This is much ado about nothing. In determining who deserves a playoff spot, the issue should be overall SOS, not OOC SOS.

The illogic of focusing on OOC SOS should be made apparent by this example: Let's say that in a given year Clemson is a good team, ranked #9, but not quite in the playoff conversation, and that year they play both #5 FSU and #4 South Carolina, two teams that are in contention for a playoff spot. By "focus on OOC SOS" logic, South Carolina should get a big boost in the eyes of the committee for playing #9 Clemson because that is a game against a strong OOC opponent. But by this same logic FSU should NOT get a boost from playing Clemson because ... well, um, Clemson is in the same conference!

But so the hell what? Being in the same conference didn't make Clemson any less or more formidable for FSU than being OOC made them for South Carolina. They were the same good team in both games, so both FSU and SC should get the same "credit" for playing Clemson.

Likewise, if Florida happens to be very good, FSU shouldn't get more credit for playing them than LSU, just because the FSU-UF game is OOC and the LSU-UF game isn't. Both teams played Florida, period.

So whether a conference plays 8 or 9 games, just look at the overall SOS. If the SEC playing only 8 games gives their teams a weaker SOS than the PAC schools, then the PAC schools should be given the nod by the committee, but if not, then they shouldn't.

It makes perfect sense to stay at. 8 conference
Games for all the reasons stated plus this

If you play a in conference game you
You tack on a win and a loss for your
Overall conference.

Play another conference and win
And you tack on an overall win for
Your conference and a loss for an
Opposing conference.

Just makes more sense not to beat up
Your conference anymore than an 8 game
Schedule.
With a 14 team league you
Are insuring 7 additional losses to the teams
In your conference that could keep some
Teams from being bowl eligible.
This was a very smart move.

On the question that led off the OP, my first guess was "Colorado?"

Darn, it was the SEC. That was my second guess.

The thing about margin of victory in computer polls is how you set it up to take into account things that humans can take into account fairly easily, like, "then the coach put in his third string with a couple of second string players coming back from injury who needed the game time snaps." Where a computer would need something arbitrary ... like "leading by 3+ touchdowns at the end of the third quarter" ... to try to emulate that ... the people on the committee can just take something like that into account directly.

(05-05-2014 11:26 AM)Hilltop75 Wrote:  It makes perfect sense to stay at. 8 conference
Games for all the reasons stated plus this

If you play a in conference game you
You tack on a win and a loss for your
Overall conference.

Play another conference and win
And you tack on an overall win for
Your conference and a loss for an
Opposing conference.

Just makes more sense not to beat up
Your conference anymore than an 8 game
Schedule.
With a 14 team league you
Are insuring 7 additional losses to the teams
In your conference that could keep some
Teams from being bowl eligible.
This was a very smart move.
..

That's how I'd looked at this as well, in terms of the simple math of inflicting additional losses on your conference by playing one more game, compared to the opportunity to inflict one on another conference. But it's not the PAC 12's place to tell the SEC how to run their conference any more than it's the SEC's place to tell the PAC 12 how to run theirs.

(05-04-2014 07:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  In determining who deserves a playoff spot, the issue should be overall SOS, not OOC SOS.

Of course, but if a P5 team is playing 8 conference games and one good P5 non-con game, their schedule is likely less challenging than a P5 team that plays 9 conference games and one good P5 non-con game. That's the point.

Sure, it would be a moot point if every top SEC team was playing two good P5 non-con opponents, to offset the fact that they play only 8 conference games. Check back with us when that is the case.

(05-05-2014 01:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 07:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  In determining who deserves a playoff spot, the issue should be overall SOS, not OOC SOS.

Of course, but if a P5 team is playing 8 conference games and one good P5 non-con game, their schedule is likely less challenging than a P5 team that plays 9 conference games and one good P5 non-con game. That's the point.

Sure, it would be a moot point if every top SEC team was playing two good P5 non-con opponents, to offset the fact that they play only 8 conference games. Check back with us when that is the case.

Check back with us when you have more than one relevant national contender. Or check back when Oregon finally has a big non conference win against either the Big 12 or SEC.

(05-05-2014 01:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 01:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 07:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  In determining who deserves a playoff spot, the issue should be overall SOS, not OOC SOS.

Of course, but if a P5 team is playing 8 conference games and one good P5 non-con game, their schedule is likely less challenging than a P5 team that plays 9 conference games and one good P5 non-con game. That's the point.

Sure, it would be a moot point if every top SEC team was playing two good P5 non-con opponents, to offset the fact that they play only 8 conference games. Check back with us when that is the case.

Check back with us when you have more than one relevant national contender. Or check back when Oregon finally has a big non conference win against either the Big 12 or SEC.

The Pac-12 should do for Oregon what the SEC does for Alabama, and fix the schedule so they almost never play any of the 3 best teams in the other division.

(05-05-2014 02:15 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The Pac-12 should do for Oregon what the SEC does for Alabama, and fix the schedule so they almost never play any of the 3 best teams in the other division.

As far as many of the 3 best teams in the other division, the 6-1-1 guarantees that they can only play two, and then only when UTK is one of the strongest teams.

