(10-02-2023 04:54 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 02:52 PM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 02:44 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 02:21 PM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 02:10 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  You're not wrong about FSU's relationship with the ACC, it's been GREAT for FSU.

Texas isn't guaranteed of winning more titles in the SEC of course, but they WERE guaranteed to become 2nd class citizens and lose out on the top recruits in their own region if they joined the B1G while A&M was in the SEC. So, perhaps we could say that for Texas it was a choice of "more money" or "a greater chance to get the best recruits". We've all seen plenty of programs over the decades that did a lot with great recruits, and other programs that did not, so the better players are no guarantee of more wins. But, all things being equal, they will have a better chance of winning more games in the SEC than they would have in the B1G.

I also agree that this is not necessarily true for Nebraska or PSU. They both may or may not have done better in the SEC than they have done in the B1G. However, it's indisputable that they both did FAR better in the couple of decades leading up to joining the B1G than they have done since joining. For the newer teams in the SEC, I'd say that the 6 of us have performed a bit better on average, with USC and A&M showing marked improvements, but USC has dropped off again since Spurrier left,. A&M was in one of our worst periods in history in the decade of the 2000s (which coincided with a very strong UT under peak Mac Brown), but we were far better in the 90s with regular top 10 teams. You could say that we've more bounced "back" rather than bounced "up" since joining the SEC.

It's an opinion, though a reasonable one that is supported by the evidence, to say that joining the SEC has been far better for A&M than joining the B1G has been for Nebraska.

edit: and that 1 UT title in the past 50 years is more than all but one B1G team has won, and would represent 40% of the 2.5 titles that the B1G has won during that time.

It wouldn't have mattered if FSU had joined the SEC instead of the ACC in that era. The Noles and Canes were simply better and deeper than any other program in the country for the better part of the 80s/90s. And it was during a period when the SEC was at a comparative low? UGA '80? Bama '92? And FSU beat UF's SEC title teams more often than not - the gators were lucky the Noles hadn't joined.

I will defer to Bobby Bowden on this topic...

247Sports: FSU was an independent until joining the ACC in 1991. It’s common knowledge the SEC was also interested in the Seminoles, but what did you want at the time?

Bowden: “They did want us, they did invite us to join the SEC. Everybody thought we would join. In fact, I thought we would but our administration — the president and others — wanted the ACC, which really was better for us. It would have been hard wading through that SEC. Too many good teams in there, boy. Oh, gosh. Oh, that would have been some great ball.”

If Bobby Bowden thought that the ACC was an easier path to Championships (even back in the '90s), and he won 2 of them while putting FSU on the map, who are we to argue?

We've hashed this out before. Bobby was always folksy and self-deprecating (and forgetful). There is nothing to show that Mississippi St or UGA or LSU of the 80s/90s would have stood in the way more than the BEEFY non-conf that included MIAMI every single year of those decades (no one else can say that) and schools like UF (also every year), ND, Mich, USC, LSU, etc. And your Aggies too! Imagine if FSU dropped Miami in '91. Not saying they would have...but you never know. My bet would be that FSU would have had another big trophy if it had gone the SEC route in the early 90's. Especially if it played the SEC plus cupcake non-conf schedule.

SEC recency bias clouds this. The conference just wasn't that great in that era and FSU beat its best regularly.

All we have hashed out is that I've accepted that Bobby Bowden meant exactly what he said, and you're trying to spin what he wrote to fit your agenda.

How many threads are you going to spread this argument to? STOP! If if you want to argue it start a separate thread on "FSU's Move To The ACC: Scant Fact, Myth, BS, & Bobby's Excuse" I'll leave that one alone. But derailing other discussions to pursue this across multiple threads will result in some time away!

(10-02-2023 04:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And anytime you want to talk patsies on the schedule I'll remind you that the Big 10 still plays 3 each to start the season, and I ask you to carefully look week to week at Michigan's 9 game conference schedule. And until this year for some reason, the PAC was pretty weak competition. It's loaded with patsies, it's just that more than a few of them are conference games. That doesn't happen in the SEC. It's the 10th, 11th, and 12th game of the season that are Michigan's test. Penn State, Maryland, Ohio State. Prior to that Rutgers is their best victory. So spare me the usual damned Northern mantra about the SEC having 4 non-conference games. 3 are the same caliber as the Big 10's. One for the vast majority of SEC schools is a P5 OOC game.

