2022 NCAA Football Thread

[RandyMarsh]

49 minutes ago, casimir said:

Yes, beating Arizona, Texas Tech, and Minnesota would show more than beating Colorado State, Hawaii, and Connecticut.

How much more though, enough to say a team is or isn't a playoff team? Whether a team beats 3 scrubs or 3 halfway scrubs it isn't going to change my view on that team. 

[casimir]

5 minutes ago, RandyMarsh said:

How much more though, enough to say a team is or isn't a playoff team? Whether a team beats 3 scrubs or 3 halfway scrubs it isn't going to change my view on that team. 

So, OK, so a win over a bottom of the barrel Hawaii carries the same weight as a win over a middle of the conference Minnesota, score being equal, place of game being equal, teams at full strength, etc?  Come on, you really don't believe this, do you?

[RandyMarsh]

13 minutes ago, casimir said:

So, OK, so a win over a bottom of the barrel Hawaii carries the same weight as a win over a middle of the conference Minnesota, score being equal, place of game being equal, teams at full strength, etc?  Come on, you really don't believe this, do you?

All things being equal no a mid tier win is more impressive but is a 20 point win against 5 or 6 win team really tell you that much more than a 60 point win against a bottom feeder? 

In the first scenario you handled an inferior team in a game you win 90%, in the 2nd you dominate a team you win 99% of the time.

My overall point is if you think a team is worthy of the playoffs in the first scenario then you should in the 2nd and vice versa. 

[buddha]

a win over hawaii gives you nothing.  in fact, it should give you a demerit considering you scheduled them knowing they would be terrible.  and you scheduled them at home.

you should get minus points for cancelling a game with a good team.

[casimir]

3 hours ago, RandyMarsh said:

All things being equal no a mid tier win is more impressive but is a 20 point win against 5 or 6 win team really tell you that much more than a 60 point win against a bottom feeder? 

In the first scenario you handled an inferior team in a game you win 90%, in the 2nd you dominate a team you win 99% of the time.

My overall point is if you think a team is worthy of the playoffs in the first scenario then you should in the 2nd and vice versa. 

60 over a junk school is probably the same as 40.  At some point, there are diminishing returns.

60 over a junk team vs 20 over a mid tier team?  Look, I just don’t see what’s so impressive about beating down inferior talent.  It does nothing for me.  Why hide and duck and dive from quality opposition if you think you’re a playoff team?  The Big Ten schedule isn’t such a tough gauntlet that scheduling (and keeping said scheduled game) UCLA or Oregon or Notre Dame or someone of that ilk should be out of the question.

Let’s call it what it is.  That Michigan out of conference this season and next is simply embarrassing and gutless.

[casimir]

3 hours ago, buddha said:

a win over hawaii gives you nothing.  in fact, it should give you a demerit considering you scheduled them knowing they would be terrible.  and you scheduled them at home.

you should get minus points for cancelling a game with a good team.

Division I needs to stop scheduling these games against division II schools.  OSU has Youngstown State on the docket next year.  An utter and complete joke.

[MichiganCardinal]

Harbaugh scheduling Cupcake Us over anybody good was a bet on the nature of the CFP Committee in a four-team playoff format.

A 12-1 Oregon would tell us if he was right. If any other one-loss team makes it above them, they were wrong to schedule Georgia, and should have scheduled Hawaii or UConn instead.

[RandyMarsh]

16 minutes ago, casimir said:

60 over a junk school is probably the same as 40.  At some point, there are diminishing returns.

60 over a junk team vs 20 over a mid tier team?  Look, I just don’t see what’s so impressive about beating down inferior talent.  It does nothing for me.  Why hide and duck and dive from quality opposition if you think you’re a playoff team?  The Big Ten schedule isn’t such a tough gauntlet that scheduling (and keeping said scheduled game) UCLA or Oregon or Notre Dame or someone of that ilk should be out of the question.

Let’s call it what it is.  That Michigan out of conference this season and next is simply embarrassing and gutless.

Not disagreeing with the last part but my point is that I would come away underwhelmed with a team's non conference schedule whether they played 3 FCS teams or 3 mid to bottom tier power 5 teams since in both cases they are playing teams vastly inferior to them.  I look at non conference schedules in three categories, either you have the one where you play an elite team(s) like Oregon did with Georgia, play what figures to be a really good team like OSU did with ND or play 3 inferior teams like we did. We of course took it to the extreme playing the worst of the worst but even if we didn't take it that far I would still come away underwhelmed. 

Regardless though what really hurts them from a schedule standpoint is the Big 10 being so down this year, coming into the year you hoped that Iowa and MSU would be top 15ish teams along with a top 10 PSU and top 5 OSU. If that were the case winning those 4 games plus a 5th against a hopefully top 20 team in the Big Championship would offset the cupcake non conference schedule. Of course as we know that wasn't the case and it's looking like Penn State and OSU may end  up being the only ranked teams they face. 

