(05-19-2015 05:40 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 05:15 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-19-2015 01:59 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(05-18-2015 07:24 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(05-18-2015 03:24 PM)stever20 Wrote:  3 years means more than 5 years here because 3 years is the data with the current 10 team conference. TCU went 24-2 the 2 years they were in the MWC and 23-15 in the Big 12. West Virginia 19-7 in the Big East and 18-20 in the Big 12. I mean TCU isn't a 47-17 level Big 12 team. They are a 23-15 level Big 12 team. Same with West Virginia. they aren't a 37-27 level Big 12 team- they are 18-20.

And end of the day, especially with the Big 12, how you view the teams does matter- because everyone plays everyone. So if you have the Big 12 teams artificially high, that's going to skew your observations.

Nobody knows what level TCU and/or West Virginia are based on the short time they have been in the league. What you are suggesting is that TCU's relative strength was exaggerated before they joined the Big 12. I suspect Wisconsin might disagree with you. They had a better record because they had a transcendant QB and a great defense before they joined the B12. I don't think you can have it both ways. I don't see how you can dismiss Oklahoma State because they had a down year in 2014 but then write off TCU's excellent 2014 as somehow not representative of the strength of their program.

They had a better record because they were in the MWC(one of the 2 years with Boise NOT in the league). You can't use TCU's 2 MWC years or West Virginia's 2 Big East Years as barometers for what the Big 12 is. You can use the last 3 years as a very valid sample because that's when all 10 teams were the same all 3 years- all playing 9 conference games. I never said you write off TCU's 2014. I said you can write off TCU's 2010 and 11 when they were in the MWC- just like you can write off West Virginia's 2010 and 11 when they were in the Big East. West Virginia was 19-7 in the Big East those 2 years- and now 18-20 in the Big 12 the last 3- with 3 FCS wins in that 18 win total. Hardly stellar.

It's pointless to have a battle of dueling opinions about a minor contributor to a mountain of data. If I learned anything in over 50 years of data analysis, it is that getting hung up on details, or allowing a personal subjective opinion to overturn what the raw data lead me to is never a good idea. I'm also confident that cherry picking a subset of the data because that leads me to a conclusion that I think "should" be the "right" one is always a bad idea.

You can take my analysis or you can leave it. It really doesn't matter to me. I don't a dog in the fight. I'm not sure the same can be said of you.

I just think 2010(in particular) and 2011 are so much a different set of circumstances to 2012-14 that to include them really taints the data. The thing is with that- it totally changes the SOS equation for Big 12 schools- because the schools aren't as strong then as a result. There is absolutely no way that for instance Kansas St has the 15th best SOS this year with such a crap OOC schedule- UTSA and La Tech and then FCS South Dakota. It's easy to see why Steele has them as one of the worst P5 schedules- because well for one- they are one of the 3 ranked teams from the Big 12, so they don't see themselves- and then craptastic OOC schedule.

and look at the Big 12's just OOC record the last 5 years(to include bowl games)
2014- 24-13
2013- 25-11
2012- 30-10
2011- 27-3 then WVU was 10-3, TCU 11-2
2010- 29-8 then WVU was 9-4, TCU 13-0

it's pretty obvious which way the conference is trending.

I think we've already established that Steele doesn't have them - or anyone else - as having one of the worst schedules. He hasn't even done that list yet.

I am enjoying looking at the rankings on Phil Steele's website. I noticed that UTSA has a particularly tough schedule:

@Arizona
Kansas State
@Oklahoma State
Colorado State

I wish my team could/would schedule like that...

(05-20-2015 12:51 AM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  I am enjoying looking at the rankings on Phil Steele's website. I noticed that UTSA has a particularly tough schedule:

@Arizona
Kansas State
@Oklahoma State
Colorado State

I wish my team could/would schedule like that...

They are heavily cashing in knowing that their records will have to be built through conference games not ooc games. Looks like a smart long term move in terms of building a football program from scratch is what they are doing.

But they got one P5 at home. And maybe more (if the others lead to a home game). So that is a very good thing.

(05-19-2015 05:40 PM)stever20 Wrote:  I just think 2010(in particular) and 2011 are so much a different set of circumstances to 2012-14 that to include them really taints the data. The thing is with that- it totally changes the SOS equation for Big 12 schools- because the schools aren't as strong then as a result. There is absolutely no way that for instance Kansas St has the 15th best SOS this year with such a crap OOC schedule- UTSA and La Tech and then FCS South Dakota. It's easy to see why Steele has them as one of the worst P5 schedules- because well for one- they are one of the 3 ranked teams from the Big 12, so they don't see themselves- and then craptastic OOC schedule.

and look at the Big 12's just OOC record the last 5 years(to include bowl games)
2014- 24-13
2013- 25-11
2012- 30-10
2011- 27-3 then WVU was 10-3, TCU 11-2
2010- 29-8 then WVU was 9-4, TCU 13-0

it's pretty obvious which way the conference is trending.

I don't know about that conclusion. It's only 5 years and all in the 70-75 win% range, except for 2014 (65%) and the amazing 2011 (87%). In 2009 the Big 12 was 39-17 (69%).

2014 was a bad showing, but it really is just one year, and it wasn't really that bad in relative terms. The other years winning pct are all basically in line. And except for the SEC, every league has a year or two with a similar step back the last decade.

