Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Walking Shadow
UCLA hasn't been a major power in college football in over 20 years and they haven't been legitimate contenders for the national championship in early 40 years.
Air Force has never been considered a major football power, ranking behind Navy and Army for decades and it is only recently when Army & Navy's football programs have sucked that Air Force has been seen as a powerful team, which is a false impression.
If you noticed I put USC together with the two legitimate powers in college football on Notre Dame's schedule, Michigan and Penn State with an asterisk by Penn State.
Michigan State: I already explained that situation.
The fact that a team is ranked or that Notre Dame plays so many ranked teams is irrelevant, especially before the season has even begun.
If you're going to be truly honest about this, you don't have rankings at all for the first few weeks of the season, or you start the season with defending national champion, Florida ranked #1 and they should stay at #1 until they lose.
Re: Georgia Tech. Their record last year was 9-5. They were 1-4 against teams in the AP poll and 1-3 against teams in the USAToday poll. They had the same record as Nebraska which isn't saying much. If anything they deservede to be ranked far lower then they were.
|
I'm sorry, but which is it? Either polls matter or they don't. You've said that they matter - in re: GT - and that they don't - in re: UCLA. You can't have it both ways.
Air Force has been a ranked team and won their conference. If we're depending on record, they've had a great one some years. Clearly you don't know much about Air Force football. Perhaps you should take some time to educate yourself since they're seen as a much different program than either West Point or Annapolis.
You didn't explain anything about Michigan State that refutes what I said in any way other than to say that weekly rankings don't matter for UCLA then come back and say that they do in the case of Georgia Tech. Either they do or they don't. Not both. We're talking about strength of schedule here, so the only way to possibly quantify that before the end of the season is by rankings. If you want to argue that Notre Dame has a weak schedule, then come up with some sort of quantifiable way to make that arguement, but as it stands what you're saying doesn't make sense.
While we're at it, your arguement about the fact that rankings shouldn't matter ignores the little fact that players graduate or otherwise lose their eligibility. Florida has a quarterback who's never started a game, but USC doesn't. Hmmm, who's probably the better team?