Kudos to Ohio State one of their OOC games was against Notre Dame. If anyone has any questions, I invite them to scrutinize Michigan's schedule.

Domers are afraid to play. Conference went to 9 games and the 4/5 home away schedule threw some engagements off the table. Then the AD went soft and didn't schedule anyone. It's unfortunate. It shouldn't be this soft, but I'm sure the analytic robot had something to contribute.

The SEC model is about having a bunch of teams ranked at the beginning of the year and then citing superior conference schedule as a reason for keeping teams up there while interspersing patsie play. The pesky PAC is throwing a wrench in that this year.

(10-02-2023 06:22 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 04:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And anytime you want to talk patsies on the schedule I'll remind you that the Big 10 still plays 3 each to start the season, and I ask you to carefully look week to week at Michigan's 9 game conference schedule. And until this year for some reason, the PAC was pretty weak competition. It's loaded with patsies, it's just that more than a few of them are conference games. That doesn't happen in the SEC. It's the 10th, 11th, and 12th game of the season that are Michigan's test. Penn State, Maryland, Ohio State. Prior to that Rutgers is their best victory. So spare me the usual damned Northern mantra about the SEC having 4 non-conference games. 3 are the same caliber as the Big 10's. One for the vast majority of SEC schools is a P5 OOC game.

Kudos to Ohio State one of their OOC games was against Notre Dame. If anyone has any questions, I invite them to scrutinize Michigan's schedule.

Domers are afraid to play. Conference went to 9 games and the 4/5 home away schedule threw some engagements off the table. Then the AD went soft and didn't schedule anyone. It's unfortunate. It shouldn't be this soft, but I'm sure the analytic robot had something to contribute.

The SEC model is about having a bunch of teams ranked at the beginning of the year and then citing superior conference schedule as a reason for keeping teams up there while interspersing patsie play. The pesky PAC is throwing a wrench in that this year.

Just like the B1G model is supposed to be Ivy League in the classrooms, but SEC on football field/arena??

(10-02-2023 06:22 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 04:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And anytime you want to talk patsies on the schedule I'll remind you that the Big 10 still plays 3 each to start the season, and I ask you to carefully look week to week at Michigan's 9 game conference schedule. And until this year for some reason, the PAC was pretty weak competition. It's loaded with patsies, it's just that more than a few of them are conference games. That doesn't happen in the SEC. It's the 10th, 11th, and 12th game of the season that are Michigan's test. Penn State, Maryland, Ohio State. Prior to that Rutgers is their best victory. So spare me the usual damned Northern mantra about the SEC having 4 non-conference games. 3 are the same caliber as the Big 10's. One for the vast majority of SEC schools is a P5 OOC game.

Kudos to Ohio State one of their OOC games was against Notre Dame. If anyone has any questions, I invite them to scrutinize Michigan's schedule.

Domers are afraid to play. Conference went to 9 games and the 4/5 home away schedule threw some engagements off the table. Then the AD went soft and didn't schedule anyone. It's unfortunate. It shouldn't be this soft, but I'm sure the analytic robot had something to contribute.

The SEC model is about having a bunch of teams ranked at the beginning of the year and then citing superior conference schedule as a reason for keeping teams up there while interspersing patsie play. The pesky PAC is throwing a wrench in that this year.

As Lee Corso would say not so fast my friend. A pedestrian Florida lost to Utah in the first week and too much emphasis was placed upon it in hyping the games. We play the seasons out to see who is deserving. It looks like a mediocre Utah laid it on a horrible Florida. In the Big 10 this year Penn State is playing pretty solid ball. Nobody knows what Michigan has, a lot like after 3 games some thought Tennessee was going to be a world beater and they lost to Florida. Alabama lost to a pretty good Texas squad. How good? I guess we'll find out this week. What is Kentucky about? They play good enough defense and run the ball effectively. Well see this week against Georgia.

When I look at the PAC 12 I see Oregon playing defense and offense. I like their chances this year. I see USC and Washington both as offensive juggernauts, but with very suspect defenses. When we get to the CFP defense wins. Ohio State plays solid defense and is lacking a bit offensively this year. Georgia's D is okay, but not stellar like the last couple of years and is weaker against the run so watching Kentucky's success against them will be telling as strength meets weakness. Kentucky's pass defense is not their strongest but is above average. Georgia's receivers are solid. Again strength meets weakness.

