IMHO The real problem in FBS....

[Gator]

I agree with many folks that there is a scheduling problem in FBS football however, mine is probably different from others. Look at last year, during the regular season there were virtually ZERO OOC games pitting P5 vs P5 or even P5 vs G5. As a result no one had any idea how to rank the various teams. How can you compare teams when there is no info to connect them together? Things aren’t much better during “normal” seasons either.

For example, consider two conferences with the top three teams in order A, B, C and 1, 2, 3. There are 20 different ways the 6 teams can be ranked KEEPING the order of A, B, C AND 1, 2, 3.
1) 1, 2, 3, A, B, C
2) 1, A, 2, 3, B, C
3) 1, A, B, 2, 3, C

down to

20) A, B, C, 1, 2, 3

Imagine the number of combinations with FIVE conferences!

Consider this...

A round-robin schedule in the 14-team SEC and ACC requires 91 games. Both the SEC and ACC play 56 games + 1 CCG or 62.63% of the RR limit.

A round-robin schedule in the 14-team Big Ten requires 91 games. The Big Ten plays 63 games + 1 CCG or 70.3% of the RR limit.

A round-robin schedule in the 12-team PAC requires 66 games. The PAC plays 54 games + 1 CCG or 83.3% of the RR limit.

A round-robin schedule in the 10-team Big 12 requires 45 games. The Big 12 plays 45 games + 1 CCG or 102.2% of the RR limit.

That’s 279 games to sort out the ranking IN the five P5 respective conferences. How many regular season games are there BETWEEN P5 conferences? Over the 20 years from 2000-2019 there were 518 games or 25.9 games per year between P5 conferences. Of those only 45 were between Top3 teams in each conference or 2.25 games per year to sort out the top 15 teams! What about Notre Dame and the G5 schools? Something needs to change.

 

[Mike A. S.]

Emphasizing SOS for teams encourages the teams to schedule more P5-vs-P5 games OOC. So the committee needs to continue to emphasize the strength of schedule if we want more of this. Also if they expand the playoff to too many teams it will start to take away the incentive to schedule strong SOS. I do think the CFP should be expanded, but just not to too many teams. I'm not sure what that exact number should be but I am confident that it shouldn't ever be more than 12. And I think even that may be too many.

 

[Gator]

Emphasizing SOS for teams encourages the teams to schedule more P5-vs-P5 games OOC. So the committee needs to continue to emphasize the strength of schedule if we want more of this. Also if they expand the playoff to too many teams it will start to take away the incentive to schedule strong SOS. I do think the CFP should be expanded, but just not to too many teams. I'm not sure what that exact number should be but I am confident that it shouldn't ever be more than 12. And I think even that may be too many.

Let me play Devil's Advocate. Suppose the SEC decided to follow the examples of UCF, BSU, and Cincinnati. The top 6 teams (over the past decade) are Bama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, LSU, and Texas A&M. The SEC schedule is: the Top 6 ALL play the remaining lower 8 SEC teams only. The lower 8 then play two other lower 8 teams to complete the schedule. All of the teams play their usual OOC schedule. How many of the top 6 would end up 12-0? How about if the Big Ten did the same. PAC? Big 12? ACC? I'm sure their SOS would still be higher than UC's this year. IF you are going to reward poor scheduling that's what could happen. The big boys decide NOT to play each other until the playoffs. The committee MUST reward SOS.

 

[Mike A. S.]

Let me play Devil's Advocate. Suppose the SEC decided to follow the examples of UCF, BSU, and Cincinnati. The top 6 teams (over the past decade) are Bama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, LSU, and Texas A&M. The SEC schedule is: the Top 6 ALL play the remaining lower 8 SEC teams only. The lower 8 then play two other lower 8 teams to complete the schedule. All of the teams play their usual OOC schedule. How many of the top 6 would end up 12-0? How about if the Big Ten did the same. PAC? Big 12? ACC? I'm sure their SOS would still be higher than UC's this year. IF you are going to reward poor scheduling that's what could happen. The big boys decide NOT to play each other until the playoffs. The committee MUST reward SOS.

I agree about rewarding SOS. That's what I was saying in my previous post as well.

 

[wazzu31]

Emphasizing SOS for teams encourages the teams to schedule more P5-vs-P5 games OOC. So the committee needs to continue to emphasize the strength of schedule if we want more of this. Also if they expand the playoff to too many teams it will start to take away the incentive to schedule strong SOS. I do think the CFP should be expanded, but just not to too many teams. I'm not sure what that exact number should be but I am confident that it shouldn't ever be more than 12. And I think even that may be too many.

So what is the solution the 2016 Washington Huskies SOS when Wisconsin backed out at the last minute so they had to play a FCS school? I agree SOS should be a factor but schools shouldn’t be allowed to schedule out 4 years in advance.

 

[Mike A. S.]

So what is the solution the 2016 Washington Huskies SOS when Wisconsin backed out at the last minute so they had to play a FCS school? I agree SOS should be a factor but schools shouldn’t be allowed to schedule out 4 years in advance.

I'm not saying SOS of schedule is the ONLY thing that matters. There are absolutely other factors that need to be considered. But the fact remains that playing a harder schedule should indeed allow for more closer games and/or probably one additional loss over a weaker schedule, unless the SOS is pretty comparable still. Eye test should matter to some degree too as well as probably several other things, but SOS has to matter, otherwise what's the point in scheduling a hard opponent if you don't have to?

