SEC non-conference slates are an absolute joke!

[ChrisParadise]

On what planet are you from. 15 - 20 yrs out? Try 5-8 yrs

google gives this in 10 secs

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/14957-vols-add-ohio-state-and-others-for-future-schedules

article dated shows vols scheduling a game 11.5 yrs out

hell lets say 10 years - you still get the point

maybe 5-8 in the pac-10? like i said - we are talking about the SEC.its a big business. even this game scheduled 11.5 yrs out had been 'in talks' for severeal years

 

[ChrisParadise]

the thing is, we all agree the SEC is the top conference strength wise. thats 12 teams out of 200+

the leaves 188+ wanting a date on the schedule with the big boys, so what if the pac-10 gets only 2-3 of the possible 48 open dates a year. if you ration that out its about right. we dont want to offend the sun belt by being afraid to play them ? e have to toss a coupld big east teams in there or thier fan base cries. then theres the wac and the mac, they deserve scheduling love as much as the pac-10

you cant please all the people all the time

 

[UoweDucks]

google gives this in 10 secs

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/14957-vols-add-ohio-state-and-others-for-future-schedules

article dated shows vols scheduling a game 11.5 yrs out

hell lets say 10 years - you still get the point

maybe 5-8 in the pac-10? like i said - we are talking about the SEC.its a big business. even this game scheduled 11.5 yrs out had been 'in talks' for severeal years

Dunce

December 8, 2005

Tennessee - Oregon games slated for 2010, 2013 team has reached an agreement to play a home and home series with the Oregon football team beginning in 2010. The teams will play in Knoxville in 2010 and in Eugene in 2013.

"The best-laid plans usually get blown up," he said. "But we've found that with the Tennessees and with the Michigans, the elite level programs have no problem traveling out this way and know that it could be a quality win, or a quality loss."​

For future schedules, Tennessee is in the process of negotiating out of it's 2009 game with Marshall, but already has firm commitments for Cal (2007), UCLA (2008, 2009), and now

 

[ChrisParadise]

Dunce

December 8, 2005

Tennessee - Oregon games slated for 2010, 2013 team has reached an agreement to play a home and home series with the Oregon football team beginning in 2010. The teams will play in Knoxville in 2010 and in Eugene in 2013.

"The best-laid plans usually get blown up," he said. "But we've found that with the Tennessees and with the Michigans, the elite level programs have no problem traveling out this way and know that it could be a quality win, or a quality loss."
​

For future schedules, Tennessee is in the process of negotiating out of it's 2009 game with Marshall, but already has firm commitments for Cal (2007), UCLA (2008, 2009), and now

man they were talkin about that matchup at the 2001 SECCG.

you want to hear the truth? you wont like it and you will get your feelings hurt but ill tell ya anyway.

the UT AD was trying to get a better opponent (was in talks with nebraska at that time) and as time got close,too close, he went with the easy safe deal with the Ducks to fill it out. they were a easy fix "not a bold move in schedulign history".

kind of like how you can move a 1-aa game at the last minute but if its bigtime football (nebraksa,ohio st) you have a lot more issues to work it.

its business man

 

[ChrisParadise]

we can argue 5-9-10-15 years all we want but the point remains. even 8 yrs ago Florida would have ZERO reason to sechdule a 6-6 USC team. and now in 2010 they are even more of a danger to schedule.

schedule a game for 10 yrs from now? USC may have the death penalty by then, then they have to fill in with Oregon or App St

 

[Conan]

man they were talkin about that matchup at the 2001 SECCG.

you want to hear the truth? you wont like it and you will get your feelings hurt but ill tell ya anyway.

the UT AD was trying to get a better opponent (was in talks with nebraska at that time) and as time got close,too close, he went with the easy safe deal with the Ducks to fill it out. they were a easy fix "not a bold move in scheduling history".

kind of like how you can move a 1-aa game at the last minute but if its bigtime football (nebraksa,ohio st) you have a lot more issues to work it.
its business man

Easy fix? got it. You're absolutely entitled to make anything out of it that you wish. There's nothing bold about playing Oregon. Got it.

