Top 25 Toughest Schedules for 2016

[B_dub]

I don't know where it's being played I just looked at the schedule on E *PN and it says its a neutral site game.

Yeah it's at Reliant stadium, but still.

Did u mean to use E*PN like a curse word? If so. Well played sir.

 

[963BUSC]

Who's opinion is the NCAA's method? It's a very simple equation.

Is that the method where you get 1 point for each opponents win? ie Arkansas State went 9-4 while Arkansas went 8-5 therefore playing Arkansas State makes for a tougher schedule than playing Arkansas?

 

[4down20]

Nice detective work, Sherlock.

no charge!

 

[4down20]

Is that the method where you get 1 point for each opponents win? ie Arkansas State went 9-4 while Arkansas went 8-5 therefore playing Arkansas State makes for a tougher schedule than playing Arkansas?

It's win% based, so yeah I generally think it sucks for the reason you mention. It see's all 7-2 teams equally.

But they have another version where they use the records of the opponents for the opponents and that makes it a little better, but still the same basic problem ultimately.

Still, it's 100% formula based. It's a simplistic form, there are much more complicated ones out there.

 

[Bamabino]

CBS

1.Wisconsin
2.USC
3.Alabama
4.BYU
5.Auburn

 

[jjc2009]

Is that just someone's opinion or actual rankings?

Wouldn't it be both unless ... computers, in which case it's the opinion of the algorithm's creator.

 

[B_dub]

CBS

1.Wisconsin
2.USC
3.Alabama
4.BYU
5.Auburn

LOL at having BYU at 4 playing 2 ranked teams including The Southern Utah Thunderbirds and UMASS.

 

[Bamabino]

LOL at having BYU at 4 playing 2 ranked teams including The Southern Utah Thunderbirds and UMASS.

I'm convinced none of the talking heads know their ass from a knothole in a tree.

 

[B_dub]

I'm convinced none of the talking heads know their ass from a knothole in a tree.

The other 4 are legit at least.

 

[nddulac]

Wouldn't it be both unless ... computers, in which case it's the opinion of the algorithm's creator.

You know - it isn't like the people who design computer rating systems choose a methodology to favor a specific team. The only subjectiveness comes in choosing which criteria on which to place importance.

The shortcoming of any computer system is that no two teams are quite alike. So what makes one team really good may be different than what makes another team really good. So one system may disproportionately reward one team for what they do well, while leaving the other out in the cold - even though both might be just as good on average. For example, most computer systems do not reward teams that are good because of their defense, but heap digital praise on teams that score a lot of points.

That's one of the biggest reason I hated how the BCS used computers. They were so hell-bent on uniformity and agreement that they completely disregarded what could have been useful data. I hate it when people coose data to support their conclusion rather than drawing conclusions suggested by the data.

 

[socaljim242]

You know - it isn't like the people who design computer rating systems choose a methodology to favor a specific team. The only subjectiveness comes in choosing which criteria on which to place importance.

The shortcoming of any computer system is that no two teams are quite alike. So what makes one team really good may be different than what makes another team really good. So one system may disproportionately reward one team for what they do well, while leaving the other out in the cold - even though both might be just as good on average. For example, most computer systems do not reward teams that are good because of their defense, but heap digital praise on teams that score a lot of points.

That's one of the biggest reason I hated how the BCS used computers. They were so hell-bent on uniformity and agreement that they completely disregarded what could have been useful data. I hate it when people coose data to support their conclusion rather than drawing conclusions suggested by the data.

Congrats. You win the longest words( disproportionately-subjectivness)used in a post award for the year (and it's only June).
Also the hardest post to read and follow after coming home from having some beers with the guys.lol
But I do get what you're selling ( after reading it slowly twice). You might think about adding pictures for any UNC grads. lol

 

[TexasExes98]

Ranking College Football Conferences After November

1. Big Ten (.848)

The Big Ten did not stumble out of the gate as they did in 2014. Big Ten members defeated three champions of other conferences: Indiana (Conference USA), Northwestern (Pac-12) and Penn State (Mountain West). The Big Ten has a respectable record versus the ACC (4-3), the Big 12 (2-2) and the Pac-12 (3-2). The conference finished 3-0 versus the service academies. The Big Ten split its two games versus BYU.



2. SEC (.741)

Just like last season, the SEC had impressive results in September then faded over the course of the season. SEC teams lost three out of four of their intra-state matches versus the ACC to finish 4-3 against their nearby conference brethren. Two wins over AAC teams in September were negated by two losses in October. South Carolina also lost to the Citadel, an FCS member.



However, there were some reasons to boast. SEC members did win their sole games against the Big Ten and the Pac-12, respectively. Also, SEC teams defeated both divisional champions of Conference USA.



3. Pac-12 (.674)

Washington State lost to FCS member Portland State in its season opener. Two Pac-12 teams lost to Mountain West opponents in the first week of the season as well. During the rest of the regular season, the Pac-12 won the other 11 games against the MW. Later in the season, the Pac-12 finished 1-1 against Notre Dame.



4. Big 12 (.567)

Eight of the 10 members played a team from the FCS. Kansas lost to one of those, South Dakota State. Also, Big 12 schools were only 2-1 versus the MAC. On the bright side, the Big 12 won both contests against the SEC.



5. ACC (.500)

The ACC hurt its score with every member playing at least one opponent from the FCS. The schools also finished 1-5 versus Notre Dame. The Coastal Division winner, North Carolina, lost on a neutral field to South Carolina. The Gamecocks finished 3-9. One of the ACC's three wins versus the SEC was against the SEC East Division champion (Florida State over Florida).



6. American Athletic (.479)

The AAC still has not proved that it is on par with the Power 5 conferences. The members, including AAC East winner Temple, lost both games versus Notre Dame and all three matchups with BYU. On a positive note, the AAC did win two of its four games against the SEC.

- See more at: Ranking College Football Conferences After November

This is suggesting the B1G is the toughest conference? Bwahahahahaha!

 

[BigFin]

Shit list is shit. FSU is 7 for playing Clemson, Florida, and Ole Miss(dont forget Miami, Louisville, and south Florida) while Ole Miss is 19 with FSU, Bama, and Georgia.

FSU also plays UNC.

 

[trojanfan12]

Funny how most everyone who is an SEC fan agrees that the SEC is the toughest conf. but none of the teams break the top 10 for toughest schedule.

fify

 

[KingKoolKat75]

This is suggesting the B1G is the toughest conference? Bwahahahahaha!

I don't think they are suggesting.....