- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Can someone explain why SOS "Strength of Schedule" is not considered more?
Posted on 11/12/12 at 9:41 pm
Posted on 11/12/12 at 9:41 pm
LSU has played 6 ranked teams (5 in a row!) so far this year, defeating 4 of the 6 whose opponents who have a combined higher winning percentage at 78% than the three undefeated teams opponents mentioned as the likely NCG teams in Miami. LSU's opponents have a low total average opponent ranking of #12.6 BCS ranking????
Let's see Kansas State has played only 4 ranked teams with a 67% winning percentage and average ranking 11.7
Oregon has only played 3 ranked teams with a combined winning percentage of 63%, and average ranking of #20. Yes, AZ #22, Wash #23, and USC #17, and NOBODY in the top 15! ???
Notre Dame's not too shabby playing 4 ranked teams with combined winning percentage of 69% and average ranking of 13.25. Best resume of the top 3 undefeated in my opinion.
So why is nobody talking about this, and only the W's and L's??
The Fightin Tigers of LSU have played #23 Washington winning 41-3, lost to #9/10 Florida, defeated #3 South Carolina with a healthy Marcus Lattimore, Defeated "Johnny Football" and Texas A&M # 18, lost to #1 Bama, Defeated #22 Mississippi State. NOBODY in the country has run this gauntlet of a schedule, and if the big three undefeated teams had played this schedule they would NOT be undefeated either.
Let's see Kansas State has played only 4 ranked teams with a 67% winning percentage and average ranking 11.7
Oregon has only played 3 ranked teams with a combined winning percentage of 63%, and average ranking of #20. Yes, AZ #22, Wash #23, and USC #17, and NOBODY in the top 15! ???
Notre Dame's not too shabby playing 4 ranked teams with combined winning percentage of 69% and average ranking of 13.25. Best resume of the top 3 undefeated in my opinion.
So why is nobody talking about this, and only the W's and L's??
The Fightin Tigers of LSU have played #23 Washington winning 41-3, lost to #9/10 Florida, defeated #3 South Carolina with a healthy Marcus Lattimore, Defeated "Johnny Football" and Texas A&M # 18, lost to #1 Bama, Defeated #22 Mississippi State. NOBODY in the country has run this gauntlet of a schedule, and if the big three undefeated teams had played this schedule they would NOT be undefeated either.
12
Posted on 11/12/12 at 9:43 pm to Tigerik
we lost twice. Posted on 11/12/12 at 9:43 pm to Tigerik
Why do you think Urban went to Ohio
why does Bama always play a weaker schedule than LSU
Notre Dame Texas Oregon
why does Bama always play a weaker schedule than LSU
Notre Dame Texas Oregon
Posted on 11/12/12 at 9:44 pm to Tigerik
I don't get it either. Where's LSUMatt?
Posted on 11/12/12 at 9:44 pm to Tigerik
because Hawaii losing to Idaho, or something like that, knocked USC out of the 2003 BCS game and put Oklahoma in. In essence it's still built into the computers and is somewhat within the thinking of the voters. It's just not a full component in the BCS like it used to be.
Posted on 11/12/12 at 9:49 pm to ForeLSU
Posted on 11/12/12 at 9:53 pm to bastropbham
quote:
Bama's 4th and we're 13th yet we've played 5 ranked teams. How does this work?
according to your link LSU is 16th and Bama is 21st in SOS...
Posted on 11/12/12 at 9:55 pm to Tigerik
quote:
Can someone explain why SOS "Strength of Schedule" is not considered more?
more than what? Wins and loses? Should 6-6 A&M been in the top 10 last year with their schedule? SOS is factored in, that's why LSU, A&M and USCe who all have 2 loses are ranked ahead of 1 loss FSU and Clemson. Its why Louisville was barely in the top 10 despite being undefeated last week.
Where were you last year when Alabama beat a grand total of 3 FBS teams with a winning record? While OSU beat a twice as many? Sorry but when you lose, twice, you lose control of your destiny.
Posted on 11/12/12 at 9:58 pm to Tigerik
SOS is not politically correct. SOS is biased against schools that play in weak conferences. It's not their fault they don't pay in the SEC.
Posted on 11/12/12 at 9:59 pm to ForeLSU
The SOS that was used in the 2003 BCS was flawed and redundant on top of that. The computers still have it and human voters clearly factor it in.
This post was edited on 11/12/12 at 10:00 pm
Posted on 11/12/12 at 9:59 pm to Oyster
quote:
according to your link LSU is 16th and Bama is 21st in SOS...
Not if you click on CURRENT
Posted on 11/12/12 at 10:02 pm to Oyster
I can tell you exactly why! USCw is a media darling. The computers put Oklahoma head of them. People got in an uproar (despite the fact that the computers had it right) and therefore after LSU beat Oklahoma the people in power went back and "fixed" the system. In reality they broke it. They took the computers and cut their power in half.
Now a bunch of people even here will tell you that USCw should have been in the championship game that year... but they are wrong and just as biased as the people that changed the system.
Now a bunch of people even here will tell you that USCw should have been in the championship game that year... but they are wrong and just as biased as the people that changed the system.
Posted on 11/12/12 at 10:02 pm to Oyster
quote:
SOS is not politically correct. SOS is biased against schools that play in weak conferences
Based on SOS calculations, Louisville and La Tech, both 9-1 are tougher opponents than 8-2 LSU and 8-2 USCe.