I will bookmark this and let's take another look at it next season when the first game of the series is played. I would play Oregon vs anyone's ignorance. So in a way, that's also on the line here. Nice. How much of a bet are you willing to welch this time? I do understand your business philosophy.

 

[ChrisParadise]

Easy fix? got it. You're absolutely entitled to make anything out of it that you wish. There's nothing bold about playing Oregon. Got it.

I will bookmark this and let's take another look at it next season when the first game of the series is played. I would play Oregon vs anyone's ignorance. So in a way, that's also on the line here. Nice. How much of a bet are you willing to welch this time? I do understand your business philosophy.

Conan, do you like fish sticks?

 

[Conan]

Conan, do you like fish sticks?

Thanks, but I'm already having quesadillas and tamales tonight.

 

[SantaBarbaraTrojan]

http://www.collegegameballs.com/200...nce-schedule-strength-by-conference-and-team/2009 Out of Conference Schedule Strength by Conference and Team

by cgb on Wed, May 20, 2009 at 1:13 am


X
Hello there! If you are new here, subscribe to the RSS feed to receive all of our updates.Powered by WP Greet Box



Some of the most intense arguments and / or pissing contests throughout the college football season revolve around conference rankings. Why? It’s another way for fans to make themselves feel better or puff out their chest. “Yeah… we were only 6-6, but we play in the best conference.” “Dude there’s no way your 8-4 team is better than mine, we play in the…” Out of conference schedules are brought to the forefront of any discussion of what team or conference is better than another. Instead of just tossing out bullshit arguments I used some logic and math to nail down something concrete. This is what I came up with.
The out of conference strength for any team is calculated by:
S_t = (((0.9 * H) + (1.1 * A) + (0.7 * h) + (0.8 * a) -(0.9 * C)) / (H + A + h + a + C))
H = Home games against BCS teams (and Notre Dame)
A = Neutral or Away games against BCS teams (and Notre Dame)
h = Home games against non-BCS teams
a = Away games against non-BCS teams
C = Cupcakes, games against any team that doesn’t fall into one of the above categories ie 1aa teams.
Mathmatically speaking the formula is simple enough. My logic was to penalize teams for playing cupcakes and reward them for playing BCS conference teams. Away games are weighed more just because on average it is harder to win on the road (duh). Originally I subtracted one for each cupcake played, but this

<object width="425" height="344">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Prlxc1qaaLY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></object></p> made me change my mind.
The out of conference strength for any conference is calculated by:
S_c = SUM(S_t) / COUNT(S_t)
Again pretty simple math, just take average.
The results (higher indicates stronger out of conference schedule).
Pac 10 S_c = 0.653
Big 12 S_c = 0.564583
Big Ten S_c = 0.4863
Big East S_c = 0.44
SEC S_c = 0.425
ACC S_c = 0.377083
Thoughts…

• I never would have thought the ACC would be last. I’m beginning to think I’m a homer. I never would have thought the Big 12 would be second.
• The Pac 10 plays very few cupcakes, not to mention a round-robin schedule
• The teams that finish towards the top of their division / conference standings play a tougher out of conference schedule.
• Massive quantities of numbers can be prescribed instead of Ambien

What do you guys think?
You can see the crunched numbers for each team in decadent tables complete with repeating decimals after the jump.
<small>Warning! These numbers were calculated late at night. It is quite possible something is wrong. If you find an error just let me know.</small>

