Scheduling

[B Lifsey]

Hopefully, it is opportunity for back-ups to get real game-time experience. Note the use of "hopefully."

 

[jeffgt14]

Personally, I fail to see why schools like UGA, Bama and such even play FCS schools. It nothing more than a W and way to pad stats. It contributes nothing to the sport. Even us. I rather see us play a MAC school, than some crappy FCS school. Which we see one, next year.. LOL But, there are plenty of lower FBS teams out there. Why waste the money to pay a FCS school? Just seems like a waste. I mean... do we (as fans) really like seeing us play Furman or Southern Methodist school for girls and craps like that?

I’m ok with it. It’s “supposed” to give you a chance to rest some, work on things mid-year in a real game, and give younger guys some experience. We of course like to keep those games close enough that we get to do none of these things. My problem is the obvious favoritism towards certain schools on where they put these games on their schedule. Similar to how it screws us by teams getting cupcakes before they play us, teams like Bama get them before any real competition.

 

[FredJacket]

Personally, I fail to see why schools like UGA, Bama and such even play FCS schools. It nothing more than a W and way to pad stats. It contributes nothing to the sport. Even us. I rather see us play a MAC school, than some crappy FCS school. Which we see one, next year.. LOL But, there are plenty of lower FBS teams out there. Why waste the money to pay a FCS school? Just seems like a waste. I mean... do we (as fans) really like seeing us play Furman or Southern Methodist school for girls and craps like that?

^^This^^

I'd love to see a 9 or 10 game ACC schedule plus UGA and then 1-2 'quality' FBS opponents. I'd be cool with constantly rotating Ga Southern and Ga State every other year...and/or add another P5 game. I'd like that P5 game to be an opponent that helps with recruiting and revenue....tons of choices (MOST SEC teams) as well as ND who is already in a rotation with their ACC deal.

...but the FCS opponent generates very little interest for me. I live a significant distance from Atlanta... but love to get to BDS for at least one game a year. That FCS game is a big "no thanks" for guys like me considering the trip.

 

[JacketFromUGA]

You guys are all creating arguments that Shaw was not talking about. All he's saying is if we are comparing teams then we need to make it so the variables are the same.

 

[jeffgt14]

You guys are all creating arguments that Shaw was not talking about. All he's saying is if we are comparing teams then we need to make it so the variables are the same.

Well we don’t compare resumes anymore. Don’t you know this?

 

[RonJohn]

You guys are all creating arguments that Shaw was not talking about. All he's saying is if we are comparing teams then we need to make it so the variables are the same.

He is also saying that a 9 game Pac-12 schedule is more difficult than an 8 game ACC schedule plus an additional P5 team. He is also complaining that USC didn't have a bye week. I fail to see how that is the fault of anyone outside of USC and the Pac-12. USC was given every opportunity by the poll voters, but they lost to Washington St and they wet the bed against an ND team that was tromped by Miami.

When are all of the variables the same? Alabama scheduled a top 5 team to start this season. That top 5 team barely made a bowl game. No matter who you schedule now, in a few years when you play they could be a great team or a weak team. Even using more conference games, there is no guarantee of many strong or many weak teams. The Pac-12 hasn't exactly been a very strong conference this year. The ACC is making plans to either have 9 conference games plus another P5 or 8 conference games plus two P5s. If GT has to have 9 ACC games, plus the mutts, plus ND in a year that will only leave the ability to schedule 1 game. There will be less chance of comparing conferences, so the "subjective" view of the conferences and teams will be even more difficult that it is now.

 

[smathis30]

It's different because USC played 12 power 5 teams this year. Playing that many games allows a higher chance of upsets. Why do you think the two leagues with 8 game conference schedules haven't been omitted yet? I agree about the November cup cake it's dumb. Most if not all big ten, big 12, and pac12 all schedule a power 5 outside their conference slate as it allows them to recruit other geography cal regions.

 

[MWBATL]

It is disturbing that two teams for ANY conference are allowed into the Top 4 CFP unless there is a clear and compelling reason to do so. In my mind, if it's a close call, the conference champion should be the tiebreaker and get in. I can see the arguments between Bama, USC, Wisky, and Ohio State being relatively close. That means to me the conference champs should get the slot...so it should have come down to USC or Ohio State.

