Several years ago, there was much discussion about how conferences with tougher football schedules prepared their teams better for success during bowl games. The premise was that teams that played softer schedules were ill prepared when they got to a bowl game and played an opponent with a similar record but who had played a harder schedule. This was the age old idea of "iron sharpening iron".

Now it seems that the narrative has changed to the teams playing the softer schedule having the advantage during bowl/playoff season due to encountering less "wear and tear" on their players during the regular season and thus having fresher players and/or fewer injuries.

So, I put the question to the board ......... which is the best way to prepare for winning bowl or playoff games, play a soft schedule or a hard schedule?

My personal opinion is you need some of both. If you play nothing but cupcakes each and every game, your team is never tested and has no idea how to respond in evenly contested games during the bowls/playoffs. On the other hand, if you play a steady diet of top tier teams, you probably do stand a chance of more wear and tear and injuries since your starters have to play more minutes.

BTW ....... I think that it goes without saying that the team with the softer schedule is more likely to have a bettor record and enhance their chances of making the playoffs or going to a higher rated bowl. But, this is also a double edged sword, as the team with the softer schedule has less room for error when it comes to bowl or playoff selection.

I think the Big 12 is proof that playing a soft conference schedule against teams that play zero defense leads to zero success in the playoff where you either get left out or get pummeled in the first round.

Iron sharpens Iron but butter is always soft

(04-19-2019 04:42 PM)IR4CU Wrote:  Several years ago, there was much discussion about how conferences with tougher football schedules prepared their teams better for success during bowl games. The premise was that teams that played softer schedules were ill prepared when they got to a bowl game and played an opponent with a similar record but who had played a harder schedule. This was the age old idea of "iron sharpening iron".

Now it seems that the narrative has changed to the teams playing the softer schedule having the advantage during bowl/playoff season due to encountering less "wear and tear" on their players during the regular season and thus having fresher players and/or fewer injuries.

So, I put the question to the board ......... which is the best way to prepare for winning bowl or playoff games, play a soft schedule or a hard schedule?

My personal opinion is you need some of both. If you play nothing but cupcakes each and every game, your team is never tested and has no idea how to respond in evenly contested games during the bowls/playoffs. On the other hand, if you play a steady diet of top tier teams, you probably do stand a chance of more wear and tear and injuries since your starters have to play more minutes.

BTW ....... I think that it goes without saying that the team with the softer schedule is more likely to have a bettor record and enhance their chances of making the playoffs or going to a higher rated bowl. But, this is also a double edged sword, as the team with the softer schedule has less room for error when it comes to bowl or playoff selection.

If you don't sustain key injuries in larger numbers then playing tougher opponents does prepare you better for the championship run. And if you have the normal number of injuries and they occur early in the season and as a result your bench gets deeper then that's fine too.

But if your injuries come late it doesn't matter whether you played a tough or soft schedule because you lose efficiency, savvy, and momentum going into the playoffs and none of that is beneficial for your chances.

So there are multiple layers of complexity to this question. And injuries and when they occur and how many occur have more to do with it than the schedule, IMO.

(04-19-2019 04:42 PM)IR4CU Wrote:  Several years ago, there was much discussion about how conferences with tougher football schedules prepared their teams better for success during bowl games. The premise was that teams that played softer schedules were ill prepared when they got to a bowl game and played an opponent with a similar record but who had played a harder schedule. This was the age old idea of "iron sharpening iron".

Now it seems that the narrative has changed to the teams playing the softer schedule having the advantage during bowl/playoff season due to encountering less "wear and tear" on their players during the regular season and thus having fresher players and/or fewer injuries.

So, I put the question to the board ......... which is the best way to prepare for winning bowl or playoff games, play a soft schedule or a hard schedule?

My personal opinion is you need some of both. If you play nothing but cupcakes each and every game, your team is never tested and has no idea how to respond in evenly contested games during the bowls/playoffs. On the other hand, if you play a steady diet of top tier teams, you probably do stand a chance of more wear and tear and injuries since your starters have to play more minutes.

BTW ....... I think that it goes without saying that the team with the softer schedule is more likely to have a bettor record and enhance their chances of making the playoffs or going to a higher rated bowl. But, this is also a double edged sword, as the team with the softer schedule has less room for error when it comes to bowl or playoff selection.

I think you touched on the important thing: if you play a soft schedule you might wind up with a good record and play a team above your head. If you play a hard schedule you might have a worse record and play a team below your level and wind up with a blowout.

So harder schedules lead to playing worse opponents and thus winning games in the postseason. Unless you actually win all of them or only lose 1 and then you're in the playoffs and everyone is tough.

