ND Scheduled Georgia (Ironman leaving the Country during 2019)

[IrishLion]

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.

I still want to know why scheduling a team like Georgia becomes the tipping point between 11-1 and 12-0 in your argument. I honestly believe that if ND is good enough to go 12-0 against USC, Stanford, ACC 1/2, ACC 3/4, then they will be good enough to beat a good blue-blood like Georgia thrown into the mix as well.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

I'm definitely in the 'we're making our schedule too tough' camp, but that said, this particular deal, at the margin, only hurts if you lose. (Or if it causes other losses via "looking-ahead", next-week let-downs, injuries, etc.) Which is all certainly possible, depending on how the future schedule and opponents shake out down the road, but isn't necessarily a given.

But if you win, all is well. And it's good for recruiting and publicity.

 

[gkIrish]

I still want to know why scheduling a team like Georgia becomes the tipping point between 11-1 and 12-0 in your argument. I honestly believe that if ND is good enough to go 12-0 against USC, Stanford, ACC 1/2, ACC 3/4, then they will be good enough to beat a good blue-blood like Georgia thrown into the mix as well.

You can't look at each game in a vacuum. The more good to elite teams you add to a schedule the more challenging it becomes to beat all of them.

 

[Ndaccountant]

You can't look at each game in a vacuum. The more good to elite teams you add to a schedule the more challenging it becomes to beat all of them.

And it's even more likely that the loss will be to a team you would have expected to beat.

Why does PITT always give us trouble? What about Purdue the last few years? Those games are games ND should not only win, but dominate. Yet, that hasn't been the case. When those teams treat the matchup as their Super Bowl and ND is coming off an emotional & physical game against UGA/USC/Stanford/Other, the situation is begging for an upset. The more teams like UGA / USC you play, the more risk you have.

 

[Rocket89]

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 don't think is anyone is advocating having a Boise schedule, or conversely, trying to play 8 ranked teams. You're right it's about a healthy mix but for Notre Dame, as an independent without a conference title game, that includes signing a home-and-home with a strong program like Georgia.

Who cares if we play them in week one or two. I don't see why that makes it a terrible idea.

 

[IrishLion]

You can't look at each game in a vacuum. The more good to elite teams you add to a schedule the more challenging it becomes to beat all of them.

I understand that, but here's my point:

ND is always looking at USC, Stanford, ACC1/2, ACC 3/4 (they might get lucky and not see the 1/2 ACC spot).

If ND is good enough to avoid tripping up against the rest of the schedule, and also good enough to get through the above gauntlet, adding Georgia doesn't matter either way.

I understand that adding Georgia is another chance at "tripping up," but it's really no different than the other "trip up" opportunities ND sees every year.

 

[gkIrish]

I don't think is anyone is advocating having a Boise schedule, or conversely, trying to play 8 ranked teams. You're right it's about a healthy mix but for Notre Dame, as an independent without a conference title game, that includes signing a home-and-home with a strong program like Georgia.

Who cares if we play them in week one or two. I don't see why that makes it a terrible idea.

I don't have time to get into this now in detail, but if you schedule tough opponents in the first 2 weeks all these things are true:

1. No playing time for young players. This is the main issue. When you have injuries later in the season, the backups haven't seen much playing time and you increase the chances that you lose to a team you shouldn't lose to.

2. If you lose, you have to dig yourself out of a hole rankings wise and also hurts team morale for the rest of the season.

3. You have to use your whole playbook week 1. Never good thing.

 

[gkIrish]

I understand that, but here's my point:

ND is always looking at USC, Stanford, ACC1/2, ACC 3/4 (they might get lucky and not see the 1/2 ACC spot).

If ND is good enough to avoid tripping up against the rest of the schedule, and also good enough to get through the above gauntlet, adding Georgia doesn't matter either way.

I understand that adding Georgia is another chance at "tripping up," but it's really no different than the other "trip up" opportunities ND sees every year.

