Yesterday, I posted my Top 5 wish list for non-conference games. And just to clarify, I wasn't proposing that we play them all at once. I would just like to see us mix in a whopper every now and again.
If we can play Colorado (Big 12 North Champs three times in the past 5 years if memory serves), then we can play TAMU or Penn State. But I digress. Anyway....
SI.com has an article up on Scheduling. The articles makes the standard dig at the SEC for refusing to leave the warmth and comfort of the South. However, the article makes no mention of the Big 10's unwillingness to guarantee sweet tea for the visiting teams in its contracts.
Refreshing. Sweet. Delicious.
Anyway, Brian at MGoBlog has the first of what appears to be a series of articles on scheduling. In it he makes the very lucid point that "Intersectional is meaningless. Interconference is the issue." I made similar points a few weeks back on House That Rock Built when I talked about UGA's scheduling history. Most of my points (after the excuses) were related to the lunacy of the regionalism issue.
It isn't like Notre Dame would sell fewer tickets to Georgia fans than Clemson would. So what's the difference where the game was played? Especially given Clemson's record from around '75-87 was as good or better than Notre Dame's in terms of overall wins and national titles.
BTW -- this topic has stirred up quite a bit of debate on Dawgrun.com and ThePorch (subscriber site).