Stop the strength of schedule madness!

"I don't care what people want to say about Penn State, Paterno's team is not playing a non-conference sked that makes them worthy of playing for the national title... I'd much prefer to see a BYU in the Rose Bowl than an undefeated Penn State team." - Eric Prisbell, The Washington Post

It's getting old, right? I know, me too. It's to the point already where I'm starting to get pissed off. This problem isn't exclusive to Penn State and BYU. Plenty of other teams this year and in years past have been forced to suffer through it. But the PSU-BYU argument for this season is a good start for debunking the entire idea of judging a team's strength of schedule before the regular season has concluded.

I could spend this time ranting about Prisbell's comment, attacking him and the dozens of other pundits who are already discounting a possibly-undefeated Penn State from the BCS Championship Game, over a BYU team that hasn't proven anything yet, either. But I won't. Instead, I'm going to make a rather simple comparison of the two team's schedules, and pretty much let you decide if one -- at this point in the season -- is already more deserving than the other.

Before I begin, allow me to clear one thing up. One cannot compare ONLY non-conference schedules, which it seems most have been doing lately, both when discussing BYU's case for the BCS title game and the reason for Penn State's exclusion from the championship conversation. If we're trying to determine which team has the strongest schedule -- again, even though it's mid-September -- the ENTIRE schedule must be considered.

The Opponents

I'm going to rank each team's opponents, strongest to weakest on a scale of 1-10. One (1) will represent FCS teams, 2 will be the worst level of FBS team, and so on, up to 9 and 10, which are teams on the level of Florida and USC.

Penn_St_Opponent	Strength	BYU_Opponent____	Strength
AKRON	3	Oklahoma^	8
SYRACUSE	4	Tulane	2
TEMPLE	3	FLORIDA ST	7
IOWA*	7	COLORADO ST*	3
Illinois*	5	UTAH ST	2
E. ILLINOIS	1	UNLV(away)*	3
MINNESOTA*	5	San Diego St*	6
Michigan*	6	TCU*	6
Northwestern*	5	Wyoming*	2
OHIO ST*	8	New Mexico*	3
INDIANA*	4	AIR FORCE*	4
Michigan St*	5	UTAH*	6
TOTALS	56		52

Don't go crying bias, because I was very generous on BYU's schedule, and stayed away from boosting PSU's schedule, even though I could argue some of PSU's opponents are much better than they appear. But you can see that by taking into account the relative strength of all 24 opponents, Penn State faces a schedule is no weaker overall than the one BYU will play.

Game locations

If one is going to make an argument for a team's strength of schedule, the games' locations must also be taken into account. BYU has every tough opponent traveling to Provo, and Oklahoma was taken on at a neutral site. Penn State must go to Illinois, Michigan, Northwestern and Michigan State, all superior to any of the Cougars' true road opponents. The Lions play eight home games, while BYU plays seven.

Conclusion

Strength of schedule arguments are pretty much all bogus until the end of the regular season. That's why this stuff gets people worked up. We don't know how strong these opponents really are until all the games are played on the field. But since guys like Prisbell are already making judgments on which teams have the stronger schedule, it's on. Come to think of it, Prisbell didn't even say that BYU would have to be undefeated to beat out a 12-0 Penn State team, did he? Wow.

At this point in the season, no one can say an undefeated BYU squad will deserve a spot in the BCS Championship Game over an undefeated Penn State. What if Oklahoma loses three or four games? What if Ohio State only loses to Penn State the rest of the year? What if Utah or TCU turn out to be mediocre, which would equate to a bad BCS team? What if Michigan is really as good as they looked so far?

So, until all those questions are answered, it's time to chill out with the BYU=Automatic chatter.

More below the fold...

Poll results: First Look '09, FCS teams

As you would imagine, many readers aren't crazy about Penn State scheduling FCS (I-AA) teams for football. But, as we know, that's life in modern college football.



Also, be sure to vote in the new poll, on Minnesota's win total for '09.

More below the fold...

