ND Scheduled Georgia (Ironman leaving the Country during 2019)

[koonja]

IMO, going 11-1 against an easy schedule (and easy for us still has at least 2 top 20 teams), will reap more recruiting benefits than taking on the world and going 9-3. No one remembers 9-3.

I'd be OK adding Georgia though, if we drop MSU and probably one other tough game.

Add 1 elite opponent and drop two good ones is a GREAT model, IMO. You will not get looked down on for that.

 

[Rocket89]

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.

We simply can't afford to live and die by the "BCS era model" in the future that values going undefeated over playing a tough schedule. Not only does it goes against our ethos as a program but that's not where the trends are moving with the CFB playoff.

Also, I'd argue pretty strongly that a 1-loss ND team will still be very much in the mix for playoff spot just like a 2-loss ND team was for a BCS bowl.

And as already mentioned, we don't know what the future schedules are going to look like in their totality or strength. We have to err on the side of strong schedules, though.

 

[rikkitikki08]

You run the table on a schedule like that and you can guarantee you are playing in the 4 team playoff. On the other hand winning 10 games with a difficult schedule year in and year out becomes that much more challenging

 

[greyhammer90]

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.

Can someone explain to me where the idea that SOS is going to be more important than it was in the BCS came from?

The BCS had two spots to get into the championship game. To get there you had to have a reasonable SOS and go undefeated unless you're in the SEC. This led to teams attempting to schedule their way into an undefeated season, and as long as they are in a major conference they would likely get in with an undefeated record.

The new system has four spots available, so I think if anything SOS would matter less for traditional powerhouses. If ND, OSU, UM, Bama, UF, FSU, Miami, etc. go undefeated they'll get into the playoffs. Guaranteed. If they didn't there would be a riot. This will only get more apparent as the playoffs inevitably expand. So I don't really understand where "now SOS is important" comes from.

Tl;dr: playoff system is less selective than the BCS mathematically. Now that 4 teams can get in, SOS should matter less than wins. More than ever, the goal is to go undefeated because that would certainly guarantee a spot for historic powerhouses.

 

[irishfan]

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

Maybe we can play Georgia twice then.

 

[IrishLion]

It's a "pick your poison" for ND in terms of scheduling no matter what happens and who gets put on the schedule. If this was "Idaho" instead of Georgia, and the '18-'19 schedule ended up being a good ACC team, three mediocre ones, and a crappy one, and then ND gets shafted for the playoff due to SOS, people would be bitching about "why is Idaho on there?"

Conversely, if ND gets five tough ACC squads and the other teams on the schedule are all set to have good teams, the Idaho game wouldn't really matter either way because the chances of going undefeated are slim already.

So why not put a good team on the schedule, enjoy the potential for a reward or two in recruiting, and hope for a respectable ACC slate to go with it? I agree with Rocket that you need to err on the side of a tough schedule. Chances are far greater that teams will be "down" rather than playing in world-beater mode.

 

[woolybug25]

IMO, going 11-1 against an easy schedule (and easy for us still has at least 2 top 20 teams), will reap more recruiting benefits than taking on the world and going 9-3. No one remembers 9-3.

I'd be OK adding Georgia though, if we drop MSU and probably one other tough game.

Add 1 elite opponent and drop two good ones is a GREAT model, IMO. You will not get looked down on for that.

I guess this is where Rocket and I disagree with the popular opinion here.

First of all, it's impossible to predict whether a future opponent will be "elite" or "good". You can only schedule elite programs and hope that averages out. For instance, nobody was afraid of Florida last year.

Second, If we have one big win (say USC) and two "good" wins (say MSU and Stanford) but got blown out by Florida State and finished 11-1... do you think that automatically gets us into the playoffs? I adamently do not believe that.

We will usually have one undefeated SEC team and possibly another undefeated from another conference. We will have a 1-2 loss SEC team with an arguably better SoS (because they are playing Esss See See programs with good reputations, Bama from last year would be a good example), we would have some undefeated MAC or WAC team screaming, "what about the little guys" and finally... a whole host of other 11-1 teams.

