Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!umcp-cs!dday
From: dday@umcp-cs.UUCP (Dennis Doubleday)
Newsgroups: net.sport.football
Subject: Re: Bowl Results/Conference Strengths/#
Message-ID: <2695@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 4-Jan-86 17:14:31 EST
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.2695
Posted: Sat Jan  4 17:14:31 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 6-Jan-86 03:16:45 EST
References: <30400012@ISM780B.UUCP>
Reply-To: dday@maryland.UUCP (Dennis Doubleday)
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 50

In article <30400012@ISM780B.UUCP> jimb@ISM780B.UUCP writes:
>Conference          W       L       T        Result of #1 team in conference
>
>Big 8               1       3                Beat Penn St., 25-10
>Big Ten             3       3                Lost to UCLA,  28-45
>Pac 10              2       2       1        Beat Iowa,     45-28
>SEC                 2       2       1        Beat Miami     35- 7
>SWC                 3       1                Beat Auburn    36-16
>
>Personal opinion is that the SWC record demonstrates that their #1/3 teams
>are better than the SEC #2/3 teams(Texas A&M 36, Auburn 16; Baylor 21, LSU 7)
>and the Big Eight's records/rankings are reflective of patsy schedules that
>become illuminated in the crunch).
 
How can you call Oklahoma's schedule this year patsy?  I'm truly baffled.
**Seven** of their twelve opponents this season were bowl teams (three of
them played in New Year's Day bowls!).  Half the teams in the Big Eight
went to bowls, and they all had good non-conference records.  In all
fairness, you can't make a judgement of the strength of a conference based
on four games.  Colorado came within two yards of beating Washington, and
the Nebraska-Michigan game could have gone either way.  Even with Colorado's
loss to Washington, the Big Eight still topped the Pac 10  4-2 in head-to-
head matches this year.

>As for the Sooners, feh! They beat an over-rated Penn St. team.  And did it
>in a borrrrrrrring manner that wasn't impressive.  Take your national
>championship and enjoy.  I do wish that strength of schedule was factored
>into writers/coaches voting.  Get idiotic teams like Miami, Penn St., and BYU
>down where they belong -- around 8th to 15th, and Oklahoma down to 5th.
>My vote for #1 goes to Tennessee, Michigan #2 (damn!), and UCLA #3.  The damn
>is because UCLA beat USC everyplace but on the scoreboard.  If they had won,
>UCLA might have been #1 or #2; they should have, but they didn't and they
>aren't.  (UCLA did great though.  Only four home games and still 9-2-1.)
>
>Sooner flamers, hold on.  UCLA opens vs. Oklahoma at Norman, OK, next Sept.
>13.  Even though they'll be different teams due to turnover, should be a good
>game.  I'll go with underappreciated UCLA, though.
 
I'll be happy to have it decided on the field.  You downplay Miami's strength
now because they lost to Tennessee, but I'm sure you're one of those Sooner
haters who would have been yelling that Miami got robbed if they had won the
bowl and not the national championship.  Oklahoma's non-con schedule in
'86 is UCLA, Minnesota, at Miami, Texas, and possibly (??) Michigan or
Tennessee in the Kickoff Classic if they're invited and elect to go.  
NOBODY would have a tougher schedule than that!

OKLAHOMA IS #1 AND THE REST IS SOUR GRAPES!
 
                                      Dennis Doubleday
                                      Univ. of Maryland