ND Scheduled Georgia (Ironman leaving the Country during 2019)

[woolybug25]

Stanford
Michigan St.
Georgia
USC
Clemson

I'm fine with that. There is no way all five would be marquee games. Last year, only three were (MSU, Georgia and Stanford).

 

[Rocket89]

Just Objectivity.

A 2-game series with Georgia is a mountain too high for grand ol' Notre Dame.

Should we cancel the Texas series too?

 

[tussin]

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.

I don't understand the logic of your argument. Even GREAT teams would likely lose multiple games against a schedule that includes FSU, USC, Stanford, MSU, and Georgia. It's just not realistic to schedule programs like that and just assume we will win enough games to make a playoff. We could honestly have a playoff caliber team and go 9-3 against that.

For the love of God, be smart with your schedule. We play 5 ACC games every year, presumably with 2 of them going against the 1/2 ACC and 3/4 ACC teams. I view our remaining "conference schedule" as subbing out 3 ACC lower tier teams and putting in USC, Stanford, and Navy (and sometimes MSU). That is already an elite schedule! We essentially play the best teams from 3 different conferences every year. It is simply a dumb move to schedule Georgia on top of that.

Bama is always in a position to contend because, while they play 4 or sometimes 5 really tough games every year, they are smart enough to make sure the rest of their games are creampuffs (preferably in the beginning of the season). ND should take a hint and follow that model. Our tough games should be against our traditional rivals, stop trying to schedule every elite team under the sun. Sure, it will help some regional recruiting, but I'd guess National Championships help recruiting more.

 

[IrishLax]

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

Counterpoint... all of modern history:
2005: Beat Michigan, lost an OT game to MSU. Was our third September game in a row against a quality opponent whereas MSU was coming off two warm up games. Only other loss on the regular season the was the nail biter to #1 USC. In short... underperformed in September.
2006: Lost to Michigan in our third September game in a row against a quality opponent, Michigan came into the game off two warm ups. The only other game we lost in the regular season was the finale against top 5 USC. So again, underperformed in September due to a front loaded schedule when our opponents were sandwiching our game with softies.
2007: 0-5 in September, 3-4 the rest of the way.
2008: Lost to MSU in 3rd game after they preceded our game with two warm ups. Did not underperform in September overall relative to the rest of the season, but did pick up that MSU loss in the typical "too front loaded" vein.
2009: Lost to Michigan in game #2, but tanked the back end of the schedule. So 08 and 09 had ND falling apart down the stretch which spelled the doom of Charlie Weis.
2010: Went 1-3 in September, 6-2 the rest of the way.
2011: Went 0-2 to start, then 8-2 the rest of the way.
2012: Undefeated! Woohoo! Started with two of the easiest teams on our schedule, and then played MSU and Michigan (in the 4th game! not after two warmups while we were playing tough teams!). Both Michigan and MSU started the season with ranked teams (Boise State and Alabama respectively) instead of their normal creampuffs while we were the ones showing our hands.
2013: 2-3 in September, lost to Michigan in week #2 then Oklahoma in week #5 in our 4th straight game against a BCS opponent. Went 5-2 the rest of the way.

So every single year but 2008/2009 things did not go "just fine" when we played a front loaded schedule while other teams fit in multiple tune up games.

 

[tussin]

I'm fine with that. There is no way all five would be marquee games. Last year, only three were (MSU, Georgia and Stanford).

You mean Clemson?

 

[Rocket89]

Stanford
Michigan St.
Georgia
USC
Clemson

This is making me feel like a cranky old man but it's sad that you'd think this list is too much for Notre Dame to bear. Alabama will play 5 ranked teams and we can't possibly play Georgia on the road once when we have to play Michigan State too!

 

[woolybug25]

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.

In a year that we are one of the best 4 teams in the country... we better be able to win 4 out of the 5 out of the top 5.

I don't think year in and year out, beating the bottom three and losing to an OU/Bama would get us in the show. Nor do I think we would be deserving necessarily.

I'm not arguing for an easier path to the playoffs, I'm looking for a fair one. Bottom line, the easiest path is to join a conference. Since we could play three games of quality like the three you posted, possibly get lucky in a champioship game, and squeek into the playoffs. Ther is no squeeking by when you are independent. But I think it's important that we stay that way. Hence... scheduling the likes of Georgia and Texas.

