To Make The CFP: Schedule a Tough Team Or a Doormat Team? Gerry DiNardo And That Coach Talk About It (BTN video)
There's now talk of who Michigan should schedule now that UCLA has been dropped from future schedules. a tough team, or maybe doormats? And I'm thinking the college playoff committee has to be taken into account in deciding who to play. How they make choices HAS to be taken into account. At least I think it does.
The College Football Playoff selection process is talked about in this video, what really happens in choosing the Top 4 teams that get in. We may not like it that it is the way it is, and most if not all people don't like it. But it is thus.
I used to be a person that said the schedule should be tough from top to bottom, and you have to earn your way into the playoffs that way. It being any other way really bothered my sense of right and wrong. But seeing what happened in 2014, when TCU was 11-1, that one loss being a very close loss in a rivalry game, that had a very questionable call from a ref that changed the game, and because of that loss TCU didn't get in. And that TCU ended up playing #9 Ole Miss in a Bowl Game that year, and absolutely dominating them 42-3--and then, in 2016, Washington got in to the Top 4, when both Penn St and Michigan were probably better teams---these things made me change my mind.
So should Michigan keep scheduling tough teams to play outside of the BIG10 Conference? Or should that take on doormat teams, and only schedule them AT HOME, in Ann Arbor?
Watch and think about it:
October 28th, 2019 at 3:00 PM ^
I am not sure Michigan cancelling the UCLA series means what some are saying it means. Michigan may still replace that series with an equivalent Power 5 team. It sounds like the motivation was more to get 7 home games per year and avoid having 6 road games in a season (like in 2017).
If Michigan had kept the UCLA series, they would have had 8 home games in 2022 and 6 road games in 2023. Michigan had a similar situation with the Arkansas series (8 home games in 2018 and 6 road games in 2019), and they ended up replacing them with Notre Dame with the home-away reversed.
Another reason why I am not sure if the Michigan-Oklahoma series will happen.
October 28th, 2019 at 3:06 PM ^
Wrong. Michigan cancelled the Home and Home With UCLA and now has deals with East Carolina and Hawaii.
This was done to ensure 7 game home slates.
October 28th, 2019 at 3:12 PM ^
That's what I just wrote. The series cancellation was done more for home-away scheduling than strength of schedule reasons. I still think it is likely that Michigan schedules a Power 5 opponent to replace UCLA.
The UCLA cancellation had nothing to do with East Carolina and Hawaii. I think the East Carolina and Hawaii additions just made public that Michigan cancelled the UCLA series months ago (Michigan notified UCLA in June it was buying out). Some are calling the East Carolina and Hawaii games as replacements for UCLA, but I don't look at it that way (yet). There is still one open date for 2022 and 2023, and I think those open dates will serve as a Power 5 replacement for the UCLA series.
October 28th, 2019 at 3:24 PM ^
Sorry, I wasn't replying to your post, my comment was aimed at the OP's comments.
He alluded that Michigan might schedule a more favorable P5 opponent. I simply wanted to inform him that they had already replaced them with a couple of G5 teams.
October 28th, 2019 at 11:24 PM ^
It is somewhat short notice in terms of how p5 v. p5 "home-and homes" are usually scheduled. If I had to put money on it, I would guess we get a neutral site game against a P5 team in 2022. Possibly in Europe as was (I think) suggested by Harbaugh last offseason, but could be in Atlanta or JerryWorld
In 2023, I think it will be a third home game against either a relatively strong G5 (like Houston/Cincy/BYU), or a traditionally avg-below avg P5 team (Cal/BC/Vandy).
October 28th, 2019 at 6:39 PM ^
Michigan-Oklahoma
Is this a thing? Why the hell should we schedule Oklahoma/Clemson/Alabama in the OOC? Is it not enough we have to get dummied by one perennial playoffs contender?
October 28th, 2019 at 8:16 PM ^
Uh, because interesting football matchups are fun? Why schedule another cupcake that is nothing more than a glorified exhibition? It doesn't/won't help us make the playoff to schedule easier OOC.