<table style="font-size: 8pt;" width="100%" border="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td colspan="7">ACC</td> </tr> <tr> <td width="40%">
</td> <td width="10%">H</td> <td width="10%">A</td> <td width="10%">h</td> <td width="10%">a</td> <td width="10%">C</td> <td width="10%">S_t</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Florida State</td> <td>1</td> <td>2</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>0.55</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Boston College</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>2</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>0.4</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Maryland</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>0.45</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Wake Forest</td> <td>2</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>0.425</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Clemson</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>2</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>0.4</td> </tr> <tr> <td>North Carolina State</td> <td>2</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> <td>2</td> <td>0</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Virginia Tech</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>0</td> <td>0.875</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Georgia Tech</td> <td>1</td> <td>2</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>0.55</td> </tr> <tr> <td>North Carolina</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>0</td> <td>2</td> <td>0</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Miami</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>0.475</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Virginia</td> <td>1</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>0.375</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Duke</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>2</td> <td>0.025</td> </tr> <tr> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>0.377083333</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="7">Big 12</td> </tr> <tr> <td>
</td> <td>H</td> <td>A</td> <td>h</td> <td>a</td> <td>C</td> <td>S_t</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Missouri</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>0.425</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Nebraska</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>3</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> <td>0.8</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Kansas</td> <td>1</td> <td>0</td> <td>2</td> <td>1</td> <td>0</td> <td>0.775</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Kansas State</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>2</td> <td>0.025</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Colorado</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>2</td> <td>1</td> <td>0</td> <td>0.825</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Iowa State</td> <td>1</td> <td>0</td> <td>2</td> <td>1</td> <td>0</td> <td>0.775</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Texas</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> <td>3</td> <td>1</td> <td>0</td> <td>0.725</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Oklahoma</td> <td>0</td> <td>2</td> <td>1</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>0.5</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Texas Tech</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> <td>2</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>0.325</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Oklahoma State</td> <td>1</td> <td>0</td> <td>2</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>0.35</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Baylor</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>0.45</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Texas A&M</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>3</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> <td>0.8</td> </tr> <tr> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>0.564583333</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="7">Big East</td> </tr> <tr> <td>
</td> <td>H</td> <td>A</td> <td>h</td> <td>a</td> <td>C</td> <td>S_t</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Cincinnati</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>0.52</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Pittsburgh</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>0.52</td> </tr> <tr> <td>West Virginia</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>2</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>0.5</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Rutgers</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>2</td> <td>0.16</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Connecticut</td> <td>1</td> <td>2</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>0.6</td> </tr> <tr> <td>South Florida</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>2</td> <td>0.2</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Louisville</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>2</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>0.48</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Syracuse</td> <td>2</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>0.54</td> </tr> <tr> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>0.44</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="7">Big Ten</td> </tr> <tr> <td>
</td> <td>H</td> <td>A</td> <td>h</td> <td>a</td> <td>C</td> <td>S_t</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Penn State</td> <td>1</td> <td>0</td> <td>2</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>0.35</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Ohio State</td> <td>1</td> <td>0</td> <td>2</td> <td>1</td> <td>0</td> <td>0.775</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Michigan State</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>2</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>0.4</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Iowa</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>0.45</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Northwestern</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>2</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>0.4</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Minnesota</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>0.45</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Wisconsin</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>2</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>0.4</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Illinois</td> <td>0</td> <td>2</td> <td>1</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>0.5</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Purdue</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>2</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> <td>0.85</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Michigan</td> <td>1</td> <td>0</td> <td>2</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>0.35</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Indiana</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>0.425</td> </tr> <tr> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>0.486363636</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="7">Pac 10</td> </tr> <tr> <td>
</td> <td>H</td> <td>A</td> <td>h</td> <td>a</td> <td>C</td> <td>S_t</td> </tr> <tr> <td>USC</td> <td>0</td> <td>2</td> <td>1</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> <td>0.966666667</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Oregon</td> <td>1</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>0</td> <td>0.8</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Oregon State</td> <td>1</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>0.266666667</td> </tr> <tr> <td>California</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>0.366666667</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Arizona</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>0.3</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Stanford</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> <td>0.9</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Arizona State</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>0.3</td> </tr> <tr> <td>UCLA</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> <td>0.9</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Washington State</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>2</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> <td>0.833333333</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Washington</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> <td>0.9</td> </tr> <tr> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>0.653333333</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="7">SEC</td> </tr> <tr> <td>
</td> <td>H</td> <td>A</td> <td>h</td> <td>a</td> <td>C</td> <td>S_t</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Florida</td> <td>1</td> <td>0</td> <td>2</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>0.35</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Georgia</td> <td>1</td> <td>2</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>0.55</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Vanderbilt</td> <td>1</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>0.375</td> </tr> <tr> <td>South Carolina</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>0.45</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Tennesse</td> <td>1</td> <td>0</td> <td>3</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> <td>0.75</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Kentucky</td> <td>1</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>0.375</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Alabama</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>2</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>0.4</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Mississippi</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>2</td> <td>-0.075</td> </tr> <tr> <td>LSU</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>3</td> <td>0</td> <td>0</td> <td>0.8</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Auburn</td> <td>1</td> <td>0</td> <td>2</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>0.35</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Arkansas</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>2</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>0.4</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Mississippi State</td> <td>1</td> <td>0</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>1</td> <td>0.375</td> </tr> <tr> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>
</td> <td>0.425</td> </tr> </tbody> </table>
<!-- <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:trackback="http://madskills.com/public/xml/rss/module/trackback/"> <rdfescription rdf:about="http://www.collegegameballs.com/2009/05/20/2009-out-of-conference-schedule-strength-by-conference-and-team/" dc:identifier="http://www.collegegameballs.com/2009/05/20/2009-out-of-conference-schedule-strength-by-conference-and-team/" dc:title="2009 Out of Conference Schedule Strength by Conference and Team" trackbacking="http://www.collegegameballs.com/2009/05/20/2009-out-of-conference-schedule-strength-by-conference-and-team/trackback/" /> </rdf:RDF> --> Read more: ACC, Big 12, Big East, Big Ten, Pac 10, SEC, Statistics