[gehringer_2]

8 hours ago, RandyMarsh said:

Again to me the non conference SOS and SOS in general is overblown, what really matters is the amount of top 15 teams you face since those are teams a playoff team is most likely to lose to.

What it comes down to is that they scheduled to the system in place. When/if the system changes to reward a different kind of schedule they will probably do that. You can hardly fault people for acting in what is their rational self-interest, especially when the incentive dollars to win inside the existing system are as huge as they are.

[buddha]

2 hours ago, MichiganCardinal said:

Harbaugh scheduling Cupcake Us over anybody good was a bet on the nature of the CFP Committee in a four-team playoff format.

A 12-1 Oregon would tell us if he was right. If any other one-loss team makes it above them, they were wrong to schedule Georgia, and should have scheduled Hawaii or UConn instead.

scheduling uconn and hawaii isnt a bet on the cfb, its a bet that your team isnt good enough to win football games against good opponents.

its cancelling a game against a good opponent because you had to go play an actual road game against that good team in another year.  and youre too much of a pussy program to play the best.

its an embarassment to the program and the history of michigan football.

[MichiganCardinal]

8 minutes ago, buddha said:

scheduling uconn and hawaii isnt a bet on the cfb, its a bet that your team isnt good enough to win football games against good opponents.

its cancelling a game against a good opponent because you had to go play an actual road game against that good team in another year.  and youre too much of a pussy program to play the best.

its an embarassment to the program and the history of michigan football.

Why schedule games against good football teams if it makes it less likely you win a championship? I’m not going to sit here and say that it’s good for the sport for Michigan to play no one good in non-conference play. But it’s on the sport to make playing that game worth the risk of losing that game.

I can’t blame Harbaugh for scheduling the teams that put his program in a the best spot to win a championship.

[MichiganCardinal]

Last year, Michigan played Washington in what would normally be a good game between power five blue bloods. Washington was down and Michigan was up last year, so the game sucked anyway, but say that game is played in a normal year, the breaks don’t go Michigan’s way, and they lose a one-point game.

Michigan goes on to do the same thing the rest of the year. Loses to MSU and beats Ohio State. Wins the B1G at 11-2. Do they still make the playoff? Personally I doubt it. The CFP has shown a strong aversion from two-loss teams. I think they land in the Rose Bowl and Notre Dame at 11-1 is the #4 seed.

Why schedule it then? It’s possible not scheduling it can put you at the short end of the stick as an 11-1 team that only lost to Ohio State (as may happen this year)… in a 12-game B1G season though, it’s probably more likely that you drop a conference game along the way and need to win every other game to have a chance.

A 12-team playoff will help. There will be many two-loss teams vying for the last wildcard spots. Close losses in good games and/or wins in good non-conference games will mean more in separating the pack than it does right now, where two losses is a virtual elimination.

[buddha]

michigan should drop out of the big ten and join the big 12.  or maybe the mountain west?

that way they have a much better chance of being undefeated every year.  heck, as a condition for joining the league maybe they can get it so they dont play any road games?  even more ammunition for an undefeated season.

they should definitely stop playing ohio state.  i mean, they might LOSE thst game!  

[buddha]

15 minutes ago, MichiganCardinal said:

Why schedule games against good football teams if it makes it less likely you win a championship? I’m not going to sit here and say that it’s good for the sport for Michigan to play no one good in non-conference play. But it’s on the sport to make playing that game worth the risk of losing that game.

I can’t blame Harbaugh for scheduling the teams that put his program in a the best spot to win a championship.

bullshit.

why did georgia schedule oregon?  why did ohio state schedule notre dame?  why did bama schedule texas?  all of those games might have ended in a loss but they did it anyway.

but not michigan's bitch ass.

its embarassing.  its even more embarassing when michigan fans excuse it as some sort of genius playing of the system.  

it goes against everything the program says it stands for.

"those who stay will beat uconn."

[gehringer_2]

20 minutes ago, buddha said:

it goes against everything the program says it stands for.

LOL - Now the program is supposed to stand for something? It's eff'n NCAA football. It stand for absolutely nothing beyond the $$. For as cynical as you usually are the idealism here seems surprising. 

Heck - If the program actually 'stood for' something in terms of the University's values, they'd have fired Harbaugh a long time ago for being a fascist. 

Edited November 11, 2022 by gehringer_2

[gehringer_2]

More seriously, one real answer to your question might be that Georgia and OSU have a lot more confidence in the strength and depth of their programs than Michigan has any right to have coming out of a period with any number of dissappointing seasons and questionable current recruiting. One big win over OSU at home didn't turn UM into a program in either Georgia or OSU's class.

Edited November 11, 2022 by gehringer_2

[buddha]

20 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

LOL - Now the program is supposed to stand for something? It's eff'n NCAA football. It stand for absolutely nothing beyond the $$. For as cynical as you usually are the idealism here seems surprising. 

Heck - If the program actually 'stood for' something in terms of the University's values, they'd have fired Harbaugh a long time ago for being a fascist. 

they used to play good teams and talk about how it was part of the pride in the program.  did they not care about money back then?

so they no longer stand for it.  now they stand for playing a pussy schedule.

if it doesnt bother you, that's fine. 

