ND Scheduled Georgia (Ironman leaving the Country during 2019)

[phork]

Didn't see this posted anywhere, but:

Source: Notre Dame, Georgia working to finalize home-and-home - CBSSports.com

 

[IrishLax]

Hate it.

 

[woolybug25]

Hate it.

What don't you like?

This is the first I have heard, so I really don't have an opinion. I like that Georgia is a good SEC program that is known to lose out of conference games though. lol

 

[gkIrish]

I expressed my opinion in another thread. But I also hate it.

 

[tussin]

Yeah, let's play a schedule that can realistically have Miami, FSU, Georgia, USC, and Stanford on it. That's smart.

 

[woolybug25]

Yeah, let's play a schedule that can realistically have Miami, FSU, Georgia, USC, and Stanford on it. That's smart.

How could one possibly know if all of those teams are going to be as good as they are now, 4 years from now? Also, we are currently scheduled for a home/home with Miami in '16-'17, which means we most likely would not play them in '18-'19.

So not only do I think its unlikely that we play all of the teams you mentioned, but I also think its statistically unlikely that all of them will be as good as they were last season.

 

[Irish YJ]

Love it. Hate the dawgs. Can't wait to see ND play them here in GA along with GT. The SEC and ACC have been talking about an agreement to play xx number of games per year against each other (may have already come to terms) so this IMO is somewhat expected. I thought UTenn would be the first SEC team, but happy it's UGA. I'd rather play UGA or UT than AL, LSU, TAMU, or FL. Wouldn't mind SC too.

 

[tussin]

How could one possibly know if all of those teams are going to be as good as they are now, 4 years from now? Also, we are currently scheduled for a home/home with Miami in '16-'17, which means we most likely would not play them in '18-'19.

So not only do I think its unlikely that we play all of the teams you mentioned, but I also think its statistically unlikely that all of them will be as good as they were last season.

I was just using that as an example without memorizing the schedules. Sub Miami with Louisville or VTech and it would potentially be just as hard.

Will all of those teams be powerhouses? Probably not, but we can probably count on USC, Georgia, and FSU being very competitive. Who knows with Stanford in 5 years.

The broader point is that you can't set expectations of making the playoff with a brutal schedule of USC, Georgia, FSU/Clemson, Stanford, Miami/VT/Louisville, with "easy" games consisting of teams like MSU, Pitt, BC, UNC, and GT. And this is assuming that Georgia would be the Shamrock game.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Hope they get the deal done. Should be two great games.

 

[greyhammer90]

Wouldn't mind it if I knew we were going to be able to negotiate "easy" ACC years to coincide it. Otherwise though, we're just adding another speed bump for ourselves.

 

[T Town Tommy]

I was just using that as an example without memorizing the schedules. Sub Miami with Louisville or VTech and it would potentially be just as hard.

Will all of those teams be powerhouses? Probably not, but we can probably count on USC, Georgia, and FSU being very competitive. Who knows with Stanford in 5 years.

The broader point is that you can't set expectations of making the playoff with a brutal schedule of USC, Georgia, FSU/Clemson, Stanford, Miami/VT/Louisville, with "easy" games consisting of teams like MSU, Pitt, BC, UNC, and GT. And this is assuming that Georgia would be the Shamrock game.

Sure you can. The more big games you play... and most will draw a larger national audience... the better it helps you in recruiting. As you get better players, the team gets better and some of those big time wins start happening more often. Yeah... tough games every week can take its toll, but they will also make the program better in the long run.

 

[woolybug25]

I was just using that as an example without memorizing the schedules. Sub Miami with Louisville or VTech and it would potentially be just as hard.

Will all of those teams be powerhouses? Probably not, but we can probably count on USC, Georgia, and FSU being very competitive. Who knows with Stanford in 5 years.

The broader point is that you can't set expectations of making the playoff with a brutal schedule of USC, Georgia, FSU/Clemson, Stanford, Miami/VT/Louisville, with "easy" games consisting of teams like MSU, Pitt, BC, UNC, and GT. And this is assuming that Georgia would be the Shamrock game.

Yeah. I hear ya, but I don't buy it. How many seasons have we seen a schedule that looks way too crazy, but then we find out that it's really not as bad as it seems. For instance, I would have played every team you just listed last season.

Also, with the upcoming playoffs, there will be even more emphasis on "getting votes". What better way to fight public perception than playing high profile teams. I would rather lose to an overvalued Georgia team than an undervalued Pitt team.

 

[greyhammer90]

Sure you can. The more big games you play... and most will draw a larger national audience... the better it helps you in recruiting. As you get better players, the team gets better and some of those big time wins start happening more often. Yeah... tough games every week can take its toll, but they will also make the program better in the long run.

Thanks Bama.

 

[tussin]

Sure you can. The more big games you play... and most will draw a larger national audience... the better it helps you in recruiting. As you get better players, the team gets better and some of those big time wins start happening more often. Yeah... tough games every week can take its toll, but they will also make the program better in the long run.

I don't think ND needs to schedule an insanely difficult schedule to recruit well. IMO, what would push us over the top even more in recruiting would be if we took the strong classes we have had the past few years, combine that with 2013 FSU-esque schedule, and rode that to another NC appearance / win.

 

[IrishLax]

What don't you like?

This is the first I have heard, so I really don't have an opinion. I like that Georgia is a good SEC program that is known to lose out of conference games though. lol

If you want to have a successful team, don't play a dumbass schedule. There is no reason to schedule a team like Georgia.

Alabama in 2010 and Ohio State 2012 are the best illustrations of "how not" and "how to" schedule. In '10, that Alabama team was as talented and as well coached as just about any national championship team of the past decade. They played (at the time of the game) #2, #7, #9, #10, #10, #19, #19. I think some of those (Auburn, Arkansas, South Carolina) finished ranked higher and others (PSU, MSU) finished lower but I'm too lazy to look up 8 teams right now. They went 10-3 despite world beater talent. In '12, Ohio State played only two teams that finished the year ranked in the AP Poll... 5 loss Michigan (#24) and 4 loss Nebraska (#25). Moral of the story? Don't schedule a stupidly difficult schedule if you want a realistic chance to put up a stellar record.

Fans love the big matchups until ND goes 8-4 and then they bitch about the record. ND plays 5 ACC games each year now, which means we should target no more than 4 BCS conference teams for the remaining games. Stanford and USC are perennially PAC12 top contenders. So on basic odds and looking at typical recruiting rankings that means in those 7 games we probably get 3-5 ranked teams on a given year.

Then you have Navy. Which means you should have two games against "little guys" and one more against a BCS team. Why make that team a top 10 program loaded with talent instead of a Purdue or BYU? Is it because we enjoy losing?

 

[Cackalacky]

Love it. I am going to have fun in Athens that day.

 

[tussin]

As usual, Lax makes my point better than I ever could have. Reps.

A game against Georgia would be sweet in a vacuum. But combine that with tough games against the teams previously mentioned, and ND would need a historically talented team to get to the playoffs.

 

[gkIrish]

If you want to have a successful team, don't play a dumbass schedule. There is no reason to schedule a team like Georgia.

Alabama in 2010 and Ohio State 2012 are the best illustrations of "how not" and "how to" schedule. In '10, that Alabama team was as talented and as well coached as just about any national championship team of the past decade. They played (at the time of the game) #2, #7, #9, #10, #10, #19, #19. I think some of those (Auburn, Arkansas, South Carolina) finished ranked higher and others (PSU, MSU) finished lower but I'm too lazy to look up 8 teams right now. They went 10-3 despite world beater talent. In '12, Ohio State played only two teams that finished the year ranked in the AP Poll... 5 loss Michigan (#24) and 4 loss Nebraska (#25). Moral of the story? Don't schedule a stupidly difficult schedule if you want a realistic chance to put up a stellar record.

