The Scheduling Debate: JPham's attempt to be in on the trend

[Jason Pham]

The following is the raw data upon which I will base my argument. Included are the BCS Champions from 2002-2007; BCS Championship losers from 2002-2007; and Notre Dame's 2007-2002, 1993, 1988, 1977, and 1973 data. All ranks are those of the opponent when they were played. All records are those of the team prior to entering the championship game.

2007 BCS Champion: LSU
Record: 11-2
Ranked opponents (7): #9, #12, #9, #17, #18, #17, #13

2006 BCS Champion: Florida
Record: 12-1
Ranked opponents (4): #13, #9, #11, #8

2005 BCS Champion: Texas
Record: 12-0
Ranked opponents (3): #4, #24, #10

2004 BCS Champion: USC
Record: 12-0
Ranked opponents (2): #7, #19

2003 BCS Champion: LSU
Record: 12-1
Ranked opponents (4): #11, #17, #18, #11

2002 BCS Champion: tOSU
Record: 13-0
Ranked opponents (3): #7, #10, #11

2007 BCS Championship Loser: tOSU
Record: 11-1
Ranked opponents (4): #23, #25, #21, #21

2006 BCS Championship Loser: tOSU
Record: 12-0
Ranked opponents (4): #2, #24, #13, #2

2005 BCS Championship Loser: USC
Record: 12-0
Ranked opponents (5): #24, #14, #9, #16, #11

2004 BCS Championship Loser: Oklahoma
Record: 12-0
Ranked opponents (3): #5, #20, #22

2003 BCS Championship Loser: Oklahoma
Record: 12-1
Ranked opponents (3): #5, #22, #10

2002 BCS Championship Loser: Miami
Record: 12-0
Ranked opponents (5): #20, #16, #13, #23, #19

1993 Notre Dame Almost-Championship
Record: 10-1
Ranked opponents (3): #3, #1, #17

1988 Notre Dame Championship
Record: 11-0
Ranked opponents (3): #9, #1, #2

1977 Notre Dame Championship
Record: 10-1
Ranked opponents (3): #7, #5, #15

1973 Notre Dame Championship
Record: 11-0
Ranked opponents (2): #6, #20

2007 Notre Dame Schedule
Record: I don't want to talk about it
Ranked opponents (3): #14, #4, #14

2006 Notre Dame Schedule
Record: 10-2
Ranked opponents (3): #19, #11, #3

2005 Notre Dame Schedule
Record: 9-2
Ranked opponents (4): #23, #3, #22, #1

2004 Notre Dame Schedule
Record: 6-5
Ranked opponents: (4): #7, #15, #11, #1

2003 Notre Dame Schedule
Record: 5-6
Ranked opponents (5): #14, #4, #13, #1, #8

2002 Notre Dame Schedule
Record: 10-2
Ranked opponents (5): #18, #11, #23, #16, #5

Observations:

The outliers in the data seem to be LSU in 2007 with 7 ranked opponents, USC in 2005 with 5 ranked opponents, and Miami in 2002 also with 5 ranked opponents. In the case of LSU, as I've mentioned previously in another thread, playing such a schedule lead them to suffer a two loss season which would have put them out of title contention even though they were likely the most talented and deserving team during that season. Had it not been for a unprecedented year in upsets within the top 5, LSU would not have played for the national title. USC's schedule in 2005, though marked with 5 ranked opponents, pitted the Trojans against just one team (Notre Dame) in the top 10. Likewise, Miami's 2002 schedule was marked with no teams in the top 10.

Thoughts ? As seen in the most recent history within the BCS, title contenders typically play 3 to 4 ranked opponents per season, occasionally, 5 ranked teams may be played though the quality of the opponents tend to decrease slightly. Comparing this observation to that of Notre Dame's recent scheduling in the same years, the Irish have scheduled a comparable schedule to those teams playing for the title: 3 to 4, occasionally, 5 ranked opponents per season.

If one wishes to argue by going further back in history to Notre Dame's previous championships, one might see that in 1993, although we did not play for the title we were rather close, we played 3 ranked opponents. We also played 3 ranked opponents in championship years 1988 and 1977. During our 1973 championship run, the Irish played 2 ranked opponents.

