From: noonan@icd3 (Michael Noonan)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.college
Subject: Re: Schedule Strengths, Again
Date: 9 Sep 92 22:57:37 GMT

In article <BuBwFA.Fpv@news.cso.uiuc.edu>,
tamu@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Todd Henderson) writes:

> As someone else pointed out, strentgh of schedule can only be truly 
> measured after the games are in.  If Stanford were to climb in the polls
> for instance, then I would argue that they were a better team than originally
> thought and boosted the schedule strength.  A measure of schedule
> strength is almost useless for anything but toilet paper, it's not even
> worth that since we are using an eltronic medium. :):):)

I agree that the impressions we have of schedule strength at the present
time will change as the season progresses.  However, from the information
we have available to us now, I believe my arguments as to the strength of
A&M's schedule stand.  I was, after all, responding to another A&M fan's
statements that A&M's schedule was not that bad.  I think an objective
opinion at this time indicates that at the very least, it is the weakest
schedule of any top 10 team.

> >These facts have been posted previously (I sum them up here)...
> >  Texas A&M plays 3 returning bowl teams, the least of any top 10 team.
>
>      I thought more than one SWC team made it to a bowl?  The three teams
> would be:  Stanford/Tulsa/(Texas/Houston/???which SWC team other than A&M,
> maybe we should include scrimages with A&M second string :):) )

Now these stats are taken from a previous post (I have the post, but not
the author or message id), but I believe Baylor got beaten by Indiana in
a bowl.  (The name escapes me.)
Huston was 4-7 and bowless, weren't they?  I don't believe any other SWC
teams went bowling.

> >  Texas A&M plays only 4 returning winning teams.
> 
>  How many of the (SWC)teams had winning records against non-conference foes?

Against non-conference foes, I have no idea.  I'm not an avid SWC follower.

> >  Texas A&M plays only one team in the AP top 25 (Stanford, not even on
> >     their regular schedule).
> >  Texas A&M plays no top 10 teams.
> 
> As I said in a previous post, Washington as well as A&M most rely on a bowl
> game.  However, Washington is stuck playing a big 10(11->50(everone joins
> the big 10) :):)) team so it doesn't help them much. :):)

I also agree that Washington's schedule is weak this year.  Its worse
with them, because it is unlikely (IMO) that a serious national 
champion contender will emerge from the Big10 (Michigan notwithstanding).
Therefore, another MNC split would seem likely.

> My early Christmas wish(already going down the toilet):
>
> Houston can play with the one or two big 10/11/../50 teams they play.
> tu makes a respectable showing(if MSU continues to win, the tu/msu horror
>   won't be so bad.  Can they stay with SU?? They continue to beat ou)
> Baylor can stay with CU(they play them again right)
> other schools show up to the games!

Sorry, but I think your going to be 1 for 4.

What can I say?  I think it would be better for college football in
general if the SWC could begin to win and stay solvent, but its not
happening yet.

-Mike Noonan
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.college