Football
Sponsored by

Oregon Coach On Scheduling

3,542 Views | 23 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by RegentCoverup
Thee University
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The continued absence has limited the conference's national visibility and damaged its perception, but Oregon coach Mario Cristobal said his program will not make any scheduling concessions to facilitate an easier path to the four-team playoff.

"They want to play the best teams in the country all the time, and there is no way we're going to go away from that mentality to try to schedule down to appease -- whatever, I guess I should stop there before I get in trouble, right?" Cristobal said. "These guys deserve to find out how good they are by playing against the best, so we're going to continue doing that."

Oregon entered Friday's conference championship game against No. 5 Utah well out of the playoff picture, in part due to a season-opening loss to Auburn. Had the Ducks not scheduled Auburn and settled for three easier nonconference games -- similar to the schedule Utah played -- their 37-15 win against the Utes might have put them in position to receive strong consideration for a playoff spot.

The Ducks play Ohio State the next two seasons and Georgia in 2022.
hodedofome
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Knock knock. Who's there? Not the PAC12.
PepperMD
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think Oregon missing the playoff (which they should with two losses) makes a compelling argument to expand the playoff to 8 teams. With an eight team playoff (with P5 winners getting automatic bids) programs can be far more aggressive in their nonconference scheduling, and you won't have nearly as many teams largely playing cream puffs in their nonconference games.
Keyser Soze
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I the SEC has shown the best path to the playoffs -

Play fewer conference games. Disguise your fewer conference games with at least one good non conference game that is not as hard as an extra conference game.

Self Made Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This is a false argument. Had Oregon taken care of business against Arizona State, a team that had lost four in a row, and a team that had a losing conference record, they would be in the playoffs. And if they would have held on to their 4th quarter lead against Auburn, they would be in the playoffs.
GoldenBear007
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Self Made Bear said:

This is a false argument. Had Oregon taken care of business against Arizona State, a team that had lost four in a row, and a team that had a losing conference record, they would be in the playoffs. And if they would have held on to their 4th quarter lead against Auburn, they would be in the playoffs.


Nailed it.
NeuroticBear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PepperMD said:

I think Oregon missing the playoff (which they should with two losses) makes a compelling argument to expand the playoff to 8 teams. With an eight team playoff (with P5 winners getting automatic bids) programs can be far more aggressive in their nonconference scheduling, and you won't have nearly as many teams largely playing cream puffs in their nonconference games.
This is exactly correct, and I'm having a hard time figuring out why the NCAA can't arrive at the same conclusion.

Just designate 4 of the current bowls as the quarterfinals for those 8 teams and then have the final 4 teams play in the last two games like they currently do.

The NCAA is all about money, so none of these "but muh student athlete" arguments ring true.
historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Keyser Soze said:

I the SEC has shown the best path to the playoffs -

Play fewer conference games. Disguise your fewer conference games with at least one good non conference game that is not as hard as an extra conference game.
Not to mention most SEC teams play 3 cream puffs each year (we've been blasted all season long for what is normal for them) and one of them in November. It's a sham & they rarely get called out on it.
GoldenBear007
How long do you want to ignore this user?
NeuroticBear said:

PepperMD said:

I think Oregon missing the playoff (which they should with two losses) makes a compelling argument to expand the playoff to 8 teams. With an eight team playoff (with P5 winners getting automatic bids) programs can be far more aggressive in their nonconference scheduling, and you won't have nearly as many teams largely playing cream puffs in their nonconference games.
This is exactly correct, and I'm having a hard time figuring out why the NCAA can't arrive at the same conclusion.

Just designate 4 of the current bowls as the quarterfinals for those 8 teams and then have the final 4 teams play in the last two games like they currently do.

The NCAA is all about money, so none of these "but muh student athlete" arguments ring true.