Conclusion:

Neither throughout history nor during the present has Notre Dame consistently scheduled the best available teams for every week, in fact, it seems, as the data suggests, that Notre Dame tends to schedule up to 3 or 4 marquee games per season on a regular basis, including those years in which the Irish have won a championship.

Furthermore, barring unusual circumstances as explained above, the most recent National Champions and their opponents in the championship game dating back to 2002 play an average of roughly 3.9 ranked opponents per season. If we go even further to remove outliers from our data (in this case just LSU), the average drops down to 3.6. This suggests that a championship-friendly schedule might consist of 3 to 4 ranked opponents, a feat which has been and is anticipated to be accomplished by Notre Dame's schedule in the most recent history and in future schedules.

If it is the championship we are looking for, the Notre Dame namesake in addition to a comparable schedule of 3 to 4 marquee games per year should provide us with an annual shot at the title given we go undefeated or suffer at most one loss to a highly regarded opponent. This is the pattern than has been set for title contentions. Those teams which have scheduled a tougher workload have often found themselves on the outside looking in. The question, then, is if it is acceptable to the fan for their team to have played 6 ranked opponents during the regular season and play themselves out of title contention, or play 3 or 4 marquee games per season with a greater probability of running the table and making the championship game ?

I understand that for some idealists, a championship team should be able to run the table regardless of who they schedule. They are, after, all, supposed to be the best team in the nation. Simply stated, however, that is not how college football works. It is not a numbers game, it is not a professional sport. These are student-athletes, kids, with academic commitments in addition to being subject to the processes of college maturation. As such, as I have pointed out in the case of LSU, even the best team in the nation will suffer losses given a arduous enough schedule. I would not count on yet another historic season of upsets to help put us back into title contention should we subject Notre Dame to the same scheduling standards.

 

[Jason Pham]

That took me a really long time. I hate you all.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Well, I am about to piss in your punch bowl...

If you look BACK at what the teams were ranked at the end of the season you will find these teams played far fewer ranked teams. That's the kicker.

 

[Jason Pham]

I took that into consideration. However, I thought to further prove my point that there is no need to change our scheduling philosophy, I would give proponents of such the benefit of counting ranked teams as they come in lieu of the obviously flawed ranking system. Even counting all those ranked opponents, many of which dropped out of the rankings altogether as you mention, no team which calls itself a annual title contender consistently plays more than three or four games per season.

 

[Echo Insanity]

agreed. simply being the best team does not mean that you should be able win a schedule full of ranked opponents. as a favorite, you may have a 60% chance of winning a tough game. but when you play ten tough games, basic probability tells you that you are likely to lose four of them. the problem is that people judge each game individually on paper. the more talented team may win the vast majority of the time, but sometimes the underdog will have the game of their lives. its very much a probability game, and people who make schedules must adjust for this by inserting games with a high probability of a win.

 

[GoldenDomer21]

Jason, all good points, I like that you put some thought into your post. What about the years that they didn’t make NC’s? What was their SOS those years? I’ve read that on average their SOS throughout the decades averaged between, like 5th to 15th. And they still had good winning seasons on MOST occasions. Not all NC’s, but you can’t win them all, can you?

LMI, this is just another way of explaining my thoughts for you.

Let me come at you all from a different point of view. Again, call it idealistic.

I’ve played NCAA division 1 sports. And, the ideas of athletes can be paralleled from sport to sport. Ei, tennis, wrestling, basketball, baseball, softball, and soccer athletes pretty much think the same as football athletes. It was nice to beat up on the easies when they came to town. But, from personal standpoints, we relished the times when the really great competition came to town. Win or lose we all really felt we accomplished something when we played those teams. Win or lose we all stepped up our game and because of that fact, we were better athletes and better people because of it.

So, I guess that’s where the dilemma is. I disagree with the fan’s idea that college sports are ALL about winning NC’s and conference titles. Because their not. NCAA sports are about bettering each participant as an athlete and a person. College sports are about readying athletes for the challenges of real life, either in the work force or in pro athletics. I simply think the BEST way to do that is through difficult situations. I believe that character and sense of accomplishment come from hard work. Philosophically speaking, if you don’t play better teams then there is no reason to better your game. You stay at the same level. No sense of accomplishment. As an athlete, it makes you think, what’s the point? I’m not bettering myself, so why play just to stay at the same level?