 

[EatTheChalk]

SantaBarbara, if I'm reading that right, a road game at Washington is rated more challenging than a home game vs. LSU, is that right?

Conan, the whole purpose for bringing up the entire sos is because it explains why teams might try to schedule a softer or tougher ooc. So it's not like the two are completely unrelated. If one's question is, "why the hell do they schedule such a light OOC?" The obvious answer is that they make up for it with their conference slate, and the numbers bare this out. Some people don't get that, I understand, but I'm just one of the folks helping people like you understand the reasoning behind it. Just remember, the OOC for the PAC 10 is only 3 games, the OOC for the SEC is only 4 games. The bulk of the relevant part of the schedule comes from conference play...that's what matters, and if you're in a lower rated conference, then you *need* to schedule a tougher OOC just to keep up.

Just remember, the SEC does what the SEC does to please the SEC...not anybody else. Winning championships and making money are very pleasing to folks. I have no idea why you think it's a sportsmanship issue. I think you take some of this a little too seriously.

-ETC

 

[EatTheChalk]

Let's see how the model conference, the PAC 10, did last year with their OOC road games (source of rankings from Massey's compilation page, feel free to use an alternative, but you get the idea):

PAC 10 OOC road wins in 2008:
----------------------------------
(65) @ Virginia
(68) @ Purdue

Average opponent rating in road wins = 66.5

PAC 10 OOC road losses in 2008:
----------------------------------
(6) @ Penn State
(8) @ Utah
(9) @ TCU
(26) @ BYU
(40) @ Notre Dame
(50) @ Maryland
(60) @ Baylor
(82) @ New Mexico
(83) @ Hawaii

Average opponent rating in road losses= 40.4

That's 2-9 on the road for the PAC 10, OOC

SEC OOC road wins in 2008:
----------------------------------
(18) @ FSU
(33) vs. Clemson
(47) @ Arizona State
(78) @ Louisville
(116) @ Miami, OH

Average opponent rating in road wins = 58.4

SEC OOC road losses in 2008:
----------------------------------
(3) @ Texas
(23) @ West Virginia
(28) vs. Georgia Tech
(33) @ Clemson
(35) @ Wake Forest
(35) @ Wake Forest
(67) @ UCLA
(74) @ Louisiania Tech

Average opponent rating in road losses = 37.3

That's 5-8 on the road for the SEC, OOC (note: fewer road losses with more games played and a tougher average opponent)

Any questions?

