Started By
Message
re: Counterpoint - Scheduling (and winning) tough OOC games
Posted on 12/9/24 at 8:40 pm to koreandawg
Posted on 12/9/24 at 8:40 pm to koreandawg
quote:
Vandy was better as the QB gave them some offense, but if you look closer they won a lot of games because of mistakes by the other team. When their opponents played clean, they didn't win.
Well that’s true of every team though. No one is thinking Vandy is better than Bama or only 3 points worse than Texas but to act like Vandy was a bad football team is disingenuous. Vandy would have been better than 6-6 vs Indianas schedule. That said I’m not pissed Bama is not in. I ammpissed at this playoff system. It’s a joke. Just look at seeding. This is the give everyone a trophy playoff system because we couldn’t compete with the best teams in the past. Automatic bids for G5 and automatic bus for cont champions is horse shite.
1
Posted on 12/9/24 at 8:49 pm to Nwo93
why does SOS keep getting so much chatter. its a smoke screen, its irrelevant, it's a distraction. It's what they want the teams the SEC to be focused on while they are putting other teams in with terrible SOS rankings.
ND got in with one loss and the 59th SOS
Indiana is in with one loss and 67th SOS.
Its the win total..not SOS...just win your games and your in.
ND got in with one loss and the 59th SOS
Indiana is in with one loss and 67th SOS.
Its the win total..not SOS...just win your games and your in.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 8:54 pm to lsusa
I just don’t get it. As a program wouldn’t you desire at least one OOC game of significance?
Texas is heading to the middle of an eight year stretch of
Bama- Home
Bama-Away
Michigan- Away
Ohio St. -Away
Ohio St. -Home
Michigan -Home
ND -Away
ND -Home
If your program desires to be great, schedule that way.
Texas is heading to the middle of an eight year stretch of
Bama- Home
Bama-Away
Michigan- Away
Ohio St. -Away
Ohio St. -Home
Michigan -Home
ND -Away
ND -Home
If your program desires to be great, schedule that way.
This post was edited on 12/10/24 at 12:37 am
Posted on 12/9/24 at 8:54 pm to Quicksilver
quote:it is a huge factor given that teams with week SOS tend to have good records...how do SMU and Indiana do with Bama's schedule?
I don't even think SOS was really a factor this year.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 9:02 pm to labamafan
quote:
Well that’s true of every team though. No one is thinking Vandy is better than Bama or only 3 points worse than Texas but to act like Vandy was a bad football team is disingenuous. Vandy would have been better than 6-6 vs Indianas schedule. That said I’m not pissed Bama is not in. I ammpissed at this playoff system. It’s a joke. Just look at seeding. This is the give everyone a trophy playoff system because we couldn’t compete with the best teams in the past. Automatic bids for G5 and automatic bus for cont champions is horse shite.
That's not true of every team. You can overcome it if you can outplay the other team in explosives (second most important stat to turnovers). Vandy can't do that. They finished behind almost every team they played in net yards per play.
Va Tech -.4 NYPP, +1 turnovers- Win
Mizzou -.2 NYPP, 0 turnover margin- Loss
Alabama -3.2 NYPP, +2 turnover margin- Win
Kentucky, -.4 NYPP, +1 turnover margin- Win
Texas, -1.2 NYPP, -1 turnover margin- loss
Auburn, -1.9 NYPP, +1 turnover margin- Win
S. Carolina- -2.6 NYPP, 0 turnover margin- loss
LSU -.4 NYPP, 0 turnover margin- loss
Tennesse -3.1 NYPP, +1 turnover margin- loss
They were less efficient along the LOS in every match up with a P4 conference team they played this year. Lucky to come out 4-5.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 9:02 pm to Jeepin_Josh
Five of the twelve playoff teams they selected have a strength of schedule worse than 50.
SMU - 57
Notre Dame - 59
Arizona State - 62
Indiana - 67
Boise State - 72
No, strength of schedule was not very high on their list of metrics used to compare teams.
I expect a couple of one sided games in the playoffs.
SMU - 57
Notre Dame - 59
Arizona State - 62
Indiana - 67
Boise State - 72
No, strength of schedule was not very high on their list of metrics used to compare teams.
I expect a couple of one sided games in the playoffs.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 9:08 pm to lsusa
quote:
The real reason why Alabama is not in the playoffs is because they went 3-2 vs. the five teams on their schedule who finished with a .500 or below record.
Considering that both of those loses were in conference, would not a strong OOC win or two have helped to offset one or both?
What's being talked about is the future and the value of adding tougher games with higher risk and no rewards.
