[cardcrimson]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=14322.msg151927#msg151927 date=1452295320]
No, there's no value for our playoff aspirations. What value did it give us this year? If we had beaten Oregon, it wouldn't matter if we had played ND or UC Davis, we would've been in the playoff with a win. (Well, and a win the next week.) This idea that the conference values hard schedules was exposed as a complete load of horseshit this year. If the committee valued hard schedules we would've been in, we weren't so they don't. Until proven otherwise scheduling like Alabama is the way to go.

Had UNC beaten Clemson, the the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends game would have taken us to the playoffs with two losses over a 1-loss North Carolina team.

While Alabama had 4 non-conference games, and only one of those against a real opponent (Wisconsin), it is still objectively a pretty tough schedule (see, for example, Sagarin).  They had 9 games against Sagarin top-30 teams; we only had 6 such games prior to the bowl season.  No other top-10 team played more than 6 games against top-30 opponents.

BC
[/quote]

Correct, Sagarin had Alabama as having one of the toughest schedules in the country. According to Sagarin, they've gone 9-1 against top 30 teams in his rankings. But without any basis in fact at all, I say his ratings hold some bias. Do you really believe that eight of those top 30 teams are from Alabama's SEC schedule of nine total? Ole Miss, Georgia, Arkansas, Tennessee, LSU, Mississippi State, Auburn and Florida are all ranked in Sagarin's top 30. Only Texas A&M from Alabama's schedule is outside the 30 at 33. Pahleeese.

[cardcrimson]

[quote author=stupac2 link=topic=14322.msg151927#msg151927 date=1452295320]
No, there's no value for our playoff aspirations. What value did it give us this year? If we had beaten Oregon, it wouldn't matter if we had played ND or UC Davis, we would've been in the playoff with a win. (Well, and a win the next week.) This idea that the conference values hard schedules was exposed as a complete load of horseshit this year. If the committee valued hard schedules we would've been in, we weren't so they don't. Until proven otherwise scheduling like Alabama is the way to go.

Had UNC beaten Clemson, the the University of Dead Fake Girlfriends game would have taken us to the playoffs with two losses over a 1-loss North Carolina team.

While Alabama had 4 non-conference games, and only one of those against a real opponent (Wisconsin), it is still objectively a pretty tough schedule (see, for example, Sagarin).  They had 9 games against Sagarin top-30 teams; we only had 6 such games prior to the bowl season.  No other top-10 team played more than 6 games against top-30 opponents.

BC
[/quote]

Correct, Sagarin had Alabama as having one of the toughest schedules in the country. According to Sagarin, they've gone 9-1 against top 30 teams in his rankings. But without any basis in fact at all, I say his ratings hold some bias. Do you really believe that eight of those top 30 teams are from Alabama's SEC schedule of nine total? Ole Miss, Georgia, Arkansas, Tennessee, LSU, Mississippi State, Auburn and Florida are all ranked in Sagarin's top 30. Only Texas A&M from Alabama's schedule is outside the 30 at 33. Pahleeese.