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

[LOVEMYIRISH]

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.

Dude, we have ALWAYS beat up on crappy teams. No less 20 years ago than now!!!

Go look at the schedules. Look at the patsies...and don't forget that some good teams now were patsies back then (like Purdue pre-1997). I am not talking mid-tiers...I am talking FLAT OUT PATSIES.

ND has proudly trashed 4 patsies a year for decades!!!

For example: Look at the 1977 National Champ Irish's schedule...4 patsies...
Pitt: 9-2-1
Mississippi: 6-5
Purdue: 5-6
MSU: 7-3-1
Army: 7-4
SC: 8-4
Navy 4-7
GT: 6-5
Clemson: 8-3-1
Air Force: 2-8-1
Miami: 3-8

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 Big East deal was always predicated on us playing Big East teams in Football. Heck we usually play 2-3. He made it 3. However, that deal was signed in blood like 7 years before he showed up.

The dumbing down of our schedule, kinda like tOSU has done the last few years.

It hasn't been dumbed down yet. There certainly has been talk about it. But it has not come to pass. White is, after all, the guy who lined us up for SC, OU, and UM in a 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.

We are in agreement. It's critical we never have a crappy schedule...it will come back to bite us.

 

[GoldenDomer21]

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.




Precisely.


Nice post JPham...

Exactly, beating better teams IS harder. My question is, why are so many people SO afraid to do it? to even try it?

And to clear things up, I'm NOT suggesting the HARDEST in the country, just a schedule that is worthy of a NC. Which, to me, should be top 10 or very close. I AM suggesting a harder than we have now schedule.

LMI, like you say, our current schedule gets us there EASILY. And I'm even going to take the word easily relatively. THIS IDEA IS FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG! The NCAA D1 National champions should not get anything easy. It takes away from the reward. What have you accomplished if you got there easily? The risk-reward relationship doesn't apply here. In business you want low risk with a great return on investment. Sports is not, and should not, be that way. Great risk yields great rewards in sports. You should not be able to say you won it all without putting it all out on the table/field.

This is where our arguments begins to take sides. Some folks are hell bent on winning NC's at all costs. Whether we EARN it or not, they think bragging rights are based on ONE final accomplishment. Other folks disagree, they think that the road to the NC should be difficult for a couple of reasons. One, it prepares your team for the game of their life. Two, they realize that a honor like winning the NC should be bestowed on the BEST team in the nation. Not simply the team that scheduled the best probability. (tOSU)

These arguments are really philosophical arguments about how NCAA football should be played as apposed to how ND should schedule teams. If I was a fan of any school I would be making the same argument. Any team should have to play the best to make it to the NC. Not just have the best schedule.

And, teams don't need patsies to recoup. Thats what bye weeks are for. I'm going to give MSU some credit here. They beat us right after we play MU because MSU consistently plays good on that weekend because ND is the one major game they schedule. Plus, they are a rival, and everyone beats a rival. I know all about being a student athlete and the commitments that are needed to be such. All this young men knew what they were signing on for. They knew is was going to be hard and they were expected to come out and play hard in spite of the difficulties. And, it is because they are not paid that they are more likely to do so. It's when people are played that they only play up to their paycheck. These young men do it because they want to have fun bashing heads.

Scheduling harder teams will probably make it harder for us to make it to the NC. But I am not going to bet on NEVER. Saying never is an absolute term, and isn't right. But a season without an NC isn't a total loss. People need to realize that! There are other things that can be taken away from a non national champion season. Granted, a lot of these may not be tangible. And most seasons won't result in a NC, and that is where we need to cling to these intangible rewards. And those won't come from beating a bunch of nobodies. Plus, lets take a look at moral. How does a team feel when they didn't make it to the NC and they did schedule themselves into one? Wow, thats lousy, we scheduled ourselves a fairly easy schedule and we still didn't make it. Those teams have nothing to cling to, no pride, no accomplishment, just a crappy season.

We can use ND for this one. Last year we had a HARD schedule. we sucked it up on the field, 3-9. Imagine if the schedule blew nuts, and we still went 3-9, which was very probable based on our play. Then what do the players have to say?

The bottom line is. This argument will probably not get resolved. A lot of people stand on a very polarized field with very strong beliefs. All I can really say is your wrong, and then all your going to say is I'm wrong. And we can go back and forth for a few days.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Exactly, beating better teams IS harder. My question is, why are so many people SO afraid to do it? to even try it?

