|
-
The Pac-12 Thread....May 11, 2012 5:02 pm
Web,
I agree the Beaver OOC schedule a couple of years back was a mans task, no doubt about it. |
|
-
The Pac-12 Thread....May 11, 2012 5:57 pm
It's one thing to argue that quality competition hurts a team's title shot, but there should never be an argument that weaker teams are scheduled to avoid injury (or that injuries occurred due to tougher schedules).
Of all the factors involved in injury (shoe type, tape/brace, playing surface, previous injury, inadequate rehab, aerobic fitness level, body size, limb dominance, flexibility, limb girth, muscle strength, imbalance and recognition time, postular stability, weather and skill level- competition level is so far down the list that it's not even one of the researched studies done. Injuries are going to happen, regardless of who you play. They will happen earlier in the year more often than not due to conditioning, skill level, preperation and dehydration. I'd worry more about playing undersized teams who rely on going low for blocking and tackling than the best teams in the nation. See Air Force for example...those dirty little %#*#s. |
|
-
The Pac-12 Thread....May 11, 2012 6:10 pm
NativeWebfoot, A perfect example! Obviously, the fans/alum love tough OOC schedules.
I admit, I understand the reasoning of soft OOC games that the SEC schedules. Don't agree with it, but I see why they do it. What's a bit confusing is why one year a fairly tough schedule, the next soft. Travel costs? Fluke? In Oregon St.'s case, it wasn't like they were competing for the NCG and needed the poll recognition. Seeing they don't count for conference rankings,(a brilliant move), why not touger schedules? Am I missing something here? |
