[CrazedZooChimp]

It's more about penalizing teams that don't play tough OOC opponents than beating tough OOC opponents, IMO.  If you play tough OOC teams, even if you lost them, you tried.  By not even scheduling them, you basically said you were afraid.

Stanford could be #2 or #3 right now if it played Baylor's or Oklahoma State's OOC schedule and few would be talking about the Pac-12 being down this year if Oregon played SMU instead of Michigan State.  Would Baylor or Oklahoma State be undefeated if they played Michigan, Michigan State, the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends, Alabama, Stanford, Under Stanford Control, Oregon, UCLA, and any number of Power 5 teams OOC?  My guess is no, because especially Oklahoma State started the year really slow, barely beating Central Michigan.  If that was against say the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends, as Texas played, they more than likely would have been hammered.

Yeah, I think the real issue if the committee takes one of those undefeated teams with no OOC games over a 1 loss team that played a tough (or at least not embarrassing) OOC schedule is that is sends the message that there's no point in scheduling decent OOC games, just schedule cupcakes and increase the chance of being perfect.  I seem to recall one of the reasons for creating the committee instead of using polls was to reward hard strength of schedule and punish teams that have a weak sos.  If they ignore that this time around they've failed.

It's interesting to note that the FEI rankings (although they haven't been updated for this week) have Oklahoma as the top Big-12 team, ranked #9.  The newest FEI should be up today.  The F/+ rankings also have Oklahoma also at the top of the Big 12, #6 (surprisingly, Stanford is #9, below U$C).

[CrazedZooChimp]

It's more about penalizing teams that don't play tough OOC opponents than beating tough OOC opponents, IMO.  If you play tough OOC teams, even if you lost them, you tried.  By not even scheduling them, you basically said you were afraid.

Stanford could be #2 or #3 right now if it played Baylor's or Oklahoma State's OOC schedule and few would be talking about the Pac-12 being down this year if Oregon played SMU instead of Michigan State.  Would Baylor or Oklahoma State be undefeated if they played Michigan, Michigan State, the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends, Alabama, Stanford, Under Stanford Control, Oregon, UCLA, and any number of Power 5 teams OOC?  My guess is no, because especially Oklahoma State started the year really slow, barely beating Central Michigan.  If that was against say the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends, as Texas played, they more than likely would have been hammered.

Yeah, I think the real issue if the committee takes one of those undefeated teams with no OOC games over a 1 loss team that played a tough (or at least not embarrassing) OOC schedule is that is sends the message that there's no point in scheduling decent OOC games, just schedule cupcakes and increase the chance of being perfect.  I seem to recall one of the reasons for creating the committee instead of using polls was to reward hard strength of schedule and punish teams that have a weak sos.  If they ignore that this time around they've failed.

It's interesting to note that the FEI rankings (although they haven't been updated for this week) have Oklahoma as the top Big-12 team, ranked #9.  The newest FEI should be up today.  The F/+ rankings also have Oklahoma also at the top of the Big 12, #6 (surprisingly, Stanford is #9, below U$C).