I agree. scheduling mid-tier teams from power conferences would do the trick. we would probably win those games and it would go a lot farther than beating buffalo or marshall
Youngstown St….er…..West Virginia whooping BYU
- Thread starter The Spin Meister
- Start date
It has nothing to do with those games. You schedule two cupcakes at home and one P5 team each year. That’s fine and that’s what the vast majority of teams do (well, most SEC teams play 3 cupcakes and one team with a pulse non- conference). The problem is the idiotic Temple series when that needs to be a home/away against a real team.
Many/some are okay with Syracuse/BC/WVU because it reminds them of the past. It's nostalgia. Those games don't add anything of value.
Syracuse/bc/wvu in the same year would maybe be ok. less of a joke than what we have now
Moving forward it will be worse. Any team in Big will be playing OSU, USC, UCLA, Oregon, Michigan and PSU all in one season or close to it. Why also schedule Clemson or FSU or LSU?
because someone else in the league is going to schedule that way. and then when you have the same record as them, they will get picked for the playoff due to better sos
but also, we aren't even talking about scheduling Clemson or LSU. we are talking about the fact that our marquee ooc opponent is WVU in 2023/2024, and we are heading into years where the marquee ooc opponent is temple. this is bad scheduling and these used to be the bottom teams on our schedule
Doesn’t seem to hurt Georgia or Michigan.
Yep. I actually don’t necessarily think we should be scheduling “elite” teams unless the CFP committee shows they really give “extra credit” for those games. Right now they’ve basically emphasized fewer losses so those big games add little value beyond bragging rights.
I’m expecting that the expanded playoffs will put more emphasis on schedule strength but not as much as record (more as a tiebreaker between teams with the same record). I have a feeling they will dog teams that don’t play any P5 teams more then they will boost anyone for the quality of OOC competition. So I think getting at least some mid tier ACC or Big 12 team in there over Temple is more important than needing to have an Oklahoma type on the schedule.
True, but things will be different with the 12 team playoff when they will be choosing from among 2 and 3 loss teams. Right now they only care about fewest losses (and winning your conference as a secondary criteria)
With the teams coming in our conference schedule will be more than drought to qualify for a 12 team playoff with two losses. OOC games will be less relevant in this conference. Same with SEC.
For ones like the ACC and Big 12 OOC games would be critical.
It may moving forward
Georgia plays Ga Tech yearly plus have scheduled Clemson, Ohio State, UCLA, Florida State and Louisville. In 2027, they have FSU, Ga Tech and Louisville. That year we have--Syracuse, Delaware and Temple. Even if their 4th game is Delaware-esque we can't defend our schedule
Michigan, who's schedule was worse than our's this year, has Texas and Fresno State next year. Far better than us. In addition to Texas they have Oklahoma and ND on future schedules
It's okay to admit our schedule isn't good enough and it will likely screw us when we're being compared to other teams for playoff spots.
It's going to be very difficult for the ACC or Big XII to get 2 teams but we're going to compared with other SEC and Big Ten teams--our schedule will hurt us. And, truthfully, it should
It will certainly hurt Michigan this year if they drop a game and are on the outside looking in when they very well could be one of the four best teams.
Maybe psu should drop out of the big ten and schedule he teams joe used to play like army, navy, air force, Syracuse, bc, temple, Pitt, Rutgers, and wvu. Would you be impressed?
no, but you are talking about a teams that haven't been a regular part of the schedule since before 1990 (and even then, the schedule was more difficult than what you are describing).
was is more difficult? That was pretty much the schedule. A game here or there vs nc state. A few games vs Notre Dame. I guess you could find a blue chip occasionally but there were also Mac teams in there.
The big ten is a more difficult schedule. Do you want to debate that?
many of those teams were on the schedule, but go back and look at some of those schedule from the 1990s.. There were also games against teams like USC, Alabama and ND (e.g., 1990); Miami, Arizona (e.g., 1999). If you go back far enough, the Pitt game was actually a difficult game. There were simply more challenging games on the schedule in many years.
No. The schedule was easier. Psu also had a competitive advantage. Pennsylvania was producing twice as much talent back then. Psu was also recruiting ohio. Joe eventually was recruiting from his rocking chair and he let Ohio state pass by psu. OSU is now at a different level.
so do you think the 1990 schedule was easier than what we play today?
It included USC, Texas, ND, Alabama in the same season. we then played Florida State in the bowl game.
in 1999 we played Arizona, Miami, Ohio State, Michigan, Purdue with Drew Brees, and MSU with Plaxico Burress
how were those schedules easier than what we have now - Delaware State, Umass, WVu? we literally have a two game season this year
Don’t know and don’t care. Your repeated claim that WVU is a “bad” team is beyond asinine.
