Steele's 2017 Toughest Schedule Rankings - ESPN Insidera

[Olyduck]

Not at all. I am merely pointing out the obvious. Any blanket assumption based on schedules has a high probability of making you look bad. Hence why saying a 9-4 Houston team isn't as good as a 9-4 Louisville team doesn't make sense, given the known facts

except thats not what I said. I compared like 10 teams that all went 9-4 each. you picked 2 that happened to play eachother. I was comparing a schedule not individual teams. If the task is to get wins, i guarantee you everyone is picking the slate off 9-4 teams that included Houston over the one that has Louisville despite what the outcome of their game was.

 

[Codaxx]

I forget, which State Fair is it at?

Dallas is actually about 5 miles closer to OU's campus, compared to Texas. Just the way geography works out.

 

[Deep Creek]

Sometimes things like sound impact etc are not quantifiable by numbers. So ot is really hard to put a number stamp on how much or how little crowd does impact the game. Just because an oponnent wins in a tough environment full of rowdy crowd doesn't necessarily mean it has little to no impact. Studies can provide insight but as I said, some things are not always able to be accounted for. That is why there is always a portion of sociological studies that list the potential shortcomings of said study.

Thought this appropriate regarding a portion of your posts. It drives the 100% data acolytes nuts when they can't totally quantify things.

"The first step is to measure whatever can be easily measured. That’s okay as far as it goes.

The second step is to disregard that which can’t be measured or give it an arbitrary quantitative value. That’s artificial and misleading.

The third step is to presume that what can’t be measured easily isn’t very important. That’s blindness.

The fourth step is to say what can’t be measured really doesn’t exist. That’s suicide."

 

[theboardref]

Thought this appropriate regarding a portion of your posts. It drives the 100% data acolytes nuts when they can't totally quantify things.

"The first step is to measure whatever can be easily measured. That’s okay as far as it goes.

The second step is to disregard that which can’t be measured or give it an arbitrary quantitative value. That’s artificial and misleading.

The third step is to presume that what can’t be measured easily isn’t very important. That’s blindness.

The fourth step is to say what can’t be measured really doesn’t exist. That’s suicide."

I think using data to get an idea of potential connections is helpful, but it is just as important to note that data isn't always quantifiable. Wins and losses is only one way to determine how much it impacts a team. How many times does a team need to call timeouts on offense on 3rd downs due to crowd volume? How good was the team in the seasons when they lost games, would crowd participation really impact a team that is head and shoulders better than the other? While they have studies done there is no way to know 100 % which stadium is, "the toughest".

 

[RoyUte]

Yes, there is a difference - I did the math. It's 7%ish at best, and in the most cases less than 3%.

Bowl games have no bearing on playoff selections since it happens before those games are played. Even if they did, you are adding 2 games? And if those teams are being over-rated, as is your basic claim, then shouldn't they just be adding loses?

As for Pac12 teams scheduling themselves in addition to their own scheduled conference games:

1.

2.

You obviously didn't do the math because that would have been 6 more losses as a conference for the SEC and 0 more wins last year.

I didn't say anything about the playoff so I'm not sure what you're talking about. I looked at last year's overall record and schedule and took out the cream cake free win and put in a West team. I didn't add in 2 games. I said that the SEC would have to play 10 conference games to play as much of their own conference as the PAC does.

The SEC has 14 teams and plays 8 conference games.
The PAC has 12 teams and plays 9 conference games. See what I'm talking about?
It's pretty sad that players will never get to play against all of the teams in their own conference.

I have know I idea what you're talking about with PAC teams scheduling themselves in addition to their own conference games?

 

[4down20]

You obviously didn't do the math because that would have been 6 more losses as a conference for the SEC and 0 more wins last year.

I didn't say anything about the playoff so I'm not sure what you're talking about. I looked at last year's overall record and schedule and took out the cream cake free win and put in a West team. I didn't add in 2 games. I said that the SEC would have to play 10 conference games to play as much of their own conference as the PAC does.

The SEC has 14 teams and plays 8 conference games.
The PAC has 12 teams and plays 9 conference games. See what I'm talking about?
It's pretty sad that players will never get to play against all of the teams in their own conference.

I have know I idea what you're talking about with PAC teams scheduling themselves in addition to their own conference games?

I did the math and you are crying about less than 3% of the schedule. In other words - you're crying about something that has basically no real bearing on things simply because you need something to cry about.

 

[USCDoom]

I did the math and you are crying about less than 3% of the schedule. In other words - you're crying about something that has basically no real bearing on things simply because you need something to cry about.

