Strength of Schedule (SoS) Debate 2005/2006

[BuckeyeNation27]

Originally Posted by OregonBuckeye

I can tell I'm going to take the heat off of NDC for starting this little debate.

Big-10 SOS:

#3 Michigan
#4 Ohio St.
#6 Northwestern
#13 Minnesota
#26 Penn St.
#34 Iowa
#37 Illinois
#46 Purdue
#58 Michigan St.
#61 Wisconsin
#63 Indiana
Average: 31.9 or 32

SEC SOS:

#8 Arkansas
#14 Tennessee
#15 Georgia
#24 South Carolina
#27 Florida
#30 LSU
#33 Auburn
#50 Alabama
#62 Mississippi St.
#65 Kentucky
#74 Vanderbilt
#82 Mississippi
Average: 40.3 or 40

I just want to know why strength of shedule doesn't mean anything and some of the teams that had tougher shedules than Ohio St.

To understand why the SoS rankings are so retarded, you have to look at what makes them up. A team is strong for your SoS if they have a good record. So a team like Toledo last year boosts your SoS.

Should a team like Toledo really be BOOSTING your SoS?

[Steve19]

Originally Posted by BuckeyeNation27

To understand why the SoS rankings are so retarded, you have to look at what makes them up. A team is strong for your SoS if they have a good record. So a team like Toledo last year boosts your SoS.

Should a team like Toledo really be BOOSTING your SoS?

Doesn't really work that way, BN27. Wins and losses do impact on computer ratings, but other factors also come into account. It is the entire matrix of all inter-related events (i.e., the games) that is taken into account. So, it's not only who you play but who they played that makes up your computer rating and hence your contribution to other team's SoS ratings. Some models also include yards gained on the ground and in the air versus your average and other metrics, game by game.

As example, TCU was 11-1 but ranked only #15 in the Sagarin's, due mainly to an SoS rank of #71. TSUN was 7-5 but was ranked just one place behind them because of a SoS rank of #3. An outcome against either team would have had almost exactly the same effect on your SoS.

As another example, Appalachian State was 12-3 but ranked only #69, for obvious reasons.

It's late, early teaching, off to bed.

[spadukins]

I don't have any problem with the computer rankings. Roughly half of them have some sort of SOS component. I prefer having the computers included in the BCS. Why? Because human voters are too sentimental. Human voters can give teams the benefit of the doubt. With human voters you can have Notre Dame losing at home to USC and not even dropping one spot in the polls. Ridiculous! Is there any school other than Notre Dame that would be rewarded for failure. Human voters can't be trusted. Human voters have biases that the computers don't. The coaches poll making public the final vote last season was interesting but it still didn't prevent some questionable submissions by a few coaches. The biases I mentioned before still came through.

As far as SOS, I hate to see teams from DI-A playing teams from DI-AA. I wish the BCS would not even allow those games to count in the standings. The Bowl Championship Series standings decide which two teams get to play for the NCAA Division I-A National Championship. Why should games against schools that aren't Division I-A count toward crowning a Division I-A champion. If you are a team that wants to be considered for the top prize, the least you could do is make it look like you are trying to play top competition.

A poster earlier in this thread tried to make a point about Big Ten teams playing MAC teams. There is a big difference between MAC teams and The Citadel. You may not think so but there is. That's why MAC teams are DI-A and The Citadel is not.

Here's a list of teams from the 6 major BCS conferences that had DI-AA teams on their schedule in 2005:

Iowa State, Texas Tech (twice), Iowa, Arkansas, Auburn, Pittsburgh, Stanford, Kansas, LSU, Indiana, West Virginia, Cincinnati, and Florida State(played The Citadel).

I know schedules are made years in advance but I bet some of the teams on the above list were thinking at the time that they, maybe, could be an actual contender for the National Championship in 2005. Still, they scheduled a patsy. Hell, a couple of those teams have actually won crowns in the recent past. Disgraceful!

I know what alot of people are thinking. It looks like our beloved Buckeyes will, in the near future, be playing -sigh- Youngstown State. Yeah yeah they are an in state team and yeah yeah JT used to coach there and yeah yeah YSU is trying to come up to DI-A. I still don't like it!

I wonder, will the Bucks be playing for a spot in the title game in 2008? If we make it you can bet there will be some people that will question that game against YSU! What if there are three undefeateds in 2008 and tOSU was the only one to play a DI-AA team? It'll probably be about that time that all the human voters that gave ND the benefit of the doubt will realize that giving teams the benefit of the doubt isn't a good idea anymore. Especially if "phat phuck and the domers" happen to be one of the other undefeateds in 2008.

If a contending team does schedule a AA patsy, they need to absolutely drill them to make up for it in my opinion. Now let me ask this question. What is the likelihood that JT is gonna go out there against YSU and hit'em with eleven touchdowns? That's not the type of guy JT is. I can see it now. This game against YSU is gonna somehow cost the Buckeyes a shot at the National Championship. It's a no win situation for the scarlet and grey. Bad scheduling! Does anyone else feel this way?