re: Phil Steele's strength of schedule for the 2012 college football season.

quote:

---

There is only an 8 win from opponents difference between UGA and MSU, So yes ETA UGA SECe opponents games won 34 MSU SECw opponents games won 46

---

Math major?

A&M and Ole Miss better go ahead and start preparing their anus right now. Gonna be a tough season for them

quote:

---

Any list with out us number 1 I don't believe. @uga @bama @lsu @ark and play UT. Think about that. The reigning sec east, sec west and national champion at THEIR place.

---

playing them away actually helps. if not, you have to play the winnable games on the road.

WHERE do you see UK playing @ LSU this season ?

quote:

---

A&M and Ole Miss better go ahead and start preparing their anus right now. Gonna be a tough season for them

---

already gaping from last season...

quote:

---

1 TEXAS A&M 105 51 67.31% 11 9

---

prepare for the chainsaw dick

Yes it goes off last season's records. From the link in the OP:

quote:

---

At the beginning of the season, the NCAA usually releases a rating of each team’s schedule based on their opponents’ win/loss record from the previous season, This is a good method but it does have its obvious flaws.


The first flaw is basing the ratings on opponents records from the previous season. Let’s look at a couple of examples. At the start of 2007 I had Illinois rated as one of the top teams in the Big Ten and they went on to knock off #1 Ohio St and play in the ROSE Bowl. My ratings had them as an above avg opponent at the start of the year and they finished the regular season #13 (AP). Using 2006’s record as the criteria for determining the strength of an opponent’s schedule, however, you would count them as a 2-10 team! In 2008, I had teams like Ole Miss and Minnesota on my Most Improved Teams List meaning I thought they were bowl caliber but using the previous year’s record you would have counted them as 3-9 and 1-11 teams (both made bowls, Ole Miss finished #14). On the flip side of the coin, Notre Dame was in an obvious rebuilding year in ’07 yet was still counted as a 10-3 team if you based strength of schedule on 2006’s record and they were far from a January bowl team in 2007 at just 3-9!


The second flaw is basing it on pure overall records. If a team plays an FCS (IAA) school that was 11-1 in 2007, that counts as a MUCH tougher game in the NCAA ratings than facing a team like Alabama who was 7-6 in ‘07 but #1 at the end of ‘08 regular season! My ratings had Bama ranked as a much tougher team than any FCS foe. To give you an example from 2002, my ratings foresaw that teams playing Kansas St were facing a Top 10 team based on my preseason ratings. The NCAA strength of schedule ranking rated a game against Kansas St as just a game vs a 6-6 opp (2001 record). Kanas St finished #7 AP for 2002 and walloped their opp’s by an avg of 45-12, not exactly numbers from a typical middle-of-the-road opponent.

On the flip side let’s look at 2009’s Ball St team. They were in an obvious rebuilding year and my power ratings had them only winning 2 or 3 games. My methods gave teams credit for a weak foe when facing Ball St but basing it on the previous year’s record, teams were given credit for playing a 12-2 team which is what they finished in 2008! That is a MAJOR flaw!

---

The main thing bringing down Bama's SOS is that their cupcakes were really, really bad cupcakes. Their records last year:

Western Carolina: 1-10
FAU: 1-11
Western Kentucky: 7-5
Total: 9-26

Contrast that to A&M who plays an FCS school that went 14-1 and you see why A&M has such a higher SOS than Bama even though they don't play a really good OOC opponent and Bama does.

But like you said, when it's all said and done I expect Bama to have a top 20 SOS.

as just stated, our number is inflated because sam houston state went 14-1 last year. still a top 15 schedule.

quote:

---

Why is Bama's low?

---

because it goes off the win/loss totals of last season. The better your record was the year before, the worse your opponents record was (since you gave them more losses).