USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
- Status
MountieBoyOz
Eater of Worlds
Re: College Football III: We may lose, but we keep the score close!
Yep, all it takes is an injury in week 5 or 6 and it makes that pick look pretty silly. No sense to fill them out until all of the conference championship games are done.
Yep, all it takes is an injury in week 5 or 6 and it makes that pick look pretty silly. No sense to fill them out until all of the conference championship games are done.
Re: College Football III: We may lose, but we keep the score close!
It's OK if you're in the SEC. Didn't you realize that an SEC schedule means you automatically win all strength of schedule arguments, cause it's the SEC?
Auburn plays those teams, but somehow Boise State gets punished for playing Hawai'i, Louisiana Tech and Idaho.Oh logic... you never fail us.
It's OK if you're in the SEC. Didn't you realize that an SEC schedule means you automatically win all strength of schedule arguments, cause it's the SEC?
Kepler
Cornell Big Red
Last edited:
WeWantMore
New member
MinnesotaNorthStar
Minding the gap
Re: College Football III: We may lose, but we keep the score close!
Yeah, but we often have the simple, objective math to back it up.
Re: College Football III: We may lose, but we keep the score close!
Which teams on Boise State's schedule are analogous to South Carolina, Arkansas, and LSU?
Auburn plays those teams, but somehow Boise State gets punished for playing Hawai'i, Louisiana Tech and Idaho.
Which teams on Boise State's schedule are analogous to South Carolina, Arkansas, and LSU?
Re: College Football III: We may lose, but we keep the score close!
Well, think I might now what he was taking the money for.....
Well, think I might now what he was taking the money for.....
BoomGoestheDynamite
Registered User
Re: College Football III: We may lose, but we keep the score close!
Ah yes, the mighty SEC Argument. LSU struggled to beat a Big East also ran at home, needed Derek Dooley's mind blowing incompetence to escape Tennessee at home, and escaped by a whisker against UNC's B team on a neutral field. But hey, they're in the SEC so they must be better than those results. South Carolina's main claim to fame is beating Alabama and... and Arky's signature win seems to be beating South Carolina (although that A&M win does look a little better now). And a round and round we go.
P.S. I'm shocked, shockd.,when ESPN's talking heads wax poetic about Aubrun's domiannce in the always tough SEC they fail to mention their closest game was against a mid level ACC team at Jordan Hare.
Ah yes, the mighty SEC Argument. LSU struggled to beat a Big East also ran at home, needed Derek Dooley's mind blowing incompetence to escape Tennessee at home, and escaped by a whisker against UNC's B team on a neutral field. But hey, they're in the SEC so they must be better than those results. South Carolina's main claim to fame is beating Alabama and... and Arky's signature win seems to be beating South Carolina (although that A&M win does look a little better now). And a round and round we go.
P.S. I'm shocked, shockd.,when ESPN's talking heads wax poetic about Aubrun's domiannce in the always tough SEC they fail to mention their closest game was against a mid level ACC team at Jordan Hare.
Re: College Football III: We may lose, but we keep the score close!
Well, let's speak objectively about it then. Shall we use Sagarin's SOS ratings?
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt10.htm?loc=interstitialskip
Boise State - 67.43 (rank 72)
Auburn - 71.67 (rank 40)
LSU - 75.07 (rank 15)
Alabama - 74.53 (rank 20)
These, of course, are just rankings to date and do not reflect games yet to be played.
But, come on - it's not that big of a step to admit that the average SEC schedule is more difficult than Boise State's, is it?
The Pac-10's collective SOS is probably the highest.
Well, let's speak objectively about it then. Shall we use Sagarin's SOS ratings?
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt10.htm?loc=interstitialskip
Boise State - 67.43 (rank 72)
Auburn - 71.67 (rank 40)
LSU - 75.07 (rank 15)
Alabama - 74.53 (rank 20)
These, of course, are just rankings to date and do not reflect games yet to be played.