Meanwhile nobody knows just how good the Sooners are. Venables will have a defense and that has been lacking. Is it good enough to stop Texas? We'll see.

For this early in the season we will learn a bunch this weekend. But not much about the Big 10. The last 3 weeks will tell the tale.

(10-02-2023 06:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 06:22 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 04:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And anytime you want to talk patsies on the schedule I'll remind you that the Big 10 still plays 3 each to start the season, and I ask you to carefully look week to week at Michigan's 9 game conference schedule. And until this year for some reason, the PAC was pretty weak competition. It's loaded with patsies, it's just that more than a few of them are conference games. That doesn't happen in the SEC. It's the 10th, 11th, and 12th game of the season that are Michigan's test. Penn State, Maryland, Ohio State. Prior to that Rutgers is their best victory. So spare me the usual damned Northern mantra about the SEC having 4 non-conference games. 3 are the same caliber as the Big 10's. One for the vast majority of SEC schools is a P5 OOC game.

Kudos to Ohio State one of their OOC games was against Notre Dame. If anyone has any questions, I invite them to scrutinize Michigan's schedule.

Domers are afraid to play. Conference went to 9 games and the 4/5 home away schedule threw some engagements off the table. Then the AD went soft and didn't schedule anyone. It's unfortunate. It shouldn't be this soft, but I'm sure the analytic robot had something to contribute.

The SEC model is about having a bunch of teams ranked at the beginning of the year and then citing superior conference schedule as a reason for keeping teams up there while interspersing patsie play. The pesky PAC is throwing a wrench in that this year.

As Lee Corso would say not so fast my friend. A pedestrian Florida lost to Utah in the first week and too much emphasis was placed upon it in hyping the games. We play the seasons out to see who is deserving. It looks like a mediocre Utah laid it on a horrible Florida. In the Big 10 this year Penn State is playing pretty solid ball. Nobody knows what Michigan has, a lot like after 3 games some thought Tennessee was going to be a world beater and they lost to Florida. Alabama lost to a pretty good Texas squad. How good? I guess we'll find out this week. What is Kentucky about? They play good enough defense and run the ball effectively. Well see this week against Georgia.

When I look at the PAC 12 I see Oregon playing defense and offense. I like their chances this year. I see USC and Washington both as offensive juggernauts, but with very suspect defenses. When we get to the CFP defense wins. Ohio State plays solid defense and is lacking a bit offensively this year. Georgia's D is okay, but not stellar like the last couple of years and is weaker against the run so watching Kentucky's success against them will be telling as strength meets weakness. Kentucky's pass defense is not their strongest but is above average. Georgia's receivers are solid. Again strength meets weakness.

Meanwhile nobody knows just how good the Sooners are. Venables will have a defense and that has been lacking. Is it good enough to stop Texas? We'll see.

For this early in the season we will learn a bunch this weekend. But not much about the Big 10. The last 3 weeks will tell the tale.

OK Mr. Northern mantra...

USA rankings 1-133 for Michigan and Georgia.

Michigan: Rutgers 57, UNLV 65, Nebraska 90, Bowling Green 97, and East Carolina 111.

Georgia: Auburn 49, South Carolina 56, Ball State 121, UAB 124, and UT Martin isn't listed.

(10-02-2023 06:55 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 06:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 06:22 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 04:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And anytime you want to talk patsies on the schedule I'll remind you that the Big 10 still plays 3 each to start the season, and I ask you to carefully look week to week at Michigan's 9 game conference schedule. And until this year for some reason, the PAC was pretty weak competition. It's loaded with patsies, it's just that more than a few of them are conference games. That doesn't happen in the SEC. It's the 10th, 11th, and 12th game of the season that are Michigan's test. Penn State, Maryland, Ohio State. Prior to that Rutgers is their best victory. So spare me the usual damned Northern mantra about the SEC having 4 non-conference games. 3 are the same caliber as the Big 10's. One for the vast majority of SEC schools is a P5 OOC game.

Kudos to Ohio State one of their OOC games was against Notre Dame. If anyone has any questions, I invite them to scrutinize Michigan's schedule.