 

[IrishLax]

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

No, it's called being pragmatic. If you want ND to play the most awe inspiring schedule in college football and go 6-6 against the top 12 teams while putting on some great games then fine. But don't make it sound like scheduling this way is remotely in the best interest of getting to the playoffs. Math, logic, and everything else points to just the opposite.

Again, what are Nick Saban's three season? Play a manageable schedule, play a manageable schedule, and play a manageable schedule.

Everyone else gets it.

 

[Rocket89]

Counterpoint... all of modern history:
2005: Beat Michigan, lost an OT game to MSU. Was our third September game in a row against a quality opponent whereas MSU was coming off two warm up games. Only other loss on the regular season the was the nail biter to #1 USC. In short... underperformed in September.
2006: Lost to Michigan in our third September game in a row against a quality opponent, Michigan came into the game off two warm ups. The only other game we lost in the regular season was the finale against top 5 USC. So again, underperformed in September due to a front loaded schedule when our opponents were sandwiching our game with softies.
2007: 0-5 in September, 3-4 the rest of the way.
2008: Lost to MSU in 3rd game after they preceded our game with two warm ups. Did not underperform in September overall relative to the rest of the season, but did pick up that MSU loss in the typical "too front loaded" vein.
2009: Lost to Michigan in game #2, but tanked the back end of the schedule. So 08 and 09 had ND falling apart down the stretch which spelled the doom of Charlie Weis.
2010: Went 1-3 in September, 6-2 the rest of the way.
2011: Went 0-2 to start, then 8-2 the rest of the way.
2012: Undefeated! Woohoo! Started with two of the easiest teams on our schedule, and then played MSU and Michigan (in the 4th game! not after two warmups while we were playing tough teams!). Both Michigan and MSU started the season with ranked teams (Boise State and Alabama respectively) instead of their normal creampuffs while we were the ones showing our hands.
2013: 2-3 in September, lost to Michigan in week #2 then Oklahoma in week #5 in our 4th straight game against a BCS opponent. Went 5-2 the rest of the way.

So every single year but 2008/2009 things did not go "just fine" when we played a front loaded schedule while other teams fit in multiple tune up games.

Did we have worthy teams all of those years? Did we have great teams that just couldn't handle the early season tough games?

If we're good enough, we'll win the early season games. Within reason, of course. Signing a 2-game series with Georgia is well within reason.

Also, we're seeing more teams match up early in the season for the future. Very positive sign for college football, IMO. Just this year we have a great selection of early season matchups.

 

[IrishLax]

This is making me feel like a cranky old man but it's sad that you'd think this list is too much for Notre Dame to bear. Alabama will play 5 ranked teams and we can't possibly play Georgia on the road once when we have to play Michigan State too!

I don't know what you mean here. Auburn, LSU... A&M without Manziel... maybe Ole Miss, unlikely Florida. Depending on where you look, those are the only ranked teams on their schedule.

We already have MORE and HIGHER ranked teams on our schedule WITHOUT Georgia.

 

[irishfan]

No, it's called being pragmatic. If you want ND to play the most awe inspiring schedule in college football and go 6-6 against the top 12 teams while putting on some great games then fine. But don't make it sound like scheduling this way is remotely in the best interest of getting to the playoffs. Math, logic, and everything else points to just the opposite.

Again, what are Nick Saban's three season? Play a manageable schedule, play a manageable schedule, and play a manageable schedule.

Everyone else gets it.

Agreed. Here is Bama's 2014 schedule for this curious. Well-placed byes and cupcakes:

WVU (neutral site)
vs. FAU
vs. Southern Miss
vs. Florida
BYE
at Ole Miss
at Arkansas
vs. A&M
at Tennessee
BYE
at LSU
vs. Miss State
vs. Western Carolina
vs. Auburn

Auburn and LSU are the marquee games, but you've got a bye and a FCS team before them. Ole Miss, Florida, and A&M are the "pretty tough" games, and you've got a bye before one, a game against Southern Miss (who just had a 20-game losing streak), and playing 3-9 Arkansas before the A&M game. We don't have that luxury. Maybe we'll get lucky and get a Purdue or a Duke before a team like Stanford or USC, but if you look at our schedule the next three years, we're not lucky enough to play a sub .500 team before every tough game. Playing solid teams every week adds up. You can't go through an entire season like that. We did it in 2012 against what luckily ended up being a softer than anticipated schedule, and I don't anyone needs reminding at how many close wins we had that year.

