- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
re: Can someone explain why SOS "Strength of Schedule" is not considered more?
Posted on 11/12/12 at 10:23 pm to H-Town Tiger
Posted on 11/12/12 at 10:23 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
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?
I distinctly remember complaining.
0
Posted on 11/12/12 at 10:23 pm to navy
quote:
Is that how Auburn got royally screwed in 2004, because if I recall ... their SOS was brutal.
they got screwed more by the bubble-up theory. You can't jump somebody in front of you unless they lose. Although doubtful they would have jumped UT and USC regardless.
Posted on 11/12/12 at 10:25 pm to ForeLSU
quote:
they got screwed more by the bubble-up theory. You can't jump somebody in front of you unless they lose. Although doubtful they would have jumped UT and USC regardless
It was OU not UT, if I recall.
Posted on 11/12/12 at 10:27 pm to navy
quote:
Is that how Auburn got royally screwed in 2004, because if I recall ... their SOS was brutal.
what you recall is because they were in the SEC their SOS must have been brutal and most SEC fans think no one outside the SEC is any good but Auburn's SOS was worse than both USC and OU. 2004 the SEC had it's lowest overall winning percentage since expanding to 12 teams in 1992. That's not a perfect measure of course, but it was not a tough as the SEC is this year.
LINK
Posted on 11/12/12 at 10:28 pm to ForeLSU
Auburn's average computer score was #3...in fact all the computers ranked Auburn #3...USC was #1 and OU #2.
And Auburn played the Citadel, Louisiana-Monroe and Louisiana Tech, Kentucky (2-9), Ole Miss (4-7) and Mississippi State (3-8).
And Auburn played the Citadel, Louisiana-Monroe and Louisiana Tech, Kentucky (2-9), Ole Miss (4-7) and Mississippi State (3-8).
This post was edited on 11/12/12 at 10:32 pm
Posted on 11/12/12 at 10:30 pm to Zamoro10
Perhaps I remember incorrectly then ... but, seem to recall that AU had to beat a ton of ranked teams ... more than OU and USC.
But ... I didn't care... screw AU anyway.
But, they could have done no worse than OU vs. USC.
But ... I didn't care... screw AU anyway.
But, they could have done no worse than OU vs. USC.
Posted on 11/12/12 at 10:30 pm to navy
quote:
It was OU not UT, if I recall.
right, I was thinking the Vince Young game....
Posted on 11/12/12 at 10:38 pm to navy
quote:
but, seem to recall that AU had to beat a ton of ranked teams ... more than OU and USC.
I think Auburn and OU beat 4 teams that were ranked in the final regular season poll, USC 3. But overall SOS AU ranked 3rd. Whoever said the bubble thing is what cost them the most is right. USC and OU started 1 and 2 and weren't dropping.
Posted on 11/12/12 at 10:55 pm to H-Town Tiger
2004 Auburn was not like 2003 USC.
2004 Auburn was #3 in both human polls and #3 in all the computers. The entire BCS system agreed they were #3.
2003 USC was #1 in both human polls with an avg. computer score of 2.67 while OU had 1.17 and LSU had 1.83. That 2.67 kept them out of the title game...and so they de-emphasized the computers...which had the power to drop the #1 team to #3...based on a slight difference in the CPU rankings. NY Times Computer score had them ranked #1 - Sagarin killed them with a #4 ranking.
2004 Auburn was #3 in both human polls and #3 in all the computers. The entire BCS system agreed they were #3.
2003 USC was #1 in both human polls with an avg. computer score of 2.67 while OU had 1.17 and LSU had 1.83. That 2.67 kept them out of the title game...and so they de-emphasized the computers...which had the power to drop the #1 team to #3...based on a slight difference in the CPU rankings. NY Times Computer score had them ranked #1 - Sagarin killed them with a #4 ranking.
Posted on 11/12/12 at 11:18 pm to Tigerik
I wonder the same thing.
Posted on 11/12/12 at 11:30 pm to Tigerik
We lost 2 times and had a garbage out of conference schedule.
Posted on 11/12/12 at 11:41 pm to peopleschamp
Why argue this at all? Haven't you guys realized that it all boils down to the Worldwide Leader's " Eye Test???"
Okie State blew Bama away last year in SOS, wins vs top 25, etc.
Okie State blew Bama away last year in SOS, wins vs top 25, etc.
Posted on 11/13/12 at 6:59 am to Tigerik
LSU has lost 2 times. Three other teams have zero losses. 1 team that beat you has only one loss. So what's the question?
Posted on 11/13/12 at 8:39 am to YouAre8Up
quote:
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.
Agree 100%
Posted on 11/13/12 at 8:57 am to Tigerik
quote:
defeating 4 of the 6
Well, there's the first problem. LSU lost 2 of these games. You don't get a boost in the rankings for losing to good teams. See Mississippi State's fall from the rankings. According to your logic, Moo State played Bama, A&M and LSU in a row, so they should be given credit for that in their rankings. Unfortunately, they LOST these games. Going 0-3 against a tough schedule is not better than going 3-0 against a weak schedule, no matter how you slice it.
quote:
So why is nobody talking about this, and only the W's and L's??
Well, this isn't happening. Let's look at a few cases.
Alabama: 9-1
Florida State: 9-1
Clemson: 9-1
What? They all have the same record? What separates them, then?
Alabama: 9-1, #4/4/4 in Coaches/Harris/BCS and #5 in the computers.
Florida State: 9-1, #6/6/10 and #17 in the computers.
Clemson: 9-1, #9/9/11 and #14 in the computers.