I think you have to guarantee yourself an opportunty for 2-3 marquee wins a year. You can only guarantee you even play 3 marquee teams if you schedule more to compensate for the obvious cycles in college programs.

 

[irishfan]

I agree with what Lax and others posted. The negatives of this seems to far, far outweigh the positives. I don't envision college football being this wild wild west of scheduling where teams feel the need to schedule crazy out of conference games to make it to the four-team playoff. No 2-loss team the last four years has finished in the top 4 and now that pretty much every conference has a conference championship, there is even less of a need to schedule a tough out of conference game. Any contender has a built in massive resume-building game at the end of the year with the conference championship.

I'd take an 11-1 year with a B+ schedule over a 10-2 year with an A schedule, as I refuse to believe that we will make it into the playoffs as a 2-loss Independent over any 1-loss team from an AQ. I'm not automatically chalking up Georgia as a loss. But the combination of them being a likely top-20 team along with Stanford, USC, and 1 ACC team being in the Top 20 to go along with our usual solid schedule, its damn near impossible to make it through that gauntlet without two losses.

Here are the Top 4 teams of the previous years' BCS standings:

2013
--1) 13-0 FSU
--2) 12-1 Auburn
--3) 11-1 Bama
--4) 12-1 Mich State
2012
--1) 12-0 ND
--2) 12-1 Bama
--3) 11-1 Florida
--4) 11-1 Oregon
2011
--1) 13-0 LSU
--2) 11-1 Bama
--3) 11-1 OK State
--4) 11-1 Stanford
2010
--1) 13-0 Auburn
--2) 12-0 Oregon
--3) 12-0 TCU
--4) 11-1 Stanford

 

[koonja]

What's lost in this is that USC is about to be a monster again, FSU is the #1 team in the country, and Stanford is only going up.

I don't think people realize how good USC is about to be, assuming Sark isn't a total idiot. They're getting everyone they want, and the scholarship reductions are about to become a non factor. They're going to be a NFL factory from now until 2020 if I had to guess.

 

[Cackalacky]

Can someone explain to me where the idea that SOS is going to be more important than it was in the BCS came from?

The BCS had two spots to get into the championship game. To get there you had to have a reasonable SOS and go undefeated unless you're in the SEC. This led to teams attempting to schedule their way into an undefeated season, and as long as they are in a major conference they would likely get in with an undefeated record.

The new system has four spots available, so I think if anything SOS would matter less for traditional powerhouses. If ND, OSU, UM, Bama, UF, FSU, Miami, etc. go undefeated they'll get into the playoffs. Guaranteed. If they didn't there would be a riot. This will only get more apparent as the playoffs inevitably expand. So I don't really understand where "now SOS is important" comes from.

Tl;dr: playoff system is less selective than the BCS mathematically. Now that 4 teams can get in, SOS should matter less than wins. More than ever, the goal is to go undefeated because that would certainly guarantee a spot for historic powerhouses.

Teams will be chosen based on several factors including conference championships, strength of schedule, head-to-head competition, comparing common opponents and injuries.
Playoff committee's selection criteria will be flexible, complex

To coaches, this would force would-be contending teams to schedule marquee opponents during non-conference play; in turn, this would help create a more clear picture of which teams belong in the playoff conversation – or, better yet, which teams do not.

"I don't think there's any doubt the goal of all of us is going to be to get in that four-team playoff and win it," Brown said. "So if you allow teams not to play a tough schedule, and get in the four-team playoff, it's going to be encouraging people not to play great games across the country."

Strengthening non-conference schedules to match up with the new playoff format was ostensibly behind the upcoming home-and-home series between Oregon and Nebraska, with the Ducks traveling to Lincoln, Neb., in 2016 and the Cornhuskers returning the favor a year later. Oregon has also signed upcoming non-conference agreements with Michigan State, Virginia, Texas A&M and Ohio State through the 2021 season.
Coaches want strength of schedule in playoff formula

The days of shitty SOS are coming to a close. With tOSUs of the world scrambling to schedule tougher opponents it will shake out. SOS and head to head will be very important.

