SEC vs Pac 10 scheduling

[aufan59]

I've heard many criticisms about the SEC scheduling. One Southern Cal fan on the forum even calls some of these games 'bye weeks'.

But lets look at last year:

Three SEC teams had 12 straight games. No bye weeks. Their only 'bye weeks' were weeks where they had an actual game to play.

Four Pac-10 teams had two bye weeks during the season.

Where do these two extra bye weeks play a factor in SOS ratings such as Sagarin ratings?

[HellYeahHokie]

I've heard of grasping at straws, but this takes the cake.

[GatorGrad]

<yawn>

[aufan59]

I've heard of grasping at straws, but this takes the cake.

I edited the post a bit. It seems hokiehen and sc69er's can interpret facts in idiotic ways without anyone saying anything, but I can't.

Regardless, the bye week discrepancy should at least be a topic of discussion because people don't seem to notice things like that.

[buckeyejim]

In both 2006 and 2007 all 11 Big Ten schools will play 12 consecutive weeks.

[aufan59]

In both 2006 and 2007 all 11 Big Ten schools will play 12 consecutive weeks.

Which is nowhere to be found in the computer SOS rankings.

Two bye weeks vs none is quite a considerable difference. If schedule A and B were the same except A had two bye weeks, schedule B would obviously be harder in everyone's minds, but they would be identical in SOS ratings.

[Don]

Which is nowhere to be found in the computer SOS rankings.

Two bye weeks vs none is quite a considerable difference. If schedule A and B were the same except A had two bye weeks, schedule B would obviously be harder in everyone's minds, but they would be identical in SOS ratings.

If my memory serves me right, the system of James Howell (one of our posters here) does indeed include such things as bye weeks and early season ranked opponents.

[CJHawkeyes]

Placing SOS value on bye weeks is stupid.

[CJHawkeyes]

I'm not sure I'd call it "stupid", but I don't think it has as much value as many think, including lots of Georgia fans who have tried to excuse many of our losses to Florida by pointing out the frequency with which UF has had an off week before the Cocktail Party as compared to Georgia's schedule. I don't buy it. Most of the times UF has beaten us, it's not because we had our homecoming game the weekend before against Vandy or Richmond. It's because they had the better team. The few times we had a better team and should have lost anyway are just unfortunately part of the game and why it's played. I'd put more stock in that argument if Tennessee and Florida were on our schedule back-to-back. We'll see how it goes this year when Florida gets a week off to prepare for Kentucky at Lexington and then heads to Jacksonville to face UGA with a week off. I'm not exactly considering that a lock for the Dogs.

I can see an argument that having bye weeks makes for an "easier" schedule. I just don't think bye weeks should have any value in an objective ranking system as aufan referred to Sagarin in the OP. There are an infinite number of intangible advantages/disadvantages that need not be quantified.

[aufan59]

I can see an argument that having bye weeks makes for an "easier" schedule. I just don't think bye weeks should have any value in an objective ranking system as aufan referred to Sagarin in the OP. There are an infinite number of intangible advantages/disadvantages that need not be quantified.

If two schedules are identical except one has two bye weeks and the other has none, then the one with two bye weeks is obviously easier.

If an objective system cannot recognize such obvious things, how can we put stock in it?

[CJHawkeyes]

If two schedules are identical except one has two bye weeks and the other has none, then the one with two bye weeks is obviously easier.

If an objective system cannot recognize such obvious things, how can we put stock in it?

For starters, objective systems do not and cannot address difficulty. Difficulty cannot be quantified. We can devise rules that intuitively favor difficulty. However, nowhere in sports is the value of a win tied to the difficulty of achieving that win. An objective system cannot recognize the difference between beating a team with or without its starting QB, but no one suggests not putting stock in various conference or league standings. Any presumed degree of greater difficulty due to byes is too trivial to even consider. Furthermore, the "advantage" could be completely nullified by an infinite number of things. How do you know playing an opponent after your bye week is any more advantageous than playing them after they suffered a heartbreaking loss a week earlier?

