The non conference football schedule
- Thread starter RickinDayton
- Start date
Keep in mind that the entire schedule is about to get thrown for a loop and then some after the Big Ten formally goes to a no division format. We don't even know how many out of conference games we'll have next year or the year after much less who we'll play.
Either way--what is currently schedule is pathetic and shouldn't be tolerated.
I would imagine that will change with the ACC/PAC/BIG scheduling alliance. This schedule revamp is supposed to account for that upcoming change at some point in the near future.
I thought that scheduling alliance had died. I hope not, but last I heard it was not going to happen.
This is the effect of the playoff. Look at 2016 as an example. PSU finished the regular season with 2 losses, 1 to nonconference Pitt, and missed out on the playoff in favor of Washington who had 1 loss but a dreadful nonconference schedule (Portland St, Rutgers, Idaho). Had PSU played Idaho or Portland St instead of Pitt, they likely win and go to the playoff.
The committee has shown on a few occasions that if you're in a P5 conference, wins and losses matter more than a tough schedule because the conference schedule alone is sufficiently difficult enough. It improves your playoff chances to play 3 terrible nonconference teams with the likelihood of winning all 3. It sucks for ticket holders though. Until the committee actually shows they will reward schedule strength, I expect to see more schedules with terrible nonconference opponents.
The committee has shown on a few occasions that if you're in a P5 conference, wins and losses matter more than a tough schedule because the conference schedule alone is sufficiently difficult enough. It improves your playoff chances to play 3 terrible nonconference teams with the likelihood of winning all 3. It sucks for ticket holders though. Until the committee actually shows they will reward schedule strength, I expect to see more schedules with terrible nonconference opponents.
The problem was that Pitt was not a real good football team in 2016 they were OK-decent and finished 8-5 and there is no way they should have beaten PSU.
But the real issue that a 2-loss PSU was on the outside looking in at the Playoffs was the way they lost to Michigan - to say it was a blowout is an understatement. The committee even noted this as a huge factor in their selection of Washington as the 4th team. The 49-10 score was almost as bad as the game stats. Many PSU fans keep pointing out that OSU was the reason they didn't get in but that's false - if you didn't know the score and looked at the PSU - OSU game stats, you'd probably guess that OSU won that game without any problem. It was the Michigan BLOWOUT loss that was the deciding factor
Wrong. Had PSU lost to Michigan 24-21, they still wouldn’t have gotten in….it was about the 2 losses, period.
Not arguing that. The 2 losses were absolutely the determining factor. I was just trying to point out that whatever long-long shot PSU had at getting in with 2 losses - over Washington - went out the door when the Michigan thumping was examined no matter how some PSU fans try to spin it
Again, it wouldn’t have mattered what the score was. That’s why having a weak OOC schedule is better from a playoff standpoint. It may not be as great for some fans, but it’s better if you want to make the playoffs.
They could have gotten in over Washington if that game was respectable. Ohio State was clearly more deserving
deserving beserving, you should have to win your conference title
there are rules in place for determining a conference champion, if you aren't going to go by those then why have them? they were agreed upon in advance, we didn't make them up on the spot
there are rules in place for determining a conference champion, if you aren't going to go by those then why have them? they were agreed upon in advance, we didn't make them up on the spot
Especially, that big non-conf game in November-you know the one that’s played the week before their conf rival game….
You mean tbe one crafted by Sandy - supposed AD of year? Yeah - it’s a joke!
Last edited:
And they can get away with that. We can get away with 1 layup game as well because the Big Ten gives you a solid SOS but we're not the SEC on paper and you can pretend whatever you want but it matters
I don't think anybody knows that for certain unless they were on the committee.
The very next year, the debate was 11-2 Big Ten champ Ohio State vs. 11-1 Alabama (who didn't even win their division). Alabama got the nod and it was for two reasons: (1) 1 loss vs. 2 losses, and (2) OSU lost at Iowa by 30+ points. That last part was something the committee discussed quite a bit.
The same applies in 2016. Having 2 losses was tough to overcome, but the manner in which we lost to Michigan probably ended the debate entirely.
Last edited:
Ironically, many of the talking points for why OSU got in over us in 2016 was how they went to Oklahoma and dominated them on their home field. OSU got major bonus points for playing -- and beating -- an elite-level OOC opponent.
If OSU had a layup OOC schedule, the OSU vs. PSU debate in 2016 would have been much closer. Obviously the 1 loss vs. 2 losses also figures in, but the committee doesn't ignore stuff like performance in big games -- OOC and conference.
Washington was the team in 2016 that was suspect. Weak OOC and they got beat at home by the only elite-level team they played all year (USC).
Agree 100%. Some are arguing that a weak OOC schedule is beneficial to getting to the Playoffs, but on the other side of that argument is the SEC. I believe a couple of SEC teams - that haven't won the SEC title - have already gotten in the Playoffs over other conference champs because of their perceived strength of schedule in the SEC.
