Much has been made of the committee's stance on scheduling P5 out of conference games. Over the last 10 years we have played Fla St, Miss St,, Arizona twice, Wash St, twice and Georgia twice. You have to go back to 2006 to find a non-conference schedule as weak as this year. Next year we play Pitt and then Boise St comes after that. You only have to go back about 7 years to find Bama playing Hawaii, ULM, and Fla Int one season and then Western Carolina, Houston and ULM the next.
What I am getting at is that every so many years due to quirks in scheduling or cancellations, almost every team in America will have a weak schedule. Logistics just do not work out every year. Also, budgetary constraints are an issue not discussed or considered by the committee. For years, Arkansas refused to play us home and home because they could make so much more money by playing in Fayetteville. The monetary guarantees to P% schools is much greater and almost every P5 school expects or demands a home and home. Smaller schools will play away from home for a lot less money and still make more revenue than they get from their home games.
Of course the CFP is still in it's infancy and a lot of changes will be made but to me it is unfair to penalize a team like OSU this year for a weak schedule when for years we have had a very competitive out of conference game. When this schedule was made the CFP did not even exist and even if it had we would have no foreknown knowledge that we would be in the discussion for a playoff berth. What I am saying is that the teams that have what the CFP considers to be a competitive schedule is more out of luck and circumstance rather than a predetermined plan. I do not particularly like being lumped in with a school like Baylor that has not even tried to schedule a P5 team and is still openly defiant to anyone who suggests that they do.
I would be much more inclined to be complimentory or at least conciliatory to the committee if they would accurately outline the criteria they are going to use and then allow a 2 or 3 year grace period for teams to comply rather than to come in with the haughty attitude that they are going to make the rules as they go to fit the teams that they have a predetermined bias for.
A good portion of the committee has had at least a partial input into scheduling futures games and should realize that not all of scheduling issues can be ironed out in just 1 or 2 years
What I am getting at is that every so many years due to quirks in scheduling or cancellations, almost every team in America will have a weak schedule. Logistics just do not work out every year. Also, budgetary constraints are an issue not discussed or considered by the committee. For years, Arkansas refused to play us home and home because they could make so much more money by playing in Fayetteville. The monetary guarantees to P% schools is much greater and almost every P5 school expects or demands a home and home. Smaller schools will play away from home for a lot less money and still make more revenue than they get from their home games.
Of course the CFP is still in it's infancy and a lot of changes will be made but to me it is unfair to penalize a team like OSU this year for a weak schedule when for years we have had a very competitive out of conference game. When this schedule was made the CFP did not even exist and even if it had we would have no foreknown knowledge that we would be in the discussion for a playoff berth. What I am saying is that the teams that have what the CFP considers to be a competitive schedule is more out of luck and circumstance rather than a predetermined plan. I do not particularly like being lumped in with a school like Baylor that has not even tried to schedule a P5 team and is still openly defiant to anyone who suggests that they do.
I would be much more inclined to be complimentory or at least conciliatory to the committee if they would accurately outline the criteria they are going to use and then allow a 2 or 3 year grace period for teams to comply rather than to come in with the haughty attitude that they are going to make the rules as they go to fit the teams that they have a predetermined bias for.
A good portion of the committee has had at least a partial input into scheduling futures games and should realize that not all of scheduling issues can be ironed out in just 1 or 2 years
