• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Strength of Schedule. Guess who 117th is.

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
IronBuckI said:
What was Youngstown State's strength of schedule the year before Tressel was hired? Oh, that's right, he wasn't even D1a.

but tressel was playing against other Div 1AA teams and you should consider that strength of schedule..Utah is playing the worst SOS amongst 117 teams and getting into the top 5...So..it is questionable whether that its fair to get over texas or cal..if cal misses out!
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
SoS is one of the key objective ways to evaluate a team as the season progresses. It's absurd that bcs took sos out of the evaluation formula. Doesn't make a bit of sense. I wonder how much influence the media and tv networks had in creating the bcs puzzle this year?
 
Upvote 0
Per NCAA Utah's SOS is 94th as of Dec 2.

Much lauded Louisville is 92nd while Boise State is 79th

USC is 31st , Okla 22nd, and Auburn is 9th in the nation.
Click to expand...
It appears that Auburn doesn't have the 9th toughest per the NCAA, as the NCAA has made a basic math error. The cumulative opposition column is determined by the past plus the future. Assuming that the 55 - 42 for Auburn's past opposition is correct and their future opposition (tennessee) is 9 - 2, that would make the cumulative column 64 - 44 not the 64 - 43 that is listed. This then yields a percentage of 0.5925925926 which places them at 13th.

FWIW, the NCAA SOS seems to be a little more realistic. With the exception of the one minor math error, at least it is known how they are determining a SOS measuring stick and it is quite simple. How did the other site determine the SOS? I couldn't find that info at the site (and I didn't look very hard either).
 
Upvote 0
The first link that has Utah at 117th has Auburn at 110th. That completely takes all credability away from that site. Auburn has played one of the toughest schedules in the country. And even if Utah does have an easy schedule, it's still not easy to win all your games. Only 4 teams have done it this year so far...the last team to go the whole season without losing was tOSU in 2002. Winning all your games is something special.
 
Upvote 0
buckiprof said:
How did the other site determine the SOS? I couldn't find that info at the site (and I didn't look very hard either).
Click to expand...


Here's the info from Mike Greenfield's site:

Traditional "Strength of Schedule" measures only average opponents' rankings, which is an absurd way to do things. Over two games, a team may have the choice of playing one great team and one terrible team, or two average teams. A good team would likely take the latter, which would probably result in two wins, as opposed to the former which would result in one. A mediocre team, however, would prefer the first choice, in which they'd likely split, to the second, where they would probably get swept. This is the general idea between my schedule strength listings, which seeks to define a team's schedule difficulty relative to its ranking. Thus a poor team, which has played only average and above teams (but not great teams), will be seen to have had a very tough schedule, while a great team which played the same schedule will be seen to have played only an average one. For this reason, when comparing schedule strength, it's best to only look at teams of comparable ranking. There's an inevitable bias toward the top teams having a seemingly "weak" schedule, and the bottom teams having a "strong"schedule. However, this bias is not in any way included in the rankings - the strength of schedule measures are computed only after the rankings are computed.

Upward Stability and Downward Stability provide a measure of how "sure" the rankings are, in both the positive and negative directions. That is, a team with high Upward Stability is probably ranked pretty accurately, and should not be ranked too much higher. A team with low Upward Stability, on the other hand, is not very well entrenched in its place, and could be considerably better than the rankings indicated. This generally is the case for teams that haven't played many games, or teams that have mainly played against teams of vastly different levels.
 
Upvote 0
SoS is one of the key objective ways to evaluate a team as the season progresses. It's absurd that bcs took sos out of the evaluation formula.
Click to expand...
This keeps getting stated with frequency whenever SOS comes into discussion.

One last time -- SOS was not removed by the BCS.

SOS remains as a factor weighed in the computer rankings, ergo it is part of the BCS evaluation.

What would be interesting to see is how the BCS SOS (incorporated into the computer rankings) is measured ...

Is it like Greenfield, is it like NCAA or is it like neither?
 
Upvote 0
im guessing each computer has its own ranking. but it was essentially taken out of the BCS. it is so far removed that it really has a small roll in the actual ranking, as opposed to before when it was a tangible number you could see and it was directly added to the final BCS score.
 
Upvote 0
27 -- im guessing each computer has its own ranking. but it was essentially taken out of the BCS. it is so far removed that it really has a small roll in the actual ranking, as opposed to before when it was a tangible number you could see and it was directly added to the final BCS score.
Click to expand...
This almost boils down to a semantic argument - but not quite. Its really more about transparency.
You are right 27 each computer program has its own ranking. Each of the computer rankings uses strength of schedule and each tries to account for home/away performance. The high and low of the 6 rankings are discarded and the four remaining rankings are averaged for one number that is added to the two poll rankings.

Thus, the simple fact is SOS has not been taken out of BCS rankings.

Agreed, in its original form the presence of SOS was explicit. In addition the statistical programs also used SOS in one form or another. So SOS was, in effect, being double weighted.
What is now unclear is the proportion (weight) given to the SOS in the final average computer ranking versus other factors like home/away performance. This makes the process less transparent and leads to the frequent (and erroneous) assertion that SOS is now not part of the BCS formula. It is there - it is just obscured.
 
Upvote 0
What happens when the BCS computer get the BSOD? :lol:

Seriously though, Auburn has around the 10th-15th toughest schedule, Okie should be down in the 80's, they have only played 1 team this year, and that's Texas, who plays only one team this year, and that's Okie.......nothing to go on really.

As down as ND may be this year, the pasting that SC put on them last weekend was impressive, hence they are still #1 in my book.

What doesnt make sense to me..........according to the computers, Okie is #1, so if SOS is still included, how the hell can that be?
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top