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? Just picking up wins in basketball isn't good enough to get you into a 65 win tourney, even when you play in a premier league. But it is good enough to give you one of two spots in a championship football game?