Originally Posted by MaineRed
Is it fair to say that people use an entire different criteria when it comes to evaluating college football teams compared to college hoops?
When it comes time to talk worthy teams for the NCAA tourney, strength of schedule is the big topic of discussion.
Seems in football playing cupcakes is being advocated. Am I wrong? I see a lot of people and I don't just mean here who think KU should be rewarded "for being undefeated". Nobody wants to talk about who they play, just that they play in a "BCS" conference.
Well in basketball I remember 21 win Syracuse who gave Georgetown their only loss in their last 16 games getting shut of the tourney and nobody shed many tears as Syracuse deserved what they got because of their weak schedule. The fact thay no team from a major conference with 20 wins had ever been shut out nor the strength of the Big East mattered.
I recall some advice to the Syracuse team. Leave New York for an out of conference road game. But Kansas stayed home and played C.Michigan, SE La, Toledo and Florida Atlantic before conference play.
Serious question. Why the polar opposite approaches?
It's apples and oranges. Your Bowling Green analogy doesn't hold any water because they are not in a BCS conference. Like it or not and no matter if they deserve it or not, an undefeated Kansas has to be ranked highly.
You also forget this is not for the NCAA football championship. That game will be played in Chattanooga, TN on December 14. This is for the BCS championship and they have their own rules set up.
There are probably not a lot of people who believe Kansas is a legitimate BCS championship contender but as long as there is a system like this and they meet the criteria, they have to be in. Besides, if they win the Big 12 title game, they have to be considered a very good team.