Poll Results: The schedule sucks

◊ This is pretty self-explanatory, and totally expected. This week's poll, asking readers if they approved of the 2009 football schedule, was a landslide. The fans hate it. I have to agree. Granted, Syracuse was scheduled the year after they went 10-2, in 2001, but still having Eastern Illinois, an FCS team, is in excusable. Sure, they'll tell us that it's just part of the game today, and that it's tough to schedule better teams. Bullshit! If it's so hard, then why do other teams have dynamite schedules seemingly every year? Even when Michigan* scheduled Appalachian State, the Mountaineers were going for their third-straight national championship.

Oh well, at least next year we get Alabama on the schedule.



*I just noticed over at MSC, that UM just inked a date with Delaware State (FCS). No, not Delaware, the team that's pretty competitive. Delaware State. This is a very disturbing trend.

More below the fold...

USC 2008... Overrated

This week's ZN Top 25 has drawn some criticism from readers, particularly where I ranked USC, No. 8 behind No. 5 Penn State and No. 7 Ohio State. I'll try to explain, as best I can, why USC it ranked too high in the polls this year.

Let's begin with facts, shall we?

Team(Record)	Rank(BCS)	Opp.Record	Opp.Win%	Rank(1/119)
USC(10-1)	No. 5	62-63	0.492	No. 71
PSU(11-1)	No. 8	57-57	0.500	No. 68
OSU(10-2)	No. 10	66-45	0.594	No. 11
Iowa(8-4)	NR	57-54	0.513	No. 53
OrSU(8-4)	NR	69-53	0.565	No. 19

Ok, now that you've taken a good look at where the three teams are, think about it. What's one thing you've heard from every talking head: "Yeah, but who have they played?" For once, I agree with the main stream media's argument, that strength of schedule is very important towards ranking teams this late in the season. It's not like the preseason polls, or even when the BCS first come out in October. No, this is the final week of the college football season, and we know which teams are good, bad and fake. USC is one of those "fake" teams.

Outside of the pure SOS for each team (which USC is last of the five teams, at No. 71), let's look at a few other reasons why USC is currently ranked higher in the polls that it deserves.

USC beat a Beanie-less Ohio State, in the afternoon in Los Angeles on the second weekend of the season. Penn State beat a Beanie-ful Ohio State, at night in Columbus, almost two months into the season. Penn State had the better win.

Penn State lost 24-23 at Iowa, in very inclement weather. USC lost 27-21 at Oregon State, but the Trojans were down 21-0 to the Beavers at halftime, and never once led during the game. USC had the worse loss.

Comparing common opponents is relatively easy. However, you get bogged down in comparing which common opponents those common opponents played. Yeah, head spinning yet? But there's an easier way to compare how strong teams' schedules are. Let's take all of the teams on Penn State's, Ohio State's, and USC's schedule this year.

Penn State: Coastal Carolina (FCS-49), Oregon St., Syracuse, Temple, Illinois, Purdue, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio State, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan State. Average SOS: 31

Ohio State: Youngstown St (FCS-27), Ohio, USC, Troy, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Purdue, Michigan St, Penn St, Northwestern, Illinois, MIchigan. Average SOS: 55

USC: Virginia, Ohio St, Oregon St, Oregon, Arizona St, Washington St, Arizona, Washington, California, Stanford, Notre Dame, UCLA. Average SOS: 57

Also to note, the two FCS teams played numerically-tougher and weaker schedules (in terms of opponent records) than the average. So even if you were to eliminate that number from the average, it would only raise Penn State's and lower Ohio State's opponents' average SOS. That would only widen the gap between Penn State, and Ohio State and USC.

So, looking at it from that way, one could say Penn State's opponents had overall tougher schedules, which mean they're most likely better than their records indicate. USC and Ohio State's opponents played about the same level of competition. If anything, Penn State should be above USC, while Ohio State should be a hair above USC.

That's why I ranked Penn State No. 5, Ohio State No. 7, and USC No. 8 in this week's ZN Top 25.

More below the fold...

If you want respect, schedule good teams, part 4 of 4

----Everyone argues that strength of schedule should mean everything in college football, until someone calls their team out on scheduling Directional Community College...