Domers are afraid to play. Conference went to 9 games and the 4/5 home away schedule threw some engagements off the table. Then the AD went soft and didn't schedule anyone. It's unfortunate. It shouldn't be this soft, but I'm sure the analytic robot had something to contribute.

The SEC model is about having a bunch of teams ranked at the beginning of the year and then citing superior conference schedule as a reason for keeping teams up there while interspersing patsie play. The pesky PAC is throwing a wrench in that this year.

As Lee Corso would say not so fast my friend. A pedestrian Florida lost to Utah in the first week and too much emphasis was placed upon it in hyping the games. We play the seasons out to see who is deserving. It looks like a mediocre Utah laid it on a horrible Florida. In the Big 10 this year Penn State is playing pretty solid ball. Nobody knows what Michigan has, a lot like after 3 games some thought Tennessee was going to be a world beater and they lost to Florida. Alabama lost to a pretty good Texas squad. How good? I guess we'll find out this week. What is Kentucky about? They play good enough defense and run the ball effectively. Well see this week against Georgia.

When I look at the PAC 12 I see Oregon playing defense and offense. I like their chances this year. I see USC and Washington both as offensive juggernauts, but with very suspect defenses. When we get to the CFP defense wins. Ohio State plays solid defense and is lacking a bit offensively this year. Georgia's D is okay, but not stellar like the last couple of years and is weaker against the run so watching Kentucky's success against them will be telling as strength meets weakness. Kentucky's pass defense is not their strongest but is above average. Georgia's receivers are solid. Again strength meets weakness.

Meanwhile nobody knows just how good the Sooners are. Venables will have a defense and that has been lacking. Is it good enough to stop Texas? We'll see.

For this early in the season we will learn a bunch this weekend. But not much about the Big 10. The last 3 weeks will tell the tale.

OK Mr. Northern mantra...

USA rankings 1-133 for Michigan and Georgia.

Michigan: Rutgers 57, UNLV 65, Nebraska 90, Bowling Green 97, and East Carolina 111.

Georgia: Auburn 49, South Carolina 56, Ball State 121, UAB 124, and UT Martin isn't listed.

Funny, but those ratings are meaningless. They are guesses based on guesses at this point.

Thankfully if we move to an upper tier all of this goes away. We play only P games within that upper tier and if we have one that is not it will be a preseason game against a lower opponent for a 7th home ticket. We'll evaluate these again at the end of the season to see how meaningless they are. The thing about the mantra is that this has been the Northern excuse for watching the SEC walk away with most of the BCS and a good many of the CFP trophies.

(10-02-2023 05:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 04:54 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 02:52 PM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 02:44 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 02:21 PM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  It wouldn't have mattered if FSU had joined the SEC instead of the ACC in that era. The Noles and Canes were simply better and deeper than any other program in the country for the better part of the 80s/90s. And it was during a period when the SEC was at a comparative low? UGA '80? Bama '92? And FSU beat UF's SEC title teams more often than not - the gators were lucky the Noles hadn't joined.

I will defer to Bobby Bowden on this topic...

247Sports: FSU was an independent until joining the ACC in 1991. It’s common knowledge the SEC was also interested in the Seminoles, but what did you want at the time?

Bowden: “They did want us, they did invite us to join the SEC. Everybody thought we would join. In fact, I thought we would but our administration — the president and others — wanted the ACC, which really was better for us. It would have been hard wading through that SEC. Too many good teams in there, boy. Oh, gosh. Oh, that would have been some great ball.”

If Bobby Bowden thought that the ACC was an easier path to Championships (even back in the '90s), and he won 2 of them while putting FSU on the map, who are we to argue?

We've hashed this out before. Bobby was always folksy and self-deprecating (and forgetful). There is nothing to show that Mississippi St or UGA or LSU of the 80s/90s would have stood in the way more than the BEEFY non-conf that included MIAMI every single year of those decades (no one else can say that) and schools like UF (also every year), ND, Mich, USC, LSU, etc. And your Aggies too! Imagine if FSU dropped Miami in '91. Not saying they would have...but you never know. My bet would be that FSU would have had another big trophy if it had gone the SEC route in the early 90's. Especially if it played the SEC plus cupcake non-conf schedule.

SEC recency bias clouds this. The conference just wasn't that great in that era and FSU beat its best regularly.

All we have hashed out is that I've accepted that Bobby Bowden meant exactly what he said, and you're trying to spin what he wrote to fit your agenda.

