[BostonCard]

http://www.pigskingrind.com/#!Pac12-Foot...73C7A044CA

WE get dinged for having too tough a schedule.

No FCS teams and two strong Power 5 teams? This is probably a little too challenging for a non-conference slate but you have to admire the fierceness of this schedule.

BC

[BostonCard]

http://www.pigskingrind.com/#!Pac12-Foot...73C7A044CA

WE get dinged for having too tough a schedule.

No FCS teams and two strong Power 5 teams? This is probably a little too challenging for a non-conference slate but you have to admire the fierceness of this schedule.

BC

[winflop]

I give Stanford guts for the OOC schedule but it's very much a double-edge sword:
- if they win all three it will be great.  Even if they go 2-1 it will be two more OOC wins against FBS teams than many SEC and B1G will even have the opportunity to get
- losing 2 or 3 would be very bad
- higher risk of injuries
- less on-field playing experience for second/third stringers (lower importance)

I don't have an issue with scheduling one cupcake, but no more than that.  I think someone else talked about an A-B-C concept and I liked that.  A = good program from an FBS major conference (we get that every year with ND).  B = good program from non-major FBS conference (Boise State, Marshall, Northern Illinois, etc) or weaker program from major FBS conference (Vanderbilt, Wake Forest).  C = cupcake

[winflop]

I give Stanford guts for the OOC schedule but it's very much a double-edge sword:
- if they win all three it will be great.  Even if they go 2-1 it will be two more OOC wins against FBS teams than many SEC and B1G will even have the opportunity to get
- losing 2 or 3 would be very bad
- higher risk of injuries
- less on-field playing experience for second/third stringers (lower importance)

I don't have an issue with scheduling one cupcake, but no more than that.  I think someone else talked about an A-B-C concept and I liked that.  A = good program from an FBS major conference (we get that every year with ND).  B = good program from non-major FBS conference (Boise State, Marshall, Northern Illinois, etc) or weaker program from major FBS conference (Vanderbilt, Wake Forest).  C = cupcake

[OutsiderFan]

This debate was had here about a month ago, but the reality is, having to play USC and UCLA every year is the real killer.  Granted, Stanford owns UCLA lately (7 wins straight) and kind of owned USC for a while, but still, over time, this is a ridiculous disadvantage to Stanford when Oregon doesn't have to play them every year.

[OutsiderFan]

This debate was had here about a month ago, but the reality is, having to play USC and UCLA every year is the real killer.  Granted, Stanford owns UCLA lately (7 wins straight) and kind of owned USC for a while, but still, over time, this is a ridiculous disadvantage to Stanford when Oregon doesn't have to play them every year.

[winflop]

This debate was had here about a month ago, but the reality is, having to play U$€ and UCLA every year is the real killer.  Granted, Stanford owns UCLA lately (7 wins straight) and kind of owned U$€ for a while, but still, over time, this is a ridiculous disadvantage to Stanford when Oregon doesn't have to play them every year.

I see it as a double-edged sword just a like a stronger OOC schedule.  2-0 is an advantage, 0-2 is a disadvantage.  Given how the committee looks at SOS now, I'll take the tougher schedule any time.  Look at TCU & Baylor last season.

[winflop]

This debate was had here about a month ago, but the reality is, having to play U$€ and UCLA every year is the real killer.  Granted, Stanford owns UCLA lately (7 wins straight) and kind of owned U$€ for a while, but still, over time, this is a ridiculous disadvantage to Stanford when Oregon doesn't have to play them every year.

I see it as a double-edged sword just a like a stronger OOC schedule.  2-0 is an advantage, 0-2 is a disadvantage.  Given how the committee looks at SOS now, I'll take the tougher schedule any time.  Look at TCU & Baylor last season.

[CTcard]

This debate was had here about a month ago, but the reality is, having to play U$€ and UCLA every year is the real killer. 

Except it's really not.

The current set up means we play 2/3 more games per year versus LA-schools than we would play on a balanced schedule.
Assuming we have 1/3 chance to beat an LA school and 2/3 chance to beat everybody else, that translates to .44 wins versus .22 wins per season, or a difference of 0.22 wins per year. So, one less win every 4.5 years.

There are several problems with that analysis.

One is that I don't believe those numbers accurately reflect the odds to win versus an LA school versus the rest of the south. Certainly doesn't match recent history. To halve that to one less win every 9 years you'd only have to go to odds of 59% versus the rest of the south to 41% versus the LA schools, still unrealistically disparate.

