Started By
Message
Just heard a pod from the 247 guy covering a certain team and he says the SEC should stop
Posted on 12/9/24 at 1:58 pm
Posted on 12/9/24 at 1:58 pm
scheduling tough OOC schedules if the committee is not gonna honor it.
Can anyone tell me if there is a huge difference in these out of conference schedules?
Schedule 1: Mercer, W. Kentucky, S. Florida, Wiconsin (5-7 P4 team)
Schedule 2: TCU (8-4, P4) BYU (10-2, P4), Houston Christian, Nevada
Can anyone tell me if there is a huge difference in these out of conference schedules?
Schedule 1: Mercer, W. Kentucky, S. Florida, Wiconsin (5-7 P4 team)
Schedule 2: TCU (8-4, P4) BYU (10-2, P4), Houston Christian, Nevada
21
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:01 pm to koreandawg
quote:
Schedule 1: Mercer, W. Kentucky, S. Florida, Wiconsin (5-7 P4 team)
Schedule 2: TCU (8-4, P4) BYU (10-2, P4), Houston Christian, Nevada
When were these teams scheduled?
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:01 pm to koreandawg
Yes: schedule 2 has two P4 opponents vs schedule one having only one P4
This post was edited on 12/9/24 at 2:02 pm
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:01 pm to koreandawg
Riddle me this then, should that mean the SEC teams with ACC rivals stop playing those games too? We already have a built-in tough OOC matchup that doesn't seem to matter for shite other than historical significance/bragging rights, and exist only to potentially hurt you.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:02 pm to koreandawg
A big part of the scheduling problem is that you have no idea what you are scheduling. A lot of the OOC is done 4-5 years ahead. No clue whether the team is good or bad. Texas was given grief over Michigan. Good grief they won it all last year. This years team isn't as good. You have no idea what you will get a few years out. On the other hand scheduling a directional school will probably give you a win.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:03 pm to koreandawg
quote:
Can anyone tell me if there is a huge difference in these out of conference schedules?
Someone shared Penn State's future schedules on Twitter. Only Penn State is ahead of the game.
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:03 pm to koreandawg
Who scheduled a tough non-conference schedule that wasn't honored?
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:04 pm to koreandawg
It's pretty simple - if the #1 discussion point for inclusion is # of losses, and you play in a league where there are guaranteed to be more losses in your regular season league schedule, why the hell would you add risk of more in the non conference when quality of wins is clearly less important than number of losses? Not sure I entirely agree with it, mainly because I want to see fun football games, but it's absolutely a reasonable discussion to have given the message sent yesterday.
Penn State is going to 2 full seasons without an OOC P4 game and half the SEC is going to play 2 P4 out of conference games next year, with at least 1 of them on the road.
Penn State is going to 2 full seasons without an OOC P4 game and half the SEC is going to play 2 P4 out of conference games next year, with at least 1 of them on the road.
This post was edited on 12/9/24 at 2:06 pm
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:09 pm to koreandawg
Also, SMU only had to play Nevada b/c Vanderbilt dropped them last minute so the Dores could play Ball State instead.
If only the mighty COMMODORES masters of BAMA hadn't been cowards they could have stopped SMU to the playoffs right in it's tracks.
Too bad they were so scared they dropped them for a MAC team in order to get an easy win. Yeah, tough OOC games? Worthless to the big bad SEC SEC SEC!!!
If only the mighty COMMODORES masters of BAMA hadn't been cowards they could have stopped SMU to the playoffs right in it's tracks.
Too bad they were so scared they dropped them for a MAC team in order to get an easy win. Yeah, tough OOC games? Worthless to the big bad SEC SEC SEC!!!
This post was edited on 12/9/24 at 2:12 pm
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:09 pm to SummerOfGeorge
I agree completely.
The CFP committee sent a message and teams/conferences will respond accordingly. Shortsighted and another thing making CFB less enjoyable as a fan.
The CFP committee sent a message and teams/conferences will respond accordingly. Shortsighted and another thing making CFB less enjoyable as a fan.
This post was edited on 12/9/24 at 2:10 pm
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:09 pm to bigDgator
quote:
Who scheduled a tough non-conference schedule that wasn't honored?
I think the point is that there's no benefit to these games. You get nothing for winning them, and they only can serve to hurt you in the event that you lose.
As has been mentioned, there is no benefit to having a hard SOS. Thr CFP proved that they never looked at it, only W-L. Not all wins are equal, of course, but as we've seen, a win over The Citadel is enough to vault Clemson 5 spots, while a win over Clemson is worth only one.
Texas took a massive risk in going to Ann Arbor, and has received no praise for winning. Bama did with Wisconsin. Uga started off with Clemson, and no one GaS.
The SEC is already hard enough. Adding landmines does you no favors.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:10 pm to koreandawg
Which SEC teams on the playoff bubble were screwed by their "tough" OOC schedule?