The main thing is that the committee picks the 4 best teams and conference championships are only part of the equation. Real simple : you're dead in the water if you lose 2 games in today's 4-team Playoffs.
Now with that said - IMHO - I actually think that PSU was better than Washington in 2016 but that 2nd loss just killed them
The two losses were a killer but we may have been in the actual discussion (not just for optics having won the Big Ten title) had we beat Pitt and been competitive with Michigan. Behind closed doors, I doubt we were ahead of Michigan in the discussion. We were the third best team in the East in 2016. No amount of wishful thinking changes that.
If PSU would have beaten Pitt in 2016 and had just the one loss to Michigan, they most certainly would have been in the Playoffs over both OSU and Washington for the 3rd Playoff spot.
No doubt.
Although that Pitt loss + a close loss to Michigan would have made for a very interesting conversation behind closed doors.
Frankly, the decision to put OSU and Washington ahead of us was a pretty easy one. Had we played Michigan competitively, I think even with 2 losses we would have made things interesting.
The committee can make up all the “reasons” they want…bottom line they put in who they want and up to this point, number of losses is the driving factor. Until a two loss team gets in, SOS means nothing (see Cincinnati and Washington).
You give the committee way too much credit. If they could put two SEC teams, OSU and Clemson in every year, they would regardless of SOS or any other metric. SOS is not a top priority.
A ton of different opinions in this thread but once the committee starts looking at teams, it all starts with the number of losses - plain and simple. With the current 4-team playoff, a 2-loss team is dead in the water no matter how some fans try to spin it
Ohio State has been left out on multiple occasions with 1 loss, and at least in one occasion it was because of SOS. The other being the manner in which they got clobbered by Purdue in 2018.
Teams that get blown out aren't looked at favorably by the committee, period.
Only one team that lost a game by 20+ has ever gotten into the playoff. Georgia in 2017, who lost @ Auburn by 23.
Losing by 39 to Michigan was a near-disqualifying event by itself. Being the 2nd loss simply moved our probability down to zero.
And OSU doesn’t make it when they can put two SEC teams in. So you honestly believe if Bama had one loss and it was a blow out loss, they wouldn’t get in? Bottom line, SOS means squat….if it did, Cincinnati would not have gotten in.
Cincinnati got in because they were undefeated and beat a really good Notre Dame team. If they had 1-loss, there's zero chance they would have gotten in. So yes, SOS matters.
Other G5 teams that went unbeaten but had no big wins did not make the playoff. Western Michigan, UCF, etc. What set Cincinnati apart was the fact they had a top-level OOC game -- and won it.
That's why Georgia in 2017 was the only team to ever lose by 20+ to get in. They had a great schedule that year, including a win @ Notre Dame.
Notice a trend? Big wins in the OOC matter to the committee.
This notion that the committee only wishes to reward the SEC or Ohio State or Clemson is silly. Those teams get in because they're typically the best.
Right here^^^^
The best 4 teams should make the playoffs and that has consistently been the SEC, Ohio State, Clemson and Oklahoma.
The committee elevated Michigan State over 11-1 Ohio State in 2015 -- both had only 1 loss, but Sparty won the head-to-head. There were many who believed that OSU was the better team (eye test) -- or at least better than 11-1 Oklahoma who also made the CFP -- but nonetheless the committee kept them out. Committee also kept 12-1 Ohio State out in 2018.
Fun fact. The SEC has only gotten 2 teams in 3 times: 2017, 2019, and 2021. In 2014, 2015, 2016, 2018, and 2020, only 1 SEC team made it.
Some of these theories about favoritism just don't hold up.
And I know a few Buckeye fans that consider that 2015 team better than the one that won the NC in 2014. Many will tell you that Urban's decisions in the OSU-MSU game were "sorry" at best
Factoid: The last time Penn State won a game in the state of Alabama was 1990- a robust defense lead by future Miami greaseball Mark D'Onofrio.
I just found this on 247 Sports. They ranked the top 5 CF programs of the last 20 years. Many right away think Alabama, Clemson, OSU and OK but seem to overlook #2. All of the top 4 had multiple NCs
The SOS argument is completely different for G5 teams that don't get much SOS from their conferences as compared to the P5 conference schedules.
So basically you’re saying the system is the same as the old AP poll days except they take four teams instead of two….doesn’t seem to be much of an improvement.
So being undefeated and beating one good team all year is better than having one or two losses and beating four or five good teams…SOS means nothing. And that’s fine, but until it does mean something, it would be dumb of any team in a strong conference to have a tough OOC schedule.
And how many times has the Big Ten had 2 of the top 4 teams in the country?
I get it. We want to play the victim and allege some kind of conspiracy against us and/or the Big Ten, but I can't think of a single instance in which two Big Ten teams deserved to get in the CFP the same season.
No?
