November 29, 2005
Who has the toughest schedule?
With the season pretty much in the books, here are the NCAA's official statistics on strength of schedule, with data through November 26, 2005.
1 . Michigan
2 . Oklahoma
3 . Stanford
4 . Ohio St.
5 . Arkansas
6 . North Carolina
7 . South Fla.
8 . Kansas
9 . Georgia Tech
10 . Northwestern
10 . Minnesota
12 . Tennessee
13 . Penn St.
14 . South Carolina
15 . Texas A&M
16 . Temple
17 . Arizona
17 . Georgia
17 . Washington St.
20 . Colorado
21 . North Carolina St.
22 . Florida
23 . Southern California
23 . Texas
25 . Ball St.
26 . Virginia Tech
26 . Baylor
28 . Maryland
29 . Duke
30 . Oregon St.
31 . Army
32 . Rice
33 . Illinois
34 . Purdue
34 . Iowa
36 . Oklahoma St.
37 . Brigham Young
38 . Cincinnati
39 . Texas Tech
40 . Auburn
41 . Arizona St.
41 . Missouri
43 . Boston College
44 . Nebraska
45 . Colorado St.
45 . Florida St.
47 . Washington
48 . LSU
49 . Oregon
49 . West Virginia
51 . Pittsburgh
52 . Central Mich.
53 . Fresno St.
53 . Michigan St.
55 . Alabama
56 . Wake Forest
57 . Miami (Fla.)
58 . San Diego St.
59 . Mississippi St.
60 . Indiana
61 . Northern Ill.
62 . Kentucky
63 . Notre Dame
64 . Marshall
65 . Syracuse
66 . Southern Miss.
66 . Wisconsin
68 . Vanderbilt
69 . Hawaii
70 . Kansas St.
71 . Memphis
72 . Iowa St.
73 . TCU
73 . Virginia
73 . Wyoming
76 . UCLA
76 . Clemson
78 . Houston
79 . Ohio
80 . New Mexico St.
81 . Tulsa
82 . Mississippi
83 . New Mexico
83 . UNLV
85 . Air Force
86 . California
87 . Connecticut
88 . Boise St.
89 . UCF
90 . La.-Lafayette
91 . North Texas
92 . Southern Methodist
93 . Utah
93 . Bowling Green
95 . Eastern Mich.
96 . UAB
97 . East Caro.
98 . Utah St.
99 . Tulane
100 . Kent St.
100 . Toledo
102 . Rutgers
103 . Louisville
104 . Louisiana Tech
105 . Akron
106 . Middle Tenn. St.
107 . Buffalo
108 . Miami (Ohio)
109 . Troy
110 . Nevada
111 . San Jose St.
112 . Western Mich.
113 . La.-Monroe
114 . UTEP
115 . Idaho
116 . Arkansas St.
117 . Navy
Comments:
Aaron said:
posted on November 29, 2005 3:10 PM — 192.207.114.20 — link — abuse?
Neville, I'm quite sure that the NCAA doesn't think Appalachian State's schedule was tougher than Stanford's. They're measuring SOS compared to the respective divisions. Appalachian State's schedule may very well be the equivalent of Michigan's only in 1AA.
Neville said:
posted on November 29, 2005 3:26 PM — 68.97.4.4 — link — abuse?
Aaron you are missing my point completely. Look at the link. My point is that the title of the page is "Toughest Schedule", and the website is in the domain ncaa.org. Therefore it is completely reasonable an analyst can get on camera on ESPN and say "According to officially published statistics from the NCAA, Appalachain State had a tougher schedule in 2005 than Texas". This unscrupulous reporter could use that one liner as a justification to a follow up point that Penn State deserves the Rose Bowl more than Texas, or however you want to twist and make your point.
This list is not about what the NCAA thinks (whatever that means). If this does accurately represent the sentiment of the collective minds of the NCAA, then higher education is in bad shape in this country!
Regan said:
posted on November 29, 2005 4:00 PM — 205.188.116.199 — link — abuse?