It's not just about W's and L's, dude. The reason LSU is the top-ranked 2-loss team is because of their perceived SOS and their high computer ranking (#7). If LSU is 10-0 right now, they are easily a unanimous #1 in all polls. Easily. But, they lost games. And that matters, no matter what your SOS is.
Posted on 11/13/12 at 9:03 am to navy
quote:
Perhaps I remember incorrectly then ... but, seem to recall that AU had to beat a ton of ranked teams ... more than OU and USC.
Here's the problem with this line of thinking: SOS cannot be based on human rankings. That's where people get in trouble.
In 2005, LSU lost a game to Tennessee, who was ranked at the time. I am fairly certain that Tennessee team ended up 5-6. So, that loss, over the course of the season, ended up making LSU's SOS lower. You don't get credit for playing a "ranked team" except perhaps in the eyes of the voters. Why should the computers even know rankings?
All the computers should do is analyze your opponents' records and your opponents' opponents' records. That gives you a clearer view of SOS.
Case in point: If LSU plays and beats 3 top 25 teams and then plays 9 other teams with 3 wins or less, is that schedule stronger than if LSU plays 1 top 25 team and 11 teams that are bowl eligible but not ranked? (Yes, that is a very unlikely scenario but it illustrates the point.)
Posted on 11/13/12 at 11:11 am to ForeLSU
" 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."
This is pretty much what happened, but they overreacted and took margin out completely and minimized SOS. Margin should have been limited to 17 points and SOS needed to be more sophisticated.
My issue is how SOS is calculated. If Team A plays the six weakest teams in 1A but also plays 6 top 10 teams they will have a lower SOS than a team that plays 12 games against teams in between 30 and 50 in 1A. Even if you played all six top 10 teams in consecutive games with 3 of them on the road. Tough games in consecutive weeks with road games is the recipe for losses. If a team survives it, they should be recognized.
I tend to look at SOS as a measure of how likely a team is to lose. I would penalize you for playing weak teams, but I would give big bonuses for top 10 teams, lesser bonus for top 20 opponents, bonuses for consecutive games against top teams, and big bonuses for road games against top 20 teams. The computers could do this, but they just tend to average the opponents W/L records.
This is pretty much what happened, but they overreacted and took margin out completely and minimized SOS. Margin should have been limited to 17 points and SOS needed to be more sophisticated.
My issue is how SOS is calculated. If Team A plays the six weakest teams in 1A but also plays 6 top 10 teams they will have a lower SOS than a team that plays 12 games against teams in between 30 and 50 in 1A. Even if you played all six top 10 teams in consecutive games with 3 of them on the road. Tough games in consecutive weeks with road games is the recipe for losses. If a team survives it, they should be recognized.
I tend to look at SOS as a measure of how likely a team is to lose. I would penalize you for playing weak teams, but I would give big bonuses for top 10 teams, lesser bonus for top 20 opponents, bonuses for consecutive games against top teams, and big bonuses for road games against top 20 teams. The computers could do this, but they just tend to average the opponents W/L records.
Posted on 11/17/12 at 8:37 am to H-Town Tiger
I get the two loss thing, but does anyone really think Oregon, K.State, or ND, could go undefeated against the 6 ranked teams LSU has faced this year?
Especially playing 5 in a row with A&M & Florida on the road.
What I would love to see is SEC foes playing all three of the current undefeated teams and defeat them to make a statement but I think the Anti-SEC bias is so bad this year due to last years BCS game that it will be a Non-SEC NCG.
Especially playing 5 in a row with A&M & Florida on the road.
What I would love to see is SEC foes playing all three of the current undefeated teams and defeat them to make a statement but I think the Anti-SEC bias is so bad this year due to last years BCS game that it will be a Non-SEC NCG.
Posted on 11/17/12 at 8:42 am to DrEdgeLSU
Dude, you're missing my point. Do you know what the word "more" means? I never said it wasn't figured in, but it's importance has been diminished too far in my opinion.
No, My point is that the undefeated teams currently have not played more than 4 ranked teams, and in the case of Oregon they've played non in the top 15. Why aren't they penalized for playing a soft schedule, but the are rewarded for being undefeated.
Undefeated only means something to me, depending on who you played. In todays world, you'd do better to play an Oregon style schedule and blow people out in dramatic fashion.
If you look at the last few years when Ore. played SEC teams like AU (w/Cam Newton) or LSU (last year) or Boise St. they don't score 50+ points do they.
I rest my case.
quote:
According to your logic, Moo State played Bama, A&M and LSU in a row, so they should be given credit for that in their rankings.
No, My point is that the undefeated teams currently have not played more than 4 ranked teams, and in the case of Oregon they've played non in the top 15. Why aren't they penalized for playing a soft schedule, but the are rewarded for being undefeated.
Undefeated only means something to me, depending on who you played. In todays world, you'd do better to play an Oregon style schedule and blow people out in dramatic fashion.
If you look at the last few years when Ore. played SEC teams like AU (w/Cam Newton) or LSU (last year) or Boise St. they don't score 50+ points do they.
I rest my case.
Posted on 11/17/12 at 8:44 am to YouAre8Up
RE:
Yeah a team with 1 loss that "We Beat" last year got another chance didn't they, but that will never happen again, and certainly never another two SEC NCG with the new format coming.
quote:
1 team that beat you has only one loss. So what's the question?
Yeah a team with 1 loss that "We Beat" last year got another chance didn't they, but that will never happen again, and certainly never another two SEC NCG with the new format coming.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News