Massey-Peabody Analytics Gives a Good Look at Strength of Schedule for 2015 Season
- Thread starter RTR91
- Start date
Interesting that the number of expected between average and actual is flip-flopped for Ohio State and Alabama. Is that basically saying that they play above their competition and we play below ours?
No. It's saying the competition for Alabama is better than the competition Ohio State plays.
Of the 25 teams used by MP, 14 improved in expected wins when facing an average schedule. Of those 14 teams, 10 were from the SEC.
Every B1G team went down in expected wins when facing an average schedule.
Every ACC team except Georgia Tech won less games against an average schedule.
USC and Arizona State are the only two Pac-12 teams that saw their expected win total go up.
Texas was the only Big 12 team to increase its expected wins.
Every B1G team went down in expected wins when facing an average schedule.
Every ACC team except Georgia Tech won less games against an average schedule.
USC and Arizona State are the only two Pac-12 teams that saw their expected win total go up.
Texas was the only Big 12 team to increase its expected wins.
This is very interesting and it reminds me of something I saw a couple years back which showed the odds an average team would have gone undefeated against a particular BCS championships schedule. The 2009 Alabama team was by far the toughest and the odds were just astronomical.
This sort of thing absolutely should not be lost when it comes times to picking playoff teams, but I'm betting it will be. The committee chose a sly way of determining their rankings, the quality wins component, but the problem is as teams dropped out of their top 25 due to beating each other up, they were able to dismiss quality wins from teams that played the toughest schedules. Basically when it was all said and done, a team can only have so many quality wins on a conference schedule no matter how tough it was.
Something like this, the hard math, the types of numbers that Sagarin uses and the likes, that's not so easy to provide misleading results. Which of course means it's likely to be ignored...
This sort of thing absolutely should not be lost when it comes times to picking playoff teams, but I'm betting it will be. The committee chose a sly way of determining their rankings, the quality wins component, but the problem is as teams dropped out of their top 25 due to beating each other up, they were able to dismiss quality wins from teams that played the toughest schedules. Basically when it was all said and done, a team can only have so many quality wins on a conference schedule no matter how tough it was.
Something like this, the hard math, the types of numbers that Sagarin uses and the likes, that's not so easy to provide misleading results. Which of course means it's likely to be ignored...
Based on the graph, Alabama, against an average SoS, would have more wins than OSU - so (since it predicts OSU to have more wins when the actual schedules factored into the equation) the author believes that Alabama has the better team and the tougher schedule. Nothing surprising here.
One side note - the strength of the SEC is a hindrance, not a help, with the new system if the winner of the SEC has 2 losses. As tough as your SEC schedule is this year, it is very reasonable to expect that this could happen this year. I hope not, but there it is. It just might be time to stop the SEC chants and hope that your conference comes back to the mean.
One side note - the strength of the SEC is a hindrance, not a help, with the new system if the winner of the SEC has 2 losses. As tough as your SEC schedule is this year, it is very reasonable to expect that this could happen this year. I hope not, but there it is. It just might be time to stop the SEC chants and hope that your conference comes back to the mean.
Why do you think the new system was adopted? Why do you think human bias was further increased? So the SEC could be further pushed out of the equation.
We could debate this all day long, but the reality is that it does not matter. We have what we have. Time to deal with the new reality of college football. Playing in the toughest conference is no longer a good thing if winning national championships is the goal.
Correct. I was a huge supporter of the BCS system in part because I think it served the SEC well. It didn't really hurt the SEC to have teams beat each other up as long as one made it to the BCSCG. Now though? It really matters because the odds of two SEC teams will always be extremely slim, while the risk that no team makes it is a valid concern.
I think you have a fairly realistic view on the matter. It's a lot easier to make it with an easy schedule, period. The committee might give you a few brownie points for your SoS, but not enough to make up for an additional loss a team might have had. You have one loss? You might not make it, you have two losses? A vast majority of the time you won't make it. If you are an undefeated power 5 team? You are all but insured a spot. SoS isn't likely to change whether or not a team makes it into the playoffs in two out of those three scenarios.
Last edited:
FSU is a great example of that. Clearly not one of the Top 4 teams last year but they were undefeated so what can you do?
Defending champs to boot. You are better off with a SoS of around 30-40. A one loss Bama team may actually be better than an undefeated OSU team but OSU will go in as a one seed without question.
If I'm reading the graph correctly, I'm surprised to see Texas A&M's schedule is rated as an easy one. Same thing for the Hogs.
Nope. They're saying TAMU win total increases by at least a game if they played the average schedule.
Latest threads
-
No. 1 Visits Tuscaloosa for Second Straight Week as Alabama Hosts Top-Ranked Texas A&M- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
-
I'm Declaring the Emporer has no clothes (NCAA rules implosion)- Started by BamaNation
- Replies: 22
-
Home-and-Home Series Wraps Up as Alabama Welcomes UAB on Tuesday
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 1
-
-
A huge win today at my doctor's office...- Started by uafan4life
- Replies: 4