame had the weaker strength of schedule. They should finish second. It should not matter who beat whom that over emphasized one game one week.
It shouldn't matter that Team A beat Team B when deciding whether Team A or Team B should advance? 🙄
You can't seriously believe that. Try that out in the NFL.
EDIT: For the record, the claim that FSU played a tougher SOS is dubious. Their best win was against Florida, then ranked #5. ND beat FSU (#1) and had already beaten #3 Michigan in Ann Arbor. FSU did have a win against #14 Miami while ND lost on a last second FG to #17 Boston College. The facts don't support the claim of FSU's "tougher schedule". http://www.phys.utk.edu/sorensen/cfr/cfr/Output/1993/CF_1993_Team_Florida_State.html
You simply misrepresent Notre Dame's 1993 schedule.
In 1993, Michigan lost four times including at home to an unranked team. Michigan finished 4th in the BIG 10. This is part of the reason I object to Notre Dame not playing in conference. At the very least be the top team in a group of 8-12 teams that plays the bulk of their schedule against the same group before you complain that you were better than someone else.
Notre Dame beat Purdue (1-10), Northwestern (2-9), Pitt (3-8), Stanford (4-7), Navy (4-7), BYU (6-6), MSU (6-6), USC (8-5), Michigan (8-4), Texas A & M (10-2) and FSU (12-1). This is not a powerhouse schedule.
Florida State beat Florida and Nebraska (who combined had one other loss) and finished the year as top 5 teams. They beat Miami (9-3) and North Carolina (10-3) who were also top 20 teams.
Florida State played a better schedule (especially late in the season).
Originally posted by quackquack You simply misrepresent Notre Dame's 1993 schedule.
In 1993, Michigan lost four times including at home to an unranked team. Michigan finished 4th in the BIG 10. This is part of the reason I object to Notre Dame not playing in conference. At the very least be the top team in a group of 8-12 teams that plays the bulk of their schedule against the ...[text shortened]... e also top 20 teams.
Florida State played a better schedule (especially late in the season).
I missed the NCAA rule that says you have to play in a conference to be considered for the national championship. Your objection is noted, but silly.
When Notre Dame played Michigan (on the road), Michigan was ranked #3 in the country. It's also of no relevance that FSU was given the opportunity to play Nebraska; that decision is what the problem is. IF Notre Dame had been given the chance to play Nebraska for the National Championship (as it should have been), then FSU's claim of a "better" schedule collapses.
Your cherry picking is noted; you don't bother to present the creampuffs like Duke, Wake Forest and Maryland that FSU played (the ACC eas not considered a strong football conference in 1993). You also failed to respond to the most salient point but I'll ask you directly; is the NFL wrong to use as its first tiebreaker head to head results?
I wish Notre Dame were stronger
27 Aug '09 12:53
Back to Top