Now, lets tie this into ND football. Notre Dame is not just another state school. I’ve had the fortune to meet a great number of Notre Dame’s leaders, to include Rev. Jenkins, Father Hesburgh, Lou Hotlz, Bob Davie, and some other ND sports coaches, and speak with them at some depth. And all of the above believe that at the core of ND athletics, it is about preparing athletes for success and giving them the ability to make them the best athlete and person they can be by instilling values that ND stands on. The point here is, IT’S NOT JUST ABOUT WINNING NC’s.

Now Football, and particularly ND football, affords athletes and fans some special opportunities. We have no conference. We can, for the most part, schedule who we want to play. Unlike a conference team, we have the opportunity to make some GREAT seasons! Some may end with NC’s. As history tells us, the vast majority will not, but even without the NC the season can still be great! I think that these great seasons filled with tough contests, battles of will, talent, and strength make for a good time, they make for a great storied program. I believe that in order to accomplish the goals that ND athletics have for their athletes it is best to challenge them completely, to set each athlete up for success in the future whether it be in pro ball or business. I think that we should schedule top teams, for the vast majority of the time.

By having a top 10 SOS year in and year out with the nations talented teams these goals can be reached. I concede that it will be much more difficult to win the NC’s that the fans, and athletes, want. But in the end, the school will have done a service for each athlete by bettering his game and raising him to the highest level he can achieve. In the end each athlete will leave with that sense of accomplishment knowing that they are better than when they left. In the end, they will have built character, and they wont be like other schools we dislike.

I think it’s a flaw in the system, that a team can play ONLY 3.6 top talented teams and win the NC. It may be the norm, but it shouldn’t be. The system shouldn’t allow a team to skate to the NC game. Because all those state schools do little for their athletes when they do that. And it does little for the sport. 3 marquee games a year isn’t as exciting as 5 or 6, plus other games that are going to be tough. You all know this would be a mute point if the norm was 5.5 top talented teams per year.

Furthermore, talking strictly football, and no more ideas on what sports mean in college. If ND is bringing in top 10 recruiting classes year in and year out, why is it so hard to expect them to compete with top ten teams? Why would you recruit a top 10 class and then schedule a 20 to 40 place SOS? I would think that those players came to ND to play and compete well for the NC with other NC contenders. Playing only two or three ranked teams plus 9 or 10 easy games really creates a disparity here. I know when I signed up for D1 athletics I didn’t go in thinking how many teams are we going to beat up on. The first thing I thought was how is this school going to make me faster, better, stronger.

I understand that fans what to get to those NC’s. I don’t think that scheduling 12 top 25 teams a year is a way to get there. I do think that ND needs to play all solid teams. This accomplishes the goals of everyone. Playing at the very least 4 to 5 top 20 teams and then having a solid schedule of BCS teams in areas that ND has interests in accomplishes the goals of creating better athletes, better people, sense of accomplishment, bringing games to fans around the nation, and increasing exposure to possible recruits. So, yes, I think White has followed the rest of the nation’s schools in trying to schedule easier and easier teams, we may still be getting those 3 or 4 top teams, but the rest are getting easier. And I think it’s wrong.

LMI, I’ve done more research and there is plenty of data that can take our positions both ways. We could go back and forth about who is trying to change what forever. So I have outlined my ideas with as much tact and respect as I can without attacking anyone else’s ideas.

Ok all, I know it was a lot to read, but bash on…

 

[SoCalDomer]

That took me a really long time. I hate you all.

oh the humanity!!!!!!! those threads just started dying off. LOL

 

[WeisWeisBaby]

Rumor has it Jason Pham wrote a very long post and then was immediately upset when no on commented on it by saying "I Hate you all".

I will check with my sources again, but I'm pretty sure this one is the real deal.

 

[Jason Pham]

Rumor has it Jason Pham wrote a very long post and then was immediately upset when no on commented on it by saying "I Hate you all".

I will check with my sources again, but I'm pretty sure this one is the real deal.

This is why we all ought to be very careful when we talk about others on here, their friends and family, sometimes even the kids themselves get on here and read what we have to say.

Jason Pham actually just pm'ed me and said this was totally fallacious and that he does not appreciate the rumor mongering.

 

[WeisWeisBaby]

Rumor has it Jason Pham felt rumors were fallacious, I will check sources again but this appears to be the real deal, alley mcbeal

 

[GoldenDomer21]

I think we should actually debate the topic. I'm not looking for a huge response. But I'm sure someone disagrees with me.

