@hoosierdaddy great in theory, but money talks. Notre Dame fills seats and gets eyeballs.
That’s great until Notre Dame keeps an SEC or B1G team from getting in the playoffs. The athletic directors from these two conferences don’t give a shit about filled seats and eyeballs. They want their team in.
This P4 non conference scheduling is the old way of thinking. It built resumes, it gave you a additional presence (geographically speaking) in recruiting and name recognition. That said, in the current climate (NIL, Transfer Portal, expanded CFP, Super Conferences) the juice isn't nearly worth the squeeze that it once was.
A good friend will bail you out of jail, but your best friend will be sitting next to you in the cell saying "that was f***ing awesome"
@kelly_32 probably. We’ll see if they have the guts to not play them.
@surjay No they won't. The SEC will now go 8-8 in an extra week over 14-2 or 15-1. Those 8-4 (4-4) teams don't look at good when it's 7-5 (4-5) or 6-6 (3-6) right?
What is the actual benefit of playing a Power 4 non-conference home-and-home? Outside of making a few fans happy for 20 minutes.
People are really also overlooking the fact IU wants 7 home games a year and that means in years thaey play four conference games at home (like 2025) they need to have three OOC games at home. IU is not willing to give away a home game to play some P4 school on the road because some people at ESPN are upset with IU's scheduling
I don't buy it for a second. The SEC is already over-inflated over the B1G from their pre-portal history and ESPN bias. Iowa/Ill would probably be ranked in the SEC as-is, but they're perceived as lesser (regardless of conference head-to-head last year in the postseason).
I don't think there is any possible way an SEC team with an extra loss won't be considered equal or better to a B1G team with an extra win (and a "weaker" schedule).
I also don't buy the entire argument and think it solely boils down to being IU fans and this is just how Cig is scheduling. If this was PU with the success and this scheduling philosophy I don't think its a stretch to think the tone on this board would be dramatically different about it.
I have been hammering my scheduling point for over a decade. It's not a Cig thing. Right now and in prior seasons, there was never any reason for IU to schedule anything but automatics wins in the non-conference. Back when you had 4 OOC games, sure I'll listen to your argument about adding Kentucky or someone like that. That's been over 10 years.
In 2013 IU scheduled home games with Missouri and Navy. They eneded up being two pretty damn good teams. Did they sell out Memorial Stadium? No. Did they win, no? IU finished 5-7 and missed the postseason because they scheduled dumb games to appease some portion of the fan base.
As it stands now, and even with the SEC moving to nine conference games, there is ZERO reason to schedule a P4 team OOC until you are forced to.
Purdue getting their butts kicked by Notre Dame really is doing them favors. They have not won a P4 game in basically two years.
It's not college basketball where you can survive a loss to a good team. It's 12 games and wins matter. IU has arguably the best win in CFB this year at Oregon. They are so narrowly behind Ohio State and in front of mighty SEC teams Texas A&M and Alabama.
So please tell me why would IU change anything until they are forced to. It has not kept them out of the Playoff and Quite frankly a 10-2 IU team with a loss at Louisville instead of a 77-3 win over Western Illinois doesn't sniff the CFP.
...10-2?So please tell me why would IU change anything until they are forced to. It has not kept them out of the Playoff and Quite frankly a 10-2 IU team with a loss at Louisville instead of a 77-3 win over Western Illinois doesn't sniff the CFP.
At 11-1 and with a win over Louisville we would have a home game in the playoffs and not have faced Notre Dame at their place.
...10-2?So please tell me why would IU change anything until they are forced to. It has not kept them out of the Playoff and Quite frankly a 10-2 IU team with a loss at Louisville instead of a 77-3 win over Western Illinois doesn't sniff the CFP.
At 11-1 and with a win over Louisville we would have a home game in the playoffs and not have faced Notre Dame at their place.
So would you rather be in and go to ND for the first game? Or not be in at all?
A game vs Louisville was no 100% proposition, like WIU. You're just assuming we'd have beaten Louisville...and would beat them every time we played them or a similar OOC opponent going forward.
@openwheel no we wouldn’t, the committee doesn’t care for Louisville. We would have had to beat a big boy to do that, which would have been basically an extra playoff game for us (win and in)
the argument for scheduling hard teams lacks merit, there is zero evidence to support it does anything but hurt.
which teams in the playoff conversation have benefited from their OOC matchups?
even blue blood, SEC Oklahoma is barely in front of Utah and they scheduled Michigan!