But, come on - it's not that big of a step to admit that the average SEC schedule is more difficult than Boise State's, is it?
The Pac-10's collective SOS is probably the highest.
BoomGoestheDynamite
Registered User
Re: College Football III: We may lose, but we keep the score close!
Of course not an SEC schedule will be tougher in than a WAC schedule. Its just that the SEC juggernaut argument is wildly overblown and maybe brought out again to deny Boise State/TCU a shot at the title game should a 1 loss SEC team be waiting in the wings, especially if that one loss team is SEC champ Auburn.
The three teams listed and by extension the SEC haven't proven they're that much better than the rest of CFB this year.
Of course not an SEC schedule will be tougher in than a WAC schedule. Its just that the SEC juggernaut argument is wildly overblown and maybe brought out again to deny Boise State/TCU a shot at the title game should a 1 loss SEC team be waiting in the wings, especially if that one loss team is SEC champ Auburn.
The three teams listed and by extension the SEC haven't proven they're that much better than the rest of CFB this year.
Re: College Football III: We may lose, but we keep the score close!
Given the extremely insular nature of college football scheduling, and the paucity of inter-conference connections, especially between the best teams from other conferences, it's really difficult for SOS as arranged to be really meaningful.
In fact, there is practically little that Boise State can do to raise their SOS. Even if they play 4 games against top 10 opponents, they're still going to be counteracted by the extremely weak bottom of the WAC.
Given the extremely insular nature of college football scheduling, and the paucity of inter-conference connections, especially between the best teams from other conferences, it's really difficult for SOS as arranged to be really meaningful.
In fact, there is practically little that Boise State can do to raise their SOS. Even if they play 4 games against top 10 opponents, they're still going to be counteracted by the extremely weak bottom of the WAC.
Last edited:
Re: College Football III: We may lose, but we keep the score close!
To the SEC's credit, they have done a little better in recent years in scheduling out of conference games that aren't total creme puffs. Admittedly, they've still got a ways to go, but it used to be you could go through the entire list of SEC nonconference games and not find more than a couple of challenging games. That's not true now. Which is interesting, as the SEC has the media so enamored with them that they really don't need to play anybody outside of the conference and the media would still annoint them as automatically deserving a title spot and being the best, etc.
To the SEC's credit, they have done a little better in recent years in scheduling out of conference games that aren't total creme puffs. Admittedly, they've still got a ways to go, but it used to be you could go through the entire list of SEC nonconference games and not find more than a couple of challenging games. That's not true now. Which is interesting, as the SEC has the media so enamored with them that they really don't need to play anybody outside of the conference and the media would still annoint them as automatically deserving a title spot and being the best, etc.
bronconick
Yep, still here
Re: College Football III: We may lose, but we keep the score close!
If I remember, the PAC-10 is usually 1-8 or so in the schedule ratings, with the other two still in the top 15 because they play 9 conference games and there aren't enough D1-AA/crappy WAC teams available out west. Any of you PAC-10 people know whether they're staying with 9 games next year?
If I remember, the PAC-10 is usually 1-8 or so in the schedule ratings, with the other two still in the top 15 because they play 9 conference games and there aren't enough D1-AA/crappy WAC teams available out west. Any of you PAC-10 people know whether they're staying with 9 games next year?
French Rage
NICKERSON HAS [CENSORED]
Re: College Football III: We may lose, but we keep the score close!
Yup. Stanford, for example, plays the 5 other teams in the North (UW, WSU, UO, OSU, Cal), has their gauranteed SoCal games (UCLA, USC), and then will play two of the new/Arizona teams (ASU and Colorado next year I think). Same will go for Cal, USC and UCLA should have the same thing but with the divisions switched, and I don't know what the other teams do with their cross-division games given how the NoCal/SoCal gauranteed games might slant the schedule.