Texas Tech is ranked #39 of 117 playing in a terribly down year for the Big 12 overall plus a Non-Conference slate of Florida-International and 2x Division I-AA schools.
This list is terrible, I don't care if the NCAA compiled it or not.
Greg said:
posted on November 29, 2005 5:27 PM — 70.162.110.95 — link — abuse?
The list really is awful. Look at ASU at 41 for example. They played 10-1 LSU, 10-1 Oregon, 10-0 USC, 9-1 UCLA. Thats a combined 39-3 for those opponents right there. I don't think Rice (WAC), Baylor (terrible big 12), South Florida (big east) Texas Tech or many of the others ahead of them come anywhere near that schedule. Honestly, what is this list?
Nick said:
posted on November 29, 2005 7:32 PM — 69.170.34.2 — link — abuse?
As has been said, the major problem with these rankings is the fact that it's based solely upon the ir opponents win-loss records, despite who they played. This would mean that playing the 7-4 Western Michigan Broncos is exactly equivalent to playing the 7-4 Michigan Wolverines.
As for Texas Tech, the two Div. 1-AA schools they played are not included in the rankings, hence their surprisingly high spot.
Neville said:
posted on November 29, 2005 10:27 PM — 68.97.4.4 — link — abuse?
Skip, In this case the answer is yes. Exactly what purpose does it serve for the NCAA to have this content on their website? If I understood the need of why they complie and post this data, especially under misleading titles (such as Toughest Schedule) I could be more understanding. But this, as posted and served up is just fodder for sharks, and the ncaa, if it is a responsbile organization, should know that and not create the environment where that potential situation can come up in the first place. It's not a big deal here limited to posting on fanblogs but the first time a school official tries to pull public opinion by referencing this list - it will be a big deal then. Think Mack Brown making his case last year and pointing to this list as proof Texas should be in the BCS as opposed to Cal. When that happens, a lot of people will listen becasue they trust the source (ncaa), and they should not in this case. It is well documented this list is garbage.
I probably give the NCAA too much credit. Come to think of it, as an organization it comes off as a bunch of idiots. Perhaps they know that and don't mind coming off that way. I guess that's why college football is so fun to watch and debate. A real system where accountability is transparent and enforced for refs and best teams are decided on the field as opposed to media/popular opinion just would not be as much fun for fans to blog about.Tommie Trojan said:
posted on November 30, 2005 12:35 AM — 208.57.130.196 — link — abuse?
Just as I would have suspected: California looks as if they play the easiest schedule in the Pac-10. No doubt! Tedford is a total wimp! Won't even play Fresno and was a graduate there! Played QB there and doesn't want to risk a loss. He ought to succeed from the Pac-10 and join the SEC or BEC. Well, playing his pansie-azz schedule sure helped him when he came up against the "BIG BOYZ", didn't it?
Hey, ya know, I can respect Oklahoma, for taking their lumps during a transition and still playing good teams. But Cal - no way! And UCLA isn't much behind them. They both blow. I guess the "Bruins" (notice they are both Bears (lazy)) will move up slightly after getting the crap kicked out of them this week. Yep, that's how you build winning programs - just play the lousiest teams you can find for your OOC games and hope that you get lucky during your conference games. Well, Cal did get lucky once (took three OT's for the miracle to manifest itself) and almost twice. But, not this year! They were pretty much exposed as the rest of the Pac-10 carved them up. I hate teams that play cupcake schedules.Tommie Trojan
Pau said:
posted on November 30, 2005 9:42 AM — 149.101.1.121 — link — abuse?
Can we get an analysis of "perceived" strength of schedule? I guess that would be determined by using pre-season rankings. I hate ND, but I think they have a fair argument to shut Mark May up (and I hate him more than ND)- they scheduled tough opponnets [sorry- can't spell] who all turned out to suck: MSU, scUM, Tennessee, Pitt, etc.
Paul Kislanko said:
posted on November 30, 2005 2:12 PM — 70.157.20.254 — link — abuse?
