USC and UCLA planning to leave for B10 by 2024!

[WhosYourDawggy]

so what you are saying is no one has to play ALL those good SEC teams in the same year?

Heck, if you just had to play UF and Auburn every year you'd be guaranteed at least one loss each year, often two. Let's not act like you would destroy even our middling teams. Sure Vandy and Mizzou suck, and the other teams all have down years. But I'd love to play a PAC schedule every year.

 

[NewPhoneWhoDis]

Totally disagree with that. The players love the big games. If they don't they aren't on the really good teams. You don't think that the UGFA and Clemson players didn't want that game last year? You don't think that the UGA players didn't love going to ND, or ND getting to play in Stanford?

Do the players like the prime time OOC games? Absolutely. But winning a conference title means WAAAAY more -- getting to the CFP and winning a national title means WAAAAAY more.

I'm sure ND would love for UGA, USC, UM, OSU, etc. to continue to schedule them. With the addition of the new teams to their conference and the matchups they will have going forward -- what does UGA, USC, UM, OSU, etc. gain? Nothing. They will be at the top of the SOS already. Playing ND isn't going to change anything if they lose a couple players in that game and end up losing 2, 3, 4 conference games.

What is the benefit to those teams to schedule tough OOC games now?

 

[Kburjr]

Do the players like the prime time OOC games? Absolutely. But winning a conference title means WAAAAY more -- getting to the CFP and winning a national title means WAAAAAY more.

I'm sure ND would love for UGA, USC, UM, OSU, etc. to continue to schedule them. With the addition of the new teams to their conference and the matchups they will have going forward -- what does UGA, USC, UM, OSU, etc. gain? Nothing. They will be at the top of the SOS already. Playing ND isn't going to change anything if they lose a couple players in that game and end up losing 2, 3, 4 conference games.

What is the benefit to those teams to schedule tough OOC games now?

Money

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

Do the players like the prime time OOC games? Absolutely. But winning a conference title means WAAAAY more -- getting to the CFP and winning a national title means WAAAAAY more.

I'm sure ND would love for UGA, USC, UM, OSU, etc. to continue to schedule them. With the addition of the new teams to their conference and the matchups they will have going forward -- what does UGA, USC, UM, OSU, etc. gain? Nothing. They will be at the top of the SOS already. Playing ND isn't going to change anything if they lose a couple players in that game and end up losing 2, 3, 4 conference games.

What is the benefit to those teams to schedule tough OOC games now?

The best players want to play in big games, that helps recruiting. The fans want to play in big games, that helps fund raising. The 12 teams CFP gives wiggle room to play those games and still get into the CFP ... in fact, it might be that type of game that gets you in over someone who doesn't play that level of SOS.

 

[OlyDuck]

So there is no such thing as a brutal conference schedule in the PAC. With USC and UCLA leaving -- there will never be a schedule considered brutal in the PAC.

there will be we just wont know it til late in the year.
years like 2014 Colorado had a brutal schedule even if you take out USC and UCLA
Oregon State in 15
Arizona in 16
i mean pretty much every year someone has to go through it.

 

[OlyDuck]

I get what you are saying, but that is with Divisions. Here is a likely schedule for UGA under the favored 3-6 format:

Even years: UF, Auburn, USCjr, LSU, TX, ATM, Ky, MissSU, Mizzou
Odd years: UF, Auburn, USCjr, Bama, OU, Arky, UTjr, Ole Miss, Vandy

Does that change your perspective? Would you like to play UF, Auburn, LSU, Texas, and ATM in one year. Then the next year play UF, Auburn, Bama, and Oklahoma? That doesn't even include the middling teams like Ky, Ole Miss, Arky, UTjr who have plenty of success against most other teams.

The addition of TX and OU, plus going to the 9 IC game 3-6 format is going to be a real difference.

would playing 6-7 Florida, 6-7 Auburn, 6-7 LSU, 4-8 Texas and 8-4 Texas A&M in a year give me any much more anxiety than playing 7-6 Washington State, 7-6 Oregon State, 5-7 Cal, 4-8 Washington and 8-4 UCLA no not really. names dont scare me. on field play and records are what im looking at.

 

[Volbound1700]

so what you are saying is no one has to play ALL those good SEC teams in the same year?

Very rare. Auburn might be the most likely candidate. Auburn has to play Alabama, Georgia, LSU and Texas A&M annually. They have had a year were they got Florida in rotation.

So basically Auburn would dodge any of the SEC East opponents in that scenario while running the brutal SEC West gauntlet.

Going to get trolled on this one but one method to show how SEC is superior is that most of the others leagues (B1G might be exception) have their biggest matchup with an OOC game many years while the SEC has rarely had a team with is strongest opponent being OOC.

 

[NewPhoneWhoDis]

The best players want to play in big games, that helps recruiting. The fans want to play in big games, that helps fund raising. The 12 teams CFP gives wiggle room to play those games and still get into the CFP ... in fact, it might be that type of game that gets you in over someone who doesn't play that level of SOS.

The thing is -- once you take OU, Texas and USC out of their conferences. The only teams at the top of the strength of schedule rankings will be teams in the SEC and B1G. So their SOS will already be much higher than any teams outside their conference.

 

[NewPhoneWhoDis]

would playing 6-7 Florida, 6-7 Auburn, 6-7 LSU, 4-8 Texas and 8-4 Texas A&M in a year give me any much more anxiety than playing 7-6 Washington State, 7-6 Oregon State, 5-7 Cal, 4-8 Washington and 8-4 UCLA no not really. names dont scare me. on field play and records are what im looking at.

