🏈 Clemson strength of schedule

[bradenob]

Ok, I don't get it.....

OUR strength of schedule is #1 (makes sense). Clemson's is #5 (ESPN) or #8 (NCAA statistics).

So.... we play a schedule where the teams we faced went 7-2 in bowl games, and we beat all but one...

Wisconsin finishes 10-3, beats USC. Ole Miss 10-3, kills Ok St. Georgia 10-3, beats PSU. Arky 8-5, beats KSU. TAMU 8-5, loses to LU without a QB. UCheat 9-4, slaughters the #13 team, NW. LSU 9-3, spanks TTech. MSU 9-4, embarasses NCSt. Aubie 7-6, beat Memphis. Then we kick MSU's ass, whose SoS is 17th or 18th, respectively, and won the big ten. We beat a decent MTSU team, and played/beat ULM and WCU. Aside from Arky losing to Toledo (who finished 10-2, won the MAC, and beat Temple in a bowl game, AND lost to Texas Tech) the only team that we played that lost outside the SEC was ole piss losing to a good Memphis team. Impressive strength of schedule.

Clemson beat Wofford (worse than ULM) and App State before beating UL (who lost to Auburn and has the 35th best SoS), then had an open date to beat ND at home by 2 pts on a failed 2 pt conversion. They beat Ga Tech (3-9) by 19. Beat BC (didn't win an ACC game, good run D) by 17 at home. Trounced the U (8-5) at Miami. Beat NCSt (7-6, 55th in total offense) by 15 on the road, allowed 41 points. Beat FSU (best win?) by 10 at home, scored 23 on the 16th best defense. Beat 'cuse (4-8) by 10 on the road, gave up 27. Beat Wake (3-9) by 10 at home. Beat USCe (3-9, no head coach) by 5 on the road. Beat UNC by by 7, neutral site, controversial on side kick call sealed it. Then beat the #4 team, Okie, convincingly with a great 2nd half.

Now, does is sound like the SoS between the two should be close???!!!

Clemson has played a pansy schedule (not their fault) with decent games from ND, FSU, Miami, and UNC sprinkled in. I think, regardless of other stats, that there is a big difference is the schedule. If that's the case, the other stats on Clemson have to be taken with a grain of salt as well.

 

[TerryP]

OUR strength of schedule is #1 (makes sense). Clemson's is #5 (ESPN) or #8 (NCAA statistics).

As I recall, the NCAA's rank is based on the results of 2014. I don't know what ESPN bases their rankings upon.

Most that I know follow Sagarin's schedule rank because it takes in opponents, opponents records ... JS has their schedule ranked at # 30.

NCAAF Sagarin - NCAAF Football - USA TODAY

 

[TerryP]

BTW, it's my thought you're missing one thing on this subject; the narrative changing from year to year.

The NCAA's rankings, based on last year's results, fit with what we've seen spouted a lot these past twelve months. Think about this for a second. How many times did you read, or hear, someone mention the SEC West's record in bowl games last year? The record wasn't good in bowl games and many used it as a basis for arguments against strength of schedule and playing in the SEC.

Now, forward one year later, and we see 8-2 for the conference in bowl games. One applies, the opposite doesn't. Now we're back to "how many SEC teams travel for true OOC games?"

 

[Che Boludo]

As Terry said, the variance is in the calculation methodology.

I'm not certain I understand ESPNs. The verbiage talks about how an "avg" FBS team would perform against the same schedule. It is a factor in their RPI for football, but I haven't found a good explanation of it.

I prefer models similar to the BCS model that included not only opponent's win % but opponents opponents win %, excluding FCS and D1 transitional team games unless a team was beaten by an FCS/transitional team. With this model framework, Bama is 1 and Clemson 29.

Sagarin's model, as mentioned, is also good. In addition to its account for OW %, it factors in game location, which I think is important.

 

[musso]

Irrelevant. It's about matchups. Bama, as Saban admitted post-game, matched up well against MSU's personnel and style. Clemson's offense is Saban's kryptonite. It's going to be an interesting game. I just hope the faster players we have this year in our D-front make a difference.

 

[TerryP]

In addition to its account for OW %, it factors in game location, which I think is important.

I have to admit I have a weird, perhaps unhealthy, infatuation with things like this. Too often I see someone make a damn good point and hope they run with it ... or at least someone else picks it up.

I know you've seen people point to how many teams Clemson played with losing records versus the number the Tide has faced. It's a salient point.

I'd hoped it would be taken a life of its own ... but it hasn't so far. So, in that light, here's something I think warrants noting:

There are four teams Bama has faced, and won, who had nine or more wins on the season. Two teams recorded 10-3 records with Bama winning both. There's also a win over a team that was ranked #3 at season's end.

All of those wins ...

On. The. Road.

Now, don't get me wrong. Undefeated is undefeated. I do look at Clemson and see they're 2-0 in the same scenario except both wins were neutral site games: ACCCG and Semi's.

It's your call whether that's considered a tangible or intangible "advantage." I believe noteworthy.

 

[Che Boludo]

I have to admit I have a weird, perhaps unhealthy, infatuation with things like this. Too often I see someone make a damn good point and hope they run with it ... or at least someone else picks it up.

I know you've seen people point to how many teams Clemson played with losing records versus the number the Tide has faced. It's a salient point.

I'd hoped it would be taken a life of its own ... but it hasn't so far. So, in that light, here's something I think warrants noting:

There are four teams Bama has faced, and won, who had nine or more wins on the season. Two teams recorded 10-3 records with Bama winning both. There's also a win over a team that was ranked #3 at season's end.

All of those wins ...

On. The. Road.

Now, don't get me wrong. Undefeated is undefeated. I do look at Clemson and see they're 2-0 in the same scenario except both wins were neutral site games: ACCCG and Semi's.

It's your call whether that's considered a tangible or intangible "advantage." I believe noteworthy.

That's why I like the OOW% as well excluding FCS for a more holistic look.

It gives a better indicator as to the value of the OW%.

For instance, UGA had a 10 win team but it's only wins over FBS teams with winning records this year were a OT win over 9-4 sun belt GA Southern, 7-6 PSU, and 7-6 barn who needed a bowl game to secure a winning season. I may have erred on the math having scrolled through quickly but the record of FBS teams they beat was like 45-66.

So, yes. They were a 10 win team we beat on the road, but the quality of that win is diminished a bit when factoring uga's opponents win %s.

 

[252BAMA]

That's why I like the OOW% as well excluding FCS for a more holistic look.

It gives a better indicator as to the value of the OW%.

For instance, UGA had a 10 win team but it's only wins over FBS teams with winning records this year were a OT win over 9-4 sun belt GA Southern, 7-6 PSU, and 7-6 barn who needed a Birmingham Bowl game win

to secure a winning season. I may have erred on the math having scrolled through quickly but the record of FBS teams they beat was like 45-66.

So, yes. They were a 10 win team we beat on the road, but the quality of that win is diminished a bit when factoring uga's opponents win %s.

FIFY!

 

[Bigwavedave]

Agree. We will have to play a lot of man, so the backers can stay home to help coral their qb. If we do that successfully, I think we have them worn out half way thru the 3rd, and open up the scoreboard.

 

[Bamaholic#1]

I can sum it all up in 5 words.
We gonna whip they ass

 

[bradenob]

Thanks Terry and Che for enlightening me.... your posts made a lot of sense!

And I see Clemson getting a lot of yards, a la Prescott and MSU, but I think we DO come out on top!

Roll Tide!