There's an infinite number of ways to characterize schedules, and none of them are "wrong", but some of them (like the NCAA's PC version) are, ahem, "less useful" than others.
One of mine is to use Ken Massey's list of all computer rankings to come up with a combination of how tough the toughest opponents are and how many tough opponents there were.
My list:
index ISS Best Median Worst Team Power Conf
1 -4.3 3 23 95 Michigan 13 B10 44 9 95 18 38 22 3 23 25 78 5
2 1.7 4 26 107 North Carolina 43 ACC 26 18 40 64 21 39 8 19 47 107 4
3 3.5 1 25 96 Ohio State 5 B10 57 1 68 23 3 38 78 22 96 25 13
4 7.9 3 25 96 Purdue 37 B10 81 79 22 9 23 25 18 3 38 96 78
5 10.2 3 25 118 Michigan St 38 B10 118 91 9 96 13 5 25 78 37 22 3
6 11.1 3 34 97 Northwestern 25 B10 97 44 34 3 18 37 38 13 23 5 96
7 13.6 3 35 110 Illinois 96 B10 53 110 35 38 23 78 3 18 5 37 25
8 15.7 5 36 96 Penn State 3 B10 36 89 58 25 22 5 13 96 37 18 38
9 16.5 6 30 99 Tennessee 46 SEC 86 20 6 99 12 14 30 9 71 70 94
10 16.5 3 37 113 Minnesota 22 B10 52 55 113 37 3 13 18 5 78 38 23
11 17.9 8 33 107 Wake Forest 66 ACC 70 32 85 47 27 33 19 40 107 26 8
12 18.3 4 39 107 Georgia Tech 26 ACC 10 43 76 4 40 107 27 66 39 8 12
13 18.9 1 31 120 Texas A&M 48 B12 27 84 120 56 28 80 61 31 15 24 1
14 19.4 5 31 120 Iowa 23 B10 87 31 120 5 96 37 78 13 25 18 22
15 20.2 1 42 80 Oklahoma 24 B12 16 52 17 61 1 42 56 32 48 15 80
16 21.3 2 35 120 Stanford 50 P10 72 120 7 75 79 34 17 2 59 35 9
17 21.5 2 30 120 Arkansas 67 SEC 120 70 2 14 103 10 12 30 99 100 6
18 21.7 4 39 116 Maryland 47 ACC 72 27 11 66 39 116 4 33 43 19 40
19 22.3 2 35 115 Washington 93 P10 88 35 115 9 17 7 2 34 59 79 75
20 22.3 1 32 120 Kansas 42 B12 113 120 83 15 61 24 28 45 32 1 31
21 23.7 4 36 116 Miami-Florida 8 ACC 33 27 28 36 107 116 43 4 66 26 39
22 23.8 7 35 93 Southern California 2 P10 91 67 7 34 79 9 93 75 50 35 29 17
23 24.1 2 37 120 Arizona 79 P10 64 120 37 35 2 50 7 59 17 93 34
24 24.6 5 37 120 Indiana 78 B10 58 120 94 18 96 23 5 38 22 13 37
25 26.3 8 39 107 Virginia Tech 4 ACC 40 107 97 26 11 98 47 19 8 39 43 33
26 26.5 4 39 120 Duke 107 ACC 85 4 120 39 72 8 26 33 66 27 43
27 28.5 9 39 117 Syracuse 104 BigE 11 117 39 33 76 53 60 89 36 9 21
28 29.0 3 37 116 Wisconsin 18 B10 77 116 43 13 78 25 22 37 96 3 23 91
29 29.1 4 39 120 Florida St 33 ACC 8 120 19 104 66 39 107 47 40 27 20 4
30 29.1 8 40 116 Clemson 27 ACC 48 47 8 19 66 40 116 26 107 33 30
31 30.5 4 43 87 Boston College 19 ACC 54 82 33 27 87 39 66 4 43 40 47
32 32.1 6 41 103 Georgia 12 SEC 41 30 103 100 46 70 67 20 10 94 26 6
33 32.5 1 45 119 Colorado 28 B12 55 119 8 80 48 1 42 61 45 31 32
34 32.7 10 46 105 South Carolina 30 SEC 49 12 14 105 10 94 70 46 67 20 27
