Does Wisconsin play a ranked team this year?

[Smart]

Yes, teams should be 'punished' if you like, for the schedule they actually play. It doesn't matter why the schedule is bad. The committee should be grading off results, not prior years history or thoughts about why a schedule looked good 6 years ago.

Until the committee stands up and puts in worthy one loss teams over undefeated teams with nothing on their resume this will happen on purpose more in more in the future. The SEC isn't punished for their 3 shit OOC games for most teams because they get a pass for possibly having a 4th one that is good and/or the notion their league schedule makes up for it, which it obviously doesn't always do.

Teams shouldn't be "punished" based on schedule. I have no idea what that even means. Teams should be graded based on how they play and what their record looks like. Obviously, a team who goes 8-4 against an SEC schedule should be above a 10-2 Conference USA team. That's not because we are "punishing" the Conference USA Team. It's because based on how they played and who they played, we have every reason to think the SEC team is the better and more meritorious team.

I have no problem with people saying "I think Notre Dame is better than Wisconsin" based on their harder schedule and their relative performance on that harder schedule. That's very different than suggesting the committee needs to "punish" Wisconsin for scheduling poorly.

You are basically suggesting punitive damages for Wisconsin's schedule, which suggests that teams need to be deterred from scheduling poorly. The problem is there is no incentive to avoid scheduling poorly if the team that's punished made an effort to schedule a fair schedule. Considering where BYU was when we scheduled them, I think it's fair to say that we reasonably thought that would be a pretty tough non-conference true road game.

If you want to give actual damages to Wisconsin, go right ahead. Just be consistent and give it Miami as well (for now at least), and don't forget that several teams ranked around us lost to the types of teams we have beaten.

 

[TheDayMan]

What do those two things have to do with each other? I mean Washington played LSU and Boise State when they were good in recent years, but it doesn't change they have crap right now. The why doesn't change things either.

Call a crap schedule a crap schedule. Trying to somehow excuse it because of history makes no sense.

Wait, we should roll with this. Washington used to have a consistently tough ooc, and was even one of a handful of teams to never play an FCS program until Sark got his way. So, we shouldn't be penalized for the weak schedule now. Big 10 fans have spoken, it shall be so.

 

[Great Dayne]

I've already stated that the Badgers schedule is trash as I said before, during and will continue to say after the season. I couldn't be happier as they're just following the Husky template and the Huskies even lost a game in that season. Meanwhile Husky morons defended their schedule until Bama spanked them silly.

The fact of the matter is teams will continue to have weak schedules every year for various reasons and this will continue to be a point of discussion as long as we have a dozen random humans with bias' deciding who believe deserves to be the four best teams. Continued issues of teams being left out or teams getting in the CFP that shouldn't and those same teams getting destroyed in the 4 game playoffs will eventually cause enough controversy to change the system.

 

[WizardHawk]

Teams shouldn't be "punished" based on schedule. I have no idea what that even means. Teams should be graded based on how they play and what their record looks like. Obviously, a team who goes 8-4 against an SEC schedule should be above a 10-2 Conference USA team. That's not because we are "punishing" the Conference USA Team. It's because based on how they played and who they played, we have every reason to think the SEC team is the better and more meritorious team.

I have no problem with people saying "I think Notre Dame is better than Wisconsin" based on their harder schedule and their relative performance on that harder schedule. That's very different than suggesting the committee needs to "punish" Wisconsin for scheduling poorly.

You are basically suggesting punitive damages for Wisconsin's schedule, which suggests that teams need to be deterred from scheduling poorly. The problem is there is no incentive to avoid scheduling poorly if the team that's punished made an effort to schedule a fair schedule. Considering where BYU was when we scheduled them, I think it's fair to say that we reasonably thought that would be a pretty tough non-conference true road game.

If you want to give actual damages to Wisconsin, go right ahead. Just be consistent and give it Miami as well (for now at least), and don't forget that several teams ranked around us lost to the types of teams we have beaten.

