Strength of Schedule

BAMA1979

All-American
Nov 15, 2006
4,269
0
0
Mobile
I did but I'm still not sure what your point is.

I'll just go with Miami, BYU, and Michigan St. Those are not the only ones, but they are generally considered football powers now. They take football seriously and are dangerous even on down years.

Here's Sagarin's rankings:
BYU: 36
Michigan St.:41
Miami: 54
Western Kentucky: 81

So, even though you dropped Oklahoma (9), USC (16), and Michigan (19) which I assure you Notre Dame still had to play and beat, from your statement... Western Kentucky is still Western Kentucky. This year will be the first bowl game in their history.

I'll reiterate, Notre Dame played a tough schedule. I mean, coming into the year who would have picked them to even win one game between @Oklahoma and @USC? They deserve some credit.
You continue to put word's in my mouth, but that is ok.

I never dropped anyone. I never questioned the fact that Notre Dame has some great wins and I have never failed to give Notre Dame credit for what they have done. The point of my original post was that some of the teams on ND's schedule were not as good this season as their reputation would make people believe.

I also never said ND's schedule was bad. It was good, but a lot of those teams on it have reputations that are better than the product that was actually put on the field this year. For example, Boston College looks pretty good on paper, but they were 2-10. Winning at USC seems like an incredible accomplishment on paper, but the fact of the matter is that they are a 7-5 middle of the pack team in their conference. They were basically a PAC 12 version of Michigan this season. A team with ability? Absolutely, but 7-5 at the end of the day. The same could be said for Michigan. Does Michigan State have ability and a big name? Yes. Were they good this year? No. The same goes for Miami.

At the end of the day, ND played two VERY good teams (OU, Stanford) a bunch of average to slightly above average teams from big conferences, and two terrible teams (BC, Wake). We played three VERY good teams, a bunch of average teams, and a few really bad teams. Overall, I think the schedules are about even and that's how Sagarin ranked them.
 
Last edited:

BAMA1979

All-American
Nov 15, 2006
4,269
0
0
Mobile
I hate to break it to you but it would be impossible to go undefeated against six 12-0 teams; maybe six 11-1 teams.
That's exactly my point. You haven't told me anything I didn't already say. I'm asking why would some formulas consider those two schedules equal? It's obvious that playing 12 teams with 6-6 records is easier than playing six 12-0 teams and six 0-12 teams.
 

KrAzY3

Hall of Fame
Jan 18, 2006
10,615
4,540
187
44
kraizy.art
The point of my original post was that some of the teams on ND's schedule were not as good this season as their reputation would make people believe.

Overall, I think the schedules are about even and that's how Sagarin ranked them.
I agree with your latter statement. As to the former, you told me to check the results and I did. I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, but telling me to check the results is an insinuation that I'm ignorant or incorrect.
 

BAMA1979

All-American
Nov 15, 2006
4,269
0
0
Mobile
That is largely a result of the number of conference games. The extra conference game (instead of a non BCS conference game) pushes the SoS up a fair bit. I think that's a bit of a flaw, because as I said before Alabama playing Western Carolina did not make the rest of the schedule any easier. However, it does say a lot to play more "big time" football programs vs. a program that will come take a payday to get beat. For instance we might mock Notre Dame for almost losing to Pitt, but we took the safe route and invited Western this and that to come in and play.
Yes. I think it is a flaw, as well.

I would be interested to see the strength of schedules for the top 10 teams in the BCS ranking with each team's two or three worst opponents removed (i.e. BC, Wake for Notre Dame, WCU, FAU for Alabama, etc).
 

HartselleTider

Suspended
Jan 11, 2012
538
0
0
I don't care what Miami's reputation is, that is a bad football team... and has been for a while. They cannot even tackle. Ole Miss would beat 'em by 2 TD's.

USC is a 7-5 football team, and played Notre Dame with a freshman quarterback who has never started a game. ND needed a goal line stand to finish that game off.

Notre Dame beat Purdue, BYU, and Pittsburgh all by 3 points.

They beat Stanford on paper, but that could easily be a loss if the refs make the right call and rule Stepfan Taylor broke the plane.

