The Optimal Notre Dame Scheduling Model

[Jimmy3Putt]

As bad as a rep as the BCS computer got, it was usually right.

16 teams, eliminate conference championships, and let the computer pick the best 16.
No more auto bids.
No more human bias.
No more "style"points running up the score trying to embarrass teams.
If the computer finds you unworthy, you're unworthy.

 

[irishjim]

Have to go undefeated in 2026 to make playoffs. Not making it losing to Miami or USC next year
I think we need to aim to get 2 SEC schools a year. Currently looking at 1 in the near future. Probably wouldn’t hurt to add a Big 12 team each year- preferably either BYU, Utah, Texas Tech, Arizona St, or Cincinnati.

 

[KPENN]

All the bitching and whining from teams about not playing tough non-conference games. You know who got fucked most playing one? Notre Dame. Down from 8-21 after the A&M game

 

[IrishinSyria]

Still disappointed that Miami and A&M were scheduled back to back to start the season.

Seems like it was mostly bad luck. Like as recently as 2023-24, Miami was a 6-6 team. I don’t think anyone thought that we were scheduling two of the best teams in the country when those games came on the calendar.

 

[BilboBaggins]

Notre Dame should officially claim the 1993 championship.

 

[CoachB]

Notre Dame should officially claim the 1993 championship.

Yep. And 2025. They are officially 1993 and 2025 champs. Will not convince me otherwise.

 

[IrishTusker]

Seems like it was mostly bad luck. Like as recently as 2023-24, Miami was a 6-6 team. I don’t think anyone thought that we were scheduling two of the best teams in the country when those games came on the calendar.

It was partly bad luck, but we should have put Purdue in between them and then had the bye after A&M. Maybe then the D would have been functioning by A&M.

 

[FOTY977]

Check out future schedules,… 28 and 29 have crazy opening months

You think those Texas and Alabama games are going to be on the schedule?

 

[wizards8507]

As bad as a rep as the BCS computer got, it was usually right.

16 teams, eliminate conference championships, and let the computer pick the best 16.
No more auto bids.
No more human bias.
No more "style"points running up the score trying to embarrass teams.
If the computer finds you unworthy, you're unworthy.

Uh the computers like it when you run up the score also.

 

[Jimmy3Putt]

Uh the computers like it when you run up the score also.

Did they? It's been a spell.

 

[ACamp1900]

You think those Texas and Alabama games are going to be on the schedule?

I shared my thoughts on what I’d do if I had the power, they would not be,… I bet they’ll get played tho

 

[T-Boone]

I just looked at NDs full schedule for 2026. It is pretty/very bad.
The only teams with a pulse are Miami hopefully and USC hopefully. They ought to try to get out of one of those ACC games (such as Boston) and schedule someone tough - things should be flexible eg Indiana should try to cash in on their good current situation.
(Boston, Syracuse, Stanford, Rice at the bottom and just USC and Miami at the top is going to just fuel the critics).

 

[irishu]

Agreed. Very hard to get excited about games on next year’s schedule

 

[IrishTusker]

I just looked at NDs full schedule for 2026. It is pretty/very bad.
The only teams with a pulse are Miami hopefully and USC hopefully. They ought to try to get out of one of those ACC games (such as Boston) and schedule someone tough - things should be flexible eg Indiana should try to cash in on their good current situation.
(Boston, Syracuse, Stanford, Rice at the bottom and just USC and Miami at the top is going to just fuel the critics).

We learned this year that going 12-0 or 11-1 is more important than SOS. It would have been better if we had won the first two games and then lost to Purdue, e.g., like last year. We'd be at 7 or something. I don't see the benefit to making the schedule harder.

 

[Jiggafini19Deux]

We learned this year that going 12-0 or 11-1 is more important than SOS. It would have been better if we had won the first two games and then lost to Purdue, e.g., like last year. We'd be at 7 or something. I don't see the benefit to making the schedule harder.

Bingo. That was my big take from all of this. 11-1 works. 10-2 doesn't.

 

[Jimmy3Putt]

Boom.
Weaken the schedule as much as possible. We might not earn a bye from playing scrubs, but we will get in.

