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?The contrast between Alabama and Ohio State is pretty stark.
No. It's saying the competition for Alabama is better than the competition Ohio State plays.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?
Ok, thanks. I got them backwards in my way of thinking.No. It's saying the competition for Alabama is better than the competition Ohio State plays.
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.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.
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.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.
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.Playing in the toughest conference is no longer a good thing if winning national championships is the goal.
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?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.
Nope. They're saying TAMU win total increases by at least a game if they played the average schedule.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.
Thanks, I should read more closely.Nope. They're saying TAMU win total increases by at least a game if they played the average schedule.