Because we don't want to have an impossible schedule (from a Title perspective).

And to clear things up, I'm NOT suggesting the HARDEST in the country, just a schedule that is worthy of a NC. Which, to me, should be top 10 or very close. I AM suggesting a harder than we have now schedule.

Ah, see this is where you are wrong. You patently suggested that we ditch all the patsies. If you do that you will automatically have the hardest schedule in the country.

You then went on to propose that we play 5-7 Top teams each year. Again, no one really does that.

LMI, like you say, our current schedule gets us there EASILY. And I'm even going to take the word easily relatively. THIS IDEA IS FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG!

Our schedule is typically Top25. However, it's not an easy schedule it's harder than most. Making it even harder does not make sense.

This is where our arguments begins to take sides. Some folks are hell bent on winning NC's at all costs. Whether we EARN it or not, they think bragging rights are based on ONE final accomplishment. Other folks disagree, they think that the road to the NC should be difficult for a couple of reasons. One, it prepares your team for the game of their life. Two, they realize that a honor like winning the NC should be bestowed on the BEST team in the nation. Not simply the team that scheduled the best probability. (tOSU)

The problem with your argument is that schedule does not necessarily determine the best. You could easily have the best team lose 3 games on the schedule you are suggesting while the 5th best team goes undefeated on a Top25 schedule.

If you lose 3 games there will be no way to prove you were the best. You lost 3 games. But you might be, far and away, the best team.

And, teams don't need patsies to recoup. Thats what bye weeks are for.

You can't be serious here...

Most teams are lucky to get 2 bye weeks. If you play 5 top teams, where are the breaks?

ND (and other teams) has always scheduled patsies for just that reason.

Scheduling harder teams will probably make it harder for us to make it to the NC. But I am not going to bet on NEVER. Saying never is an absolute term, and isn't right. But a season without an NC isn't a total loss. People need to realize that!

We win one on average every 12 years. You would easily spread that out to 30+ years.

I don't see the point.

How does a team feel when they didn't make it to the NC and they did schedule themselves into one? Wow, thats lousy, we scheduled ourselves a fairly easy schedule and we still didn't make it. Those teams have nothing to cling to, no pride, no accomplishment, just a crappy season.

If they win the title, they will feel like they won.

If they play and just lose...then again they won't have an issue. Most of the kids don't really care about SOS as much as the fans do.

We can use ND for this one. Last year we had a HARD schedule.

It was no harder than it's been in the last 20 years...sure there have been ups and downs but this schedule was no different than our history and no different than our future schedules.

2005 was a weak ass schedule and I have heard no ND fans complain.

 

[GoldenDomer21]

In 2005, the first two opponents were ranked. MSU was ranked after they beat ND. USC was ranked. And so was Tenn. So thats 5 ranked teams, and we made it to a BCS bowl. Had we beat USC, we'd have been playing for the NC. As it was, we lost. But it was a season of some really good games. And we still talk about it.

I liked this schedule. 5 ranked teams, one in the SEC, 2 in the big ten, one big east, and a pac 12. We made it around to where we needed to be and also got some exposure. All I as is make second visits to these areas. Play a mid level SEC. Go play Texas A&M. they were top 30 or 40 that year. The only patsie we need is Navy, its tradition, and rest enough with adding in bye weeks.

According to rivals.com, 5 of ND's opponents in 2008 are ranked, albeit preseason, below the top 60. almost half their games are patsies. So, even by LMI's standards of 4, it's one more than usual. and I know of only 1 that is going to be top talent and thats USC. The rest are mid tier talent this year. So, using the BCS formula, we've likely scheduled ourselves out of contention this year also. Too easy. I would rather schedule myself our by going the hard route than by the easy route. Ask Hawaii, they went to a BCS bowl via the easy route, got spanked. Now when do you think they will be given the chance again? More than likely not any time soon.

Most! teams are lucky to win one every 30 years. ND isn't most teams, we expect better. I agree. I also expect them to do it against top competition. Thats it. As ND fans we expect great things. If I wanted to expect normal things, I would have found some state school to be obsessed with.

 

[Jason Pham]

My problem with your argument is that it is articulated entirely in the hypothetical. The point of my researching these scheduling numbers was to provide empirical evidence to show that what you are suggesting has never been consistently accomplished. It is, indeed, ideal. A championship team should ideally be able to beat every team in college football.