Those rating Bama so highly are generally the old farts who still think the SEC is the best football conference in the country. It isn't...not this year. And Bama has not played at a level that should rate this treatment this year. They have played a weak schedule in a weak conference and gotten in on reputation alone (which drives me nuts).

 

[jeffgt14]

I'd like to see the top teams in the SEC have to get scheduled a road game on a Friday night too. Clemson, USC, and Miami all took looses on a Friday night game on the road. Why is the SEC not forced to play one?

 

[smathis30]

I'd like to see the top teams in the SEC have to get scheduled a road game on a Friday night too. Clemson, USC, and Miami all took looses on a Friday night game on the road. Why is the SEC not forced to play one?

because saturday game slots pay more and are viewed by more people? Only Clemson and FSU would make the top half (and barely so) in attendance in the SEC, which is a good indicator of TV ratings. SEC is still king in ratings and will continue to do so for the near future.

Bama had the best resume. Eye test is an established metric, and 30 point losses disqualified Penn State in 2016, Ohio State, Miami, and USC in 2017. Playoff caliber teams shouldn't be blown out. It is what it is. And its been consistent. Georgia lost by 24, but they also beat that same team that beat them so its a moot point. They got lucky to get redemption. Wisconsin arguably has a shot, but their resume is by far the weakest
Team- 10+wins,9+ wins- 8+ wins, bowl elgible wins, (g5 inparentheses)
Clemson-2-3-6-10
Oklahoma-2-3-3-8
Georgia-1-2-5(1)-7(1)
Bama-0-2(1)-3(1)-7(2)
Ohio State-2-3-5(1)-5(1)
Wisconsin-0-2(1)-3(1)-5(1)
USC-0-2-2-9
UCF-(2)-(3)-(3)-(7)

Seems obvious that Clemson and Oklahoma get in, Georgia also deserves a shot. USC whiffed against all their elite competition, and relied on beating 6-6 and 7-5 teams. Ohio state had a top heavy and bottom heavy schedule. Wisconsin had a very bottom heavy schedule. UCF has a similar resume to every team, but against far weaker competition. Take into consideration the blowout losses, and you can see why Bama sneaks in.

 

[RonJohn]

because saturday game slots pay more and are viewed by more people? Only Clemson and FSU would make the top half (and barely so) in attendance in the SEC, which is a good indicator of TV ratings. SEC is still king in ratings and will continue to do so for the near future.

Bama had the best resume. Eye test is an established metric, and 30 point losses disqualified Penn State in 2016, Ohio State, Miami, and USC in 2017. Playoff caliber teams shouldn't be blown out. It is what it is. And its been consistent. Georgia lost by 24, but they also beat that same team that beat them so its a moot point. They got lucky to get redemption. Wisconsin arguably has a shot, but their resume is by far the weakest
Team- 10+wins,9+ wins- 8+ wins, bowl elgible wins, (g5 inparentheses)
Clemson-2-3-6-10
Oklahoma-2-3-3-8
Georgia-1-2-5(1)-7(1)
Bama-0-2(1)-3(1)-7(2)
Ohio State-2-3-5(1)-5(1)
Wisconsin-0-2(1)-3(1)-5(1)
USC-0-2-2-9
UCF-(2)-(3)-(3)-(7)

Seems obvious that Clemson and Oklahoma get in, Georgia also deserves a shot. USC whiffed against all their elite competition, and relied on beating 6-6 and 7-5 teams. Ohio state had a top heavy and bottom heavy schedule. Wisconsin had a very bottom heavy schedule. UCF has a similar resume to every team, but against far weaker competition. Take into consideration the blowout losses, and you can see why Bama sneaks in.

But if OSU had been the fourth team, you could look at the 10+ win teams they played and seen why OSU got in over Bama. Any system where you don't know what it takes to qualify and explanations can be made for excluding a team is broken. If conference champs get in the committee cannot exclude anyone. If you need an at-large bid to get in then by definition you did not qualify and should have no standing to argue.

 

[RonJohn]

It's different because USC played 12 power 5 teams this year. Playing that many games allows a higher chance of upsets. Why do you think the two leagues with 8 game conference schedules haven't been omitted yet? I agree about the November cup cake it's dumb. Most if not all big ten, big 12, and pac12 all schedule a power 5 outside their conference slate as it allows them to recruit other geography cal regions.