 

[Jason Pham]

I doubt, then, that you and I will ever find a middle ground and will have to just agree to disagree on the basis of two different philosophies regarding how college football is played and how Notre Dame football should be played.

I respect your view that teams should load up the best teams on their schedule and run the table to prove their title worth, given a completely hypothetical and ideal situation, this ought to be the case. However, the only hypothetical and ideal situation that I can come up with is my Notre Dame dynasty on NCAA 08. College football, regardless of how much we would like to compare stats and armchair quarterback, is played neither in a hypothetical or an ideal vacuum. The data shows that dating back to the 2002 BCS championship in addition to dating back to Notre Dame's 1973 championship, those teams in title contention played an average of 3.9 ranked opponents per season and either ran the table or suffered one loss. This has been the norm. It has never been, save for an unprecedented and furthermore unlikely to be repeated anytime soon season of upsets, that a team with more than one loss has walked into the BCS championship game. Which brings me to my next point.

Another point of contention between you and I seems to be that the best team in the nation should be able to run the table regardless of who they are playing. I emphatically disagree. Perhaps this is plausible on a Playstation 2 console, however, even the most athletic and well coached team during the 2007 season, LSU, suffered two losses. Going back to 1993, Notre Dame who had shown their ability by downing the number 1 ranked team in the nation fell to University of Boston in Chestnut Hill, thus ruining their title contending season. Perhaps if these were professionally paid athletes who are not just kids, who are not committed to their academics, we may expect more consistency out of them. However, given that there are a plethora of factors that determine the outcome of a game in collegiate ball, we cannot assume that the best team in the nation will defeat every single team every single time, it's just never been done outside of a game console. Which brings me to my final point.

You and I seem to disagree on the point of Notre Dame football. Indeed, our University holds to a higher standard the ways in which our athletic programs are run. Nonetheless, merely doing it the right way does not guarantee job security at the University. We expect results, not reasons. As such, it seems to be nearly unanimous among our players, coaches, fans, student body, and administration that we are not looking for a decent season against a Washington type schedule (ranked 1st in SOS over the last two seasons), we're looking to continue our tradition of national titles in addition to upholding university values. Again, results not reasons. Holding a championship trophy seems much more satisfying than explaining to others that we played a tougher schedule than they did.

If that then, winning the title as opposed to explaining our losses, is the goal of our football program, which in my opinion it ought to be. We must follow the data of recent history and schedule three or four marquee games, or up to 5 decent games, in an attempt to go undefeated or avoid all but one loss in order to have a shot at the title.

 

[GoldenDomer21]

Respectable thoughts, though I do not by any means expect them to run the table, and I don't think that fanciful schedules are needed like in my NCAA 08, Just tough schedules. And I don't believe in making excuses. All things I didn't mention. I stated 4 to 5 hard games, and then middle of the road teams, deleting the patsies.

We aren't Wash, and our program is better. So for them, it was suicide. And I didn't say we had to be number one all the time.

I don't expect to run the table all the time, but I do expect to play hard schedules and still be in contention. I ask a lot from our players. But when I was a D1 athlete, a lot was asked of me. So I guess you would have to be there to understand.

And at some point, we will hold a championship trophy and explain that we beat the best to hold it. The players of that team will take away a lifetimes worth of memory's. We have to remember that the means to obtaining the trophy is just as important as winning it. Thats my opinion at least

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Respectable thoughts, though I do not by any means expect them to run the table, and I don't think that fanciful schedules are needed like in my NCAA 08, Just tough schedules. And I don't believe in making excuses. All things I didn't mention. I stated 4 to 5 hard games, and then middle of the road teams, deleting the patsies.

...

And at some point, we will hold a championship trophy and explain that we beat the best to hold it. The players of that team will take away a lifetimes worth of memory's. We have to remember that the means to obtaining the trophy is just as important as winning it. Thats my opinion at least

This is where you make a leap not based on logic but faith. You believe that if we create a schedule which is tougher than we have ever played and is tougher than any one the is played by other teams...that we will magically hoist some trophy.

I fundamentally challenege that assumption. It's been 20 years since we won it all. And in that time we have had easier schedules than the one you are proposed.

