Gotta stand up and clap for good football

ColoradoHusk said:
2017, Ohio State had 2 losses. No team has made the playoffs with 2 losses. 

2018, there were 3 undefeated teams and Oklahoma was taken over Ohio State mainly due to Ohio State getting smoked by Purdue. Yes, the Big Ten was considered “down” in 2018, but Michigan probably would have made the playoff if they had beaten Ohio State and then won the conference title game.

The biggest thing that has hurt the Big Ten and making the playoff isn’t the perception of the conference, it’s the fact the conference forces teams to play 9 conference games.

Only one team (Ohio State this year) has gone through a 9 game conference schedule and conference championship game season undefeated.  It cost Oregon this year, and it probably cost Ohio State in 2017 and 2018. 
Click to expand...


Whether it would have been enough for them to make the playoffs is a different argument than would a better conference reputation have given them a better chance.  You think a 12-1 Alabama team gets left out in favor of Oklahoma last year?

I don't really buy so much being made of 9 conference games.  I think it's much more correlation than causation.  It just so happens that the two most dominant teams of the Playoff era happen to play in conferences that play 8 conference games.  Other than Clemson, the ACC is bad.  If they would have been playing 9 conference games, Clemson still would have made the playoffs.  If Ohio State was in the ACC instead of Clemson, they would have made the playoffs as much.  Penn State might have as well.  And if Alabama was in the B1G or the Big XII, they would have been in the playoffs every year.  So far it's a small sample size and Clemson, Alabama and LSU have happened to be the best teams. 

So those two conference have always made the playoffs because they have easily had the best teams, not so much because of how many conference games they've played.  And Alabama has gotten the benefit of the doubt (and not Ohio State) because of the reputation of the conference, not how many games they've played.

Oregon got penalized for scheduling too tough of a non-con game.  There have been plenty of teams who have one loss in a nine-game conference who have still made the playoffs.  Oklahoma has done it the last three years.  There has been one each year of the playoff.  The thing that has decreased the margin for error is that the SEC and ACC have had such good teams that they are always taking up two (or three) spots, so there isn't much room for anyone else.

 
Mavric said:
Whether it would have been enough for them to make the playoffs is a different argument than would a better conference reputation have given them a better chance.  You think a 12-1 Alabama team gets left out in favor of Oklahoma last year?

I don't really buy so much being made of 9 conference games.  I think it's much more correlation than causation.  It just so happens that the two most dominant teams of the Playoff era happen to play in conferences that play 8 conference games.  Other than Clemson, the ACC is bad.  If they would have been playing 9 conference games, Clemson still would have made the playoffs.  If Ohio State was in the ACC instead of Clemson, they would have made the playoffs as much.  Penn State might have as well.  And if Alabama was in the B1G or the Big XII, they would have been in the playoffs every year.  So far it's a small sample size and Clemson, Alabama and LSU have happened to be the best teams. 

So those two conference have always made the playoffs because they have easily had the best teams, not so much because of how many conference games they've played.  And Alabama has gotten the benefit of the doubt (and not Ohio State) because of the reputation of the conference, not how many games they've played.

Oregon got penalized for scheduling too tough of a non-con game.  There have been plenty of teams who have one loss in a nine-game conference who have still made the playoffs.  Oklahoma has done it the last three years.  There has been one each year of the playoff.  The thing that has decreased the margin for error is that the SEC and ACC have had such good teams that they are always taking up two (or three) spots, so there isn't much room for anyone else.
Click to expand...
The thing with the 9 conference game schedule is that it has shown to make a difference in the regular season. It’s one less obstacle for the SEC and ACC teams to overcome. Another thing with the 9 game conference schedule is that it’s not used by the committee as a reason to bolster those conferences. If anything, it’s used as a penalty for those conferences.

 
Cdog923 said:
giphy.gif
Click to expand...


I will always root for our conference mates....

Unless there playing us.

GBR!!!

 
I'm 45 minutes from Spartan Stadium so the Wake Forest-MSU game was an interesting game to me. WF leads the country in plays per game with 83. Their uptempo play is fun to watch. It seemed like they got the snap off with 25 seconds or more on the clock 90% of the time. Ultimately size and talent won the game for MSU.

