Dispatches: Talking Football With SMQ, Part 3

by Peter Bean on Nov 28, 2006 10:25 PM CST in Football Comment 13 comments

The following is the third volley in a series of back-and-forth dispatches between the venerable Sunday Morning Quarterback and I. The dispatches will be a running conversation that you're encouraged to participate in. Your comments, to be read diligently by each of us, promise to be an integral part of the conversation.

In my opening dispatch, I queried SMQ on how to sort out the top teams. In response, SMQ waxed philosophical on the rather arbitrary nature of the way we conceptualize "better," among other things. Perhaps foolishly, I in turn opened the playoff can of worms. SMQ wisely saved that topic for another day in his Part Two dispatch, while agreeing with BON reader billyzane that system meltdown isn't on the horizon. You're encouraged to read the preceding dispatches before continuing on.

Only two dispatches, SMQ, and anyone who's still reading is wondering whether you and I are sitting in the same room getting absolutely bombed on Maui Wauie while we fritter about the edges of coherency.

One thing's clear: no more playoff debate. I know better than to get in the way of a date with The Mayor.

I like reading your stuff SMQ - not just because it's well-written, which it always is, but because it's nuanced. I was a philosophy major; getting into the small stuff is time well spent, if you ask me. And though I'm sure you and I could keep going ad infinitum on some of the topics we started with, I think we ought to take the conversation to something more concrete for a while. For one thing, the season's still going on and we've got a lot of offseason time to kill. For another, we're out of Maui Wauie.

Okay, assume that you're the head coach of a major football program. Say, for example, Texas. Assume also that you have the final say in which games get scheduled, and when.

What's the most strategically sound schedule? Your task is twofold, we note. Your goal is to win a national championship, of course, but you have to keep the fan base and boosters happy, too. Schedule too many cupcakes, and don't win a title, and you've potentially made a big mistake. Schedule too many tough games, and don't win a title, and you've failed in a different capacity.

I ask you this because I'm deeply depressed about Texas' non-conference schedule next season. I know many rather big boosters of the program are none too pleased with it, either. Still, astute BON readers have pointed out that in terms of winning a national title next year, it's not such a bad thing. If Texas cruises through it's non-con schedule, it ought to be close enough to the top of the rankings to earn a BCS Title Game berth if it can navigate the Big 12 unscathed.

So, Head Coach SMQ, what's your preferred strategy? And, readers, what about you? This topic is killing me. I want to raise bloody hell about our pathetic schedule next year; at the same time, there's some logic to just "getting by" and finishing undefeated. In today's BCS, undefeated's gonna get Texas in the title games more times than not. What to do?

--PB--

0 recs | Comment 13 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

This is why I hate the BCS

Hey Bro and SMQ, This is why I will be glad when we finally get rid of the BSCS (that's S as in shit) and have something close to a true playoff. I hate knowing that we will play weak teams OOC in order to win a NC. I grew up watching the Horns play OOC games against the likes of Penn St., Auburn, crap, I can't remember??? Anyways, I would really prefer to see us schedule some great teams OOC like LSU, Arkansas(again),anyone else available from the SEC?,etc. Problem is we probably won't because of the BCS. That is what makes a playoff so great, doesn't matter who you play OOC or in, you have to win your games or YOU DON'T DESERVE to play in the post-season. That is why I love the NCAA tourny every year. March Madness, you gotta love a team like George Mason last year. That would be awesome to see the equivalent in NCAA football. It's not going to happen for awhile, but it would be fun. No way, do you need 64 teams, just take the winners after the BCS bowls and play it out.

YOu do have to hand it to USC this year. They played Arkansas(SEC) and Nebraska(Big 12) OOC. Course when the Big 12 is having an up year, the conference schedule is pretty tough. Colorado will only get better, Nebraska is back to solid top 20, A&M is improving, and of course OU. Hell, even Baylor is getting in on some of the Texas in-state talent.

Playing the dream matchups with the likes of Ohio St, or USC, or Va Tech, or Notre Dame(now, I remember playing them), are always exciting for the fans. I personally don't believe you should play for a NC if you are undefeated and haven't beaten at least 3 top 20 teams.

