ND Scheduled Georgia (Ironman leaving the Country during 2019)

[gkIrish]

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.

Virginia Tech has been an elite program over the last 15 years.

 

[Rocket89]

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.

Bingo. In other words, a nice balanced schedule that shouldn't get anyone upset.

 

[Cackalacky]

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.

ACC games are not home and homes. Neither Clemson nor FSU are on the 2016 schedule.

Syracuse, Miami, Duke, UNC, and Va Tech are.

 

[ACamp1900]

Every single year ND will play a schedule good enough to get them in if they can win enough games… adding to the schedule at this point does nothing but add to the odds of not doing so.

 

[woolybug25]

Virginia Tech has been an elite program over the last 15 years.

I wouldn't call two conference championships, 1 BCS game victory and zero national title appearances "elite".

 

[Cackalacky]

The 2016 ACC bloc is not that daunting. Replacing a UNC with Georgia for two years is not a big deal....

 

[tussin]

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.

That's horrible logic. Why don't we schedule the top 12 teams every year? If we can beat the first 4 then we will surely win 5-12....right?!?

 

[woolybug25]

Every single year ND will play a schedule good enough to get them in if they can win enough games… adding to the schedule at this point does nothing but add to the odds of not doing so.

Last year, we had 5 marquee teams on our schedule (Mich, MSU, USC, OU and Stanford), so our PAST schedules sure would have been.

Remind me... are we playing Michigan or OU in 2018?

We have always played 4-5 (sometimes 6, see 1988) marquee teams. Now its more important than ever to have good SoS. So I really don't see the issue you guys see. We have to schedule 4 minimum, preferably 5-6 marquee names a year.

 

[woolybug25]

That's horrible logic. Why don't we schedule the top 12 teams every year? If we can beat the first 4 then we will surely win 5-12....right?!?

You let me know when you can predict who the top 4 teams in the polls will be in 2018. I'll pay for our trip to Vegas.

 

[IrishLion]

That's horrible logic. Why don't we schedule the top 12 teams every year? If we can beat the first 4 then we will surely win 5-12....right?!?

Well I guess if adding Georgia as a 5th tough game is too frightening a concept, we could just schedule Idaho instead.

 

[PANDFAN]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>I pray we play Georgia!!! &#55357;&#56840;&#55357;&#56840;&#55357;&#56840;&#55357;&#56840;&#55357;&#56840;&#55357;&#56840;&#55357;&#56840;</p>— Nyles Morgan (@Obey_Pride) <a href="https://twitter.com/Obey_Pride/statuses/453946914115833857">April 9, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[gkIrish]

I wouldn't call two conference championships, 1 BCS game victory and zero national title appearances "elite".

I guess by elite I meant perennial top 20 team, which they have been for the most part.

Answer me this...why was Ohio St. in position to go to the championship game if they beat MSU? They didn't play more than 2 quality opponents. Why do you think we need to have 4 marquee matchups when Ohio St. can get by with 1-2?

 

[Cackalacky]

Last year, we had 5 marquee teams on our schedule (Mich, MSU, USC, OU and Stanford), so our PAST schedules sure would have been.

Remind me... are we playing Michigan or OU in 2018?

We have always played 4-5 (sometimes 6, see 1988) marquee teams. Now its more important than ever to have good SoS. So I really don't see the issue you guys see. We have to schedule 4 minimum, preferably 5-6 marquee names a year.

Me neither woolly. I can't figure out the argument. The top tier teams will be scheduling tougher OOC games as well. Alabama might play West Tulsa State but they will play at least 3-5 top 25 teams (SEC bias or not). We will see more and more 1 and 2 loss teams in the top 10.

 

[IrishLion]

I guess by elite I meant perennial top 20 team, which they have been for the most part.

Answer me this...why was Ohio St. in position to go to the championship game if they beat MSU? They didn't play more than 2 quality opponents. Why do you think we need to have 4 marquee matchups when Ohio St. can get by with 1-2?