So if Alabama had played Florida instead of FSU, they could not have made it? If UGA had played Arkansas instead of GT, they could not have made it? UGA played 10 P5 games this year if you count ND as P5. Alabama played 9 P5 games this year. Why does it make a difference if the 9th game is in conference or out?

 

[RedPete]

This year the SEC was thisclose to getting exposed. We just needed one more LSU loss (ideally to Syracuse) and one more loss by Miss State (Arkansas gave it to them). Then we’d be left with just 3 ranked SEC teams and only one in the CFP.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[smathis30]

But if OSU had been the fourth team, you could look at the 10+ win teams they played and seen why OSU got in over Bama. Any system where you don't know what it takes to qualify and explanations can be made for excluding a team is broken. If conference champs get in the committee cannot exclude anyone. If you need an at-large bid to get in then by definition you did not qualify and should have no standing to argue.

Sometimes the best team in the conference doesn't win the championship. There's 10 conference champs, 5 power 5 champs so they are always excluded. It's a dumb argument. Makes it impossible for Norte dame to make it even when they deserve it. And once again, add a column for precedent: you don't make it if you lose by 30 points and have two losses and voila everything makes sense! It happened last year and happened again this year. Wins matter, but so do losses. You can't just keep ignoring the fact that they lost twice and no team that has lost twice has made it. That's called precedent.

 

[smathis30]

So if Alabama had played Florida instead of FSU, they could not have made it? If UGA had played Arkansas instead of GT, they could not have made it? UGA played 10 P5 games this year if you count ND as P5. Alabama played 9 P5 games this year. Why does it make a difference if the 9th game is in conference or out?

I'm honestly surprised bama doesn't get flack for their schedule but their ok the field performance, ya know the committee defined "eye test", is hard to argue against. They beat every team uga did in common (bar auburn the second time). And playing a playoff caliber team before half their team got injured is something you also have to take into consideration. And for the larger conference slate, lets look at FSU and Clemson the last few years.
Clemsons losses IOIIIRIRIIROIIIIRIIIRO
Of their 22 most recent regular season losses, 14 were in in conference, 5 were rivalry games, and 3 were out of conference. 19/22 were from teams they play every year.
For Florida state in that same window:
OIIIIIIIIIIIROIIIOIIIOIIIIR
4/27 were out of conference. 2/27 rivalry games and 21/27 for a total of 23/27 losses come from teams they play. Roughly every year on a rotating home away basis. You can't be bama and dictate neutral sites on conference games. You have to win in the road. And that's why it's more difficult and why every conf with a 9 team schedule has been left out already and everyone with 8 hasn't been left out

 

[RedPete]

This year the SEC was thisclose to getting exposed. We just needed one more LSU loss (ideally to Syracuse) and one more loss by Miss State (Arkansas gave it to them). Then we’d be left with just 3 ranked SEC teams and only one in the CFP.

...And of course we should’ve beat Tennessee and NC State should’ve beat Slouch Carolina. Point is it wouldn’t have taken much for the SEC bias hype to be unsustainable, and for everyone to see Bama’s weak schedule for what it was.

 

[jeffgt14]

UCF beat up on a bunch of .500 teams all year long just like Bama and don't have a loss. Why are they not in consideration?

 

[jeffgt14]

Also FWIW, if South Florida was playing LSU (Bama's best win), my money would be on South Florida and I don't even think it would be a one score game. Possibly the same with Memphis and UCF beat them twice.

 

[tech_wreck47]

UCF beat up on a bunch of .500 teams all year long just like Bama and don't have a loss. Why are they not in consideration?

Because their .500 teams they played are not as good as the .500 teams Bama played.

 

[smathis30]

Also FWIW, if South Florida was playing LSU (Bama's best win), my money would be on South Florida and I don't even think it would be a one score game. Possibly the same with Memphis and UCF beat them twice.

South Florida was 0-2 against bowl elgible teams and 9-0 against teams that weren't bowl elgible.
Memphis best win was a close game against a 6-6 UCLA. Other that its a meh schedule. UCF beat 4 teams with less than 4 wins. Bama beat 3. And Bama played power 5 competition. Wisconsins best win is debatably FAU or Northwestern (who also lost to Duke).