That said, I regret calling your idea "stupid". I do see where you are coming from. I just don't think any objective system should micromanage to that degree. As it is, all teams have limited control over their schedules to begin with and the players have no control beyond which schools they choose to play for. Seems a bit much to reward or punish teams for byes.

[JamesHowell]

> If my memory serves me right, the system of James Howell (one of our posters here) does indeed include such things as bye weeks and early season ranked opponents.

Your memory is very good. :)

[aufan59]

If it is wrong to judge teams by uncontrollable things such as bye weeks, then the same goes for judging teams by uncontrollable things such as the teams they play. They have no control over how the teams they play finish, except for one game.

Let me ask you this: what exactly is the point of your rating system? Each team presumably 'caps out' how well they do based on their schedule. If memory serves me, each team gets points based on the teams they beat, and those points are based on opponent's wins and losses.

We assume that games unrelated to team A and team B are static. Neither A or B have control over any games that they don't play in. Let's say both team A and team B go undefeated, whoever had the better schedule will be ranked ahead of the other.

So if A has a better schedule, B, from the beginning of the season, is not in control of its own destiny due to schedule.

Your entire system is based on schedule, something that teams have "limited control over." Doesn't make much sense to me.

This isn't meant to insult you or your system. I'm just curious as to what you think the purpose of your system is and how you justify what it gives you.

[CJHawkeyes]

If it is wrong to judge teams by uncontrollable things such as bye weeks, then the same goes for judging teams by uncontrollable things such as the teams they play. They have no control over how the teams they play finish, except for one game.

Let me ask you this: what exactly is the point of your rating system? Each team presumably 'caps out' how well they do based on their schedule. If memory serves me, each team gets points based on the teams they beat, and those points are based on opponent's wins and losses.

We assume that games unrelated to team A and team B are static. Neither A or B have control over any games that they don't play in. Let's say both team A and team B go undefeated, whoever had the better schedule will be ranked ahead of the other.

So if A has a better schedule, B, from the beginning of the season, is not in control of its own destiny due to schedule.

Your entire system is based on schedule, something that teams have "limited control over." Doesn't make much sense to me.

This isn't meant to insult you or your system. I'm just curious as to what you think the purpose of your system is and how you justify what it gives you.


Actually, everything you say here is the best argument against my system or any other that operates similarly. However, the nature of college football as is makes it a necessary "evil" to hold teams accountable for their scheduled opponents. I don't feel the same about byes. Of course, the extent to which teams are responsible for their schedules would be greatly reduced by a larger playoff. It is one thing to let schedules decide which of two unbeaten teams is the #2 seed in a 16 team playoff and a whole other thing to let schedules decide which makes a two-team playoff.

[Yoda]

Question for James Howell...

To what extent does your system (and the others) weigh home victories as opposed to road victories? Absent a criterion that values road victories more highly than home victories, aren't schools from AQ confernces -- who can and do pretty much require that games against schools from non-AQ conferences be played on their fields -- have yet another big advantage when it comes to BCS rankings?

Yoda out...

[sc69er]

Question for James Howell...

To what extent does your system (and the others) weigh home victories as opposed to road victories? Absent a criterion that values road victories more highly than home victories, aren't schools from AQ confernces -- who can and do pretty much require that games against schools from non-AQ conferences be played on their fields -- have yet another big advantage when it comes to BCS rankings?

Yoda out...

You do have a Jedi insight. There are a lot of top 25 type programs--most in the SEC but some now in the BX and the BXII --who are adopting the 7-8 home games per year. I believe that any rating system should include extra credit for away victories as well as reduced or non recognition for games against div-1aa teams. Thats the only way to get teams to forgo the Ron Krammer formulae.

[Blue Hen]

One thing jumps out when comparing the scheduling ideology of these two leagues. So far in the 2000s, The P10 has played 22 D1AA teams and the SEC has played 36....with a bunch more lined up this coming season.

