strength of schedule

[mountainman]

I believe Strength of Schedule is important and thus the need for divisions of college football such as D-1A, D-1AA (or whatever it's called now), D-II, D-III, etc.

I do have some issue with how some have tried to define Strength of Schedule.

Welcome to the forum.

[Dossenator]

I think it is important as well. However, being an Auburn fan you remember a few years ago when Auburn went undefeated and won the SEC Championship game....and then was left out of the championship game. If you went by strength of schedule that year...Auburns schedule was defenitely more difficult then USC's. Not sure how the whole system works.

I am not sure how you compare teams from conference to conference. Last year Arkansas played 4 teams that had been ranked in the top 5 at some point in the season (USC, Georgia, Auburn, and LSU). This year they play will or have all ready played the following teams that are currently ranked in the top 25: USC, Alabama, Auburn, Tennesee, and LSU. In years when Arkansas wins a few of the tough games that definetely helps them come bowl time. I think it is important for teams that play in weaker conferences to make sure their non-conference games are top 25 teams. It definetely hurts them some if they play push over teams in non-conference and then have to only play one or maybe two meaningful games within conference.

Also, welcome to the board. I am pretty new on the board as well and have loved every minute of it. Great bunch of guys and gals who love college football.

[mountainman]

How would define Strength of Schedule? I mean what is it? How would you measure it? How and when would you apply it? How would you use it? What would determine its make-up?

[Dossenator]

It is always hard to judge at the beginning of a season. Let's say a team has to start the season against 3 teams that are ranked in the top 25. That would be considered a pretty tough schedule. Let's say the unranked team beats 2 of them. They would then more than likely be ranked themselves. Now the original teams that were ranked end up losing a couple of more games and drop out of the top 25. How does that then affect the unranked team that beat them at the beginning of the season. Turns out their schedule was not that tough after all. That is why I do not think there should be a ranking system at least until after 3 weeks of football if not more. No one really knows who is good and who is not until games have been played.

[colorado_loves_football]

Question: How important is strength of schedule?

With most conferences having only one or two ranked teams?
Teams with only one ranked team on the schedule?

In full disclosure I am an Auburn fan.

There are arguments that can be made both in favor, and in opposition to SOS.

TCU is an example of a school that played a 'so-called' easy opponent, UCDavis. But, does that, in itself mean that TCU doesn't have a 'tough' schedule? I'm inclined to think that they do, and not simply because I'm a proponent of their athletics programs.

Auburn plays in the SEC. Simply stated: their schedule requires they play 'competently' if they are to be in position for a NC run. All schools, are I-A, according to how the NCAA classifies them. If they want to schedule a I-AA opponent, they should, but it shouldn't count the same (and I don't think it does, for bowl purposes).

Conference games, generally, are more important than OOC games. So, some of those games shouldn't impact a teams BCS chances (and don't, by-and-large). I think SOS isn't critical toward a team's overall success. Dossenator suggests teams should 'strategically' schedule 'ranked' opponents. Most OOC games are scheduled years in advance (there are some exceptions, however). Good luck looking into that 'telescope'.

TCU is probably a good example of a school that tries hard to schedule 'good' competition. UCDavis was scheduled on the fly, as was Texas, next year. One outstanding program, one not. It evens out.
But, you can't 'penalize' a team for not knowing in advance how good, or bad, for that matter their competition was, regardless. Those things shoudln't prevent a school from being included in the BCS, if the meet the qualifying standards (top-12 overall).

[Spence]

I think it is important as well. However, being an Auburn fan you remember a few years ago when Auburn went undefeated and won the SEC Championship game....and then was left out of the championship game. If you went by strength of schedule that year...Auburns schedule was defenitely more difficult then USC's. Not sure how the whole system works.

If you go back and look, Auburn didn't have a higher then SC that year.

I am a big believer in SOS. I think it should be used in determining the BCS pecking order. You have to remember, though, it is possible to play in the toughest conference and not have a higher SOS. Auburn played a 1-AA team that year that knocked their SOS way down.

[Dossenator]

Auburn63....I do not think it is very hard to look into the so called telescope and know what teams to schedule as non-conference games...outside of the SEC you get teams like: Texas, Oklahoma, USC, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Miami, Florida State, Nebraska, the list could go on and on. Teams that from year to year always have good teams. Don't make all of your non-conference games push overs and never put a division II school on the schedule.

I also do not agree when you say that teams should not be penalized for their strength of schedule...so by your standards teams like Boise State would be in a BCS game every year. The problem with that is look who they play. If they were in the SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, etc. they would have several losses every year, and may not even be bowl eligible. So, I definetely think it is important to look at strength of schedule. However, it is not the only thing you should look at.