First of all, I don't pick and choose who should be 'punished' which was your word, not mine. Washington and any other team without a strong resume THIS YEAR should be passed up by teams with more losses and a better resume. That's what 'punishment' (again, your words, not mine) should look like.

I was clear that a one loss team with strong resume should be in the playoffs over an undefeated team with a weak schedule. And that goes for any team up there. Until the committee stands up and does that we should expect more weaker schedules down the road. Why would you risk scheduling quality OOC games if it literally doesn't help you in any way to getting into the playoffs and scheduling garbage doesn't hurt you?

 

[poewelch84]

Teams shouldn't be "punished" based on schedule. I have no idea what that even means. Teams should be graded based on how they play and what their record looks like. Obviously, a team who goes 8-4 against an SEC schedule should be above a 10-2 Conference USA team. That's not because we are "punishing" the Conference USA Team. It's because based on how they played and who they played, we have every reason to think the SEC team is the better and more meritorious team.

I have no problem with people saying "I think Notre Dame is better than Wisconsin" based on their harder schedule and their relative performance on that harder schedule. That's very different than suggesting the committee needs to "punish" Wisconsin for scheduling poorly.

You are basically suggesting punitive damages for Wisconsin's schedule, which suggests that teams need to be deterred from scheduling poorly. The problem is there is no incentive to avoid scheduling poorly if the team that's punished made an effort to schedule a fair schedule. Considering where BYU was when we scheduled them, I think it's fair to say that we reasonably thought that would be a pretty tough non-conference true road game.

If you want to give actual damages to Wisconsin, go right ahead. Just be consistent and give it Miami as well (for now at least), and don't forget that several teams ranked around us lost to the types of teams we have beaten.

The issue is that by rewarding the SEC team or Notre Dame for playing tougher competition and preforming well while doing it it does punish the Conference USA team or Wisconsin because they end up rated behind that team and no matter how you slice it part of that reason is who those teams played.

 

[Smart]

The only real difference is that Alabama has been destroying those unranked teams Wisconsin has not. Beating Purdue 17-9 and Illinois 24-10 isn't the same as beating Vanderbilt 59-0, Ole Miss 66-3, Arkansas 41-9, or Tennessee 45-7.

You are purely looking at the scoreboard without giving any context to them. We beat Purdue 17-9 in a game where we outgained them 500-200 and took three knees inside the ten yard line at the end. We beat Illinois 24-10 in a game where we took out our #1 RB when he was banged up but still healthy enough to play and then ran it down the middle repeatedly with our #3 and #5 running back for an entire half.

I'm not saying we are ranked above Alabama or should be. I haven't finished my poll for this week, but Bama will be #1 and Wisconsin will be somewhere between 3 and 6 (I keep flip-flopping). But the fact is that anyone who has seen Wisconsin play will tell you that we have physically "destroyed" those teams and haven't ever been in real danger of losing. I don't think our chance of winning on FPI ever dropped below 95% on that Illinois game you want to insist was so close. Our lowest win probability against Purdue was 86%. We haven't been in any more danger of losing than Alabama has.

 

[poewelch84]

You are purely looking at the scoreboard without giving any context to them. We beat Purdue 17-9 in a game where we outgained them 500-200 and took three knees inside the ten yard line at the end. We beat Illinois 24-10 in a game where we took out our #1 RB when he was banged up but still healthy enough to play and then ran it down the middle repeatedly with our #3 and #5 running back for an entire half.

I'm not saying we are ranked above Alabama or should be. I haven't finished my poll for this week, but Bama will be #1 and Wisconsin will be somewhere between 3 and 6 (I keep flip-flopping). But the fact is that anyone who has seen Wisconsin play will tell you that we have physically "destroyed" those teams and haven't ever been in real danger of losing. I don't think our chance of winning on FPI ever dropped below 95% on that Illinois game you want to insist was so close. Our lowest win probability against Purdue was 86%. We haven't been in any more danger of losing than Alabama has.

