Reality

[Lou_C]

One thing you need to remember, and has probably already been posted in this thread, is that the type of schedule we have now was done years ago, when we had to try to overcome a weak Big East. Going forward, I would think (hope) we move toward the type of schedule you speak of - and that has been discussed frequently on this board.

Yep, that is totally understood. I was just disappointed that you guys just added Maryland for next year when you've already got a tall order in Notre Dame. For a team expected to be in the five win range, I don't think you should be adding a team that definitely can beat you, and will probably be favored, to a schedule that already includes a ND team that is definitely expected to beat you and will be a large favorite.

That's a sign that you guys are going to make it hard on yourselves. I'm interested to see how you fill your other open spots.

 

[chakka3421]

I'm interested to see how you fill your other open spots.

So would many of us - whoever is in charge of scheduling football games should be fired. SU Athletics organizationally is a mess right now not only with scheduling but also marketing - sheer lack of leadership and goal setting for people like the scheduling coordinator. It's like one big country club setting up there with no one really in charge. Our media should be all over it but they are even more diss functional than SU Athletics.

 

[orange79]

Yep, that is totally understood. I was just disappointed that you guys just added Maryland for next year when you've already got a tall order in Notre Dame. For a team expected to be in the five win range, I don't think you should be adding a team that definitely can beat you, and will probably be favored, to a schedule that already includes a ND team that is definitely expected to beat you and will be a large favorite.

That's a sign that you guys are going to make it hard on yourselves. I'm interested to see how you fill your other open spots.

Agreed. I think it is a combination of factors. 1) As mentioned before, schedules set in advance. 2) The desire/need to have a game in NYC area. 3) A dramatically different situation requires a total change in mindset - we need to stop thinking that 'this is the way we've always done it, so by God, that's the way we will always do it'. We need to start scheduling like the big boys, since we're now at the table.

 

[Rocco]

Yep, that is the scheduling road that leads to success. Wish you guys, BC and Virginia would get on board, at least while rebuilding. And it's not just those SEC schools, there is NO other conference besides the ACC that has teams schedule so aggressively, and they have nothing to show for it except the rep as the worst conference over the last 15 years. Overscheduling OOC just does not pay dividends, and it's been shown time and time again. It doesn't help reputation, recruiting, or fan support.

It's very simple...schedule one "showcase" OOC game that you can win against a BCS school or high mid-major (BYU, Boise, UCF, Cinci). That's not the same for everybody...Clemson can schedule Georgia..Wake Forest or Syracuse shouldn't. A team might lose this game and that's fine, but nobody should be scheduling games where they will be double digit underdogs. This would be Penn State OR Northwestern, but not both. And in years when ND is on the schedule, ND is this game.

Schedule two games against the MAC, Sun Belt, MWC etc teams. Maybe one with a respectable name (San Diego State, Southern Miss, ECU, Navy) and one not (Akron, Buffalo, Louisiana Tech, Arkansas St.)

Schedule one FCS team.

Plain and simple, that's the formula everyone else uses to great success. If your team is up to expectations, you go into conference play 3-1 or 4-0. Going 3-5 in conference gets you to a bowl game, going 5-3 is an 8 or 9 win season. With so many bowls, you simply MUST make bowl games to make any claim that you are a successful program.

And you build, build, build. As the program gets better, OOC is adjusted accordingly for more and more high profile games.

It's simply what works. Doing the opposite hasn't worked since the 1970s. No team in a generation has turned their program around by difficult out of conference scheduling.

I know most of the board vehemently disagrees with this, and I get it. A lot of FSU fans are still pissed that our OOC schedule isn't Florida, Oklahoma, USC and Texas A&M.

But it isn't really up to debate...it has been proven by history. I hope Syracuse gets it, as well as Virginia and BC. But if not, they will find themselves passed by schools like Pitt and NCSU and even Duke, who I think have finally figured it out. I have more confidence in Duke going to a bowl game this year than Syracuse, and that's crazy. But at the end of the day, in college football you simply can't sell a "good 5-7" versus a 7-6 with a bowl game in Florida. Nobody's buying.

Amen to this post. I used to be very rah-rah about scheduling tough teams, and that was certainly Marrone's philosophy as well. However, starting off the season 0-2 by playing Penn St and NW does no good. Sure your players got to play against better competition and all of that, but it kills momentum in every facet (recruiting, rankings, quasi-fan support, etc). There are NO moral wins.

I am all about scheduling one big OOC game per year (ideally Penn St or WVU), playing U of Buffalo or another MAC, 1 FBS and maybe another low-level FCS (like Memphis or something). This would give us a chance to go 4-0 OOC and have to win only 2 ACC games just to get to a bowl. You win 4 ACC games and you're at 8 wins and a better bowl... 6-2 ACC and you're at 10 wins... on and on. That model makes sense. Sure we get a nice revenue spike for playing at MetLife Stadium, but . If you want to get support from your local fans, we have to remain committed to keeping the "big" games in the Dome. Now that we're in the ACC, we will have at least Clemson or FSU every year in the Dome. Our big OOC game should also be added to that slate every other year. That gets fans excited to actually come to the Dome.

 

[baggerbob]

As Lou C so readily points out, other conferences try to schedule out of conference wins, that way everyone goes into conference play 4-0, or 3-1. As long as a team has no bad OOC losses a loss to them doesn't drop you 5-10 places in the polls. The SEC perfected that during the BCS era, they go into the conference schedule, and even if a ranked team lost they only fall 1 or 2 spots, and easily rebound the next week with a win. Also you need a minimum of 7 home games a year.