Fans love the big matchups until ND goes 8-4 and then they bitch about the record. ND plays 5 ACC games each year now, which means we should target no more than 4 BCS conference teams for the remaining games. Stanford and USC are perennially PAC12 top contenders. So on basic odds and looking at typical recruiting rankings that means in those 7 games we probably get 3-5 ranked teams on a given year.

Then you have Navy. Which means you should have two games against "little guys" and one more against a BCS team. Why make that team a top 10 program loaded with talent instead of a Purdue or BYU? Is it because we enjoy losing?

To add to this...it's not about being "afraid" of competition as some people argue. It's all about setting yourself up to win a championship. Anyone who isn't in this for that ultimate goal might as well GTFO in my opinion. Obviously I wouldn't want to do anything unethical, but we shouldn't be shooting ourselves in the foot with our scheduling just to make a few more bucks.

 

[NDWorld247]

I think one likely outcome in the next 5 years is the "Super Division" that's slowly been gaining momentum since the last round of major realignment. So, let's assume that happens and the teams of the ACC, Big 12, Big 10, Pac 12 and SEC, plus ND and maybe other independents such as BYU, Navy, etc, make up the "Super Division" with ~60 colleges. The other 60+ schools make up their own division and play their championship tournament.

All of the conferences move to a 9-game schedule and leave three weeks open for non-conference game. I'm not naïve to think that all schools will no longer schedule cupcakes for those three games, but I do think the new playoff will result in more teams scheduling stronger non-conference games. Schools will be rewarded for stronger non-conference scheduling as opposed to the system we've had for the past 15+ years that provided more risk than reward.

I don't have a problem with possibly scheduling Georgia. As Wooly and others have said, it's hard to predict how strong teams will be next season, nevermind 5-6 years from now, and I think that's the direction college football may be heading in anyway.

 

[phork]

If you want to have a successful team, don't play a dumbass schedule. There is no reason to schedule a team like Georgia.

Alabama in 2010 and Ohio State 2012 are the best illustrations of "how not" and "how to" schedule. In '10, that Alabama team was as talented and as well coached as just about any national championship team of the past decade. They played (at the time of the game) #2, #7, #9, #10, #10, #19, #19. I think some of those (Auburn, Arkansas, South Carolina) finished ranked higher and others (PSU, MSU) finished lower but I'm too lazy to look up 8 teams right now. They went 10-3 despite world beater talent. In '12, Ohio State played only two teams that finished the year ranked in the AP Poll... 5 loss Michigan (#24) and 4 loss Nebraska (#25). Moral of the story? Don't schedule a stupidly difficult schedule if you want a realistic chance to put up a stellar record.

Fans love the big matchups until ND goes 8-4 and then they bitch about the record. ND plays 5 ACC games each year now, which means we should target no more than 4 BCS conference teams for the remaining games. Stanford and USC are perennially PAC12 top contenders. So on basic odds and looking at typical recruiting rankings that means in those 7 games we probably get 3-5 ranked teams on a given year.

Then you have Navy. Which means you should have two games against "little guys" and one more against a BCS team. Why make that team a top 10 program loaded with talent instead of a Purdue or BYU? Is it because we enjoy losing?

That is all very dandy, but teams are all going to be bulking up on SOS once this playoff comes in. ND with its current schedules with 1 or even 2 losses might sneak into the playoff based on SOS.

 

[IrishLax]

That is all very dandy, but teams are all going to be bulking up on SOS once this playoff comes in. ND with its current schedules with 1 or even 2 losses might sneak into the playoff based on SOS.

In theory, yes. In practicality, as long as there are 5 major conference and only 4 playoff spots I don't see any way that SOS saves a 2 loss ND team... and I honestly doubt we get a fair shake at 1 loss either even with a superior SOS.

On top of that, there is not enough cross pollination in CFB for SOS metrics to accurately reflect the caliber of teams you're playing. Your bang-for-buck challenging yourself versus taking a weaker opponent in your "optional" games is not there, IMO.

 

[NCND]

If you want to have a successful team, don't play a dumbass schedule. There is no reason to schedule a team like Georgia.

