1. Bama 2. Clemson 3. Washington 4. Penn State

[WizardHawk]

Yeah, Rutgers was legit. They produced their fair share of NFL players during Schiano's time.

It's easy low lying fruit to just pick on UW's OOC slate as if they did this on purpose. If people know anything about how these deals are done they know the challenges in planing out games that far ahead and what each AD from top tier teams looks at for their own self interest. There just aren't nearly as many options as people might think. And you better either be an easy lay or a wild fuck, because anything in the middle is not getting a ride to the prom. And UW was very much in the middle for a good decade.

 

[Beggs]

Schiano was HC of Rutgers and had them at 9-3 when UW made this agreement. He left and they went back to shit.

Again, you are asking for UW to know 5+ years ahead when they will return to relevance and be able to attract top tier teams to H/H deals while we were a 6-7 win team where they probably have to travel 2k+ miles to fulfill their end of the bargain.

Now that we are on the rise we got Auburn to play in '18 on a neutral site. We wouldn't be getting that if we were still a 6-7 win team.

He had them at 9-4, not 9-3, while going 3-4 in the Big East, with exciting wins over Howard, FIU, and Texas Southern. Yea, they were a team to be feared when they made that schedule.

 

[Robotech]

It's easy low lying fruit to just pick on UW's OOC slate as if they did this on purpose. If people know anything about how these deals are done they know the challenges in planing out games that far ahead and what each AD from top tier teams looks at for their own self interest. There just aren't nearly as many options as people might think. And you better either be an easy lay or a wild fuck, because anything in the middle is not getting a ride to the prom. And UW was very much in the middle for a good decade.

Yeah, it's hard to get the good teams to play you.

 

[WizardHawk]

He had them at 9-4, not 9-3, while going 3-4 in the Big East, with exciting wins over Howard, FIU, and Texas Southern. Yea, they were a team to be feared when they made that schedule.

Right, entirely ignore the rest of the point to stick to an idea that is entirely flawed. Doesn't hurt me one bit.

Schiano had that team on the rise AND they were willing to come this far west to a team at the time that wasn't that far removed from an 0-12 season themselves. Top tier teams were not beating down our door. Sark had them kind of moving up, but no one knew how far. Most top teams want one really tough game, a predictably winnable but mid level challenge and one (or more for some leagues) cupcake.

Teams that might be on the rise and might be dangerous or might fall back apart are trickier to get top tier deals with. Read what AD's say about the process. We can't be more far away for most of the countries top programs and were in unknown territory at that time.

UW now has a H/H with Michigan looming starting in '19 and a neutral site game in '18. Our AD has made getting top flight OOC games a very high priority. It's too late to do anything about next years now.

 

[WizardHawk]

He had them at 9-4, not 9-3, while going 3-4 in the Big East, with exciting wins over Howard, FIU, and Texas Southern. Yea, they were a team to be feared when they made that schedule.

Washington Schedules Future Football Series vs. BYU & Michigan
Wisky bowed out of a H/H with us that was to start in '18. Shit like that happens to a lot of programs. We had someone else bow out of one that I believe was either this year or next some time back. That's often how these shit schedules come about.

That link also shows that after Petersen came to town we nearly immediately got deals with BYU and Michigan. Bringing him in made us far more attractive and made inking deals a whole lot easier. We won't see the results for years and years because you can't schedule a top tier team less than 4 years out unless they get a thing like wisky bowing out for us like the above.

 

[Sgt Brutus]

In the end I think being at 2 and having 3 top ten wins with two on the road will push us in. Two Buckeye playoffs and two controversies.

We will see some variation of the top 4 we have now

 

[fredmccallyRTR]

In the end I think being at 2 and having 3 top ten wins with two on the road will push us in. Two Buckeye playoffs and two controversies.

We will see some variation of the top 4 we have now

I'd bet on that outcome too.

 

[Beggs]

Right, entirely ignore the rest of the point to stick to an idea that is entirely flawed. Doesn't hurt me one bit.

Schiano had that team on the rise AND they were willing to come this far west to a team at the time that wasn't that far removed from an 0-12 season themselves. Top tier teams were not beating down our door. Sark had them kind of moving up, but no one knew how far. Most top teams want one really tough game, a predictably winnable but mid level challenge and one (or more for some leagues) cupcake.

Teams that might be on the rise and might be dangerous or might fall back apart are trickier to get top tier deals with. Read what AD's say about the process. We can't be more far away for most of the countries top programs and were in unknown territory at that time.

UW now has a H/H with Michigan looming starting in '19 and a neutral site game in '18. Our AD has made getting top flight OOC games a very high priority. It's too late to do anything about next years now.

They weren't on the rise when the schedule was made. Rutgers hit their peak and was a couple seasons removed from being ranked when they were scheduled. They were sloping down. The team now can't control who was scheduled years ago, but we can't all pretend that Rutgers and Idaho were good tests of Washington OOC. The PAC was awful this year as well.

I enjoy watching Washington do well, I'm a fan of Peterson and I like watching Oregon get embarrassed. I wish them nothing but the best, but we can't sit here and claim that without a real test that they are one of the top teams. I feel like we are dealing with 2008 Hawaii all over again.

 

[Sgt Brutus]

They weren't on the rise when the schedule was made. Rutgers hit their peak and was a couple seasons removed from being ranked when they were scheduled. They were sloping down. The team now can't control who was scheduled years ago, but we can't all pretend that Rutgers and Idaho were good tests of Washington OOC. The PAC was awful this year as well. I enjoy watching Washington do well, I'm a fan of Peterson and I like watching Oregon get embarrassed. I wish them nothing but the best, but we can't sit here and claim that without a real test that they are one of the top teams. I feel like we are dealing with 2008 Hawaii all over again.

