Originally posted by IUP24
View Post
Despite you both arguing, there's material in both of these posts that I agree with. And I think you both can find some common ground. When this conversation started about a week ago, I made a few posts that essentially stated that the best way to get to the playoffs was to have a schedule that allows you to win more games than everybody else. I still believe that to be the case. While that's fundamentally different than the opinion I have long held, I am no longer at the point where I think scheduling games against better than average competition will do anything to benefit you. Here's the reality.. If a team goes 10-1, regardless of their schedule, they get into the playoffs. We've long stated that the moment you get that second loss you no longer control anything as it relates to your playoff life.
I think criteria such as SOS, etc., can be barometers to separate teams with the same record in terms of positioning, but I don't believe that makes much of a difference at all when it comes to most teams getting into the playoffs. Just my opinion. Take this year for instance. For the most part, I think everybody is fairly confident in 5 of the 7 teams that will be selected for the SR1 field. So at that point, you're in a jumbled group of three teams with two losses vying for the last 1 or 2 spots. How else do you select them at that point? I agree with Horror Child that the criteria may not be right or wrong, but it is what it is. Precedence has told us that if you only have one loss on your schedule or are undefeated, you will be a playoff participant.
I know there's certain posters that are "data" people, that like numbers to back up claims, but it's just my opinion that the state of Division 1 college football is trickling down to the lower levels as well. There's no reason for any team to be concerned about SOS because the playoff selection committee doesn't care about who you're playing in the non-conference. A win over a great opponent can be a great mark for your resume, but you get no brownie points for losing to that same team. A loss is still a loss. College football is all about "perception." And the only perception that people have is rooted in wins and losses.
We'll see how good Minnesota is today - I'm sure not very. People love the Golden Gophers... PJ Fleck, "Row the Boat," undefeated, etc... Nobody cares that they have played likely the worst schedule of any Power 5 team. The front running sports media cares about wins. That's it. Right or wrong - that's the reality. You don't get College Gameday to show up to your school by scheduling tough opponents that you lose to in a nail biter. Programs are better served to just simply schedule cupcakes and try to stack wins. That's why rivalries are dying in major college football. Texas and Texas A&M aren't in a hurry to renew their rivalry. Had Penn State not lost to Pitt in 2016, that series probably keeps going. But it's too much of a risk in their eyes to potentially lose that game. There's others out there too, but you see my point. LSU might lose to Alabama today and they would likely be held out of the playoff given the other scenarios that exist in 2019. So how much did that Texas win really benefit them in the long run? They just prolonged the inevitable elimination loss to Alabama another 9 weeks.
I don't think any of this is right, I just think that this is the way it is now. I want to see regional and historical rivalry games. I want to see matchups between top schools out of conference. Heck, I'd love to see IUP play somebody like Grand Valley in a home and home. But that's not what the media has told us is important. Win more games than everybody else. That's all people care about. That's all the voters care about for the polls. And I think all of this is relative to this level now too. The formula for any team, IUP included, is to win more games than everybody else. Because that's truly all that matters.
Leave a comment: