OOC Incentives

Since I'm not in Seattle, I listen to national radio much more than local radio. Yesterday, at least, there was quite a bit of discussion about how including g UW in the playoffs shows teams they shouldn't schedule tough non-conference opponents. There was so much belly aching about Penn State not getting in because Penn State scheduled Pittsburgh. Pitt? Seriously?

What annoyed me was there was almost no discussion of how perhaps Ohio State was included largely because of their victory over Oklahoma. Once again, rather than focusing on any positives, the talking heads have to focus on the negative.

On top of that, there is plenty of belly aching that it should be an 8 team playoff instead of four. Never mind that we have 4 team system to replace the 2 team system we had before. And we'd still get the same belly aching with an 8 team playoff. And just like with the 8 team playoff, it doesn't matter because Alabama is clearly a class above the rest of college football.

Yeah it's really BS. Earlier in the year they put aTm over Washington simply because they had UCLA on their OOC schedule....yeah...UCLA...and they had to beat them in OT, and they were at home. Washington would have crushed UCLA if they had played them.

There will be clarity at the end of it all.

#5 Penn State is getting crushed by a red hot USC team. That will reveal them as frauds.

#6 Michigan has struggled their last three games, and will be taking on another hot team in FSU. A loss there is likely as well.

#7 Oklahoma will drill Auburn. That won't help, but is Oklahoma really part of the top 4 discussion anyway?

#8 Wisconsin draws probably the most interesting and unpredictable matchup against Western Michigan. WMU is undefeated, but even if Wisconsin wins, does it mean much coming against a MAC opponent?

I think the committee would prefer that big schools try for earlier challenges and understand they will not be penalized for losing those bigger games versus taking the easier way out.

UW's position at 4 was probably pretty tentative, even during the final discussion. I think a one loss Oklahoma or Penn State, for example, gets in over them. But.. those teams lost twice. Hard to argue those losses against just one.

That said, if Penn State had beat Pitt and Oklahoma beats Houston, which of those two is your #4? Or is Clemson even out?

McGruff":34z1v1s5 said:

#7 Oklahoma will drill Auburn. That won't help, but is Oklahoma really part of the top 4 discussion anyway?

Click to expand...

Actually, they were brought up in the context of "if they hadn't played Ohio State, they would have been in the top 4.

The problem with focusing too much on OOC schedules and OOC schedule strength is that there is too much out of a schools control that determines how hard or easy that schedule ends up being.

When UW scheduled Rutgers, the Scarlet Knights had gone to bowl games in 6 of 7 seasons and were a pretty well established 8 win team.

When Michigan scheduled Colorado, the Buffs were finishing up their 8th straight losing season.

2016 rolls around, Rutgers is a disaster and the popular opinion is that UW schedules "weak" and that Michigan schedules "strong".

I think there should be some sort of minimum requirements, something like you have to schedule at least 1 P5 and 1 G5 opponent. I actually think the FCS games are a good thing because they provide much needed $$$ to FCS programs.

Other than meeting those minimum requirements, I don't think OOC SoS should play much of a roll in determining playoff opponents.

I'm a fan of having the OOC count because I think it encourages good early season matchups. But I do think it is being looked at a bit selectively with Washington. If there was another one-loss conference champion that had a better OOC than Washington, then I think it makes sense to bump Washington. But we were looking at a PSU team with two losses and one of its losses was to Pitt. Sure, Pitt also beat Clemson but it's not like when the schedule makers set that game they were thinking "Ooo, we set a real barn burner here." Just like what you said with Michigan scheduling Colorado. And throw on top of that, Michigan's SOS was only slightly better than Washington's. As in, something like one place ahead of it. Yet there was plenty of talk about whether Michigan should have been in contention for the top 4 as well.

I think in UW hadn't blown out Colorado, then maybe they would have been vulnerable to getting bumped. But the simple fact is, SOS aside, in the conference championship game, they thumped a highly ranked team.

Uncle Si":3qocsgr6 said:

That said, if Penn State had beat Pitt and Oklahoma beats Houston, which of those two is your #4? Or is Clemson even out?

Click to expand...

I'd imagine Penn State would have been #4 in that scenario.

HawkGA":1562ui5y said:

Just like what you said with Michigan scheduling Colorado. And throw on top of that, Michigan's SOS was only slightly better than Washington's. As in, something like one place ahead of it. Yet there was plenty of talk about whether Michigan should have been in contention for the top 4 as well.

I think in UW hadn't blown out Colorado, then maybe they would have been vulnerable to getting bumped. But the simple fact is, SOS aside, in the conference championship game, they thumped a highly ranked team.

Click to expand...

The Colorado game definitely was a pleasant surprise for Michigan's SOS, however even if Colorado were their usual selves.. their schedule ran circles around UW's. The Huskies made it in the Final 4 because they got a lot of help that after the USC loss didn't seem likely to happen.

IMO the NCAA needs to either instruct their conferences to get rid of divisions entirely and have the top 2 teams in the conference play in the title game, or get rid of conference championships entirely.. because if you're going with the best 4 teams in the country, you pigeon hole yourself into these type of scenarios.

I've posted in another thread what these so called power house schools schedule themselves that you never hear bitching about except when UW did the same thing..Go ahead look up the schools schedule in front of UW and tell me there is not 3-4 easy games..It's all biased BS

In past years, many of the top college teams have played schools I've never even heard of before, how is that any different? IIRC I seem to recall years ago that the Huskies had a co-National championship they had to share with BYU who had a great season (undefeated?) against a lot of nobody schools & the Huskies were like 10-1. Again IIRC.

CamanoIslandJQ":1aoov5dw said:

In past years, many of the top college teams have played schools I've never even heard of before, how is that any different? IIRC I seem to recall years ago that the Huskies had a co-National championship they had to share with BYU who had a great season (undefeated?) against a lot of nobody schools & the Huskies were like 10-1. Again IIRC.

Click to expand...

It was 1984. BYU went 13-0 and Washington went 11-1. The Huskies weren't given a co-national title, they finished #2 in both the AP and Coaches poll. BYU's five non-conference opponents that year were Pitt (3-7-1), Baylor (5-6), Tulsa (6-5), Utah State (1-10), and Michigan (6-6). Meanwhile, Washington's five non-conference opponents were Northwestern (2-9), Michigan (6-6), Houston (7-5), Miami, OH (4-7), and Oklahoma (9-2-1).