[This is the exact same text as my 11 PM post tonight on ACCFootballRx. It is reprinted here in its entirety with permission. Don't attempt this at home]

Fans are practically giggly about the proclaimed emphasis on strength of schedule in the CFP selection process. Finally, an accurate system that will reward the best (i.e. SEC) teams - right?

Not so fast, Bubba! One of our favorite sites, FBSchedules.com, has looked closer at those SoS figures thrown about by the SEC (you know, the ones that show Tennessee had toughest schedule last year, followed by 4 more SEC teams) and they found something fishy...

Well, to get right down to it, the found that the numbers "don't add up".
"Tennessee is listed as number one by the NCAA with their past opposition having a record of 79-42. But the actual number is 94-59, which places them 13th." What gives?

Those NCAA strength of schedule numbers are based on the W-L records of a team's opponents, but they toss out certain types of opponents - namely FCS and transitional. These are typically the weakest "cupcake" teams, and virtually every SEC team plays at least one of them every year, perhaps 2 or 3 of them.

Yeah, you read that right. The only reason the SEC has the top 5 "strongest" schedules was because they played so many cupcakes (ironic, isn't it?). The miserable records of those FCS and transitional teams were tossed out, but - this is the important part - the wins logged by other SEC teams against some same cupcakes were NOT thrown out. They beat 4 cupcakes, you beat them - now your opponent's record just picked up 4 wins and no losses. Your "strength" of schedule skyrockets.

By the way: the NCAA also counts conference championship games in the SoS (which typically feature teams with lots of wins - unless you're a Big XII team), but they don't count bowl games.

BOTTOM LINE: Don't get me wrong - there are some really strong SEC teams. Just don't believe the hype; they don't play the toughest schedules, they just know how to game the system better.

(05-02-2014 10:00 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  [This is the exact same text as my 11 PM post tonight on ACCFootballRx. It is reprinted here in its entirety with permission. Don't attempt this at home]

Fans are practically giggly about the proclaimed emphasis on strength of schedule in the CFP selection process. Finally, an accurate system that will reward the best (i.e. SEC) teams - right?

Not so fast, Bubba! One of our favorite sites, FBSchedules.com, has looked closer at those SoS figures thrown about by the SEC (you know, the ones that show Tennessee had toughest schedule last year, followed by 4 more SEC teams) and they found something fishy...

Well, to get right down to it, the found that the numbers "don't add up".
"Tennessee is listed as number one by the NCAA with their past opposition having a record of 79-42. But the actual number is 94-59, which places them 13th." What gives?

Those NCAA strength of schedule numbers are based on the W-L records of a team's opponents, but they toss out certain types of opponents - namely FCS and transitional. These are typically the weakest "cupcake" teams, and virtually every SEC team plays at least one of them every year, perhaps 2 or 3 of them.

Yeah, you read that right. The only reason the SEC has the top 5 "strongest" schedules was because they played so many cupcakes (ironic, isn't it?). The miserable records of those FCS and transitional teams were tossed out, but - this is the important part - the wins logged by other SEC teams against some same cupcakes were NOT thrown out. They beat 4 cupcakes, you beat them - now your opponent's record just picked up 4 wins and no losses. Your "strength" of schedule skyrockets.

By the way: the NCAA also counts conference championship games in the SoS (which typically feature teams with lots of wins - unless you're a Big XII team), but they don't count bowl games.

BOTTOM LINE: Don't get me wrong - there are some really strong SEC teams. Just don't believe the hype; they don't play the toughest schedules, they just know how to game the system better.

Any adjusted #'s for the exclusion of the FCS teams? If you were to eliminate all FCS teams from the equation for all teams, what is the P5 sos vs P5? FBS vs FBS?

(05-03-2014 01:57 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Any adjusted #'s for the exclusion of the FCS teams? If you were to eliminate all FCS teams from the equation for all teams, what is the P5 sos vs P5? FBS vs FBS?

Well that totally defeats the point, doesn't it? The FBSchedules article is pointing out that if you remove the 2 or 3 easiest games from SEC team schedules, while we only remove 1 easy game from most other teams, then OF COURSE the SEC schedules appear to be tougher.

(05-03-2014 02:46 PM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(05-03-2014 01:57 PM)Dasville Wrote:  Any adjusted #'s for the exclusion of the FCS teams? If you were to eliminate all FCS teams from the equation for all teams, what is the P5 sos vs P5? FBS vs FBS?

Well that totally defeats the point, doesn't it? The FBSchedules article is pointing out that if you remove the 2 or 3 easiest games from SEC team schedules, while we only remove 1 easy game from most other teams, then OF COURSE the SEC schedules appear to be tougher.

I have no problem with the notion that SEC schedules aren't tougher than other conferences. But accepting that doesn't mean that the opposite - that they are easier - is necessarily true. Fact is, all P5 conferences play cupcakes, and not just one. For example, in addition to their FCS game, virtually all B1G schools also play at least one against a MAC opponent.

Personally, I'm skeptical of any attempt to calculate a strength of schedule. But I'm more skeptical when you try to include FCS teams. I just don't know how you can be confident in comparing schools like Prairie View A&M and Savannah State, when they play so few common opponents.

Let's not give the SEC more credit than they deserve. But let's not give them less, either.

Any reasonable computer ranking is going to have SOS factored in, but in a more useful way than looking at SOS. In particular, the computer rankings generally consider who you beat, not who you played (and who the teams you beat defeated, not who the teams you played played). SOS gives you credit for scheduling rather than winning. Beating a good opponent is a useful metric, losing to a good opponent doesn't tell you very much.

(05-04-2014 09:34 AM)orangefan Wrote:  Any reasonable computer ranking is going to have SOS factored in, but in a more useful way than looking at SOS. In particular, the computer rankings generally consider who you beat, not who you played (and who the teams you beat defeated, not who the teams you played played). SOS gives you credit for scheduling rather than winning. Beating a good opponent is a useful metric, losing to a good opponent doesn't tell you very much.

Agreed.