Alabama in 2010 and Ohio State 2012 are the best illustrations of "how not" and "how to" schedule. In '10, that Alabama team was as talented and as well coached as just about any national championship team of the past decade. They played (at the time of the game) #2, #7, #9, #10, #10, #19, #19. I think some of those (Auburn, Arkansas, South Carolina) finished ranked higher and others (PSU, MSU) finished lower but I'm too lazy to look up 8 teams right now. They went 10-3 despite world beater talent. In '12, Ohio State played only two teams that finished the year ranked in the AP Poll... 5 loss Michigan (#24) and 4 loss Nebraska (#25). Moral of the story? Don't schedule a stupidly difficult schedule if you want a realistic chance to put up a stellar record.

Fans love the big matchups until ND goes 8-4 and then they bitch about the record. ND plays 5 ACC games each year now, which means we should target no more than 4 BCS conference teams for the remaining games. Stanford and USC are perennially PAC12 top contenders. So on basic odds and looking at typical recruiting rankings that means in those 7 games we probably get 3-5 ranked teams on a given year.

Then you have Navy. Which means you should have two games against "little guys" and one more against a BCS team. Why make that team a top 10 program loaded with talent instead of a Purdue or BYU? Is it because we enjoy losing?

+1 totally agree

 

[Buster Bluth]

1- at Navy
2- vs. Ball State
3- vs. Michigan State
4- vs. Rice
5- vs. Duke (ACC #5)
6- at Florida State (ACC#1)
7- BYE
8- vs. Southern Cal
9- vs. Miami (OH)
10- at Pittsburgh (ACC #3)
11- at Virginia (ACC #4)
12- vs. Virginia Tech (ACC #2)
13- BYE
14- at Stanford
C-

So simple. They don't need Georgia to make a good schedule.

(http://www.irishenvy.com/forums/notre-dame-football/182896-optimal-notre-dame-scheduling-model.html)

 

[ACamp1900]

Never go full retard... ND, your scheduling is going full retard...

 

[Grahambo]

Considering we're about 4 years away from seeing UGA on the schedule, safe to say that the schedule isn't finalized so who knows what else Jack has up his sleeve. They could be in the process of dropping 1 or 2 teams. Way to early to tell.

 

[koonja]

We should play the Packers while we're at it.

 

[rikkitikki08]

Its all about recruiting fellas

 

[dublinirish]

why the flip is ball state on that schedule? playing MAC teams is pointless, regardless of how bad they are.

 

[woolybug25]

I guess I just don't see it. Chances are that FSU, Miami and not on the 18-19 schedule, as the home/home schedule is based on a three year rotation. Miami is almost certainly not on the '18 schedule.

Then, who is to say MSU and Stanford are even that good four years from now? Statistically speaking, at least one of them should be down.

I just remember all of the years that I have heard about "X" team having too difficult of a schedule and then we find out the percieved quality of opponents isn't accurate. It happends every year and strength of schedule doesn't seem to have a huge correlary to what teams are good. Auburn had one of the most difficult SoS in college football last year. Same for Stanford.

I just feel that in the new world of the playoff, programs will need to have a defining win on their schedule to get in the top 4. It's not going to be a "go undefeated or bust" campaign anymore. You cant get a defining win unless you play teams that end the season as a top team. Even if you schedule 4-5 tier 1 programs a season, chances are that only 2-3 of them end up actually being any good. Sure it may lead to a season every now and again that leads to being real difficult, but we would always know we will play enough good teams to get in and we would always get the benefit of the doubt because of being in big games year in and year out.

 

[Cackalacky]

Its all about recruiting fellas

Exactly. ND needs a long term presence in the recruiting hotbeds. Look at what we have been able to do in Texas recently. More exposure in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida and Texas.

Win our games and we are in the playoffs no doubt. We have to win. 10-2 will not do it. 11-1 with our schedule might. I think the Big Televen schedules hurt them in the playoff scenario, even if the champion goes undefeated. Obviously an undefeated SEC, ACC, Pac12 team takes up the other 3 spots.