How many threads are you going to spread this argument to? STOP! If if you want to argue it start a separate thread on "FSU's Move To The ACC: Scant Fact, Myth, BS, & Bobby's Excuse" I'll leave that one alone. But derailing other discussions to pursue this across multiple threads will result in some time away!

It was in response. But fair enough.

(10-02-2023 08:05 PM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 05:53 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 04:54 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 02:52 PM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 02:44 PM)bryanw1995 Wrote:  I will defer to Bobby Bowden on this topic...

247Sports: FSU was an independent until joining the ACC in 1991. It’s common knowledge the SEC was also interested in the Seminoles, but what did you want at the time?

Bowden: “They did want us, they did invite us to join the SEC. Everybody thought we would join. In fact, I thought we would but our administration — the president and others — wanted the ACC, which really was better for us. It would have been hard wading through that SEC. Too many good teams in there, boy. Oh, gosh. Oh, that would have been some great ball.”

If Bobby Bowden thought that the ACC was an easier path to Championships (even back in the '90s), and he won 2 of them while putting FSU on the map, who are we to argue?

We've hashed this out before. Bobby was always folksy and self-deprecating (and forgetful). There is nothing to show that Mississippi St or UGA or LSU of the 80s/90s would have stood in the way more than the BEEFY non-conf that included MIAMI every single year of those decades (no one else can say that) and schools like UF (also every year), ND, Mich, USC, LSU, etc. And your Aggies too! Imagine if FSU dropped Miami in '91. Not saying they would have...but you never know. My bet would be that FSU would have had another big trophy if it had gone the SEC route in the early 90's. Especially if it played the SEC plus cupcake non-conf schedule.

SEC recency bias clouds this. The conference just wasn't that great in that era and FSU beat its best regularly.

All we have hashed out is that I've accepted that Bobby Bowden meant exactly what he said, and you're trying to spin what he wrote to fit your agenda.

How many threads are you going to spread this argument to? STOP! If if you want to argue it start a separate thread on "FSU's Move To The ACC: Scant Fact, Myth, BS, & Bobby's Excuse" I'll leave that one alone. But derailing other discussions to pursue this across multiple threads will result in some time away!

It was in response. But fair enough.

No need. If provoked just start a thread and I'll disapprove the post that started it to keep topic integrity. The topic is why FSU and Clemson only want the SEC. An appropriate challenge is to say why they may wish another conference. Arguing about Bowden's position is not the topic, but a separate one. I would have said nothing but I saw the same conversation in at least one other thread and it wasn't the topic there either. My comment of consequences was simply to imply, without issuing a formal warning, that threads need to be kept on topic, and if you have a sideline argument start a new thread.

(10-02-2023 02:21 PM)GarnetAndBlue Wrote:  It wouldn't have mattered if FSU had joined the SEC instead of the ACC in that era. The Noles and Canes were simply better and deeper than any other program in the country for the better part of the 80s/90s. And it was during a period when the SEC was at a comparative low? UGA '80? Bama '92? And FSU beat UF's SEC title teams more often than not - the gators were lucky the Noles hadn't joined.

PSU/Nebraska were more-or-less as talented/deep from 80-99 as FSU/Miami.

(10-02-2023 07:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Funny, but those ratings are meaningless. They are guesses based on guesses at this point.

Thankfully if we move to an upper tier all of this goes away. We play only P games within that upper tier and if we have one that is not it will be a preseason game against a lower opponent for a 7th home ticket. We'll evaluate these again at the end of the season to see how meaningless they are. The thing about the mantra is that this has been the Northern excuse for watching the SEC walk away with most of the BCS and a good many of the CFP trophies.

Whatever

Will this help:

Multiple sources have said the 2024 Michigan schedule, which could be announced soon, includes home games with Oregon, USC, Texas (in the non-conference) and Michigan State, and road games with Ohio State and probably Washington.

For the first time in 12 years, the schedule may not include Penn State. Of course, Ohio State is every year, except for that one time.

I will be back to mock the Auburn schedule.

(10-03-2023 01:50 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 07:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Funny, but those ratings are meaningless. They are guesses based on guesses at this point.