WVU is ranked 39th in the coaches poll, 35th in the AP, 34th in the Massey Composite ( the average of all of the computer polls), and 33rd in Sagarin. So, if you think WVU is horrible, either you are smarter than everyone else or every team not ranked in the top 25 is horrible. Which is it?
There's no such thing as ranked 39th because one coach coach or writer put them at 25. Only the top 25 are ranked. No one else.
There isn't a good team probably outside the top 17 this year. Again, the divide in college football is getting bigger and bigger each year. There's very few good teams.
If we played WVU 100 times how many do they win? If they're lucky once? Good teams will beat great teams 20% of the time or more. WVU has zero chance to do that. They're not a good team. Not at all. But keep pretending.
Agreed. And they weren't a good matchup for us coming into the season. Our big question was "could we stop the run". WVU has a first team AA center and a very good OL across the board. Plus they have a very good 240 lb RB who is very athletic. They put up 336 yards rushing on BYU. They rank 9th in the nation in rushing yards. (5th if you take out lesser teams like Air Force and Toledo).
College Football Stats - College FB Team Rushing Yards per Game | TeamRankings.com
College Football rushing yards per game, by team.
www.teamrankings.com
If WVU is "bad" then like 2/3 of all Div 1-A teams are "bad" and that just seems like an absurd characterization. How many "average" teams are there then? like 3?
IDK. wins will be more important than SOS. In every ranking, and with very few exceptions, P5 teams with the fewest losses are ranked the highest.
And our SOS is just fine. By the end of the year, we'll have played two top-five schools (at the time of the game) and several in the top 50. The B1G west is unusually weak this year so that hurts. But there aren't too many team that will play two top 5 ranked teams in a single season.
At least 2/3s of teams are bad. Bad is in comparison to the top teams. Not each other.
That makes no sense whatsoever - bad is bad - you can't just so well they are only bad when they play this team but not bad when they play that team - they are either bad every damn day or not and if you are saying 2/3 of all College Teams are bad that is just stupid.
How is it stupid? Compare them to us? If they can't beat us 15-20% of the time they're a bad team.
So that is your only qualifier for what makes a bad team - that there is stupid.
What makes a team good to you?
To me, it's being about to be competitive against the best. Why you or anyone would think that is stupid is beyond me.
You're twisting yourself into a pretzel coming up with excuses as to how WVU is ranked in the 30's in every poll but are somehow "horrible" and no better than ECU like you have been claiming. They are an average to above average team. Why can't you admit you were wrong?
I can admit I'm wrong when I am. I'm not here. Same nonsense with Purdue and Syracuse last year. Raise the damn bar. They're not a good team. The only Big XII teams that are even in the discussion to be "not bad" are Texas, Oklahoma State, Oklahoma and Kansas with Daniels. And some of those are borderline at best. It's like the Big Ten has 3 teams that aren't awful. That's just honest.
Why are you so adamant that what I consider "bad" isn't acceptable? You don't define that. Most teams in college football are bad. That's just reality. The gap between the haves and everyone else is getting larger and larger.
That doesn't make any sense. A bunch of people rank the Top 25, 25 points is given to the team at #1, 24 to the team at #2, etc, down to 1 for the team at #25. Then the points are added up and the teams are ranked from top to bottom. They take the top 25 and call it "The Top 25" but that doesn't mean the teams below that aren't ranked 26, 27, etc.
They are absolutely not ranked. If they were ranked coaches and writers would rank all teams. If you don't finish in the top 25 it's irrelevant. Again, WVU got a single vote in one of the polls (forget which one) so some guy--maybe a local voter or their coach--put them at 25. It has zero meaning that's why there's not a number next to their name.
Edit--it was the coaches poll so probably either their coach, someone who played them or someone who has a relationship with their staff. Absolutely meaningless. Clemson got a vote in the AP lol
In the AP--it was the Huntington WV voter and one in Raleigh--so 2 voters--TWO had them ranked and you want them to be considered ranked?
Last edited:
If teams outside the top 25 aren't ranked like I described then why is the, say, #24 team ranked #24 even though they're not in the top 25 on some voter's ballots?
Because the point of it is weed out the one offs--such as the 3 people combined in the two polls that threw on WVU because they couldn't think of anyone else. If they picked their top 40 then 40 would be ranked but only 25 are being ranked--if you're outside of that it's the same as having zero votes.
Again, do they put a number next to their name--of course not, because they're NOT RANKED
Similar threads