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, buddha said:

if it doesnt bother you, that's fine. 

It's a different world. The old one ended maybe a decade before Bill Martin even got there. The athletic department is in a silo that could be on Mars for all the impact it has on the rest of University community. In recent years I'm no more attached to the M football team than I am to the Lions. They exist in identical spaces to me. It's an entertainment venue. I don't feel anything about what they do has an particular representative value to me as member of the larger University community or as an alum.

College sports started out as a way for students to have a good time and Universities to have a little fun arguing bragging rights over each other and sell some tickets to the local alums to pay for the intramurul facilities. I'm old enough to have experienced it while it still had at least some of that character left. That's the world you are talking about. But today it's just another business trying to part as many people from as many dollars as any other. Caveat Emptor when it comes to making any kind of emotional investment in modern pro sport,  even those that still call themselves collegiate.

Edited November 11, 2022 by gehringer_2

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, buddha said:

they used to play good teams and talk about how it was part of the pride in the program.  did they not care about money back then?

Sure, there was a time you could play games for pride because It didn't matter if you lost out of conference 'back then.' You were going to the Rose bowl if you won the conference regardless and you were staying home regardless if you didn't.

Each generation of the fan base for college football is frozen in its own memories. The current 'establishment' plays on that fact while having no ties of its own to those prior 'verities.'

Edited November 11, 2022 by gehringer_2

[RandyMarsh]

Well assuming nobody chickens out or things change due to all the conference alignment Michigan will be playing at Texas in 2024 and home against them in 2026, and at Oklahoma in 2025 and home against them in 2027 so after next year they got several years in a row of big boys in the non conference.

I guess I should say potential big boys cause even though Texas appears to be on the rise they've been down for the previous decade and Oklahoma seems like they are on a relative down turn since Riley left so it's no guarantee that either will be a "big boy" when we face them. 

Edited November 11, 2022 by RandyMarsh

[buddha]

1 hour ago, RandyMarsh said:

Well assuming nobody chickens out or things change due to all the conference alignment Michigan will be playing at Texas in 2024 and home against them in 2026, and at Oklahoma in 2025 and home against them in 2027 so after next year they got several years in a row of big boys in the non conference.

I guess I should say potential big boys cause even though Texas appears to be on the rise they've been down for the previous decade and Oklahoma seems like they are on a relative down turn since Riley left so it's no guarantee that either will be a "big boy" when we face them. 

hopefully they dont buy them out.  those are the games they should be playing.

they were supposed to do the same with ucla.

[buddha]

8 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

Sure, there was a time you could play games for pride because It didn't matter if you lost out of conference 'back then.' You were going to the Rose bowl if you won the conference regardless and you were staying home regardless if you didn't.

Each generation of the fan base for college football is frozen in its own memories. The current 'establishment' plays on that fact while having no ties of its own to those prior 'verities.'

other big teams do it and they do just fine.  so should michigan.

[casimir]

1 hour ago, RandyMarsh said:

Well assuming nobody chickens out or things change due to all the conference alignment Michigan will be playing at Texas in 2024 and home against them in 2026, and at Oklahoma in 2025 and home against them in 2027 so after next year they got several years in a row of big boys in the non conference.

I guess I should say potential big boys cause even though Texas appears to be on the rise they've been down for the previous decade and Oklahoma seems like they are on a relative down turn since Riley left so it's no guarantee that either will be a "big boy" when we face them. 

Those are good matchups.  Honestly, as a fan, aren't you more interested in seeing those games rather than vs Hawaii?  Aren't those types of matchups more appropriate as a measuring stick for what Michigan thinks it is?

The unfortunate thing with Texas & Oklahoma as future opponents is that they could end up being scrapped out of necessity due to the realignment of the B10 and SEC.  Ohio State has both Texas & Oklahoma as future opponents, too, so I've had that in the back of my mind given the shifting that has been announced.

[RandyMarsh]

17 minutes ago, buddha said:

other big teams do it and they do just fine.  so should michigan.

To be fair other than this year and next they almost always schedule 1 quality opponent. In the past 10 years they've played Alabama, Florida,  ND 4 or 5 times along with "mid tier" teams like Washington, Oregon State, BYU(ranked when they played them) and Utah. It's not like they schedule trash every year. 

Edited November 11, 2022 by RandyMarsh

[buddha]

3 minutes ago, RandyMarsh said:

To be fair other than this year and next they almost always schedule 1 quality opponent. In the past 10 years they've played Alabama, Florida,  ND 4 or 5 times along with "mid tier" teams like Washington, Oregon State, BYU(ranked when they played them) and Utah. It's not like they schedule trash every year. 

they intentionally bought out their good team this year.  they have done that in the recent past under harbaugh too (va tech and chickening out of the washington road game).

i dont know if they go to texas and oklahoma and beg them not to beat us and try to buy them out too.  i hope not.