Nonconference scheduling - broken down (almost)

I do think you're clueless, and you continue to prove it.

 

Poin, I'm beginning to wonder whether you even know what the word FRAUD actually means. The Big 10 being down this year does not make it a fraud. And I've yet to see anybody who's been deceived into believing its strong.

So why exactly is it a FRAUD? Because of its schedules? Well, as shown on the other thread, the SEC actually played an even more pathetic group of cupcakes than the Big 10 this year, or have you forgotten how many times names like Gardner Webb, Chattanooga, North Tx, Ark. St., Western Carolina, UAB, Fla International, La Lafayette, Fla Atlantic, Richmond, Troy, Kent State, Tenn Tech, Western Kentucky, and Northwestern State appear on SEC schedules?

In fact, what surprised me most today is how unimpressive the SEC's non-conf record actually is. I'd just assumed it was by far the best conference after hearing that SO MANY times this year from its fans, but turns out that the SEC's 2007 record ain't all that great: the SEC won only one game over a team that finished in the Top 25; they only won 5 games total over teams from any of the six major conferences (SAME as the Big 10, btw); meanwhile they lost games to the likes of La Monroe, South Florida, Cal, Mizzou, and FSU. Much less impressive than I would've expected.

 

I see you're parroting the same wrong information that was on the other thread, which excluded Georgia's win over Ga. Tech and Florida's over FSU. So it was seven wins against the other FIVE BCS conferences, as the six major conferences include the SEC. My guess is, though I haven't done the math, that the SEC turned out to be an even .500 in games against the SEC.

Here's one other thought: For whatever reason, a lot of SEC schools like to have contracts in place several years in advance. The NCAA allowed 12-game schedules beginning last year, and it did it on fairly short notice. I'm guessing that had something to do with the sudden spike in I-AA opponents showing up on schedules. I could be wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised to see that number start to level off a bit in the next few years. I do know that just about every SEC school has series scheduled for the next 6-8 years against at least one BCS opponent a year, not including the annual rivalries for S. Carolina, Florida, Georgia and Kentucky.

 

Since we're cross-threading,

http://tellshowbcs.com/
Current BCS Schedule Strength
SEC and Big Ten schools listed, with rank

1 Florida
5 Kentucky
6 South Carolina
8 Tennessee
10 LSU
13 Mississippi
20 Minnesota
22 Illinois
24 Michigan
27 Alabama
30 Michigan St
33 Georgia
36 Auburn
37 Vanderbilt
38 Penn State
44 Mississippi St
50 Ohio State
53 Purdue
58 Wisconsin
66 Arkansas
71 Indiana
75 Northwestern
82 Iowa

 

You are correct. The source I took that info from did not include the recent Ga Tech and FSU wins. My error.

 

But the topic being debated is only NON-conference scheduling. This list is based on overall schedule. I've no doubt the SEC will score higher in that this year simply because their teams currently have higher average power ratings and they play each other 8 times apiece. But that tells very little about how they schedule the games where they've a choice about who they play.

 

OK, here's the fallacy in the system. Alabama at 27 playing and losing to a Sunbelt team and Minnesota at 20 playing Bowling Green, Miami, Florida Atlantic and North Dakota State.
Not disputing some of the softness in the Big Ten schedule, but much of the SEC's non-conference slate is Krispy Kreme fluffy. SOS only comes into play with the Best Conference in Creation nonsense.

 

I think the point is how bad can Florida and the rest of the SEC's non-conference schedules be when even with it, the Gators face the toughest schedule in the land, and half of the conference's schools are in the top 12?

 

OK, so here's my question: How many BCS games is a team supposed to schedule? If you play an eight-game league schedule, should you schedule two? Three? Four? Because if you go much higher than, say, two, I think you're going to have issues finding enough other teams that are willing to forgo the snacky-cake goodness of a MAC/Sun Belt/I-AA team. The entire SEC can't play USC.

And even though they're schedule-padders, I do think there's something to be said for teams playing smaller schools within their own state. I don't think you need to do what Ohio State or LSU did and play them all in the same year, but the occasional Georgia-Georgia Southern game, or the occasional South Carolina-South Carolina State game is good for those smaller schools. Do major schools have an obligation to prop up the I-AA's of the world? Maybe not. But I still think it's good for the game.

And yes, SOS can be a bit tricky. Why is Minnesota's so high, for example? Well, unlike the rest of the Big Televen, Minnesota didn't have to play Minnesota.

 

That's because of the SEC's invincibility legend, which, when you play Sunbelt and CUSA teams, seems to be accurate...

 

The old rule of thumb used to be this: Play one home-and-home game you have a good chance of not winning -- a Michigan-Notre Dame, a Florida-Florida State, a Tennessee-Cal -- from a natural or newfound regional rival. Play one home game that you should win but against a team from a power conference -- Michigan-Vanderbilt, UCLA-Notre Dame, South Florida-Auburn. And you get one home game that is an absolute money game.
Since the 12 games expanded with overall athletic department costs going up, no conference save the Pac-10 used the extra game for good instead of evil; money games became the norm and most schools schedule three of the four. Everyone complains about it, but every school still goes for the three or four money games.

 

I think the computers that determine strength of schedule are immune to the invincibility legend.