You do state that NC's are not everything. I agree with that. But under your solution you will CHANGE the way ND football is scheduled away from the way it's always been scheduled. You are almost assuring the fan base that they will never play for a National Title again.

Herein lies our difference. I am advocating that we continue to schedule as we have traditionally scheduled. 3 hard teams, 4-6 mid tier, the rest patsies.

That is Notre Dame football. There is no reason to buck that or change it. A schedule that hard has limited us to one title every 11 years in general...and now 20 years since the last one.

Making it harder will only make titles less freqent or non-existent.

I would rather win a Title with the schedule that ND has always played (harder than most, but not all) instead of NEVER winning a title again.

It's that simple. The ND dan base agrees with me. We want a Title. There is no reason to schedule ourselves out of it. And that is what you are proposing.

Pretending that taking up our schedule to new levels of intensity will NOT increase the freequency of the Titles we win. Unless you play NCAA console games.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

I think it’s a flaw in the system, that a team can play ONLY 3.6 top talented teams and win the NC. It may be the norm, but it shouldn’t be. The system shouldn’t allow a team to skate to the NC game. Because all those state schools do little for their athletes when they do that. And it does little for the sport. 3 marquee games a year isn’t as exciting as 5 or 6, plus other games that are going to be tough. You all know this would be a mute point if the norm was 5.5 top talented teams per year.

Hold up GD. Just wait a second.

How is it a flaw to only play 3+ ranked teams???

There are nearly 120 DivI-A teams and only 25 can end up ranked.

In 12 games, that would mean a team with a RANDOM schedule could only play 2.6 ranked teams. So any team that schedules MORE than 3 ranked teams is actually playing a higher percetange of ranked teams than a team who chose a random smattering of teams.

There are only 25 ranked teams...don't forget that number. 6 BCS conferences + ND. So if you have 4 teams from each conference PLUS ND...that's 25. That means the TITLE WINNER if they play conference games plus 3 non-conf has on average 3 chances to actually get that many ranked teams on the schedule.

So they then need to go out of their way to get MORE ranked teams. Which sometimes is a crap shoot from a scheduling perspective. See ND: 1994, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2007. [no one would have guess in most of those years thta we would have sucked so bad]

LMI, I’ve done more research and there is plenty of data that can take our positions both ways. We could go back and forth about who is trying to change what forever.

Ummm...no. ND has always scheduled it's fair share of patsies. In a previous post you said we should delete them from the schedule. That's you changing ND. That's not opinion...that's fact.

here's your statement:

I stated 4 to 5 hard games, and then middle of the road teams, deleting the patsies.

 

[Sureal]

I agree with LMI and Jason "The Game" Pham.

Feels like deja vu. Every thread I read has this argument just about...

 

[GoldenDomer21]

It is deja vu. This is one of those on going arguments.

Ok, if you think I'm changing ND football completely, then thats fine. The bottom line, for me, no matter how you get to the bottom line, is that ND should play a bare minimum 4 top teams and 8 middle of the road BCS teams.

Thats fine if you think I am an elitist or a dreamer. The point for me still remains that the road to THE GAME is just as important as THE GAME. That the players of these schedules take something away from them that is more than just a win, and that they are given the chance to improve themselves as players.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy all the games, but more "Bush Push" games is not a bad thing, though, a different outcome would be nice. The reason we didn't drop in the polls was because we were respected as a team. And that goes a long way.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Thats fine if you think I am an elitist or a dreamer. The point for me still remains that the road to THE GAME is just as important as THE GAME. That the players of these schedules take something away from them that is more than just a win, and that they are given the chance to improve themselves as players.

I agree this is a great goal...but scheduling youself out of a National Title seems extreme and it IS demotivating.

Every year the team would KNOW that they did not have a shot. Not because they were losers or quitters, but because they understand football. They understand the level of Parity between the teams. The NCAA has worked very hard to level the field and it has worked.

Setting ND to the hardest schedule in the country would ensure ND never wins a National Championship. If you want to kill morale...that's the best way to do it.

"Yeah, coach I wanna come to ND. I know we will never win a title, but the schedule will be tougher than anything!!!"

...good luck selling that to recruits...

 

[GoldenDomer21]

I agree this is a great goal...but scheduling youself out of a National Title seems extreme and it IS demotivating.

