Schedules....... and why the "Final Four" contestants are "Who they Are"

[stormingnorm]

Pre-season rankings, vav specific teams, are more than a little silly.
But, in composite, they are generally at least a decent harbinger - - - - and its all one has at this point.


Looking at the schedules of the current Top 25 teams......… it isn't hard to figure out who the two overwhelming favorites are to "earn" a trip to the End-of-Year 4 Team Invitational:


Teams Playing ZERO Top 15 Opponents:

- CLEMSON (LOL)
- MIAMI (Yeah, that ACC is a meat-grinder )
- OKLAHOMA
- BOISE ST and UCF (neither of whom has even a single Top 25 team on the schedule)


Teams Playing ONE Top 15 Opponent:

- ALABAMA (Roll Tide? "But, but, but, the SEC is sooooo tough!" )
- GEORGIA
- WVU
- OKLAHOMA STATE


Teams playing TWO Top 15 Opponents:

- WASHINGTON
- USC
- WISCONSIN
- TCU
- VA TECH
- FLORIDA ST
- TEXAS
- MISSISSIPPI ST


Teams Playing THREE Top 15 Opponents:

- OHIO STATE
- MICHIGAN STATE
- STANFORD
- AUBURN
- NOTRE DAME


And - the "Good Luck, Boys" Schedules

Teams Playing FOUR Top 15 Opponents:

- PENN STATE
- LSU


Teams Playing FIVE Top 15 Opponents:

- MICHIGAN

(FWIW, Rutgers is - I believe - the only other program in the country to play FIVE Top 15 teams. They are gonna' need a MASH Unit)



With the schedules of Clemson and Alabama..... everyone else is realistically playing for one of two available spots in the "Final Four".


It would be interesting to note how many times over the next several weeks the Idiotic Talking Head Brigade mentions "PSU's favorable schedule", vs how many mentions there are of Clemson, Alabama, Georgia, Oklahoma, and Miami's cupcake platters.



Let the games begin

 

[Thomas1945]

I’m not completely certain, but this type of easy scheduling could perhaps be deliberate. Now why would someone do that? Glad it has absolutely no effect on who makes the playoffs every year.

 

[Woodpecker]

BOISE ST and UCF (neither of whom has even a single Top 25 team on the schedule)

Now why would someone do that?

NCAA recognizes UCF's national championship

 

[Option Bob]

NCAA recognizes UCF's national championship

Woodpecker, I enjoy your sense of humor in this board, but are you joking abut the NCAA's recognition of UCF's claim for a NC? If not, what reasoning was used? Would it not be appropriate then for all teams who have completed undefeated AND untied seasons, including Bowl games, to have those seasons likewise authorized?

Time for Penn State to claim 1968, 1969, 1973, and 1994 as official NC teams.

 

[78SweetRevenge]

Teams don't control their conference schedules and teams ranked in the top 15 in the pre-season doesn't mean anything. We'll see what the numbers look like in 3 months

 

[mcgunns]

Makes me sick that they still punish playing good opponents in college football. Imagine the matchups we would get to see every year if a quality win had more value than not losing a game.

 

[Howie'81]

Makes me sick that they still punish playing good opponents in college football. Imagine the matchups we would get to see every year if a quality win had more value than not losing a game.

The Committee is supposed to adjust for that, but they haven't really so far.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

Pre-season rankings, vav specific teams, are more than a little silly.
But, in composite, they are generally at least a decent harbinger - - - - and its all one has at this point.


Looking at the schedules of the current Top 25 teams......… it isn't hard to figure out who the two overwhelming favorites are to "earn" a trip to the End-of-Year 4 Team Invitational:


Teams Playing ZERO Top 15 Opponents:

- CLEMSON (LOL)
- MIAMI (Yeah, that ACC is a meat-grinder )
- OKLAHOMA
- BOISE ST and UCF (neither of whom has even a single Top 25 team on the schedule)


Teams Playing ONE Top 15 Opponent:

- ALABAMA (Roll Tide? "But, but, but, the SEC is sooooo tough!" )
- GEORGIA
- WVU
- OKLAHOMA STATE


Teams playing TWO Top 15 Opponents:

- WASHINGTON
- USC
- WISCONSIN
- TCU
- VA TECH
- FLORIDA ST
- TEXAS
- MISSISSIPPI ST


Teams Playing THREE Top 15 Opponents:

- OHIO STATE
- MICHIGAN STATE
- STANFORD
- AUBURN
- NOTRE DAME


And - the "Good Luck, Boys" Schedules

Teams Playing FOUR Top 15 Opponents:

- PENN STATE
- LSU


Teams Playing FIVE Top 15 Opponents:

- MICHIGAN

(FWIW, Rutgers is - I believe - the only other program in the country to play FIVE Top 15 teams. They are gonna' need a MASH Unit)



With the schedules of Clemson and Alabama..... everyone else is realistically playing for one of two available spots in the "Final Four".