ND must have a marquee schedule with no conference championship game.

 

[Rocket89]

There were 16 BCS title games from 1998 to 2013. Out of those 32 teams who participated 12 (37.5%) had 1 loss, while one team had 2 losses.

Do people really think the 4-team playoff is going to be 4 undefeated teams on a consistent basis? I'd probably bet there won't be a single playoff over the next 5 years where that happens. We could only get 6 BCS title games out of 16 to be between 2 undefeated teams.

The playoff system is going to stress resume just like it does in college basketball, although to differing degrees.

If 40% of the BCS "2-team playoff" featured a team with at least 1 loss that means we can safely assume that in the future with the 4-team playoff there's going to be on average 2 teams making it with 1 loss. We'll probably see 3 teams get in with 1 loss on a fairly frequent basis.

How will the playoff committee choose who those 1-loss teams should be? The answer is they will stress resume, so we need a strong schedule. Not to mention we won't have a conference title game to add to our resume so we better impress in the regular season.

 

[koonja]

Can someone tell me why we need to play Purdue? I guess I don't care how long we've played them. We already play 6 or more games in state, and they're just another decent team that you can't overlook.

I'd be OK taking them and MSU off of the schedule if scheduling one more difficult team is a MUST.

Take it easy on me here, I honestly don't know the ins and outs of that rivalry.

 

[woolybug25]

I agree with what Lax and others posted. The negatives of this seems to far, far outweigh the positives. I don't envision college football being this wild wild west of scheduling where teams feel the need to schedule crazy out of conference games to make it to the four-team playoff. No 2-loss team the last four years has finished in the top 4 and now that pretty much every conference has a conference championship, there is even less of a need to schedule a tough out of conference game. Any contender has a built in massive resume-building game at the end of the year with the conference championship.

I'd take an 11-1 year with a B+ schedule over a 10-2 year with an A schedule, as I refuse to believe that we will make it into the playoffs as a 2-loss Independent over any 1-loss team from an AQ. I'm not automatically chalking up Georgia as a loss. But the combination of them being a likely top-20 team along with Stanford, USC, and 1 ACC team being in the Top 20 to go along with our usual solid schedule, its damn near impossible to make it through that gauntlet without two losses.

Here are the Top 4 teams of the previous years' BCS standings:

2013
--1) 13-0 FSU
--2) 12-1 Auburn
--3) 11-1 Bama
--4) 12-1 Mich State
2012
--1) 12-0 ND
--2) 12-1 Bama
--3) 11-1 Florida
--4) 11-1 Oregon
2011
--1) 13-0 LSU
--2) 11-1 Bama
--3) 11-1 OK State
--4) 11-1 Stanford
2010
--1) 13-0 Auburn
--2) 12-0 Oregon
--3) 12-0 TCU
--4) 11-1 Stanford

As Cack pointed out above, the days of simply going undefeated is over. The new playoffs change everything. So your point above actually validates the argument to schedule harder. Look at the teams you posted above. One thing most of them have in common is that they had good SoS and went undefeated or 11-1. Why would we assume that Notre Dame would consistently get in over one of the four in the last four years?

 

[irishfan]

As Cack pointed out above, the days of simply going undefeated is over. The new playoffs change everything. So your point above actually validates the argument to schedule harder. Look at the teams you posted above. One thing most of them have in common is that they had good SoS and went undefeated or 11-1. Why would we assume that Notre Dame would consistently get in over one of the four in the last four years?

Haha cause I don't think we can go 11-1 with a schedule that is already very tough and throws Georgia on top of it.

 

[IrishLax]

I guess this is where Rocket and I disagree with the popular opinion here.

First of all, it's impossible to predict whether a future opponent will be "elite" or "good". You can only schedule elite programs and hope that averages out. For instance, nobody was afraid of Florida last year.

But the converse is also true. Years ago, no one would've thought Stanford would be a powerhouse. So this is a completely moot point as it goes both ways.

Second, If we have one big win (say USC) and two "good" wins (say MSU and Stanford) but got blown out by Florida State and finished 11-1... do you think that automatically gets us into the playoffs? I adamently do not believe that.

