Apparently the pundits count in a different direction
So recently I've become tired of national sports shows because the commentary is so plastic, and they're often dead wrong about the teams I know well. And I assume if they have backwards knowledge about my teams, they have backwards knowledge about most teams, except for the top few that they put all of their focus on. Were I not on the West Coast, and my college football team were a dynasty, I'm sure they would know more than I do. But I am on the West Coast, and Cal's just better than average, so they don't know squat.
Anyway, check out the article at http://collegefootball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1073587. I think the higher "ranked" matchups are, for the most part, far less interesting than the lower ones. Alabama-Penn State's a great game, but #1 Boise State vs. VA Tech? Yeah, best matchup on Boise's schedule, but no one's cared about VA Tech since the days when they weren't floppers. Miami on the list twice? This is 2010, not 2001. North Carolina vs. Anyone?
But most of the lower matchups are great. Up-and-coming UConn against needs-to-improve (but I don't want them to until they get a new coach) Michigan. Huge for both teams. Pitt-Utah, if you're on the west coast Oregon State-TCU, renewed power Nebraska against a possibly-renewed Washington (whcih admittedly would have been much better in the 90s). Those are great games. Same with Oklahoma-Cincinnati, which is far, far better than Okalahoma-Florida State. Again, 2010, not 2001.
Of course, Cal's schedule is a snooze. We're probably going to go undefeated out of conference again, which is a pretty obnoxious stat. Our out of conference record against non-loser teams is not nearly as good. But I'll be going to Reno for the Nevada game, so the schedule actually looks pretty good to me.