lor@ucla-cs.UUCP (10/31/84)
I really cannot believe Washington is number 1 in most of
the polls. Look at their schedule:
Northwestern (2-7)
Michigan (5-3)
Houston (4-3)
Miami (OF OHIO !!!) (2-6)
Oregon St. (2-6)
Stanford (4-4)
Oregon (4-4)
Arizona (4-4)
These teams have a collective record of 27-37. The Huskies surely can
go 9-0 as their next opponent, California, is only 2-6.
Any reasonably good football team can beat all these schools and
keep a perfect record. Now, even the win at Michigan has tarnished,
as Michigan turns out to be not-that-good. Do you think Washington can
beat Miami, Texas, Auburn and company? Washington is good, but
it is not number one material.
In the past few years, a number one team must have one
or more of the following characteristics:
1) An overpowering team, a dynasty, had a Heismann trophy winner
(Georgia 82, Nebraska 83.)
2) A very good team which beat some top 20 teams (Texas 81, Clemson 81
Pittsburgh 82, Penn State 82, Miami 84, Nebraska 84, Texas 84.)
3) A very good team which dethroned the number one team (Penn State 82,
Miami 83, Miami 84.)
This is how a team gets into the number one spot.
Washington does not satisfy any of these conditions, but surprisely,
it has been at the top on two occasions (Oct 82, Oct 84)
with the help of micky mouse schedules.
Remember the 1982 SMU Mustangs? They had a 11-0-1 record, even
better than national champion Penn State's 11-1. But SMU played only three
top teams (Texas, Arkansas and Pittsburgh), while Penn State played
seven (Maryland, Nebraska, Alabama, West Virginia, Boston College,
Pittsburgh and Georgia). As a result, the writers did not pick SMU
because of its comparatively easy schedule. Now, what is the
criteria for being number one? Why is ultimate honor in college football
determined by such inconsistent standards?
Moral: When you want to be number one, just give 'EASY' the top priority
in your scheduler.
Eddy Lor
...!ucbvax!ucla-cs!lor
lor@ucla-cs