However, outside of the hypothetical, such ideals are unreliable as we see in the case of LSU in 2007. You could convince me otherwise by showing me a team which has consistently played no bottom tier teams and has somehow survived their own schedule to find themselves in a position to play for the national championship.

Your argument: We should eliminate bottom-tier teams from our schedule and play an average of six marquee games per season. This would increase the likelihood of a top Notre Dame team being placed in the national championship game.

In order for your argument to be valid, you must also assume that, given the current BCS system, a top Notre Dame team is able go undefeated or sustain at most one loss to such a schedule.

This is exactly where your argument becomes unsound and where you and I disagree. No team has consistently played a schedule of 6 marquee and six mid-tier teams and put themselves in an undefeated or one-loss position. As LMI previously pointed out, the NCAA has worked hard to create and maintain a parity among top tier teams and, thus far, they have been successful.

As such, pitting top tier teams against each other will not necessarily seperate the weaker from the stronger. LSU, who was in my opinion the best team in the nation in 2007, sustained losses to No. 17 Kentucky and unranked Arkansas. Georgia, who played like the second best team in the nation in the same season, suffered losses to unranked South Carolina and unranked Tenessee. Missouri, who in opinion was the third best team in the nation, suffered two losses to two ranked teams and found themselves on the outside looking in.

Furthermore, even those three teams did not play without a few bottom tier teams on their schedule. Mizzou with Western Michigan, Illionois State, Colorado. Georgia with Western Carolina, Mississippi, Vanderbilt, and Troy. Even LSU with Mississippi State, Middle Tennessee, Tulane, Louisiana Tech, and Mississippi.

The national championship is the ultimate goal of every sport. Some teams have standards regarding the way in which they achieve the national championship while others do not. However, no team holds it their obligation to remove every bottom tier team from their schedule. I will concede glady and wholeheartedly to you your argument if you can show me a team which plays no bottom tier teams. However, I find your assumptions and premises farfetched and untrue outside of the hypothetical.

Finally, perhaps you would suggest, then, that we not revolve our scheduling philosophy around winning a national championship. I won't name drop here, but the guys in Varsity know who I hang out with. I can assure you that all the tradition, the academics, and the standards were only a plus for these kids that decided on Notre Dame. If we were not a team which holds itself to a winning standard, that is a standard of national champions (see The Shirt 2008), they would be playing at USC, tOSU, Michigan, or other top tier teams where they can continue their own tradition of winning.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

In 2005, the first two opponents were ranked. MSU was ranked after they beat ND. USC was ranked. And so was Tenn. So thats 5 ranked teams, and we made it to a BCS bowl. Had we beat USC, we'd have been playing for the NC. As it was, we lost. But it was a season of some really good games. And we still talk about it.

I liked this schedule. 5 ranked teams, one in the SEC, 2 in the big ten, one big east, and a pac 12. We made it around to where we needed to be and also got some exposure. All I as is make second visits to these areas. Play a mid level SEC. Go play Texas A&M. they were top 30 or 40 that year. The only patsie we need is Navy, its tradition, and rest enough with adding in bye weeks.

Look at the end of the year. We beat NO ranked teams. And we only played 1: USC.

None of the rest were ranked. None.

According to rivals.com, 5 of ND's opponents in 2008 are ranked, albeit preseason, below the top 60. almost half their games are patsies. So, even by LMI's standards of 4, it's one more than usual. and I know of only 1 that is going to be top talent and thats USC. The rest are mid tier talent this year. So, using the BCS formula, we've likely scheduled ourselves out of contention this year also.

You cannot use pre-season rankings. And frankly this schedule is really not different than 2005. The big difference is Tennessee. And I will ignore the fact that they were brutally bad in 2005. So one game true difference.

Most! teams are lucky to win one every 30 years. ND isn't most teams, we expect better. I agree. I also expect them to do it against top competition. Thats it. As ND fans we expect great things. If I wanted to expect normal things, I would have found some state school to be obsessed with.

With a tougher schedule we will be lucky to win one in 40 years.

 

[GoldenDomer21]

I've said somewhere else that I don't put a whole lot of stock in preseason rankings because you can't really predict what a team will do. But, the people who make those rankings, thought, that these teams had the talent needed to be in that rank. And, for one reason or anther they were beat and put out. I trust these people whose whole job is to take a team, break it down, and analyze their chances of winning a NC and then place them in order. So I don't think that makes them bad teams. Plus, ND beat them, they should drop in rank, or out if they are low enough.