As far as the ability to skip playing ANY of the 3 strongest East division schools, that's more in UTK's hands, and of late UTK has been quite capable of taking an established brand and laying an egg with it.

(05-05-2014 01:37 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(05-04-2014 07:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  In determining who deserves a playoff spot, the issue should be overall SOS, not OOC SOS.

Of course, but if a P5 team is playing 8 conference games and one good P5 non-con game, their schedule is likely less challenging than a P5 team that plays 9 conference games and one good P5 non-con game. That's the point.

Sure, it would be a moot point if every top SEC team was playing two good P5 non-con opponents, to offset the fact that they play only 8 conference games. Check back with us when that is the case.

I don't need to check back with you, or vice-versa. It doesn't matter what is "more likely", all we have to do is check the SOS ratings once the season is over, then reward the team that played the tougher schedule, whether it played 9 conference games or 8.

(05-04-2014 02:55 PM)Shannon Panther Wrote:  Nobody is holding a gun to the PAC's head making them play 9 conference games. That is their choice. One of the major reasons they choose to play a 9 game schedule is to create programming for their network. I love how the article tries to spin in. Nope, it is all about the money, as usual.

Exactly.

I honestly find the nine game conference format stupid from a business perspective anyway. There would be no shame in Alabama having a schedule like this.

FCS team - Give the boys a chance to get comfortable in a real game and put on a show for the students just getting back to campus.

CUSA/Sun Belt - Another warm up home game that would get them ready for tougher competetion.

Marquee game against someone like Ohio State or Texas.

A decent AAC or MWC home and home that would also be a recruiting trip. Say UCF, Houston, Fresno, etc.

Then start conference play of as 3-1 for most teams and 4-0 for really good teams. And it honestly would be better for every conference to schedule like this. If your whole conference starts conference play with a winning record then you will still have a strong SOS. Not to mention how much the eye test counts in college football.

(05-05-2014 12:57 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  On the question that led off the OP, my first guess was "Colorado?"

Darn, it was the SEC. That was my second guess.

Me too, when I first saw the title of the thread, my first guess was Colorado. Other guesses might be Utah, Wash State, BYU or Boise.

But the SEC never entered my mind.

But now that it's been brought up, are there any teams that the PAC is unhappy with?

(05-06-2014 06:33 AM)goofus Wrote:  

(05-05-2014 12:57 PM)BruceMcF Wrote:  On the question that led off the OP, my first guess was "Colorado?"

Darn, it was the SEC. That was my second guess.

Me too, when I first saw the title of the thread, my first guess was Colorado. Other guesses might be Utah, Wash State, BYU or Boise.

But the SEC never entered my mind.

But now that it's been brought up, are there any teams that the PAC is unhappy with?

My first thought when I saw the title was "American Woman"

(05-06-2014 07:13 AM)owl at the moon Wrote:  My first thought when I saw the title was "American Woman"

Yeah, the Sunbelt and CUSA will be happy that the SEC is sticking with eight games, to avoid the risk they'd hear "No Time Left For You".

(05-06-2014 07:45 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 07:13 AM)owl at the moon Wrote:  My first thought when I saw the title was "American Woman"

Yeah, the Sunbelt and CUSA will be happy that the SEC is sticking with eight games, to avoid the risk they'd hear "No Time Left For You".

True though they have been scheduling the MAC too lately...

(05-07-2014 07:33 PM)Sultan of Euphonistan Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 07:45 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  

(05-06-2014 07:13 AM)owl at the moon Wrote:  My first thought when I saw the title was "American Woman"

Yeah, the Sunbelt and CUSA will be happy that the SEC is sticking with eight games, to avoid the risk they'd hear "No Time Left For You".

True though they have been scheduling the MAC too lately...

Lessee, 2014 (all P5 collected together)

SEC OOC by conference ~ counting games, not opponents, since some teams play two SEC teams:

FCS (14): EKU, Charleston Southern x2, UT Martin x2, SDSU, Furman, Chattanooga, Western Carolina, Nicholls State, Samford, Sam Houston State, Presbyterian, Lamar

P5 (11): FSU, GA Tech, Louisville, Clemson x2, Indiana, Okie, WVU, TX Tech, KS State, Whiskey

Sunbelt (10): Idaho, Troy, ULM x3, USA x2, AState, NMSU, ULL,
CUSA (9): ODU, FAU, Southern Miss x2, UAB x2, LA Tech, Rice, SMU
MAC (5): EMU, OhioU, Toledo, UMass, NIU,
AAC (4): UCF, ECU, Temple, Memphis,
MWC (3): Utah State, SJSU, Boise State

Yeah, the SEC is certainly willing to play the MAC, but they play either of the Sunbelt and CUSA about as much as they play the MAC and the American put together. Which makes perfect sense given the footprint of the Sunbelt and CUSA.

Based on the SEC schedule, an actual P5 mandate would result in 15 P5 OOC games, since those 11 games are spread across 10 schools:

P5(2): Georgia

P5(1): Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, Florida, Kentucky, LSU, Mizzou, South Carolina, UT

P5(0): Ole Miss, MS State, Texas A&M, Vandy