Part 3/4., Part 2/4., Part 1/4.

So this is it, the final installment of the Schedules series. I hope it wasn't too painful for you. I tried to take a serious look into what teams have done well and what teams haven't in terms of scheduling tough games. In part four, I'm going to run down which games I'm most looking forward to in 2008. These are all out-of-conference games, because I figure conference games always mean something and a team doesn't have a choice to play those games. These are games that teams chose to play. In no particular order, I give you the best OOC games in 2008.

***Not all of the schedules have been finalized, so I may do a revised version of this list in August.

Ohio State (11-2) at Southern Cal (11-2) – If this isn’t the top game in September; you’re not watching the right sport. While everyone will be calling the Buckeyes doomed before they even step into the Coliseum, USC loses a good number of excellent players. I don’t see this one as a blowout in either direction. This prediction means nothing right now, but: OSU 26-21

Georgia (11-2) @ Arizona State (9-4) – The Sun Devils were rolling right along until a late-season mediocre fest. If this game was to be played in Athens, it wouldn’t even really be on this list. However, Georgia will travel farther to Tempe than it did all of last season combined. With a guy like Dennis Erickson at the helm, you never know what can happen in the desert. This prediction means nothing right now, but: UGA 35-20

Missouri (12-2) vs. Illinois (9-4) – (In St. Louis) Chances are that you didn’t see last season’s edition of this game in St. Louis. I’ll also bet that you’ll make it a priority to see it in 2008. With the Illini coming off a Rose Bowl bid—as bad as it was—and the Tigers proving to be better than most BCS teams that leaped over them, this is appointment September viewing. This prediction means nothing right now, but: Ill 41-38

Kansas (12-1) @ South Florida (9-4) – South Florida shouldn’t have been at the No. 2 spot last season. But it was deserving of the praise showering it got after knocking off teams like Auburn and West Virginia. Kansas proved its worth by sticking it to Virginia Tech in one of the better BCS games in recent memory. I’m wondering which quarterback will have the better day, Todd Reesing or Matt Grothe? This prediction means nothing right now, but: KU 21-18

Auburn (10-3) @ West Virginia (11-2) – How much did Rich Rodriguez mean to the Mountaineers? With Steve Slaton moving on, can Noel Devine step in and become a real starter? Moreover, will Auburn’s experimentation with the spread offense finally kick start the point production? These are the huge question marks going into this game. How many of those will be answered? This prediction means nothing right now, but: AU 34-31

Appalachian State (13-2) @ Louisiana State (12-2) – If the Tigers beat the Mountaineers, Michigan fans will never hear the end of it. Actually, the entire Big Ten will somehow sink even lower in the minds of SEC fans. That aside, Appalachian State returns most of its national championship team, while LSU loses most of its own ring wearers. This game’s in Baton Rouge, so figure it will give LSU the edge it usually gets with the home crowd. This prediction means nothing right now, but: LSU 28-24

Michigan (9-4) @ Notre Dame (3-9) – Regardless of what the common folk think, this game is huge for both teams. It will be a test for both coaches, as Charlie Weis will try to show 2007 was a fluke, and Rich Rodriguez will try to show that Michigan 2008 will not become Notre Dame 2007. The Irish have beaten the Wolverines a couple times at home recently, so look for a much better showing this time around in South Bend. This prediction means nothing right now, but: UM 20-17

Bonus Game

Michigan (9-4) @ Penn State (9-4) – This one’s for me. For the last six years, I’ve been one of those people saying “If Penn State can’t beat Michigan THIS year…” So I’m hoping that will ring true in 2008. These games have been surprisingly close the last four meetings, with the Nittany Lions only a mistake or two away from pulling out a win. These are two teams heading in almost opposite directions. Michigan hasn’t looked this vulnerable, well, ever. We’ll see. This prediction means nothing right now, but: PSU 29-20

More below the fold...

If you want respect, schedule good teams, Part 3 of 4

3/4.

Part 2/4.
Part 1/4.