Also, losing to a good non-conf opponent is highly unlikely to hurt, just like it didn't hurt last year to lose to ND. And it has a decent chance of helping, like beating OU was the only reason OSU made the playoff in 2016. What matters is that last game of the season and winning the conference.
So even if you think it has an equal chance of hurting as it does of helping (which is probably about right), why not schedule more interesting games? All of them. Two good OOC games even!
October 28th, 2019 at 10:21 PM ^
Also, losing to a good non-conf opponent is highly unlikely to hurt,
That is a very risky thing to say.
October 28th, 2019 at 11:22 PM ^
What makes you think strength of schedule is ever going to be the piece that keeps Michigan out of the playoffs? You know what is actually keeping Michigan out of the playoffs? Losses. And you're really intent on scheduling more games that Michigan is likely to lose.
October 29th, 2019 at 11:14 AM ^
Did you not watch the video above? Clearly Urban thinks the look test weighs pretty heavily in committee decision making.
October 29th, 2019 at 5:53 PM ^
The only look that really matters is the look at the team's record, wins and losses. Until that can be figured out there is no reason to worry about what a playoff committee might think about Michigan's schedule.
October 28th, 2019 at 3:08 PM ^
They can (sort of) fix this shit by making the P5 conference champs be in the playoffs and having three at large bids. I know there will still be voting for said at large bids, but at least we would have an 8-team playoff, which is far better than 4. How the teams would be seeded - I don't know.
October 28th, 2019 at 3:27 PM ^
Yep, having the wildcard spots would create incentive for teams to schedule harder out of conference, assuming strength of strength is used as one of the primary criteria for selecting those teams.
October 28th, 2019 at 3:55 PM ^
Yeah that's probably the only thing that could create an incentive to schedule good team out of conference.
Right now what matters is winning your conference. Scheduling a tough non-conference opponent can only hurt your chances by risking a loss. It almost never helps. Its basically all downside with respect to making the CFP.
I have generally been in favor of the 6 (P5+1) team playoff, but an 8 team playoff with 3 at large teams would give more teams a reason to schedule harder OOC games in order to get a second shot at the apple if they don't win their conference.
Michigan this year is a perfect example - their conference championship, and therefore CFP, odds are virtually nil even if they run the table. But in an 8 team playoff they would have a very good shot to get in with wins over ND and OSU on their resume, even without a conference championship.
October 28th, 2019 at 4:00 PM ^
Strength of schedule would be the no.2 criterion. Membership in the SEC would be no.1.
October 28th, 2019 at 4:23 PM ^
I would not include any team that has not played in a conference championship meaning the two teams that won their divisions get in. Any team that hasn't played in a conference championship game is out, and that includes ND. Of course, you have to have four major conferences for this to work with 10 teams in each division. Reconfigure the P5 so there are 80 teams in four conferences.
The more teams you add to a playoff, the more likely that the early games have No.1 seeds against teams that largely have no chance and that makes for not so great watching at a time of year when there is lots going on including a very busy and often excellent NFL schedule. The less selective you are, the more, it would seem, you dilute the value of each game during the regular season.
I still like four teams in the playoffs.
October 28th, 2019 at 5:23 PM ^
In 2017 Alabama didn't win their conference. They were 11-1, the one loss was to Auburn. Auburn lost to Georgia in the SEC Championship. Georgia had 1 loss that year. They got into the CFP at 11-1. They lost to Alabama in the National Championship.
A team shouldn't have to win their conference to get into the playoffs.
Ohio St got into the playoffs in 2016 at 11-1, the one loss to Penn St. They didn't win the conference. Penn St ended up winning the Conference Championship, ending the season at 11-2.
October 28th, 2019 at 5:27 PM ^
I agree with you. 8 teams with power 5 winners and 3 at large is the way to go
October 28th, 2019 at 5:34 PM ^
Alabama was 11-1 in 2017. They won the National Championship that year. But they didn't win the SEC Championship.
It can get dicey to require a team to win their conference to get in.
But yeah, a 8 team playoff would make a lot more people happy.