A second issue is long term effects on the program in terms of recruiting. Not only do we get a higher profile in the LA area, but we lower that profile for the other four north teams.
Does that really make a difference?
I don't know, but remember that the major sticking point in division alignment negotiations was that every team wanted as many games in LA as possible. Supposedly that was precisely offered to Colorado to entice them over (and less likely offered to Utah).

A third issue is that it is at least possible that strength of schedule will make a difference going forward, particularly in years where we are good and in the playoff plus discussions. If indeed the LA schools are on average better, then they would raise our strength of schedule.


How these things balance out is not clear, but what is clear is that the competitive difference created is small.
What else is clear is that the fan base wants these games. There was a poll on what Cardboarders preferred a recently - wasn't it something like 90% wanting to keep the LA schools on the schedule every year?

[CTcard]

This debate was had here about a month ago, but the reality is, having to play U$€ and UCLA every year is the real killer. 

Except it's really not.

The current set up means we play 2/3 more games per year versus LA-schools than we would play on a balanced schedule.
Assuming we have 1/3 chance to beat an LA school and 2/3 chance to beat everybody else, that translates to .44 wins versus .22 wins per season, or a difference of 0.22 wins per year. So, one less win every 4.5 years.

There are several problems with that analysis.

One is that I don't believe those numbers accurately reflect the odds to win versus an LA school versus the rest of the south. Certainly doesn't match recent history. To halve that to one less win every 9 years you'd only have to go to odds of 59% versus the rest of the south to 41% versus the LA schools, still unrealistically disparate.

A second issue is long term effects on the program in terms of recruiting. Not only do we get a higher profile in the LA area, but we lower that profile for the other four north teams.
Does that really make a difference?
I don't know, but remember that the major sticking point in division alignment negotiations was that every team wanted as many games in LA as possible. Supposedly that was precisely offered to Colorado to entice them over (and less likely offered to Utah).

A third issue is that it is at least possible that strength of schedule will make a difference going forward, particularly in years where we are good and in the playoff plus discussions. If indeed the LA schools are on average better, then they would raise our strength of schedule.


How these things balance out is not clear, but what is clear is that the competitive difference created is small.
What else is clear is that the fan base wants these games. There was a poll on what Cardboarders preferred a recently - wasn't it something like 90% wanting to keep the LA schools on the schedule every year?

[Hulk01]

To this long-timer, a season without games against both USC and UCLA isn't a real football season. 

We all love 10-and-more win seasons, but I also like big games; they stir me in ways that games against Utah, Oregon State, and Arizona don't--not to mention Duke, Army, and UCF.  Those are everything-to-lose games for me.

If the SEC teams played real schedules, you and many other might feel differently.  Their misleading 9-3 seasons set a standard for the nation, and make 8-4 look like near-failure. But if each of them had to replace one of their ridiculous OOC opponents with an SEC team, it would add seven losses a year to the SEC's aggregate win-loss, and make possible a true comparison of teams across the country.

[Hulk01]

To this long-timer, a season without games against both USC and UCLA isn't a real football season. 

We all love 10-and-more win seasons, but I also like big games; they stir me in ways that games against Utah, Oregon State, and Arizona don't--not to mention Duke, Army, and UCF.  Those are everything-to-lose games for me.

If the SEC teams played real schedules, you and many other might feel differently.  Their misleading 9-3 seasons set a standard for the nation, and make 8-4 look like near-failure. But if each of them had to replace one of their ridiculous OOC opponents with an SEC team, it would add seven losses a year to the SEC's aggregate win-loss, and make possible a true comparison of teams across the country.

[winflop]

If the SEC teams played real schedules, you and many other might feel differently.  Their misleading 9-3 seasons set a standard for the nation, and make 8-4 look like near-failure. But if each of them had to replace one of their ridiculous OOC opponents with an SEC team, it would add seven losses a year to the SEC's aggregate win-loss, and make possible a true comparison of teams across the country.

This past bowl season really blew the cover off the SEC getting the benefit of the doubt.  Starting to see reality creep in for at least some SEC schools as they are scheduling more OOC teams from other FBS conferences.  I doubt we'll see it from Alabama any time soon, but Auburn, LSU and others appear to slowly be getting the message.

