PDA

View Full Version : College Football Schedule



SoCalDukeFan
11-04-2013, 05:37 PM
I am pretty sure the BCS is to blame for the ridiculous out of conference opponents most top teams try to play.

Why does Alabama play Chattanooga for example? Ohio State is undefeated with wins over Buffalo, San Diego State and Florida A and M.

It will not get any better with the playoffs unless the voters reward teams for the quality of their out of conference schedule.

SoCal

kmspeaks
11-05-2013, 12:08 PM
If you're Alabama (or any top SEC school) why would you schedule marquee non-conference opponents? The voters are going to give you tons of credit for every league win because the SEC is perceived as the best conference by a large margin. Whether or not that perception is "correct" is debatable but that's a different conversation.

As for Ohio State, I think they are being punished for that weak sauce schedule because there aren't many "big wins" to be found in the Big(we can't count past)10. Since the season began they've been leapfrogged in the AP poll by first Clemson and then Florida State despite remaining undefeated and most of their games being lopsided affairs. They've been 4th in every BCS ranking and I can't see them moving up without losses ahead of them. No matter how much Kirk Herbstreit whines on Gameday about their margin of victory, the voters and computers recognize that their win total is potentially inflated by a lack of quality opponents.

If anything I think the playoff will make scheduling cupcakes more prevalent. If I'm Ohio State or a mid 2000's Oklahoma type team I don't need to schedule a huge opponent to jump over an undefeated or 1-loss SEC/PAC 12 school. I can roll through an easy schedule with maybe 1 in-conference challenge and most years be comfortably in a top 4 spot. This year Ohio State is left out, in a 4 team playoff I would think they're a lock. It's not going to get better unless the committee is willing to take 1 loss teams that challenged themselves over undefeated's and can you imagine the media fallout if that happens?

A-Tex Devil
11-05-2013, 02:19 PM
This problem would be easily solved if (1) each of the top 5 conferences had to schedule at least 1 (if not 2) out of conference game with schools from the other top 5 conferences, and (2) each conference was required to play the same number of conference games (whether 8 or 9, I prefer 9, but if 8, #1 has to be a 2 game minimum).

Sometimes you can't help whether a team has a tough schedule or not. For instance, in 2008, much of the reason OU surpassed UT in the BCS is they played TCU and Texas played Arkansas. TCU was a lot better than Arkansas that year, which was likely not anticipated when the games were scheduled.

But looking at non-con's of some of these schools is pretty embarassing.

-jk
11-05-2013, 06:24 PM
This problem would be easily solved if (1) each of the top 5 conferences had to schedule at least 1 (if not 2) out of conference game with schools from the other top 5 conferences, and (2) each conference was required to play the same number of conference games (whether 8 or 9, I prefer 9, but if 8, #1 has to be a 2 game minimum).

Sometimes you can't help whether a team has a tough schedule or not. For instance, in 2008, much of the reason OU surpassed UT in the BCS is they played TCU and Texas played Arkansas. TCU was a lot better than Arkansas that year, which was likely not anticipated when the games were scheduled.

But looking at non-con's of some of these schools is pretty embarassing.

Ah, the (embarrassing) Rick Barnes conundrum. ;)

-jk

Duvall
11-05-2013, 06:33 PM
This problem would be easily solved if (1) each of the top 5 conferences had to schedule at least 1 (if not 2) out of conference game with schools from the other top 5 conferences, and (2) each conference was required to play the same number of conference games (whether 8 or 9, I prefer 9, but if 8, #1 has to be a 2 game minimum).

Or college football could just have a reasonably-sized playoff like every other sport. Then teams would play quality non-conference games just for the exposure.

Dev11
11-05-2013, 08:10 PM
If you're Alabama (or any top SEC school) why would you schedule marquee non-conference opponents? The voters are going to give you tons of credit for every league win because the SEC is perceived as the best conference by a large margin. Whether or not that perception is "correct" is debatable but that's a different conversation.

