re: SEC now all counting independents as P5 games

quote:

---

Don't care. My point stands. Army isn't great by any measure, but they aren't any worse than the bottom feeders of the P5 conferences.

ETA: I do hope you people realize I'm talking about them in terms of their weight on the schedule, and not how good or bad their football team is compared to the others.

---

Your point might stand to anybody that's an idiot, but it doesn't fly to anybody else.

Army played 2 teams that finished ranked over the last 5 years, lost to both Iowa State played 19, beat 2, Wake Forest played 19, beat 1, Purdue played 15, Indiana played 13, beat 1, Colorado and Kansas played 19 and 18 respectively. Do you think playing mid-majors with a losing record instead of ranked teams might make a difference in winning percentage?

Opponents winning percentage:

Iowa St. (440-294-0)--0.599
Kansas (416-295-0)--0.585
Colorado (412-315-0)--0.567
Purdue (404-321-0)--0.557
Indiana (388-320-0)--0.548
Wake Forest (390-325-0)--0.545
Army (337-365-0)--0.480

Army had the second worst winning percentage against mid-majors who failed to end with a winning record, beating only Wake Forest with a 3-2 record. They played 19 mid-majors that finished without a winning record, the most any of the others played was 7. Army got 12 of their 19 wins over that period against these weak teams that the other teams were not playing. Had the other teams played such a schedule, their winning percentage would have soared way up.

Schedules matters. I'm not dumb enough to be fooled by that.