 

[stlnd01]

I just looked at NDs full schedule for 2026. It is pretty/very bad.
The only teams with a pulse are Miami hopefully and USC hopefully. They ought to try to get out of one of those ACC games (such as Boston) and schedule someone tough - things should be flexible eg Indiana should try to cash in on their good current situation.
(Boston, Syracuse, Stanford, Rice at the bottom and just USC and Miami at the top is going to just fuel the critics).

If USC works out (and isn't swapped for Purdue or Sparty) we already play four Big Ten teams next year. And they really don't want to play us after conference play starts. I doubt Indiana would either. That's the problem, coupled with the fact that like 80 percent of the ACC just sucks.

For next year, our best move is to get USC to keep the game Thanksgiving weekend and hope they're good enough that it matters. Syracuse, for instance, winning 10 games like they did last year would also help us. Or SMU or Carolina.

 

[NDFAN2008]

I think we really need to try and pickup an extra quality game out there for next year the schedule is a joke

 

[Some Irish Bloke]

I just looked at NDs full schedule for 2026. It is pretty/very bad.
The only teams with a pulse are Miami hopefully and USC hopefully. They ought to try to get out of one of those ACC games (such as Boston) and schedule someone tough - things should be flexible eg Indiana should try to cash in on their good current situation.
(Boston, Syracuse, Stanford, Rice at the bottom and just USC and Miami at the top is going to just fuel the critics).

If you're implying we should try to schedule the Hoosiers, Cignetti made it clear they are too chicken shit to play anybody out of conference. Seems to have worked well for them this year, though. Still think it's cowardly.

 

[wizards8507]

80 percent of the ACC just sucks.

This is why I hate strength of schedule arguments. Contracts are signed way in advance and you have no clue who is or isn't going to suck. We signed our contract with Arkansas EIGHT YEARS ago, and it's insane to think that we should have known in 2017 that the 2025 Razorbacks would be a 2-10 team.

When you schedule power opponents, you should get credit for scheduling power opponents, as long as you throttle them like you should if it turns out they suck.

This does not apply to FCS games, which you know with 100% certainty will be cupcakes.

 

[Some Irish Bloke]

TL;DR at the bottom, but I don't see the same issues with the 2026 schedule as others are. Especially in today's CFP climate. No, it's not a gauntlet, it's not overly exciting compared to our previous schedules, but it's perfectly fine for what we are trying to accomplish (11-1, playoff berth).

1. Vs. Wisconsin - P4 team. Maybe they finally punch back into their weight class a bit but probably not, still a fun team to open the season with at Lambeau that will get some media attention.
2. Rice - trash, but everyone has G5 games.
3. MSU - Same as Wisconsin. new Coach, dormant rivalry renewed, will be fun to have them back on our September schedule.
4. @ Purdue - Similar to MSU/Wiscy, liked what I saw from Barry Odom year 1, potential bowl team next szn.
5. @UNC - P4, but meh.
6. Vs. Navy - all they do is win double digit games, nobody else has the balls to schedule them, but we get criticized for it. Hypocrites. Hope they're ranked AGAIN when we play them.
7. Miami - playoff team this year, hope they don't bitch out of the game this time since it's South Bend in November. Can't wait to beat the FL piss out of them.
8. SMU - why aren't we a little more interested in this game? Playoff team two years ago, bubble team this year that went 8-4 but still had some good moments like upsetting Miami. Decent opponent, potential top 25 win opportunity.
9. @ Syracuse - Same as SMU if Angeli is back and healthy. Potential top 25 opponent, or could be an absolute bottom feeder. Time will tell.
10. Stanford - meh, but another P4. Who is their new coach? This is the team I'd love to get rid of on our schedule. I just don't know what we get out of playing them.
11. BC - another P4 rival, at least it's not the Citadel.
12. USC - Sure, our only other "tier 1 or 2" opponent but we all know playing in LA for all the marbles can be nerve wracking.

TL;DR -

That's two quality opponents (USC/Miami), with potential for another quality opponent that isn't readily apparent in the offseason, which happens every year (SMU? Wisconsin, finally? Angeli-led Syracuse?)

10/12 are P4 teams, and Navy finished top 5 from the G5 in the playoff consideration this year. People love to give us flack for scheduling them every year, but they are too scared to even consider it.

This is a tougher schedule than Oregon, IU, OSU, etc all played this year. Not exciting to our historical standards, but perfectly acceptable to this BS system.