Anyways I'm fading out here........zzzzzzzz

by amcdavid on Nov 28, 2006 11:29 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

LOL amcdavid...

we we're typing up our opinions at the same time and in a lot of ways saying the same thing.

Current score: Tough OOC Games 2, Laydowns 0

Can we start a poll here?

Nuttier than a four-balled Tomcat.

by fusker on Nov 28, 2006 11:38 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

SEC

Anyways, I would really prefer to see us schedule some great teams OOC like LSU, Arkansas(again),anyone else available from the SEC?,etc. Problem is we probably won't because of the BCS.

What if we scheduled Arkie for 2008-09? I'll see if I can make that happen.

by the other Andrew on Nov 28, 2006 11:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Well you said no playoff talk...

but that is part of my answer. If we keep the current system I say keep one out-of-conference respectable team and 3 laydowns for a little of both(like they do now). Laydown teams make me sick, however, until there are revisions in the system tough non-conference games hurt you more than help you IMHO.

To the contrary, in a playoff system, people here have mentioned it may take some of the excitement and meaning out of regular season games, and I disagree. I think it would minimize the gamble of scheduling 4 solid non-conference teams and if that meant every team in the country had at least 1-2 losses, even the champions, that's ok by me. Rutgers and Boise State would have had at least 4 "real" games to play to end the weak conference talk.

I love college football and the season goes too quick. Let's pack in as many "big" games as possible and be on the edge of our seat all season long.

I mean really... Who wants to see their favorite team shred apart the Ramsey School For The Blind?

Nuttier than a four-balled Tomcat.

by fusker on Nov 28, 2006 11:35 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Arkansas and UCLA

Are on the future schedules. Those are great choices.

The question goes beyond the top bill, though. We got absolutely killed in the computers this year by scheduling North Texas and Sam Houston. Rice turned out not to be so bad, plus it's a nice fan-base/recruiting game. The previous two, though, are just so bad. So, so bad.

by Peter Bean on Nov 29, 2006 6:01 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Future Dream Schedules

Even once you decide which way you want to go: "cupcake" (to avoid those killer loses) or "tough" (to bring up your strength of schedule), it is increasingly difficult when schedules are made several years in advance to know what you are going to get, For example, if this year you had scheduled Wake Forest or Rutgers (or even UofH), thinking you going up against a patsy, you were in for a rude awakening. On the other hand, had you scheduled Miami, Florida State, Washington, Washington State, or Iowa thinking you were scheduling a game that would greatly help your strength of schedule, you would have been disappointed. Nevertheless, I would tend to aim for a mid-position. I would try to avoid teams that seem to be in the NC hunt every year, like USC, LSU, Ohio State, ND, Florida, Michigan, and Auburn, but also avoid notoroiusly weak programs, Like Rice, Tulsa, Tulane, Army, North Texas, Lousiana Tech, Northwest Lousiana (or whatever it is we played a couple years ago). I would go for the second tier teams that we shouod be able to beat but which still have a good enough national reputation that beating them will help, not hurt. For example, South Carolina, Clemson, North Carolina, NC State, Michigan State, Purdue, Washington, Washington State, Alabama, Pittsburgh, and perhaps even Wisconsin.

"Only angry people win football games." --DKR

by OBdoc on Nov 29, 2006 7:37 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

That's a good point

And has to be considered.

I think the question, though, gets beyond nailing "precisely" the strength of team your scheduling, and into a philosophy of "Do I avoid scheduling a team like North Texas at all costs, because they could be abysmal?" Or, "Do I actively seek out cupcakes because going undefeated is all that counts?"

by Peter Bean on Nov 29, 2006 8:17 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

would you rather...

play tough non-conference games every year, or win a national championship every 7-10 years? of course it's not that stark a choice, but you get the idea. the current system weighs being undefeated more than strength of schedule so an undefeated team from the big xii is going to be in the MNC game 9 times out of 10, no matter who it plays out of conference.

tough out of conference games only help you if you win, and the risk of losing is often much greater than the potential gain in strength of schedule that you will get. if you go undefeated out of the big xii, it's not going to matter who you played out of conference, you're going to the MNC game. take last year: texas had a transcendant player surrounded by a phenomenal supporting cast, beat the "G.O.A.T." in the MNC game, and still almost lost in the 2nd game of the year.