35 32.7 8 47 77 Temple 116 Ind 34 18 51 73 77 47 8 27 57 39 72
36 32.8 4 43 120 North Carolina St 40 ACC 4 120 43 26 27 66 62 33 19 101 47
37 33.0 7 41 120 Oregon St 59 P10 120 41 21 34 75 35 17 79 93 50 7
38 34.6 5 45 111 Texas 1 B12 92 5 111 45 24 28 15 80 56 42 48
39 34.8 15 45 120 Nebraska 32 B12 120 66 60 31 15 56 45 24 42 61 28
40 35.0 15 42 114 Kansas St 61 B12 106 98 114 24 42 15 48 28 31 32 45
41 35.7 4 43 116 Virginia 39 ACC 73 104 107 47 19 33 43 116 26 4 8
42 36.1 1 45 120 Baylor 56 B12 84 120 82 48 31 32 24 15 1 45 80
43 38.0 1 45 120 Oklahoma St 80 B12 120 113 102 28 45 48 31 1 15 56 24
44 38.1 2 50 116 Arizona St 34 P10 116 6 25 59 2 7 50 93 75 17 79
45 38.5 6 46 100 Florida 20 SEC 90 83 46 94 14 100 6 12 70 30 33
46 41.1 10 46 120 Kentucky 94 SEC 21 120 78 20 30 99 100 10 70 12 46
47 41.7 2 50 104 Notre Dame 9 Ind 60 13 38 93 37 2 54 46 72 104 50
48 44.1 23 48 120 Iowa State 31 B12 120 23 82 32 56 45 80 48 61 28 42
49 44.1 2 50 120 Washington St 75 P10 115 63 120 59 50 17 35 2 34 7 93
50 44.8 10 46 120 LSU 6 SEC 34 46 100 70 20 10 114 120 14 99 67 12
51 47.0 3 53 120 South Florida 36 BigE 3 120 49 21 8 60 53 104 89 76 11
52 51.2 1 56 105 Missouri 45 B12 102 69 105 1 80 31 32 42 28 56 61
53 51.9 9 53 120 Pittsburgh 60 BigE 9 97 32 120 53 89 36 104 21 76 11
54 54.8 3 57 120 Cincinnati 89 BigE 95 3 120 57 60 76 21 104 11 36 53
55 55.1 10 58 97 Ball State 87 MAC 23 77 10 19 73 51 97 44 81 95 58
56 56.3 2 59 111 UCLA 17 P10 68 111 24 93 35 75 59 50 79 34 2
57 58.1 2 59 120 Oregon 7 P10 74 120 29 2 50 34 93 79 35 75 59
58 58.7 1 56 120 Texas Tech 15 B12 106 120 120 42 32 61 1 56 48 80 24
59 61.0 6 62 108 Alabama 14 SEC 101 62 30 67 20 99 46 108 100 6 10
60 63.2 4 60 120 West Virginia 11 BigE 104 120 47 85 4 53 21 76 89 60 36
61 64.1 6 67 120 Mississippi St 100 SEC 120 10 112 12 6 20 74 94 14 67 99
62 65.0 16 64 109 Colorado St 55 MW 28 22 63 88 64 54 90 69 16 68 109
63 65.4 11 60 120 Connecticut 76 BigE 117 120 26 82 104 89 53 11 60 36 21
64 66.1 6 66 120 Vanderbilt 70 SEC 66 67 99 120 101 6 12 30 20 94 46
65 66.5 6 67 120 Auburn 10 SEC 26 100 87 120 30 67 6 99 94 12 14
66 66.8 4 60 118 Ohio 97 MAC 25 60 4 118 77 58 87 117 51 81 57
67 67.1 11 60 113 Louisville 21 BigE 94 59 36 113 43 11 89 60 53 104 76
68 68.0 5 64 110 San Diego St 68 MW 17 88 5 110 54 109 64 69 16 55 90 91
69 69.2 2 63 119 Hawaii 91 WAC 2 38 115 41 83 119 110 29 63 108 18 68
70 72.3 9 68 120 BYU 54 MW 19 120 16 68 69 55 9 88 109 90 64
71 72.5 6 70 120 Mississippi 99 SEC 71 70 90 46 120 14 94 10 67 6 100
72 74.8 28 65 115 New Mexico St 119 WAC 65 28 69 35 83 29 91 115 41 63 110 108
73 75.3 16 65 119 New Mexico 69 MW 109 45 119 65 16 54 90 68 55 64 88
74 75.4 1 72 112 Rice 111 CUSA 17 1 86 85 52 72 65 84 112 49 74