October 28th, 2019 at 3:08 PM ^
Doormats. The CoFoPoff Committee has proven time and time again that schedules don't matter.
October 28th, 2019 at 3:46 PM ^
Bingo. The committee says they want SOS but each and every year they make their final selections based on overall record and could care less about the SOS.
It's like a prospective customer once told me when I asked "what's more important to you - quality or price?"
His response: "If the door to the meeting room is open and people can hear us, it's quality all day long. If the door is closed, we dont really give a shit about anything other than price and assume quality will be more or less the same."
October 28th, 2019 at 4:49 PM ^
Yep, seems like when the CFP was announced, there was a brief surge in interesting non-cons being scheduled. Now, it's apparently that the wins and losses are all that matters IF you are a big name team. For Michigan, we should schedule cupcakes because a 13-0 Michigan gets into a 4 team playoff in 99.9% of scenarios.
October 28th, 2019 at 3:09 PM ^
The committee changes from year to year, so I don't take too much in terms of them "setting a precedent that will hold in future years."
But the 2016 committee definitely rewarded Washington and their soft OOC schedule. If one is to make a case for softening an OOC schedule, that's who you point to.
October 28th, 2019 at 3:44 PM ^
Not to mention there were probably at least 10 teams that were better than them.
October 28th, 2019 at 3:10 PM ^
Doormat ... It you run the table in the BIG you play 5/6 ranked teams .... That’s more than enough to get you in ... So play those cupcakes
October 28th, 2019 at 3:11 PM ^
Personally I prefer a tougher schedule, but the committee clearly values being undefeated. To me it's clear that if your goal is to get in the playoffs you're better off playing a soft schedule.
October 28th, 2019 at 3:11 PM ^
Schedule teams you can beat . The B1G schedule is tough enough already .
Also never go on the road outside your conference, Bama style !
October 28th, 2019 at 3:12 PM ^
Consider the fact that outside of the Rich Rod/Hoke years UM has finished the OOC schedule undefeated just four times since they won the national championship in 97: 1999, 2006, 2016, 2017. B1G is really tough, and no one seems to be knocking PSU's or OSU's OOC schedule right now. It stinks as a big college football fan that loves those big time out of conference match-ups, but until the CFP committee starts valuing SOS and putting two loss teams in the playoff with regularity it's probably a bad idea. 8 team playoff would probably solve this issue.
October 28th, 2019 at 3:29 PM ^
But OSU usually plays at least one really really tough game in their OOC schedule and has pretty much done that for as long as I can remember.
I would argue that probably the biggest regular season game that has affected who makes the playoffs in recent memory is the Ohio State-Oklahoma home and home series.
October 28th, 2019 at 3:46 PM ^
If OSU beats a cupcake instead of beating OU in 2016, they probably don't make the playoff. If OSU beats a cupcake instead of losing to OU in 2017, they probably make the playoff. Double edged sword.
October 28th, 2019 at 5:04 PM ^
A 1-loss B1G champion will make the CFP 80%+ of the time. A 2-loss B1G champion probably does not make the CFP.
October 28th, 2019 at 7:52 PM ^
*provided that one loss isn't by 30 to a mediocre team in the B1G West
October 28th, 2019 at 7:45 PM ^
If PSU beats a cupcake instead of losing to Pitt in 2016 they make the playoff. Until the CFP starts putting in two loss teams this discussion is sort of moot.
October 28th, 2019 at 8:13 PM ^
Losing by 39 points to a divisional opponent probably didn't help matters much there, either...I mean, you couldn't objectively say that Penn State was better than Michigan that year, could you?
October 28th, 2019 at 10:11 PM ^
All we have as evidence as regards the committee's answer to that question was the final rankings. And those final rankings had Washington 4th, PSU 5th and U-M 6th.
October 28th, 2019 at 3:41 PM ^
Add 2019 to that list. Interesting that 3/5 years under Harbaugh Michigan has been undefeated out of conference - admittedly it's easier now that there are only 3 non-conference games each year.
October 28th, 2019 at 4:02 PM ^
I think you can add 2019 and make that five.
edit: oops, beat me to it.