Everyone argues that strength of schedule should mean everything in college football, until someone calls their team out on scheduling Directional Community College...

As promised, here's the top five weakest schedules BCS bowl teams have played from 2003 through 2007. Here’s my criteria for selection:

-I-AA schools! Like in Schedules, Part 2 the addition of I-AA schools has a huge impact on the relative ease of a team’s schedule. Most of the teams on this list have at least one I-AA opponent on there. While some of those I-AAs are very good teams, and others are a close step up from high school ball, they are all a detriment to any pro-strength of schedule argument. Face it, if you want to get respect for your team’s schedule, then play teams in your own classification.

-Opponent records, looking back. Was a team hyped in the beginning of the year, only to fall flat on its face? Sure, beating Michigan State in September looks good, but how good is it when they’re in one of those patented late-season meltdowns. Even in the bowl games, beating a team that was thought to be unstoppable all year, then was blown out in its last regular-season game, seriously diminishes the significance of playing them in the bowl.

-Opponent conference affiliations. Think of this as a two-parter. If a team plays in the MAC or the Sun Belt, do you think its schedule is nearly as difficult as one from the Big Ten or SEC? I don’t care if a team plays five strong OOC games; if it doesn’t play more than half its schedule against strong competition, it’s not a strong schedule.

So here's what I came up with. THIS IS ALL IN NO PARTICULAR ORDER!

Just missed the cut. Close, but not easy enough...


Boise State started out 2006 with a real bang, playing a I-AA with a losing record. Oregon State was a nice win, but nothing real special. The Beavers are middle-of-the-pack Pac-10, so any decent team has a shot at beating them. Outside of the Fiesta bowl win over Oklahoma, the only other team with double digit wins was Hawai’i. Also playing seven teams with non-winning records won’t win any points with me.


If it wasn’t for the Red River Shootout against Oklahoma, this schedule would have been a complete joke. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a thousand times better than the Mid-Majors’ schedules, but to only play three ranked teams the entire season isn’t very good. To top that off, only one of them finished with more than nine wins, and Oklahoma was blown out in the BCS national championship game. The second best regular season game was against Texas Tech, which won eight games.


So now that the SEC fans are laughing at the rest of the BCS teams, here it goes. In 2003, LSU won the BCS national championship, but didn’t have to work that hard to get there. It was a down year in the SEC, and LSU jumped at the opportunity. The first three wins were near automatic, and outside of the Georgia game, any good team should beat all of the remaining opponents. I know there are three games against top-10 opponents, but the two wins against Georgia is a glaring smudge on LSU’s credibility. This schedule is much less spectacular than the SEC fans want to think.

Now, for the top five easiest schedules among BCS bowl teams from 2003-2007...


I do love Kansas State. They usually follow right along with the other Big XII folks by telling I-AA “Come on down! We’ll give you lots of money to lose to us!” I know KSU played mostly teams with winning records, but when you have those two glaring I-AAs on there, you can’t expect to be taken seriously. The only reason this isn’t the clear-cut most horrible schedule is due to the two top-ten teams played late in 2003.


It must be a Kansas thing. Right on the heels of its state rival, the Jayhawks could sum up the 2007 schedule as nothing less than The Mediocre Express. I’ve never seen so many teams hovering around .500 in my life. Throw in Florida International—the Panthers won their last game of the year over North Texas to avoid going winless—and this schedule has a hard time using Missouri and Virginia Tech to compensate for the top 11 teams.


If I were to actually rank these schedules, I think this one would go right to the top. When the best team played is only ranked No. 25 at the end of the year, you’re in trouble. Utah’s 2004 schedule featured no teams with 10 wins or more. That’s rough, especially since the Ute’s BCS opponent lost four games. There’s not much more to say about this one. It’s pretty clear cut.


On the flip side, however, look at Pittsburgh’s 2004 schedule. Playing in a Virginia Tech and Miami-less Big East really killed all possible chances for this schedule to be considered tough. But then again, if those two were still in the league, Pitt wouldn’t have won the conference. Boston College was the best team on the schedule until the bowl, and the only other team to win more than nine games was I-AA Furman. The I-AAs strike again!


