This site is supported by the advertisements on it, please disable your AdBlocker so we can continue to provide you with the quality content you expect.
  1. Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!
    Dismiss Notice

Strength of Schedule. Guess who 117th is.

Discussion in 'Buckeye Football' started by ohiobuck94, Dec 2, 2004.

  1. MililaniBuckeye

    MililaniBuckeye The satanic soulless freight train that is Ohio St Staff Member Tech Admin

    So, we went 7-4 against the 16th toughest schedule in the country with a resounding win over Michigan. Not too bad for an off year...
  2. biobuck

    biobuck Newbie

  3. IronBuckI

    IronBuckI Calmer than you are.

    The first post in this thread wasn't about Utah being in a BCS game. It was about the Urban Meyer hype.
  4. BuckeyeNation27

    BuckeyeNation27 Goal Goal USA! Staff Member

    now just wait to see who accepts a bowl bid. :wink:

    except Ohio State, they already accepted the Alamo bowl :biggrin:
  5. DaytonBuck

    DaytonBuck I've always liked them

    speling ist my strog sewt :biggrin:
  6. biobuck

    biobuck Newbie

    my bad Ironbuck. Kind of digressed from the first post.
  7. SoS is one of the key objective ways to evaluate a team as the season progresses. It's absurd that bcs took sos out of the evaluation formula. Doesn't make a bit of sense. I wonder how much influence the media and tv networks had in creating the bcs puzzle this year?
  8. buckiprof

    buckiprof 21st Century Buckeye Man Staff Member

    It appears that Auburn doesn't have the 9th toughest per the NCAA, as the NCAA has made a basic math error. The cumulative opposition column is determined by the past plus the future. Assuming that the 55 - 42 for Auburn's past opposition is correct and their future opposition (tennessee) is 9 - 2, that would make the cumulative column 64 - 44 not the 64 - 43 that is listed. This then yields a percentage of 0.5925925926 which places them at 13th.

    FWIW, the NCAA SOS seems to be a little more realistic. With the exception of the one minor math error, at least it is known how they are determining a SOS measuring stick and it is quite simple. How did the other site determine the SOS? I couldn't find that info at the site (and I didn't look very hard either).
  9. JXC

    JXC 17-2 since 2001

    The first link that has Utah at 117th has Auburn at 110th. That completely takes all credability away from that site. Auburn has played one of the toughest schedules in the country. And even if Utah does have an easy schedule, it's still not easy to win all your games. Only 4 teams have done it this year so far...the last team to go the whole season without losing was tOSU in 2002. Winning all your games is something special.
  10. 3yardsandacloud

    3yardsandacloud Administrator Emeritus

    Here's the info from Mike Greenfield's site:

    Traditional "Strength of Schedule" measures only average opponents' rankings, which is an absurd way to do things. Over two games, a team may have the choice of playing one great team and one terrible team, or two average teams. A good team would likely take the latter, which would probably result in two wins, as opposed to the former which would result in one. A mediocre team, however, would prefer the first choice, in which they'd likely split, to the second, where they would probably get swept. This is the general idea between my schedule strength listings, which seeks to define a team's schedule difficulty relative to its ranking. Thus a poor team, which has played only average and above teams (but not great teams), will be seen to have had a very tough schedule, while a great team which played the same schedule will be seen to have played only an average one. For this reason, when comparing schedule strength, it's best to only look at teams of comparable ranking. There's an inevitable bias toward the top teams having a seemingly "weak" schedule, and the bottom teams having a "strong"schedule. However, this bias is not in any way included in the rankings - the strength of schedule measures are computed only after the rankings are computed.

    Upward Stability and Downward Stability provide a measure of how "sure" the rankings are, in both the positive and negative directions. That is, a team with high Upward Stability is probably ranked pretty accurately, and should not be ranked too much higher. A team with low Upward Stability, on the other hand, is not very well entrenched in its place, and could be considerably better than the rankings indicated. This generally is the case for teams that haven't played many games, or teams that have mainly played against teams of vastly different levels.
  11. sandgk

    sandgk Watson, Crick & A Twist

    This keeps getting stated with frequency whenever SOS comes into discussion.

    One last time -- SOS was not removed by the BCS.

    SOS remains as a factor weighed in the computer rankings, ergo it is part of the BCS evaluation.

    What would be interesting to see is how the BCS SOS (incorporated into the computer rankings) is measured ...

    Is it like Greenfield, is it like NCAA or is it like neither?
  12. BuckeyeNation27

    BuckeyeNation27 Goal Goal USA! Staff Member

    im guessing each computer has its own ranking. but it was essentially taken out of the BCS. it is so far removed that it really has a small roll in the actual ranking, as opposed to before when it was a tangible number you could see and it was directly added to the final BCS score.
  13. sandgk

    sandgk Watson, Crick & A Twist

    This almost boils down to a semantic argument - but not quite. Its really more about transparency.
    You are right 27 each computer program has its own ranking. Each of the computer rankings uses strength of schedule and each tries to account for home/away performance. The high and low of the 6 rankings are discarded and the four remaining rankings are averaged for one number that is added to the two poll rankings.

    Thus, the simple fact is SOS has not been taken out of BCS rankings.

    Agreed, in its original form the presence of SOS was explicit. In addition the statistical programs also used SOS in one form or another. So SOS was, in effect, being double weighted.
    What is now unclear is the proportion (weight) given to the SOS in the final average computer ranking versus other factors like home/away performance. This makes the process less transparent and leads to the frequent (and erroneous) assertion that SOS is now not part of the BCS formula. It is there - it is just obscured.
  14. BrutusMaximus

    BrutusMaximus I Heart Boobs

    What happens when the BCS computer get the BSOD? :lol:

    Seriously though, Auburn has around the 10th-15th toughest schedule, Okie should be down in the 80's, they have only played 1 team this year, and that's Texas, who plays only one team this year, and that's Okie.......nothing to go on really.

    As down as ND may be this year, the pasting that SC put on them last weekend was impressive, hence they are still #1 in my book.

    What doesnt make sense to me..........according to the computers, Okie is #1, so if SOS is still included, how the hell can that be?
  15. BuckeyeNation27

    BuckeyeNation27 Goal Goal USA! Staff Member

    for whatever reason....the computer rankings think the Big12 is tougher than the SEC. i would bet that OU's SOS is a lot better than auburn and SC in the BCS computers.

Share This Page