October 28th, 2019 at 3:16 PM ^
Under the current system, a 12-0 Michigan team is always going to play in the Big 10 Championship game and a 13-0 Michigan team is always going to the playoffs.
We have no control over who we're playing for 9 of those 12 games, so we should make the remaining 3 as close to a sure thing as possible.
October 28th, 2019 at 3:26 PM ^
a 13-0 Michigan team is always going to the playoffs.
This is probably true. But if you had all P5 champions finish undefeated, someone would have to be left out. There could be a day when it's the Big Ten. This unlikely scenario shouldn't really dictate how you schedule, though.
October 28th, 2019 at 3:43 PM ^
Has that ever happened before? I'd be shocked if it had.
October 28th, 2019 at 3:50 PM ^
This was my exact thought after reading that comment, Hatter. The odds of having all five P5 conference champions are so low.
October 28th, 2019 at 5:54 PM ^
All five being undefeated is very low.
However, all five conference champs being 1 loss (and ND being undefeated and/or 1 loss) is a much more likely proposition.
October 28th, 2019 at 3:17 PM ^
It depends. I think at least some consideration of the fans needs to be in the discussion here. If you're in the playoff conversation by all means schedule cupcakes, if you're not I think you owe it to your fans to try to maximize the schedule. Since its generally impossible to know this at the time the schedule is set, I don't know what the answer is. All I know is the ND game was the most fun I've had in a while watching a Michigan game and I wouldn't want to trade that for a guaranteed win over Western and still no playoff trip.
October 28th, 2019 at 3:20 PM ^
I used to hate the idea of playing any non-Power 5 teams for OOC games. I thought it devalued the Saturday experience. My mind has been changed - especially the way the playoff system is set up. Michigan doesn't have to play a tough OOC schedule - the conference games are tough enough. There is no incentive in the current system to play a tough OOC opponent. If getting to the playoffs means beating everyone on your schedule, by all means, don't schedule Washington, Texas, and Oklahoma. Schedule Wofford and Western Carolina instead - it's what Alabama and Clemson are doing. As long a the committee puts emphasis on style points and being undefeated, why would you make it any tougher on your self than it needs to be?
I think once the playoff expands to 6 or 8 teams, we can re-evaluate making the OOC schedule tougher.
October 28th, 2019 at 3:43 PM ^
Michigan having 2 losses in 2016 is what kept them out of the playoffs. If they had beaten Iowa that year they would have likely been in. The strange loss in Iowa kept them out of the playoffs. The committee didn't say, "Iowa is a strange place to play on a cold Saturday night. So we won't take that game into account in judging Michigan. Michigan gets in." Michigan had 2 losses, so they didn't get in, even though they were probably a better team that did just barely get in, Washington.
11-1 and 12-0 is what maters---at least it sure looks that way. Even 11-1 might not be good enough in some cases. Winning is what it's about.
October 28th, 2019 at 3:46 PM ^
100% true. All the more reason to not schedule tough OOC games. The conference schedule is tough enough.
October 28th, 2019 at 4:03 PM ^
Number of losses and how you look in them is what matters. Getting blown out eliminates you. Win your conference, don't get blown out in your loss and your fine. Also, playoff teams can beat Iowa in Kinnick. It's not an impossible ask.
October 28th, 2019 at 3:22 PM ^
I want our schedule filled with enough cupcakes to give us diabeetus.
I'm joking, but as long as the committee keeps rewarding these teams for playing nobodies in November, I don't think there's any benefit to the unnecessary risk of scheduling away from home.
And before everyone says "but Michigan was built on playing anyone, anywhere", remember that for the better part of a century, the BigTen was the BigTwo, and Michigan and OSU spent most saturdays beating whatever polio victims the rest of the conference could suit up.
October 28th, 2019 at 3:37 PM ^
I would schedule cupcakes unless they decide to go to an 8 team playoff.
October 28th, 2019 at 3:38 PM ^
Just play Kansas level power 5 teams instead of Alabama level teams. Also, no more service academies please.