Hawaii was a good team in 2007, but its schedule cloaked the fact that the Warriors were still a far way off from competing at the BCS level. I’m still not really sure how people (I’ll admit it, I thought they had a change against Georgia) just looked past Hawaii’s schedule. I mean, for God’s sake people, more teams lost 10 games than won ten games. A MAC team could have gone undefeated playing Hawaii’s 2007 schedule.

Check out Schedules, Part 4, which should be out by next week. In that, I’ll go over which premier games I’m looking forward to in the next five seasons. Hope you enjoyed the “bests and worsts” of BCS bowl team schedules. Well, actually I don't really care if you enjoyed it. But thanks for reading anyway.

More below the fold...

"Schedules" update

I'll have Schedules, Part 3 up tonight or tomorrow morning. Promise. It was a rough weekend, and not in a good way. Thanks.

More below the fold...

If you want respect, schedule good teams, Part 2 of 4

2/4.

Everyone argues that strength of schedule should mean everything in college football, until someone calls their team out on scheduling Directional Community College...

As promised, here's the top five toughest schedules BCS bowl teams have played from 2003 through 2007. In case you're already thinking of your team's "really, really tough [insert year here] slate," here's my criteria for selection:

-I-AA schools! If a team played anyone outside I-A, they're automatically out. A team should never be rewarded for playing those games. Frankly, I'd rather the NCAA force teams to take a bye that week instead of paying a couple hundred grand for a win. I realize that Florida International might get beaten nine times out of ten versus Appalachian State, but it doesn't matter. ASU is in I-AA. If they want to be considered on the same level as I-AA, then apply for that level and move up. If you want proof of my convictions, I would have left off Penn State's 2006 schedule in a heart beat if they made the BCS. Why? Youngstown State. If Penn State makes it to the BCS in 2008, they're not making the list either. Why? Coastal Carolina. If you want respect, play teams from your own division.

-Opponent records, looking back. Was a team good at the beginning of the season, only to implode and prove to be a bad team? Look at Ohio State's win versus Washington in 2007. The Huskies were coming off a victory over Boise State, 2-0 and a star quarterback in Jake Locker. Ohio State beat them handily, and everyone was praising the Buckeyes. Washington turned out to be a bad team, at 4-8. And what about Boise State, which lost in week to to Washington? That loss didn't look so bad when Washington was 2-0, but now that's considered a real bad loss.

-Opponent conference affiliations. OK, I know I'm one of the first to argue that the SEC is not the juggernaught its fans want to think it is, but it's still one of the top conferences each season. That being said, if a team like Notre Dame in 2005 convincingly defeats Tennessee, even thought he Vols finished 5-6, it still counts more that beating a 5-6 ACC or Pac-10 team. (By the way, that Vols team beat LSU in Baton Rouge) Beating a mid-level Big Ten or SEC team is much better than beating the Sun Belt or MAC champions.

So here's what I came up with. Debate all you want, but you're not going to be able to convince me your team's schedule was harder in the last five years. THIS IS ALL IN NO PARTICULAR ORDER!

Just missed the cut. Close, but not tough enough...

West Virginia's 2007 schedule was tougher than most think. Mississippi State proved to be a worthy opponent to at least eight teams, and East Carolina came on strong. Oklahoma, regardless of what happened in the bowl, was still a powerfull team in 2007:

I think Texas' 2005 slate was bolstered mostly due to the night game at Ohio State. If the Longhorns had played one more tough road game, or at least one more top-15 team, this schedule would have made the top five:

Sure, Miami played a lot of really good teams in 2003, but it also played in the Big East and a game against a pathetic ECU team. There were tons of somewhat tough games, but none that particularly stood out:

Ohio State put on a good show in 2006 until getting pantsed in the championship game, but that didn't take away from the strength of their schedule that season. Playing a night game away versus the defending national champ will always gain you brownie points, but too many teams on this schedule turned out to be mediocre:

I know what you're thinking, "How did Notre Dame even get consideration in the first place?" Well, I hate to burst your bubble. The Irish's schedule in 2005 wasn't out of this world, but it definately wasn't as easy as you thought. Just having USC on there brought it out of the depths, and playing a bunch of bowl teams gave it the edge over many others:


Now for The Top Five Toughest Schedules Played by BCS Bowl Teams From 2003-2007...

