When I was up in Columbus last September, a few Buckeye fans told me the real reason Ohio State scheduled Texas was because of a dire need to generate large amounts of revenue to pay for their stadium upgrades that had gone grossly over budget...the fans also put a lot of pressure on the administratioin because games against San Diego State just weren't doing it. I find this interesting considering the fact that UT also has some major stadium upgrades in the works yet doesn't seem all that worried about filling seats given the non-con schedules down the road. Let's face it, Mack is awesome but he ain't selling 100,000 seats to the Sammy State game and moreover, I'm not all that much more intrigued by games against UCLA and Boston College either.

To Kyle and PB's points, there is no doubt in my mind that you have to have at least one marquee match-up on your non-con schedule if you're serious about conending for a title. The power conferences are not all that powerful from top to bottom anymore and when it comes to the traffic jam in the Top 10 at the season with so many one or two loss teams, the voters are always going to look for something to gravitate towards. And as much as we'd like to say it's not this way, it's style over stats that counts. You got to have the games. Too bad you have to schedule these match-up so far in advance. Last year's UT/tOSU game could have just as easily been the snoozer that OU/Washington will probably be next year. I'm sure when they scheduled that game four or five years ago, they thought they had blockbuster on their hands.

Who knows what will happen next year in the BCS and maybe this plus-one format will prove useful, but if I'm a West Viriginia fan, I'm already preparing myself for 2004 Auburn Part II because I'd take a 2-loss Texas team over an undefeated WVU team next year any day. The Mountaineers' schedule is ridiculously easy.      

I'm sure many of you already read this site, but I really like this columnists take on what should be done about the post season in college football (scroll down to item #1)...

http://www.collegefootballnews.com/2006/Columnists/Fiu/COW/Cavalcade_of_Whimsy.htm

I would love if D1 college football became more like the English Premier Soccer League...to maintain the level of competition and ensure that every game will be highly anticipated, they only let so many teams in the league and if a team doesn't perform well (like say Baylor in the Big XII), they get booted out. So I agree with the guy above who says that D1 should be reduced to the 55 or so teams that realistically have a chance. Then let the other 50 or so teams try to play their way in.

Think about what our Non-Con schedule would be like if you took those bottom 40 teams out of D1. The days of undefeated seasons would come to an end, but so would the days of Texas vs. the Educational Sandboxes of Louisiana (hat tip to TBone, great line).  

has backed out, so UT will not play them. Texas backed out of a Penn State home/home. Apparently Miami contacted Dodds for a series, but we politely declined.

It looks like TCU and UCLA are the fill-ins, with a lot of room for 2007 - 2009 seasons.
I'll make a prediction that we get Rice, directional LA or UTEP on the schedule.

At this point I'd take some games against the lower tier big conference schools, like Cincinnatti or Arizona State.

What's your Top 5 home-and-home non-con wish list look like (apologies if this subject has already been beat to death)...

I'm basing my list on team choices on tradition, recent successes and a home stadium in a place I'd like actually like to visit...

1. Michigan (The Big House)
   
2. Penn State (Happy Valley)
   
3. Tennessee (Rocky Top)
   
4. Georgia (Hedges)/Florida (Swamp) tie
   
5. Alabama (Tuscaloosa)

Honorable Mention: LSU, Auburn, Wisconsin, FSU, and USC

Funny how it's all Big 10 and SEC schools. BTW, tOSU would have been tied for #1 if we weren't playing them right now.