If we play UH last year instead of OSU, we still make the MNC game. Now, the only question is whether playing that game got us ready to play USC. Would we have beaten USC without having beaten OSU earlier. I tend to think not. But honestly, how often do you play a pro team in the MNC game? If we had lost to OSU, we probably wouldn't have even been in the game in the first place.

by billyzane on Nov 29, 2006 8:20 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

The key is whether the opponents are in a BCS conf

Several of the computers factor in a whole conferences' OOC record to handicap how good teams in that conference are. If all 4 of our OOC opponents came from Pac10, Big10, ACC, Big East, or SEC, that would help SOS tremendously, even if we schedule low to mid-tier teams in those conferences. In other words, a 6-6 Minnesota is a much better team to schedule and beat than a 6-6 Rice.

by HookeminOKC on Nov 29, 2006 9:53 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

Great question

This is a great question, although it is just mental masturbation, since I am sure DeLoss Dodds is not going to consult us about scheduling. I am not even sure how much he consults Brown. It may all be about the money (like most things). But anyway, this is a great question because it is more complicated than merely "easy win" versus "strength of schedule." Billyzane correctly alludes to a third aspect. Football has such a strong psychological component that playing (and defeating) a tough team during the season like Ohio State must give you confidence going into the NC game. Also playing tough opponents during the season can help you identify and fix weaknesses (before the NC game) which might not be apparent against opponents like North Texas and Sam Houston.

Still another issue occurs to me. Let's assume there are 3 or 4 or 5 teams which have the potential to go undefeated. If we play a cupcake schedule, we then have to hope someone knocks off this or that team and then gets knocked off themselves. But if we have one or more of those other teams on our schedule, we have at least the chance to hang a loss on them ourselves. For example, if we don't play Ohio State last year, they wind up undefeated and perhaps in the title game rather than us.

Finally, is the issue of earning the championship. If we are NC, don't we want to remove all doubt? Do we want to leave any opening for someone to claim we won because of a creampuff schedule and then got lucky on an official's call or injury to the other team or a turn-over in the title game? Just more to consider while we try not to think about the last two games.

"Only angry people win football games." --DKR

by OBdoc on Nov 29, 2006 9:54 AM CST reply actions 0 recs

The last point you made

I think it's the last point you make that bothers me the most. Say Texas goes 12-0, with one or two quality wins from the Big 12, but that's it. And say the Big 12 isn't anything special again. Then we get into the National Title game without any real credentials. How lame is that? How appropriate, even, is that? And why, then, after seeing what we did, would any other team bother scheduling anyone tough ever again?

by Peter Bean on Nov 29, 2006 10:23 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

how often do 3+ teams go undefeated?

From BCS conferences, that is... I can remember 2004 and that's it. If your goal is to just win national championships, then do whatever you can to go undefeated. Most teams who end up with one loss get it in conference, not from OOC games (i'm totally making that up, but I think it's true), so it's not like a bunch of teams would schedule nothing but creampuffs and 5 would go undefeated in any given year.

But if you think that's cheap and you'd rather everyone agree unequivocally that you're the best (like last year - except for Matt Leinart and boi from troy), then that's something else altogether.

But my feeeling is that the opportunities to win MNC's are few and far in between, no matter how good your program is (USC has only won 1 BCS championship in this juggernaut they're had ffor 5 years), you do your best to win what you can, and that means playing to the system and doing whatever you can to go undefeated.

by billyzane on Nov 29, 2006 10:58 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I think we are jumping to a conclusion

that we can schedule a bottom BCS conference easily.

I think that a lot of ADs are thinking about this and the demand for playing those bottom half BCS teams has gone way up, making it harder to convince them that they should play us without a home and away deal.

Texas, because of the netural site OU game, loses a half a home game a year, so needs schools to play us without a home and away deal to keep the boosters happy (I dont think 5 home games is going to cut it). To make that happen we have to play the likes of North Texas and directional LA.

I don't think a 1-AA should or will ever happen again, but you will continue to see the cupcakes because of the demand for home games and the lack of average BCS conference teams willing to take the money for a one game contract.

by Wells on Nov 29, 2006 2:57 PM CST reply actions 0 recs