scott:
thanks for the candid reply. like i said, not having any on-field experience doesnt make your opinions any less valid. hell, some of the best football coaches are guys who never played on the big-time college or pro level (mike leach from texas tech and mike martz come to mind. those are two guys who are probably too smart for their own good. incredibly innovative football minds). my only reason for asking was because its tough to discredit most of what you post because, as i alluded to earlier, your info is well-researched and thought out, but most often presented in a statistical and numerical manner.
for example, theres no way that i (or anyone) can argue against SOS numbers and data of that sort. and, extended further, you may very well be right when you say certain coaches don't schedule as aggressively in non-conf as others. unfortunately, thats the just way it is in big time college football. these guys are trying to strike a balance between scheduling tough opponents, but also not overscheduling and hurting their team. obviously, some coaches feel scheduling incredibly tough non-conference games is the way to go, and theyll play anyone at any time (temple's chaney and msu's izzo in hoops come to mind). and they are to be commended for the quality of opponents they put on their schedule. this year, marshall traveled to georgia and osu in back to back weeks. thats impressive. right now, theyre sitting at 0-3 but its obvious theyre gonna be one of the best teams in the mac because they battled both georgia and osu on their own fields for 120 minutes. but its gotta be kept in proper perspective. for example, akron scheduled penn state and virginia this year. yeah, they scheduled aggressively, but they still suck. theyre 0-3 and i dont think it matter who they scheduled, they suck. they didnt even put up a fight vs either opponent.
what im getting at that the SOS numbers are great as a supplementary tool. but the best capping tool is still our own eyes.
sure oklahoma hasnt had a real test through the first three weeks. and no they havent left home. but the eyes dont lie. their defense played well against 3 good offensive teams (not good teams overall, but definitely good offensive teams)
as far as notre dame goes, they always do a great job of scheduling tough games. since they want to remain independent, i guess its the least we can expect of them. and i like willingham as a coach. but that team is miserable on offense. their defense is solid, but theyve got a QB who is barely hitting 50% of his passes. they remind me of the miami dolphins. no real continuity on offense, but they stay in games with their D. the fact that they schedule tough games is commendable, but the talent ultimately determines whether or not its a successful season. for example, notre dame scheduled really tough last year. they definitely didnt back away from anyone. but their schedule didnt help them, because they werent good anyways. they showed that in the navy game. they barely beat navy at home.
tying this all together with usc, i dont think anyone can argue against usc's aggressive scheduling. they didnt have to play 2 of 3 games away from home. but they cant use that as a crutch. they havent looked good in either road game. theres a lot of work to be done at usc if they want to win it outright this year.
same with georgia. they havent looked good either.
oklahoma has been the best by default. they havent been tested necessarily, but as of this very moment, they look like the best team in the country. im not saying they are the best team. im just saying that through 3 weeks of football, the performances they have offered have been crisp and sharp when compared to the two other true title contenders (usc and uga)
a final note re: michigan. i know where you guys are coming from when you say a lot of teams (michigan included) are mis-ranked simply because of their name and tradition. but i still think the wolverines ranking is fair. they havent been sharp out of the gate, but thats to be expected with a freshman quarterback. and im not ranking on 'potential'. i know mr.hockey disagrees, but i think michigan would easily handle any of the teams ranked 20 through 25. the only team that should be ranked higher than UM is minnesota (#19). it wasnt like notre dame manhandled michigan. the wolverines outgained the irish and outplayed them for most of the game. but notre dame made the big plays necessary for a comeback, and thats why michigan is 2-1. as for the sdsu game, by no means am i trying to say its acceptable for michigan to struggle with sdsu, but for whatever reason, that team is a b1tch in non-conference. they played very well in columbus last year and almost knocked off osu.