I keep getting an internal server error on my response to Rocket, but if you think an 11-1 ND team without a blowout loss to ANYONE is getting in over a major conference champion I think that's naïve of the politics. There are only 4 spots for 5 big guys. Even with a #1 SOS, there is almost no scenario where ND gets a nod over an undefeated Big Ten champ with poor SOS or a 12-1 team from the PAC12 or equivalent.

We will usually have one undefeated SEC team and possibly another undefeated from another conference. We will have a 1-2 loss SEC team with an arguably better SoS (because they are playing Esss See See programs with good reputations, Bama from last year would be a good example), we would have some undefeated MAC or WAC team screaming, "what about the little guys" and finally... a whole host of other 11-1 teams.

I think you have to guarantee yourself an opportunty for 2-3 marquee wins a year. You can only guarantee you even play 3 marquee teams if you schedule more to compensate for the obvious cycles in college programs.

What is your worry? That a 12-0 ND would get shut out? Won't happen with virtually any conceivable combination of 5 ACC + Stanford + USC. That 11-1 will get shutout? Likely to happen regardless of how hard we try to schedule.

 

[Rocket89]

The "10-2 isn't going to get us in the playoff" is a bit of a strawman argument. That would only happen very rarely. But if it did you'll need a strong schedule.

This is about bolstering your resume if you have 1-loss. It's going to be a dog fight for those playoff spots among non-undefeated teams. Automatically assuming we can't do better than 10-2 against schedules that aren't even finalized doesn't do much for me.

 

[IrishLax]

There were 16 BCS title games from 1998 to 2013. Out of those 32 teams who participated 12 (37.5%) had 1 loss, while one team had 2 losses.

Do people really think the 4-team playoff is going to be 4 undefeated teams on a consistent basis? I'd probably bet there won't be a single playoff over the next 5 years where that happens. We could only get 6 BCS title games out of 16 to be between 2 undefeated teams.

The playoff system is going to stress resume just like it does in college basketball, although to differing degrees.

If 40% of the BCS "2-team playoff" featured a team with at least 1 loss that means we can safely assume that in the future with the 4-team playoff there's going to be on average 2 teams making it with 1 loss. We'll probably see 3 teams get in with 1 loss on a fairly frequent basis.

How will the playoff committee choose who those 1-loss teams should be? The answer is they will stress resume, so we need a strong schedule. Not to mention we won't have a conference title game to add to our resume so we better impress in the regular season.

Missing forest for trees. I tried to respond earlier, but keep getting error. In summary, on any given year you're probably looking at something close to:
12-0 Big 12 Champ, SOS in the 40s
13-0 Big Ten Champ, SOS in 50s
12-1 SEC Champ
11-1 SEC Runner up
12-1 PAC 12 Champ
11-2 PAC12 Runner Up
12-1 ACC Champ

Regardless of how much people are saying SOS will be emphasized, knowing the politics of college football it's unrealistic that a 10-2 ND team would reasonably compete for a spot in that field. On top of that, even an 11-1 ND team would be in a 5-way race for 2 spots. There is simply no scenario where an undefeated major conference champion ever gets left out, and it's relatively implausible that a 1-loss conference champion who played an extra game before the selection and likely has a relatively comparable SOS would get left out for ND... no matter how good ND's SOS.

 

[woolybug25]

But the converse is also true. Years ago, no one would've thought Stanford would be a powerhouse. So this is a completely moot point as it goes both ways.

I actually see that as going to my point. Stanford is a marquee program. They go through cycles. Years ago, no one would have thought that USC was the 3rd or 4th best opponent of ours the last couple years. Things go in cycles, so if we only schedule 2-3 marquee programs... then we aren't solidifying a year in and year out opportunity for a definitive win. A must have, in my opinion, for a place in future playoffs. So in a sense... if we don't play a marquee opponent (ie a favorite for a playoff spot), then we don't even have an opportunity to make the playoffs sans an undefeated season.

