Posted: 8/12/2014 9:52 AM
Posted: 8/12/2014 10:02 AM
Posted: 8/12/2014 10:05 AM
EastLansingAdam wrote: I thought it was trying to say the 9 game conference schedules were not harder, it's not. It's saying the 9 game conference schedules will not wind up being rated any higher. It actually points out a flaw in SOS calulations.The article summed down is that with an 8 game schedule, yes the additional OOC game that Team X plays is probably going to be a garbage team, however, so will all of Team X's conference mates. So all the teams in their conference have their win total boosted by 1 too. So what's better to replace one 2-10 team with an 8-4 team, or have every conference opponent have 1 win more. The findings suggest that the computers would rather you play 8 games against teams with 1 more win than 1 game against a team with 8 more wins, even if those 8 single additional wins are against crappy teams.Much like the Big East scheduled to manipulate the basketball RPI for years by scheduling bad, but not horrible, and very few good teams. It seems scheduling 8, not 9, conference games is actually the better way to manipulate the college football SOS rankings. Much like with basketball, it seems like that's the way to have the computer think you played a tougher schedule, when you actually played the easier one.
Posted: 8/12/2014 10:16 AM
"Not the victory but the action; Not the goal but the game; In the deed the glory."
Posted: 8/12/2014 10:42 AM
I hate all over generalizations.
Posted: 8/12/2014 10:46 AM
Posted: 8/12/2014 10:47 AM
cincydawg4 wrote: I hate these SOS calculations anyway. If you are a good team, whether you play the 70th ranked team or the 120th ranked team is basically the same. You may lose to the former one time in 500 and the latter one time in 5000.
Posted: 8/12/2014 10:58 AM
Posted: 8/12/2014 11:41 AM
MrPacTen wrote: Actually, the odds of even the #1 team going into a game losing to the 70th or so team are quite a bit likelier than 1 in 500. I would agree that for the very most elite teams, there isn't a huge difference between #70 and #120, but a it's not zilch and a game vs #70 isn't an effective bye (which one vs #120 basically is).
Posted: 8/12/2014 1:49 PM
Posted: 8/12/2014 2:10 PM
EastLansingAdam wrote: cincydawg4 wrote: I hate these SOS calculations anyway. If you are a good team, whether you play the 70th ranked team or the 120th ranked team is basically the same. You may lose to the former one time in 500 and the latter one time in 5000. That's what Big East basketball has done for years.
Posted: 8/12/2014 2:31 PM
Posted: 8/12/2014 2:59 PM
Posted: 8/12/2014 3:23 PM
847badgerfan wrote: The 9 game schedule will in fact be a myth before too much longer.The B1G will be at 10 very soon.
Posted: 8/12/2014 3:26 PM
Posted: 8/12/2014 5:20 PM
Voldemonium wrote: The Big5 could agree to kick things up a notch by having the 3 good ooc games come from 3 different Big5 conferences.
He fixes the cable?
Posted: 8/12/2014 6:08 PM
Voldemonium wrote: I came across this article today and thought it was worth sharing: Link It attempts to dispel the myth that a 9-game conference schedule results in higher SoS ratings vs conferences with 8-game conference schedules. I have to say, it's pretty compelling stuff. Considering the monetary stakes involved surely the Pac12 & Big12 have mathematical proof that their schedule will not put them at a statistical disadvantage before the season is ever played?
Posted: 8/12/2014 7:54 PM
OrangeAfroMan wrote: Voldemonium wrote: The Big5 could agree to kick things up a notch by having the 3 good ooc games come from 3 different Big5 conferences. This would be sexy as hell.
Posted: 8/12/2014 11:55 PM
847badgerfan wrote: Yes. Many of the coaches have already said as much. It's good for fans/ticket holders, and ultimately good for the BTN, which is all the wonks really care about anyway.It will happen during the next round of TV negotiations.
Posted: 8/13/2014 6:57 AM
The "lesser schools" also need the money. Look at Georgia Southern for example. I doubt they would have had the resources to make the jump to 1-A or FBS or whatever it is these days without playing a lot of chump games elsewhere for paychecks (and winning one last season of course). It's expensive and they certainly are not in a "monied part" of the country.Teams like my Dawgs would struggle to manage 9 conference games unless they drop the annual series with GaTech, and they likely could not play the "Notre Dames" of the world in addition to 9 conference and 1 rivalry game, leaving only one pastry to play.Of course, this would not be such an issue of the conferences had stayed at 12 instead of this unwieldly 14 number.Remember when the message boards were on fire with who was adding who to get to 16?If you go to 20 teams in a conference, I think it becomes de facto two conferences with a paired "bowl game" post season.I don't like the NFL, so I don't care for the general concept of having every conference the same. I enjoy confusion and entropy and silliness and differences.
Posted: 8/13/2014 7:00 AM
Posted: 8/13/2014 10:29 AM
medinabuckeye1 wrote: I certainly hope you are wrong on this. Nine is bad enough but 10 would absolutely be the end of intriguing OOC matchups.
Posted: 8/13/2014 10:32 AM
Tjl630 wrote: I have been proposing for years that each big conference team play 2 games against other big conferences each year. You'd actually get better data on how the conferences rank against the others. Then you can use that data more reliably. Right now head-to-head data is diluted by other factors including the inability to rank lesser conferences and reputation versus reality. If the big 5 conferences did that they could have 7 games versus the other 4 conference (14 x 2 = 28/4 = 7). 7 games would provide a more reliable intraconference index as opposed to 1-3 games played each year currently. In the SEC team, only 1 team has scheduled 2 OOC teams from the major conferences, 8 have scheduled 1 and 5 have scheduled 0. That's against mid-tier teams for the most part. Wisconsin-LSU and Fl-FSU are the only 2 games of note. The teams OOC largely are against the lowest teams in football (Lamar, Presbyterian, Louisiana Monroe, etc.). That reveals nothing but pumps up the wins. Those games should be counted as negatives against the rankings.
Posted: 8/13/2014 10:34 AM
Tjl630 wrote: I have been proposing for years that each big conference team play 2 games against other big conferences each year.
Posted: 8/13/2014 10:45 AM
Tjl630 wrote: . Wisconsin-LSU and Fl-FSU are the only 2 games of note.
Posted: 8/13/2014 10:56 AM
medinabuckeye1 wrote: 847badgerfan wrote: Yes. Many of the coaches have already said as much. It's good for fans/ticket holders, and ultimately good for the BTN, which is all the wonks really care about anyway.It will happen during the next round of TV negotiations. I certainly hope you are wrong on this. Nine is bad enough but 10 would absolutely be the end of intriguing OOC matchups.
Posted: 8/13/2014 11:09 AM
Posted: 8/13/2014 11:16 AM
Posted: 8/13/2014 12:15 PM
Posted: 8/13/2014 12:25 PM