OOC games are games that are in addition to the games in conference - where Alabama lost. If the only value they provide is a win in the win column, then you can get the same thing from a nobody. When we play Ohio St in a few years, it will provide the same value as a win over UTSA.
Do you think he is wanting to cancel games already played or something?
Posted on 12/9/24 at 9:11 pm to captdalton
quote:
Five of the twelve playoff teams they selected have a strength of schedule worse than 50.
SMU - 57
Notre Dame - 59
Arizona State - 62
Indiana - 67
Boise State - 72
No, strength of schedule was not very high on their list of metrics used to compare teams.
I expect a couple of one sided games in the playoffs.
Strength of schedule isn't what you guys really mean. What you really mean is doing well against a strong strength of schedule.
They didn't look at one thing exclusively. Many things went into it.
The OU game went into it and it should have. And that loss combined with another close loss to a losing team in the conference, is what did you in. And you can make a good argument with that.
There is no team that had a great argument that stood above all others.
As your former coach said, none of these coaches should complain about the decision made.
This post was edited on 12/9/24 at 9:12 pm
Posted on 12/9/24 at 9:16 pm to 3down10
quote:
What's being talked about is the future and the value of adding tougher games with higher risk and no rewards.
OOC games are games that are in addition to the games in conference - where Alabama lost. If the only value they provide is a win in the win column, then you can get the same thing from a nobody. When we play Ohio St in a few years, it will provide the same value as a win over UTSA.
Do you think he is wanting to cancel games already played or something?
The committee will change and values can change. SEC teams can probably schedule crap OOC if they want and they'll be fine. I think that's the way it has always been. That's if you win your games. You can look back at the CFP rankings when it was four and see that you're playing with fire if you have a third loss and trying to end up in a 12 team format.
This post was edited on 12/9/24 at 9:18 pm
Posted on 12/9/24 at 9:20 pm to koreandawg
quote:
The committee will change and values can change. SEC teams can probably schedule crap OOC if they want and they'll be fine. I think that's the way it has always been. That's if you win your games. You can look back at the CFP rankings when it was four and see that you're playing with fire if you have a third loss and trying to end up in a 12 team format.
I don't think anyone wants crappy OOC games. What people really want is the SoS to count, especially if you play in a conference like the SEC.
Nobody wants conference games to be tallied based only on win and loss records anymore than they want the OOC games to count that way.
This post was edited on 12/9/24 at 9:21 pm
Posted on 12/9/24 at 10:25 pm to llfshoals
quote:
What gets lost is the schedule and why a ridiculously hard schedule matters.
Are you really claiming that Bama’s schedule this year was “ridiculously hard”?
lol, Florida had a four week stretch of UGA, Texas, LSU and Ole Miss. 3 top 15 teams in four weeks. That’s ridiculously hard.
quote:
Bama beats Georgia, loses at Vandy next week. Think Bama is drained?
OK, maybe
quote:
Win over #14 South Carolina, loss at the #7 stinking Vols, next games are #20 Missouri, at LSU, Mercer, at Oklahoma. 3rd hard away game in 5 weeks after 7 games playing teams whose worst record was 8-4 LSU
lol. You got Mizzou with their QB and RB dinged. Then a bye. Then blew out LSU in what was hardly a physical game. Then played FCS Mercer —- and after that “Murderer’s Row” you were so run down you lost 24-3 to Oklahoma???
Speaking of ridiculous- your argument is.
quote:
No, but think Bama doesn’t go 11-1 with Indiana’s schedule? Possibly 12-0? Heck Vandy would probably be no worse than 9-3 against it.
By this hypothetical “what would happened if Bama played….” game, wouldn’t you also say that if Bama replayed their own schedule, they’d be, at worst 10-2 with losses to UGA and Tennessee? But the fact is when they played it they were 9-3 and lost to unranked Vandy, and badly to unranked Oklahoma
FWIW, Vandy lost to Georgia State
I don’t necessarily disagree that Indiana played an easier schedule. But at the end of the day, “they beat everyone they were supposed to”, and their only loss was excusable.
Posted on 12/10/24 at 12:08 am to lsusa
quote:
Are you really claiming that Bama’s schedule this year was “ridiculously hard”?
