Alabama has played UT-Chattanooga 3 times since 2008

[7Samurai13]

It sure is. Gets funnier when the team travels to Ohio State or Syracuse or Boston college or Virginia or Notre Dame to play at those teams home stadiums .
Clemson lost to Pitt but Bama couldn't do the same. Funny huh

Are you trying to pimp up Syracuse, Boston College, and Virginia as quality opponents and to be feared to play at their stadiums? Seriously? I love home and homes and a huge advocate for them, but Syracuse, Virginia, and Boston College are not going to hell your argument.

 

[AlaskaGuy]

Are you trying to pimp up Syracuse, Boston College, and Virginia as quality opponents and to be feared to play at their stadiums? Seriously. I love home and homes but Syracuse, Virginia, and Boston College are not going to hell your argument.

Syracuse is the reason UF hasn't played a regular season OCC game outside the state of Florida since the year 1902.

 

[7Samurai13]

Syracuse is the reason UF hasn't played a regular season OCC game outside the state of Florida since the year 1902.

Until September, then the clock resets. Or you can use a true away game. But still Syracuse has what, three winning season in the past decade and a half? They have been ranked one year since Y2k despite spending most of the time in the weakest conference that pretty much ceased to exist in college football.

 

[ralphiewvu]

I'm talking about being able to compare teams from different conferences better so they can properly decide which top 4 teams go to the playoffs.

You need common opponents between them, or closely related common opponents. For example, Alabama playing WVU would provide a little bit of a measuring stick between the Big12 and the SEC. But it's just 1 game so by itself it's limited. So you need to have many games between the 2 conferences to compare them. More games between the Big12 and Big10, Big10 and SEC, SEC and Pac, etc.

Those would be the strongest links for comparison, but you can also get some useful information out of weaker links, such as common opponents among mid-majors. Ohio plays Alabama, and Ohio plays WVU. Or Ohio plays Alabama, Ohio then plays New Mexico, and New Mexico plays WVU. That would be a much weaker link, but it's better than nothing.

But again you don't need just 1 or 2 of these links, because alone they aren't very useful. 100+ of them is another story. But when you get a whole bunch of them you get a much clearer picture on conference strength.

Meanwhile the conferences are all linked together well, so adding an extra conference game isn't going to help towards comparing the conferences. And it's not really needed to decide a conference champion properly. It does have a chance of affect the conference championship, but it's hit or miss on the teams you get. We are just as likely to get Vanderbilt as we are Georgia.

So 8 conference and 2 P5 opponents would be awesome because it provides the best links.

The measuring stick should be how teams play against mid majors? That's beyond a flawed system.

There are 3 undefeated conference champs from 3 other P5 conferences. Alabama loses to Ohio but wins a an SEC conference that is perceived better then the one loss WVU had from it in conference but still won the conference all the while beating Ohio in their ooc. Are you saying since WVU faired better against the mid major that they would get in over Alabama for that 4th spot?

 

[4down20]

The measuring stick should be how teams play against mid majors? That's beyond a flawed system.

There are 3 undefeated conference champs from 3 other P5 conferences. Alabama loses to Ohio but wins a an SEC conference that is perceived better then the one loss WVU had from it in conference but still won the conference all the while beating Ohio in their ooc. Are you saying since WVU faired better against the mid major that they would get in over Alabama for that 4th spot?

Nevermind, I don't know why I try to explain these things.

 

[AlaskaGuy]

lulz

 

[Mistaken4193]

Why blame Saban for Playing UT Chattanooga?? Blame the rest of the SEC coaches, Once again this year he was the only one that voted in favor of a 9 game conference schedule.

 

[Mistaken4193]

Why blame Saban for Playing UT Chattanooga?? Blame the rest of the SEC coaches, Once again this year he was the only one that voted in favor of a 9 game conference schedule.

He has been the only one that voted in favor of it the last 6 or 7 years.

 

[ralphiewvu]

Nevermind, I don't know why I try to explain these things.

Can't answer the question? Or is it because you turn a disagreement about strength of schedule to an argument over conference strength?

No matter how much you want to deny it that's exactly what you did.

 

[4down20]

Can't answer the question? Or is it because you turn a disagreement about strength of schedule to an argument over conference strength?

No matter how much you want to deny it that's exactly what you did.

If you thought the sentence "The measuring stick should be how teams play against mid majors?" was what I was talking about, then you are so far off the concept it's not worth the time explaining.

And even though I have no idea where you got that it was a discussion about "strength of schedule" or even "conference strength", I dont' know how in the world you think the 2 wouldn't be related to start with.

I think I'd be better off trying to teach my dog physics, and she died a month ago.

 

[Deep Creek]

Chattanooga gave Bama a better game in Tuscaloosa than USC did in Jerry World.

They also gave them a better game than fellow SEC brethren Tennessee, Miss State, and Florida did. So did Western Kentucky.

Me thinks the SEC needs to invite Western Kentucky and Tennessee Chattanooga into the SEC since they seem to provide Bama with a more competitive game than some of the current members.