As for Ohio State, I think they are being punished for that weak sauce schedule because there aren't many "big wins" to be found in the Big(we can't count past)10. Since the season began they've been leapfrogged in the AP poll by first Clemson and then Florida State despite remaining undefeated and most of their games being lopsided affairs. They've been 4th in every BCS ranking and I can't see them moving up without losses ahead of them. No matter how much Kirk Herbstreit whines on Gameday about their margin of victory, the voters and computers recognize that their win total is potentially inflated by a lack of quality opponents.

If anything I think the playoff will make scheduling cupcakes more prevalent. If I'm Ohio State or a mid 2000's Oklahoma type team I don't need to schedule a huge opponent to jump over an undefeated or 1-loss SEC/PAC 12 school. I can roll through an easy schedule with maybe 1 in-conference challenge and most years be comfortably in a top 4 spot. This year Ohio State is left out, in a 4 team playoff I would think they're a lock. It's not going to get better unless the committee is willing to take 1 loss teams that challenged themselves over undefeated's and can you imagine the media fallout if that happens?

I agree that in the current system, the top teams in the top conferences do not need to schedule any tough opponents. Alabama has its hands full already having to play LSU, A&M, Auburn, and the like. They don't need to play other tough games.

I think that the playoff will actually encourage teams to play more marquee matchups because there will be less to lose. Rarely are there more than 2 or 3 undefeated teams in BCS conferences, so the one-loss teams with the 'best loss' may get preferred treatment in playoff seeding (it certainly works for Duke in basketball).

By the way, I think Herbstreit is one of the best college football analysts, and he is being honest when he 'whines' about OSU not getting enough love. I liken him to Jay Bilas. Both know a ton about their sports and are not shy about offering unpopular opinions as long as they are thoughtful (unlike, say, Skip Bayless), yet people can't separate them from the elite programs they came from.

loran16
11-06-2013, 09:45 AM
Or college football could just have a reasonably-sized playoff like every other sport. Then teams would play quality non-conference games just for the exposure.

This is basically the answer. The scheduling of non-conference games works similarly to basketball, although with far less games to schedule for football than bball (Also, fewer teams for 3 of the four non conference spots). But in BBall, the tourney incentives teams to take a few good opponents on the non-conference schedule and a team's penalty for losing to good non-conference opponents is limited (a team's downside of losing to mediocre or worse opponents is huge).

By contrast in football, the downside of losing to a tough non-conference opponent is HUGE....and, just as importantly, it's basically the same as if you lost to a weak opponent.

Besides, Bama at least played VaTech, something other top teams won't do.

A-Tex Devil
11-06-2013, 10:55 AM
This is basically the answer. The scheduling of non-conference games works similarly to basketball, although with far less games to schedule for football than bball (Also, fewer teams for 3 of the four non conference spots). But in BBall, the tourney incentives teams to take a few good opponents on the non-conference schedule and a team's penalty for losing to good non-conference opponents is limited (a team's downside of losing to mediocre or worse opponents is huge).

By contrast in football, the downside of losing to a tough non-conference opponent is HUGE....and, just as importantly, it's basically the same as if you lost to a weak opponent.

Besides, Bama at least played VaTech, something other top teams won't do.

Yeah, it's hard to fault 'Bama's schedule, really.

I am probably in the minority on this board, but I still think that if you lose twice in college football, it should be nearly impossible for you to qualify for even the opportunity to play in the national championship (only happened once, I believe). And if you lose once, and there are 2-3 quality undefeated teams, you should also not have any complaints about not getting the opportunity to play for it all. College football is the one major sport left where you might have to be perfect to win it all, and I kinda like that.

This year could get really interesting ahead of the first 4 team playoff next year. There is a real possibility that all 5 major conferences could have an undefeated team. Each school has 1-2 losable games left on the schedules, and there's always an Iowa St-Oklahoma St type game every year, it seems. But having 5 undefeated teams this year, ahead of the system that many folks would solve a lot of the problems, might accelerate things to 6 or 8 teams sooner than later.

