So if TCU and USC both lose

[PIBuckeye]

Would agree less OOC would be ideal

I do like a great OOC matchup though.

 

[Stakesarehigh]

I do like a great OOC matchup though.

As do I

Unfortunately teams are ran by pussies.

 

[PIBuckeye]

I'm all for 3 to 4 if teams will play other teams worth a shit and not Prarie View

But they won't

So either take away their ability to schedule

Or

More in conference

like this year. take away arkansas st. and put in Wisconsin, Purdue, or Minny.

 

[PIBuckeye]

As do I

Unfortunately teams are ran by pussies.

and some conferences are worse than others........ about it.

 

[fredsdeadfriend]

I'm all for 3 to 4 if teams will play other teams worth a shit and not Prarie View

But they won't

So either take away their ability to schedule

Or

More in conference

Get a collective agreement to limit who teams can schedule in the ooc part of the season. Zero FCS teams, only 1 G5 school, and either expand to 10 conf games or play 2 P5 schools every season in the ooc.

Not saying that will be easy, FCS teams love playing good FBS schools, as do G5 schools, it helps their programs. And struggling P5 programs often feel the need to play soft ooc schedules in order to just eek into a bowl game, which conferences are not necessarily opposed to as it adds money to the conference coffers as a whole.


It's a big system with every individual school looking out for their own individual needs and whats best for them, and their bottom lines, with US FANS being the last priority that they will consider when making these kinds of decisions.

 

[fredsdeadfriend]

The Selection Committee HAS TO make it known that some sort of SOS credit will be taken into account, otherwise all the non-blue bloods will avoid scheduling good teams. There are already too many incentives not to.

 

[Gator]

I hope TCU gets in and win the National Championship.

This really points out my dislike of SOS as determined by the specific year the game is played. In 31 and 32, if Notre Dame and Florida State both have off years, say 6-6 or 5-7, UFs SOS will get downgraded. And yet it is not their goal to schedule easy games.

I always refer to the early 2000s. SC plays ND every year. They had the same record each year, but one year ND was 3-9 and the other 9-3.
Southern Cals SOS suffered enough by ND being 3-9 that they did not get into the championship game but did when ND was 9-3.

Notre Dame faces the same problem when Navy has a good or bad record. Due to historical reasons, ND will not drop Navy from their schedule.

In 2032 the seniors on Notre Dame, NC State and Florida State are currently in 7th grade. Although the Florida State players may be 26 or 27 years old.

I think there must be some sort of SOS. Teams run into problems when they rely too much one ONE opponent. From 1990 to 2005 FSU was ranked every year (FSU was ranked in the TOP 5 for 11 years). That boosted UF's SOS. UF was ranked 14 of the 16 years which boosted FSU's SOS. Since the 2006 both UF and FSU have fallen off and both have worse SOS as a result. UF has been ranked 9 out of the 16 years and FSU has been ranked 8 of the 16 years (including several with losing seasons). FSU's SOS has also be impacted by the decline of Miami.

From 1990 to 2005 (16 years) UF played 185 opponents in the regular season with 74 ending up ranked. From 2006 to 2021 (16 years) UF played 193 opponents in the regular season with only 63 ranked (proportionally they should have played 77 ranked teams). The falloff has been in OOC games. From 1990 to 2005 UF played 21 ranked teams OOC (16 of those were FSU). From 2006 to 2021 UF played only 8 ranked opponent OOC (all are FSU). As you can see from my post above, UF is trying to do something about their OOC scheduling instead of just relying on FSU.

 

[Ron G]

I think there must be some sort of SOS. Teams run into problems when they rely too much one ONE opponent. From 1990 to 2005 FSU was ranked every year (FSU was ranked in the TOP 5 for 11 years). That boosted UF's SOS. UF was ranked 14 of the 16 years which boosted FSU's SOS. Since the 2006 both UF and FSU have fallen off and both have worse SOS as a result. UF has been ranked 9 out of the 16 years and FSU has been ranked 8 of the 16 years (including several with losing seasons). FSU's SOS has also be impacted by the decline of Miami.

From 1990 to 2005 (16 years) UF played 185 opponents in the regular season with 74 ending up ranked. From 2006 to 2021 (16 years) UF played 193 opponents in the regular season with only 63 ranked (proportionally they should have played 77 ranked teams). The falloff has been in OOC games. From 1990 to 2005 UF played 21 ranked teams OOC (16 of those were FSU). From 2006 to 2021 UF played only 8 ranked opponent OOC (all are FSU). As you can see from my post above, UF is trying to do something about their OOC scheduling instead of just relying on FSU.