-ETC

 

[SantaBarbaraTrojan]

SantaBarbara, if I'm reading that right, a road game at Washington is rated more challenging than a home game vs. LSU, is that right?
-ETC

How it values the games is:

LSU, being the road team, gets a higher value for being on the road and Washington is given a lesser value for being the home team.

Switch the venues and you have Washington getting the higher value and LSU getting the lesser value.

 

[Conan]

SantaBarbara, if I'm reading that right, a road game at Washington is rated more challenging than a home game vs. LSU, is that right?

I think you are reading that wrong, with a bad case of tunnel vision. If you threw out the most extreme examples of such mismatches from opposite perspectives not just one as you have done, it would still balance out, in other words, looking at the numbers on the whole is the only way to read it right.

You fail to grasp the idea that even though there is the comparison with UW and LSU that you have pointed out, there are opposite examples that are just as unbalanced are just as frequent. The only way to interpret this kind of information is to look at it on the whole.

 

[SantaBarbaraTrojan]

Let's see how the model conference, the PAC 10, did last year with their OOC road games (source of rankings from Massey's compilation page, feel free to use an alternative, but you get the idea):

That's 5-8 on the road for the SEC, OOC (note: fewer road losses with more games played and a tougher average opponent)

Any questions?
-ETC

Well that is just fine and dandy, considering you are using 27% of the SEC's OOC schedule and 36% of the Pac 10's OOC schedule, along with a rating system (Massey) that doesn't differentiate between a home team or a road team and doesn't include games vs. FBS opponents, you did just fine.

BTW, look up the Sagarin rankings and you will see the Pac 10 played the tougher road schedule as well as the tougher home OOC schedule.

 

[Conan]

Let's see how the model conference, the PAC 10, did last year with their OOC road games (source of rankings from Massey's compilation page, feel free to use an alternative, but you get the idea):

PAC 10 OOC road wins in 2008:
----------------------------------
(65) @ Virginia
(68) @ Purdue

Average opponent rating in road wins = 66.5

PAC 10 OOC road losses in 2008:
----------------------------------
(6) @ Penn State
(8) @ Utah
(9) @ TCU
(26) @ BYU
(40) @ Notre Dame
(50) @ Maryland
(60) @ Baylor
(82) @ New Mexico
(83) @ Hawaii

Average opponent rating in road losses= 40.4

That's 2-9 on the road for the PAC 10, OOC

SEC OOC road wins in 2008:
----------------------------------
(18) @ FSU
(33) vs. Clemson
(47) @ Arizona State
(78) @ Louisville
(116) @ Miami, OH

Average opponent rating in road wins = 58.4

SEC OOC road losses in 2008:
----------------------------------
(3) @ Texas
(23) @ West Virginia
(28) vs. Georgia Tech
(33) @ Clemson
(35) @ Wake Forest
(35) @ Wake Forest
(67) @ UCLA
(74) @ Louisiania Tech

Average opponent rating in road losses = 37.3

That's 5-8 on the road for the SEC, OOC (note: fewer road losses with more games played and a tougher average opponent)

Any questions?

-ETC

We have known all about that long before you researched it. There was an inordinate amount of turnover from the previous season and teams like UW scheduled over-ambitiously. Teams such as Oregon State were returning none of their DL etc. (none of the starting 7) and they lost at least one OOC game they could have won (@ Utah and it was a lot closer than the Sugar Bowl.) But even though there were teams that were having it hard at the start, they finished out going 5-0 in the bowls. As is becoming apparent, there is always 1/2 of the picture that you choose to ignore. And as you know, on top of the conferences bowl record they also had more players drafted by the NFL than any other conference, including your own. That's the rest of the story of 2008 that you refuse to accept about the Pac-10... too bad.