FWIW: The Skers are 27th with 74 snaps per game. A wrinkle in the stats shows we 2nd in away games with 84 s/g. We're in the top quarter so I'd rate Frost and Co's promise of uptempo 'mostly true'.

 
ColoradoHusk said:
The thing with the 9 conference game schedule is that it has shown to make a difference in the regular season. It’s one less obstacle for the SEC and ACC teams to overcome. Another thing with the 9 game conference schedule is that it’s not used by the committee as a reason to bolster those conferences. If anything, it’s used as a penalty for those conferences.
Click to expand...


Again, correlation vs causation.

How is Ohio State playing 9 conference games plus Cincinnati that much more of an obstacle than Clemson playing 8 conference games plus Texas A&M and South Carolina?  Other than the rest of Clemson's conference is garbage.

The Big XII got selected for the playoff once in the first three years.  Then they added a CCG (another obstacle) and has now made it the last three years.  So the only direct evidence we have on that actually shows the opposite of that argument.

That argument gets repeated a lot.  But I don't think it really holds up.  But if you say something often enough and loud enough....

 
I'd love to get back to smash mouth football myself.

But I'd also take Joe Burrow throwing 7 touchdown passes in the first half. 

 
Mavric said:
Again, correlation vs causation.

How is Ohio State playing 9 conference games plus Cincinnati that much more of an obstacle than Clemson playing 8 conference games plus Texas A&M and South Carolina?  Other than the rest of Clemson's conference is garbage.

The Big XII got selected for the playoff once in the first three years.  Then they added a CCG (another obstacle) and has now made it the last three years.  So the only direct evidence we have on that actually shows the opposite of that argument.

That argument gets repeated a lot.  But I don't think it really holds up.  But if you say something often enough and loud enough....
Click to expand...
Fair points, but I would argue that conference opponents have more knowledge about the other teams in their conference and have greater motivation to win games within the conference.  IMO, conference games are more challenging that non-conference games, especially when the conference games are played consecutively. 

 
ColoradoHusk said:
Fair points, but I would argue that conference opponents have more knowledge about the other teams in their conference and have greater motivation to win games within the conference.  IMO, conference games are more challenging that non-conference games, especially when the conference games are played consecutively. 
Click to expand...








Only if the conference team you're playing in the 9th is as good or better than a non-con you would have replaced it with, and for every advantage your conference foe has in "knowing you better" you also know them the same amount better. I don't see how that helps or hurts.

 
ColoradoHusk said:
Fair points, but I would argue that conference opponents have more knowledge about the other teams in their conference and have greater motivation to win games within the conference.  IMO, conference games are more challenging that non-conference games, especially when the conference games are played consecutively. 
Click to expand...


I do think there's something to that.

But the 8 vs 9 argument is completely ignoring 25%-33% of the schedule.  I fail to see how that makes any sense.

 
Mavric said:
I do think there's something to that.

But the 8 vs 9 argument is completely ignoring 25%-33% of the schedule.  I fail to see how that makes any sense.
Click to expand...
The 8 vs. 9 argument does depend on the non-conference schedule and the # of power 5 teams are scheduled in the non-con.  Clemson, Georgia, Florida, and other teams do have non-conference “rivals” which are P5 teams.  I can’t remember the last time Alabama played 2 P5 teams in the non-conference schedule. 

Another factor in 8 vs. 9 conference game schedule is that it impacts how often teams play opponents from the other division. It’s especially odd in the SEC when they have designated cross-division rivals. With 6 division games, 1 cross-division rival, and another cross-division game, a team like Alabama rarely plays Georgia and Florida, and they can take advantage of a down Tennessee program.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Landlord said:
Only if the conference team you're playing in the 9th is as good or better than a non-con you would have replaced it with, and for every advantage your conference foe has in "knowing you better" you also know them the same amount better. I don't see how that helps or hurts.
Click to expand...
It obviously depends on the coach, but I think it favors the underdog as they have a greater incentive to beat a top program from the other division. Indiana sure had a chip on its shoulder from a perceived slight from Scott Frost. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top