It was cannibalizing from within that did it, not OOC scheduling.
It was cannibalizing from within that did it, not OOC scheduling.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:11 pm to 49 to nada
quote:
Which SEC teams on the playoff bubble were screwed by their "tough" OOC schedule?
It was cannibalizing from within that did it, not OOC scheduling.
It's not an argument about OOC in a silo. It's adding that to an already difficult in conference schedule when it is nothing but risk with very little reward.
Teams in leagues like the ACC should be required to play much more difficult OOC schedules because their 8 week regular season isn't even close to the same as the SEC. But if you look at them across the board, especially moving forward, the OOC schedules are pretty much the same. That makes the average SEC 12 game schedule much more difficult than the average ACC 12 game schedule. And in the end the final judgement is made on who has more losses, which clearly is going to be easier for the team with the lesser 12 game schedule.
I don't like the "stop playing hard OOC games" discussion, but I would very much prefer severely punishing teams who do NOT attempt to play tough OOC schedules (full disclosure : SMU would not be one of those, they had a solid OOC schedule. Same with Clemson).
This post was edited on 12/9/24 at 2:14 pm
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:17 pm to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
It's pretty simple - if the #1 discussion point for inclusion is # of losses, and you play in a league where there are guaranteed to be more losses in your regular season league schedule, why the hell would you add risk of more in the non conference when quality of wins is clearly less important than number of losses? Not sure I entirely agree with it, mainly because I want to see fun football games, but it's absolutely a reasonable discussion to have given the message sent yesterday.
Penn State is going to 2 full seasons without an OOC P4 game and half the SEC is going to play 2 P4 out of conference games next year, with at least 1 of them on the road.
Get all of that, but my point is this is what Alabama people are screaming right now (we gotta stop playing tough OOC teams) as if they played a tough OOC schedule this year and that's what cost them. It didn't. It wasn't particularyl hard and they won all of those games. SMU actually scheduled a very good one. They did lose to BYU, but BYU was a better team than any on Alabama's.
I used to think that no one was gonna care about 12 or 13 spots except the schools involved. I think what I missed was the expansion leaving the Big 12 and ACC so weak that we have this severe of an imbalance in conference scheduling.
Also this year has left us without any true dominant team or teams. And that leaves fanbases like Alabama's thinking they could still win it all, though it's pretty unlikely. Used to just think it would be more of a prestige argument if your team was ranked that low to be in or out. Not so much that they've taken away the possibility of a title.
This post was edited on 12/9/24 at 2:19 pm
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:19 pm to AggieArchitect2004
quote:
The CFP committee sent a message and teams/conferences will respond accordingly. Shortsighted and another thing making CFB less enjoyable as a fan.
If A&M beats Notre Dame to open the year the Irish don't make the playoff and another SEC team is in.
Y'all are being crazy short sighted and incredibly entitled.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:20 pm to skrayper
quote:
When were these teams scheduled?
Why does that matter? You play who you play, not who they were when they were scheduled.
Should anyone get a star for beating FSU this year?
Same person was complaining about Texas' schedule this year. Texas scheduled Michigan. Michigan won the title last year. Does that mean Texas should get a big hug for beating them at 7-5 this year?
This post was edited on 12/9/24 at 2:22 pm
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:21 pm to koreandawg
Weren't all of Bama's losses in conference? Wouldn't their OOC help their cause?
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:22 pm to Dr RC
quote:
If A&M beats Notre Dame to open the year the Irish don't make the playoff and another SEC team is in.
Y'all are being crazy short sighted and incredibly entitled.
I don't like the idea of taking the ball and going on, because it's bad for the sport and bad for fans. It's also just a bad look.
I do like the idea of making it a requirement to play outside your conference against other P4 teams or face the consequences. The 9 game schedule was originally looked at as a way to add more competition, but it's done nothing but insolate league's like the B1G during the regular season and allowed large chunks of their league to play almost nobody outside of the conference who is a "power school", and certainly nobody outside of their region. Some years you will schedule someone and they will suck - is what it is. But you'll at least get way more data points on league vs league outside of just how they perform inside their conference.
Make teams schedule games. It's not that hard. It's not something that needs to be done 10 years in advance. The SEC/ACC/B1G/B12 should all have at least 7-8 games against eachother each year. Find a way to make it happen.
This post was edited on 12/9/24 at 2:24 pm
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:22 pm to koreandawg
The mud state teams are always looking for ways to back-door into things. Quit strategizing and just play football. This is the entertainment business you fricks. You and your Mercers and shite.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:24 pm to RoyalAir
quote:There is no evidence of this.
I think the point is that there's no benefit to these games
quote:This is completely false.
As has been mentioned, there is no benefit to having a hard SOS. Thr CFP proved that they never looked at it, only W-L.
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News