 

[woolybug25]

Again, what are Nick Saban's three season? Play a manageable schedule, play a manageable schedule, and play a manageable schedule.

Everyone else gets it.

Everyone else does not get it. There are several, including myself, that want us to bolster the schedule. It also clearly seems that the University agrees with that premise as well.

You're Bama example is also flawed. Their last title (2012):

Michigan
Western Kentucky
Arkansas
Florida Atlantic
Ole Miss
Mizzou
Tennessee
Miss St
LSU
Texas A&M
Western Carolina
Auburn
Georgia

That's five marquee programs. If you don't like Texas A&M as "marquee", then swap it with Tennessee.

 

[woolybug25]

I don't know what you mean here. Auburn, LSU... A&M without Manziel... maybe Ole Miss, unlikely Florida. Depending on where you look, those are the only ranked teams on their schedule.

We already have MORE and HIGHER ranked teams on our schedule WITHOUT Georgia.

But they are all marquee teams. How do you know the teams we are playing in 2018 are ranked and that Georgia would be as well?

 

[IrishLax]

Did we have worthy teams all of those years? Did we have great teams that just couldn't handle the early season tough games?

If we're good enough, we'll win the early season games. Within reason, of course. Signing a 2-game series with Georgia is well within reason.

Also, we're seeing more teams match up early in the season for the future. Very positive sign for college football, IMO. Just this year we have a great selection of early season matchups.

Then throw out all the years besides '05, '06, and '12. In '05 and '06 we got snake bit playing a gauntlet while the teams we lost to played some tuneup games. In '12, they all challenged themselves while we started with two of the easiest teams on our schedule, so we actually had an advantage or were at least on even footing.

Front loading the schedule is never a good idea (but is a bit of a necessity with being an independent). If you're going to play Georgia in week 1, then you need to have at least 1 if not 2 complete creampuffs following that game.

 

[irishfan]

But they are all marquee teams. How do you know the teams we are playing in 2018 are ranked and that Georgia would be as well?

We don't. But we don't know that a Louisville or UNC wont be either.

 

[IrishLax]

Everyone else does not get it. There are several, including myself, that want us to bolster the schedule. It also clearly seems that the University agrees with that premise as well.

You're Bama example is also flawed. Their last title (2012):

Michigan
Western Kentucky
Arkansas
Florida Atlantic
Ole Miss
Mizzou
Tennessee
Miss St
LSU
Texas A&M
Western Carolina
Auburn
Georgia

That's five marquee programs. If you don't like Texas A&M as "marquee", then swap it with Tennessee.

It's not flawed at all. Notice how they LOST the A&M game because it followed LSU despite Alabama having world beater talent in '12.

Nick said what he said because it's true. Urban Meyer repeated it because it's true. And Brian Kelly complains about scheduling because our current model does him no favors.

Nick TRIES his darndest to make the best schedule he can. Sometimes it's impossible, which is the nature of being in a conference where you have limited control. When he fails to do so, (i.e. '10 and '12) even his best teams have lost a number of games. So everything reinforces his point and my point. Scheduling matters.

 

[Rocket89]

Then throw out all the years besides '05, '06, and '12. In '05 and '06 we got snake bit playing a gauntlet while the teams we lost to played some tuneup games. In '12, they all challenged themselves while we started with two of the easiest teams on our schedule, so we actually had an advantage or were at least on even footing.

Front loading the schedule is never a good idea (but is a bit of a necessity with being an independent). If you're going to play Georgia in week 1, then you need to have at least 1 if not 2 complete creampuffs following that game.

Who says our schedule has to be front-loaded and won't be manageable? Alabama is opening up with Wisconsin in 2015. Is that not pragmatic?

 

[gkIrish]

This is making me feel like a cranky old man but it's sad that you'd think this list is too much for Notre Dame to bear. Alabama will play 5 ranked teams and we can't possibly play Georgia on the road once when we have to play Michigan State too!

In 1988 we played 3 ranked teams before the championship (Michigan, Miami, USC). We went undefeated. Not sure why it's being defeatist to suggest we do basically the same thing going forward as we did in 1988.

Did we have worthy teams all of those years? Did we have great teams that just couldn't handle the early season tough games?

If we're good enough, we'll win the early season games. Within reason, of course. Signing a 2-game series with Georgia is well within reason.