 

[Bane]

This is why I hate strength of schedule arguments. Contracts are signed way in advance and you have no clue who is or isn't going to suck. We signed our contract with Arkansas EIGHT YEARS ago, and it's insane to think that we should have known in 2017 that the 2025 Razorbacks would be a 2-10 team.

When you schedule power opponents, you should get credit for scheduling power opponents, as long as you throttle them like you should if it turns out they suck.

This does not apply to FCS games, which you know with 100% certainty will be cupcakes.

Yeah, SOS is a bit of a metric of luck. I mean we scheduled the consistently best G5 program in the country for the last 20 years, Boise, and they just happened to have a bit of a down year (which still included winning their conference). Had we played them last year it's a much different conversation.

 

[Some Irish Bloke]

Yeah, SOS is a bit of a metric of luck. I mean we scheduled the consistently best G5 program in the country for the last 20 years, Boise, and they just happened to have a bit of a down year (which still included winning their conference). Had we played them last year it's a much different conversation.

bingo. Everyone thought our schedule in 2024 was going to be a gauntlet but then USC and FSU crumbled and we didn't really beat any quality opponents. Thankfully we beat the living piss out of everyone and still got in and hosted because of it.

 

[stlnd01]

Yeah, SOS is a bit of a metric of luck. I mean we scheduled the consistently best G5 program in the country for the last 20 years, Boise, and they just happened to have a bit of a down year (which still included winning their conference). Had we played them last year it's a much different conversation.

For that matter, Syracuse won 10 games last year. And BC had a winning record.

But none of that matters. They’re in the ACC, not the SEC like might Auburn (but not Arkansas they don’t count).

 

[NDWarrior]

Oh boy, with all the attention on ND and that we're a bunch of "rejected cry babies" everyone else is now scrutinizing and lambasting our 2026 weak-ass schedule.

Notre Dame's 2026 Football Schedule Is 'Embarrassing'

 

[OrlaNDomer]

with super conference schedules nobody plays any more than 3 good games a year anyway. Ole Miss played 2 this year, Indiana 3 (if you count Iowa and CCG), Ohio State 3 (if you count CCG), Miami 1 (ND)...list goes on.

 

[NorthDakota]

This is why I hate strength of schedule arguments. Contracts are signed way in advance and you have no clue who is or isn't going to suck. We signed our contract with Arkansas EIGHT YEARS ago, and it's insane to think that we should have known in 2017 that the 2025 Razorbacks would be a 2-10 team.

When you schedule power opponents, you should get credit for scheduling power opponents, as long as you throttle them like you should if it turns out they suck.

This does not apply to FCS games, which you know with 100% certainty will be cupcakes.

Yep, these deals are made far in advance. Any interconference games provide *some* value in figuring out the relative quality of football teams so I'm with you, you should be credited for helping make the analysis easier (even if to some limited extent). So the schools should be incentivized to schedule teams from other conferences (or Notre Dame!) for that reason alone. When the high profile teams clash, thats just fun in general. ND beating the doors of Arkansas was a very good metric oddly enough. ND beat Arkansas worse than (i think) their entire conference combined did.

FCS games aren't 100% certainty cupcakes. But a couple dozen of them are *shudder* about the quality of a MAC or CUSA team. A few (North and South Dakota State consistently) are more akin to playing Boise State or Tulane. But by and large, yes the FCS games are a joke and those wins really shouldn't be counted toward CFP rankings.

 

[Dale]

ESPN SOS:

Duke - 74
SMU - 66
Virginia - 79
Georgia Tech - 68

Those are the SOS ranks for ACC contenders that did not play ND. The idea that ND is somehow seeking out an easier schedule is a complete lie. The ACC is bad, it’s really that simple. If the ACC was better, NDs schedule would be harder.

The conference record of NDs ACC opponents was exactly the same as Miami and Georgia Tech. It was more difficult than Pitt and SMU.

 

[Huntr]

It's known by people who breathe through their noses that ND's path would be easier in the ACC.

The majority of CFB fans and media don't know that, but the rest of us, do.

 

[Dale]

As a faux ACC team this season you basically had

- 6 ACC teams
- 2 substitute ACC teams: USC and let’s use Purdue which keeps the SOS about even
- 4 game non conference: G5, G5, SEC, SEC

Again objectively a completely normal schedule for an ACC team essentially to put together.