SEC Fatigue

[Gator]

That is why SOS is such a troublesome statistic, games being scheduled years in advance. I have used this example in the past. Southern Cal had the same record two years in a row back in the early 2000s, or so. One year their SOS got them in the Championship and one year it worked against them. What was the difference? They beat ND both years. However, one year ND was 9-3 and one year they were 3-9. In neither case did SC schedule ND as 'likely win".
I realize it would be too complicated, but part of considering SOS should be consideration of the traditional strength of opponents and the trending status of nontraditional powerhouse (example would be Wisconsin) at the time the contracts are signed.

I agree that SOS can be troublesome. But, with all due respect you seem to be mis-remembering things. In both 2004 and 2005 USC was 12-0 in the regular season and played for the NC both years beating Oklahaoma in 2004 but losing to Texas in 2005. In both 2006 and 2007 USC was 10-2 in the regular season with ND being 10-3 in 2006 and 3-9 in 2007. But, in 2006 OSU was 12-0 and UF was 12-1 during the regular season. The controversy that year was UF jumping Michigan NOT USC (USC was not in the discussion of NC). In 2007, LSU was 11-2 and USC was 10-2 during the regular season and LSU played 11-1 OSU for the NC. The problem for USC was that only four of their 12 regular season opponent were above 0.500!!! (Arizona State (10-3), Oregon (9-4), Oregon State (9-4), and California (7-6)). LSU played eight teams that were over 0.500 (Virginia Tech (11-3), Tennessee (10-4), Auburn (9-4), Florida (9-4), Mississippi State (8-5), Kentucky (8-5), Arkansas (8-5), Alabama (7-6))

As to your point about the “same” schedules. Yes in 2006 and 2007 USC did play 11 of the same teams. But, it was more than just ND. In 2006 those 11 teams were a combined 78-63 but in 2007 they were a combined 67-71. The 12th game was also quite a bit different. In 2006 USC played 10-4 Arkansas but played 1-11 Idaho in 2007. The SOS was quite different despite the same names.

 

[Ron G]

I agree that SOS can be troublesome. But, with all due respect you seem to be mis-remembering things. In both 2004 and 2005 USC was 12-0 in the regular season and played for the NC both years beating Oklahaoma in 2004 but losing to Texas in 2005. In both 2006 and 2007 USC was 10-2 in the regular season with ND being 10-3 in 2006 and 3-9 in 2007. But, in 2006 OSU was 12-0 and UF was 12-1 during the regular season. The controversy that year was UF jumping Michigan NOT USC (USC was not in the discussion of NC). In 2007, LSU was 11-2 and USC was 10-2 during the regular season and LSU played 11-1 OSU for the NC. The problem for USC was that only four of their 12 regular season opponent were above 0.500!!! (Arizona State (10-3), Oregon (9-4), Oregon State (9-4), and California (7-6)). LSU played eight teams that were over 0.500 (Virginia Tech (11-3), Tennessee (10-4), Auburn (9-4), Florida (9-4), Mississippi State (8-5), Kentucky (8-5), Arkansas (8-5), Alabama (7-6))

As to your point about the “same” schedules. Yes in 2006 and 2007 USC did play 11 of the same teams. But, it was more than just ND. In 2006 those 11 teams were a combined 78-63 but in 2007 they were a combined 67-71. The 12th game was also quite a bit different. In 2006 USC played 10-4 Arkansas but played 1-11 Idaho in 2007. The SOS was quite different despite the same names.

So, my memory is faulty, I old. But the concept is the same. When schedules are made years in advance, opportunity to play in the NC should not be based on how well your opponents (especially traditional powers) recruit. Some teams schedule 8 years to 10 years out. That means the seniors on those teams are currently in 8th grade with the freshmen being in 4th or 5th grade.
Let's say a team is able to schedule 12 of the top 15 from this year. They better hope those scheduled teams keep up the recruiting or they will be penalized for a weak SOS.

 

[Gator]

So, my memory is faulty, I old.

Join the crowd! I have the feeling that most of the people posting on the board are +40. I happen to be +60 closing in on 70.

But the concept is the same. When schedules are made years in advance, opportunity to play in the NC should not be based on how well your opponents (especially traditional powers) recruit. Some teams schedule 8 years to 10 years out. That means the seniors on those teams are currently in 8th grade with the freshmen being in 4th or 5th grade.
Let's say a team is able to schedule 12 of the top 15 from this year. They better hope those scheduled teams keep up the recruiting or they will be penalized for a weak SOS.

In a way, you are illustrating the problem - DON'T look at any ONE year to decide on whom to schedule. If you are scheduling 8-10 years out then look back over the past 8-10 years to find likely candidates. In 2007 Kansas was 12-1 but since 2000 Kansas is dead last in winning percentage among P5 teams. If in 2007 you scheduled to play Kansas in 2015 believing Kansas was going to be the same 12-1 team then you were sorely disappointed as Kansas was 0-12.