(11-02-2015 05:56 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(11-02-2015 05:47 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  Are you forgetting Toledo?

Here is a real good one

F_U

UCF - 0-9
Indiana - 4-4
NC Central - doesn't matter
LA Tech 6-3
UMass 1-7 - Only win is vs. F_U
UTEP 3-5
MTSU 3-5 - only other FBS win was Charlotte
ODU 3-5
F_U 2-6 - only other win was Charlotte

ooo Ouch, It's a miracle that most their team is still playing

(11-02-2015 05:56 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(11-02-2015 05:47 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  Are you forgetting Toledo?

Here is a real good one

F_U

UCF - 0-9
Indiana - 4-4
NC Central - doesn't matter
LA Tech 6-3
UMass 1-7 - Only win is vs. F_U
UTEP 3-5
MTSU 3-5 - only other FBS win was Charlotte
ODU 3-5
F_U 2-6 - only other win was Charlotte

ok, I have no idea if you mean FIU or FAU.

(11-02-2015 05:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-02-2015 05:39 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  On pure wins and losses, which is what SOS is, that is not a truly impressive schedule, with a 39-26) isn't that impressive.

"Pure wins and losses" seems rather simplistic. Using that metric, at this point, all else equal, playing Toledo means you've played a tougher schedule than playing Alabama. And that makes no sense.

Well, pure wins and losses may be simplistic, but it was one, the reference was using for the article, and two the official stat used by every sports league and even the NCAA to measure strength of schedule. Even the above toughest schedules I posted, straight from the NCAA website, is pure wins and losses. I am not saying it is perfect, but that is the definition of strength of schedule: how often your opponents win.

Now I would add that a true SOS rating should remove games against the team in question, otherwise your SOS is "punished" because you beat those teams. But only the RPI does that that I am aware of.

(11-02-2015 06:15 PM)goofus Wrote:  

(11-02-2015 05:56 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(11-02-2015 05:47 PM)DogPoundNorth Wrote:  Are you forgetting Toledo?

Here is a real good one

F_U

UCF - 0-9
Indiana - 4-4
NC Central - doesn't matter
LA Tech 6-3
UMass 1-7 - Only win is vs. F_U
UTEP 3-5
MTSU 3-5 - only other FBS win was Charlotte
ODU 3-5
F_U 2-6 - only other win was Charlotte

ok, I have no idea if you mean FIU or FAU.

I did that purposely. I always refer to them that way. But this was Florida International University's schedule.

(11-02-2015 06:26 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(11-02-2015 05:52 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(11-02-2015 05:39 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  On pure wins and losses, which is what SOS is, that is not a truly impressive schedule, with a 39-26) isn't that impressive.

"Pure wins and losses" seems rather simplistic. Using that metric, at this point, all else equal, playing Toledo means you've played a tougher schedule than playing Alabama. And that makes no sense.

Well, pure wins and losses may be simplistic, but it was one, the reference was using for the article, and two the official stat used by every sports league and even the NCAA to measure strength of schedule. Even the above toughest schedules I posted, straight from the NCAA website, is pure wins and losses. I am not saying it is perfect, but that is the definition of strength of schedule: how often your opponents win.

I don't know of any computer formulas, such as the BCS computers, that use that simplistic definition. For example, Sagarin has a formula for SOS that compounds opponent's record, and opponent's-opponent's records.

For pro leagues, where all the teams have essentially the same vast resources, pure wins/losses makes sense, and where because there are just 30 or so teams, everyone plays a very similar sample of teams, you pretty much "are what your record says you are". It's therefore highly unlikely that, e.g., a 10-2 Packers team is much different in quality from a 10-2 Patriots team or that a 55-27 Spurs team differs in quality much from a 55-27 Clippers team.

But for college football, where there are obvious disparities in talent and quality even within FBS, it makes no sense. A school like Buffalo can construct a 10-2 record by playing nothing but other schools like Buffalo, while an LSU team that is 9-3 may have had to play Alabama, Auburn, and Florida.

It's not anywhere near an apples-apples comparison, so to say that playing Buffalo is "tougher" than playing LSU is silly.

(11-02-2015 03:17 PM)_C2_ Wrote:  

(11-02-2015 10:52 AM)bullet Wrote:  Notre Dame
Rice
Cal
Oklahoma St.
TCU
Oklahoma
Kansas St.
Iowa St.

That's Texas-2 unbeaten, 2 with one loss (one to us) + Cal who was ranked at the time. And Baylor is still ahead.

Yeah, but you have Rice on there. What, you were too afraid to schedule a real team?

No, we didn't want to play in a tinker toy stadium. We'll need time to see if you cut any corners like you did the last time Texas played Houston and UH put fans lives at risk.

Besides, M.O.B. blows away your band and they have won 2 division titles in a row, one leading to a conference title.

(11-02-2015 01:44 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Just imagine if Duke had held on (controversially or not). Imagine if UCF was any good at all. They'd have faced 5 teams with 1 loss or fewer. They also faced Georgia Tech, whose style of play is rough to prepare for and can spring upsets, as it did to Florida State.

Duke
Georgia Tech
Maine
UCF
Temple
Houston
Navy
Memphis

(11-02-2015 05:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Moral: For good teams, the presence of FCS and other patsies isn't as important in judging their schedule as the presence of tough teams. For example, you criticized that schedule above because it had Rice, a patsy, on it. But what stands out to me is the presence of three very tough teams - TCU, Notre Dame, and Oklahoma. So if the team in question is a P5 team with major bowl aspirations, that's a very dangerous schedule to play. The presence of patsies does not detract from the presence of the losable games.

I was just messing around. That schedule is arguably the toughest in the country, even with Rice on it. I was essentially saying they should have played someone as tough as the other teams on there but was just joking.

(11-02-2015 05:42 PM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  Yeah, because Maine is such a powerhouse.

My sarcasm should have been obvious by the coffee emoticon.

(11-02-2015 10:42 PM)bullet Wrote:  No, we didn't want to play in a tinker toy stadium. We'll need time to see if you cut any corners like you did the last time Texas played Houston and UH put fans lives at risk.

Besides, M.O.B. blows away your band and they have won 2 division titles in a row, one leading to a conference title.

I'll have to make my sarcasm even more obvious next time.