[Husker] what problem are we solving?

[Pat Gaule]

Kaufsss at aol.com wrote:

>But by the end of the year - when the Polls are important- the only thing  
>people see is 9-0 or 7-2...What would we rather be?  I also think by  2008-2009 
>- the Big 12 schedule will be tough enough to raise the strength of  schedule 
>rating.  If Leach stays at TT (Big If) and OK  is OK  and Baylor is improving. 
> Gotta figure CO will be better K-State will  have Freeman in JR and SR  and 
>IA State has to Improve( don't they?)   
>

Tell that to Boise State in 2006 or Utah in 2000 - two teams that 
finished undefeated and could not finish higher than.4th in either major 
poll  Who a team beat is every bit as important as how many teams they 
beat.  Boise State's schedule strength in 2006 was relatively weak 
(ranked 90th in Sagarin's ratings 
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt06.htm), but Utah's was 67th 
and Nebraska's wasn't a whole lot better that year as they came in at 55th.

If you think this doesn't apply to Nebraska because we're a BCS team and 
would thus be saved by our conference schedule, then think again.  In 
2004, Auburn finished 13-0 at #2 behind USC.  In large part, this was 
due to their comparatively weak schedule, which Sagarin ranked at 60th.  
What did their non-conference schedule consist of?

Louisiana-Monroe (123rd in Sagarin), The Citadel (1-AA and 166th in 
Sagarin) and Louisiana Tech (71st). 

Who did USC play that year?

Virginia Tech (7th), Colorado State (78th), BYU (41st) and Notre Dame 
(31st).

It's one thing to have a schedule similar to the following:
-1 perenial top 20 team
-1 repsectable mid-major opponent
-a scrimmage or two against some hapless team from the Sun Belt 
conference or a 1-AA conference

OR even
- a couple of respectable BCS opponents
--a scrimmage or two against some hapless team from the Sun Belt 
conference or a 1-AA conference

The former is roughly how Nebraska attempted to set up their schedule in 
2006.  I would *usually* consider Louisiana Tech to be a respectable 
mid-major opponent since they are now a part of the WAC and have at 
least been to a bowl game in recent history.  Unfortunately, they had a 
truly awful season last year.

The latter describes what Nebraska had in 2005, with games against Wake 
Forest and Pitt.

The problem with the 2009 schedule (and what many people fail to 
realize) is that Florida Atlantic, Arkansas State, and 
Louisiana-Lafayette are the absolute trash heap of Division 1-A college 
football.  They all play in the Sun Belt conference, which I don't even 
deem worthy of being called a "mid-major" conference.  It's a conference 
that has *always* been ranked dead last amongst 1-A conferences in 
Sagarin's system (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin-archive.htm), 
and is usually behind one or two of the better 1-AA conferences.  This 
conference is so awful that North Texas was able to win the conference 
and clinch a bowl berth in 2001 by going 5-6 in the regular season.  You 
truly cannot schedule a worse caliber opponent without dropping down to 
the 1-AA level, and in many respects, that may be an improvement!

I see a huge difference between playing a lower-tier team from a BCS 
conference or a respectable mid-major and playing the sisters of the 
poor from the Sun Belt Conference.  The 2009 non-conference schedule is 
easily one of the worst I can remember.  The 1997 conference schedule 
may come close (Akron, Central Florida and Washington), but Washington 
was ranked #2 when we play them and finished the season at #18 in both 
polls.  Whether or not that schedule will be weaker than 2007 largely 
depends on how Virginia Tech does.

And I really can't agree with the individuals who say this schedule is 
no different than former Nerbaska schedules.  If you go back and look at 
the non-conference schedules of the Osborne era, you will generally see 
2 or more teams from "major" conferences on the slate.  In fact, you 
will find a relatively small number of mid-major opponents.  The notion 
that Nebraska has traditionally filled their non-conference schedule 
with the worst teams in Division 1-A college football is simply not 
accurate.  This is a relatively new invention, no doubt popularized by 
Bill Snyder.

>I like the schedule, and as someone 
>else said it too - People will line up  for season tickets no matter what - 
>especially because after the National  Championship of 2007 - all the 
>Pederson/Callahan hater/doubters will jump back  on the bandwagon!!!  
>  
>
What exactly do you "like" about this schedule?  I can see how someone 
could "tolerate" it, or even come to an understanding about why Nebraska 
needs to schedule this way.  But for the life of me, I can't imagine how 
anyone could like seeing 3 games like this.  I still plan to be in 
attendance, but I will likely forget everything about the game the 
second I walk out of Memorial Stadium.