If we lost to last year's Louisville team, we weren't doing what we did the rest of the season. Come on......10-2?So please tell me why would IU change anything until they are forced to. It has not kept them out of the Playoff and Quite frankly a 10-2 IU team with a loss at Louisville instead of a 77-3 win over Western Illinois doesn't sniff the CFP.
At 11-1 and with a win over Louisville we would have a home game in the playoffs and not have faced Notre Dame at their place.
So would you rather be in and go to ND for the first game? Or not be in at all?
A game vs Louisville was no 100% proposition, like WIU. You're just assuming we'd have beaten Louisville...and would beat them every time we played them or a similar OOC opponent going forward.
I'm fine with our scheduling.
But most of you count the tougher games as losses to 'bolster' your argument that the team otherwise is great and would make the playoffs without that loss to mid-majors.
I'm fine with our scheduling.@openwheel no we wouldn’t, the committee doesn’t care for Louisville. We would have had to beat a big boy to do that, which would have been basically an extra playoff game for us (win and in)
the argument for scheduling hard teams lacks merit, there is zero evidence to support it does anything but hurt.
which teams in the playoff conversation have benefited from their OOC matchups?
even blue blood, SEC Oklahoma is barely in front of Utah and they scheduled Michigan!
But we were right on the cusp of a better seed. Beating Louisville could've easily tipped the sales. Our 'metrics' would've been improved.
And no, sorry, I will not count playing Louisville last year as 'a loss' . lol
@openwheel It's an unnecessary risk is all. There were also other reasons that series was cancelled during the Allen era.
If we lost to last year's Louisville team, we weren't doing what we did the rest of the season. Come on......10-2?So please tell me why would IU change anything until they are forced to. It has not kept them out of the Playoff and Quite frankly a 10-2 IU team with a loss at Louisville instead of a 77-3 win over Western Illinois doesn't sniff the CFP.
At 11-1 and with a win over Louisville we would have a home game in the playoffs and not have faced Notre Dame at their place.
So would you rather be in and go to ND for the first game? Or not be in at all?
A game vs Louisville was no 100% proposition, like WIU. You're just assuming we'd have beaten Louisville...and would beat them every time we played them or a similar OOC opponent going forward.
I'm fine with our scheduling.
But most of you count the tougher games as losses to 'bolster' your argument that the team otherwise is great and would make the playoffs without that loss to mid-majors.
What??? We were in a dogfight with Maryland until the 2nd half last year...and we STILL did what we did the rest of the year after that game. We got better every week...so we 100% could have lost to U of L in week 2 or 4 and still did what we did last year.
I'm fine with our scheduling.@openwheel no we wouldn’t, the committee doesn’t care for Louisville. We would have had to beat a big boy to do that, which would have been basically an extra playoff game for us (win and in)
the argument for scheduling hard teams lacks merit, there is zero evidence to support it does anything but hurt.
which teams in the playoff conversation have benefited from their OOC matchups?
even blue blood, SEC Oklahoma is barely in front of Utah and they scheduled Michigan!
But we were right on the cusp of a better seed. Beating Louisville could've easily tipped the sales. Our 'metrics' would've been improved.
And no, sorry, I will not count playing Louisville last year as 'a loss' . lol
So how about this?
You've got $1,000 to gamble. You have to spend it all on one wager...Moneyline. You get to choose whether you're going to wager on us to beat Western Illinois last year. Or Louisville. Which one are you choosing?
@kelly_32 ND is benefiting from two close losses, especially A&M. Their win streak is nice, but the Irish haven't exactly been facing stiff competition beyond USC (who's barely stiff, imo).
- Purdue (2-7)
- Arkansas (2-7)
- Boise State (6-3)
- NC State (5-4)
- BC (1-8)
So ND has beaten three teams that are likely going bowl-ing: USC, Boise St, and NC St. Their best win is actually the A&M loss.
I assume Louisville, because the moneyline on Western will earn me about a nickel.
Would you rather beat Louisville and get the home playoff game? Or beat Western and play at Notre Dame?
With the way the committee ranks things. I was fine with Old Dominion. I thought it was an interesting game.
But those in favor or cupcakes always try to pretend there's no upside to strength of schedule. This is. Whether it's worth it or not is the question. And it isn't... Usually. Just tired of the 'always assume we lost to that mid p4 team!' arguments.
And then on the flipside 'the committee won't rank us any better with a win over a P4 from another conference!' Which is also wrong.