[CJHawkeyes]

I don't like location playing a role in how teams are ranked. Ideally, everyone would play an equal number of home and away games. Of course, I recognize that is not likely. That said, systems like mine that demand teams play winners would do more to encourage road games than whatever extra credit the BCS computers might assign to road games. Playing at Florida would be better strategically for a national title contender than hosting FIU. Of course, if a school would rather make money off of the latter game, so be it. But they would hurt themselves in the national title race. As things stand, the strategy for most is to schedule 3-4 home cupcakes, go unbeaten, and hope no more than one other BCS team does. Making money at the expense of legitimate competition is what matters most to those in charge. Ultimately, why would BCS schools favor rules that undermine their ability to maximize their number of home games without any significant consequences?

[GatorGrad]

I don't like location playing a role in how teams are ranked. Ideally, everyone would play an equal number of home and away games. Of course, I recognize that is not likely. That said, systems like mine that demand teams play winners would do more to encourage road games than whatever extra credit the BCS computers might assign to road games. Playing at Florida would be better strategically for a national title contender than hosting FIU. Of course, if a school would rather make money off of the latter game, so be it. But they would hurt themselves in the national title race. As things stand, the strategy for most is to schedule 3-4 home cupcakes, go unbeaten, and hope no more than one other BCS team does. Making money at the expense of legitimate competition is what matters most to those in charge. Ultimately, why would BCS schools favor rules that undermine their ability to maximize their number of home games without any significant consequences?


You are exactly right on all points, CJ. Most elite schools want to 1) maximize revenue and 2) play in a BCS Bowl Game / MNC Game. Given the current structure, the best formula to accomplish both goals is to schedule as many non-conference home games as possible against teams that have little chance of beating you.

Teams CANNOT control their conference schedule, which is why that is legit competition with equal home/away games for the most part, real standings based on results, etc. The MNC race, OOC games, bowl games, etc are all about money, rivalries, and fun. They should not be taken all that seriously.

I actually took more pride in seeing my team win the SEC Championship in 2006 than I did winning the BCS Championship knowing that an unbeaten Boise St didn't get a chance. The SEC Title was real with on field results producing two deserving title game participants and one undisputed champion. A REAL championship. The BCS title was just for fun, and icing on the cake. And for SEC bragging rights of course! :)

[Blue Hen]

..'Bragging Rights'. Did you ever read that great book about SEC football ? It's quite an expose. Tells ya everything you need to know about how SEC FB really works and the academic side...or lack of.

[Don]

Thats the only way to get teams to forgo the Ron Krammer formulae.

If you're going to trash someone make sure you spell it right. The name is ROY KRAMER.

There are a lot of top 25 type programs--most in the SEC but some now in the BX and the BXII --who are adopting the 7-8 home games per year. I believe that any rating system should include extra credit for away victories as well as reduced or non recognition for games against div-1aa teams.

Please provide FACTS to back up that statement. Kindly compare top 25 SEC teams to other top 25 teams. Do you really think that a top 25 team should have a reduced SOS for playing Western Carolina at home vs playing FAU at home? Think about it!

[aufan59]

..'Bragging Rights'. Did you ever read that great book about SEC football ? It's quite an expose. Tells ya everything you need to know about how SEC FB really works and the academic side...or lack of.

Read my post in this thread about CJHawkeyes' formula. How do you feel that these polls can have a predetermined ranking similar to the opinionated polls, something that you are so vocal about?

[GatorGrad]

..'Bragging Rights'. Did you ever read that great book about SEC football ? It's quite an expose. Tells ya everything you need to know about how SEC FB really works and the academic side...or lack of.

The SEC has done a good job of "cleaning" itself up in the last several years. And there are several solid academic schools within the SEC. Not sure what your point is.

[CJHawkeyes]

Read my post in this thread about CJHawkeyes' formula. How do you feel that these polls can have a predetermined ranking similar to the opinionated polls, something that you are so vocal about?