Their best win is easily Oklahoma in Norman.... that one impressed me. But this game was 13-13 with 9 minutes left.


Alabama played 3 teams better than Oklahoma or Stanford (UGA, aTm, LSU).... 3 teams better than Miami, BYU, or USC (Ole Miss, Mississippi St., Michigan)... Purdue and Pittsburgh are about even with Western Kentucky and Tennessee, I'll give the Irish the benefit of the doubt here.

The common opponent is Michigan. 41-14 is much worse than 13-6.

That's how I see it.
 
Last edited:

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
This is something of a futile argument as the teams will still play one another. The SoS is more an argument if everyone had a loss.
 

Jessica4Bama

Hall of Fame
Nov 7, 2009
7,307
12
57
Alabama
Got this off a ND board. This dude is a homer. :) I guess is to be expected.

Interesting game. All sorts of odd things about it.

1). Alabama's defense turns out to be far from impenetrable. We are always being accused of being frauds --- I'm wondering if there isn't a little fraudulence there. Georgia was "OK" offensively but I did not think particularly scary. If Everett has a good game, I see no reason why we will not move the ball.

2). Our quarterback, if he doesn't turn it over, is better than theirs, maybe significantly better --- certainly much more talented. Weird to say that going into an NC game. Our receivers also look more athletic than theirs, as a group anyway. They have nothing approaching Eifert, nor did Georgia.

3). Their running backs are brutal, but so are our tacklers --- we're bigger and stronger than Georgia defensively. Still those RBs pose our difficulty. Contain them, no ball turnovers, and we severely limit their scoring. Same verse, just like the first [twelve].

4). Richt was an extreme bonehead on the final offensive play --- nearly inconceivable. Had Kelly ever done anything that bad, half this board [the troglodyte half] would never stop screaming about it. Saban though did something nearly as stupid just before the first half end. He didn't use one of THREE timeouts he had in the last half minute, and blew two shots at a touchdown. Our coach, gentlemen, is the better in-game coach.

5). Georgia's defense was out-of-gas and almost completely quit in the second half --- over 300 total rushing yards, and Alabama still barely won. We are much the more physical defense than Georgia. And better conditioned. And probably deeper.

6). I am not sure that I would say that Alabama is clearly better than either Stanford or Oklahoma. Stanford's as tough, and Oklahoma's as fast or faster. Both are better than Georgia, even though Georgia is a good football team.

7). Alabama is VERY "simple" which is what Saban wants. They are a one-trick pony, albeit a powerfully effective one. Their entire game is brutal muscle. Georgia could not stand up to it. Texas A&M somehow could. The issue is: can Big Lou, Tuitt, and KLM look those guys in the eye and smile and shrug "bring it on"? Can Manti, Prince, Dan/Carlos, and Danny meet the two RBs at the holes and throw them down. Georgia couldn't; we're stronger. We'll see.

Anyone who assumes that this is going to be an obvious SEC win will be speaking purely from biased stupidity and emotionalism. Alabama rushing power vs. Notre Dame front seven power might create supercollider fusions leading to Black Holes in Miami.
 

mdb-tpet

All-SEC
Sep 2, 2004
1,478
1,193
182
That is largely a result of the number of conference games. The extra conference game (instead of a non BCS conference game) pushes the SoS up a fair bit. I think that's a bit of a flaw, because as I said before Alabama playing Western Carolina did not make the rest of the schedule any easier. However, it does say a lot to play more "big time" football programs vs. a program that will come take a payday to get beat. For instance we might mock Notre Dame for almost losing to Pitt, but we took the safe route and invited Western this and that to come in and play.
Many keep forgetting the Western/Northern etc. teams are brought in for home only games to make money. That's it. We would sign up more weak BCS teams for the bump schedule strength if they would only come to Tuscaloosa like Southern Miss used to do. That's also why we play a neutral sight game with Michigan, Clemson, and others instead of a home and home.

I don't know much about ND's cash flow and TV contract, but I'd bet there's some interesting terms in their contract to keep them from playing weak directional teams for the paycheck only.
 

