Cecil Hurt
TideSports.com Columnist
We can all agree the Big Ten is the dorky fat kid we made fun of in elementary school. You'd tease him and punch him in the arm with impunity because even if he chased you, he'd be far too slow to catch you. And when he tripped over his untied shoelaces and fell flat on his face, the way the Big Ten did on Saturday, even the teacher stifled a chuckle.
But let's stop bullying the Big Ten. It's time to pause and reflect on whether that league - or any major league - is really "out of the playoff" after two weeks of the season.
The Big Ten's image is tarnished today. After two weeks of college football, the league is 1-5 against opponents from the other "Power 5" conferences. The one win was Rutgers beating Washington State and some of the losses (see Michigan-Notre Dame) were embarrassing. The question, though, isn't whether the Big Ten is the best league. It isn't.
The question is whether the Big Ten can produce a team that belongs among the best four in America. That may come down to the hazy concept of "strength of schedule."
In other words, the flickering Big Ten hopes depend on how the new selection committee "rewards" teams for taking scheduling risks. Judging by this weekend, they will either decide what USC athletic director Pat Haden wants or he will scream at everybody else until he does. But that is a different story. The question is, if Michigan State can regroup and finish as the 12-1 league champions, what penalty do you exact for their loss at Oregon? The argument is a strong one. Oregon is a good team and Autzen Stadium would be a tough place to win for any team - Alabama, Florida State, Oklahoma or anyone else.
Plus, early season games between good teams are exactly what most college football fans want to see. Alabama needs to reward its Tuscaloosa ticket holders with just such a home/away series in the near future.
Without knowing what the committee is going to do, there is a widespread expectation that they will reward programs that step up in their nonconference schedules.
At the same time, there's the rub. Now that Michigan State has gotten thumped at Oregon, what good is their conference schedule going to do them? What can they do now to impress anyone? And does the fact they scheduled a good nonconference game really make their schedule "tougher" than, for example, Auburn's, with seven remaining games against teams currently in the Top 25? (Hint: it's not.) If Auburn (or Alabama or LSU) finish with one loss, shouldn't they rank ahead of a one-loss Michigan State?
If not, is the committee saying that scheduling one big game in September outweighs eight or nine games in a mediocre league? Intentions don't help. When BYU scheduled a game against Texas, the Cougars had every reason to believe they were "scheduling tough." Instead, BYU may finish undefeated - but with no real schedule strength to show.
Making it all more confusing is the fact that, according to Stuart Mandel of Fox Sports, the committee isn't going to incorporate any strength of schedule analytics in its consideration, but will go with the theory that "you know a tough schedule when you see it," which translates into the SPHI - the Screaming Pat Haden Index.
As I have said before, it is too early to definitively include or exclude any team from the playoff - even a Big Ten team - unless it already has two bad losses.
Sorry, Vanderbilt fans.
https://alabama.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1678891
TideSports.com Columnist
We can all agree the Big Ten is the dorky fat kid we made fun of in elementary school. You'd tease him and punch him in the arm with impunity because even if he chased you, he'd be far too slow to catch you. And when he tripped over his untied shoelaces and fell flat on his face, the way the Big Ten did on Saturday, even the teacher stifled a chuckle.
But let's stop bullying the Big Ten. It's time to pause and reflect on whether that league - or any major league - is really "out of the playoff" after two weeks of the season.
The Big Ten's image is tarnished today. After two weeks of college football, the league is 1-5 against opponents from the other "Power 5" conferences. The one win was Rutgers beating Washington State and some of the losses (see Michigan-Notre Dame) were embarrassing. The question, though, isn't whether the Big Ten is the best league. It isn't.
The question is whether the Big Ten can produce a team that belongs among the best four in America. That may come down to the hazy concept of "strength of schedule."
In other words, the flickering Big Ten hopes depend on how the new selection committee "rewards" teams for taking scheduling risks. Judging by this weekend, they will either decide what USC athletic director Pat Haden wants or he will scream at everybody else until he does. But that is a different story. The question is, if Michigan State can regroup and finish as the 12-1 league champions, what penalty do you exact for their loss at Oregon? The argument is a strong one. Oregon is a good team and Autzen Stadium would be a tough place to win for any team - Alabama, Florida State, Oklahoma or anyone else.
Plus, early season games between good teams are exactly what most college football fans want to see. Alabama needs to reward its Tuscaloosa ticket holders with just such a home/away series in the near future.
Without knowing what the committee is going to do, there is a widespread expectation that they will reward programs that step up in their nonconference schedules.
At the same time, there's the rub. Now that Michigan State has gotten thumped at Oregon, what good is their conference schedule going to do them? What can they do now to impress anyone? And does the fact they scheduled a good nonconference game really make their schedule "tougher" than, for example, Auburn's, with seven remaining games against teams currently in the Top 25? (Hint: it's not.) If Auburn (or Alabama or LSU) finish with one loss, shouldn't they rank ahead of a one-loss Michigan State?
If not, is the committee saying that scheduling one big game in September outweighs eight or nine games in a mediocre league? Intentions don't help. When BYU scheduled a game against Texas, the Cougars had every reason to believe they were "scheduling tough." Instead, BYU may finish undefeated - but with no real schedule strength to show.
Making it all more confusing is the fact that, according to Stuart Mandel of Fox Sports, the committee isn't going to incorporate any strength of schedule analytics in its consideration, but will go with the theory that "you know a tough schedule when you see it," which translates into the SPHI - the Screaming Pat Haden Index.
As I have said before, it is too early to definitively include or exclude any team from the playoff - even a Big Ten team - unless it already has two bad losses.
Sorry, Vanderbilt fans.
https://alabama.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1678891