Thankfully if we move to an upper tier all of this goes away. We play only P games within that upper tier and if we have one that is not it will be a preseason game against a lower opponent for a 7th home ticket. We'll evaluate these again at the end of the season to see how meaningless they are. The thing about the mantra is that this has been the Northern excuse for watching the SEC walk away with most of the BCS and a good many of the CFP trophies.

Whatever

Will this help:

Multiple sources have said the 2024 Michigan schedule, which could be announced soon, includes home games with Oregon, USC, Texas (in the non-conference) and Michigan State, and road games with Ohio State and probably Washington.

For the first time in 12 years, the schedule may not include Penn State. Of course, Ohio State is every year, except for that one time.

I will be back to mock the Auburn schedule.

Our schedules will be changing in the future as well. As we wrap up this consolidation, I expect that eventually we'll be in the same upper tier, and only playing upper tier schools. Then perhaps this annually rehashed discussion will finally be put to rest and griping about things being too hard may ensue! I won't be pining for the whining, nor itching for the bitching, but nobody will ever be 100% pleased with the arrangement. It will just be nicer when it is decided more on the field than by committee or sports writer's votes.

(10-03-2023 01:50 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 07:32 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Funny, but those ratings are meaningless. They are guesses based on guesses at this point.

Thankfully if we move to an upper tier all of this goes away. We play only P games within that upper tier and if we have one that is not it will be a preseason game against a lower opponent for a 7th home ticket. We'll evaluate these again at the end of the season to see how meaningless they are. The thing about the mantra is that this has been the Northern excuse for watching the SEC walk away with most of the BCS and a good many of the CFP trophies.

Whatever

Will this help:

Multiple sources have said the 2024 Michigan schedule, which could be announced soon, includes home games with Oregon, USC, Texas (in the non-conference) and Michigan State, and road games with Ohio State and probably Washington.

For the first time in 12 years, the schedule may not include Penn State. Of course, Ohio State is every year, except for that one time.

I will be back to mock the Auburn schedule.

So for the first time ever, Michigan will have a schedule worthy of receiving a top 5 ranking?

(10-02-2023 06:22 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 04:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And anytime you want to talk patsies on the schedule I'll remind you that the Big 10 still plays 3 each to start the season, and I ask you to carefully look week to week at Michigan's 9 game conference schedule. And until this year for some reason, the PAC was pretty weak competition. It's loaded with patsies, it's just that more than a few of them are conference games. That doesn't happen in the SEC. It's the 10th, 11th, and 12th game of the season that are Michigan's test. Penn State, Maryland, Ohio State. Prior to that Rutgers is their best victory. So spare me the usual damned Northern mantra about the SEC having 4 non-conference games. 3 are the same caliber as the Big 10's. One for the vast majority of SEC schools is a P5 OOC game.

Kudos to Ohio State one of their OOC games was against Notre Dame. If anyone has any questions, I invite them to scrutinize Michigan's schedule.

Domers are afraid to play. Conference went to 9 games and the 4/5 home away schedule threw some engagements off the table. Then the AD went soft and didn't schedule anyone. It's unfortunate. It shouldn't be this soft, but I'm sure the analytic robot had something to contribute.

The SEC model is about having a bunch of teams ranked at the beginning of the year and then citing superior conference schedule as a reason for keeping teams up there while interspersing patsie play. The pesky PAC is throwing a wrench in that this year.

3 patsies is not the norm. Big 10 teams are supposed to be playing at least 1 P5-level opponent a year. 2023 Michigan is the exception, not the rule. I’m not sure why they don’t have a good OOC game this year—maybe someone cancelled on them.

Big 10 teams Generally play 10 P5s & 2 G5/FCS. Most SEC teams are only playing 9 and have for quite some time.

(10-03-2023 04:16 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 06:22 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 04:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And anytime you want to talk patsies on the schedule I'll remind you that the Big 10 still plays 3 each to start the season, and I ask you to carefully look week to week at Michigan's 9 game conference schedule. And until this year for some reason, the PAC was pretty weak competition. It's loaded with patsies, it's just that more than a few of them are conference games. That doesn't happen in the SEC. It's the 10th, 11th, and 12th game of the season that are Michigan's test. Penn State, Maryland, Ohio State. Prior to that Rutgers is their best victory. So spare me the usual damned Northern mantra about the SEC having 4 non-conference games. 3 are the same caliber as the Big 10's. One for the vast majority of SEC schools is a P5 OOC game.