Spence...there is no way USC had a tougher schedule then Auburn the year Auburn went udefeated. Auburn also had to go and play a conference championship game (and in the process beat another top 10 team)...USC did not. I am a Razorback fan as you know, but Auburn should have had a shot at the National Championship that year. I hope this year if Auburn go undefeated that USC does too, and Ohio State. I would love to see these pretty boy USC guys get left out. I would love to see Ohio State and Auburn to be playing for the National title with USC looking in and crying about how wrong it is they got left out. I can't believe I just wished that...Ark. plays Auburn in 2 weeks. I guess I will actually be rooting for Auburn to lose one game. If they beat Ark. they better win out.

[mountainman]

Seriously Spence i don't think you want to go down that road. If you look back auburn they without question had a much tougher schedule.

Well, maybe Spence does want to go down that road.

During the 2004 season Auburn played Louisiana Monroe, Louisiana Tech, The Citadel, Kentucky ( 2 - 9 ), Mississippi ( 4 - 7 ), Mississippi State ( 3 - 8 ), Arkansas ( 5 - 6 ), Alabama ( 6 - 5 ) and the same team twice, Tennessee.

I understand you position, but hopefully you will understand why others question yours and would want Strength of Schedule defined.

[mountainman]

I guess under your logic we can expect WV fans to not complain when the beat Louisville who is #8 before the loss and will only have there big games against the rest of the big east to compare it to.

No, I wouldn't think so. If the Mountaineers are good and lucky (did you see the fumble recovery in the end-zone during the Maryland game?) enough to go undefeated this season and don't get a shot at the National Title I believe there will be a howling of the likes that hasn't been heard since Lon Chaney played in the old werewolf movies.

But, the facts are that the precedent has been set, Auburn 2004, and the Mountaineers do have a lighter schedule as compared to some of the other contenders. It's out of their hands and all they can do is to win every game and then see what happens.

By the way, if my beloved Mountaineers don't get the defense fixed and playing as it needs to, it's going to be a mute point anyway.

[mountainman]

By the way it was intended to be a discussion on strength of schedule and not an auburn issue.

Agreed. So how would you define Strength of Schedule?

[colorado_loves_football]

Auburn63....I do not think it is very hard to look into the so called telescope and know what teams to schedule as non-conference games...outside of the SEC you get teams like: Texas, Oklahoma, USC, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Miami, Florida State, Nebraska, the list could go on and on. Teams that from year to year always have good teams. Don't make all of your non-conference games push overs and never put a division II school on the schedule.

Since I brought up TCU, I'll refer to them, in this argument. They did in fact play a I-AA school, UC Davis. Does that make them a 'push-over'?
Simply because a school is I-AA doesn't make them a 'push-over'.
Other schools, TCU plays: Baylor, Texas Tech, Army.
Are those schools 'push-overs'? Army was a C-USA team, same as TCU until last season. They are former 'rivals' as are TTU, and Baylor. Any one of those schools could conceivably win, in a 'traditional' pairing.

I also do not agree when you say that teams should not be penalized for their strength of schedule...so by your standards teams like Boise State would be in a BCS game every year. The problem with that is look who they play. If they were in the SEC, Big Ten, Big 12, etc. they would have several losses every year, and may not even be bowl eligible. So, I definetely think it is important to look at strength of schedule. However, it is not the only thing you should look at.

I never mentioned Boise St, but yes, if they meet the criteria established by the BCS, then they ought to be given the 'same' opportunity, as any other school. You seem to think that a 'non-BCS' school can't play competitive football. Well, it would appear the facts, suggest otherwise.
Boise St, 2004 was undefeated, going into the BCS. They played Louisville in the Liberty Bowl (WAC vs. C-USA) and lost 40-44. Louisville, clearly had a very good team, as they have had, traditionally. Boise St, hadn't lost until that game. How can you 'discrimiate'? Does playing in the SEC necessarily 'mean' a team is better? If it does, how do you explain W. Virginia's win over Georgia, in last year's Sugar Bowl?
If there is such a 'disparity' between 'BCS' and 'non-BCS' how do you explain Boise St's 35-14 win over Oregon St? Boise St, last year, nearly beat Boston College, in the MPC Computers Bowl. No, they didn't. But, if you are going to imply a 'non-BCS' team can't compete, I think the facts say otherwise.

As far as Auburn winning a NC, there's one way that could have happened, while 'honoring' the BCS: This is my proposal, modified slightly to allow for the most 'competitive' pairings of teams, in 2004:

Holiday Bowl: Texas vs. California (highest ranked 'at large' teams).
Liberty Bowl: WAC Boise St. vs. C-USA Louisville (44-40 Louisiville).