75 75.7 16 68 109 Wyoming 90 MW 20 103 88 99 109 16 69 55 64 54 68
76 77.4 16 72 120 Army 82 Ind 19 56 31 76 58 16 81 88 120 102 72
77 79.2 16 69 109 Air Force 88 MW 93 68 90 64 55 72 109 16 54 82 69
78 79.8 16 68 115 UNLV 109 MW 69 115 63 108 90 68 88 64 54 16 55
79 79.8 16 69 109 Utah 64 MW 79 108 16 88 43 55 68 109 90 69 54
80 80.2 2 75 120 California 35 P10 120 93 96 119 79 17 59 75 7 2 50
81 80.5 24 69 109 TCU 16 MW 24 84 64 54 69 90 82 88 68 55 109
82 83.5 11 71 111 East Carolina 85 CUSA 107 66 11 62 111 84 71 49 52 98 86
83 83.6 4 71 120 Marshall 98 CUSA 120 61 49 84 4 86 65 112 62 85 71
84 83.7 13 73 120 Northern Illinois 44 MAC 13 25 120 81 57 95 118 87 58 51 73
85 83.8 22 71 114 Tulsa 52 CUSA 22 24 114 71 74 62 111 84 65 85 112 49
86 85.6 13 73 118 Eastern Michigan 95 MAC 89 92 13 58 118 51 44 57 73 87 117
87 86.0 3 78 97 Central Michigan 58 MAC 78 57 3 95 81 82 97 51 44 73 87
88 86.7 7 71 120 Houston 74 CUSA 7 120 65 52 112 71 100 49 62 84 111
89 86.8 14 74 120 Southern Miss 62 CUSA 14 120 85 52 49 86 40 98 74 71 112
90 87.0 16 74 112 SMU 84 CUSA 56 16 48 112 98 86 85 52 111 74 65
91 88.9 11 76 120 Rutgers 53 BigE 96 120 117 60 11 104 76 72 36 21 89
92 89.8 30 74 112 UCF 49 CUSA 30 36 98 92 71 62 112 85 74 86 111 52
93 90.0 46 74 120 Memphis 71 CUSA 99 120 52 65 49 74 85 86 46 62 98
94 94.6 49 74 120 Tulane 112 CUSA 100 84 120 74 65 49 98 72 111 52 62
95 96.2 38 77 120 Kent St 118 MAC 38 120 57 97 95 72 44 73 77 117 81
96 97.2 51 77 118 Buffalo 117 MAC 76 104 53 73 81 77 51 97 57 118 95
97 98.8 18 81 118 Bowling Green 77 MAC 18 87 41 116 97 117 73 81 118 57 51
98 98.8 2 83 120 Fresno St 29 WAC 120 7 51 119 108 115 91 110 41 2 63 83
99 99.2 14 83 119 Utah St 108 WAC 64 109 115 110 29 41 14 83 91 63 119
100 101.5 37 82 118 Akron 81 MAC 37 101 44 58 117 57 82 77 87 97 118
101 105.2 12 83 120 Boise St 41 WAC 12 59 77 91 120 110 108 63 119 29 115 83
102 105.5 46 84 120 UAB 86 CUSA 46 105 120 111 84 98 62 71 49 65 85
103 108.5 20 91 119 Louisiana Tech 83 WAC 20 42 119 91 63 114 110 108 115 41 29
104 109.2 9 88 118 Navy 72 Ind 47 50 107 88 118 111 53 112 9 116 82
105 110.0 29 87 120 Toledo 51 MAC 120 73 116 29 95 87 117 58 97 44 77
106 110.5 5 89 118 Miami-Ohio 57 MAC 5 58 118 89 44 81 95 116 117 77 97
107 110.8 39 87 120 Western Michigan 73 MAC 39 51 120 116 117 87 77 118 95 58 44
108 114.7 29 91 119 Idaho 115 WAC 75 109 93 91 108 63 29 119 83 41 110
109 115.8 29 91 120 San Jose St 110 WAC 120 96 68 63 108 41 91 83 29 119 115
110 116.0 29 91 119 Nevada 63 WAC 75 109 55 110 115 83 41 91 119 108 29
111 116.5 52 86 120 UTEP 65 CUSA 119 74 69 71 112 98 111 52 120 86 84
112 121.7 21 101 114 Florida Atlantic 113 SBC 42 80 22 103 21 92 101 102 105 114 106