SEC fans are constantly wanting to shift the argument to whatever favors the SEC.
Posted on 11/12/12 at 10:03 pm to H-Town Tiger
Guys, I know SOS is considered, I asked the question "Why is it not considered MORE"?
UGA gets another cush SEC schedule without playing Bama, LSU, or A&M, Bama's schedule is "cream puff" except for LSU & A&M, and OREGON has played NOBODY.
I wish the top tier SEC teams would play all of the undefeated teams and beat them all. Won't happen, but I hate to say it, but...
Last years "All SEC" NCG caused a worse anti-SEC bias in the media so that this year they don't want any SEC teams in it.
UGA gets another cush SEC schedule without playing Bama, LSU, or A&M, Bama's schedule is "cream puff" except for LSU & A&M, and OREGON has played NOBODY.
I wish the top tier SEC teams would play all of the undefeated teams and beat them all. Won't happen, but I hate to say it, but...
Last years "All SEC" NCG caused a worse anti-SEC bias in the media so that this year they don't want any SEC teams in it.
Posted on 11/12/12 at 10:08 pm to H-Town Tiger
strength of schedule is somewhat counter-intuitive from the computer's point of view. I don't have a link but I read an article about this several years ago. Basically, most folks think that your schedule is easier when you have your tough games at home. But in reality it is the opposite the closer you are ranked to your toughest opponents. Your tough games are going to be a war regardless...but your advantage over your weaker opponents is much greater at home.
The other flaw in SOS calculations is that anything below about the 40th ranked team should be considered equal. Beating the 70th ranked team isn't any more impressive than beating the 100th. Your schedule strength is basically your 5 toughest games.
The other flaw in SOS calculations is that anything below about the 40th ranked team should be considered equal. Beating the 70th ranked team isn't any more impressive than beating the 100th. Your schedule strength is basically your 5 toughest games.
Posted on 11/12/12 at 10:08 pm to Tigerik
You don't get special extra credit for going .500 against the BCS Top 10.
But just like Bama...ranked #4 as a 1-loss and .500 against the BCS Top 10...and LSU ranked #7 as a two-loss...you do get extra credit...as both are the highest ranked teams with their respective records.
But no, you don't get to rise above teams with 1-loss or are undefeated...that's then basically rewarding teams for playing a tough schedule regardless if they actually win or not. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
But just like Bama...ranked #4 as a 1-loss and .500 against the BCS Top 10...and LSU ranked #7 as a two-loss...you do get extra credit...as both are the highest ranked teams with their respective records.
But no, you don't get to rise above teams with 1-loss or are undefeated...that's then basically rewarding teams for playing a tough schedule regardless if they actually win or not. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Posted on 11/12/12 at 10:12 pm to bastropbham
quote:
Not if you click on CURRENT
I clicked on the link provided and it says...
quote:
Through games of: 11/10/12
the 4th and 13th ranking is a composite ranking, not strength of schedule
This post was edited on 11/12/12 at 10:17 pm
Posted on 11/12/12 at 10:12 pm to omegaman66
quote:
I can tell you exactly why! USCw is a media darling
If that's the case, why was USC #5 in 2008? Here's a link to the final BCS standings and USC who was #1 early in the year, was stuck at #5 with just one loss, even though if we used the "eyeball" test that was used for Alabama last year, they should have been in the game or at least #3, but they weren't, why is that? How did the media forget their darlings and why didn't they try and fix the system after that?
ETA for link LINK
USC lost earlier in the year than Florida, OU and Texas. Yet they remained ranked lower than all 3, kind of strange the media would rank their "darling" so low don't ya think?
quote:
Now a bunch of people even here will tell you that USCw should have been in the championship game that year... but they are wrong and just as biased as the people that changed the system.
There is nothing more ironic than someone that is extremely biased calling other biased. Your comments show you have an extreme bias against USC.
My opinion was then as it was last year and remains today, that if you don't win your conference, you should not be in the BCS CG. Sorry, it's not a provable mathematical fact that OU was "better" than USC in 2003. It's just an opinion. If you think OU was better, played a tougher schedule, that's fine and perfectly valid. But don't sit here and say anyone that disagree's is just biased and loves USC. Nope, if the "eyeball" test was valid because it favored an SEC team in 2011, then it's valid for other teams as well.
This post was edited on 11/12/12 at 10:29 pm
Posted on 11/12/12 at 10:19 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
The SOS that was used in the 2003 BCS was flawed and redundant on top of that. The computers still have it and human voters clearly factor it in.
Is that how Auburn got royally screwed in 2004, because if I recall ... their SOS was brutal.
Posted on 11/12/12 at 10:21 pm to Tigerik
quote:
Guys, I know SOS is considered, I asked the question "Why is it not considered MORE"?
More than what? Wins and loses?
quote:
OREGON has played NOBODY.
Let me ask you this. 2 weeks ago where you questioning why Alabama was #1 in all polls? At that point they had played basically nobody. Once they played 2 good teams, LSU and A&M, they struggled with 1 and lost to the other and you think they should be ranked higher than undefeated teams?
quote:
Last years "All SEC" NCG caused a worse anti-SEC bias in the media so that this year they don't want any SEC teams in it.
Last year's all SEC CG featured a team, Alabama, with 3 wins over FBS teams with a winning record , while Ok State with 6 such wins was left out. Where you complaining then?
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News