But my point still stands. With scheduling stretching out over 10 years, teams that schedule UF, Florida State, Notre Dame, BYU, etc, expect those teams to help the SOS not hurt it.
I suspect that 15 of the top 25 teams in 2022 will be in the top 25 in 2032. But it you schedule the one that's down you are out of luck

I have always defended NDs schedule for this reason. Never an FCS team, two Pac 12 (Standford and SC), now 5 ACC teams, usually a Big 10 team,
often a Big 12 or SEC, and 2 Group of 5 teams or an independent (one of the Group 5 being Navy). Five years from now that will be a tough schedule and likely 10 years from now. The key being never an FCS. That is important when some people complain that ND does not play a championship game, ignoring that many of the conference champions have played an FCS team. So which game is actually the 13th, the Conference or the FCS game.

 

[Gator]

Get a collective agreement to limit who teams can schedule in the ooc part of the season. Zero FCS teams, only 1 G5 school, and either expand to 10 conf games or play 2 P5 schools every season in the ooc.

Not saying that will be easy, FCS teams love playing good FBS schools, as do G5 schools, it helps their programs. And struggling P5 programs often feel the need to play soft ooc schedules in order to just eek into a bowl game, which conferences are not necessarily opposed to as it adds money to the conference coffers as a whole.


It's a big system with every individual school looking out for their own individual needs and whats best for them, and their bottom lines, with US FANS being the last priority that they will consider when making these kinds of decisions.

The problem is NOT FCS schools. FCS schools are just a red herring. ONE of the problems is teams DON'T want to play ANY tough OOC games. Another is playing too many IN-conference games. Inter-conference games are a MUST. There needs to be more of them and better games (michigan playing Colorado does NOTHING for the rankings. Just look at the rankings from 2020. That year OOC games were dropped and as a result there was no way to compare teams from different conferences until the bowls. The polls were full of G5 teams and P5 pretenders. The average change for all 127 teams between the last Dec poll and the first Jan poll was 5.45 positions. Some teams changed as much as 20 spots. Ball St moved from#39 to #19 by beating San Jose St and TCU moved from #30 to #25 without even playing! UCLA fell 10 spots and Houston fell 20 spots and neither even played! Watch how much the teams move between the last Dec poll of 2022 and the Jan 2023 poll because there just isn't enough meaningful data!!!

 

[Gator]

But my point still stands. With scheduling stretching out over 10 years, teams that schedule UF, Florida State, Notre Dame, BYU, etc, expect those teams to help the SOS not hurt it.
I suspect that 15 of the top 25 teams in 2022 will be in the top 25 in 2032. But it you schedule the one that's down you are out of luck

I have always defended NDs schedule for this reason. Never an FCS team, two Pac 12 (Standford and SC), now 5 ACC teams, usually a Big 10 team,
often a Big 12 or SEC, and 2 Group of 5 teams or an independent (one of the Group 5 being Navy). Five years from now that will be a tough schedule and likely 10 years from now. The key being never an FCS. That is important when some people complain that ND does not play a championship game, ignoring that many of the conference champions have played an FCS team. So which game is actually the 13th, the Conference or the FCS game.

I have no problem with ND's scheduling. On the other hand, Wisconsin's?????

 

[Ron G]

I have no problem with ND's scheduling. On the other hand, Wisconsin's?????

Maybe that will change under Fickell. The Big 10 was floating a no FCS to be scheduled by any member. Don't know where that stands.

The downside is what happened a few years ago. Ohio State was the Big 10 champion with 2 losses. Alabama had one loss but was not the division champ and got into the playoff. Ohio State had no FCS team on its schedule that year. But did get beat by Oklahoma in one of its OOC games. Meanwhile, Alabama played The Citadel. Had Ohio State played an FCS and won by 40 points instead of Oklahoma, they would have been a 1 loss conference champ while Alabama was a 1 loss not even a division champ. Ohio State would have gotten the nod.

 

[dtgold88]

right.

and what if some important players for mich. get hurt and are out? then you are going to hear big talk of shutting down CCGs. there is no point.

Will be a point when they go to 12 as seems like winner is automatically in........also an extra win could help a team get either home field or a bye in round 1

 

[dtgold88]

No offense but this is the kind of thinking that is KILLING CFB. The good teams play few enough quality opponents as it is. They don't play anyone OOC anymore and now you want to eliminate CCG's.

Agree.....in addition, if CCG winner gets into CFP automatically with a 12 teamer teams might be more inclined to schedule more tough OOC knowing 1 loss wont derail the season.

 

[dtgold88]

Said much the same thing. They may as well rename it the Alabama invitational.

I'm hoping one of USC and Tcu lose so that OSU makes it in but not both. I'd almost prefer they both win as to lose.