[winflop]

If the SEC teams played real schedules, you and many other might feel differently.  Their misleading 9-3 seasons set a standard for the nation, and make 8-4 look like near-failure. But if each of them had to replace one of their ridiculous OOC opponents with an SEC team, it would add seven losses a year to the SEC's aggregate win-loss, and make possible a true comparison of teams across the country.

This past bowl season really blew the cover off the SEC getting the benefit of the doubt.  Starting to see reality creep in for at least some SEC schools as they are scheduling more OOC teams from other FBS conferences.  I doubt we'll see it from Alabama any time soon, but Auburn, LSU and others appear to slowly be getting the message.

[Papa John]

Hulk01 hit the nail on the head, IMO. The most significant discrepancy in scheduling is that the Pac-12 teams play 9 conference games and the SEC teams (and other conferences) play 8.

[Papa John]

Hulk01 hit the nail on the head, IMO. The most significant discrepancy in scheduling is that the Pac-12 teams play 9 conference games and the SEC teams (and other conferences) play 8.

[82lsju]

Hulk01 hit the nail on the head, IMO. The most significant discrepancy in scheduling is that the Pac-12 teams play 9 conference games and the SEC teams (and other conferences) play 8.

the Big 10 is moving to 9 conference games starting in 2016

http://www.bigten.org/sports/m-footbl/sp...13aab.html

[82lsju]

Hulk01 hit the nail on the head, IMO. The most significant discrepancy in scheduling is that the Pac-12 teams play 9 conference games and the SEC teams (and other conferences) play 8.

the Big 10 is moving to 9 conference games starting in 2016

http://www.bigten.org/sports/m-footbl/sp...13aab.html

[CTcard]

[quote author=Papa John link=topic=11814.msg114053#msg114053 date=1425418160]
Hulk01 hit the nail on the head, IMO. The most significant discrepancy in scheduling is that the Pac-12 teams play 9 conference games and the SEC teams (and other conferences) play 8.

the Big 10 is moving to 9 conference games starting in 2016

http://www.bigten.org/sports/m-footbl/sp...13aab.html
[/quote]

And of course the Big 12 also plays 9 - though in many cases matched to non-conference schedules even worse than the SEC.

[CTcard]

[quote author=Papa John link=topic=11814.msg114053#msg114053 date=1425418160]
Hulk01 hit the nail on the head, IMO. The most significant discrepancy in scheduling is that the Pac-12 teams play 9 conference games and the SEC teams (and other conferences) play 8.

the Big 10 is moving to 9 conference games starting in 2016

http://www.bigten.org/sports/m-footbl/sp...13aab.html
[/quote]

And of course the Big 12 also plays 9 - though in many cases matched to non-conference schedules even worse than the SEC.

[BostonCard]

And, as the playoff committee noted, the Big-12 doesn't have a conference championship game, which gives the top two teams one less high profile game (and one less chance to lose).

BC

[BostonCard]

And, as the playoff committee noted, the Big-12 doesn't have a conference championship game, which gives the top two teams one less high profile game (and one less chance to lose).

BC

[winflop]

And, as the playoff committee noted, the Big-12 doesn't have a conference championship game, which gives the top two teams one less high profile game (and one less chance to lose).

BC

I expect they will this season, 2016 at the latest.

[winflop]

And, as the playoff committee noted, the Big-12 doesn't have a conference championship game, which gives the top two teams one less high profile game (and one less chance to lose).

BC

I expect they will this season, 2016 at the latest.

[CompSci87]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=11814.msg114064#msg114064 date=1425426029]
And, as the playoff committee noted, the Big-12 doesn't have a conference championship game, which gives the top two teams one less high profile game (and one less chance to lose).

BC

I expect they will this season, 2016 at the latest.
[/quote]

Don't they have to get back up to at least 12 teams first? Or have they done that already? I haven't kept track.

[CompSci87]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=11814.msg114064#msg114064 date=1425426029]
And, as the playoff committee noted, the Big-12 doesn't have a conference championship game, which gives the top two teams one less high profile game (and one less chance to lose).

BC

I expect they will this season, 2016 at the latest.
[/quote]

Don't they have to get back up to at least 12 teams first? Or have they done that already? I haven't kept track.

[BostonCard]

Yes and it isn't going to happen anytime soon.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sport...off-snubs/

Of course, all this could be posturing, and the mathematically challenged Big 12 could decide to take two teams at any time and be done with it.  But it doesn't sound like any expansion is imminent.