I bet you looked down before finishing this, noticed Michigan, and though "Yeah, right." Hold on there cap'n. Playing in Autzen Stadium has been the death of many great teams, and matchups against Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio State and USC far outweigh the games against Indiana and Illinois. Add Purdue to that, and you have five ranked teams:

Why do you think it was such a big deal when West Virginia beat Georgia in the 2006 Sugar Bowl? This is why. The Bulldogs faced only six bowl teams in the regular season, but three other teams were one win away from bowl eligibility. LSU was probably one of the top two teams in the nation, but no one knew it. I hate to admit it, but getting throught teh SEC is really hard to do:

Scream all you want about Oklahoma's struggles in the Fiesta Bowl lately, but the 2006 schedule was much harder than most thought at the time. Eight bowl teams, and a Washington team one win from eligibility, sets this slate a notch higher than it could be. Plus, losing to Boise State that year wasn't all that bad, even if the Sooners should have won. The two BCS OOC games did it for me:

Here's my top underrated schedule on this list. Ohio State played two bowl-eligible BCS teams OOC, and a ranked, MAC champion Bowling Green squad. Going up against ten bowl eligible teams--five ranked--isn't something you run into every day. I wasn't totally convinced with this schedule, until realizing that the Buckeyes didn't really get a break outside of the Indiana game:

Remember, this is in no particular order. So you SEC fans don't go thinking that I put LSU here because I think they had the hardest schedule since 2003. But if you want to find a great schedule, look at LSU's 2006 docket. I really think that the 2006 Tigers were better than the rankings indicated. I'd like to see your team go through five ranked SEC teams in one year, including the eventual national champ, Florida. Tulane and Fresno St. turned out to be quite cakie, but the rest of the teams more than made up for it:

So that's it. Sorry it took so long to get this up, but hey, I'm not getting paid to do this. I don't know yet when I'll have Schedules, Part 3 up, but I'll keep you updated as to its progress.

More below the fold...

The new, new plan

Ok, so I've already called a timeout and changed the play once, now I'm changing the play again at the line of scrimmage. I'll have Schedule, Part 2 up soon, but not covering the top five worst schedules since 2003. Rather, it'll be the top five hardest from 2003-07.

More below the fold...

Okay, new plan...

I'll have Part 2 of "Schedule..." up today this week, but slightly different. Rather than go over what I think were the top five worst schedules of all the BCS teams since 2000--I really don't feel like going through all 70+ teams--I'm going to narrow down the criteria to the teams that actually made it to the BCS games, Rose, Sugar, Fiesta and Orange since 2003--the last five years. I'm also going to go over the BCS Championship Game participants from 2006 and 2007. That should be real fun (that is, not that anyone reading this blog should be having fun), especially once the SEC folk finally wake up from their moonshine haze. See you all then.

More below the fold...

If you want respect, schedule good teams, Part 1 of 4

1/4.

Everyone argues that strength of schedule should mean everything in college football, until someone calls their team out on scheduling Directional Community College...

I don’t know the real reason Penn State pulled a U-ie by dropping Arkansas State from the 2008 schedule, replacing ASU with the Oregon State Beavers. But I know one thing; they didn’t do it for the jokes. Could it be that Tim Curley grew a set and went door to door, asking for any BCS school to come to Happy Valley? Even more surprising was that OSU didn’t demand a return game. But even if they did, it would allow PSU to really test the guts of the program. If the team can make a trip like that and pull off a win in a tough place to play—OSU ended USC’s 33-regular-season-game win streak in 2006 in Corvallis—it would pay enormous dividends in recruiting and national perception.