Now with all the information you left out brought to bear, your point is what about the Pac-10 conference's worth in a national sense... on the national playing field?

Your jaundiced reality is costing your credibility. I'd quit while I was ahead if I was you. I don't think you can present a case with an open mind and it's as obvious as your conference's yellow streak on the national playing field... (save for just a few of them that have yielded to the embarrassing truth before they were hurt by it such as you just cannot yet fathom.)

 

[Conan]

Conan, the whole purpose for bringing up the entire sos is because it explains why teams might try to schedule a softer or tougher ooc. So it's not like the two are completely unrelated. If one's question is, "why the hell do they schedule such a light OOC?" The obvious answer is that they make up for it with their conference slate, and the numbers bare this out. Some people don't get that, I understand, but I'm just one of the folks helping people like you understand the reasoning behind it. Just remember, the OOC for the PAC 10 is only 3 games, the OOC for the SEC is only 4 games. The bulk of the relevant part of the schedule comes from conference play...that's what matters, and if you're in a lower rated conference, then you *need* to schedule a tougher OOC just to keep up.

That argument has been used to a fault. It is so full of holes I don't hardly know where to start but I am not inclined to do so because you are parroting the same excuse that's been used 100 times in this forum and answered 100 times because it's pure bullshit.

But to indulge you as briefly as I can, if there are 5 premier type SEC teams in a given year, including the 8-5 LSU's, then IF and WHEN a team just happens to be scheduled to play all of them (which never happens) then there would be only 2 tough road games on the average to deal with. 2 games would be played at home and the rest were middle of the pack and lower also-rans in the conference.

To be bowl eligible, an SEC team need only to beat all of its 1-AA and Sun Belt opponents then win just 2 games vs lower ranked SEC schools, say Vandy and Mississippi St. in an average year. Win 2 games vs the middle of the pack and you are an 8-4 team. Win them all and you are a 9-3 team and you don't have to beat anyone of consequence to get there.

That is the real truth about SEC schedules. So spare us the tough conference schedule bullshit because it is bullshit. Just go play someone with some cajones out of conference and nobody will care.

Do a real rundown of the top 5 finishers full schedules in the SEC if you dare know the truth. Quit with this so called tough conference schedule BS to excuse away your cowardice by design... or "working the system" as you prefer to put it. You are not snowing anyone in here, maybe yourself -- but nobody else. The SOS ranking are there for the asking and it doesn't take much to see what BS your SEC schedule excuse is all about.

 

[Conan]

sic

 

[EatTheChalk]

Well that is just fine and dandy, considering you are using 27% of the SEC's OOC schedule and 36% of the Pac 10's OOC schedule, along with a rating system (Massey) that doesn't differentiate between a home team or a road team and doesn't include games vs. FBS opponents, you did just fine.

BTW, look up the Sagarin rankings and you will see the Pac 10 played the tougher road schedule as well as the tougher home OOC schedule.

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but it's a composite ranking using nearly 30 ranking systems. Funny how 27% and 36% are irrelevant when considering strength of OOC schedules, but 33% and 25% are relevant when considering overall strength of schedule. That's a little hypocritical, don't you think? BTW, you wouldn't be impressed with the home portion of that either, but I can post that if you like.

-ETC

 

[EatTheChalk]

We have known all about that long before you researched it. There was an inordinate amount of turnover from the previous season and teams like UW scheduled over-ambitiously. Teams such as Oregon State were returning none of their DL etc. (none of the starting 7) and they lost at least one OOC game they could have won (@ Utah and it was a lot closer than the Sugar Bowl.) But even though there were teams that were having it hard at the start, they finished out going 5-0 in the bowls. As is becoming apparent, there is always 1/2 of the picture that you choose to ignore. And as you know, on top of the conferences bowl record they also had more players drafted by the NFL than any other conference, including your own. That's the rest of the story of 2008 that you refuse to accept about the Pac-10... too bad.