Having a moderate-level schedule is usually best. Having a couple or three games that are good challenges have merit if championships are the goal. I don't like to see schools choose to schedule way over their heads with very low expectations to win. Nor do I like to see a school schedule way beneath their capabilities. Such is referencing out-of-conference scheduling. In conference games, you accept what is before you. This usually impacts OOC choices.
This is why I like to see conferences whereby all members are athletically compatible within reason for near all the sponsored sports.

(04-19-2019 05:57 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Having a moderate-level schedule is usually best. Having a couple or three games that are good challenges have merit if championships are the goal. I don't like to see schools choose to schedule way over their heads with very low expectations to win. Nor do I like to see a school schedule way beneath their capabilities. Such is referencing out-of-conference scheduling. In conference games, you accept what is before you. This usually impacts OOC choices.
This is why I like to see conferences whereby all members are athletically compatible within reason for near all the sponsored sports.

Well compensating for OOC games is virtually impossible. Auburn opens with Oregon this year. That game was set after the 2011 National Championship Game. Locking in a good OOC opponent is set years in advance with no way of knowing how good or bad they will be. The Auburn / Clemson series was set when Tommy Bowden was still coach. We didn't know we would be walking into the first two years of Dabo's run.

Ranking the 2019 SEC out-of-conference schedules.
The bottom few in the ranking need to step it up a bit. Have at least one of your four OOC games be a real challenging/competitive opponent.

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/c...story.html

(04-21-2019 04:42 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Ranking the 2019 SEC out-of-conference schedules.
The bottom few in the ranking need to step it up a bit. Have at least one of your four OOC games be a real challenging/competitive opponent.

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/c...story.html

I agree about the bottom few but the rankings are all over the place. Florida plays both Miami and F.S.U. and get's lowballed and worse is behind Ole Miss?

It is difficult to predict strength of schedule for top tier opponents when schedules have to be set years in advance, but I think every school can ensure that they play meaningful games. For example, Kentucky playing Louisville every year helps us to get ready for bowl season because it always matters. If we have to play up to Louisville that year, then we get that underdog practice in a meaningful setting. On the flip side, Louisville's down years give us an opportunity to end the year on a game that we still have to prepare to win because of how much the win means in-state.

I think every SEC team would do well to make sure that at least two games per year are meaningful for both sides, and it will balance out in the end. For Kentucky, I would love to see us continue to play Louisville and then rotate in border states before conference play, such as Indiana, West Virginia, Virginia Tech, Virginia, etc. Most other SEC schools could pull this off pretty easily if they desired.

Our schedule is much maligned this year.

I don't mind at all playing Duke, but we should have scheduled someone else halfway decent. Back in 2010, we played both Penn State and Duke in the same season and that felt like a better balance. To be fair, Duke has had some successful seasons since then so it's not like we're playing a cupcake. It's possible they'll be a bowl team this year. With Cutcliffe, you never know. Nonetheless, I would have preferred another Power team on the schedule.

Southern Miss is a decent game. They used to play us tough when we scheduled them every season although they've fall on hard times since then. At least, it's a school that's close by.

I really don't like playing cupcakes though. I'm willing to compromise and say that major programs could schedule a game like that for Homecoming every season and in part to give the guys a little break. Other than that, I don't see why we can't have a better slate of games. I'm not even saying we have to line up marquee match-ups like Notre Dame and Texas. Just play someone halfway decent to give me the feeling I'm not wasting money on a ticket.

(04-21-2019 05:01 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(04-21-2019 04:42 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Ranking the 2019 SEC out-of-conference schedules.
The bottom few in the ranking need to step it up a bit. Have at least one of your four OOC games be a real challenging/competitive opponent.

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/c...story.html

I agree about the bottom few but the rankings are all over the place. Florida plays both Miami and F.S.U. and get's lowballed and worse is behind Ole Miss?

Is FSU that bad? Show have scheduled And FCS team for more SOS points.

Thanks

(04-21-2019 06:21 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Our schedule is much maligned this year.

I don't mind at all playing Duke, but we should have scheduled someone else halfway decent. Back in 2010, we played both Penn State and Duke in the same season and that felt like a better balance. To be fair, Duke has had some successful seasons since then so it's not like we're playing a cupcake. It's possible they'll be a bowl team this year. With Cutcliffe, you never know. Nonetheless, I would have preferred another Power team on the schedule.

Southern Miss is a decent game. They used to play us tough when we scheduled them every season although they've fall on hard times since then. At least, it's a school that's close by.