Unless I misunderstand what you are saying here, my system does not have preseason rankings similar to polls. All teams are tied for first. As for those that start out with preseason rankings, I think it is mostly for appearances and the impact is eliminated about four games in. College football fans seem to need rankings that they can relate to. Under my system, if Duke and FIU opened the season before everyone else, the winner would be alone in first place temporarily. Even though it would mean next to nothing, it would bother some fans.

[sc69er]

If you're going to trash someone make sure you spell it right. The name is ROY KRAMER.



Please provide FACTS to back up that statement. Kindly compare top 25 SEC teams to other top 25 teams. Do you really think that a top 25 team should have a reduced SOS for playing Western Carolina at home vs playing FAU at home? Think about it!

facts you are concerned about. For top 25 teams starting to adopt the 8 home games strategy, Michigan this year is a good example. A good example of voters subjectivly using the criteria I propose that the 2004 Oklahoma/Auburn distinction applies: Auburn played 8 games at home, 3 OOC cream puffs one of which was a div-1aa school, the Citadel. Oklahoma played 6 home games, 6 road games and 2 neutral that year. They played 2 mid major teams(houston and Bowling green) and one BCS team(Oregon) ooc. The voters noted the difference. I think the computors should also! Thats my opinion!!

[Blue Hen]

Even with that schedule, had Auburn been given the 'free' #1 or #2 pre-season ranking by the pollsters, it would have played in the BCS MNC game. I'm certain of this.

[GatorGrad]

"Several" solid academic schools? I hate to be guilty of SEC-on-SEC crime, but I can think of 3 very strong schools, academically (including one obviously stellar). I'd be willing to give us as many as 5 or 6 "solid".

Well, 5-6 can qualify as "several"...no? I am proud of my University of Florida education and the way we run our football program, including the academic side of things. Spurrier took that seriously, and Meyer is taking it to a new level. I think the fact that our 2006 AND 2007 recruiting classes, which were both ranked #1 or #2 in the country, did not have one single player not qualify. That is unheard of in this day and age. Meyer has really made an effort to not only recruit the best athletes, but also the right kind of kids that will be able to cut it academically at our school.

[ktffan]

Even with that schedule, had Auburn been given the 'free' #1 or #2 pre-season ranking by the pollsters, it would have played in the BCS MNC game. I'm certain of this.


You tend to be certain about a lot of things with little proof to back them up.

[aufan59]

Unless I misunderstand what you are saying here, my system does not have preseason rankings similar to polls. All teams are tied for first. As for those that start out with preseason rankings, I think it is mostly for appearances and the impact is eliminated about four games in. College football fans seem to need rankings that they can relate to. Under my system, if Duke and FIU opened the season before everyone else, the winner would be alone in first place temporarily. Even though it would mean next to nothing, it would bother some fans.

I thought you already conceded to my argument that if A has a stronger schedule than B, then B isn't in control of it's own destiny under your system.

That makes the rankings somewhat predetermined. I was comparing the predetermined nature of your ranking to the predetermined nature of the human polls. The reason why they are both predetermined aren't related at all.

[CJHawkeyes]

I thought you already conceded to my argument that if A has a stronger schedule than B, then B isn't in control of it's own destiny under your system.

That makes the rankings somewhat predetermined. I was comparing the predetermined nature of your ranking to the predetermined nature of the human polls. The reason why they are both predetermined aren't related at all.

I did concede that point, but which team has a stronger schedule is not predetermined. Neither team controls its destiny beyond winning all of its games. Their respective schools can increase the odds of their team playing the more valuable schedule by scheduling opponents that have had greater success in the past, but there are no guarantees. In order for any team to control their destiny, a larger playoff is needed. Beyond that, I'm not sure I understand your position regarding the "predetermined" nature of my ranking system.

[sc69er]

Even with that schedule, had Auburn been given the 'free' #1 or #2 pre-season ranking by the pollsters, it would have played in the BCS MNC game. I'm certain of this.