Also, we're seeing more teams match up early in the season for the future. Very positive sign for college football, IMO. Just this year we have a great selection of early season matchups.

I'm not arguing that we can't beat Georgia in week 1. I'm saying that doing so will hurt us down the line. Nevermind that there's a 40-60% chance that we lose.

You just seem to like big-time matchups. Let's just schedule Alabama, Ohio St., Oklahoma, and Oregon too. There's really no reason not to under your logic.

 

[irishog77]

Team Wooly/Eric

 

[woolybug25]

We don't. But we don't know that a Louisville or UNC wont be either.

See the Bama schedule above. How did they know that Tennessee, Ole Miss, Miss St and Mizzou would be beatable?

 

[Rocket89]

In 1988 we played 3 ranked teams before the championship (Michigan, Miami, USC). We went undefeated. Not sure why it's being defeatist to suggest we do basically the same thing going forward as we did in 1988.



I'm not arguing that we can't beat Georgia in week 1. I'm saying that doing so will hurt us down the line. Nevermind that there's a 40-60% chance that we lose.

You just seem to like big-time matchups. Let's just schedule Alabama, Ohio St., Oklahoma, and Oregon too. There's really no reason not to under your logic.

Oh, please.

I'm about as far away from a chest-pounding LET'S PLAY THE BEST SCHEDULE IN THE NATION person as you'll find.

You don't think we can handle a series with Georgia, that's on you. You can keep painting me as someone who thinks we should play a million ranked teams if that makes you feel like you're making a strong point.

 

[woolybug25]

It's not flawed at all. Notice how they LOST the A&M game because it followed LSU despite Alabama having world beater talent in '12.

Nick said what he said because it's true. Urban Meyer repeated it because it's true. And Brian Kelly complains about scheduling because our current model does him no favors.

Nick TRIES his darndest to make the best schedule he can. Sometimes it's impossible, which is the nature of being in a conference where you have limited control. When he fails to do so, (i.e. '10 and '12) even his best teams have lost a number of games. So everything reinforces his point and my point. Scheduling matters.

Did they not schedule 5 marquee names? I'm not asking about the interpretation of how it unfolded, just that they are there. They won a title with that formula, they would make a playoff with that formula.

In 1988 we played 3 ranked teams before the championship (Michigan, Miami, USC). We went undefeated. Not sure why it's being defeatist to suggest we do basically the same thing going forward as we did in 1988.

Again... it's easy to go back and look who was ranked, but that isn't the model. There is no possible way for us to schedule 3 ranked teams in 2018. We have to schedule marquee opponents and work the statistics that most will be ranked and 1 or 2 wont... oh, and we have to actually be good too, otherwise the point it moot, as we wouldn't deserve to be in the playoffs.

In 1988, we played SIX marquee programs (Michigan, MSU, Stanford, Miami, USC and Penn State)

 

[gkIrish]

Oh, please.

I'm about as far away from a chest-pounding LET'S PLAY THE BEST SCHEDULE IN THE NATION person as you'll find.

You don't think we can handle a series with Georgia, that's on you. You can keep painting me as someone who thinks we should play a million ranked teams if that makes you feel like you're making a strong point.

You advocate that we play Georgia in addition to the teams we already will likely play in 2018. Therefore you are literally advocating that we play the best schedule in the nation. You are literally advocating we play 5+ ranked teams. I don't see how I'm painting you in any false light.

You keep painting me as someone that's afraid to play Georgia...which is not what I've been saying at all.

 

[IrishLion]

I don't understand the logic of your argument. Even GREAT teams would likely lose multiple games against a schedule that includes FSU, USC, Stanford, MSU, and Georgia. It's just not realistic to schedule programs like that and just assume we will win enough games to make a playoff. We could honestly have a playoff caliber team and go 9-3 against that.

My logic lies in the bolded portion of your statement.

Take out Georgia, and you still have FSU, USC, Stanford and MSU. It's going to take a national championship-worthy sqaud to get through those four undefeated as it is. What I'm saying is that if ND fields a team good enough to get through those four (FSU, USC Stanford, MSU) without a loss, then it would be good enough to beat Georgia if Georgia was on the schedule as well.

 

[woolybug25]

You advocate that we play Georgia in addition to the teams we already will likely play in 2018. Therefore you are literally advocating that we play the best schedule in the nation. You are literally advocating we play 5+ ranked teams. I don't see how I'm painting you in any false light.