I don't think it's fair to say Georgia is merely another chance at tripping up. They could very well be the best team we play in any given year. They have been a top 10 team overall the past decade and generally recruit very well. No reason to think they won't be an elite team in 2018.

 

[IrishLax]

I still want to know why scheduling a team like Georgia becomes the tipping point between 11-1 and 12-0 in your argument. I honestly believe that if ND is good enough to go 12-0 against USC, Stanford, ACC 1/2, ACC 3/4, then they will be good enough to beat a good blue-blood like Georgia thrown into the mix as well.

We're assuming an 11-1 ND and evaluating whether playing Georgia is of value in that scenario. There is no doubt that at 12-0 ND is in the playoff with or without Georgia.

So the crux of this boils down to:
1. What are the benefits of playing Georgia?
2. What is the downside of playing Georgia?

Upside is that it's a big game and potentially helps our recruiting if we win. A win over Georgia, if they have a great season, also potentially helps our case over an SEC #2 for a spot in the playoff. And a win over Georgia potentially boosts our SOS such that it might help us with selection over any other 1 loss team.

The downside is that any game against any blue blood is probably a 50/50 proposition. Depending on the year and team it probably varies between 30% and 70% chance of win, but in general let's just call it a coin flip. So every game you play versus one of these teams that can match you in talent has an expected value of 0.5 losses. So scheduling a team like Georgia in place of a team like Southwest Nevada State Technical College gives you effectively 50% worse odds of going 12-0 than if you had the creampuff on the schedule.

 

[woolybug25]

I don't think it's fair to say Georgia is merely another chance at tripping up. They could very well be the best team we play in any given year. They have been a top 10 team overall the past decade and generally recruit very well. No reason to think they won't be an elite team in 2018.

So could USC, MSU, FSU, etc... but they all could be in down years too. So there is no way to know.

The one thing we do know, is that all other teams will play an additional game through their conference championship. Which, regardless of opponent, will be seen as a marquee victory. Do you agree that with an 11-1 record, we would need a minimum of two marquee victories and our loss being to a marquee team to sniff the playoffs?

If so, then I do not know how we consistently get there if we are only scheduling 3 marquee games a year. If literally one of them is down, then we pretty much have to go undefeated.

 

[Rocket89]

I don't have time to get into this now in detail, but if you schedule tough opponents in the first 2 weeks all these things are true:

1. No playing time for young players. This is the main issue. When you have injuries later in the season, the backups haven't seen much playing time and you increase the chances that you lose to a team you shouldn't lose to.

2. If you lose, you have to dig yourself out of a hole rankings wise and also hurts team morale for the rest of the season.

3. You have to use your whole playbook week 1. Never good thing.

We've been playing a tough team (usually Michigan) in week one or two for decades. This doesn't change anything. We're a big boy football team.

 

[IrishLax]

We've been playing a tough team (usually Michigan) in week one or two for decades. This doesn't change anything. We're a big boy football team.

How's that been working out for us recently?

 

[Irish#1]

I don't have time to get into this now in detail, but if you schedule tough opponents in the first 2 weeks all these things are true:

1. No playing time for young players. This is the main issue. When you have injuries later in the season, the backups haven't seen much playing time and you increase the chances that you lose to a team you shouldn't lose to.

2. If you lose, you have to dig yourself out of a hole rankings wise and also hurts team morale for the rest of the season.

3. You have to use your whole playbook week 1. Never good thing.

One loss teams that lose at the start of the season have a better chance of climbing back in it than teams that lose late in the year.

 

[Rocket89]

How's that been working out for us recently?

Just fine when we have a worthy football team that can beat good opponents on a consistent basis.

 

[gkIrish]

So could USC, MSU, FSU, etc... but they all could be in down years too. So there is no way to know.

The one thing we do know, is that all other teams will play an additional game through their conference championship. Which, regardless of opponent, will be seen as a marquee victory. Do you agree that with an 11-1 record, we would need a minimum of two marquee victories and our loss being to a marquee team to sniff the playoffs?

If so, then I do not know how we consistently get there if we are only scheduling 3 marquee games a year. If literally one of them is down, then we pretty much have to go undefeated.