I think that once a 12-0 team with a weak SOS makes the playoffs and gets railed in the first round, the committee is going to take action. I really believe that the committee would say "they might have won the big ten, but they only played two respectable teams. Let's go with these one-loss teams instead of a perfect and yet weak-sauce-schedule OSU."

 

[Ndaccountant]

Last year, we had 5 marquee teams on our schedule (Mich, MSU, USC, OU and Stanford), so our PAST schedules sure would have been.

Remind me... are we playing Michigan or OU in 2018?

We have always played 4-5 (sometimes 6, see 1988) marquee teams. Now its more important than ever to have good SoS. So I really don't see the issue you guys see. We have to schedule 4 minimum, preferably 5-6 marquee names a year.

So, VT isn't considered elite since it has won only one BCS game and two conference titles, yet MSU is considered "marquee"? I would say, that over the last 15 years, they are roughly the same.

 

[irishog77]

Why is Michigan State being used (by both sides) as an "elite,", "marquee," murderer's row type of team??

What, first Rose Bowl in 25 years? First BCS bowl...ever? They're an 8-9, win team. Their current coach is averaging 9 wins a year...to go with 4 losses. Their prior 2 coaches averaged 5 wins a year. Their coach before that (some guy named Nick Saban) won 35 games...in 5 years. Etc., etc.

Michigan State is a good program, but they're not close to elite. And, by and large, they are going off ND's schedule.

 

[Rocket89]

I guess by elite I meant perennial top 20 team, which they have been for the most part.

Answer me this...why was Ohio St. in position to go to the championship game if they beat MSU? They didn't play more than 2 quality opponents. Why do you think we need to have 4 marquee matchups when Ohio St. can get by with 1-2?

And OSU would have been frighteningly close to not making the playoffs with that schedule after dropping their conference title game. You're making the point for me.

Oh, by the way Ohio State has series scheduled against Oklahoma, North Carolina, TCU, Cincinnati, Oregon, and Texas in the coming years.

 

[ACamp1900]

Notre Dame will never, ever be a in position where if they go 11-1/12-0 they won't get in the playoff... it's not like ND ever plays a schedule full of bottom feeders guys, the SOS is always top 40ish at worst... making the schedule even more difficult only makes the odds of ever going 11 wins plus again even longer than they already are.


there is my issue.


I also call complete, and total, bullshit on this ‘schedules will matter’ as though some 12-0 team with the 65th SOS will be kept out of the four team by some 10-2 with the 8th SOS… don't buy it.

Win games, get in,... schedule to win games.

 

[IrishLion]

USC, Stanford, ACC 1/2, ACC 3/4, Georgia. Out of that group, you get at least three, probably four, but maybe even five marquee games. MSU is on the fringe, but certainly seem to be pointing closer to "elite" than Virginia Tech right now.

 

[woolybug25]

I guess by elite I meant perennial top 20 team, which they have been for the most part.

Answer me this...why was Ohio St. in position to go to the championship game if they beat MSU? They didn't play more than 2 quality opponents. Why do you think we need to have 4 marquee matchups when Ohio St. can get by with 1-2?

Because they play an additional conference championhip. But they would have to play better schedules than 2013, if they want to get in with 1 loss. But I dont think they would have made the playoffs with their schedule last year though, because they would have 11-1. My guess for the playoffs from last year would have been:

Auburn
FSU
Bama
MSU

 

[Ndaccountant]

USC, Stanford, ACC 1/2, ACC 3/4, Georgia. Out of that group, you get at least three, probably four, but maybe even five marquee games. MSU is on the fringe, but certainly seem to be pointing closer to "elite" than Virginia Tech right now.

MSU may be, but that doesn't mean 5 years from now they will be. There isn't anything they have done in the last 15 years that leads us to believe that they will be anything more than, as irishdog said, an 8-9 win team per year in the long run.

 

[woolybug25]

So, VT isn't considered elite since it has won only one BCS game and two conference titles, yet MSU is considered "marquee"? I would say, that over the last 15 years, they are roughly the same.

I don't either, but I wasn't going to mess up their argument by adding that...