Rose Bowl: Big Ten: Michigan vs. Texas (Texas wins 39-37)
Fiesta Bowl: Utah vs. Louisville (a preferred arrangment, at any rate)
Sugar Bowl: SEC:Auburn vs. ACC:Virginia Tech (Auburn wins 16-13)
Orange Bowl:Big XII: Oklahoma vs. Pac-Ten:USC (55-19 win for Trojans)

Semi-finals: Utah/Louisville vs. Texas, Auburn vs. USC

National championship: Semi-final winners, paired competitively.

This really isn't that unorthodox. It could be applied every year, and one team would 'emerge' national champions. Name a year, it can be done.

[Eric]

I don't think a playoff would help things in the least. The regular season would be as watered down as college basketball. Some people enjoy CBB, some don't. I like college basketball, the only problem is I can't sit through a week and pay as much attention as Digger Phelps can because I can't care about if Oklahoma beat OSU one game out of 30 or whatever. I do care what happens in CFB in the regular season because it will have an effect on the bowl standings.

As a fan, I'm more interested in enjoying each week rather than deciding which team is "really" #1.

[Spence]

Seriously Spence i don't think you want to go down that road. If you look back auburn they without question had a much tougher schedule.

Well, maybe Spence does want to go down that road.

During the 2004 season Auburn played Louisiana Monroe, Louisiana Tech, The Citadel, Kentucky ( 2 - 9 ), Mississippi ( 4 - 7 ), Mississippi State ( 3 - 8 ), Arkansas ( 5 - 6 ), Alabama ( 6 - 5 ) and the same team twice, Tennessee.

I understand you position, but hopefully you will understand why others question yours and would want Strength of Schedule defined.

We had a long discussion on this when it happened on the old board. Auburn played a couple of teams more highly ranked then USC, but the overall schedule of SC was better then Auburn's that year.

I am not a hate on the SEC guy. I do believe that the SEC has the most highly competitive teams year in and year out. But it is easy to say we beat 2 top 10 teams and say we had a tougher schedule then a team that beat 5 top 25 teams. (I haven't went back and looked at SC's schedule again so this is an example that is not accurate to illustrate a point. It is close to the case though.)

I think strength of schedule should be an important consideration when determining the best teams. But I also believe that a team can schedule very good teams to give themselves a good SOS and then it not happen. As is the case with Notre Dame last year. Notre Dame didn't try to schedule a low ranking schedule. It just turned out that way. People gave them to much credit for playing a schedule that wasn't as good as people expected.

West Virginia last year didn't get any credit last year for the schedule they played. Judging by the teams they played, most people didn't give them and shot a Georgia, especially in Atlanta. When the game was played, however, West Virginia proved that they were worthy of the bid. They proved they had a good team. Win or lose in that game, West Virginia proved they belonged on the field. So while SOS is very important, maybe even one of the most important things, it does not represent the whole story. You also have to consider what you see. Is that defense as fast as it appears? How did that corner play against this likey #1 draft choice receiver(on a bad team)? Is that Quarterback that good or is he just good because defenses on bad teams they play against can't get pressure? You have to look at the whole picture.

I can't say "Ohio State" plays in the B-10 and if they win the conference and go undefeated they must go to the championship game because the B-10 plays pretty good football. Most major conferences will have two to three ranked teams at the end of the year. Some at times could have as many as six. The question would be if Ohio State beats a #2 and a #5 team this year, but doesn't play any other ranked team, did they play a tougher schedule then a team that beat 5 or 6 ranked teams, but none ranked higher then #10.

[mountainman]

The system is flawed without a playoff no-matter what way you do it.

O.K. let's try it your way.

Let's have an 8 team playoff with #1 playing #8 and #2 playing #7 and #3 playing #6 and #4 playing #5.

The #1 team is undefeated and has played several ranked teams during the season and most certainly deserves to be ranked #1. The #8 team is 10 - 2 and has played and beaten ranked teams, but lost to #1 and #3 in very close games during the regular season.

The game is won by #8 in the "Upset of the Century" and #8 goes on to the next round and loses to the #7 team that upset #2 the previous week and is the same #7 team that #1 beat soundly during the regular season.

#6 goes on to win the National Title although they were a 2 lose team being beaten by #1 and #2 during the regular season.

I would think that #1 and #2 would have a problem with that ..... and justifiably so.

[Eric]

I guess I'm not like most college football fans. I don't exactly lick my chops for the big time games. I haven't even watched more than a couple minutes of ABC's new primetime stuff, ND/GT, OSU/Texas, Nebraska/USC. I've been watching games like Louisiana Tech/Nicholls State, UTEP/Texas Tech, Pitt/Virginia, and Arizona/BYU instead. I find those games more interesting.

Which is why I wouldn't like a playoff. I'm just saying that it would make the bowls like the NIT and when a small-conference team wins, it wouldn't mean as much.