113 125.0 6 101 113 North Texas 114 SBC 101 52 61 105 106 83 6 92 113 103 102
114 127.5 14 102 114 Middle Tenn St 101 SBC 14 114 81 70 113 92 106 102 103 40 105
115 134.0 30 102 120 Troy 105 SBC 120 86 45 30 114 103 106 92 113 102 101
116 134.7 1 103 120 UL Lafayette 92 SBC 1 95 120 49 113 102 101 105 114 106 103
117 134.9 12 102 120 UL Monroe 103 SBC 120 90 12 113 102 67 105 106 101 114 92
118 138.1 15 103 120 Florida Intl 106 SBC 61 15 102 120 114 105 101 103 92 120 113
119 139.5 45 103 120 Arkansas St 102 SBC 45 120 80 106 103 92 113 101 105 82 114
Louisiana Beachneck said:
posted on November 30, 2005 2:54 PM — 198.246.222.7 — link — abuse?
Schedule rankings by computer such as the Colley Matrix are not a reliable source. The SEC is ranked as the 5th toughest conference this year. The only conference that has a winning record against them is the Big 10. - Indiana beat Kentucky. The Big 10 is ranked #1 due to an 11-0 record against the MAC. All of these conference rankings influence the individual Team rankings. It is a joke. By the way, this is 1/3rd of the BCS ranking system. Unfair. The fact that Auburn went undefeated last year and was not in the National Championship is a joke. LSU beat Florida, Alabama, and Auburn for the first time ever in one season. EVER! Think about that. How tough is the SEC? It is bar none the toughest conference in the land. Bar none. We need a playoff.
john c said:
posted on December 1, 2005 4:44 AM — 62.3.26.198 — link — abuse?
All you people are correct in your opinion s to some degree, however the one thing all of us are missing is greed and more greed!!! They add two more games to the schedule, but don't give us a playoff to find a true NC, WHY BECAUSE OF MONEY ! The smaller division do just fine and have very exciting football and the schools that get to the playoffs make money! It's a shame that these kids work around the clock with ACADEMICS and SPORTS suffer because even they read all this garbage and they don't get anything in return because NCAA SAYSSO!!!!!33
Neville said:
posted on December 1, 2005 9:29 AM — 70.189.107.162 — link — abuse?
One interesting thing about the "beat us twice in one year" item - Of all the league championship games that have been played since the SEC and Big12 started doing that (about 10 years ago), I can not think of a single instance where a rematch of a regular season game occured and the team that lost in the regular season won in the championship game. It has always been the champion has gone 2-0.
Has there ever been a case where 2 teams splt two games in a single season?
hunkerdown said:
posted on December 1, 2005 10:41 AM — 155.188.191.5 — link — abuse?