Your Math is Flawed.

You Act as if Each Game is the Same... They are Not...

See One Game playing At Home vs Northwest Eastern State is not the same as One Game on the Road vs a Conference Opponents. Even though it is still One Game...

Why not assign a Chance of Losing to each game then SEE what the Math says.........

 

[jon2tanman]

Your Math is Flawed.

You Act as if Each Game is the Same... They are Not...

See One Game playing At Home vs Northwest Eastern State is not the same as One Game on the Road vs a Conference Opponents. Even though it is still One Game...

Why not assign a Chance of Losing to each game then SEE what the Math says.........

It's called uncommon sense nowadays.

 

[4down20]

Your Math is Flawed.

You Act as if Each Game is the Same... They are Not...

See One Game playing At Home vs Northwest Eastern State is not the same as One Game on the Road vs a Conference Opponents. Even though it is still One Game...

Why not assign a Chance of Losing to each game then SEE what the Math says.........

You guys kill me sometimes.

All games are not the same and never did I suggest they were. I mentioned the % of games being talked about here in relation to the entire schedule of the opponents. Because the formula in the OP is using win% and the difference being claimed by others is that the extra wins for the SEC inflates the schedule strength of the SEC.

IE: Opponent difficulty in the OP is to say that a 10-2 team is better than a 9-3 team. The claim is that the SEC benefits from it. To which I am pointing out that the extra wins make up such a small % of the overall games of the opponents(96 of them) that it has basically no effect on the overall strength of schedule.

Obviously the strength of teams matters, but the difference in that 1 win just isn't significant in terms of overall schedule strength.

The problems here have nothing to do with my math, and I didn't choose to use the win% method for SoS. I don't pay much attention to that formula, but it seems to be the most understandable for people and it's the most commonly used as a result.

I'm not denying that different opponents have different strengths. I'm just saying when you have a schedule that already features many tough opponents, that little FCS team doesn't really mean shit.

Besides, the FCS game wouldn't even be the game that went away on a 9 game conference schedule. The 2 are actually not even related.

 

[socaljim242]

You guys kill me sometimes.

All games are not the same and never did I suggest they were. I mentioned the % of games being talked about here in relation to the entire schedule of the opponents. Because the formula in the OP is using win% and the difference being claimed by others is that the extra wins for the SEC inflates the schedule strength of the SEC.

IE: Opponent difficulty in the OP is to say that a 10-2 team is better than a 9-3 team. The claim is that the SEC benefits from it. To which I am pointing out that the extra wins make up such a small % of the overall games of the opponents(96 of them) that it has basically no effect on the overall strength of schedule.

Obviously the strength of teams matters, but the difference in that 1 win just isn't significant in terms of overall schedule strength.

The problems here have nothing to do with my math, and I didn't choose to use the win% method for SoS. I don't pay much attention to that formula, but it seems to be the most understandable for people and it's the most commonly used as a result.

I'm not denying that different opponents have different strengths. I'm just saying when you have a schedule that already features many tough opponents, that little FCS team doesn't really mean shit.

Besides, the FCS game wouldn't even be the game that went away on a 9 game conference schedule. The 2 are actually not even related.

Schedule already has tough opponents? Like overrated Sec teams that dont drop from rankings no matter how shitty they are? Yeah great excuse to play home OCC games againt Mercer and Chattanooga and Southern Carolina and Towsend for the past twelve seasons. How many years do you have to go back to find when was the last time Alabama went to an occ opponents stadium to play? Is is five years ago now against Pen State? Pathetic pussy scheduling. But hey you got Mercer in late November this season.

 

[4down20]

Schedule already has tough opponents? Like overrated Sec teams that dont drop from rankings no matter how shitty they are? Yeah great excuse to play home OCC games againt Mercer and Chattanooga and Southern Carolina and Towsend for the past twelve seasons. How many years do you have to go back to find when was the last time Alabama went to an occ opponents stadium to play? Is is five years ago now against Pen State? Pathetic pussy scheduling. But hey you got Mercer in late November this season.

52-6.

 

[Rolltide94]

It would be 6 more losses if a conference has 9 conference games. B1G has 7 more losses than a conference with 14 teams and 8-game conference schedule.

You're assuming a win against those OOC FCS opponents...some P5 teams can't always do that...not mentioning any names.

 

[7Samurai13]

52-6.

I think Michigan state could have put up a better fight. We held a lead in every game last season.

 

[socaljim242]

52-6.