Every year the team would KNOW that they did not have a shot. Not because they were losers or quitters, but because they understand football. They understand the level of Parity between the teams. The NCAA has worked very hard to level the field and it has worked.

Setting ND to the hardest schedule in the country would ensure ND never wins a National Championship. If you want to kill morale...that's the best way to do it.

"Yeah, coach I wanna come to ND. I know we will never win a title, but the schedule will be tougher than anything!!!"

...good luck selling that to recruits...

That may be true. I'd be nice if there were a recruit on here to enlighten us on how he might feel in that situation.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

That may be true. I'd be nice if there were a recruit on here to enlighten us on how he might feel in that situation.

I don't think you would get one answer...but guys who go to the big schools want to win it all. They have that in their blood. Big time players want big time results.

But knowing that you will NEVER get a title no matter how hard you work on a team that may even be better than all others...well, I can see how that would be problematic for them.

If they only care about getting to the NFL and such, well, that's the perfect team for them...they could be a prima donna all day long.

 

[OCIrish]

LMI

You keep saying that by scheduling tougher we ensure that we never win a NC again. Just curious, are you a fortune teller, or a member of the psychic network of friends? This seems to be your argument over and over. LSU had a hell of a tough schedule last year, they ended up winning the whole damned thing.

As long as we're speaking in hypotheticals, let me throw this at you guys. For now we're locked into our NBC deal. Good for us, but, what happens in a few years down the road, and we're playing crappy teams that no one's interested in watching, including die hard Irish fans like myself. What happens if the TV deal goes by the wayside?

Next hypothetical. What happens when a 2 loss team from the SEC or Big 12 get into a NC title game because they had a tougher schedule than we did. Would you like to stomach something like that when it could have been averted by getting rid of the patsies.

Look, you make some great points, but when it comes to scheduling patsies, I don't see a need for it. If we keep recruiting the way we are, once the cupboard is stocked, there is no need to be playing teams like Nevada, San Diego St., Duke, Stanford, Syracuse, hell any team from the BE for that matter. The Service Academies are another story altogether. Those young men go above and beyond for thier country and fellow man, I have no problem with them on our schedule.

 

[GoldenDomer21]

LMI

You keep saying that by scheduling tougher we ensure that we never win a NC again. Just curious, are you a fortune teller, or a member of the psychic network of friends? This seems to be your argument over and over. LSU had a hell of a tough schedule last year, they ended up winning the whole damned thing.

As long as we're speaking in hypotheticals, let me throw this at you guys. For now we're locked into our NBC deal. Good for us, but, what happens in a few years down the road, and we're playing crappy teams that no one's interested in watching, including die hard Irish fans like myself. What happens if the TV deal goes by the wayside?

Next hypothetical. What happens when a 2 loss team from the SEC or Big 12 get into a NC title game because they had a tougher schedule than we did. Would you like to stomach something like that when it could have been averted by getting rid of the patsies.

Look, you make some great points, but when it comes to scheduling patsies, I don't see a need for it. If we keep recruiting the way we are, once the cupboard is stocked, there is no need to be playing teams like Nevada, San Diego St., Duke, Stanford, Syracuse, hell any team from the BE for that matter. The Service Academies are another story altogether. Those young men go above and beyond for thier country and fellow man, I have no problem with them on our schedule.

I obviously agree.

I don't think scheduling harder teams guarantees anything accept we play better teams. The BCS system is a crap shoot at best. A million things have to go right for two teams in one year for them to make it. A million things beyond simply winning all their games. Sure, it helps. But other teams have to lose. 1500 other people have to vote on where they think the teams should fall. And then the BCS formula, which changes almost yearly, has to take over and give its 2 cents. I don't believe there is a such thing as scheduling yourself out. Nothing in college football is predictable. There are probable outcomes, but probability is not certainty. Which LMI likes to call it.

LMI, have your opinion, but admit its not solid truth.

So if it takes all that, why not try to make it exciting along the way? Why not give the players a chance to better themselves? Why not give the fans more games of the century? We'll get that title along the way, its at least probable.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

You keep saying that by scheduling tougher we ensure that we never win a NC again. Just curious, are you a fortune teller, or a member of the psychic network of friends? This seems to be your argument over and over. LSU had a hell of a tough schedule last year, they ended up winning the whole damned thing.

We are talking about a schedule HARDER than that. And with the assumption the a two loss team is a RARITY in the NC scene.