I keep getting an internal server error on my response to Rocket, but if you think an 11-1 ND team without a blowout loss to ANYONE is getting in over a major conference champion I think that's naïve of the politics. There are only 4 spots for 5 big guys. Even with a #1 SOS, there is almost no scenario where ND gets a nod over an undefeated Big Ten champ with poor SOS or a 12-1 team from the PAC12 or equivalent.

We would if we had multiple wins against marquee opponents. That's another check in the "schedule harder" box, imo. We don't play a conference championship. How do we compensate for that? If there is no compensation, then again... we are putting ourselves in an "undefeated or bust" scenario.

What is your worry? That a 12-0 ND would get shut out? Won't happen with virtually any conceivable combination of 5 ACC + Stanford + USC. That 11-1 will get shutout? Likely to happen regardless of how hard we try to schedule.

I'm not (I don't want to speak for others) worried about getting shut out as an undefeated, i'm worried about consistently getting into the show. If we have to go undefeated to get in, then on the current path, we should expect to get into the playoffs once every 25 years or so. I want to make sure that we have opportunites in years where we go 11-1 or even possibly 10-2. The only way that happens is with multiple marquee wins. The same argument conference teams have to make by winning a conference championship.

 

[Cackalacky]

I don't understand why we are worried about a team in 2018. We have the flexibility to manage our schedule. We can choose to not play MSU one year. We can add Wake Forest on another. We need a top tier Big 12, SEC or extra ACC team every year. If Georgia replaces Texas, so be it. Whatever our 12th team is it has to be marquee.

If we have an "A" schedule and go 11-1/ undefeated, no way ND is not in the playoff.

Further, USC/Stanford will always be in the PAC12 title hunt. Texas/Oklahoma always in the Big 12 Title hunt. Georgia (SEC title hunt), FSU/Clemson (ACC title hunt). We will play lots of head-heads with possible conference title winners. Beat them and that is a head-head advantage for ND. Schedule a strong schedule and win the games (advantage to ND). What else is there?

 

[Rocket89]

Missing forest for trees. I tried to respond earlier, but keep getting error. In summary, on any given year you're probably looking at something close to:
12-0 Big 12 Champ, SOS in the 40s
13-0 Big Ten Champ, SOS in 50s
12-1 SEC Champ
11-1 SEC Runner up
12-1 PAC 12 Champ
11-2 PAC12 Runner Up
12-1 ACC Champ

Regardless of how much people are saying SOS will be emphasized, knowing the politics of college football it's unrealistic that a 10-2 ND team would reasonably compete for a spot in that field. On top of that, even an 11-1 ND team would be in a 5-way race for 2 spots. There is simply no scenario where an undefeated major conference champion ever gets left out, and it's relatively implausible that a 1-loss conference champion who played an extra game before the selection and likely has a relatively comparable SOS would get left out for ND... no matter how good ND's SOS.

Well yeah, you're presenting what amounts to the toughest example in terms of resume of other teams and acting like this is what's it's going to be like every year. It will be a lot messier than this.

For example, we haven't had 2 undefeated teams at top the past 3 years. You can also get rid of the 11-2 Pac-12 runner up--either that team didn't make the league title game with 2 losses and is out or they just lost the league title game aren't making it in.

 

[IrishLion]

Missing forest for trees. I tried to respond earlier, but keep getting error. In summary, on any given year you're probably looking at something close to:
12-0 Big 12 Champ, SOS in the 40s
13-0 Big Ten Champ, SOS in 50s
12-1 SEC Champ
11-1 SEC Runner up
12-1 PAC 12 Champ
11-2 PAC12 Runner Up
12-1 ACC Champ

Regardless of how much people are saying SOS will be emphasized, knowing the politics of college football it's unrealistic that a 10-2 ND team would reasonably compete for a spot in that field. On top of that, even an 11-1 ND team would be in a 5-way race for 2 spots. There is simply no scenario where an undefeated major conference champion ever gets left out, and it's relatively implausible that a 1-loss conference champion who played an extra game before the selection and likely has a relatively comparable SOS would get left out for ND... no matter how good ND's SOS.