Here is something to remember about how supid the computers are, in 2003 LSU and UGA were going into the SEC championship game with UGA ranked somewhere between 5 and 8, I dont exactly remember. We all remember it was coming down to Oklahoma USC and LSU. The worry at the time for LSU was that because they had beaten UGA earlier in the year they had a "quality win" because UGA was a top 10 team AND by beating UGA in the SEC Championship game would knock UGA out of the top 10. So instead of LSU getting credit for knocking off a top 10 team once/twice in the same year, they loose their "quality win". Which there was a lot of talk about that could drop them low enough to be out of the National Title game.
One more thing, who are these guys that makes these computer polls? Have they ever been shown to the public? I think we as fans deserve to see these people in some sort of discussion about their thoughts on college football. I have a feeling that Rick Moranis or John Kerry are in charge of these things!
Keith said:
posted on December 1, 2005 12:34 PM — 216.107.89.131 — link — abuse?
Neville,
As for a championship game I believe the answer is no (as to splitting). But in 1996 FSU beat Florida 24-17 at Tallahassee, then Florida played FSU in the Sugar Bowl for the National Championship. Florida turned around and beat FSU 52-24 to win their only title.Paul Kislanko said:
posted on December 1, 2005 6:13 PM — 70.157.20.254 — link — abuse?
LouisinaBeachneck writes:
Schedule rankings by computer such as the Colley Matrix are not a reliable source. The SEC is ranked as the 5th toughest conference this year. The only conference that has a winning record against them is the Big 10. - Indiana beat Kentucky. The Big 10 is ranked #1 due to an 11-0 record against the MAC. All of these conference rankings influence the individual Team rankings. It is a joke. By the way, this is 1/3rd of the BCS ranking system. Unfair. The fact that Auburn went undefeated last year and was not in the National Championship is a joke. LSU beat Florida, Alabama, and Auburn for the first time ever in one season. EVER! Think about that. How tough is the SEC? It is bar none the toughest conference in the land. Bar none.Now, I'm a big SEC fan, but unlike most I have larnt my letters and numbers. The Big 10 is indeed 11-0 against the MAC. The SEC is 11-0 against:
WAC (3-0),
1AA Southern (2-0)
1AA Gateway (2-0)
MAC (1-0)
1AA Atlantic 10 (1-0)
1AA Ohio Valley (1-0)
1AA Big Sky (1-0).The SEC is *not* undefeated against the Sun Belt, CUSA, Mountain West, Pac 10, Big East or Independents. In fact, besides the Big Ten game mentioned, the SEC is 0-1 vs the Big East.
Fact is, the SEC is 5th of the big five conferences no matter what statistic you look at. Spin it howerver you want, we've had another down year.
JC in SoCAL said:
posted on December 1, 2005 6:20 PM — 67.113.165.178 — link — abuse?
Beachneck-Maybe if your conference didn't schedule D1-AA teams then maybe they wouldnt be ranked 5th. LSU may have beat Florida, Alabama, and Auburn. But they also lost to Tennessee?? and played North Texas and Appalachian State. C'mon can the cupcakes be even easier.
Then with Auburn last year, they played The Citadel and Lousiana-Monroe. Same thing, there are no quality wins there. Try again next year.
Fight on Trojans...
kirk said:
posted on December 3, 2005 1:10 PM — 66.1.253.119 — link — abuse?
Say what you will, but year in and year out the SEC is the toughest conference to play in. In 2004 Auburn beat 4 or 5 top ten ranked teams (in every poll), UGA (2x), LSU, Tennessee and I can't remember the rest, yet due to 2 podunk teams being scheduled they don't get their shot at a national title? This is ludicrous to say the least. If you win regularly in the SEC you have had a true accomplishment, however since the "Bear" retired, sports writers have apparently looked elsewhere for their so-called champions. I feel the only way to ever have a "TRUE" National Champion is to have a playoff system. If the SEC ranks so low, why is it they send more players to the NFL than any other conference? Maybe the pro scouts should be ranking our top teams since they obviously know what they are looking at.
