CSNbbs

JRs thread on ACC vs SEC match ups early on got me looking at OOC schedules around the P5.

I noticed that most SEC teams are only playing 9 while the majority of other leagues are at 10 or more:

SEC: 4 of 14 (if you count LSU vs BYU)
ACC: 8 of 14
PAC 12: 9 of 12 (if you count Utah vs BYU)
Big 12: 9 of 10
Big Ten: 13 of 14 (if you count Wisc vs BYU)
Indy: ND

To me, I think requiring everyone to play 10 P5s is a fair expectation. Where do you all stand?

Is avoiding that 10th P5 helping or hurting the SEC playoff chances?

(08-04-2017 05:35 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]JRs thread on ACC vs SEC match ups early on got me looking at OOC schedules around the P5.

I noticed that most SEC teams are only playing 9 while the majority of other leagues are at 10 or more:

SEC: 4 of 14 (if you count LSU vs BYU)
ACC: 8 of 14
PAC 12: 9 of 12 (if you count Utah vs BYU)
Big 12: 9 of 10
Big Ten: 13 of 14 (if you count Wisc vs BYU)
Indy: ND

To me, I think requiring everyone to play 10 P5s is a fair expectation. Where do you all stand?

Is avoiding that 10th P5 helping or hurting the SEC playoff chances?

The first thing you have to satisfy is earnings. The SEC actually makes slightly more 650,000 to 900,000 off of the FCS/G5 games than they do a conference game or P5 game due to the gate. TV could easily pay the difference here if necessary. The main thing is that with 10 P5 games (let's say 9 conference and 1 OOC home and home) and two G5 games the conference members could still schedule those 7 home games which our AD's don't want to give up.

Would it hurt the SEC's playoff chances? Not if we move to a P4 champs only model and possibly not if we move to an 8 team playoff with no CCG.

I think standardizing the competition level would be better for everyone in the long term. But I think moving to a P4 makes this whole process simpler.

(08-04-2017 05:35 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]JRs thread on ACC vs SEC match ups early on got me looking at OOC schedules around the P5.

I noticed that most SEC teams are only playing 9 while the majority of other leagues are at 10 or more:

SEC: 4 of 14 (if you count LSU vs BYU)
ACC: 8 of 14
PAC 12: 9 of 12 (if you count Utah vs BYU)
Big 12: 9 of 10
Big Ten: 13 of 14 (if you count Wisc vs BYU)
Indy: ND

To me, I think requiring everyone to play 10 P5s is a fair expectation. Where do you all stand?

Is avoiding that 10th P5 helping or hurting the SEC playoff chances?

If it's hurting it it can't be hurting it much. The SEC has been either the #1 or #2 seed every year.

1. I would like to see 10 P5 games across the board.
2. It hasn't hurt Alabama - hard to say about the rest of the SEC since no one else has been in that position yet.

It might not hurt playoff chances, but it definitely affects bowl eligibility. The PAC and B12 frequently fail to fulfill all of bowl contracts because of ineligibility. Don't be surprised if the B1G follows suit.

No surprise that Saban's all-P5 suggestion incorporated a more loose bowl eligibility system.

The answer, of course, is 11!

I don't think there should be a one-size fits all requirement. Why should we care if Kansas has a light OOC schedule? Or Wake Forest, Rutgers, or any other school that is scheduling for bowl eligibility, budget considerations and local fan interest and not CFP consideration?

It's easy in theory to say every P5's goal should be the CFP, but in practice that's not very realistic.

It honestly depends, and I"m looking at it from my perspective as an alumnus and a fan of my school.

I want to play the other Lambert schools as much as possible. That includes schools in the American (Temple, Connecticut, Cincinnati). With 9 conference games, a "buy game" needed, those schools can't be on our schedule.

If there is no separation among FBS schools, the requirement for 1 "P" conference game has to do. Just my perspective as a fan.

I guess they'd play what a P5 could...

(08-05-2017 09:26 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think there should be a one-size fits all requirement. Why should we care if Kansas has a light OOC schedule? Or Wake Forest, Rutgers, or any other school that is scheduling for bowl eligibility, budget considerations and local fan interest and not CFP consideration?

It's easy in theory to say every P5's goal should be the CFP, but in practice that's not very realistic.

Sure, from a non-contender's point of view, easier non-con games are usually in the team's best interest.

