Maizerage05

April 13th, 2010 at 3:36 PM ^

Crazy schedule for the Canes, @OSU, @Pitt, @Clemson in a row? What a brutal way to start the year for the 2nd year in a row (although it put them in the Top 10 at one point last year).

Tater

April 13th, 2010 at 6:28 PM ^

With the current setup, teams are penalized so much for even one regular season loss that it is not to the advantage of a team in the big four conferences (sorry, Big Least and ACC) to schedule more than one semi-tough non-conference game. The accepted model is to schedule one prestiege non-conference opponent that you should be able to beat if you are any good. All that scheduling multiple tough games accomplishes is to produce too many chances for the upset that keeps you out of the title game. That is why I favor a playoff with sixteen teams starting on conference championship weekend with the championship game and bowls staying just as they are. The exceptions, of course, are that one or two bowls would have to wait an extra week into December to find out who is playing there, and that the two teams in the title game would have had to play their way in with no room for griping about conference politics. Like that's ever gonna happen......

BlueinOK

April 13th, 2010 at 4:08 PM ^

I'm surprised to see LSU on there twice. I thought the SEC was sooo tough that teams had to schedule cupcakes for non-conference games.

WolvinLA2

April 13th, 2010 at 8:25 PM ^

I wouldn't dismiss the idea of a blowout. We started last season with a blowout, and although UConn will be better than WMU was, 2010 UM will be better than 2009 UM, maybe by the same margin. I think 31-0 at halftime might be a stretch, but a final that's 3-4 TD's is not out of the question. It's on the wishful side, but certainly plausible. EDIT: I do think it's strange that UM-UConn is getting more press than UM-ND. Such a good game last year, now it's back in SB, new coach at ND, all that.