If you’re a school with BCS title aspirations (from the SEC, for the sake of this discussion) which slate of opponents is better:
I
Duke
Syracuse
Washington St
Baylor
Indiana
OR
II
Boise St
TCU
Troy
Central Michigan
East Carolina
Good job: So you cherry pick some of the worst teams of the BCS Conferences (Duke, Washington St) and cherry picked some of the best teams of the non-AQ conferences (Boise, TCU)
Yes, the better teams of the non-AQ conferences are much much much better better than teams like Duke, Vanderbilt and Indiana. Year in, Year out.
So the answer to your query is: Option I.
But, hypothetically, if you picked 5 random teams from the AQ conferences and 5 random teams from the non AQ Conferences, and scheduled a series, I would take my chances on the AQ conference teams. And IMO, I would win, most of the time, probably somewhere around 75%-80%
But if you take cherry pick some of the best of non AQ against some of the worst of the AQ, the AQ doesn’t have much of a chance.
FTR: AQ = Automatic Qualifying
I DELIBERATELY “cherry picked”. I wanted to see who people thought was a better schedule, lousy BCS schools or good (in this case reigning ('09) conference champs) mid-majors. BTW, I know what AQ means.
So you proved that there is overlap between AQ and non AQ Conferences. Congratulations.
Did anyone suggest that there was not overlap?
Better for what? For your SEC team with national championship aspirations, the first schedule is better. By the time you get to conference play, you will still play significantly more good teams than Boise State, for example, and if you schedule the patsies you reduce the risk of injury, and slightly level the playing field with the better non-AQ teams, who are playing 8, 9 or 10 patsies a season.
wouldn’t the 1st list lead to a better SOS?
No, there is overlap
More importantly, the first list leads to a better VPG (viewers per game). It’s not about who you play, it’s about who you play (so to speak).