From the point of view of CFP hopefuls, you want the perception of your conference to be strong because (as anyone can see on these message boards) there are a lot of folks in the media and among fans who are obsessed with conference strength even more so than team strength, as if teams existed only to fight for the sports media opinion of their conference.

The CFP hopefuls want their conference's weaker teams to win non-con games, but if those teams are not good enough to beat easy non-con opponents, then losing to good teams is better (for the conference reputation) than losing to bad teams. If Kansas loses to LSU, no one thinks that reflects poorly on the Big 12, but if Kansas loses to UL-Monroe, it dents the media's opinion of the Big 12 and might affect the media's opinion of the Big 12 contenders.

Plus, just because you're requiring P5's doesn't mean the schedule is automatically much, much harder! Kansas can satisfy their requirement by scheduling Purdue, Wake, etc

Would love to see every P5 play 10 P5's, including allowing for Notre Dame and BYU to count.

For Big Ten, would like to see that achieved through 10 conf games.

(08-05-2017 05:34 PM)MplsBison Wrote: [ -> ]Would love to see every P5 play 10 P5's, including allowing for Notre Dame and BYU to count.

For Big Ten, would like to see that achieved through 10 conf games.

In that case, no Big Ten team should ever be in the playoffs because there would be no evidence they were strong relative to the other conferences. Not playing ANY OOC games is nonsensical, IMO. You need the measuring stick!

(08-05-2017 04:17 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-05-2017 09:26 AM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think there should be a one-size fits all requirement. Why should we care if Kansas has a light OOC schedule? Or Wake Forest, Rutgers, or any other school that is scheduling for bowl eligibility, budget considerations and local fan interest and not CFP consideration?

It's easy in theory to say every P5's goal should be the CFP, but in practice that's not very realistic.

Sure, from a non-contender's point of view, easier non-con games are usually in the team's best interest.

From the point of view of CFP hopefuls, you want the perception of your conference to be strong because (as anyone can see on these message boards) there are a lot of folks in the media and among fans who are obsessed with conference strength even more so than team strength, as if teams existed only to fight for the sports media opinion of their conference.

The CFP hopefuls want their conference's weaker teams to win non-con games, but if those teams are not good enough to beat easy non-con opponents, then losing to good teams is better (for the conference reputation) than losing to bad teams. If Kansas loses to LSU, no one thinks that reflects poorly on the Big 12, but if Kansas loses to UL-Monroe, it dents the media's opinion of the Big 12 and might affect the media's opinion of the Big 12 contenders.

If Wake Forest were to lose to Appalachian State (on this year's schedule) instead of a P5 like Kansas, I don't believe I would think less of Florida State or Clemson. Would you? Would any knowledgeable fan? If not, why would we think the selection committee would? Or the media?

If every team in the conference except FSU and Clemson has embarrassing non-conference losses, yes, the media would think less of ACC football, and at some point people will start saying, we don't know how good FSU really is because almost everyone in their league looked bad outside the conference.

In contrast, if FSU is beating ACC teams who crushed their non-conference opponents (or at least had losses only to good teams), then it helps how people see FSU.

(08-06-2017 10:38 AM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]If every team in the conference except FSU and Clemson has embarrassing non-conference losses, yes, the media would think less of ACC football, and at some point people will start saying, we don't know how good FSU really is because almost everyone in their league looked bad outside the conference.

In contrast, if FSU is beating ACC teams who crushed their non-conference opponents (or at least had losses only to good teams), then it helps how people see FSU.

OK. But that's very different than what we see in all P5 conferences. There, we see a few pretty weak members, a few very good ones, and a pretty strong and deep middle. I really don't think the perception of a league is established by its weak teams.

If your middle is weak, then you start to question the validity of a gaudy W-L record by your top team. I think that, when the BCS first started, the only reason the ACC and Big East got AQ status was because they had recently added Florida State and Miami. Without those two tentpoles, perceived as perennial Top Ten teams, I doubt the rest of the members would have been enough to get the major bowls and the other four power conferences to sign on.

(08-06-2017 12:39 PM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ]I think that, when the BCS first started, the only reason the ACC and Big East got AQ status was because they had recently added Florida State and Miami. Without those two tentpoles, perceived as perennial Top Ten teams, I doubt the rest of the members would have been enough to get the major bowls and the other four power conferences to sign on.

Tranghese invited Miami to the Big East for exactly that reason; he wanted to use Miami to get the Big East's foot in the big-bowl door. The original idea of the BCS was to match the best teams in the "best" bowl games, and they included every conference that had the most likely top-10 teams because they wanted to be able to include FSU or Miami in BCS bowls.