You keep painting me as someone that's afraid to play Georgia...which is not what I've been saying at all.

I don't think it would be the top schedule in the nation, even with Georgia. It would be good enough that 11-1 would get us into the playoffs though.

Again... there is no possible way that we can project that all five marquee names will be ranked in 2018. Statistically speaking, it's not that likely.

 

[Rocket89]

You advocate that we play Georgia in addition to the teams we already will likely play in 2018. Therefore you are literally advocating that we play the best schedule in the nation. You are literally advocating we play 5+ ranked teams. I don't see how I'm painting you in any false light.

You keep painting me as someone that's afraid to play Georgia...which is not what I've been saying at all.

I'm advocating that? How could I when the schedule isn't even finalized yet?

Georgia
Northwestern
USC
Navy
Stanford

That's all we know about 2018. Michigan State is off the schedule, as far as I'm aware. How is this some murderer's row that we can't possibly compete against?

 

[IrishLax]

Who says our schedule has to be front-loaded and won't be manageable? Alabama is opening up with Wisconsin in 2015. Is that not pragmatic?

Not pragmatic at all. But Alabama has gotten to the point where they DGAF about any non-SEC team. They especially view Big Ten teams as appetizers... because they've blown out every Big Ten Team they've played for a long while now, even the "best" ones that are ranked.

Most "major" SEC teams right now plays their "9th" game against a quality opponent. South Carolina/Clemson, Florida/FSU, LSU and Bama doing kickoff games against Oregon, Tech, Michigan, etc.

ND plays 5 conference games + Stanford + USC. If you add Georgia, then the next team needs to be a middling team (your Illinois and Utahs of the world). The final 3 = Navy + two other creampuffs. That keeps you on par with the hardest schedules in the rest of college football, anything more and you're outpacing everyone.

If you don't add Georgia, then in those final couple games you can afford to play BYUs or other "decent" programs. Right now, we don't know when the Georgia series would be and who else would be on the docket... but I don't like it because that last game is more likely to be against someone like MSU AND frontloaded than it is to be against someone like Indiana.

 

[gkIrish]

I'm advocating that? How could I when the schedule isn't even finalized yet?

Georgia
Northwestern
USC
Navy
Stanford

That's all we know about 2018. Michigan State is off the schedule, as far as I'm aware. How is this some murderer's row that we can't possibly compete against?

We are still playing the ACC in 2018

 

[woolybug25]

Not pragmatic at all. But Alabama has gotten to the point where they DGAF about any non-SEC team. They especially view Big Ten teams as appetizers... because they've blown out every Big Ten Team they've played for a long while now, even the "best" ones that are ranked.

They can do that because they are guaranteed 4 marquee games a year by being in the SEC West + Conference Championship.

Most "major" SEC teams right now plays their "9th" game against a quality opponent. South Carolina/Clemson, Florida/FSU, LSU and Bama doing kickoff games against Oregon, Tech, Michigan, etc.

So for SEC West teams, that's a 5th marquee opponent. Why should we be less if we are competing for the same playoffs slots?

ND plays 5 conference games + Stanford + USC. If you add Georgia, then the next team needs to be a middling team (your Illinois and Utahs of the world). The final 3 = Navy + two other creampuffs. That keeps you on par with the hardest schedules in the rest of college football, anything more and you're outpacing everyone.

I don't believe it does. Out of those 5 "conference games, maybe 1 or 2 are marquee teams (ie FSU, Clem or Miami). Adding Georgia would give us four marquee opponents. The same amount that the SEC west signs up for every single year.

If you don't add Georgia, then in those final couple games you can afford to play BYUs or other "decent" programs. Right now, we don't know when the Georgia series would be and who else would be on the docket... but I don't like it because that last game is more likely to be against someone like MSU AND frontloaded than it is to be against someone like Indiana.

And if we don't add them, play three quality opponents, losing to one.... we can then watch the playoffs while playing in the Little Ceasars Bowl. Just like the rest of the 11-1 teams with two quality wins.

 

[woolybug25]

We are still playing the ACC in 2018

There are only 3 marquee names in the ACC. (FSU, Miami and Clemson), and it's on a 3 year cycle of home and homes. Which tentatively takes Miami out of consideration for both '18 and '19.

That should leave us with 4 marquee programs, two or three of which will actually be good.