Regardless they were bad this year and it counts as a bad opponent, no matter the intention when scheduled.

 

[Beggs]

Regardless they were bad this year and it counts as a bad opponent, no matter the intention when scheduled.

Damnit, let me finish my run on paragraph edit before you quote me.

 

[WizardHawk]

They weren't on the rise when the schedule was made. Rutgers hit their peak and was a couple seasons removed from being ranked when they were scheduled. They were sloping down. The team now can't control who was scheduled years ago, but we can't all pretend that Rutgers and Idaho were good tests of Washington OOC. The PAC was awful this year as well. I enjoy watching Washington do well, I'm a fan of Peterson and I like watching Oregon get embarrassed. I wish them nothing but the best, but we can't sit here and claim that without a real test that they are one of the top teams. I feel like we are dealing with 2008 Hawaii all over again.

I mean I couldn't have been more clear. I said they were what was available at the time, but you won't address that part in any way. Just the part about where they were at that time, and 9-4 was a real season.

There was a lot written about this schedule around here for years prior to this season. I don't care to go digging up old articles, but I did read what Woodward said about it and the process of trying to attract top tier programs and they had difficulty.

That ended the minute we brought Petersen in. It won't be a problem going forward and it has nothing to do with whatever outcome happened this year. These were already in the works years ago.

 

[WizardHawk]

I did find where wisconsin had washington on a H/H for '17 and '18 before having to cancel it. It was that '17 along with the hole in '16 that Rutgers filled in. You don't get Bama or Ohio State to fill in holes on shorter notice. 100% of the time it's lower teams that can make that kind of room.

I could not immediately find why we had the hole in '16 and I'm done spending time on it. The point has already been clearly made anyway.

 

[Beggs]

I mean I couldn't have been more clear. I said they were what was available at the time, but you won't address that part in any way. Just the part about where they were at that time, and 9-4 was a real season.

There was a lot written about this schedule around here for years prior to this season. I don't care to go digging up old articles, but I did read what Woodward said about it and the process of trying to attract top tier programs and they had difficulty.

That ended the minute we brought Petersen in. It won't be a problem going forward and it has nothing to do with whatever outcome happened this year. These were already in the works years ago.

Ok, I understand when the schedule was made that not much was available. But you have to look at it from an outsiders perspective. It looks weak. No matter what site you go to, no matter what source you use, Washington has the weakest SOS in the top 10.

 

[WizardHawk]

Ok, I understand when the schedule was made that not much was available. But you have to look at it from an outsiders perspective. It looks week. No matter what site you go to, no matter what source you use, Washington has the weakest SOS in the top 10.

Don't think anyone has attempted to argue against that, and if they have they are straight up retarded and probably not able to type in the first place.

UW's schedule was utter shit. Period. And should be behind others with better schedules of similar outcomes. Which they are.

All I countered was any sort of notion that this was of their own doing.

From what I can recall/find wisky had to pull out when they reshuffled their conf schedules which left a hole that it looks like Montana filled next year and we had lost another game from this season that portland state filled in for. Shit is kind of hard to find on games no one really cares about.

 

[Beggs]

Don't think anyone has attempted to argue against that, and if they have they are straight up retarded and probably not able to type in the first place.

UW's schedule was utter shit. Period. And should be behind others with better schedules of similar outcomes. Which they are.

All I countered was any sort of notion that this was of their own doing.

From what I can recall/find wisky had to pull out when they reshuffled their conf schedules which left a hole that it looks like Montana filled next year and we had lost another game from this season that portland state filled in for. Shit is kind of hard to find on games no one really cares about.

I have lost all focus on what the original argument was as I've been drinking and it is almost 4 in the morning. So we will leave it here. Like I said, I wish for the continued success of the Washington program, as long as it does not come at the expense of my own teams. Wipe the floor with those michigan douchebags when you play them please.

 

[Podunkparte]

I guess it's a good thing the season is longer than 3 OOC games then, right?

Sure just ignore the fact that UW dominated almost every other game (lost to red hot USC and AZ took them to OT) and just dominated the #8 team in the country for a Power 5 championship.

None of that matters though because 3 wins were against easy teams.

 

[Sgt Brutus]

Any takers?

http://sportshoop.la/betting-exchange/the-college-football-playoff-rankings-top-4.627/

 

[Podunkparte]

Any takers?

http://sportshoop.la/betting-exchange/the-college-football-playoff-rankings-top-4.627/

Nope.

What I think should happen:

1. Alabama
2. Washington (Agree on weak OOC, but that's minor compared to other criteria. Coming off a convincing win over #8)
3. Clemson (ACC was weaker than it appeared early on. Lost to Pitt. Should have lost to NC St)
4. Penn St./Ohio St. (Merits on both sides here. I'd lean slightly for Penn St. but just barely)

What I think will happen:

1. Alabama
2. Clemson
3. Ohio St.
4. Washington

Committee will "punish" Ohio St. by dropping them a meaningless spot because there is no way in hell they want the Bama/OSU matchup being wasted in the 1st rd. UW will be Bama fodder and the committee will pat themselves on the back for bringing justice to the sports talk world by making an example of Ohio St and letting Clemson jump them in the final rankings.

 

[RegentDenali]

That should be your playoff. Sorry Ohio State, yeah you're BIG XII Champs via transitive property but winning the BIG XII this year wasn't good enough.

They got you head to head and they got your conference's title. Just one Sooners opinion.

I agree.

 

[fishinabarrel]

All this talk about Buckeye fans melting if they don't get in but it sure seems like there will be just as many non Buckeyes freaking out if they do