Why 9 game conference schedule is better

[Scioto]

OK Zulu, I'm going to take your bait (since you took mine). I'd like to start a new thread to begin this friendly argument. I appreciate the point you made on the Big Ten scheduler thread that a 9 game conf schedule increases the likelihood of a two loss Big Ten (or Big 12 or Pac 12) champion, as opposed to an 8 game SEC or ACC schedule. However, I think that possibility actually enhances the standing of any Big Ten champion and should be a "data point" used by the "Committee." But that is not why I think a 9 game conference schedule is favorable and is actually in the best interests of the SEC and ACC teams. The point I'm going to make is probably more a reason of why scheduling that November cupcake game is a bad idea, but I think having an 8 game conf schedule makes that game possible when a 9 game conf schedule forces a team to get those games out of the way early in the season.

Here's what I think is a very likely scenario (not that it's at all likely or even remotely likely to occur this season, but it could). I'll use our favorite teams to prove my point, but it could be Clemson and Michigan for example. Let's assume in a given season Alabama is 9-1 going into its November cupcake game and ranked #4 (or even #3) in the CFP. Let's assume Ohio State is also 9-1 and ranked #5 (or even #6) in the CFP going into its game with Michigan State who is ranked somewhere in the top 10 let's say. Doesn't have to be, but the Committee does look at where wins occur (home or away or neutral site) so we'll assume Ohio State's game is in East Lansing. Alabama blows out its cupcake. Ohio State beats Michigan State. Do you see where I'm going? I think the Committee would have Ohio State jump Alabama in that scenario (all else being equal). Now you may say, "Oh but Alabama's strength of schedule." That's your normalcy bias talking. For example, today Alabama has the #5 SoS while Ohio State has the #8. Close to equal and if that was the case going into the cupcake/Sparty games, Ohio State's SoS would probably either be closer to equal or better than Alabama's and nothing, except losses, in the Auburn/Michigan and conf championship games are going to change that.

I don't know if ACC schools have those November cupcake games, but I think we'll see this occur at some point in the future and when it does, you guys will be clamoring for a 9 game conference schedule. As I said, I'm very surprised 8 or 9 game conference schedule is not a data point used by the Committee and your point proves why it should be.

 

[Zulu]

Okey doke, I'll bite. What I love about this discussion (NOT argument) is it isn't arbitrary -- it could very well play out on the field and in the committee in the next few years (and I look forward to basking in the glow of being right oke: ).

It looks to me like we're talking about two distinct, although related subjects: the 9-game conference schedule and the week 11 "Cupcake Game." If the SEC forced a 9-game conference schedule, I doubt it would eliminate the cupcake game. Saban historically likes to front-load the schedule, so I think Bama would have replaced Kent State or Western Kentucky with the extra SEC game. The pre-Iron Bowl warmup game is just too ingrained in Alabama and Auburn psyches to give up.

As for the cupcake game itself, I disagree that its timing in the schedule hurts the SEC. In your example, the CFP committee "jumps" Ohio State over Alabama after week 11 because OSU picked up an additional "quality win" and a corresponding increase in Strength-of-Schedule (SoS). That's not how the committee works. Unlike the AP and Coaches poll, the selection committee considers each week individually. The week 10 "rankings" have no impact on week 11. Remember the 2014 week 10 CFP committee rankings (the first ever)? The top 4 were (1) Mississippi State, (2) Florida State, (3) Auburn, (4) Ole Miss. The public threw a conniption over the SEC domination, and the committee chairmen spent a lot of time explaining how that week's rankings were done in a vacuum, and could only be considered valid if the season had ended at that point. From my study of the CFP committee methodology, they look at record, SoS, quality wins, strength of wins, strength of losses, and conference championships as their primary data points. I couldn't find any mention of "order of schedule" anywhere. So, lets go back to your example with a "tweak." Lets suppose Alabama decides to move the Chattanooga game up to Week 6, and Arkansas to back Week 11; now, when our week 10 CFP mock rankings come out, Bama has one fewer quality win and a lower SoS. In that case, OSU would have been ahead of Bama on Week 10 and remain ahead in Week 11. So, that's a very long-winded way of concluding that, using the advertised CFP committee methodology where the order of a team's schedule is irrelevant, in your example OSU would be ahead of Bama on Week 11 regardless of when the cupcake game was played.

Now on to the 8 vs 9 game conference schedule. The Big-12 and Pac-12 led the way with the 9 game conference schedule; the Big 12 because they HAD to -- with only 10 teams and no divisions it wasn't an option. The Pac-12 needed the additional SoS because of the perceived weakness in their non-conference schedule. I honestly don't know why the Big-10 moved that way, but I suspect it was also because of SoS -- using 1 data point (I'm lazy), at the end of the 2015 regular season, the SEC had 3 teams in the top 10 SoS, the Big-12 had 3 (that was a surprise), the Pac-12 had 2, and the Big-10 and ACC has one apiece. So, the advantages of a 9 game conference schedule are that it improves SoS, and gives the opportunity for one more quality win both of which are factors in the committee's selection criteria. OTOH, SoS and quality wins haven't been a factor for the SEC most of this century.

