Golden Gophers Proving OOC Schedule is Irrelevant
Minny likely to be ranked Top 7 this week. If they win out, they will be in CFB Playoff. Period. The Gophers have a ridiculously weak Out of Conference schedule. Begs the question: why would any AD look at the OOC schedule as anything more than a tune-up to conference play?
(Penn St and WIS have figured this out too)
November 11th, 2019 at 5:16 PM ^
You're using a post hoc deterministic comparison and assuming that a top 4 team would lose two games against a "difficult" schedule and would only lose one game against an "average" schedule. And you're also assuming the top 4 team wouldn't make it in even with a two loses. All of those are poor assumptions. It does depend on your definition of average and difficult though.
The committee also goes with one loss teams with difficult schedules over one loss teams with average schedules.
One loss teams with average schedules get left out all the time in favor of one loss teams with more difficult schedules. This is almost always the line of demarcation. So there is lots to gain from playing a difficult schedule and that is to win all your games but one. The reward of doing that is likely greater than the risk of losing two games and still being left out (which isn't a given). One would have to do a full stochastic analysis but your logic is faulty because it is limited and deterministic.
Sure, probably don't play three really tough non-conference games if you're in a P5 conf, but you're probably better off playing one or two tough ooc games than zero if you're a top 4 quality team that is likely to win those games anyway. Give yourself more margin for error.
November 11th, 2019 at 6:31 PM ^
It's not that hard man. It's a fact that you statistically have a better chance to end up with fewer losses by scheduling one less difficult game, especially when you don't need to bolster your SOS. There are diminishing returns by scheduling a difficult out of conference game. You just need to meet the bare minimum threshold for a respectable schedule, and we already have that with who we play in the Big Ten.
November 12th, 2019 at 11:34 AM ^
committee has way too many biases to include a 2-loss team as long as there enough zero and one loss teams to choose from. 2015 is probably the best example, when MSU got in over Stanford with two losses. Stanford started with a loss to Northwestern but then started playing a lot better that by the end of the year they were playing better than MSU. I'm not saying it was an easy call because the resumes were close between both and they had one common opponent, Oregon, who MSU beat but who Stanford lost to. It was only when they both played Iowa that you saw that Stanford was better.
November 11th, 2019 at 2:47 PM ^
If they had played a decent non-conf team and lost, they'd STILL be in the same position they are now (similar to M's position last year). Win out and go undefeated in the B1G and they'd be a playoff team.
And if they had played and beaten a decent non-conf team, they'd have some margin for error. They could lose to Iowa or Wisconsin and would still make it with a conf title.
But they've probably left themselves no margin of error.
One could argue the upside of playing a good ooc opponent (s) is higher than the downside.
November 11th, 2019 at 11:32 PM ^
This is how the push for playoffs has perverted college football.