Funny Picture...Enjoy

[HereComeTheIrish]

LMAO... Yeah...you edited it... (6 minutes after my original comment). Must be Skunkbear logic.

 

[VictorsValiant]

Yes, I edited it, but what does that have to do with you not realizing that I simply reversed the numbers. Seems like you were all too willing to deny good analysis.

Speaking of which, do you just not want to comment on the analysis, or are you implying that my analysis is right because you fail to address it?

Maybe if you evade my analysis over and over, instead resorting to insults, my analysis won't be true, but it looks like it is.

 

[TonyTiger]

Nd's 2006 schedule:
GTech: 3
PSU: 3
Michigan: 5
MSU: 3
Purdue: 2
Stanford: 2
UCLA: 3
Navy: 2
North Carolina: 2
Air Force: 1
Army: 1
USC: 5
Average: 2.5

Michigan 2006 schedule:
Vanderbilt: 1
Central Michigan: 1
Notre Dame: 5
Wisconsin: 4
Minnesota: 3
MSU: 3
PSU: 3
Iowa: 5
Northwestern: 2
Ball State: 1
Indiana: 1
OSU: 5
Average: 2.8

 

[maison bleu]

Here's something we might all agree on: the BCS sucks.

 

[Vince Young]

LMAO... Yeah...you edited it... (6 minutes after my original comment). Must be Skunkbear logic.

Um... yeah, because you pointed out the mistake, and he realized you were correct and went back to correct it. What's wrong with that?

Geez, you've never had a brain-cramp like that before? If you haven't, consider yourself lucky.

All I'm sayin' is that those who point out the cupcakery of a rival's schedule had better take a look at the cupcake-contents of their own schedule first. And that's not even getting into the oh-so-original-gee-I-wish-I-was-that-funny fat joke about Charlie.

But if you want to compare schedules, it's a push. For the games Michigan has control over, they scheduled a couple of cupcakes and Notre Dame. But they also play a Big Ten schedule that usually includes Ohio State, Michigan State, Iowa, Penn State and whichever other random Big Ten team feels like winning this year. So, let 'em play East Central Michigan Tech A&M. Doesn't bother me.

 

[NDgettysburg]

Shouldn't Stanford be demoted to "cruller" or "scone" or some other lesser pastry?

cinnamon babka?

 

[lattedatte]

A team's track record matters. Even if you plan it out years in advance, those teams are still going to have histories. In 2013, Michigan/Oklahoma/USC will probably be good, while Navy/BYU will probably be bad.

Let's try to come up with a system to assess the schedule. I think most team can be broken down into five tiers.

5-Exceptional. Always in the top 10 most years. Is perinnel contender almost every season. Strong tradition.

4-Good but not great. Always in top 25, but rarely in top 10 at end of year. Has solid record of 8 or more wins, but cannot defeat tier 1 teams on a consistent basis. Very hard time rising to the top in the conference (Examples include BC, Iowa, Oregon)

3-Average. Sometimes in top 25, always in bowl. Has record of 6 or more wins most of the time, but rarely defeats tier 1 teams and only sometimes defeats tier 2 teams. Inconsistent, unstable coaching at times. Hit or miss recruiting.

2-Below Average. Rarely in top 25, only sometimes in bowl. Sometimes has winning record, but always at bottom half of conference. Difficulty maintaining consistentcy, coaching instablity common, interest level low from institution and fans. Can never break through with recruiting.

1-Why the hell do you have a football program? Never in top 25 or bowl. Always a doormat for conference teams. Instability everywhere, from recruiting to coaching.

So, with that basis, let's assess your schedule for this year and next compared to ours. I will base my opinion on the opponent's performance the last 5 seasons. This is relevant because, apparently, a lot of games are scheduled well in advance.

Nd's 2006 schedule:
GTech: 3
PSU: 3
Michigan: 5
MSU: 3
Purdue: 3
Stanford: 2
UCLA: 4
Navy: 1
North Carolina: 2
Air Force: 2
Army: 1
USC: 5
Average: 2.83

Michigan 2006
Vanderbilt: 1
Central Michigan: 1
Notre Dame: 5
Wisconsin: 4
Minnesota: 3
MSU: 3
PSU: 3
Iowa: 4
Northwestern: 2
Ball State: 1
Indiana: 1
OSU: 5
Average: 2.75

Notre Dame 2007:
GTech: 3
PSU: 3
Michigan: 5
MSU: 3
Purdue: 3
UCLA: 4
BC: 4
USC: 5
Navy: 1
Air Force: 2
Duke: 1
Stanford: 2
Average: 3.00

Michigan 2007:
Eastern Michigan: 1
Oregon: 4
Notre Dame: 5
PSU: 3
Northwestern: 2
Purdue: 3
Illinois: 1
Minnesota: 3
MSU: 3
Wisconsin: 4
OSU: 5
Average: 3.09

Now, we play within the auspices of a conference, while Nd does not. While we do generally play a harder non-conference schedule than most conference teams, our averages are comparable to Nd’s and most conference teams would have schedules at around 2.6-2.8 range. Now, if Nd is only slightly higher than that, do they deserve a guarantee? I would consider it if your average was around 3.5, but not at 3, where it’s close to us.