You keep saying that all these teams could have a down year and I think that's flawed logic.

Here's a really bad analogy. Say you're doing a scientific experiment and you have a bunch of potentially volatile chemicals you want to try and mix together. You're not sure if any one of them will cause an explosion but you know that each of them has the potential to be dangerous. The more of these potentially hazardous chemicals you add to the mix, the greater your chances that one or more of them are going to cause an explosion...

Yes I agree we would need 2 marquee victories. Where I disagree is that I think we will already have 3-4 marquee opponents and adding a fourth or fifth doesn't help as much as it could hurt.

 

[gkIrish]

One loss teams that lose at the start of the season have a better chance of climbing back in it than teams that lose late in the year.

That's a valid argument but you lose the ability to control your own fate. You don't want to have to rely on other teams losing to make the playoffs.

 

[gkIrish]

We've been playing a tough team (usually Michigan) in week one or two for decades. This doesn't change anything. We're a big boy football team.

I think the fundamental issue here is that you don't think ND is likely to lose to anyone at or near our talent level, while history and statistics disagree with you.

 

[woolybug25]

You keep saying that all these teams could have a down year and I think that's flawed logic.

Here's a really bad analogy. Say you're doing a scientific experiment and you have a bunch of potentially volatile chemicals you want to try and mix together. You're not sure if any one of them will cause an explosion but you know that each of them has the potential to be dangerous. The more of these potentially hazardous chemicals you add to the mix, the greater your chances that one or more of them are going to cause an explosion...

Yes I agree we would need 2 marquee victories. Where I disagree is that I think we will already have 3-4 marquee opponents and adding a fourth or fifth doesn't help as much as it could hurt.

Using your example. We are using 12 samples and the rest of college football is using 13 (conference championship game). So we are already working ahead.

If you agree that we consistently need 2 marquee victories, then how would only scheduling 3 marquee names be appealing? Only 3 marquee teams leave us two options:
1) Go undefeated and it doesn't matter if they're good.
2) Hope all three are good and we beat two of them

Neither option seems like a consistent path for the playoffs. Only one of them are even in our control. Bottom line, if we have 4 marquee opponents and they end up all being at the top of their game, its a) statistical anomoly and b) no different than an SEC West schedule year in and year out (ie Bama, Auburn, LSU and Conf Championship).

 

[IrishLion]

So we're all in agreement that ND should just become a full-time ACC member so that having one loss will be irrelevant as long as they win the conference championship game? Rather than keeping some semblance of independence and scheduling teams like Georgia to make up for it?

 

[woolybug25]

So we're all in agreement that ND should just become a full-time ACC member so that having one loss will be irrelevant as long as they win the conference championship game?

I think you are being facetious, but if not, i'm on record that I want us to stay independent. But in order to be on the same competitive field as teams with conference championships, we have to schedule either another game or an additional marquee opponent. Otherwise, we wont make the playoffs very often.

 

[irishfan]

I guess the easiest way to look at what a schedule with Georgia would be like would be to take the 2016 schedule (our first year with 5 ACC games) and replace Texas with Georgia.

So, IMO, the debate essentially is whether or not we can go 11-1 against this schedule:

at Georgia
vs. Nevada
vs. Mich State
vs. Duke
at Syracuse
at NC State
vs. Stanford
BYE
vs. Miami
at Navy
vs. Army
vs. Va Tech
at USC

That's not a very fun schedule.

And yes, Stanford and MSU might not be top teams by then, but USC and Miami could be top 5 teams at that point.

 

[gkIrish]

Using your example. We are using 12 samples and the rest of college football is using 13 (conference championship game). So we are already working ahead.

If you agree that we consistently need 2 marquee victories how only scheduling 3 marquee names would be appealing. Only 3 marquee teams leave us two options:
1) Go undefeated and it doesn't matter if they're good.
2) Hope all three are good and we beat two of them

Neither option seems like a consistent path for the playoffs. Only one of them are even in our control. Bottom line, if we have 4 marquee opponents and they end up all being at the top of their game, its a) statistical anomoly and b) no different than an SEC West schedule year in and year out (ie Bama, Auburn, LSU and Conf Championship).