HartselleTider

Suspended
Jan 11, 2012
538
0
0
1. Our defense isn't impenatrable, but it's certainly not "far" from it. If UGA's offense isn't scary, Notre Dame's isn't either.

2. Golson was a 3-star dual threat, McCarron was a 4-star pro style. One is an All-SEC quarterback, the other is a freshman with 11 career TD passes. Tim Tebow was more talented than Greg McElroy... so was Colt McCoy. We could just keep this going for a while here... not sure what his point is.

3. Right. Alabama cannot score unless it's by a running back.

4. Saban did make a tremendous blunder with the timeouts prior to halftime. But Kelly the better in game coach? That's a stretch to say the least.

5. We threw an INT around the goalline, bungled a fake punt, had a FG blocked and returned for a TD, bungled the timeouts before halftime, etc., etc., etc.... all these things are why the game was close despite Alabama owning the line of scrimmage.. which he failed to mention.

6. Nonsense.

7. We'll see, he's right about that.




I'm not sure anyone would notice Black Holes in Miami anyway. Heck, the entire southern tip of Florida could break off and drift towards Africa and I'm not sure many people would notice... or care for that matter.
 
Last edited:

cbi1972

Hall of Fame
Nov 8, 2005
18,139
1,295
182
51
Birmingham, AL
7. We'll see, he's right about that.
"Their entire game is brutal muscle. Georgia could not stand up to it. Texas A&M somehow could."

He obviously did not watch our game against A&M. We could be 12-0 and unanimous #1 if we had gone with brutal muscle from 1st and goal. I'm sure their coaches respect Alabama's balance, though.
 

crmsntd91

1st Team
Sep 30, 2010
471
0
0
Not at all. I wasn't concerned playing Auburn that they only lost to LSU by 2. Different styles, different stages, different scenarios. Texas A&M is not catching Oklahoma after they won one of the greatest games in the programs history while on the road in the most hostile stadium in the country.

I do agree that Notre Dames schedule is tough, but Oklahoma is a very one dimensional team. They aren't good defensively at all! Stanford is the only well-rounded team that Notre Dame played. Miami is supposed to be a fast paced high scoring offense, they average a TD less than we do a game. Mich St has lost to every good team they've played. Pitt needs no explanation. They have played bowl-eligible names, not necessarily good teams outside of those two I mention.

Notre Dame has a higher SoS... I know the numbers.

I'm not sure how you define good teams, but I just named a list of bowl eligible teams that are considered football powers. Oklahoma won a share of the Big 12 title, Miami should have gone to the ACC championship game. I think the SEC is by far the best conference in the land, but this everyone not in the SEC sucks stuff is a little much. If you think Oklahoma would have struggled against Western Kentucky you need to check your premises. They only lost to national title contenders.

I do think Alabama's schedule was more difficult, as I said, from a physicality aspect. Notre Dame absolutely did not play a soft schedule. They played at least one upper level team from the ACC, Big 10, Pac-12, and Big 12.

I think the Oklahoma vs Texas A&M game will tell us a whole lot about what to expect though. Oklahoma was probably Notre Dame's best game and A&M was probably Alabama's worst. If Oklahoma wins that game, or it's very close we have cause for concern.
 

BFANLC

Suspended
Nov 25, 2005
3,077
0
0
53
In a dream world
I'm beginning to think Sagarin ratings are, well, over-rated. How could ND's rating been so high when obviously they didn't play anybody worth a lick?
 

GreatDanish

Hall of Fame
Nov 22, 2005
6,079
0
0
TN
I'm beginning to think Sagarin ratings are, well, over-rated. How could ND's rating been so high when obviously they didn't play anybody worth a lick?
Being the only undefeated team will always get you a high rating.

However, Sagarin's predictor ranking had Alabama at #1 before the bowls. In fact, his predictor ratings were about as accurate as any predictor. I don't have the analysis in front of me, but his predictor rankings are usually solid when it comes to actually predicting games.
 

KrAzY3

Hall of Fame
Jan 18, 2006
10,615
4,540
187
44
kraizy.art
I'm beginning to think Sagarin ratings are, well, over-rated. How could ND's rating been so high when obviously they didn't play anybody worth a lick?
Yeah, I mean they just played and beat two BCS conference champions.