 

[Deep Creek]

It's because Ohio and New Mexico are linked to other teams, so you get a little measuring stick between all those teams.

Only through the transitive property. You know that transitive property shit doesn't work out. Hell, my Miners are national champs every year if the transitive property can be used. Well, except those years we don't even win a single game!

 

[Deep Creek]

He has been the only one that voted in favor of it the last 6 or 7 years.

Fact

 

[4down20]

Only through the transitive property. You know that transitive property shit doesn't work out. Hell, my Miners are national champs every year if the transitive property can be used. Well, except those years we don't even win a single game!

The transitive property would be cherry picking the matchups.

 

[Deep Creek]

The transitive property would be cherry picking the matchups.

True, and I get what you are saying about additional links being needed for the committee to really be able to decide the best four.

But way, way too many OOC games don't provide any usable linkage for them. They are just what you stated. A quasi open date to rest players prior to a big game. Or just get a win to count toward bowl eligibility.

 

[4down20]

True, and I get what you are saying about additional links being needed for the committee to really be able to decide the best four.

But way, way too many OOC games don't provide any usable linkage for them. They are just what you stated. A quasi open date to rest players prior to a big game. Or just get a win to count toward bowl eligibility.

The FCS games provide nothing of value towards comparing teams. They play a bunch of other FCS teams on their schedule, so it's pretty much worthless. It's all just the teams being "selfish".

But P5 and G5 games do. Obviously the P5 games are the best, so that's really what needs to be increased.

Like a few years ago the SEC played their non-conference games and won almost all of them. But then got into the bowl season and they lost a good bit of them. So adding more P5 games that year likely would have given us a better idea on team strength before the playoffs/bowl games.

 

[Deep Creek]

The FCS games provide nothing of value towards comparing teams. They play a bunch of other FCS teams on their schedule, so it's pretty much worthless. It's all just the teams being "selfish".

But P5 and G5 games do. Obviously the P5 games are the best, so that's really what needs to be increased.

Like a few years ago the SEC played their non-conference games and won almost all of them. But then got into the bowl season and they lost a good bit of them. So adding more P5 games that year likely would have given us a better idea on team strength before the playoffs/bowl games.

Yeah, without some more interconference play, the CFP committee will always be using more subjective data than more objective data that would be available otherwise.

 

[socaljim242]

Are you trying to pimp up Syracuse, Boston College, and Virginia as quality opponents and to be feared to play at their stadiums? Seriously? I love home and homes and a huge advocate for them, but Syracuse, Virginia, and Boston College are not going to hell your argument.

No, I'm trying to give examples of USC "traveling across the country" to play OCC games. I could have just said Ohio State , Auburn and Arkansas . but I didnt want to just list better football schools just to make my point but the truth is USC plays big boys and smaller football schools too but thats a reasonable way to schedule OCC games. You have the way USC does it and the total opposite of not traveling at all. Yeah they aren;t world beaters but they do have history and they do have the ability to be at least decent once in a while and you take a chance they can give you a game three or four years after you scheduled them. Virginia was #6 in the polls and USC played them in 2008. USC played Boston College in 2012 and 2007 (the most recent) BC was ACC champs in 2005 2007 2008. USC played Syracuse in 2008 and 2012 ( the most recent).Syracuse won the ACC in 2004 and 2012. So they are nowhere near the equivalent of playing Mercer, Towsend, Chattanooga , Southern Carolina, UAB and Presbyterian type schools always at home.

 

[trojanfan12]

Who won the rubber match game in this series?

Or did Bama get swept?

 

[7Samurai13]

No, I'm trying to give examples of USC "traveling across the country" to play OCC games. I could have just said Ohio State , Auburn and Arkansas . but I didnt want to just list better football schools just to make my point but the truth is USC plays big boys and smaller football schools too but thats a reasonable way to schedule OCC games. You have the way USC does it and the total opposite of not traveling at all. Yeah they aren;t world beaters but they do have history and they do have the ability to be at least decent once in a while and you take a chance they can give you a game three or four years after you scheduled them. Virginia was #6 in the polls and USC played them in 2008. USC played Boston College in 2012 and 2007 (the most recent) BC was ACC champs in 2005 2007 2008. USC played Syracuse in 2008 and 2012 ( the most recent).Syracuse won the ACC in 2004 and 2012. So they are nowhere near the equivalent of playing Mercer, Towsend, Chattanooga , Southern Carolina, UAB and Presbyterian type schools always at home.

Not a fair comparison. You are ignoring that you played 3-9 Utah State last year, 4-8 Idaho in 2015, you have a massively depleted Western Michigan this year, Fresno State the year after that. Hell, one year you have Rice and Fresno State. You can't compare your top (or middle rung depending on what Notre Dame is looking like) to another team's bottom rung and act like that is a fair comparison. I wouldn't slam Washington for playing an FCS school and compare it to scheduling Notre Dame, when Michigan State played Fulmer last year. You compare equivalents. Is playing a terrible G5 school that different than playing an FCS school?