The Optimal Notre Dame Scheduling Model

OrlaNDomer said:

FPI gives Navy super low ranking which brings down ND's schedule, but in reality Navy may end up being a ranked win when they go 9-3 or 10-2.

Edit: we really just need a couple of BC, Syracuse, Michigan St, Wisconsin, Purdue, Stanford to not be as bad as expected and need BYU, Miami, and SMU to finish top 2 of Big 12 and ACC.

Click to expand...

Dale said:

View attachment 3064139

I don’t hate the concept of a 9 - 3 team getting in when one loss is Week 1 to OSU. The reality is this is the team we saw for the majority of the season. And that team by no means is impressive by any metric. They played well against A&M, it was too little too late and frankly got lucky that the OU win aged well on paper. They were in dogfights with the bottom of the conference for a large portion of the season.

Click to expand...

jerseyborn1971 said:

You can't lose to bad teams AND get blown out by good teams and expect to make the playoff.

Click to expand...

IrishLax said:

Big picture take on the "race to the bottom" of scheduling -- it used to be you had no chance to get voted #1 unless you played the hardest schedule possible + had the best results. That was the foundation to why we used to see such incredible schedules regardless of conference affiliation.

Now you just want to get invited to the dance which means avoiding traps and staying healthy. And there is an actual proof positive for this concept with Cignetti coming in and saying "I want the easiest schedule possible OOC" ==> actually winning a championship. These coaches have to make the playoff or they get fired, and a 12 team playoff with bloated conferences means that your best path is to lose the fewest games possible so that you stack rank better within your own conference.

Texas doesn't want to play ND because Sark is legitimately scared to lose and scared to get left out of the playoffs going 7-2 in the SEC. Same exact logic on what recently happened with Lincoln Riley throwing a bitch fit.

These guys are objectively correct that the ideal schedule is something like 8x the softest games you can find and then 2-4 marquee games that you get credit for winning. You cannot actually evaluate "Strength of Schedule" when there isn't crossplay between the conferences. So the committee gets stuck looking strictly at "quality wins" and the number of losses you have. You don't really get penalized for bad losses, you don't really get credit for "solid" wins, and you certainly don't get any credit for 'that-was-a-close-game-against-a-top-team.'

I'm not sure the problem goes away at 16 teams, because you are still going to end up with the "3rd loss" conundrum. But 16 at least guarantees that every legit 2-loss team gets in. 24 introduces incredible amounts of bloat, but then absolutely incentivizes playing the biggest games you can. Honestly, there really isn't any solution to any of this that doesn't center on moving to a direct qualification method of selection similar to what you see in professional sports leagues. But that would take massive overhaul to set up and would require that everyone be in a conference.

Click to expand...

greyhammer90 said:

The only thing I have an issue with is that I feel like the other side of playing big games is underreported. Everyone wants to talk about Texas getting left out because they lost to OSU, but the other side is what happens if you win. OSU immediately was playing with house money last year because even two losses weren't going to keep them out after beating Texas in Austin. Miami isnt getting in last year without beating us. They lost two bad conference games and didn't get into their conference championship. Their big noncon game was literally their entire argument to get into the playoffs.

Click to expand...

stlnd01 said:

You are correct. And this is why BYU is happy to play us. Maybe they'll win and, unlike last year, have some insurance if they don't win the Big 12.
But this argument primarily applies to teams not in the B1G/SEC. And non B1G/SEC teams don't really count in all this, do they?

Click to expand...

greyhammer90 said:

I think it should be incentive for any team in the "Big 2" that knows it's not getting through it's conference unscathed. Ironically I think USC is exactly the sort of "upper-mid" team in those conferences that should be eager to play us. They aren't likely going to go undefeated through the B1G, but if they beat us they basically buy themselves two losses and can likely take our playoff spot if it comes down to it.

Click to expand...

stlnd01 said:

True if USC beats us last year, for instance, they're 10-2 and a serious at-large contender. But if they beat Fresno or whoever instead, they're still 10-2, without the downside risk of a potential loss to us, and a 10-2 B1G team is a serious contender regardless. If Lincoln Riley's job hinges on making the playoffs (as it does), I can see why he'd choose the less risky approach. Even if it's bad for the sport.

Now, for the next tier down - the Wisconsins and Michigan States - I agree it's worth shooting their shot at a marquee win. But they're unlikely to begin with, and we won't get any credit for beating those teams.

Click to expand...

NDWarrior said:

I agree with all of this, but if things aren't going to change and we're headed to a 16- or 24-team field, at one good thing out of this "playing it safe" during the regular season trend is that we'll have an amazing slate of CFP games in the post season.

But, again, what does that mean for rivalry and big games during the regular season? Maybe not so bad for the top conferences but hopefully it doesn't result in the shit-ification of ND's regular season which could only be remedied by joining a conference... We'll see.

Click to expand...

KPENN said:

Click to expand...

bpob55 said:

The two "big names" TTU initially reached out to were ND and USC. TTU has made sure to go public about USC not wanting to play. If ND had said no, we would have heard about it... I think a scheduling announcement could be in the future.

Click to expand...

stlnd01 said:

In terms of national respect, there's little upside for us in playing Texas Tech. Texas Tech has to beat someone good who is not in the Big 12 before anyone takes them seriously. Or at least show the ability to compete in a CFP game. Give me Texas any day.

Click to expand...