 

[ACamp1900]

Also, playing UGA, Stanford, USC, FSU and whoever else is a hell of a lot easier when you buffer those games with cream puffs like just about everyone else in the nation tends to do…

ND's 'creampuffs' tend to be school's like Navy and Purdue, the week in, week out of that is much more difficult and should be accounted for.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Because they play an additional conference championhip. But they would have to play better schedules than 2013, if they want to get in with 1 loss. But I dont think they would have made the playoffs with their schedule last year though, because they would have 11-1. My guess for the playoffs from last year would have been:

Auburn
FSU
Bama
MSU

So, if OSU plays the shit schedule that they did and managed to beat MSU in the championship game, do you think they would have made it being 13-0 at that point?

 

[woolybug25]

Notre Dame will never, ever be a in position where if they go 11-1/12-0 they won't get in the playoff... it's not like ND ever plays a schedule full of bottom feeders guys, the SOS is always top 40ish at worst... making the schedule even more difficult only makes the odds of ever going 11 wins plus again even longer than they already are.


there is my issue.


I also call complete, and total, bullshit on this ‘schedules will matter’ as though some 12-0 team with the 65th SOS will be kept out of the four team by some 10-2 with the 8th SOS… don't buy it.

Win games, get in,... schedule to win games.

12-0 teams certainly wont be, but there are 10 or more 11 wins teams every single year. All of them will want one of the remaining 2-3 spots. Why do we deserve better when those teams all won championship games? Well, our argument will be SoS, which means, our SoS better damn well be better.

 

[Ndaccountant]

Also, playing UGA, Stanford, USC, FSU and whoever else is a hell of a lot easier when you buffer those games with cream puffs like just about everyone else in the nation tends to do…

ND's 'creampuffs' tend to be school's like Navy and Purdue, the week in, week out of that is much more difficult and should be accounted for.

Exactly. That was point in a post this morning. It isn't necessarily the UGA game that bites you, it's the game before or after that really makes me nervous. Purdon't and PITTstains are great examples of teams that play us way too close given the talent disparities.

 

[Cackalacky]

So, if OSU plays the shit schedule that they did and managed to beat MSU in the championship game, do you think they would have made it being 13-0 at that point?

I dont think so. Their BCS ranking was poor for such a highly ranked team. They had like an 80th ranked SOS. The computers hated them IIRC. Everyone knew that was an inflated 12-0 record they had.

 

[IrishLion]

MSU may be, but that doesn't mean 5 years from now they will be. There isn't anything they have done in the last 15 years that leads us to believe that they will be anything more than, as irishdog said, an 8-9 win team per year in the long run.

That's the whole point! You don't know how good teams will be, but you DO know that you need a strong schedule. So why not make the smart play and add Georgia? Sure it's a tough game, but it's better than adding a game that will do nothing to enhance the schedule.

I'm going to fondly remember this thread in 2018 when Georgia is 6-6, Stanford is back to "they have a football team?" status, Florida State is coming off of a 2-10 season, and Duke has won it's third national title in a row.

 

[woolybug25]

So, if OSU plays the shit schedule that they did and managed to beat MSU in the championship game, do you think they would have made it being 13-0 at that point?

Sure. They would have beaten 4 quality opponents in, what is perceived to be, a major conference. They certainly would beat out an 11-1 Notre Dame team that only has 3 quality wins and no conference championship.

I think major media, coaches and writers would all agree with that... so I assume the playoff board probably would too.

 

[gkIrish]

12-0 teams certainly wont be, but there are 10 or more 11 wins teams every single year. All of them will want one of the remaining 2-3 spots. Why do we deserve better when those teams all won championship games? Well, our argument will be SoS, which means, are SoS better damn well be better.

This debate has somehow morphed into A+ 1 loss schedule vs. B+ 1 loss schedule. That's not the argument I've been trying to make.

The debate should be A+ 1-2 loss vs. B+ 0 losses. That's what I'm arguing. I'm not suggesting we would make the playoffs with 1 loss and 2/3 wins vs. Stanford, USC and ACC top program.