That aside, I’ve heard for years about PSU’s lack of interest in using the new 12-game schedule to renew the rivalry with Pittsburgh. Some have even said that if PSU doesn’t want to play Pitt any time soon, at least have an on-going rotation of former eastern rivals like Maryland, Rutgers, Syracuse and West Virginia. While I understand that PSU might not want to lock themselves into a long-term deal with one school—Lord knows, the Michigan/Notre Dame series has failed miserably and never gets good ratings—the atrocious scheduling policies used by PSU athletics is hurting the program. There’s no excuse for scheduling a I-AA school. I don’t care if Florida, Michigan (we know how that one worked out) or Texas does it. Penn State has gained a reputation for not being able to beat good BCS teams, and scheduling bottom-feeders won’t help.

The fight over whether or not a school should schedule I-AA’s will never end, so I’m just going to move past that. I’m just not buying PSU’s line that “We need the seventh home game.” It’s not so much that PSU wants to have seven home games; that’s perfectly fine. I don’t like that they’re using it as justification for not being more aggressive in their scheduling of BCS schools, and—dare I say—playing some away games.


In 2000, PSU and Pitt played their last games against one another, and if you subtract the Kickoff Classic, it was a pretty ordinary 11-game season—six home games, five away games. You didn’t hear PSU crying like a baby for that seventh game then. Now take a look at 2001. There were only three out-of-conference games that season, and all three slots were used for quality opponents. I’d say opening with Miami, taking on a good Southern Miss program and then traveling to Charlottesville is a damn good job of giving your team the upper hand when people look at strength-of-schedule.


I think 2002 was a fluke. No team should be allowed to play eight home games in one season. But it wasn’t even like that helped PSU, as it couldn’t even go through the home slate clean. That’s beside the point. 2002 and 2003 felt like a scheduling onslaught, with PSU traveling to Lincoln (remember Nebraska was still considered a power then) and taking on Boston College. At this time, Temple was still technically a BCS team, playing in the Big East. Penn State knew that 2002 and 2003 would have 12 games, and scheduled two very good BCS teams. It didn’t kill the program.

I almost have to give PSU a pass on 2004 and 2005, as Alabama was supposed to play a home-and-home series, but backed out like pussies. Just think of how strong PSU’s schedule would have been had it played Bama those two seasons. Would it have changed the landscape of 2005? We can only wonder. Overall though, I’d give PSU a failing grade for 2004, as I believe they could have found some better team than UCF to replace Bama. 2005 was a much better deal, since PSU sort of lucked out with CMU turning out to be one of the better MAC teams. Cincinnati and South Florida, looking back, had a lot of future stars in 2005.


Probably the most disappointing schedule in a long time was the 2006 docket. Youngstown State was the first I-AA team scheduled in, well, a really long time. That was sort of the final straw for me. There were dozens of better choices for that spot. I remember hearing that SMU was free that week. How cool would it have been for PSU to play SMU in a revenge game for 1982? Great story line for the ESPN guys to harp on. They should have put Craig James on the crew for that one. Buffalo in 2007 was a curious choice. It wasn’t horrible, but not good. Florida International was a worse team to play than YSU in 2006. There are 70 teams in I-A which could be considered “quality” opponents. Penn State basically told everyone that it was too lazy to go out and find one of them to play.

*Temple: Before I finish up, just a word on Temple. It’s a nice idea to have Temple back on the schedule again. It builds excitement in the eastern part of the state, and strengthens PSU’s ties to South Jersey. It’s also a great situation with the Owls getting better, and several former PSU standouts are leading them to respectability. Even if it’s just a farce, and PSU is in it only for the quick buck (which I’m sure they are) I’m relatively happy that Temple will be on the schedule in the future, as long as the Owls are the only OOC “cupcake” PSU plays each season.

I'll have Part 2 up by the end of the week. In that installment, I'll look at some of the worst BCS team schedules played all over college football since 2000. Next week, I'll have Part 3, a look at the best BCS team schedules since 2000. Then, in the final installment I'll list the matchups I'm looking forward to seeing, and the ones I would love to see.

More below the fold...