Yeah so? No ones said your team wasn't good or that you stomped USC that game.
It's still a fact that most of the SEC was shit last year and you guys haven't traveled more than four times in Twelve years to and OCC opponents house. But I guess you can't defend that.

 

[RoyUte]

You guys kill me sometimes.

All games are not the same and never did I suggest they were. I mentioned the % of games being talked about here in relation to the entire schedule of the opponents. Because the formula in the OP is using win% and the difference being claimed by others is that the extra wins for the SEC inflates the schedule strength of the SEC.

IE: Opponent difficulty in the OP is to say that a 10-2 team is better than a 9-3 team. The claim is that the SEC benefits from it. To which I am pointing out that the extra wins make up such a small % of the overall games of the opponents(96 of them) that it has basically no effect on the overall strength of schedule.

Obviously the strength of teams matters, but the difference in that 1 win just isn't significant in terms of overall schedule strength.

The problems here have nothing to do with my math, and I didn't choose to use the win% method for SoS. I don't pay much attention to that formula, but it seems to be the most understandable for people and it's the most commonly used as a result.

I'm not denying that different opponents have different strengths. I'm just saying when you have a schedule that already features many tough opponents, that little FCS team doesn't really mean shit.

Besides, the FCS game wouldn't even be the game that went away on a 9 game conference schedule. The 2 are actually not even related.

You're missing the point that it DOES affect the schedule strength. The SEC would have had 2 less teams ranked last year and an additional 2 that didn't go bowling. How would that not bring down the overall schedule strength?

And it would be getting rid of an FCS or G5 cream cake for these teams. Utah played their 9 conference opponents last year plus BYU (who qualifies as the P5 OOC for the SEC) and the year before it was Michigan (a home and home series).

 

[4down20]

You're missing the point that it DOES affect the schedule strength. The SEC would have had 2 less teams ranked last year and an additional 2 that didn't go bowling. How would that not bring down the overall schedule strength?

And it would be getting rid of an FCS or G5 cream cake for these teams. Utah played their 9 conference opponents last year plus BYU (who qualifies as the P5 OOC for the SEC) and the year before it was Michigan (a home and home series).

The effect is so minimal that it's not significant.

There is no SoS method that uses "ranked teams", nor do any of them include "bowl teams". That's the kind of stats for cherry pickers.

Maybe you are new to college football, but the schedule 15 years ago was only 11 games. When they added the 12th game, most teams in college football added a FCS team. Even with the 9 game conference schedule there are many Pac12 schools who still schedule FCS teams.

You mention Utah, but what you don't mention is that even with the 9 game schedule and the BYU game, Utah opens the season vs FCS North Dakota.

 

[4down20]

Yeah so? No ones said your team wasn't good or that you stomped USC that game.
It's still a fact that most of the SEC was shit last year and you guys haven't traveled more than four times in Twelve years to and OCC opponents house. But I guess you can't defend that.

What is there to defend? What you mention doesn't mean a damn thing when it comes to the actual game. It's just something you want to cry about because when you get your ass beat 52-6, petty shit like this is the only thing you can mention.

 

[RoyUte]

The effect is so minimal that it's not significant.

There is no SoS method that uses "ranked teams", nor do any of them include "bowl teams". That's the kind of stats for cherry pickers.

Maybe you are new to college football, but the schedule 15 years ago was only 11 games. When they added the 12th game, most teams in college football added a FCS team. Even with the 9 game conference schedule there are many Pac12 schools who still schedule FCS teams.

You mention Utah, but what you don't mention is that even with the 9 game schedule and the BYU game, Utah opens the season vs FCS North Dakota.

All SOS metrics use total wins, which there would have been 7 less for the SEC last year. So there are 0 fans of SEC teams that don't thump their chest about how many ranked opponents they are playing or how many bowl teams their conference had?

Utah does open against North Dakota, at the beginning of the year, not the week before their rivalry game to get an extra bye. I'm ok with 1 FCS game at the beginning of the season, not scattered throughout the season. And a team should (at a minimum) play most of their conference.

 

[outofyourmind]

Every team schedules shitty teams.
So no need to defend it.

Just say yeah, they're shitty.
And move along.

And why does it matter if it's in November or September when these games are played.
Oh, that's right, it doesn't.

 

[7Samurai13]

Every team schedules shitty teams.
So no need to defend it.

Just say yeah, they're shitty.
And move along.

And why does it matter if it's in November or September when these games are played.
Oh, that's right, it doesn't.

Because shitty teams are better at the beginning of the season and worse at the end of the season, DUH!!!