Kudos to Ohio State one of their OOC games was against Notre Dame. If anyone has any questions, I invite them to scrutinize Michigan's schedule.

Domers are afraid to play. Conference went to 9 games and the 4/5 home away schedule threw some engagements off the table. Then the AD went soft and didn't schedule anyone. It's unfortunate. It shouldn't be this soft, but I'm sure the analytic robot had something to contribute.

The SEC model is about having a bunch of teams ranked at the beginning of the year and then citing superior conference schedule as a reason for keeping teams up there while interspersing patsie play. The pesky PAC is throwing a wrench in that this year.

3 patsies is not the norm. Big 10 teams are supposed to be playing at least 1 P5-level opponent a year. 2023 Michigan is the exception, not the rule. I’m not sure why they don’t have a good OOC game this year—maybe someone cancelled on them.

Big 10 teams Generally play 10 P5s & 2 G5/FCS. Most SEC teams are only playing 9 and have for quite some time.

And the SEC will stay at 9 until ESPN pays us for 10P games, which is likely in the works with expansion. In fact I think within a couple of years we will all be playing 12 P games. We may have 1 preseason game against an FCS or G5 state school in order to have that 7th ticket in everyone's season book.

12 “P” games plus a preseason game makes a lot of sense to the networks and would be welcomed by fans like us that are sick of the proliferation of pointless, lopsided games.

Coaches will hate it. There’s also the question of what to do when you get schools who can’t get out of the basement and are perpetually 0-12, 1-11, 2-10 etc. There’s no draft to distribute the talent like the pros.

I don't actually think that this is going to happen immediately.

(10-03-2023 05:20 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  12 “P” games plus a preseason game makes a lot of sense to the networks and would be welcomed by fans like us that are sick of the proliferation of pointless, lopsided games.

Coaches will hate it. There’s also the question of what to do when you get schools who can’t get out of the basement and are perpetually 0-12, 1-11, 2-10 etc. There’s no draft to distribute the talent like the pros.

Oh yes there is a draft. NIL. That's why the separation is coming. The most promising in conferences below the upper tier will have a difficult time competing with the NIL money.

As to cellar dwellers scheduling algo rhythms could help with that.

(10-03-2023 04:16 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 06:22 PM)SeaBlue Wrote:  

(10-02-2023 04:50 PM)JRsec Wrote:  And anytime you want to talk patsies on the schedule I'll remind you that the Big 10 still plays 3 each to start the season, and I ask you to carefully look week to week at Michigan's 9 game conference schedule. And until this year for some reason, the PAC was pretty weak competition. It's loaded with patsies, it's just that more than a few of them are conference games. That doesn't happen in the SEC. It's the 10th, 11th, and 12th game of the season that are Michigan's test. Penn State, Maryland, Ohio State. Prior to that Rutgers is their best victory. So spare me the usual damned Northern mantra about the SEC having 4 non-conference games. 3 are the same caliber as the Big 10's. One for the vast majority of SEC schools is a P5 OOC game.

Kudos to Ohio State one of their OOC games was against Notre Dame. If anyone has any questions, I invite them to scrutinize Michigan's schedule.

Domers are afraid to play. Conference went to 9 games and the 4/5 home away schedule threw some engagements off the table. Then the AD went soft and didn't schedule anyone. It's unfortunate. It shouldn't be this soft, but I'm sure the analytic robot had something to contribute.

The SEC model is about having a bunch of teams ranked at the beginning of the year and then citing superior conference schedule as a reason for keeping teams up there while interspersing patsie play. The pesky PAC is throwing a wrench in that this year.

3 patsies is not the norm. Big 10 teams are supposed to be playing at least 1 P5-level opponent a year. 2023 Michigan is the exception, not the rule. I’m not sure why they don’t have a good OOC game this year—maybe someone cancelled on them.

Big 10 teams Generally play 10 P5s & 2 G5/FCS. Most SEC teams are only playing 9 and have for quite some time.

I've read that Michigan simply ignores the rule. No idea if that's correct or not, but it's certainly odd. Perhaps Harbaugh thinks that beating 10 patsies and going 1-1 against PSU and tOSU is enough to get to the playoff? That wouldn't have worked for tOSU last year, they only edged out Alabama b/c of that strong ND win in nonconference, much to quo's chagrin.