It would be interesting to note how many times over the next several weeks the Idiotic Talking Head Brigade mentions "PSU's favorable schedule", vs how many mentions there are of Clemson, Alabama, Georgia, Oklahoma, and Miami's cupcake platters.



Let the games begin

Would love to see the NCAA develop/adopt a more comprehensive metric to replace the dreaded 'eye test'. Any thoughts on how something like what they're doing with college basketball (to replace RPI) would work?

 

[Woodpecker]

Woodpecker, I enjoy your sense of humor in this board, but are you joking abut the NCAA's recognition of UCF's claim for a NC? If not, what reasoning was used? Would it not be appropriate then for all teams who have completed undefeated AND untied seasons, including Bowl games, to have those seasons likewise authorized?

Time for Penn State to claim 1968, 1969, 1973, and 1994 as official NC teams.

According to the article that I linked, "The college sports governing body doesn’t list national champions, in part, because it doesn’t control the postseason format at the Football Bowl Subdivision level. Instead, the NCAA recognizes the teams that finish atop major polls." As such, if you look at the list in the NCAA guide referenced in the article and apply the same criterion, one could add 1969 and 1994. However, as a sane fan base, we choose not to.

 

[Howie'81]

According to the article that I linked, "The college sports governing body doesn’t list national champions, in part, because it doesn’t control the postseason format at the Football Bowl Subdivision level. Instead, the NCAA recognizes the teams that finish atop major polls." As such, if you look at the list in the NCAA guide referenced in the article and apply the same criterion, one could add 1969 and 1994. However, as a sane fan base, we choose not to.

Well, I don't think it would be so insane to add 1969 and 1994.

 

[Option Bob]

According to the article that I linked, "The college sports governing body doesn’t list national champions, in part, because it doesn’t control the postseason format at the Football Bowl Subdivision level. Instead, the NCAA recognizes the teams that finish atop major polls." As such, if you look at the list in the NCAA guide referenced in the article and apply the same criterion, one could add 1969 and 1994. However, as a sane fan base, we choose not to.

Thank you for replying. I didn't move my cursor over your message; thus, I didn't notice that it was a link. I do not consider the idea of awarding "mythical" national titles to Division 1 teams who have completed an entire season PLUS a Bowl game undefeated and untied. But then, I have little respect for sportswriters who have voted in AP polls or in whomever coaches have assigned to vote in the old UPI/USA Today polls.

The past is basically irrelevant anyway, but for a few old-timers like me, it would be nice to see at least the 1969 and 1994 squads receive their deserved recognition as national champions.

 

[78SweetRevenge]

The main reason I want an 16-24 team playoff is I believe teams should be rewarded for scheduling tough out of conference games. That's the only way that's ever going to happen. This entire notion that 11-1 is better than 10-2 simply isn't true because the schedules aren't comparable.

 

[mcgunns]

Given the realities of college football I find it shocking that they haven't gone to the 8 team playoff of:
Auto-bid for all P5 winners
2 at-large P5
1 at-large FBS team

It's nearly impossible to accurately determine how relatively good the conferences are each year. Leaving a champ out based on subjective perceptions of conference strength doesn't make any sense.

 

[Agoodnap]

Given the realities of college football I find it shocking that they haven't gone to the 8 team playoff of:
Auto-bid for all P5 winners
2 at-large P5
1 at-large FBS team

It's nearly impossible to accurately determine how relatively good the conferences are each year. Leaving a champ out based on subjective perceptions of conference strength doesn't make any sense.

I like this except I'd change the at-large bids to:

3 at-large, 1 of which must be from G5 teams.

 

[KnightSlayer]

Teams don't control their conference schedules and teams ranked in the top 15 in the pre-season doesn't mean anything. We'll see what the numbers look like in 3 months

Doesn't mean anything? It may not mean everything but, to say it doesn't mean anything is absurd.

 

[mcgunns]

I like this except I'd change the at-large bids to:

3 at-large, 1 of which must be from G5 teams.

Oh yea that's what I intended by FBS which I now realize is incorrect.
I'm still confused by all the label changes.

 

[78SweetRevenge]

Doesn't mean anything? It may not mean everything but, to say it doesn't mean anything is absurd.

Where teams are ranked at the end of the year is all that matters. That's why it's dumb to want ND to beat Michigan or TCU to beat Ohio State.

 

[Agoodnap]

Oh yea that's what I intended by FBS which I now realize is incorrect.
I'm still confused by all the label changes.

My modification would allow up to 3 G5 teams and a maximum of 7 P5 teams.

 

[Nitwit97]

Makes me sick that they still punish playing good opponents in college football. Imagine the matchups we would get to see every year if a quality win had more value than not losing a game.

This is why playoff should be 8 teams. P5 champs and three at large. Outside of Notre Dame, name the last non-P5 to win a national title. . .

This would give teams the ability to play a strong out of conference opponent(s) without fear of dashing playoff hopes. Who knows, Alabama might actually play a game north of Tennessee for the first time since (PSU in 11??).

They just need a way to chop the money. It should get done