re: Even Urban Meyer agrees that it's not worth scheduling a marquee non conf game

quote:

---

If Ohio St. plays Georgia last year to open the season, loses, and ultimately goes 9-3 they very well may not have made the CFP.

---

I just realized the flaw in this analysis. Its only look ant 1 part of the equation Ohio State did make the playoff last now if you are assuming with 3 losses they don’t, who goes instead? The first team out based on the rankings as they were (with Ohio St 10-2) was 9-3 Alabama. Would Ohio St definitely be behind Bama if both were 9-3? In this hypothetical they would have lost to UGA who Bama beat so probably Bama gets in but what if Ohio St had played and lost to Texas or Notre Dame?

If what if Ohio beats UGA? UGA with 3 losses still gets in since they won the SEC

quote:

---

Avoiding the risk of a loss is nothing but a high brow way of saying afraid to compete

---

No, it's simply saying there is no greater benefit to winning that game than if you beat the worst D-1 school in the country. The committee showed you strength of schedule was largely irrelevant. Neither Indiana nor SMU beat a single team in the CFP top 25. Alabama beat 2 as did South Carolina and Ole Miss. That greater SOS didn't help them. The committee made it clear ALL that matters is your overall record. How you got there is irrelevant. So why unnecessarily increase the risk of a loss (and I think all would agree playing @ Clemson is a tougher game than playing at home vs. Ball St) when you know the SEC schedule will be difficult and you could just take Indiana's path? Play no one in the non-conf schedule, get blown out in the only game you play against a ranked conf. opponent, yet still make the CFP. If Indiana plays Mizzou last year, loses, then has their EXACT same record in the Big 10 to finish 10-2 overall do they make the CFP? Probably not because that would have essentially made them Miami (who didn't make the CFP at 10-2).

I don't think it is good for college football to incentivize major conf programs playing OOC games against weak competition...but that is what the CFP committee essentially signaled power conf. team should do. Make certain you win all of your OOC games, even if that means playing 3-4 bad teams, to leave yourself enough room for error in conf. play

I hope so.

2030 UGA currently has Clemson, Ohio State, & GA Tech non-conference

I see both sides of this argument. Better competition brings out the best in your team. But also you can easily screw up your playoff ranking with an extra Loss to a team you didn’t need to play out of conference.

quote:

---

You’re opening with Texas next year. Why?” Meyer asked. “Other than it’s great for the game, it’s good for the fans, it’s good for the players

---

So a bunch of reasons that make the game great…?

quote:

---

Avoiding the risk of a loss is nothing but a high brow way of saying afraid to compete

---

This line of thinking is idiotic considering half the playoff field didn’t have a single impressive win all year.

That's cause Urban is a pussy.

quote:

---

No, it's simply saying there is no greater benefit to winning that game than if you beat the worst D-1 school in the country. The committee showed you strength of schedule was largely irrelevant.

---

This past year.....if anything history has shown us things like this can change significantly from year to year and are more likely to than not.

So all the teams scrambling to convert to easy Ole Miss type cupcake OOC schedules in the coming years may well get penalized for it in the future.

Idk, when has lsu ended the regular season outside the top 10 and been a legitimate contender?lsu has always had one of the toughest schedules nationally.I personally don’t think it’s that big of a deal, if they are good they should win some big games and at least make a top 10 playoff spot, if they can’t do that they should be there IMO.