Now with all the information you left out brought to bear, your point is what about the Pac-10 conference's worth in a national sense... on the national playing field?

No, the PAC 10 did not have more players drafted than the SEC, here's a breakdown by school (and you can see how one team really carried the load for the PAC 10; again, nobody has knocked USC for not being a great team):

USC - 11
Oregon State - 7
Oregon - 5
Washington State - 1
California - 3
Arizona - 2
Arizona State 2
Stanford - 0
Washington - 0
UCLA - 0

4 out of 10 schools had 1 player drafted

South Carolina - 7
Georgia - 6
LSU - 6
Mississippi - 4
Alabama - 4
Auburn - 3
Florida - 3
Kentucky - 1
Arkansas - 1
Tennessee - 1
Vanderbilt - 1

7 out of 12 schools had at least 3 players drafted, 1 school had none drafted. Thank God for USC or the PAC 10 wouldn't even be in the discussion...but then again, nobody's ever accused USC of not carrying the load for the PAC 10.

And good job for the PAC 10 in bowl games, how many conference ranking mismatches were there? You can't count the bowl record unless you want to count the conference record vs. say, the MWC. Conference ranking is relevant. Again, great job to USC for knocking off the Big 10 Champ, but here's the rest of the story:

PAC 10 #2 d. Big Twelve #5
PAC 10 #3 d. Big East #3
PAC 10 #4 d. ACC #7
PAC 10 #5 d. MWC #3 (and nobody wants to use the PAC 10's overall record vs. the MWC)

I'd be interested to read your sources that identify the PAC 10 as having had more players drafted last year. But still, the point of it is that USC had a sick promotional class - not surprising, they've been a dominating team for several years now. It's not and never has been about USC, it's about everybody else out there.

-ETC

 

[EatTheChalk]

That argument has been used to a fault. It is so full of holes I don't hardly know where to start but I am not inclined to do so because you are parroting the same excuse that's been used 100 times in this forum and answered 100 times because it's pure bullshit.

But to indulge you as briefly as I can, if there are 5 premier type SEC teams in a given year, including the 8-5 LSU's, then IF and WHEN a team just happens to be scheduled to play all of them (which never happens) then there would be only 2 tough road games on the average to deal with. 2 games would be played at home and the rest were middle of the pack and lower also-rans in the conference.

To be bowl eligible, an SEC team need only to beat all of its 1-AA and Sun Belt opponents then win just 2 games vs lower ranked SEC schools, say Vandy and Mississippi St. in an average year. Win 2 games vs the middle of the pack and you are an 8-4 team. Win them all and you are a 9-3 team and you don't have to beat anyone of consequence to get there.

That is the real truth about SEC schedules. So spare us the tough conference schedule bullshit because it is bullshit. Just go play someone with some cajones out of conference and nobody will care.

Do a real rundown of the top 5 finishers full schedules in the SEC if you dare know the truth. Quit with this so called tough conference schedule BS to excuse away your cowardice by design... or "working the system" as you prefer to put it. You are not snowing anyone in here, maybe yourself -- but nobody else. The SOS ranking are there for the asking and it doesn't take much to see what BS your SEC schedule excuse is all about.

Why does your proof always consist of hypotheticals? If a team finds itself in that situation (like Alabama, Ole Miss, Florida, and Georgia *appear* to this year...only one major game vs. opposite divisions this year: LSU-Florida, LSU-Georgia), then these teams are at a heightened disadvantage with regard to scheduling. That means they will not get the benefits that they did when they had tougher schedules with the exception of the two teams competing in the SEC Championship Game (which is a *huge* mulligan for those two teams). It goes back to the idea that if your schedule is light, you need to go undefeated or have a LOT of things fall your way. If your schedule is strong, then you have some margin for error. It's not an excuse, it's an explanation.

-ETC