The problem is that if the schedule is so tough, Georgia being on it doesn't matter one way or the other... what makes Georgia the tipping point? If the schedule might be so tough that we have USC, Stanford, FSU/Clemson, Virginia Tech/Miami, the odds of going undefeated are slim anyway. If ND is good enough to get through that gauntlet, scheduling Georgia in addition shouldn't be a big thing anyway.

I'm with you that 1-loss ND will get left out for a 1-loss conference champ with comparable SOS, so then maybe we shouldn't be debating if ND should schedule an extra tough opponent in Georgia... maybe we should be debating on ND joining a conference and gaining that "one-loss, conference champ" advantage?

 

[Rocket89]

I guess my main point would be this. It's really, really hard to go undefeated.

Trying to manage the schedule in a manner that sets us up to go undefeated is really dangerous. One bad day and not only do you lose that goal, but you've likely dropped out of playoff contention because your resume isn't strong enough to compete with the other 4 or 5 1-loss teams at the end of the season.

Put another way, let's pretend the 4-team playoff will exist for the next 50 years. How many times would ND make it as an undefeated? Whatever number you think that will be the amount of times ND makes it in as 1-loss team will be greater. The statistics favor there being a lot more 1-loss ND teams than undefeated ND teams.

There are going to be a crap ton of 1-loss teams for the committee to sort through in the coming years. We need a strong resume, it's just that simple.

 

[Cackalacky]

I will also throw this out there that has not been mentioned yet. The recusal policy of the 13 member selection committee. ND has what... 3-4 members of the commmittee with past ties to the school? The recusal policy, which has yet to be finalized could significantly impact the team selection.

 

[adsnorri]

To be the best, you must beat the best. SEC has been the best. I don't see any problem with the move. IMO the acc is trending down after many of it's stars have left for the NFL. Louisville, Clemson, Virginia Tech, UNC, etc are not who they once were. I think USC will be definitely up again. So in essence we will be playing USC, STANFORD every year and rotating 2-3 tough teams(Georgia, FSU, Texas, etc.) Seems like a smart model to me. I think others are worried because we seem to struggle with the Pitts of the world but losing a close one to Pitt is worse than losing a close one to Georgia on prime time.

Big games OOC are the trend now due to the playoff and I don't see it going away. MSU-Oregon, Bama-WVU(they tried, lol), LSU- Wisc., etc.

I understand the undefeated/1 loss argument but we are trying to take the program to the next level and that means big games in recruiting hot beds(Down South). I think it shows we are willing to play anyone, anywhere. I think we are set to hold our own now with how the team's personnel is finally laid out. Correct quarterback is worth 1-2 more wins a year.

 

[woolybug25]

I guess my main point would be this. It's really, really hard to go undefeated.

Trying to manage the schedule in a manner that sets us up to go undefeated is really dangerous. One bad day and not only do you lose that goal, but you've likely dropped out of playoff contention because your resume isn't strong enough to compete with the other 4 or 5 1-loss teams at the end of the season.

Put another way, let's pretend the 4-team playoff will exist for the next 50 years. How many times would ND make it as an undefeated? Whatever number you think that will be the amount of times ND makes it in as 1-loss team will be greater. The statistics favor there being a lot more 1-loss ND teams than undefeated ND teams.

There are going to be a crap ton of 1-loss teams for the committee to sort through in the coming years. We need a strong resume, it's just that simple.

THISTHISTHIS

Bottom line. We don't and won't go 12-0 very often, and it certainly isn't the path to least resistence to getting a spot in the playoffs. 11-1 is only good enough if we have marquee wins. Other teams get that by playing conference championships.

 

[PANDFAN]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p><a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23NotreDame&src=hash">#NotreDame</a> HC Brian Kelly hasn't had talks about a contract/years w/ a <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Georgia&src=hash">#Georgia</a> series, but stresses importance of Atlanta for recruiting</p>— Matt Fortuna (@Matt_Fortuna) <a href="https://twitter.com/Matt_Fortuna/statuses/453899784177205248">April 9, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[gkIrish]

THISTHISTHIS

Bottom line. We don't and won't go 12-0 very often, and it certainly isn't the path to least resistence to getting a spot in the playoffs. 11-1 is only good enough if we have marquee wins. Other teams get that by playing conference championships.

