This is why every conference should play 9 games. Look at this strength of schedule from top 5 teams for next season.
Ohio State: 15
Bama, UGA, Clemson walking to the playoffs.
— jbook (@jbook37) January 17, 2018
Saw this tweet from Jonah Booker today (of 247Sports), and it both frustrated me, and made me wonder about the impact this scheduling discrepancy has on a variety of factors.
1. Obviously it has an impact on our likelihood to make the playoffs in 2018. In a game where a few inches often defines a season, having a SoS that is 3x harder (Edit: not literally, people, but still measurably harder) than a team like Clemson is absurd, and frankly, unfair. A top flight SoS should be weighted more heavily, but we know after last season's snub (it was a snub - Bama beat no one) that SoS isn't that heavily weighted if you're a top tier/brand school. Just don't lose 2 games. (Edit: This is not an Iowa post, people.)
2. On a more macro level, I wonder how these SoS differences will ultimately affect Urban's legacy. For example, this year we would have made the playoffs if we'd played Mercer instead of Oklahoma (or Mercer instead of Iowa in an 8-game conference slate). It could have meant another National Championship for Urban's legacy, or at the very least, it would have meant another Playoff appearance for Urban (and NOT one for Saban's legacy).
Anyway, just a few thoughts on the matter. What are yours?