Alabama’s strength of schedule is now 18th. I would argue that any schedule in the teens or better is very hard. And strength of schedule is not some ambiguous metric. It is calculated the same for every team and takes into account all the games played. It isn’t subjective. If they don’t take into account strength of schedule going forward and continue to only focus on record, the SEC will continue to get screwed on an at large bid or two every year. We can’t know, but I believe that if Boise or SMU or Indiana or Notre Dame had played a top 20 schedule, they would have gone 9-3 at best. And 7-5 or 8-4 would have been just as likely. It isn’t hard for a football team to get up and focus to play one game. It is hard for a team to get up and stay focused for 8 or 9 games. That is where strength of schedule comes in. If a top 25 team doesn’t get up for a team ranked inside the 50s who has had the game circled all year, that ranked team may very well lose. Now if that same ranked team sleepwalks against a team in the 100s, the disparity in talent will almost always overcome the other teams motivation. Here are all SEC teams strength of schedule and FPI. There are not many SEC teams that a team can sleepwalk against and expect to win.
Alabama: SOS 18, FPI 4
Auburn: SOS 19, FPI 29
Ole Miss: SOS 33, FPI 8
Mississippi State: SOS 2, FPI 67
LSU: SOS 10, FPI 17
Arkansas: SOS 17, FPI 36
Texas A&M: SOS 11, FPI 16
Texas: SOS 20, FPI 1
Missouri: SOS 27, FPI 20
Kentucky: SOS 3, FPI 50
Florida: SOS 5, FPI 21
South Carolina: SOS 13, FPI 14
OU: SOS 4, FPI 26
Georgia: SOS 1, FPI 5
Vandy: SOS 8, FPI 39
Tennessee: SOS 28, FPI 7
SEC teams had the 5 hardest schedules in the country, 7 of the top 10, and 13 of the top 20.
The SEC had 12 of 16 teams ranked in the top 30 by FPI. 75% of the league. Only two teams were ranked 50th or worse. That is why the SEC is such a grind.
By comparison, the Big 10 had 7 teams ranked in the top 30, and 6 teams ranked outside the top 50. The ACC had 4 teams ranked in the top 30, and 8 teams ranked outside the top 50.
Yet the Big 10 got the most bids and the ACC took an at large slot from the SEC, where there were three teams who had a better resume.
Posted on 12/10/24 at 12:20 am to Eldodroptop
quote:
I just don’t get it. As a program wouldn’t you desire at least one OOC game of significance?
Texas is heading to the middle middle of an eight year stretch of
Bama- Home
Bama-Away
Michigan- Away
Ohio St. -Away
Ohio St. -Home
Michigan -Home
ND -Away
ND -Home
If your program desires to be great, schedule that way.
I agree but ... don't y'all have Michigan at home next year? I attended the game in Ann Arbor this year ... unless I'm having a mental hiccup moment right now.
Wait, you're including this past year's schedule ... you're playing in Columbus next season in your opener. Good on y'all. Beat their suckeye asses.
Posted on 12/10/24 at 12:37 am to lsusa
quote:I said before the season even started that was insane.
lol, Florida had a four week stretch of UGA, Texas, LSU and Ole Miss. 3 top 15 teams in four weeks. That’s ridiculously hard.
quote:Players get dinged up. Think ours didn’t?
lol. You got Mizzou with their QB and RB dinged.
quote:Playing team after team on the road in the SEC wears on you, and you think LSU wasn’t a physical game? Just shows you didn’t watch it. 48 runs for 311 yards is the very definition of a physical game.
Then blew out LSU in what was hardly a physical game. Then played FCS Mercer —- and after that “Murderer’s Row” you were so run down you lost 24-3 to Oklahoma???
quote:I knew Bama had a higher SoS than anyone in the playoff not named Georgia. You didn’t. You’re going to be pretty thin on finding teams with as many wins against ranked teams (that’s finishing ranked btw) as Bama.
Speaking of ridiculous- your argument is.
quote:You just are seemingly incapable of understanding, whether it’s intentional bias (almost certainly) or you’re just plain stupid (not willing to rule that out) having to play 1 difficult game a season is an entirely different dynamic than a schedule littered with them.
I don’t necessarily disagree that Indiana played an easier schedule. But at the end of the day, “they beat everyone they were supposed to”, and their only loss was excusable.
Indiana’s SoS (67) isn’t the worst that got into the playoff. That was Boise State (78).
Other notables ND (59) SMU (57) ASU (67).
So not 1, but 5 playoff teams had much weaker schedules than any SEC team. The only non SEC teams who had a tougher SoS than Ole Miss (who at 33 had the easiest in the SEC). Penn State (30) and Ohio State(29).