As long as we're speaking in hypotheticals, let me throw this at you guys. For now we're locked into our NBC deal. Good for us, but, what happens in a few years down the road, and we're playing crappy teams that no one's interested in watching, including die hard Irish fans like myself. What happens if the TV deal goes by the wayside?

We have always played crappy teams. 4 a year usually. If we continue to lose,we will lose the contract no matter who we play.

Next hypothetical. What happens when a 2 loss team from the SEC or Big 12 get into a NC title game because they had a tougher schedule than we did. Would you like to stomach something like that when it could have been averted by getting rid of the patsies.

We will cross that bridge when we come to it. But pre-emptively making our schedule the hardest in the Nation is not the right way to go about it.

Look, you make some great points, but when it comes to scheduling patsies, I don't see a need for it. If we keep recruiting the way we are, once the cupboard is stocked, there is no need to be playing teams like Nevada, San Diego St., Duke, Stanford, Syracuse, hell any team from the BE for that matter. The Service Academies are another story altogether. Those young men go above and beyond for thier country and fellow man, I have no problem with them on our schedule.

There is absolutely a reason to keep patsies. You need weeks that are not as brutal. Every team needs them. No team avoids them. No team has ever avoided them.

If you eliminate them you WILL eliminate ND from NC Title hopes.

That's not opinion, that's College Ball. In 12 games you are more likely to lose more games if you play harder teams. Even patsy teams can bite you in the ass...but better teams are more likely too.

Eliminating patsies will forever sink our chances of going all the way. It's that simple.

At some point down the road, if Notre Dame is CLEARLY unable to win it all no matter what we do, then I would agree...eliminate the patsies. However, if we do that it will be done out of utter desperation and an acceptance that we need to schedule only good teams because no one will watch us.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

LMI, have your opinion, but admit its not solid truth.

So if it takes all that, why not try to make it exciting along the way? Why not give the players a chance to better themselves? Why not give the fans more games of the century? We'll get that title along the way, its at least probable.

Because our chances of the title will drop dramatically...that's why.

ND fans are not willing to give up hope that we have a shot at the title. It's been a long 20 years, but we have not given up hope.

Moving to a patsy-less schedule will ensure our shot is done. Maybe ONCE in 50 years...maybe we win once. Maybe.

That's unacceptable for most fans. I know it is for me.

Creating a schedule that decreases our chances exponentially is a dumb idea and will cost us more than one title...just to make a few games more exciting. I for one am not prepared to agree to that. I don't think we are that desperate yet.

Maybe someday when we have given up hope...but not until then.

 

[coachjohnson]

pham, i appreciate the time that must have taken. You know for us looking at the schedule you would see the preseason ranked teams, but one cannot calculate the big surprises like the Missouri's and Kansas'. I guess what i'm trying to say is this, our schedule is fine the way it is. Even our biggest opponents on our schedule have down years and the ones that aren't that good may have a good year where they could beat us. We should leave our schedule the way it is. Just like every year at the end of the day it's either weaker or stronger than we anticipated: Every year.

 

[Jason Pham]

I don't think scheduling harder teams guarantees anything accept we play better teams.

Nothing is a guarantee but are you suggesting that nothing should change should we replace a poor team with a highly regarded team ? Is not your argument based on the assumption that a better team should be more testing than weaker team ? So are you suggesting that a testing team does not equate to a greater risk of a loss ? Don't you think that assumption is a bit off ?

The BCS system is a crap shoot at best. A million things have to go right for two teams in one year for them to make it. A million things beyond simply winning all their games. Sure, it helps. But other teams have to lose. 1500 other people have to vote on where they think the teams should fall. And then the BCS formula, which changes almost yearly, has to take over and give its 2 cents. I don't believe there is a such thing as scheduling yourself out. Nothing in college football is predictable. There are probable outcomes, but probability is not certainty...

The BCS system is indeed based on many factors but it is far from random. And you would be correct in saying that a "million" things need to be done in order for a team to nab a spot in the title game. One of those being at least a one loss team. You would be right in saying that this is not a rule set in stone but if you take a look at the numbers, except for LSU, national title games always feature undefeated or one-loss teams. Furthermore, you cannot point to LSU as your saving grace in this argument since the season in which LSU earned its national title recognition was an unprecedented and likely to never again be repeated season. The BCS system has its trend, just look at the numbers. If you want your spot in the NC, pick up three or four marquee games and win them all or lose perhaps one early in the season. That is the established trend which has only found itself one exception in an unlikely year of upsets. Perhaps not predictable, college ball and its system is nonetheless riddled with patterns and trends. And the trend seems to be, top flight teams that play more than they can handle are much more likely to suffer more losses than they can afford.

