All six computers have either a quality win quotient (victories over higher-rated teams glean brownie points) or a function that puts more weight to top wins. I think that is sufficient. There is a hole in your specific suggestion (I'll use extremes in this hypothetical to make the point clear):

LSU (13-0, 8-0)
McNeese State (FCS)
Louisiana-Monroe (2-10)
Louisiana Tech (2-10)
Miami-Ohio (2-10)
Vanderbilt (2-10)
Kentucky (2-10)
Mississippi State (2-10)
Florida (9-3)
Ole Miss (9-3)
Alabama (9-3)
Auburn (9-3)
Arkansas (9-3)
Florida (SECCG) (9-3)

USC (13-0, 9-0)
Nevada (5-7)
Notre Dame (5-7)
San Jose State (5-7)
Washington (5-7)
Oregon (8-4)
Oregon State (8-4)
Colorado (8-4)
California (8-4)
Stanford (8-4)
UCLA (8-4)
Arizona (8-4)
Arizona State (8-4)
Utah (P12CG) (8-4)

Your suggestion would give LSU (1 FCS team, 6 2-10 teams, 6 9-3 teams) a higher SOS, but I'd say that USC's schedule (4 5-7 teams, 9 8-4 teams) is definitely tougher.

This post was edited on 8/23/10 at 9:44 am

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by molsusports

Member since Jul 2004

36173 posts

Posted on 8/23/10 at 10:53 am to xiv

quote:

Your suggestion would give LSU (1 FCS team, 6 2-10 teams, 6 9-3 teams) a higher SOS, but I'd say that USC's schedule (4 5-7 teams, 9 8-4 teams) is definitely tougher.

Let's take the words LSU and USC out of this as much as we can... so we argue about the theory instead of LSU/USC or their conferences

For different types of teams different schedules pose different challenges.

For a bad BCS team (say Vanderbilt) the second schedule would be much harder because there are very few teams there of equal talent. But for a higher quality team (say OSU, Bama, Texas) the first schedule would be more difficult - because the more highly talented teams you face... the more teams with a puncher's chance you have to get past

0 ...

Report Post

More Sports - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board