Are you really comparing records of Pac teams to the SEC? Really?

 

[OlyDuck]

Heck, if you just had to play UF and Auburn every year you'd be guaranteed at least one loss each year, often two. Let's not act like you would destroy even our middling teams. Sure Vandy and Mizzou suck, and the other teams all have down years. But I'd love to play a PAC schedule every year.

if im being honest i think Alabama with a Pac schedule does about the same as they have been in the SEC. dominate it. go undefeated about every other year and pick up a loss here and there.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

would playing 6-7 Florida, 6-7 Auburn, 6-7 LSU, 4-8 Texas and 8-4 Texas A&M in a year give me any much more anxiety than playing 7-6 Washington State, 7-6 Oregon State, 5-7 Cal, 4-8 Washington and 8-4 UCLA no not really. names dont scare me. on field play and records are what im looking at.

Oh, stop. You know that I mean over a period of time. Quit being disingenuous. Of course teams go up and down over long periods of time.

And, yes, I'd take all those PAC teams over the SEC teams ... they aren't nearly as good and don't have nearly as many good players. See recruiting rankings and NFL draft results.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

if im being honest i think Alabama with a Pac schedule does about the same as they have been in the SEC. dominate it. go undefeated about every other year and pick up a loss here and there.

So you are just going to ignore the objectively different level of talent in the two conferences?

 

[OlyDuck]

I would hope so, as Florida's losses would be to teams like Bama, Georgia, L

and Missouri and South Carolina and UCF

and the teams i mentioned lost to Utah and Oregon and also cal and WSu

 

[NewPhoneWhoDis]

there will be we just wont know it til late in the year.
years like 2014 Colorado had a brutal schedule even if you take out USC and UCLA
Oregon State in 15
Arizona in 16
i mean pretty much every year someone has to go through it.

There will never be a brutal schedule in comparison to the SEC or B1G. Maybe a brutal schedule for a PAC team. The PAC was one of, if not, the weakest conference with USC and UCLA. You remove them and it will essentially turn into "the MAC" -- I put that in quotes because that is what a PAC analyst said when he heard USC and UCLA were leaving.

 

[OlyDuck]

So you are just going to ignore the objectively different level of talent in the two conferences?

are you just going to ignore the possibility that a good 10+ win team from the Pac could upset Alabama the same way an 8-4 A&M or 9-3 Auburn did?

 

[Volbound1700]

are you just going to ignore the possibility that a good 10+ win team from the Pac could upset Alabama the same way an 8-4 A&M or 9-3 Auburn did?

We take it based on situation. Even outside the SEC, there are teams that play soft and strong schedules. Also Pac12, as a conference, is better some years than other years.

I would have to get a factual situation and compare the schedule of two teams to give feedback.

I will say records don't mean anything. There are 6-6 teams better than 9-3 teams sometimes. Or you have teams that start out hot but their players give up, coach gets fired, etc. and they are not a tough matchup on the back end but are a tough matchup.

I always consider teams like Texas, Auburn, LSU, Florida, USC Trojans, Penn State, Miami, etc. as tough matchups because they have 4 and 5 star players and talent. They may have issues in locker room, with coaches, etc. but they are still solid wins.

 

[OlyDuck]

The thing is -- once you take OU, Texas and USC out of their conferences. The only teams at the top of the strength of schedule rankings will be teams in the SEC and B1G. So their SOS will already be much higher than any teams outside their conference.

sos as factor doesnt matter til the end.
assumed early sos is different than end of season.

 

[OlyDuck]

We take it based on situation. Even outside the SEC, there are teams that play soft and strong schedules. Also Pac12, as a conference, is better some years than other years.

I would have to get a factual situation and compare the schedule of two teams to give feedback.

I will say records don't mean anything. There are 6-6 teams better than 9-3 teams sometimes. Or you have teams that start out hot but their players give up, coach gets fired, etc. and they are not a tough matchup on the back end but are a tough matchup.

I always consider teams like Texas, Auburn, LSU, Florida, USC Trojans, Penn State, Miami, etc. as tough matchups because they have 4 and 5 star players and talent. They may have issues in locker room, with coaches, etc. but they are still solid wins.

i mean just look at the Pete usc teams. they still dropped games they shoulndt have.
its just the way it is.
i said Alabama would still dominate but they would drop games
USC did
Oklahoma does
Ohio State does.
Clemson does.
change conferences and it would still happen.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

are you just going to ignore the possibility that a good 10+ win team from the Pac could upset Alabama the same way an 8-4 A&M or 9-3 Auburn did?

Not at all. That can always happen. Upsets are one thing, one thing we weren't talking about. We were talking about year in and year out schedules of SEC schools. You pointed out some results of some down teams as if it mattered when you know objectively it doesn't.

Seriously, Oregon can play a SEC schedule or a PAC. Which one gives you the best chance to get into the CFP?

 

[Wild Turkey]

Heck, if you just had to play UF and Auburn every year you'd be guaranteed at least one loss each year, often two. Let's not act like you would destroy even our middling teams. Sure Vandy and Mizzou suck, and the other teams all have down years. But I'd love to play a PAC schedule every year.

We love playing PAC conference champions and we are 3-0 versus them over the last 12 years.