Lateralus Ag said:
Stanford. LOL
Agree they also appear to overestimate Notre Dame.Bifferton Bobber Squat said:
These rankings reflect a significant delusion that the Pac12 is a football conference.
It's okay to play 2 subdivision teams.... it's not okay to schedule 3 of them, which we currently have.Alpha Texan said:
If we didn't schedule a dang division 2 team and pay them a million dollars, they wouldn't make enough money to sustain a program and go under.
Jbob88 said:It's okay to play 2 subdivision teams.... it's not okay to schedule 3 of them, which we currently have.Alpha Texan said:
If we didn't schedule a dang division 2 team and pay them a million dollars, they wouldn't make enough money to sustain a program and go under.
Notice that ND gets no bump for playing Stanford and USC. That tells you all you need to know about their conference strength.Emilio Fantastico said:
Stanford and USC getting a bump from playing a 9 game conference schedule plus ND. The only problem with that is only about 4 teams in the Pac12 are worth a crap.
It's 100% math.OldShadeOfBlue said:
They probably base it off of average difficulty. Which lets be honest, is scheduling an automatic win over a FCS opponent much different than scheduling a likely win with a below average FBS team? In the end it's still a blowout win. With this method you're basically asking 'how hard is it to go 6-6'.
USC plays 11 power 5 schools, which is great. But only 4 of them are ranked and not a single team is top 10.
Stanford plays 5 ranked teams. None of them top 10.
Florida plays just 3 ranked teams.
Auburn plays 6 ranked teams.
A&M plays 5 ranked teams including 4 top 10 teams. Give me a break.
Poor guys have Alabama, Georgia, and Clemson.AvidAggie said:
I agree that South Carolina's schedule is brutal and just might be the toughest.
Not sure about the rest.