Does “non-conference” have to mean “non-competitive”?

Man, it’s always enjoyable when you come across somebody who gets it.

And so we’ve come full-circle. We started the season bemoaning the sorry, wimpy nonconference scheduling that’s become the norm in college football; now we end there.

This isn’t just a personal hobby horse, nor is it just an August-September matter. The scheduling issue is affecting the entire season, as it impacts the rankings that make up the Bowl Championship Series. It is this hateful phenomenon — more so than even the BCS itself — that most harms the game today…

Preach on, brother.

Instead of worrying about the makeup of who plays in which BCS game, our attention and our frustration should be directed at who plays the cupcake game.  This season, the Big XII has played that game beautifully, as all of its major schools racked up gaudy records early on against talent that, for the most part, was less than scintillating.

In this era of twelve game schedules, there’s no excuse for going overboard in this department.

And make sure you read Everson’s linked article, too.

3 Comments

Filed under College Football, Media Punditry/Foibles

3 responses to “Does “non-conference” have to mean “non-competitive”?

  1. afrankangle

    The major conferences, especially the Big 12, Big 10, & SEC have horrible out-of-conference (OOC) schedules. The PAC-10 has the best. By the way, I’ve been tracking OOC games since the expansion to the 12-game season. Interesting in more ways than one.

    Like

  2. 69Dawg

    The only reason the PAC-1 + 9 has a better OCS is that they get hammered by the Mountain West. Except for USC the BCS should dump the PAC-1 + 9 and add the Mountain West.

    Like

  3. drunk dawg

    I consider SEC West games Out of Conference.

    Like