The discussion about the CFP is different because (although it didn't quite work this way in 2016) the media framing of the CFP is, "We have 5 P5 conferences and 4 playoff spots, so let's argue about which conference champ will get left out this year."

Because of that and because of the recent excessive focus on conferences rather than teams, it matters to FSU, OU, etc. whether the rest of their own conference is perceived as strong or weak. It's ok if your last place team is as weak as everyone else's, but a conference champ can get dinged if their conference is perceived as being half or two-thirds full of cupcakes, or the champ's rep can be enhanced if the media hypes the conference as being "8 teams deep" or whatever. Even if that has nothing to do with whether one team or another is more "deserving" of a playoff spot.

(08-06-2017 06:31 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote: [ -> ]In that case, no Big Ten team should ever be in the playoffs because there would be no evidence they were strong relative to the other conferences. Not playing ANY OOC games is nonsensical, IMO. You need the measuring stick!

I did say 10, didn't I? That's weird, because you apparently saw 10 and interpreted that as 12.

As is, if every P5 played FOUR non-conf games against other P5 teams -- the reasonable maximum amount of data that could be possible in the current format -- that still wouldn't be remotely enough data to make a reasonable deterministic statement.

It would still be an educated guess. So your point is completely moot.

The leagues mandate 9 via SOS and conference scheduling, and the B1G mandates 10. As a result P5 teams own SOS 1-65 according to ESPN (66-130 are G5, even BYU slots in #72). So this is working creating separation:
http://www.fbschedules.com/2017/08/2017-...-espn-fpi/

IMO 10 seems right. But I know it's a scheduling issue. A typical SEC or ACC school has 8 conference and a either an OOC rival (e.g., Kentucky vs Louisville) or a neutral site game (e.g., Alabama vs whomever), and they need 7 home games to get the maximum revenue. So when you have 4 home and 5 away in conference on a given year (B1G, P12, B12, and some SEC and ACC rivalry 9th) it means 3 OOC home games. Most schools are aligned in their 10th P5 game so that it balances 5 and 5. It's impossible to go to 11 without several schools sacrificing a 7th home game.

So 10 is where it should be. And for the most part it is:

11: Texas, Cal, USC
10: Baylor, ISU, K State, TCU, OU, OK State, Tx Tech, WVU, IU, Maryland, Mich, Mich St, tOSU, PSU, Rutgers, Iowa, Min, Nebraska, NU, Purdue, Oregon, Oregon State, Stanford, UW, ASU, UCLA, Clemson, FSU, L'Ville, NC State, Duke, Ga Tech, UNC, Pitt, Miami, UVa, Va Tech, Florida, UGa, SoCar,
9: KU*, Illinois*, Wisconsin* (+BYU), WSU*, Arizona*, CU*, Utah* (+BYU), BC, Syracuse, Wake, ND, UK, Mizzou, Tennessee, Vandy, Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, LSU (+BYU), Miss State, A&M
8: Ole' Miss* (+BYU)

You can bump up Mississippi, LSU, Utah, and WIsconsin since everyone counts BYU as P5 (unusual year, BYU normally plays 6 P5 schools, but only 4 this year )

I do think the ACC and SEC need to go to either 9 games or require an 8+2. All conferences should be on 10. There will be the odd problem that will see a school fall short, but who cares if it is one or two programs. It's really only an issue when it's 20 programs taking one fewer game. Typical SEC school has a FCS opponents when a B12/B1G/P12 has a P5, and that is simply unfair.

The schedule mandate has helped BYU, at least the first 5 weeks of the year, but without a tie-in like ND has with the ACC they simply can't get to 8 or 9 games, since nobody will travel to Provo after September. I would like to see all conferences allow one P5 OOC or rivalry after September. I also think getting to 10 will be much easier with 3 P5 level Independents rather than 1 + 1 counting. BYU doesn't have a enough slots to fill everyone getting to 10, and Notre Dame is locked in for 8 games as is, and 1 of the remaining is probably a B1G school, another a G5 "rest" game. Mechanically having 3rd Indy combined with relaxed rules on OOC scheduling dates would provide the dozen counting games required in the current format. (Once the B12 implodes we'll have to start the evaluation all over).

Great post Stu!

So seems like it's agreed 10 is the magic number. 5 home and 5 away, means the final two non-conf games can be home "buy" games vs G5.

9 + 1 or 8 + 2.