From what I've heard, Michigan St. will be back on the schedule in 2018. If true, that means we would have 4 marquee on the schedule. Would you agree that Georgia is overkill if that's true?

I think the other difference is that the rest of our schedule is much better compared to other teams because we play no more than one cupcake per year so adding another marquee opponent hurts us relatively more than any other team. If we played 4 marquee opponents, 4 average, and 4 below average that would be a different situation than the one we have put ourselves in--4 marquee 7 average 1 cupcake.

 

[woolybug25]

From what I've heard, Michigan St. will be back on the schedule in 2018. If true, that means we would have 4 marquee on the schedule. Would you agree that Georgia is overkill if that's true?

I think the other difference is that the rest of our schedule is much better compared to other teams because we play no more than one cupcake per year so adding another marquee opponent hurts us relatively more than any other team. If we played 4 marquee opponents, 4 average, and 4 below average that would be a different situation than the one we have put ourselves in--4 marquee 7 average 1 cupcake.

Who would be the 5?

I want a minimum of 4 marquee names (again, they may not end up being marquee games per se), 4 good names, 3 average games (ie Navy, Purdue, etc) and one cupcake. If I err to one side, it's another marquee game and certainly no more than one pure cupcake. I also would prefer the cupcake to be week 1.

 

[gkIrish]

Who would be the 5?

Stanford
Michigan St.
Georgia
USC
Clemson

 

[IrishLion]

I think you are being facetious, but if not, i'm on record that I want us to stay independent. But in order to be on the same competitive field as teams with conference championships, we have to schedule either another game or an additional marquee opponent. Otherwise, we wont make the playoffs very often.

I was being facetious, but I did it to illustrate the reality, which you stated nicely. I edited my post to reflect our similar stance on the situation.

ND is in a bad position without a conference championship game. Those games allow one and two loss teams to make up ground with an extra "marquee" game by boosting SOS one final time, and it helps more than anything that they are the last game of the season.

ND does not have that advantage. So either they need to go undefeated, or they need to have three guaranteed big games on the schedule and hope their only loss happens early. And if they're good enough to go undefeated against the schedule they will see every year, adding Georgia isn't as big of a risk as people think anyway.

 

[gkIrish]

Look at it this way. Do you HONESTLY think ND is capable of doing the following:

Beating 4 of 5 of:

Stanford
@USC
@Clemson
Georgia
Michigan St.

PLUS
Oklahoma
Alabama

That's what you would be asking ND to do in order to win a championship. That's some serious video game shit.

Alternatively Beat all 3 of:

@USC
Stanford
Michigan St.

plus Oklahoma and Alabama.

 

[Rocket89]

I think the fundamental issue here is that you don't think ND is likely to lose to anyone at or near our talent level, while history and statistics disagree with you.

Umm, no.

I'm okay with losing a game or two if we play a strong schedule. Plenty of other teams will play strong schedules and we've been doing the same for most our existence. If we're not good enough to go undefeated or get into a playoff with a strong schedule then that's what we'll have to deal with.

I'm more concerned with improving the football program and not dumbing down the schedule so we appear better than we are.

 

[Cackalacky]

Winners go home an d f the prom queen. Why are we trying to justify possible losses. Win the damn games.

 

[Rocket89]

Look at it this way. Do you HONESTLY think ND is capable of doing the following:

Beating 4 of 5 of:

Stanford
@USC
@Clemson
Georgia
Michigan St.

PLUS
Oklahoma
Alabama

That's what you would be asking ND to do in order to win a championship. That's some serious video game shit.

Alternatively Beat all 3 of:

@USC
Stanford
Michigan St.

plus Oklahoma and Alabama.

Isn't this just defeatist talk deep at its core?

 

[gkIrish]

Isn't this just defeatist talk deep at its core?

Just Objectivity.