The disadvantage of the nine game conference schedule is the increased likelihood of a two-loss conference champ. It happened last year to the PAC-12, and they were left out of the playoff. It could happen this year in the BIG-10: assume both OSU and Wisconsin win out and Penn State stumbles, putting Ohio State and Wisky in the championship; Wisky has a magical night while the Buckeyes stumble, giving the BIG-10 a two loss champion.

Now the committee is stuck picking the top 4 from this list:

• Undefeated or 1 loss SEC champ
• Undefeated or 1 loss ACC champ
• Undefeated PAC-12 champ (Washington)
• Undefeated BIG-12 champ (W. Virginia or Baylor) -- but with one fewer quality win due to no conference championship game
• Two loss BIG-10 champ -- Wisconsin
• One loss BIG-10e runner-up -- Michigan
• One loss SECw runner-up (A&M?)
• Onle loss ACCa runner-up (Louisville?)

As you can see, a real mess. Given that the committee is supposed to heavily weigh conference championships, it's very possible that the BIG-10 is left on the outside looking in.

There are other scenarios where a 9-game schedule may improve that chances of a conference getting two teams in the playoff, but every one I've run using the past three years numbers looks highly improbable.

THE BOTTOM LINE
Advantages of a 9 game conference schedule:

• Stronger strength of schedule (currently not needed by SEC)
• Opportunity for an additional e quality win (again, currently not needed by SEC)
• Possibility of getting a second team in the playoff (very low probability)

Disadvantages

• Increased probability of two loss champ and no playoff spot
• More demanding season with increased chance of injuries

So, overall, for teams in the SEC, I see the disadvantages of a nine game conference schedule outweighing the advantages. While it might work for other conferences, it just isn't right for the SEC at this time.


Whew! That just wasted a ton of my time. Back to you, OHVATN.

 

[PillsburyDoughboy]

SEC always has to dominate to get respect. If there is any grey area the swing will always go North East or West.

 

[Scioto]

Zulu, that is a comprehensive analysis for sure, and it definitely advances the discussion (friendly argument). I'll get back to you, but we may just have to wait, for I definitely agree with you that it is a discussion that isn't arbitrary and gets settled on the field or in the committee room at some point in the future. At that time, I can bask in the glow of being right. oke:

One piece in your analysis isn't correct, but it doesn't detract from your position:

Quote: "assume both OSU and Wisconsin win out and Penn State stumbles, putting Ohio State and Wisky in the championship; Wisky has a magical night while the Buckeyes stumble, giving the BIG-10 a two loss champion."

I had to look-up the Big Ten divisional tiebreakers, but Penn State doesn't have to stumble for Ohio State to win the East, assuming Ohio State doesn't stumble again and wins out and Michigan wins the next four weekends until 11/26. Under the tiebreaker, if there are two teams tied (last year MSU and OSU) the winner of the head-to-head wins the division. If there are three teams tied (assume Penn State and Ohio State win out and Michigan wins out until 11/26), the first tiebreaker are the three tied teams overall records. Penn State would drop out because it already has two losses. OSU and UM would remain tied and OSU wins the tiebreaker by virtue of the win over UM on 11/26. Now you know why I'm a Michigan fan for the next four weeks.

Also, SEC has the same risk as the Big Ten. What if UT wins the East and has a magical night while the Crimson Tide stumbles in the SEC championship game. SEC has a two loss champion and they, just like Wisky, aren't getting into the CFP. There would have to be some chaos in the other Power 5 conferences for either team to get in.

 

[Scioto]

Zulu, not that it should matter, but I did a little looking and saw that the SEC coaches voted on 8 vs 9 game conference schedule back in 2013. The vote was 13-1 in favor of retaining the 8 game schedule. The sole "No" vote was made by ...... drum roll please ....... Nick Saban. Your coach wants (or wanted) a 9 game conference schedule.

 

[Zulu]

I had to look-up the Big Ten divisional tiebreakers, but Penn State doesn't have to stumble for Ohio State to win the East, assuming Ohio State doesn't stumble again and wins out and Michigan wins the next four weekends until 11/26. Under the tiebreaker, if there are two teams tied (last year MSU and OSU) the winner of the head-to-head wins the division. If there are three teams tied (assume Penn State and Ohio State win out and Michigan wins out until 11/26), the first tiebreaker are the three tied teams overall records. Penn State would drop out because it already has two losses. OSU and UM would remain tied and OSU wins the tiebreaker by virtue of the win over UM on 11/26.