 

[Rocco]

As Lou C so readily points out, other conferences try to schedule out of conference wins, that way everyone goes into conference play 4-0, or 3-1. As long as a team has no bad OOC losses a loss to them doesn't drop you 5-10 places in the polls. The SEC perfected that during the BCS era, they go into the conference schedule, and even if a ranked team lost they only fall 1 or 2 spots, and easily rebound the next week with a win. Also you need a minimum of 7 home games a year.

Only way to get 7 home games per year is to schedule some really low-level teams OOC. Colgate, UB, Memphis, etc...

 

[Lou_C]

As Lou C so readily points out, other conferences try to schedule out of conference wins, that way everyone goes into conference play 4-0, or 3-1. As long as a team has no bad OOC losses a loss to them doesn't drop you 5-10 places in the polls. The SEC perfected that during the BCS era, they go into the conference schedule, and even if a ranked team lost they only fall 1 or 2 spots, and easily rebound the next week with a win.

Exactly. It's pretty simple...when you lose OOC, it's a total loss to the conference. When you lose in conference, someone else in the conference wins. Now obviously, there are some that are never going to be a good loss, if Clemson lost to WF this year, that would have been deadly. But most of the time, it gives the winning team at least a little rub.

What if BC had not gotten drilled by USC? If BC came into that FSU game last Saturday and upset FSU (which it looked like it would for a while) that would have been bad. But there would have been no question that BC would have rocketed into the rankings, and FSU would not have fallen out of the rankings. Terrible to lose a national title contender no doubt, but mitigated by adding another top 25 team to your conference.

Same thing if Syracuse had come into Clemson 4-0. Obviously, a bigger game nationally, but it would have totally hedged the bets in the event Syracuse won, rather than a Syracuse win being an absolute disaster for the ACC.

Another example...Maryland came in to this weekend actually RANKED off a horrendous OOC slate. And then FSU did what they did to the Terps, the same thing they would have done if Maryland was 2-2. But have you noticed all the juice FSU got this week? Jumped two teams in the polls that did not even lose! FSU has been all over ESPN, and the fact Maryland looked like a somewhat legit team ratcheted up the buzz for the FSU-Clemson game considerably. All because of Maryland's schedule. The ACC was in NO way punished for having a horrible OOC schedule, unless you think Maryland was going to go 12-0.

Look at the Big 12 last year, which was, frankly awful. They didn't finish the season with a top 10 team. But the general public consensus last year was that the Big 12 was definitley the second best conference, and the ACC was the worst.

Why? Because they came in decently ranked, didn't play a live body OOC, and everytime someone lost, it elevated the other team. WVU was terrible last year, but because nobody knew it, them beating Texas hid how bad Texas was. When Kansas State and TT beat WVU, it jump started those teams big time.

It's good for the conference to have a few marquee OOC games every year to showcase (but games they can win). Then every team can play a game that would basically be a toss up or a small challenge but mean something (like SU v PSU or UNC v So Car). But every other game should be one that objective experts would consider a likely win.

You can't do anything really about UVA losing to Ball St. or WF losing to ULM. Those things are going to happen. But you can absolutely do something about UVA and BC getting blasted by teams they aren't on the same level with, or SU starting ACC play with two losses.

As a conference, we can do this smart, and all benefit.

 

[TheCusian]

Exactly. It's pretty simple...when you lose OOC, it's a total loss to the conference. When you lose in conference, someone else in the conference wins. Now obviously, there are some that are never going to be a good loss, if Clemson lost to WF this year, that would have been deadly. But most of the time, it gives the winning team at least a little rub.

What if BC had not gotten drilled by USC? If BC came into that FSU game last Saturday and upset FSU (which it looked like it would for a while) that would have been bad. But there would have been no question that BC would have rocketed into the rankings, and FSU would not have fallen out of the rankings. Terrible to lose a national title contender no doubt, but mitigated by adding another top 25 team to your conference.

Same thing if Syracuse had come into Clemson 4-0. Obviously, a bigger game nationally, but it would have totally hedged the bets in the event Syracuse won, rather than a Syracuse win being an absolute disaster for the ACC.

Another example...Maryland came in to this weekend actually RANKED off a horrendous OOC slate. And then FSU did what they did to the Terps, the same thing they would have done if Maryland was 2-2. But have you noticed all the juice FSU got this week? Jumped two teams in the polls that did not even lose! FSU has been all over ESPN, and the fact Maryland looked like a somewhat legit team ratcheted up the buzz for the FSU-Clemson game considerably. All because of Maryland's schedule. The ACC was in NO way punished for having a horrible OOC schedule, unless you think Maryland was going to go 12-0.

Look at the Big 12 last year, which was, frankly awful. They didn't finish the season with a top 10 team. But the general public consensus last year was that the Big 12 was definitley the second best conference, and the ACC was the worst.

Why? Because they came in decently ranked, didn't play a live body OOC, and everytime someone lost, it elevated the other team. WVU was terrible last year, but because nobody knew it, them beating Texas hid how bad Texas was. When Kansas State and TT beat WVU, it jump started those teams big time.

It's good for the conference to have a few marquee OOC games every year to showcase (but games they can win). Then every team can play a game that would basically be a toss up or a small challenge but mean something (like SU v PSU or UNC v So Car). But every other game should be one that objective experts would consider a likely win.

You can't do anything really about UVA losing to Ball St. or WF losing to ULM. Those things are going to happen. But you can absolutely do something about UVA and BC getting blasted by teams they aren't on the same level with, or SU starting ACC play with two losses.

As a conference, we can do this smart, and all benefit.

Agree with everything you wrote - and wish it was different. It just adds up to horrible games vs overmatched competition.

But - it's the system we have.