Posted on 12/10/24 at 1:21 am to captdalton
quote:
Alabama’s strength of schedule is now 18th. I would argue that any schedule in the teens or better is very hard. And strength of schedule is not some ambiguous metric. It is calculated the same for every team and takes into account all the games played. It isn’t subjective
Actually, using the rank can be deceiving, because it doesn’t actually provide a valid measurement of anything. It’s possible that the gap between two teams right next to each other can be greater than two other teams who are 30 spots apart in the “rankings”.
quote:
We can’t know, but I believe that if Boise or SMU or Indiana or Notre Dame had played a top 20 schedule, they would have gone 9-3 at best. And 7-5 or 8-4 would have been just as likely.
Maybe, or maybe not, but if I would have told you on November 22 that Alabama would only score 3 points and lose by 21, you probably wouldn’t have believed that either. So here you’re taking about “projected” data rather than actual data.
Anyway….
You are preaching to the choir regarding the SEC being a stronger league, or the fact Indiana, Penn State, Notre Dame or SMU played a “weaker” schedule than Alabama, Ole Miss and USC….or LSU and Florida for that matter.
LSU, assuming I’m looking at the correct rankings on ESPN, has a Strength or Schedule “rank” of 10 compared to 67 for Indiana. By my recollection, LSU is 2-1 vs teams ranked in the final CFP rankings, and Indiana is 0-1
So does LSU belong in over Indiana?
Of course not. The obvious answer is that LSU was 8-4, a three-game difference in the loss column, so most wouldn’t even consider the comparison. The more detained answer is that LSU lost to unranked USC, Texas A&M and Florida, plus got blown out by a Bama team that was ranked lower than Indiana’s
only loss with Ohio State.
Posted on 12/10/24 at 2:06 am to captdalton
Something interesting I found on ESPN’s site is called strength of record.
Now, I am going to provide the caveat up front as I did in the last post, that a “rank” is only valid in comparing team A is ahead of or behind team B, as we have no idea of the actual score value.
I’ll also say that from my reading, this formula is proprietary to ESPN, so whatever factors, etc, they chose to include could be biased.
With that said, here is the explanation I found on “Strength of record”
Now according to this metric, the top 20
in order are: (I bolded the CFP teams)
TEAM
1- Oregon Ducks (auto)
2-UGA (auto)
3- Texas Longhorns (at large thru 8)
4- Notre Dame Fighting Irish
5- Penn State Nittany Lions
6- Tennessee Volunteers
7- Ohio State Buckeyes
8- Indiana Hoosiers
9- South Carolina Gamecocks — NOT IN CFP
10- Boise State Broncos - CFP Auto
11-
Alabama Crimson Tide
12-
BYU Cougars
13-
Arizona State Sun Devils CFP auto
14- Miami Hurricanes
15-
SMU Mustangs CFP at large
16-
Army Black Knights
17- LSU Tigers
18- Ole Miss Rebels
19-
Missouri Tigers
20- Clemson. CFP Auto
LINK
You can make of this what it’s worth. My guess is that you will say “ah-ha! See, Bama’s above SMU”. And I could counter with, well, “if this is the bill you want to die on, USC is ahead of Bama”….and then you say “but muh head to head” and I say “well yeah, but it was in Tuscaloosa and they say HFA is worth three points….”
But for all we know, the difference in being ranked 11th and 15th is by a billionth of a decimal point and within the margin of error.
But, according to this rank Alabama would have been left out in favor of South Carolina.
Now, with all of that said….i think the next thing we could both point out is the WTF? reaction we both have to Notre Dame, Texas and Penn State being ranked 3-5….i mean, cause those teams have what? A combined two top 25 wins (Illinois and Army?) so how is what they did a “stronger record”?
I’ll end the night by saying - contrary to the idea that Bama’s strength of schedule “punished” them and was not given ample consideration by the committee, it was good enough to almost get them into the playoffs, despite have two more regular season losses than P4 teams Indiana and SMU, despite losing three games total and despite losing to two 6-6 teams, and despite losing to a 6-6 team by 21-points in week 14.
Now, I am going to provide the caveat up front as I did in the last post, that a “rank” is only valid in comparing team A is ahead of or behind team B, as we have no idea of the actual score value.
I’ll also say that from my reading, this formula is proprietary to ESPN, so whatever factors, etc, they chose to include could be biased.
With that said, here is the explanation I found on “Strength of record”
quote:
AI Overview +1 ESPN's "Strength of Record" (SOR) is a metric that measures how difficult a team's win-loss record is to achieve based on the strength of their schedule, essentially reflecting the likelihood that an average top 25 team would have a record as good or better than the team in question, given the opponents they played; essentially, it indicates how impressive a team's record is considering the quality of their competition.
Key points about ESPN's Strength of Record: Interpretation: A higher SOR value means that a team has a more impressive record considering the difficulty of their schedule.