Negative to the latter for me. If it means Bama gets in along with us I'll take that over not getting in. Though not 100% certain Bama passes both USC and TCU if they both lose....sure, history says they will.

 

[dtgold88]

I am not sure that both matter.
The only team that is likely not secured is USC.

USC clearly matters, that 2nd loss really opens the door for 1-loss Ohio State.

But if TCU loses, they are probably in regardless. And they should be as well.
The committee really likes Kansas State. Once I saw how staggeringly high K-State was ranked, that was a clear message for TCU as well.
TCU would have to get their asses kicked pretty badly.

Now if chaos ensues like LSU/Purdue/K-State/Utah all wins........then TCU could be a victim of the complete chaos reorder shuffling.

No so sure TCU makes it with a loss......that OOC could really hurt them. OSU would have better win and loss.

That said, doesn't mean they could not justify putting TCU in even with a loss.

 

[dtgold88]

I think they need to take scheduling away from the teams myself

at the very least I'd like them to be uniform among conferences with same number of conference games.

Would like them to somehow strongly encourage/require teams to play a top OOC game, another P5 then maybe a MAC type. At least make it known if you don't schedule it could hurt when they do their ranking.

 

[dtgold88]

I hope TCU gets in and win the National Championship.

This really points out my dislike of SOS as determined by the specific year the game is played. In 31 and 32, if Notre Dame and Florida State both have off years, say 6-6 or 5-7, UFs SOS will get downgraded. And yet it is not their goal to schedule easy games.

I always refer to the early 2000s. SC plays ND every year. They had the same record each year, but one year ND was 3-9 and the other 9-3.
Southern Cals SOS suffered enough by ND being 3-9 that they did not get into the championship game but did when ND was 9-3.

Notre Dame faces the same problem when Navy has a good or bad record. Due to historical reasons, ND will not drop Navy from their schedule.

In 2032 the seniors on Notre Dame, NC State and Florida State are currently in 7th grade. Although the Florida State players may be 26 or 27 years old.

I can agree with this, but also think they can take into account the intent from when the game was scheduled and not hold it against a school. same with us when we play Bama and UGA. All elite programs when scheduled...if one has shit the bed by then, don't hold it against the team who has not.

I get nothing can be done about SOS being lessened but committee (assuming there is one) can take into consideration.

 

[Gator]

Maybe that will change under Fickell. The Big 10 was floating a no FCS to be scheduled by any member. Don't know where that stands.

The downside is what happened a few years ago. Ohio State was the Big 10 champion with 2 losses. Alabama had one loss but was not the division champ and got into the playoff. Ohio State had no FCS team on its schedule that year. But did get beat by Oklahoma in one of its OOC games. Meanwhile, Alabama played The Citadel. Had Ohio State played an FCS and won by 40 points instead of Oklahoma, they would have been a 1 loss conference champ while Alabama was a 1 loss not even a division champ. Ohio State would have gotten the nod.

I don't mean to preach but, as I said before the FCS games are a red-herring (a distraction). I think every team should "shoot" for 3.5 to 4 ranked opponents per year (non Bowl Games). Over the past 32 years UW has played 83 ranked opponents (not counting Bowl Games). That works out to be 83/32 = 2.59 ranked teams per year. As many have pointed out teams don't have control over their IN-conference schedule. Thus UW needs to beef-up its OOC schedule. You want to schedule 15 years out.
UW should consult a site like this one

I-A Winning Percentage 2007-2021

stassen.com

You can see that over the PAST 15 seasons, UW has been the 2nd best B1G team (see link). Therefore UW should look to schedule one of the top 3 teams in another P5 conference EVERY YEAR.

I.e., one of :Alabama, Georgia, LSU from the SEC
OR one of : OU, Ok St, TCU from the Big 12
OR one of : Clemson, FSU, VT from the ACC
OR one of :Ore, Utah, USC from the PAC.

As insurance UW should schedule a second P5 game against one of the next 3 conference teams (teams 4-6).
one of : UF, Auburn, Texas A&M from the SEC
OR one of : Texas, WVU, KSU from the Big 12
OR one of : Miami, Pitt, Louisville from the ACC
OR one of : Stanford, ASU, Wash from the PAC

In any given year, my guess is that only 15 or 16 of these 32 teams will be ranked (~50%). So 50% of 2 teams = 1 ranked team. On average that would move UW up to 3.59 ranked teams per year (non Bowl Games). The average for the entire SEC over the past 32 seasons is 3.78 ranked teams per year (non Bowl Games).

UW can do whatever it wants with the remaining 2 games; play 2 G5 teams, or one G5 and one FCS, or an HBCU. The strength of the schedule is at the TOP not the bottom!