I really don't like playing cupcakes though. I'm willing to compromise and say that major programs could schedule a game like that for Homecoming every season and in part to give the guys a little break. Other than that, I don't see why we can't have a better slate of games. I'm not even saying we have to line up marquee match-ups like Notre Dame and Texas. Just play someone halfway decent to give me the feeling I'm not wasting money on a ticket.

Agree with you, ATU, about Duke. While Alabama would be a strong favorite (as they would against almost all), Duke has often played quite well during the early season in recent years. They are mid-level ACC (often).

What is odd are the multiple Alabama--Western Carolina games. Maybe there is a personnel connection involved. Wasn't there some controversy during the last matchup? I vaguely recall WCU making a comeback or keeping it closer than expected, and WCU players were accused of taunting or inappropriate roughness? Again, I am not clear on this

I can see Alabama playing WCU every once in awhile if they deliberately seek a FCS opponent for whatever reason; but as a frequent choice, it stands out as a perennial softie, visiting from a tad afar.

Agree too on Southern Miss., a regional opponent with a history of playing Alabama.

Giving independent NMSU a game, really helps out NMSU
Actually though, WCU may pertorm better against Alabama than NMSU will. Still, it will be two very dominant wins for Alabama.

(04-22-2019 10:03 AM)OdinFrigg Wrote:  Thanks

(04-21-2019 06:21 PM)AllTideUp Wrote:  Our schedule is much maligned this year.

I don't mind at all playing Duke, but we should have scheduled someone else halfway decent. Back in 2010, we played both Penn State and Duke in the same season and that felt like a better balance. To be fair, Duke has had some successful seasons since then so it's not like we're playing a cupcake. It's possible they'll be a bowl team this year. With Cutcliffe, you never know. Nonetheless, I would have preferred another Power team on the schedule.

Southern Miss is a decent game. They used to play us tough when we scheduled them every season although they've fall on hard times since then. At least, it's a school that's close by.

I really don't like playing cupcakes though. I'm willing to compromise and say that major programs could schedule a game like that for Homecoming every season and in part to give the guys a little break. Other than that, I don't see why we can't have a better slate of games. I'm not even saying we have to line up marquee match-ups like Notre Dame and Texas. Just play someone halfway decent to give me the feeling I'm not wasting money on a ticket.

Agree with you, ATU, about Duke. While Alabama would be a strong favorite (as they would against almost all), Duke has often played quite well during the early season in recent years. They are mid-level ACC (often).

What is odd are the multiple Alabama--Western Carolina games. Maybe there is a personnel connection involved. Wasn't there some controversy during the last matchup? I vaguely recall WCU making a comeback or keeping it closer than expected, and WCU players were accused of taunting or inappropriate roughness? Again, I am not clear on this

I can see Alabama playing WCU every once in awhile if they deliberately seek a FCS opponent for whatever reason; but as a frequent choice, it stands out as a perennial softie, visiting from a tad afar.

Agree too on Southern Miss., a regional opponent with a history of playing Alabama.

Giving independent NMSU a game, really helps out NMSU
Actually though, WCU may pertorm better against Alabama than NMSU will. Still, it will be two very dominant wins for Alabama.

You're thinking of The Citadel. There was a little controversy over that game last year. It was competitive in the 1st Half and there was some chippyness in the 2nd. They run the option by the way...much like Georgia Southern who also gave us some trouble a few years back.

Several years back, we played Georgia State in their inaugural season. It was a bloodletting, but the reason we did it was as a favor to Bill Curry who was their coach at the time. They got a money game and a little extra exposure out of it. We have played Western Carolina a few times in recent years. I'm not sure what the connection is with them, but it might be something like that. I don't know.

With rare exception, any FCS opponent is going to be severely over-matched. A large portion of the G5 is in the same boat. I don't really differentiate too much when it comes to those teams. For the American and the Mountain West, you will get some competitive teams from those leagues generally speaking. Outside of that, it's pretty rare to have a competitive game when a P5 is scheduling a money game. Here and there you'll get a strong FCS squad that's capable of upsetting a Power team, but those sort of teams usually don't get scheduled that often. The major programs tend to steer clear of those.

Either way, I don't like playing the cupcakes with regularity. I think Homecoming is a fine time to play a team like that. All the alumni get to see a win and it's usually about halfway through the season or more so the players get a little rest.

I would like to see Bama schedule one top notch opponent every season and then a lower level P5 every season. I foresee going to 9 conference games one of these days so I think 2 Power schools and a cupcake is fairly well balanced when it comes to non-conference.