Yup. Stanford, for example, plays the 5 other teams in the North (UW, WSU, UO, OSU, Cal), has their gauranteed SoCal games (UCLA, USC), and then will play two of the new/Arizona teams (ASU and Colorado next year I think). Same will go for Cal, USC and UCLA should have the same thing but with the divisions switched, and I don't know what the other teams do with their cross-division games given how the NoCal/SoCal gauranteed games might slant the schedule.
Re: College Football III: We may lose, but we keep the score close!
And didn't I read somewhere that the Big Ten was considering going to nine conference games? And if they decided to do so or not?
Last I read they were sticking with nine games. Five within your division, and four against the other division.
And didn't I read somewhere that the Big Ten was considering going to nine conference games? And if they decided to do so or not?
Re: College Football III: We may lose, but we keep the score close!
It's not perfect, but it is objective and it's probably the best measure we have. The measure will only get better as more games are played.
Yep. This is true. Sucks for them, but life isn't fair. If they can do that and be in the top 2, then great. If not, I won't lose any sleep over it.
It's not perfect, but it is objective and it's probably the best measure we have. The measure will only get better as more games are played.
Yep. This is true. Sucks for them, but life isn't fair. If they can do that and be in the top 2, then great. If not, I won't lose any sleep over it.
bronconick
Yep, still here
Re: College Football III: We may lose, but we keep the score close!
Last I heard, they were considering it for the 2015 season, since most of the schools have 4 nonconference games scheduled for the next couple of years. I think 2011-14 gives them a chance to go through the schedule setup once, too.
Last I heard, they were considering it for the 2015 season, since most of the schools have 4 nonconference games scheduled for the next couple of years. I think 2011-14 gives them a chance to go through the schedule setup once, too.
Re: College Football III: We may lose, but we keep the score close!
As far as I know, no decision has been made on a 9th conference game. The biggest concern is the schools that have 'mandatory' non-conference rivalry games. Essentially, it's a question of logistics, because no team wants to be shorted and only have 6 home games.
Therefore, if a team (say, Iowa) is going to have 5 conference road games, then they'd want to make sure that happens in the year when they're hosting OOC rival Iowa State at Kinnick Stadium. Add two tomato-cans to the schedule, and Iowa still gets their 7 home games.
The challenge is in making sure all those games can line up and still make a coherent schedule. Iowa plays ISU, Michigan, MSU and Purdue all have games against Notre Dame, Illinois has had a recent revival of their series with Mizzou, etc.
So, it can happen, but it would likely require cooperation of those OOC rivals and perhaps a break in the schedule of a year or two on those games. I know Michigan just went through a lot of effort to try and adjust their home season schedule so that they hosted Notre Dame and Ohio State in opposite years as a means to help drive home ticket sales with their new luxury seating - this year, they played @ND and will play @OSU, but I know they've expressed interest in taking a break with ND in order to even that out. Of couse, ND doesn't want to do that...
Conceptually, there's buy in - but the details need to be worked out.
As far as I know, no decision has been made on a 9th conference game. The biggest concern is the schools that have 'mandatory' non-conference rivalry games. Essentially, it's a question of logistics, because no team wants to be shorted and only have 6 home games.
Therefore, if a team (say, Iowa) is going to have 5 conference road games, then they'd want to make sure that happens in the year when they're hosting OOC rival Iowa State at Kinnick Stadium. Add two tomato-cans to the schedule, and Iowa still gets their 7 home games.
The challenge is in making sure all those games can line up and still make a coherent schedule. Iowa plays ISU, Michigan, MSU and Purdue all have games against Notre Dame, Illinois has had a recent revival of their series with Mizzou, etc.
So, it can happen, but it would likely require cooperation of those OOC rivals and perhaps a break in the schedule of a year or two on those games. I know Michigan just went through a lot of effort to try and adjust their home season schedule so that they hosted Notre Dame and Ohio State in opposite years as a means to help drive home ticket sales with their new luxury seating - this year, they played @ND and will play @OSU, but I know they've expressed interest in taking a break with ND in order to even that out. Of couse, ND doesn't want to do that...
Conceptually, there's buy in - but the details need to be worked out.
- Status