So if it takes all that, why not try to make it exciting along the way? Why not give the players a chance to better themselves? Why not give the fans more games of the century? We'll get that title along the way, its at least probable.

Because teams that have tried to make it more exciting along the way have precariously removed themselves from national title contention. You are still speaking in the language of hypotheticals. No team has consistently done what you are suggesting and made it to the championship game.

Because these are student-athletes who require these weeks to wind down, regroup, and prepare for another emotionally charged game. Do you ever notice how poorly we play against Michigan State each year after playing a superior Michigan team ? Our guys are emotionally, physically, and mentally drained from their efforts, win or loss. They aren't bettering themselves, they're being exhausted. They need a few sure games to refuel.

Because fans are getting ancy for a National Championship. Again, given that a more difficult title increases the probability of incurring more losses than in a 3-4/5-5/4 scheduling philosophy, not only fans, but the administration will be wondering why they are humoring reasons why rather than holding a trophy.

Your last statement defies the LSU example and the well established trends and patterns of the BCS.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Nothing is a guarantee but are you suggesting that nothing should change should we replace a poor team with a highly regarded team ? Is not your argument based on the assumption that a better team should be more testing than weaker team ? So are you suggesting that a testing team does not equate to a greater risk of a loss ? Don't you think that assumption is a bit off ?

EXACTLY.

Beating better teams is harder...that's GD's whole argument. That's mine as well.

Playing harder teams makes the road more challenging and risky. Since the highest reward is a National Title and our current schedule gets us there easily (should we win all games and possibly lose 1) THEN playing harder teams has no INCREASED REWARD towards winning the Title. It only looks cooler.

And by making it harder you increase the risk of losses.

Thus, by making the schedule harder you will have less shots at a title. And making harder gets you no better reward than winning a title. So, it's a bad idea overall.

The Risk-Reward scenario does not improve through a schedule change.

Because teams that have tried to make it more exciting along the way have precariously removed themselves from national title contention. You are still speaking in the language of hypotheticals. No team has consistently done what you are suggesting and made it to the championship game.

Precisely.


Nice post JPham...

 

[OCIrish]

So, we should just go out and schedule ourselves a NC game like tOSU did the last few years then have our asses handed to us for our troubles of scheduling boring and essentially non exciting games to watch. Thanks, but no thanks.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

So, we should just go out and schedule ourselves a NC game like tOSU did the last few years then have our asses handed to us for our troubles of scheduling boring and essentially non exciting games to watch. Thanks, but no thanks.

No, I think you missed the point.

JPham and I are saying that our current scheduling (which has not really changed over the last 70+ years) shoud remain as it is. We have a Top25 schedule barring unforseen dips by major and mid-tier programs.

GD21 is arguing that we create the hardest schedule in the country.

NO ONE here is arguing for doing what tOSU did.

 

[OCIrish]

No, I didn't miss the point. Over the last 70+ years, we haven't gone out of our way to schedule the likes of San Diego St., Nevada, Duke, Baylor. I know that Baylor and Duke come from BCS conferances, but, essentially it's scraping the bottom of the barrel. Throw into that the rediculous agreement that Kevin White got us into with the BE, of which ads even more bottom feeding teams on our schedule and you're talking about what soo many fans are really pissed about. The dumbing down of our schedule, kinda like tOSU has done the last few years. I agree that we can't play top 25 teams week in and week out, but, I feel that since we're not in a conferance, we don't have that as an excuse when it comes time for a BCS NC game. Eventually when push comes to shove, I feel that our schedule will come into play in terms of whether or not we get to even have a chance of playing for a NC down the road.

Some conferances as of right now aren't happy that we get even the slightest BCS game in any way shape or form, how do you think that will play in the future? If commisioners, or even worse, a coaches poll keeps us out of NC games and our schedule is the slightest reason for our not being able to contend for a NC, then that's ultimately our won fault for not trying to schedule a little better.