Just a belated rant on something that always gets to me every year in college sports... Every year, at the end of the year... in football its about the bowl games, in basketball its about who gets into the NCAA... and we always hear the rant about strength of schedule... The little schools... like a Tulane a few years back in football who goes undefeated but gets no respect... people say "Yeah, but who did they play? They played a weak schedule..." The big schools... like this year we heard about how Auburn didn't deserve a shot at the title bowl game because outside the SEC, they played a weak football schedule... And in the NCAAs, we hear about how the 25-5 team from the "weak" conference didn't play enough tough teams like the 18-12 team from the "strong" conference did... So, here's the thing... When a BIG school plays a little guy... we hear them beat up about how they played a "cupcake" and didn't schedule strong... THEN the little school gets bashed for not playing a big school! Huh? IF we bash the big schools for scheduling the little schools... then the little schools can't get the big schools on their schedule! Big schools don't want to play a home-home schedule with a little school when it will hurt their RPI or bowl chances or whatever plus the risk of a possible upset to boot. We kinda have a screwy system wherein we beat up programs no matter what. And to be fair... The 18-12 guy who plays a tough schedule, but loses... how is that better than the 25-5 guy who played the "weak" schedule but wins? I'm an ACC guy... and I like when we put a lot of teams in the NCAA tournament... but I really do hate when there is a 25-5 team sitting in the NIT and there is an 18-12 or so ACC team in the tournament instead. Rant done for the moment!