It still isn't the same as what Alabama is doing. I think Wisconsin will get in if they win out, I just don't think they will because I believe Ohio State will beat them in the Big 10 Championship.

 

[Smart]

First of all, I don't pick and choose who should be 'punished' which was your word, not mine. Washington and any other team without a strong resume THIS YEAR should be passed up by teams with more losses and a better resume. That's what 'punishment' (again, your words, not mine) should look like.

I was clear that a one loss team with strong resume should be in the playoffs over an undefeated team with a weak schedule. And that goes for any team up there. Until the committee stands up and does that we should expect more weaker schedules down the road. Why would you risk scheduling quality OOC games if it literally doesn't help you in any way to getting into the playoffs and scheduling garbage doesn't hurt you?

Again, if you want to mark down a team for who they actually played because you think it means their win is less significant, that is fair and you should do that.

If you want to "send a message" to teams that they should be "punished" for scheduling poor teams and thus downgrade them, then I disagree. You judge them based on how they played and their results against who they played, not to send some sort of message that they need to schedule.

You have seemed to go back and forth on which you are supporting, but going back to the law analogy, I am 100% supporting you if you think we should have "actual damages" for our schedule, but if you trying to apply "punitive damages," I absolutely think that is wrong.

 

[Great Dayne]

The only real difference is that Alabama has been destroying those unranked teams Wisconsin has not. Beating Purdue 17-9 and Illinois 24-10 isn't the same as beating Vanderbilt 59-0, Ole Miss 66-3, Arkansas 41-9, or Tennessee 45-7.

Not so fast

So you're going to leave out the fact that Bama gave up 23 points to a tiny team, beat A&M by 8 and leave out Wisconsin's big wins.

Wisconsin basically used the Illinois game as a bye week and rested some players included the Heisman candidate in Johnathan Taylor. The only TD by Illinois came in the last seconds of the game in garbage time vs our second stringers and only happened because the refs called a PI on the Badgers CB when it should've been offensive pass interference.

Purdue game Badgers doubled the yards of Purdue, were up 17-3 early in the first half but then had to overcome 3 TO's and a punt block + dumb uncharacteristic penalties. They dominated everything except the final score and TO's.

 

[KingKoolKat75]

In terms of the impact on wisky's resume it doesn't matter. Michigans ranking only makes a difference for them if wisky beats them and Michigan is ranked at years end. By default that gives them at least one more loss than they have now. And they finish with Ohio State so it's unlikely they finish with less than 4 losses IF we are still talking about an undefeated wisky, which isn't a given.

It will look better for the ratings... which could mean something to the Playoff Committee.

 

[Deep Creek]

You can mock us all we want, but before the second half of the Illinois game where Taylor didn't play, we were #10 in yards per play while running a predominantly power-run offense. Yes, that is partially based on the schedule, but it's not exactly easy. I'm not saying we would beat Georgia or Alabama, but our offense is a hell of a lot better than it was a year ago when we played three top 10 teams to within a TD.

We had 494 yards on 9 drives against Purdue
Mizzou put up 204 yards on 13 drives against Purdue
Mizzou scored 28 on Georgia.

Again, I'm not saying it would happen. I saw what Georgia's DL did to Notre Dame and Josh Adams. But I also wouldn't be surprised if we could run it down their throats either.

I hope you are right. But recent history indicates the B1G rep's offenses haven't faired too well once they hit the CFP the past two years. Real, real well the first year with a natty but 38-0 and 31-0 in '15 and '16 IIRC.

 

[WizardHawk]

Again, if you want to mark down a team for who they actually played because you think it means their win is less significant, that is fair and you should do that.

If you want to "send a message" to teams that they should be "punished" for scheduling poor teams and thus downgrade them, then I disagree. You judge them based on how they played and their results against who they played, not to send some sort of message that they need to schedule.

You have seemed to go back and forth on which you are supporting, but going back to the law analogy, I am 100% supporting you if you think we should have "actual damages" for our schedule, but if you trying to apply "punitive damages," I absolutely think that is wrong.