Your argument: We should eliminate bottom-tier teams from our schedule and play an average of six marquee games per season. This would increase the likelihood of a top Notre Dame team being placed in the national championship game.

Eliminating the shitty of the shitty shouldn't be a bad thing. I'm asking to add one or two more top talent teams, upping the number to 4 or 5. And, then trade the crappy teams more middle tier teams. Even then we keep Navy, who usually doesn't beat us, and then bye weeks and middle tier teams. By dropping the really crappy sub 50 rank teams we up the strength. It's not a bad thing, We would still be competitive.

As such, pitting top tier teams against each other will not necessarily seperate the weaker from the stronger. LSU, who was in my opinion the best team in the nation in 2007, sustained losses to No. 17 Kentucky and unranked Arkansas. Georgia, who played like the second best team in the nation in the same season, suffered losses to unranked South Carolina and unranked Tenessee. Missouri, who in opinion was the third best team in the nation, suffered two losses to two ranked teams and found themselves on the outside looking in.

This only proves my point that anyone can lose to anyone. Sooo, why not lose to top teams? Any sad team can show up with their A game take down a team. See, Appl. State. Plus, there are other things that increase your chances of losing. Like playing more games in a year. More games, more chances to lose, less games, less chances to lose. Why don't we decrease from 12 games to 10?

Pham, it's hypothetical because nobody has had the balls to try it. My argument the whole time has been, that because the system is fundamentally wrong, teams are able to schedule a fairly good list of crappy teams. ND, is a great institution and should not just follow the herd. We should, hypothetically I guess, change our schedule to make it harder.

 

[SoCalDomer]

Announcement: THE HORSE IS DEAD





LOL

 

[GoldenDomer21]

Agreed, lock this one out

 

[OCIrish]

Announcement: THE HORSE IS DEAD





LOL

It was a fun conversation, nonetheless.

Good job guys!!

 

[SoCalDomer]

no one has to stop. i've just noticed many of the same points coming up again.

 

[GoldenDomer21]

I think many of the same points have come up on both sides. Which is why the horse is dead. I think it is just one of those never ending arguments where neither will convince the other.

 

[Legacy]

Here's a few selected conference champions 2008 schedules, with rankings from 2007 by Jeff Sagarin. Non-conference games in italics.
LSU - Tier I -Georgia(7), Florida(10), Auburn(13),Tenn(15)
Tier 2 - Ala(31),S. Carol(32),Miss St(37),App St(44),Troy(53)
Tier 3 - Miss(80)
Tier 4-6 - Tulane(141),N.Tex(168)
-schedules non-conference cupcakes because conference schedule is strong. App St and Troy may or may not be as strong.

USC Tier I -Oreg(8),OhioSt(11),ASU(14),OrSt(16),Cal(29)
Tier 2 - UCLA(33),Virginia(41),Ariz(43),Wash(55)
Tier 3 -WSU(63),Stan(70),ND(90)
-schedules tough non-conference opponents, overall SOS far exceeds others, tough conference, ND should improve considerably making it tougher. Only three non-conference games. Non-conference games - Ohio St., Notre Dame, Virginia.

Notre Dame Tier 1-USC(4),Mich(21),BC (23)
Tier 2 -MSU (47),Wash (55),
Tier 3- Pitts (66),NC (69),Stanford(70),Navy(74),Purdue (79),SD St (89)
Tier 4 - Syr (113)
-only ND can schedule who they want. Other's SOS is mostly determined by how strong their conference is. Lots of movement for 2008 - BC, Mich not as strong. Pitts, NC potentially moving up a Tier. SD St is only on the schedule due to ND commitment for SDSt and Nevada('09) moving their game in 2006.

VaTech
Tier 1 - BC(23)
Tier 2 -FSU(40),Virg(41),Marylnd(51),GaTech(59)
Tier 3 - Nebr(61),E.Carol(64),NC(69),Miami(75)
Tier 4 -Furman(107),Duke(109),WKent(118)
- among weakest non-conference schedule with weaker conference. BC is weaker, too.

I realize the deficiency in using 2007 rankings for 2008 schedule, but you get the general idea.