Calculation basis: ESPN calculates SOR by comparing a team's win-loss record to the expected win-loss record an average top 25 team would have against the same schedule.
Now according to this metric, the top 20
in order are: (I bolded the CFP teams)
TEAM
1- Oregon Ducks (auto)
2-UGA (auto)
3- Texas Longhorns (at large thru 8)
4- Notre Dame Fighting Irish
5- Penn State Nittany Lions
6- Tennessee Volunteers
7- Ohio State Buckeyes
8- Indiana Hoosiers
9- South Carolina Gamecocks — NOT IN CFP
10- Boise State Broncos - CFP Auto
11-
Alabama Crimson Tide
12-
BYU Cougars
13-
Arizona State Sun Devils CFP auto
14- Miami Hurricanes
15-
SMU Mustangs CFP at large
16-
Army Black Knights
17- LSU Tigers
18- Ole Miss Rebels
19-
Missouri Tigers
20- Clemson. CFP Auto
LINK
You can make of this what it’s worth. My guess is that you will say “ah-ha! See, Bama’s above SMU”. And I could counter with, well, “if this is the bill you want to die on, USC is ahead of Bama”….and then you say “but muh head to head” and I say “well yeah, but it was in Tuscaloosa and they say HFA is worth three points….”
But for all we know, the difference in being ranked 11th and 15th is by a billionth of a decimal point and within the margin of error.
But, according to this rank Alabama would have been left out in favor of South Carolina.
Now, with all of that said….i think the next thing we could both point out is the WTF? reaction we both have to Notre Dame, Texas and Penn State being ranked 3-5….i mean, cause those teams have what? A combined two top 25 wins (Illinois and Army?) so how is what they did a “stronger record”?
I’ll end the night by saying - contrary to the idea that Bama’s strength of schedule “punished” them and was not given ample consideration by the committee, it was good enough to almost get them into the playoffs, despite have two more regular season losses than P4 teams Indiana and SMU, despite losing three games total and despite losing to two 6-6 teams, and despite losing to a 6-6 team by 21-points in week 14.
Posted on 12/10/24 at 2:44 am to 3down10
quote:
The real reason why Alabama is not in the playoffs is because they went 3-2 vs. the five teams on their schedule who finished with a .500 or below record. Considering that both of those loses were in conference, would not a strong OOC win or two have helped to offset one or both?
quote:
What's being talked about is the future and the value of adding tougher games with higher risk and no rewards. OOC games are games that are in addition to the games in conference - where Alabama lost. If the only value they provide is a win in the win column, then you can get the same thing from a nobody. When we play Ohio St in a few years, it will provide the same value as a win over UTSA. Do you think he is wanting to cancel games already played or something?
This season, Alabama had a weak non-conference schedule….so the arguement about “not adding future games” doesn’t,
on the surface, appear to be relevant to Bama being left out this year.
Instead, the reason Bama was left out this year is because they lost to a Vanderbilt team
that was 3-5 in SEC play and finished tied for 11th in the conference and an Oklahoma team that was 2-6 in SEC play and finished tied for 13th. The Oklahoma game was also a 21-point loss in Week 14.
Bama played 6 games vs FBS teams with winning records, and was 5-1. They played five games vs FBS teams without winning records and were 3-2.
In another thread, it was determined that Indiana was 10-0 vs FBS teams with non winning records.
So at the end of the day, this season, is Bama’s argument that their schedule was so tough against those six teams with winning records, that it caused them to lose to two bad teams???
If Bama had gone, say 3-3 (.500) teams with winning records, and 5-0 (1.000) vs teams without a winning record, then they could argue they had more losses because they played more games against stronger teams, and they lost to those strong teams. Specifically, in that case they could point to Indiana who was 1-1 (.500) vs winning teams, and 10-0 (1.000) vs non winning, and say that the difference was the strength of schedule.
Posted on 12/10/24 at 4:19 am to lsusa
SoS obviously made no difference or Alabama would be in the playoff right now.
Posted on 12/10/24 at 4:21 am to koreandawg
quote:
SEC teams can probably schedule crap OOC if they want and they'll be fine
Exhibit A: Tennessee
Posted on 12/10/24 at 5:33 am to Quicksilver
quote:
I don't even think SOS was really a factor this year. It was all about records.
Records are directly tied to SOS. Had Alabama, ATM, LSU, Missouri, Ole Miss, South Carolina or Florida played Indiana's schedule, Arizona State's, Boise State's, Clemson's or SMU's they'd all have won 10 games.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News