OOC schedules revisited

[CJHawkeyes]

Since my original thread got sidetracked into a debate about the number of attractive matchups, I thought I'd ask again, what incentive is there to play strong OOC opponents under the BCS? As I see it, such games amount to an unnecessary risk. In fact, I would argue that such games would have more strategic value if all teams were ranked best to worst record, opponents' record, and so on.

[Don]

Since my original thread got sidetracked into a debate about the number of attractive matchups, I thought I'd ask again, what incentive is there to play strong OOC opponents under the BCS? As I see it, such games amount to an unnecessary risk. In fact, I would argue that such games would have more strategic value if all teams were ranked best to worst record, opponents' record, and so on.


I'll bite.

IMHO, OOC games against a quality opponent are calculated risks.

Sure they are fan pleasers but they are hard on the W-L record as are games against ANY quality opponent. (Just look at the W-L records against other ranked teams). IF all a team wants is to end up with a top 10 finish then NO there is no incentive to play quality OOC or quality IN-conference teams either.

Clearly, one wants to end up with as good of a record a s possible but as Marshall, Utah and even Wisconsin last year demonstrate, one NEEDS to play quality opponents SOMETIME ... to be realistically considered for an NC spot (and most Big named schools want that).


If they aren't IN your conference THEN is is imperative that one schedule QUALITY opponents OOC.

For most Big conferences there are enough quality opponents IN conference that they don't HAVE to schedule quality opponents outside (exception, Wisc). For years UF COULD not get through of the SEC schedule undefeated and thus in the first 89 years (I think) UF NEVER won the SEC championship and thus was never in a position to be considered a good team. When Spurrier got here he made winning the SEC the #1 priority. He said "Win the SEC and good things WILL happen"). That upset some fans becasue he it down played the FSU game. In 96 UF went through the SEC and SEC CCG undefeated ONLY to lose to FSU in an OOC game. IF we hadn't scheduled FSU there would have been NO DOUBT that UF was the #1 team (all computers and polls had them #1). So scheduling a quality OOC team almost cost us the MNC. But because of the strength of our conference schedule we STILL were in a position to go places and fortunately we took advantage of it. The insistance on winning ones conference IMHO only makes the case stronger AGAINST playing quality OOC teams. The MORE quality teams one plays the greater the chances of losing and thus being eliminated from consideration for the NC game. It seems that the optimum # of quality teams is about 3 - 4. That's enough to show that you CAN beat good teams without going to the well once too often. So IMHO IF a team has that many IN conference (and is SURE of that) then I would advise against scheduling strong OOC teams. IF one doesn't have that many IN conference THEN I would advise in favor of scheduling strong OOC teams. I believe that most teams follow this scheme and in most cases it works out OK but it isn't foolproof. There are going to be times when a team does play quality IN conference and out and that of course will trump you IN conference schedule only (and should).

[GatorGrad]

Agree 100% with Don. Ditto.