And they do bring a good point.  Hypothetically, if two conference championships had zigged instead of zagged, and Wisconsin and Georgia Tech won instead of Florida State and Ohio State, the Big 12 would have had 2 teams in the playoffs.  Every so often, a playoff game will take a team out of contention for the playoffs.

BC

[BostonCard]

Yes and it isn't going to happen anytime soon.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sport...off-snubs/

Of course, all this could be posturing, and the mathematically challenged Big 12 could decide to take two teams at any time and be done with it.  But it doesn't sound like any expansion is imminent.

And they do bring a good point.  Hypothetically, if two conference championships had zigged instead of zagged, and Wisconsin and Georgia Tech won instead of Florida State and Ohio State, the Big 12 would have had 2 teams in the playoffs.  Every so often, a playoff game will take a team out of contention for the playoffs.

BC

[winflop]

Yeah a lot of knee-jerk reaction to a one-off situation.  The reality is that there is a one-off situation fairly often, but if you try to engineer your way out of one you often create another.  The Law of Unintended Consequences.

I was in favor of the 8-game playoff in December, but thinking about it more I now oppose it.  Sure, it guarantees that all five FBS major conference champions get in and it allows a spot for the highest-ranked conference champion outside the Power 5 as well.  But it also makes the race for a conference championship and the actual championship game less interesting because there may not be much at stake.  If you are undefeated in the regular season you are a lock in an 8-team playoff whether you win your championship game or not.  So do you go all out to win and risk further injury to your players, all of whom are already nicked up at that point of the season?  Or do you give your non-starters more snaps?

Personally, I'd rather have it be a REQUIREMENT that you win your conference championship in order to get in (allowing the BigXII to substitute their regular season champion and including the independents) and then the committee picks the best four from that.

[winflop]

Yeah a lot of knee-jerk reaction to a one-off situation.  The reality is that there is a one-off situation fairly often, but if you try to engineer your way out of one you often create another.  The Law of Unintended Consequences.

I was in favor of the 8-game playoff in December, but thinking about it more I now oppose it.  Sure, it guarantees that all five FBS major conference champions get in and it allows a spot for the highest-ranked conference champion outside the Power 5 as well.  But it also makes the race for a conference championship and the actual championship game less interesting because there may not be much at stake.  If you are undefeated in the regular season you are a lock in an 8-team playoff whether you win your championship game or not.  So do you go all out to win and risk further injury to your players, all of whom are already nicked up at that point of the season?  Or do you give your non-starters more snaps?

Personally, I'd rather have it be a REQUIREMENT that you win your conference championship in order to get in (allowing the BigXII to substitute their regular season champion and including the independents) and then the committee picks the best four from that.

[BostonCard]

Another one:

http://www.fbschedules.com/2015/03/power...schedules/

We have the top (hardest) non-conference schedule.

Though Stanford’s three non-Pac-12 opponents in 2015 combined for a 22-16 (58%) record last season—third best in the conference—it’s clearly got the toughest slate.

First, Stanford gets Northwestern, on the road. The Wildcats may have slumped to 5-7 last season but the win column included victories over Penn State, Wisconsin and Notre Dame.

Next up its UCF, arguably the most dangerous non-Power team in the land. The Knights are fresh off their second straight conference championship and just a year away from beating Baylor 52-42 in the Fiesta Bowl.

Last, you’ve got Notre Dame. Sure, they finished last season 8-5 but they’ve beaten the Cardinal two of the last three times the two have met, the last three outcomes decided by an average of six points.

BC

[BostonCard]

Another one:

http://www.fbschedules.com/2015/03/power...schedules/

We have the top (hardest) non-conference schedule.

Though Stanford’s three non-Pac-12 opponents in 2015 combined for a 22-16 (58%) record last season—third best in the conference—it’s clearly got the toughest slate.

First, Stanford gets Northwestern, on the road. The Wildcats may have slumped to 5-7 last season but the win column included victories over Penn State, Wisconsin and Notre Dame.

Next up its UCF, arguably the most dangerous non-Power team in the land. The Knights are fresh off their second straight conference championship and just a year away from beating Baylor 52-42 in the Fiesta Bowl.

Last, you’ve got Notre Dame. Sure, they finished last season 8-5 but they’ve beaten the Cardinal two of the last three times the two have met, the last three outcomes decided by an average of six points.

BC