VV you are losing site of what our guarantee is... We must finish in the top 8 in the BCS standings for the gaurantee to kick in. That is not exactly an easy thing to do and certainly couldn't be done with three losses. This is fair in my eyes considering we have a difficult schedule as the analytic proves.

 

[irishfan]

nice math sparty

nice math sparty

Nd's 2006 schedule:
GTech: 3
PSU: 3
Michigan: 5
MSU: 3
Purdue: 2
Stanford: 2
UCLA: 3
Navy: 2
North Carolina: 2
Air Force: 1
Army: 1
USC: 5
Average: 2.5

Michigan 2006 schedule:
Vanderbilt: 1
Central Michigan: 1
Notre Dame: 5
Wisconsin: 4
Minnesota: 3
MSU: 3
PSU: 3
Iowa: 5
Northwestern: 2
Ball State: 1
Indiana: 1
OSU: 5
Average: 2.8

notre dames average is a 2.66 not a 2.5, and no way should Iowa and Notre Dame be 5's, they should defiently be 4's, and wisconsin should be a 3. Notre Dame: 2.66 Michigan: 2.58

 

[domerfor life]

I just had to add my 2 cents. I don't think any top team in the Big 10 conference can talk about anybody's schedule. The Big 10 is consistently "consistently" dominated by Michigan or OSU. Every once and a while Wisconsin, Minnesota, or Iowa decide they want to challenge for the championship. The rest of your league is garbage, except for maybe Northwestern's occasional uprisings. What's the difference? We schedule a few cupcakes. Yours are schedule for you each year (Illinois, Indiana, Northwestern). Don't forget the directional schools. Yeah, the original post garnered a chuckle. However, when you try to discuss the cupcakes on someone else's schedule, you just look like a joke. Your schedule's no better.

 

[VictorsValiant]

domefor life. I agree. It is no better, but I'm not disputing that. I am saying, however, that at least for now, yours is not better than ours. I use that to dispute the guarentee clause in the BCS contract where Nd is guarenteed a BCS bowl if they lose 2 or fewer games.

 

[TonyTiger]

I just had to add my 2 cents. I don't think any top team in the Big 10 conference can talk about anybody's schedule. The Big 10 is consistently "consistently" dominated by Michigan or OSU. Every once and a while Wisconsin, Minnesota, or Iowa decide they want to challenge for the championship. The rest of your league is garbage, except for maybe Northwestern's occasional uprisings. What's the difference? We schedule a few cupcakes. Yours are schedule for you each year (Illinois, Indiana, Northwestern). Don't forget the directional schools. Yeah, the original post garnered a chuckle. However, when you try to discuss the cupcakes on someone else's schedule, you just look like a joke. Your schedule's no better.

Since 2002, Iowa has been on par with just about any program in the country. They have won 2 or 3 Big Ten Titles. And Wisconsin was very good for many years under Alvarez (9-10 wins each year).

But I dont know what you are talking about with Minnesota. I believe they have never won a Big Ten Title....ever.

 

[lattedatte]

domefor life. I agree. It is no better, but I'm not disputing that. I am saying, however, that at least for now, yours is not better than ours. I use that to dispute the guarentee clause in the BCS contract where Nd is guarenteed a BCS bowl if they lose 2 or fewer games.

You are missing a fairly key point, 2 losses and finish in the "TOP 8 OF THE BCS STANDINGS"... guess what VV, while you don't have a BCS "Gaurantee" I will gaurantee you that if Michigan finishes in the top 8 you would be in a BCS game. This isn't really any special thing.

 

[nshope]

domefor life. I agree. It is no better, but I'm not disputing that. I am saying, however, that at least for now, yours is not better than ours. I use that to dispute the guarentee clause in the BCS contract where Nd is guarenteed a BCS bowl if they lose 2 or fewer games.

Granted, it was a funny picture...an easy shot at someone's personal appearance. Now, should I post the Lloyd Carr and Mr. Magoo likeness or can we just move forward? Your very original post included nothing about ND's BCS clause or any comparison that ND's schedule is more difficult than Michigan's. Those were add-ons included after defending your picture...thus blowing them off as a part of the actual seriousness to your first post.

I chuckled at the picture...everyone just leave it at that. Comparing schedules is like measuring the male reproductive organ...sometimes, things look better, but it doesn't mean that one is the "one"...it's what you do with what you've got that counts.

NO team or university and I mean absolutely NO team or university is going to schedule more difficult games than both of our teams do each year. They would be out of their minds and a whiff of the NC game would be unheard of in college football.