 

[Picklerick 2.0]

Emphasizing SOS for teams encourages the teams to schedule more P5-vs-P5 games OOC. So the committee needs to continue to emphasize the strength of schedule if we want more of this. Also if they expand the playoff to too many teams it will start to take away the incentive to schedule strong SOS. I do think the CFP should be expanded, but just not to too many teams. I'm not sure what that exact number should be but I am confident that it shouldn't ever be more than 12. And I think even that may be too many.

The problem is that there is no incentive for teams like Alabama to schedule anyone in ooc. Why would they risk it when they don't need to prove themselves in the eyes of the committee?

 

[HuskerOC]

The problem is that there is no incentive for teams like Alabama to schedule anyone in ooc. Why would they risk it when they don't need to prove themselves in the eyes of the committee?

Alabama played Miami this year.
Georgia played Clemson and Georgia Tech
Florida plays Florida State
Arkansas played Texas
Kentucky plays Louisville
Tennessee played Pitt
Vanderbilt played Stanford
Miss State played NC State
Ole Miss played Louisville
Tex A&M played Colorado
Missouri played Boston College
Auburn played Penn State
LSU played UCLA

Are they supposed to play the Chicago Bears while playing in by far the best conference in the country?

 

[Picklerick 2.0]

Alabama played Miami this year.
Georgia played Clemson and Georgia Tech
Florida plays Florida State
Arkansas played Texas
Kentucky plays Louisville
Tennessee played Pitt
Vanderbilt played Stanford
Miss State played NC State
Ole Miss played Louisville
Tex A&M played Colorado
Missouri played Boston College
Auburn played Penn State
LSU played UCLA

Are they supposed to play the Chicago Bears while playing in by far the best conference in the country?

That's the problem. When the whole conference goes into the season rated super high, it's pointless to schedule ooc against legit teams. Why would you? If your the AD and you did, then lost said game to get kicked out of contention, you are fired. There needs to be a 12 team playoff system. It's that simple.

 

[HuskerOC]

That's the problem. When the whole conference goes into the season rated super high, it's pointless to schedule ooc against legit teams. Why would you? If your the AD and you did, then lost said game to get kicked out of contention, you are fired. There needs to be a 12 team playoff system. It's that simple.

Who would be the worthless 12 this year?

Georgia, Bama, some slapnut conference winners and 8 other SEC teams?

 

[wazzu31]

I'm not saying SOS of schedule is the ONLY thing that matters. There are absolutely other factors that need to be considered. But the fact remains that playing a harder schedule should indeed allow for more closer games and/or probably one additional loss over a weaker schedule, unless the SOS is pretty comparable still. Eye test should matter to some degree too as well as probably several other things, but SOS has to matter, otherwise what's the point in scheduling a hard opponent if you don't have to?

Because saying play a harder schedule isn’t a legit argument because it isn’t a reality or possible. The only way that can even be argued is if you are ok with taking OOC games completely out of individuals universities plus individual conferences hands. You can “try” to schedule harder games but rarely does a hard game get put together in one year and 3 years down the road a game that looked great for ESPN in like say a Stanford vs UCF turns into an ugly game.

 

[Ron G]

Because saying play a harder schedule isn’t a legit argument because it isn’t a reality or possible. The only way that can even be argued is if you are ok with taking OOC games completely out of individuals universities plus individual conferences hands. You can “try” to schedule harder games but rarely does a hard game get put together in one year and 3 years down the road a game that looked great for ESPN in like say a Stanford vs UCF turns into an ugly game

SOS never takes into consideration of the historical strength of a particular team at the time of the schedule. A team that schedules ND, Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Clemson, Florida, LSU, Oregon, Southern Cal, North Carolina, Florida State, Michigan State, Auburn, Penn State 3 or 4 years in advance suffers from SOS if any of those teams have an off year. And yet, none of those teams is scheduled with the idea of an easy win.
Unlike scheduling FCS teams (for sure) or teams such as Kansas, Georgia Tech, Duke, Missouri (currently), Utah State, Connecticut, New Mexico State, Indiana, or Rutgers for an easy win.
Wins over FBS teams shouldn't count toward the 6 win requirement.
Teams that complain about ND only playing 12 games seem to always have an FBS on their schedule.

 

[HuskerOC]

SOS never takes into consideration of the historical strength of a particular team at the time of the schedule. A team that schedules ND, Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Clemson, Florida, LSU, Oregon, Southern Cal, North Carolina, Florida State, Michigan State, Auburn, Penn State 3 or 4 years in advance suffers from SOS if any of those teams have an off year. And yet, none of those teams is scheduled with the idea of an easy win.
Unlike scheduling FCS teams (for sure) or teams such as Kansas, Georgia Tech, Duke, Missouri (currently), Utah State, Connecticut, New Mexico State, Indiana, or Rutgers for an easy win.
Wins over FBS teams shouldn't count toward the 6 win requirement.
Teams that complain about ND only playing 12 games seem to always have an FBS on their schedule.

Notre Dame plays one of the toughest schedules year in and year out.

Anybody that complains about Notre Dame not playing a tough schedule is either ignorant or too hateful of the Irish. I truly do dislike everything about Notre Dame football, but I also have a tremendous amount of respect for who they play every year, and what they have done historically in the land of college football.

I don't think anybody can argue about the history and legends of Notre Dame football.