Mr. Waitandsee said:
posted on December 5, 2005 1:06 PM — 71.113.188.202 — link — abuse?
Obviously you can't jsut add up the wins of your opponents. That is absolutely ridiculous. And no the site does not make it clear that Appalacian state had a weaker schedule. Accordign to thier ridiculous formula it did have a tougher schedule.
Jeff Sagirin's system seems to make the most sense.
mr. waitandsee said:
posted on December 6, 2005 10:55 AM — 71.113.188.202 — link — abuse?
With respect to Massey:
Does he just average the different computer ratings? I mean if you have 2 good systems and 8 bad ones why would we consider them all equal and average them? Why not just take a good system and stick to it instead of taking a good sytem and compromising it by averaging a few garbage systems in?Also on this page:
http://www.mratings.com/theory/sched.htm
he starts talking about "great" "good" "average" teams and the percent chance every team would have of winning. He seems to just throw out the idea that a great team woudl have a 75% chance of beating a good team and a 90% chance of beating an average team. He seems to be making up numbers to put there by way of example. But then he actually *uses* the percentages that he *made up* at first to change his formula! (again it *seems* like he was just making them up he certainly doesn't give a decent explanation of how he catagorizes a team as "great" "good" "average" "bad" or "pathetic" and how he then ascribes these percentages to the winnign chances.)
He seems to then take his made up percentages to prove that a great team would prefer to play 3 good teams and an average team instead of 2 great teams a good team and a pathetic team. I certainly question this logic. I can, of course, make up percentages that shows the opposite. Did he make up the percentages or is he using an elo formula to come to the predictions like Sagarin does?
He may like teams who pad thier schedules with schools like northern Illinios and want thier schedules to be considered tougher than other schools that avoid the AA's or virtual AA teams. But I think i would rather have a few extra virtual bye weeks in my schedule and even so that I could rest up for the big games. Moreover when your a great team those good and even average teams are going to look at thier game agaisnt you as makign or breakign thier season. It is the equivalent of a bowlgame emotionally. there are other reasons I think this formula is misguided but I leave it there for now.
Sagarin uses a formula that is highly valued in chess. I also play chess and know that the elo formula is an excellent predictor of results. Sagarins statistical analysis uses a tried and true method for determining odds and strength. I'm not sure what massey is doing.
jimmy said:
posted on December 7, 2005 10:30 PM — 66.138.0.83 — link — abuse?
I agree with Matt on this one at least the sooners where ranked in something, which I don't think our schedule was very bad this year we just really didn't have the players that had the potential to wim our games this year, they haev no excuse and neither does bob, because in 2000 when we went undefeated all year and won the National Championship we had mostly redshirt freshamn that year too.
Please note that all comments are subject to the Fanblogs Comment Policy.
Neville said:
posted on November 29, 2005 2:56 PM — 68.97.4.4 — link — abuse?The NCAA should stop publishing this list in its current form. The fact it is nothing more than cumulative win-loss of opponents without concepts of quality are well documented on sites like fanblogs, so I won't re-hash that.
In its current form, this list is nothing more than fodder for reporters needing ammo to make some point they have in the back of their mind and couple their point about some team with a reputable source.
The NCAA also publishes this list, titled "toughest schedule" that considers both IA and IAA football:
http://web1.ncaa.org/d1mfb/Internet/toughest%20schedule/9games_cumm.pdf
The list reads:
1. Oklahoma
2. Michigan
3. Appalachian St
4. Stanford
5. Kansas
Even without reviewing Appalachian State's schedule, I don't think it was as tough as Stanford or Michigan's.
Georgia, for example, registers at #20, just a bit behind Dartmouth. Do we need to debate that Georgia, playing Georgia Tech, Florida, Tennessee, Auburn, LSU, Boise St and South Carolina was a bit tougher than Dartmouth playing Cornell, Brown, Princeton and Harvard?
If the NCAA wants to put forth a "toughest schedule" on its website, it should buy or license a real model from the minds that hatched computer models like the colley matrix and call that the "official" computer ranking of the NCAA.