Quote:
Originally Posted by NDSMC78  Rutgers and UConn are not good programs. Rutgers has been terrible for years. The fact that Rutgers went to a couple minor bowls the past couple years does not change that. UConn? Are you kidding me?
As for Wake Forest, Mizzou, and ASU, I've got no problem playing them, but why not a home and home? And why does White continue to duck playing the traditional powers? |
How many 'POWERS' do we have to face in one season? USC and Michigan are perrenial top-10 programs over the course of time. We have peppered in games against 'upper echelon' teams including LSU, Nebraska, Texas, Oklahoma, Penn State over the last 10 years. Not making the effort to do research, I would argue that most seasons we have at least 2, if not 3 top-15 programs on our schedule. We pepper the rest of our schedule with solid programs like BC, MSU, Purdue, that sniff the top-25 at some point in most seasons. Sure we have our perceived patsies in the service academies (tough to use that term after this season, and tough to call AF and Navy patsies when those teams WIN bowl games), but all top-tier teams in the major conferences have their weak OOC games and lower-tier conference games mixed in. On paper, we have a competitive schedule every year.
In order to compete for national championships, it is not fair to our program to stuff the schedule with more than 3 'big time' games in a single season. As long as teams like the Bucknuts play every directional team in their state, we are not going to be able to compete for championships. This will have a residual impact on recruiting and the growth of our program.
Not really sharing a new argument, but what are we looking for? We have our traditional rivalries in scUM, $C, MSU, BC, and Navy. Those shouldn't (and won't) go away. Dump Purduh and Stanford every few years to keep the schedule fresh, and rotate through the programs mentioned in the article such as ASU, Wake, and the like.