 

[dtgold88]

I don't mean to preach but, as I said before the FCS games are a red-herring (a distraction). I think every team should "shoot" for 3.5 to 4 ranked opponents per year (non Bowl Games). Over the past 32 years UW has played 83 ranked opponents (not counting Bowl Games). That works out to be 83/32 = 2.59 ranked teams per year. As many have pointed out teams don't have control over their IN-conference schedule. Thus UW needs to beef-up its OOC schedule. You want to schedule 15 years out.
UW should consult a site like this one

I-A Winning Percentage 2007-2021

stassen.com

You can see that over the PAST 15 seasons, UW has been the 2nd best B1G team (see link). Therefore UW should look to schedule one of the top 3 teams in another P5 conference EVERY YEAR.

I.e., one of :Alabama, Georgia, LSU from the SEC
OR one of : OU, Ok St, TCU from the Big 12
OR one of : Clemson, FSU, VT from the ACC
OR one of :Ore, Utah, USC from the PAC.

As insurance UW should schedule a second P5 game against one of the next 3 conference teams (teams 4-6).
one of : UF, Auburn, Texas A&M from the SEC
OR one of : Texas, WVU, KSU from the Big 12
OR one of : Miami, Pitt, Louisville from the ACC
OR one of : Stanford, ASU, Wash from the PAC

In any given year, my guess is that only 15 or 16 of these 32 teams will be ranked (~50%). So 50% of 2 teams = 1 ranked team. On average that would move UW up to 3.59 ranked teams per year (non Bowl Games). The average for the entire SEC over the past 32 seasons is 3.78 ranked teams per year (non Bowl Games).

UW can do whatever it wants with the remaining 2 games; play 2 G5 teams, or one G5 and one FCS, or an HBCU. The strength of the schedule is at the TOP not the bottom!

Possible the problem in the past or even now could be top teams don't/didn't want to schedule Wisconsin. Probably not a fun team to play and for the top teams you don't gain much as if you win many will say you are supposed to win (and decent chance you could lose). Guessing they are also a team that would want a true home and home series and not a 1 gamer or neutral site, likely much closer to their opponent.

 

[Ron G]

I don't mean to preach but, as I said before the FCS games are a red-herring (a distraction). I think every team should "shoot" for 3.5 to 4 ranked opponents per year (non Bowl Games). Over the past 32 years UW has played 83 ranked opponents (not counting Bowl Games). That works out to be 83/32 = 2.59 ranked teams per year. As many have pointed out teams don't have control over their IN-conference schedule. Thus UW needs to beef-up its OOC schedule. You want to schedule 15 years out.
UW should consult a site like this one

I-A Winning Percentage 2007-2021

stassen.com

You can see that over the PAST 15 seasons, UW has been the 2nd best B1G team (see link). Therefore UW should look to schedule one of the top 3 teams in another P5 conference EVERY YEAR.

I.e., one of :Alabama, Georgia, LSU from the SEC
OR one of : OU, Ok St, TCU from the Big 12
OR one of : Clemson, FSU, VT from the ACC
OR one of :Ore, Utah, USC from the PAC.

As insurance UW should schedule a second P5 game against one of the next 3 conference teams (teams 4-6).
one of : UF, Auburn, Texas A&M from the SEC
OR one of : Texas, WVU, KSU from the Big 12
OR one of : Miami, Pitt, Louisville from the ACC
OR one of : Stanford, ASU, Wash from the PAC

In any given year, my guess is that only 15 or 16 of these 32 teams will be ranked (~50%). So 50% of 2 teams = 1 ranked team. On average that would move UW up to 3.59 ranked teams per year (non Bowl Games). The average for the entire SEC over the past 32 seasons is 3.78 ranked teams per year (non Bowl Games).

UW can do whatever it wants with the remaining 2 games; play 2 G5 teams, or one G5 and one FCS, or an HBCU. The strength of the schedule is at the TOP not the bottom!

There are two issues here. 1st is that while it would be good for Wisconsin to schedule as you suggest, but would the other schools go along.
Second, at the beginning of the season the SEC always has more highly ranked teams than other conferences, giving those teams an early leg up.
Texas A & M is the best example of an over ranked schedule team based on its conference affiliation. Works in reverse also, Kansas for example.

I once toyed with a points system. 10 points for beating any FBS team. 5 points for losing to a Power Five, 0 points for losing to a Group 5.
0 points for beating an FCS and -10 for losing to an FCS. That would effectively end FCS scheduling. That would hurt the finances of some FCS teams but while that is bad for them it is good for the overall game. Except for rare case those games are actually dangerous for the FCS teams, especially those games played late in the season after injuries have piled up and the FCS teams have to play some players who are clearly unfit for a game against a Power Five team.