I guess my main point would be this. It's really, really hard to go undefeated.

Trying to manage the schedule in a manner that sets us up to go undefeated is really dangerous. One bad day and not only do you lose that goal, but you've likely dropped out of playoff contention because your resume isn't strong enough to compete with the other 4 or 5 1-loss teams at the end of the season.

Put another way, let's pretend the 4-team playoff will exist for the next 50 years. How many times would ND make it as an undefeated? Whatever number you think that will be the amount of times ND makes it in as 1-loss team will be greater. The statistics favor there being a lot more 1-loss ND teams than undefeated ND teams.

There are going to be a crap ton of 1-loss teams for the committee to sort through in the coming years. We need a strong resume, it's just that simple.

No no no lol. It's not about setting up the schedule to go undefeated. If we wanted to do that we would create a Boise St. schedule. It's about creating a healthy mix of good, average, and below average opponents. That way, you give yourself a fighting chance to go undefeated and IF it happens you will get in to the playoffs.

Also--you better believe Georgia is going to require that this game be in Week 1 or 2. They have played Boise St., Missouri, and Clemson in week 1 or 2 the past 4 years. Yet another reason this is a terrible idea.

 

[IrishLax]

Well yeah, you're presenting what amounts to the toughest example in terms of resume of other teams and acting like this is what's it's going to be like every year. It will be a lot messier than this.

For example, we haven't had 2 undefeated teams at top the past 3 years. You can also get rid of the 11-2 Pac-12 runner up--either that team didn't make the league title game with 2 losses and is out or they just lost the league title game aren't making it in.

I don't really think what I'm presenting is very far off the norm.

Look at last year... after final week of the regular season, you had:
13-0 FSU. Lock.
12-1 SEC Champ Auburn. Lock because Ess Eee See.
11-1 Alabama.
12-1 Big Ten MSU.
11-2 PAC12 Champ Stanford.
11-1 Big 12 Champ Baylor.
12-1 Ohio State.

Internal server errors are fun... so to truncate this, how do you see an 11-1 ND team with awesome SOS getting in from the pool of 6 teams competing for two spots? Considering any game against another blue blood that recruits elite talent to be a 50/50ish proposition in the long run, the downside of loss (being relegated to 10-2 and out of contention) outweighs any marginal gain from the SOS boost that ND would receive with a win.

 

[woolybug25]

No no no lol. It's not about setting up the schedule to go undefeated. If we wanted to do that we would create a Boise St. schedule. It's about creating a healthy mix of good, average, and below average opponents. That way, you give yourself a fighting chance to go undefeated and IF it happens you will get in to the playoffs.

Also--you better believe Georgia is going to require that this game be in Week 1 or 2. They have played Boise St., Missouri, and Clemson in week 1 or 2 the past 4 years. Yet another reason this is a terrible idea.

I guess that's where our opinions differ. We have seen how hard it is to go undefeated. It doesn't happen very oftern and looking at the '88 schedule, it doesn't usually directly coorelate with SoS. It has more to do with how good the actual team is.

So on point two, I totally agree that we have to give ourselves a fighting chance to get into the show. I really don't think that 11-1 will be good enough to consistently get into the 4 team playoffs without a minimum of 2 marquee wins. Assuming our one loss is to another marquee team (we are definitely out if its not), then that's a schedule that has a mandatory 3 marque game plate. You have to schedule more than 3 marquee names to accomplish that in order to make sure it happens. Schools in conferences dont have that problem, since their conference championship will be considered marquee regardless of the opponent. It really is an advantage of conference alignment in this new structure.

 

[Cackalacky]

One of the criteria of the selection committee is going to be injury status of the teams too. I am guessing we need to ensure we keep our teams healthy too for each season. Just sayin......

Much of this goes into the playoff thread and the thread Buster started about desired scheduling. Maybe some of this should be moved there. There are so much to getting in tot he playoff, scheduling Georgia is the least of our problems.