Most BCS teams are guilty of gutless scheduling, but the SEC is the most pathetic conference for it, and Florida is by far the worst. They had eight home games out of twelve games and played THE weakest non-conference schedule of any I-A team.
The Florida Gutless scheduled soft to get an easy 12-0 record, but because they played no one of significance, they weren't ready when they did face someone. That is why they lost.
Equally bad is the pathetic joke that is the "bowl selection", allowing BCS teams to hide and be protected from playing TCU and Boise State. If BCS teams are "so much better" as they and their fans claim, why is it they refuse to schedule these teams during the regular season, and are now being protected by placing them in the same bowl game? All the top non-BCS teams are willing to travel without any demand for a return game, yet can't get any more than middling competition from weak conferences. Only the PAC10 has had the guts to play such teams and has paid the price for it: 1-6 in 2008, and 3-2 in 2009.
Except for Georgia, the entire SEC is the weakest scheduling conference in college football, bar none: 13 BCS teams out of 48 non-conference games, and only one "mid major" on their collective schedules for an average of nine "tough" games each in 2009. Compare that with the PAC10: 15 of their 30 non-conference games were against BCS teams and five "mid majors", for an average of eleven tough games each in 2009. The schedules just don't compare; the PAC10 has more losses because they take more risks, not because it's weaker.
K_rational Blog Comments (1)
RE: florida gator
Most BCS teams are guilty of gutless scheduling, but the SEC is the most pathetic conference for it, and Florida is by far the worst. They had eight home games out of twelve games and played THE weakest non-conference schedule of any I-A team.The Florida Gutless scheduled soft to get an easy 12-0 record, but because they played no one of significance, they weren't ready when they did face someone. That is why they lost.
Equally bad is the pathetic joke that is the "bowl selection", allowing BCS teams to hide and be protected from playing TCU and Boise State. If BCS teams are "so much better" as they and their fans claim, why is it they refuse to schedule these teams during the regular season, and are now being protected by placing them in the same bowl game? All the top non-BCS teams are willing to travel without any demand for a return game, yet can't get any more than middling competition from weak conferences. Only the PAC10 has had the guts to play such teams and has paid the price for it: 1-6 in 2008, and 3-2 in 2009.
Except for Georgia, the entire SEC is the weakest scheduling conference in college football, bar none: 13 BCS teams out of 48 non-conference games, and only one "mid major" on their collective schedules for an average of nine "tough" games each in 2009. Compare that with the PAC10: 15 of their 30 non-conference games were against BCS teams and five "mid majors", for an average of eleven tough games each in 2009. The schedules just don't compare; the PAC10 has more losses because they take more risks, not because it's weaker.