Thought I was pretty clear and consistent with everything I have said literally for years up here. I put 'punish' in quotes because it wasn't my words. It was in response to your post and was simply saying what 'punish' really means. You are splitting hairs on words. The bottom line is a one loss team where the loss was to a ranked team and they have more wins vs ranked teams should get in over an undefeated team with a weak resume. Until they do that we should expect the landscape of OOC games across the P5's to continue to degrade.

 

[WizardHawk]

It will look better for the ratings... which could mean something to the Playoff Committee.

The committee will obviously have watched enough Michigan games to know their offense is really bad this year. An 8-4 Michigan with a bad offense won't be an impressive win to them. The only chance at one on their entire schedule is playing Ohio State in the CCG.

 

[Great Dayne]

It still isn't the same as what Alabama is doing. I think Wisconsin will get in if they win out, I just don't think they will because I believe Ohio State will beat them in the Big 10 Championship.

Yet Bama relinquished 23 points to a community college and won by 8 points vs Texas A&M.

OSU lost to a bad Oklahoma team by 16 points in their own home who squeaked by Baylor, lost to a scrub and should've lost to another scrub. Their only ranked win was at home after a bye week vs a team that has no wins vs a current ranked opponent.

 

[TrustMeIamRight]

Umm . With your offense you shouldnt be wishing that.

That’s EXACTLY the type of defense that makes UM’s offense look good. The teams who give up 500 yards a game and 30+ points.

 

[Deep Creek]

We ain't real sure just how good Bama is right now either. All this conversation and "judgement", beauty contest crap is why the playoff should be expanded...but only if two things remain constant. One, unequal conference scheduling has to end period. Two, all teams should schedule enough good OOC games to provide enough data points to connect the dots on deciding who should be in.

As long as we are using conjecture, etc, we should put 8 teams there and let them decide it on the field instead of in some smoke filled back rooms based on truly biased opinions. Give those deserving a chance...especially IF they MIGHT be worthy is better than leaving one out that truly deserves a chance.

I'll get off my soapbox now.

 

[kburjr]

I think that the whole "best" team paradigm needs to be trashed. The CFP should be a Tournament of Champions. Realign the conferences to get a balanced schedule. Schedule the bowls to match same place teams (3rd SEC vs 3rd Big 12, etc). If some of the Group of 5 teams need to be dropped, so be it.

 

[Deep Creek]

OSU lost to a bad Oklahoma team by 16 points

Bad? On the spectrum of bad to good, just where do you draw the line that separates the good from the bad?

My Miners are "bad", Kansas is "bad", Illinois is "bad",....

 

[Great Dayne]

Huskies last season had 2 wins over teams ranked in the final AP poll. Huskies had one worst OOCS in college football with Rutgers, Portland St. and Idaho.

Huskies should've lost a non bowl team in AZ but escaped with their lives in overtime. They could've lost to Utah but won by a TD. They relied on int's and punt returns for wins.

Huskies also lost a game to a 3 loss team last year.


All this and they still bitch and moan about the Badgers schedule despite never being in real jeopardy of losing a game, having an OOCS that was similar to theirs but BYU is historically superior to Rutgers and potentially having 2 and maybe even three teams ranked in the final AP poll in Northwestern, Iowa, and Michigan.

This is so much fun to watch many of their fans continually prove they're ignorant and hypocritical. Keep up the good work guys.

 

[Great Dayne]

I think that the whole "best" team paradigm needs to be trashed. The CFP should be a Tournament of Champions. Realign the conferences to get a balanced schedule. Schedule the bowls to match same place teams (3rd SEC vs 3rd Big 12, etc). If some of the Group of 5 teams need to be dropped, so be it.

This is too logical for college football. They need humans to make rankings based of their bias and give style points to big wins and punish teams if their schedules aren't great.

Obviously the NFL has it right and what the NCAA is doing is just pure stupidity.