 

[GoldenDomer21]

Nice post. Kind of lays things out nicely. All I ask is to be on par or a little better with someone like LSU, A lot of tier one and two teams, and limited amounts of tier 3 and 4. ND, because of their obligations with navy and the big east pretty much fills their tier 3 and 4 quota. I think after that we need big 12, SEC, Big ten, and Pac 10 teams only. Because we don't have a conference we need to attempt to schedule some top tier schools in these conferences. The SEC will be difficult because they have a tough conference. But we can get some tier 2 schools from the SEC. I like LSU's schedule. And they have proven, twice, that a team with a tough schedule can make it happen. So with all of ND's incoming talent. I think we could be expected to do the same.

 

[Jason Pham]

The only part of your argument to which I can gladly agree is its hypothetical nature. That is, amusing to think about, but never, thankfully, to be actually realized.

LSU played five bottom tier teams in 2007 to balance their rough schedule which (I would apologize to everyone for repeating this statement but it seems to be conveniently looked past time after time) left them with a two loss season which would have put them out of title contention had it not been for an unusual season in the BCS. During their championship season in 2003, LSU played four ranked teams, none of which higher than No. 11. In addition, LSU played, during this same season, six bottom tier teams. Unfortunately for you, you can use neither case to exemplify a team, under typical circumstances, running the table with a schedule which you propose and playing for the national championship.

You know what the most unconvincing part of your argument is ? It is agreeable given ideal situations but there is no empirical data throughout the history of of Notre Dame or BCS football to even slightly support it. Even after the numbers are laid about before you to show that realistically, such a schedule cannot be taken seriously for those with championship ambitions, you continue to disregard them and argue that, in theory, the best team ought to be able to do what you say.

The numbers, real and concrete numbers, suggest otherwise.

 

[Legacy]

One problem ND runs into is that many teams do not want to play them in the middle of their conference schedule. The Big 12 rarely breaks that, though we'll see when Oklahoma is scheduled. The SEC is the same, usually breaking their conference schedules for cupcakes. That's why we to play all three Big 10 opponents in the first four games. The second problem is that USC will not play at ND in November.
So, ND starts off with 3 Big 10 opponents and, every other year, USC is the 6-8th game, at latest, making that year - like last - unbalanced towards a tough first part of the year. There is no Tier 1 team ND has been able to schedule opposite USC, rotating dates.
PAC 10, ACC and, especially, the Big East are more open. The Big East only plays seven conference games and has 5 non-conference games. Our second half this year - Wash, Pitts, BC, Navy, Syracuse, USC in L.A.

 

[SoCalDomer]

good points Legacy. the realities about the money to be made is a very significant factor that hasn't been discussed either.

One reason the big schools in the SEC and Big 10 schedule the cupcakes in the Sunbelt and MAC conferences is because the cupcake schools are more than willing to play an away game at the Big school. They get a bigger than usual payday and national exposure. They have no leverage to request a home game against the Big school and less argument to an equal share of the revenue and less of the tickets.

If one of the Big SEC or Big-11 schools schedules us, they know they get less share of the revenue from the away game and the home game. An extra away game also means less concessions and other revenues that come from game days. The SEC also doesn't get to televise, which means lower revenue from TV contracts with one less home game.

I guess the same could hold true for ND as well.

 

[GoldenDomer21]

Well, I guess I have been silenced. I have few numbers with only a long list of ideals to fight with. So, IDEALISTICALLY, the team crowned champion will have had to defeat the best teams in the land to prove they belong there. Which, would then force teams who want a shot at the title to schedule harder teams and leave the cupcakes to play the other cupcakes.

So, the current BCS system does not fit my theoretical ideas.

Try it in a end of year tournament. Think that would lend itself to my ideas better? 8 teams, most with one or two losses. That idae is a whole new thread though.

LMI, SoCal, Pham, I concede.

 

[SoCalDomer]

GD21, that's one of the reasons why many are calling for an 8 team playoff to decide the NC.

The great disparity between strength of schedule (not to mention arguments over how SOS is calculated) creates such a stir when you have many one loss teams at the end of the season but only two get to go to the NC game.

And GD21, don't worry about being idealistic. You should read my solution to the BCS/playoff/conference SOS issues in this thread: http://www.irishenvy.com/forums/fighting-irish-football/29035-my-bcs-solution.html

Notice how pretty much no one agreed with me. Some people didn't like it because it messed up the "tradition." But I'm convinced that in order for any change to how the NC is decided, the fix needs to be comprehensive. It needed to address as many problem spots as possible.

Much like your ideal of having ND play one of the toughest schedules won't work (for ND) unless all the teams change their scheduling philosophy. But with all the money involved, that's not going to happen.

keep on posting GD21.