I read the schedule wrong and thought PSU still had to play Michigan (it was MSU, my bad). So it sounds like the Penn State games was as close to a "meaningless loss" as Ohio State could get.

Now you know why I'm a Michigan fan for the next four weeks.

It still ain't right. I don't know where Woody is, but I can guarantee you he ain't rootin' for Michigan. Your comment exemplifies the difference between Ohio State/Michigan and Alabama/Auburn. I spent three years in the MI Air Nat'l Guard, and some of the folks asked me to compare the two rivalries. My answer was "Ohio State/Michigan in an incredible rivalry, but Alabama/Auburn is a way of life. Just imagine an entire state filled with Woody Hayes and you start to get the picture."

Also, SEC has the same risk as the Big Ten. What if UT wins the East and has a magical night while the Crimson Tide stumbles in the SEC championship game. SEC has a two loss champion and they, just like Wisky, aren't getting into the CFP. There would have to be some chaos in the other Power 5 conferences for either team to get in.

Definitely a possibility this year. Almost did happen last year. If Arkansas hadn't converted that crazy fourth-and-25 against Ole Miss, we would have seen 2 loss Ole Miss playing 2 loss Florida for the SEC championship while 1 loss Alabama sat home and watched. I've said all along that Arkansas may have won the game, but the big winner was the CFP selection committee -- that win kept them from having to make some very tough, and undoubtedly controversial decisions.

That reinforces my point that it's not optimum to have a 2 loss conference champion, and since, mathematically a 9 game season increases that possibility, I think that's another point for staying with 8.

Zulu, not that it should matter, but I did a little looking and saw that the SEC coaches voted on 8 vs 9 game conference schedule back in 2013. The vote was 13-1 in favor of retaining the 8 game schedule. The sole "No" vote was made by ...... drum roll please ....... Nick Saban. Your coach wants (or wanted) a 9 game conference schedule.

Yeah, Nick didn't check with me on that. On the other side of the coin, in 2012 the BIG-10 coaches unanimously voted against 9 games, so it looks like Nick agrees with you while Urban sides with me. Oh the shame!

One of the points the BIG-10 coaches brought up that I didn't think about is that 9 games causes an "unbalanced" conference schedule. Half the time a team is going to have to play 5 away conference games to just 4 at home. The coaches weren't happy about that at all.

 

[Scioto]

It may not be right, but that's what divisions and the CFP have brought us. If the Committee said we will select the best teams, not the "most deserving" (whatever that means), chucked conference championships as a data point, then all could be right in the world. Last year, OSU's loss to MSU was obviously a much better loss than MSU's loss to a 5-7 Nebraska, but the divisional format and tiebreakers of the Big Ten together with the Committee's conference championship and that 13th game resulted in a deserving, but not one of the 4 best teams in the CFP.

I haven't looked up the SEC divisional tiebreakers, but this year, if Auburn was currently undefeated, and actually good, and Alabama had inexplicably lost to Tennessee or TAMU (and TAMU had 2 losses), you would also be an Auburn fan for the next 4 weeks if you wanted your Crimson Tide to get into the CFP.

 

[gator-n-buck]

Only needed when a conference has weak teams within the conference.... Period.... :tu:

 

[Scioto]

Only needed when a conference has weak teams within the conference.... Period.... :tu:

Thank you for your contribution to the discussion. :tu:

 

[gator-n-buck]

Only needed when a conference has weak teams within the conference.... Period.... :tu:

Thank you for your contribution to the discussion. :tu:

Yep... Pretty simple. I don't have to post two pages of nothing to point out the obvious.....
Keep beating the drums and tell us how OSU should be #2. Already proved that point....

 

[Zulu]

... but this year, if Auburn was currently undefeated, and actually good, and Alabama had inexplicably lost to Tennessee or TAMU (and TAMU had 2 losses), you would also be an Auburn fan for the next 4 weeks if you wanted your Crimson Tide to get into the CFP.

I really tried to map it out and see how your scenario would result in a 3-way SECw tie, and I just don't see it, but I get your gist: What would I do if getting Bama to the playoffs required Auburn to win multiple games?

Unlike you, out loud I'd be chanting "Go to h*ll, Auburn," but, in all honesty, in my heart-of-hearts I'd be hoping that AU squeaked out the wins. However, as I said before, I'm just a jockstrap, um I mean athletic supporter, not a "true fan." Before my boys started going to school there, I thought I understood the Alabama/Auburn hatred. I was wrong. It goes way beyond an intense rivalry. We're talkin' Hatfields/McCoys hatred. The true faithful would much rather see the Barners lose than have them help Bama reach the playoffs. That's just the way it is.