Using this year as an example, you just make the Sugar Bowl, Cotton Bowl, Orange Bowl, and Rose Bowl as the quarterfinal locations. Peach and Fiesta as semi-final. And then you pick one of the quarter final venues as the championship location. Rotate every year. Make more money. Conference titles mean something with no pressure of losing non-con games. EVERYONE wins.
Jack Bauer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
But UGA is in contention for scheduling...and beating Notre Dame.
Russell Gym
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Four is better than two, but eight is better than four.

No progress like glacial progress.
boognish_bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
If we were to win today I can put myself in Oregon's fans shoes and see how they would be pissed that it appears we are being rewarded for having taken the easier path....but if you throw out the Auburn loss and compare resumes with the assumption of a BU win over #6 OU today I still think our resume would be better regardless.

The Auburn loss is not what kept them out....in fact...having scheduled Auburn gave them their best chance to make their CFP case with a win since they didn't have the opportunity to get many impressive wins in a weak PAC12.
RegentCoverup
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Self Made Bear said:

This is a false argument. Had Oregon taken care of business against Arizona State, a team that had lost four in a row, and a team that had a losing conference record, they would be in the playoffs. And if they would have held on to their 4th quarter lead against Auburn, they would be in the playoffs.
And that wasn't a good Auburn team. that's a middle of the road SEC team at best.

If Oregon can't beat Auburn, there is no point discussing them. Pure and simple.

The only reason Oregon is being discussed is because of Nike money. They dont have a lot of followers, they have a small stadium and they haven't beaten anyone. There isn't anything to discuss.
Saddle Up!
How long do you want to ignore this user?
historian said:

Keyser Soze said:

I the SEC has shown the best path to the playoffs -

Play fewer conference games. Disguise your fewer conference games with at least one good non conference game that is not as hard as an extra conference game.
Not to mention most SEC teams play 3 cream puffs each year (we've been blasted all season long for what is normal for them) and one of them in November. It's a sham & they rarely get called out on it.


Maybe the key is playing a "cream puff" in the sense of a team that should be an automatic win, but that should win the rest of their games, maybe even their conference. Honestly, we've been ripped more about the combined record of the 3 teams we played, than the name on the jersey.
EvilTroyAndAbed
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TellMeYouLoveMe said:

Self Made Bear said:

This is a false argument. Had Oregon taken care of business against Arizona State, a team that had lost four in a row, and a team that had a losing conference record, they would be in the playoffs. And if they would have held on to their 4th quarter lead against Auburn, they would be in the playoffs.
And that wasn't a good Auburn team. that's a middle of the road SEC team at best.

If Oregon can't beat Auburn, there is no point discussing them. Pure and simple.

The only reason Oregon is being discussed is because of Nike money. They dont have a lot of followers, they have a small stadium and they haven't beaten anyone. There isn't anything to discuss.
Dude, that's a good Auburn team.
RegentCoverup
How long do you want to ignore this user?
They have three losses. They walked into the Oregon game with a QB straight from the HS ranks and beat them.

They aren't bad, but it doesn't make sense that we're even talking about Oregon.
historian
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Saddle Up! said:

historian said:

Keyser Soze said:

I the SEC has shown the best path to the playoffs -

Play fewer conference games. Disguise your fewer conference games with at least one good non conference game that is not as hard as an extra conference game.
Not to mention most SEC teams play 3 cream puffs each year (we've been blasted all season long for what is normal for them) and one of them in November. It's a sham & they rarely get called out on it.


Maybe the key is playing a "cream puff" in the sense of a team that should be an automatic win, but that should win the rest of their games, maybe even their conference. Honestly, we've been ripped more about the combined record of the 3 teams we played, than the name on the jersey.
True. But I checked the records of Bama's opponents this year and they are about the same as ours. The double standard is real.

Quote:

They have three losses. They walked into the Oregon game with a QB straight from the HS ranks and beat them.

They aren't bad, but it doesn't make sense that we're even talking about Oregon.
Oregon is a 2 loss team. They are completely out of the playoffs discussion.
REX
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TellMeYouLoveMe said:

Self Made Bear said:

This is a false argument. Had Oregon taken care of business against Arizona State, a team that had lost four in a row, and a team that had a losing conference record, they would be in the playoffs. And if they would have held on to their 4th quarter lead against Auburn, they would be in the playoffs.
And that wasn't a good Auburn team. that's a middle of the road SEC team at best.