Come on now, stop disrespecting Alabama. Notre Dame was a good team, that played a fantastic team. Notre Dame deserved to play for a national championship and they played a high SoS, and nothing but BCS schools. It wasn't an easy schedule.
 

BamaMoon

Hall of Fame
Apr 1, 2004
20,932
15,935
282
Boone, NC
Should have been a clue (hindsight is 50/50 as Yogi said) that ND won the two games against Stanford and OK that got them alot of respect, BUT they didn't blow out any of the inferior teams they played.

Conversely, Bama lost to TAMU, had close calls against LSU and Georgia BUT we literally blew everyone else out.

This is why a few saw a blowout coming!
 

Tide1986

Suspended
Nov 22, 2008
15,670
2
0
Birmingham, AL
Got this off a ND board. This dude is a homer. :) I guess is to be expected.

Interesting game. All sorts of odd things about it.

1). Alabama's defense turns out to be far from impenetrable. We are always being accused of being frauds --- I'm wondering if there isn't a little fraudulence there. Georgia was "OK" offensively but I did not think particularly scary. If Everett has a good game, I see no reason why we will not move the ball.

2). Our quarterback, if he doesn't turn it over, is better than theirs, maybe significantly better --- certainly much more talented. Weird to say that going into an NC game. Our receivers also look more athletic than theirs, as a group anyway. They have nothing approaching Eifert, nor did Georgia.

3). Their running backs are brutal, but so are our tacklers --- we're bigger and stronger than Georgia defensively. Still those RBs pose our difficulty. Contain them, no ball turnovers, and we severely limit their scoring. Same verse, just like the first [twelve].

4). Richt was an extreme bonehead on the final offensive play --- nearly inconceivable. Had Kelly ever done anything that bad, half this board [the troglodyte half] would never stop screaming about it. Saban though did something nearly as stupid just before the first half end. He didn't use one of THREE timeouts he had in the last half minute, and blew two shots at a touchdown. Our coach, gentlemen, is the better in-game coach.

5). Georgia's defense was out-of-gas and almost completely quit in the second half --- over 300 total rushing yards, and Alabama still barely won. We are much the more physical defense than Georgia. And better conditioned. And probably deeper.

6). I am not sure that I would say that Alabama is clearly better than either Stanford or Oklahoma. Stanford's as tough, and Oklahoma's as fast or faster. Both are better than Georgia, even though Georgia is a good football team.

7). Alabama is VERY "simple" which is what Saban wants. They are a one-trick pony, albeit a powerfully effective one. Their entire game is brutal muscle. Georgia could not stand up to it. Texas A&M somehow could. The issue is: can Big Lou, Tuitt, and KLM look those guys in the eye and smile and shrug "bring it on"? Can Manti, Prince, Dan/Carlos, and Danny meet the two RBs at the holes and throw them down. Georgia couldn't; we're stronger. We'll see.

Anyone who assumes that this is going to be an obvious SEC win will be speaking purely from biased stupidity and emotionalism. Alabama rushing power vs. Notre Dame front seven power might create supercollider fusions leading to Black Holes in Miami.
This so-called "analysis" by a ND fan still has great comedic value -- the gift that keeps on giving. :)
 

BFANLC

Suspended
Nov 25, 2005
3,077
0
0
53
In a dream world
Yeah, I mean they just played and beat two BCS conference champions.

Come on now, stop disrespecting Alabama. Notre Dame was a good team, that played a fantastic team. Notre Dame deserved to play for a national championship and they played a high SoS, and nothing but BCS schools. It wasn't an easy schedule.
Really? Byu, Wake, Pitt, were good schools? Even Ok was proven to be substandard. The ONE DECENT school was Stanford. And even that was a close game that perhaps ND was helped with winning. After every "big" school that ND beat lost in bowl games ,except the Trees, how can you say they played a high SOS? I'm not saying they shouldn't have been in the BCSCG and I'm not dissing Bama for sure. I'm just saying their SOS, in reality, wasn't that great. IMO Bama played a much tougher schedule.
 

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.