I am perfectly happy with 4 teams (even in the scenario above, because it is so unusual). But 6 is the absolute max I'd like to see.

kmspeaks
11-06-2013, 01:00 PM
By the way, I think Herbstreit is one of the best college football analysts, and he is being honest when he 'whines' about OSU not getting enough love. I liken him to Jay Bilas. Both know a ton about their sports and are not shy about offering unpopular opinions as long as they are thoughtful (unlike, say, Skip Bayless), yet people can't separate them from the elite programs they came from.

I actually like Herbstreit as well. He's easily the best of the Game Day guys but even if he had never set foot in Columbus I'd still call it whining. Ohio State this year is far from 2004 Auburn who beat 5 top 15 teams and still got left out.

Wander
11-06-2013, 02:40 PM
And if you lose once, and there are 2-3 quality undefeated teams, you should also not have any complaints about not getting the opportunity to play for it all. College football is the one major sport left where you might have to be perfect to win it all, and I kinda like that.


Here's an equivalent statement in the NFL: not only are the Chiefs better than the Broncos, but it's so incredibly obvious, that a proper championship would match up the Chiefs with the Seahawks, and Broncos fans would have absolutely no right to complain about being left out, because, hey, they lost a game. Actually, the NFL and college games are different, and this statement is LESS ridiculous than the equivalent college one, since there are less teams and more parity in the NFL.

Schedules are just too different. It's silly to say that a team with 0 losses is necessarily better than a team with 1 loss. Hell, we can't even make the statement for teams in the same CONFERENCE let alone the entire sport, given the lack of round-robin schedules.

Duvall has it right. If the conferences had their champions entered into a playoff field like every single other sport, we'd see better non-conference games. And even a 16 team playoff would still keep college football the most exclusive of all the major American team sports, by far.

A-Tex Devil
11-06-2013, 05:52 PM
Here's an equivalent statement in the NFL: not only are the Chiefs better than the Broncos, but it's so incredibly obvious, that a proper championship would match up the Chiefs with the Seahawks, and Broncos fans would have absolutely no right to complain about being left out, because, hey, they lost a game. Actually, the NFL and college games are different, and this statement is LESS ridiculous than the equivalent college one, since there are less teams and more parity in the NFL.

Like I said -- I'm in the minority. The difference from worst to first in the NFL is so razor thin (look at the Chiefs this year). Plus they play 3-4 more regular season games, that it's nearly impossible to go undefeated.

I *hate* the idea of conference champions getting an autobid into a playoff, ever, and I'm glad that the new +1 doesn't require all 4 teams be conference champs. Wiscy last year would have no business sniffing an opportunity at a title. I don't want the equivalent of a backdoor NFL wild card, or this year's NFC East champion (whichever 7-8 win team that ends up being) in the playoff mix. That's just me, though.

There are two somewhat different principals that have me in the limited playoff camp:

(1) Perfection should be paid off in the 5 major conferences, imo. It's still pretty rare considering at least 5 major conference teams could accomplish it every year, and we've only seen 3 do it in a year twice in the big $$ era. If I go undefeated, I shouldn't have to run the gauntlet (including a potential rematch) against a couple of 2-3 loss teams before getting to the promised land.

(2) I just like the idea that if you aren't perfect, a lot of ish has got to go your way to get back into things (unless you're 'Bama). I like the crushing weight just a single misstep in the regular season can have on your title chances.

That said, if there is ever an 8 or 16 team playoff, I'll enjoy the hell out of it. It's great for the fans, and I won't be obtuse enough to argue that it's bad for the student athletes considering we all know what runs CFB.

-jk
11-06-2013, 06:39 PM
I think it's inevitable that the football tourney expands, probably to 16 teams. (I also suspect this is a big part of what the "BCS" conferences are trying to wrest from the NCAA.) Bowl games will be relegated to the "NIT" of football.

And Notre Dame will fully join the ACC in football for a chance at the (also inevitable) autobid.

-jk