If Oregon can't beat Auburn, there is no point discussing them. Pure and simple.

The only reason Oregon is being discussed is because of Nike money. They dont have a lot of followers, they have a small stadium and they haven't beaten anyone. There isn't anything to discuss.

This auburn team would have won the b12 this year
Not good? Do you watch any football at all?
Thanks
RegentCoverup
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Don't you wish.

Thanks for coming out, Rex. Do your son a favor and sit this one out.
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PepperMD said:

I think Oregon missing the playoff (which they should with two losses) makes a compelling argument to expand the playoff to 8 teams. With an eight team playoff (with P5 winners getting automatic bids) programs can be far more aggressive in their nonconference scheduling, and you won't have nearly as many teams largely playing cream puffs in their nonconference games.
I've made this same point in the past, and I think it's a really good one.

When a conference championship earns you automatic inclusion into the playoffs, there's no incentive to schedule soft to avoid losses that might disqualify you in the future. In fact, an eight-team playoff would incentivize tough scheduling as a hedge against failing to win your conference and a boost to your at-large resume.

There are literally no negatives to an expansion to eight teams and a ton of positives. It kills me how slow college football is to make positive and necessary change.
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Self Made Bear said:

This is a false argument. Had Oregon taken care of business against Arizona State, a team that had lost four in a row, and a team that had a losing conference record, they would be in the playoffs. And if they would have held on to their 4th quarter lead against Auburn, they would be in the playoffs.
The two points aren't mutually exclusive. Either loss on its own was enough to overcome. Both were not.

A good comparison this year would be Oklahoma. Put Auburn on Oklahoma's nonconference schedule this year instead of UCLA and there's a good chance they're not playing in the playoff. And you could point at that point to both the nonconference game and their upset loss in Manhattan as the reasons for that.

This is why college football's postseason is so unbelievably stupid. Schedules are in no way, shape or form equitable and are literally impossible to accurately compare. So a four-team playoff forces you to judge teams by ridiculous and ever-changing criteria.

Oregon is every bit as good as Oklahoma this year. In a real playoff system, both would be included.
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Russell Gym said:

Four is better than two, but eight is better than four.

No progress like glacial progress.
That's the only kind that ever occurs in college football unfortunately.

Everyone knows an eight-team playoff is better than four. But we're going to have to wait another five to 10 years to get there -- perhaps going through a stupid six-team format first. And then we'll get to listen to the powers that be brag about their foresight and progress each time they make decisions that could and should have been made decades ago.
bear2be2
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TellMeYouLoveMe said:

They have three losses. They walked into the Oregon game with a QB straight from the HS ranks and beat them.

They aren't bad, but it doesn't make sense that we're even talking about Oregon.
They lost to three top 10 teams by a combined 21 points and beat two other top 15 teams in Oregon and Alabama. That's a really good football team.

The worst thing about this stupid playoff system is that it's conditioned fans to believe that any team not in the final four at the end is not good. That's really unfortunate.
Jorkel
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TellMeYouLoveMe said:

Self Made Bear said:

This is a false argument. Had Oregon taken care of business against Arizona State, a team that had lost four in a row, and a team that had a losing conference record, they would be in the playoffs. And if they would have held on to their 4th quarter lead against Auburn, they would be in the playoffs.
And that wasn't a good Auburn team. that's a middle of the road SEC team at best.

If Oregon can't beat Auburn, there is no point discussing them. Pure and simple.

The only reason Oregon is being discussed is because of Nike money. They dont have a lot of followers, they have a small stadium and they haven't beaten anyone. There isn't anything to discuss.


??? Auburn would have probably been top 3 in the big 12...what does that say about the big 12 if a middle of the road SEC like auburn would be top 3.
RegentCoverup
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The point was that Oregon has no business in the championship.

Auburn played terribly against them and still won.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.