The SEC hype "we play such a tough schedule, etc, etc" had moved Auburn up into a tie for #2 in the polls a few weeks before the end of the season which belies your "if you are #1 or 2 at the start and unbeaten you will p[lay in the mnc game. It was a lackluster performance in the last 2 games and subconcious acknowledgement of auburns wimp schedule on the part of poll voters which kept them out.

[aufan59]

I did concede that point, but which team has a stronger schedule is not predetermined. Neither team controls its destiny beyond winning all of its games. Their respective schools can increase the odds of their team playing the more valuable schedule by scheduling opponents that have had greater success in the past, but there are no guarantees. In order for any team to control their destiny, a larger playoff is needed. Beyond that, I'm not sure I understand your position regarding the "predetermined" nature of my ranking system.

I'm using predetermined as a synonym for lack of control in this case. If team A has a better schedule than team B and both go undefeated, team A ends up ranked higher. Since team B had no control over what 11 of their 12 opponents did, the result that they could not finish ahead of team A was predetermined if team A went undefeated.

If something is out of a team's control, then the results of it might as well be predetermined for the team.

[Blue Hen]

There has never been a pre-season #1 or 2 (BCS era) that has run the table and NOT appeared in that game. What would be different about Auburn ? That's why I'm certain.

[Blue Hen]

No particular point. The last line in your post mentioned "bragging rights"...which simply reminded me of that book title. But while on the subject, the academic reputations of the SEC universities have absolutely nothing to do with the academic fraud ...common throughout SEC FB..and elswhere.

[aufan59]

There has never been a pre-season #1 or 2 (BCS era) that has run the table and NOT appeared in that game. What would be different about Auburn ? That's why I'm certain.

No SEC team has ever has ever lost in the BCS Title game.

This is why I'm confident that no SEC team will ever lose in the BCS Title game and thus SEC teams should always be given the benefit of the doubt when there is a controversy.

[Blue Hen]

...which has nothing to do with the issue here ( the relationship of pre-season polls to MNC game births )


But I'll say this Aufan. I believe the annual champion of the SEC, regardless of record, should always have the opportunity to compete for a national championship.

[aufan59]

I'm saying the logic is just as bad. "It hasn't happened therefore it can't happen" is horrible logic.

[Don]

things BEFORE you post?

A good example of voters subjectivly using the criteria I propose that the 2004 Oklahoma/Auburn distinction applies: Auburn played 8 games at home, 3 OOC cream puffs one of which was a div-1aa school, the Citadel.


During the regular season.....

Fact: Auburn did NOT play 8 home games. (7H, 4A, 1N)
Fact: Oklahoma did NOT play 6 home, 6 away, and 2 neutral. (Ok record was 12-0!) (6H, 4A, 2N) Not much difference.

Fact: Auburn played ooc: Citadel UNRANKED, La-Tech #63 La-Mo #96
Fact: Oklahoma Played: Bowling Green #37, Oregon #57, Houston #88 Houston was 3-8! Number are Massey composite #'s. So yes the advantage is Oklahoma for 1 games vs #37. BUT....

Fact: Auburn played 4 BCS teams that won more than 2/3 of games. (2H, 1A, 1N) all 4 were AP ranked.
Fact: Oklahoma played 1 BCS team that won more than 2/3 of games (1N) which was AP ranked. (Ok also played one that won less than 2/3 of games but was also AP ranked.)

Thats my opinion!!

Yes, but a clearly mis-informed opinion!!

[CJHawkeyes]

I'm using predetermined as a synonym for lack of control in this case. If team A has a better schedule than team B and both go undefeated, team A ends up ranked higher. Since team B had no control over what 11 of their 12 opponents did, the result that they could not finish ahead of team A was predetermined if team A went undefeated.

If something is out of a team's control, then the results of it might as well be predetermined for the team.

Okay, so are you asking bluehen what his take is on objective systems holding teams accountable for things outside their control?