Over the past 5 years the winning pct for the 5 Power conferences are:

http://www.cfbtrivia.com/cfbt_records.ph...=1&iall=on

Pos Team Record
1. SEC (256-55-0)--0.82315
2. Big 12 (155-51-0)--0.75243
4. PAC-12 (151-62-0)--0.70892
5. Big Ten (200-87-0)--0.69686
7. ACC (190-111-0)--0.63123

Leagues fluctuate around within those years, but the SEC consistently has the best. The rest are usually in the 65-75% range. But even the Big 12's worst year last year is a higher winning pct% than the average winning % for the ACC the last 5 years.

great site...

the numbers in the 2012-14 range...
1 SEC 163-35 .823
2 Pac 12 103-33 .757
3 Big 12 79-33 .705
4 Big Ten 123-54 .695
6 ACC 123-65 .654

So basically the Pac 12 and Big 12 have flipped.

(05-20-2015 09:20 AM)stever20 Wrote:  great site...

the numbers in the 2012-14 range...
1 SEC 163-35 .823
2 Pac 12 103-33 .757
3 Big 12 79-33 .705
4 Big Ten 123-54 .695
6 ACC 123-65 .654

So basically the Pac 12 and Big 12 have flipped.

I love it. You can do so much with the database, including looking at leagues before and after realignment, only bowl games, only non-conference. You can control for opponents win %, number of wins, etc.

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics, frog.

I think it should also be noted that win% alone doesn't tell the whole story. Especially when teams play so few games each year.

I did some quick and dirty analysis, as I have mentioned, because it was clear that the data presented in the OP suggested that the headline in the OP was not correct. And, it turns out, that was absolutely the case.

Now that we have established that, I plan to expand and modify my analysis to include G5 schedules, and factor in home vs away games. I plan to use a five year time frame, but I am going to modify that to give greater weight to the most recent seasons. Since the raw data already factors in differences in yearly schedules due to conference realignment, and since not all realignment moves occurred in the same year, I will reject the arbitrary 3 year cutoff in favor of the arbitrary 5 year cutoff.

stever20, you will be happy to know that using the five year numbers rather than the three year numbers will hurt, not help the Big12, based on the results of my original analysis.

Since I have 6 years of data, I will be able to take a retroactive look at the 2014 schedules. I will be able to compare the expected strength of each team's 2014 schedule based on the 5 year weighted strength rating of their opponents with their actual strength rating for 2014.

I expect this analysis to take me a while. There are a lot of numbers to crunch. Fortunately, September is a long way off.

unless you are weighting the 2013-14 seasons way more- there's no way it couldn't help the big 12 to include the 2010-11 seasons.

The thing is- what P5 realignment has taken place since 2012? You had in 2013 Syracuse and Pitt joining the ACC. You had in 2014- Maryland and Rutgers joining the Big Ten, and Louisville joining the ACC. That's it for the P5. The landscape in 2010(in particular) or 2011- light years different than what it was in 2014.
2010-
ACC 12 (since- added Pitt, Syr, Lou- lost Md)
B12 12 (since- added TCU, WVU- lost Colo, Neb, Missouri, A&M)
BE 8 (since- lost WVU, Pitt, Syr, Lou, Rut- added UCF, ECU, Mem, SMU, Tulsa, Hou, Temple, Tulane)
B10 11 (since- added Neb, Md, Rut)
CUSA 12 (since- lost- UCF, ECU, Mem, SMU, Tulsa, Hou, Tulane- added LT, FIU, MTSU, FAU, NT, W Kentucky, UTSA).
MAC 13 (since lost Temple, added UMass)
MWC 9 (since lost TCU, Utah, BYU, added- Nevada, Boise, Hawaii, Fresno, Utah St, San Jose St)
P12 10 (since added Utah, Colorado)
SEC 12 (since added A&M, Missouri)
SBC 9 (since lost FIU, MTSU, FAU, NT, W Ky, added Idaho, NMSU, App St, Ga St, So Alabama, Tex St)

now look at the same thing from 2012 to now...
ACC 12 (added Pitt, Syr, Lou- lost Md)
B12 10 (no movement)
BE 8 (added UCF, ECU, Mem, SMU, Tulsa, Hou, Temple, Tulane lost Pitt, Syr, Lou, Rut)
B10 12 (added Md, Rutgers)
CUSA 12 (since- lost- UCF, ECU, Mem, SMU, Tulsa, Hou, Tulane- added LT, FIU, MTSU, FAU, NT, W Kentucky, UTSA).
MAC 13(no movement)
MWC 10 (since added Utah St, San Jose St)
P12 12 (no movement)
SEC 14 (no movement)
SBC 10 (since lost FIU, MTSU, FAU, NT, W Ky, added Idaho, NMSU, App St, Ga St, Tex St)
So in the last 3 years- 4 have had absolutely no movement at all(3 of the 5 P5's)- and 2 have only added 2 teams(another P5).

(05-17-2015 03:56 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  

(05-17-2015 02:41 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  I keep waiting for Duke to get called out over their ludicrously easy schedules and it just never happens. Just more praise for Cutcliffe.

Because it's still Duke. For Duke, going 4-0 vs...(checking wikipedia)... Elon, Troy, KAnsas and Tulane is pretty impressive.

For now... Rutgers has done that and its now become a who have you beaten question? Give it a few more years of cupcake OOC and winning seasons and people will start saying they haven't beaten anyone.