| LSU | |
|---|
| Opponent | FPI | Ranking if applicable |
| Ga Southern | N/R out of 130 teams. | N/A |
| Texas | 17 | 11 |
| Northwestern State | N/R out of 130 teams | N/A |
| Vanderbilt | 72 | N/A |
| Avg. | You tell me...how to compare unranked teams? | |
| Alabama | |
|---|
| Opponent | FPI | Ranking if applicable |
| Duke | 50 | Receiving votes/ not in the top 25 |
| New Mexico State | 123 | N/A |
| South Carolina | 30 | N/A |
| Southern Miss | 80 | N/A |
| AVG | @70th | |
There are a few outliers when comparing the two schedules. One, Texas. And secondly, how do you quantify competition when two of the teams aren't even in the top 130 in the FPI rankings?
Based purely on four teams and their FPI rankings Bama has had a more difficult schedule overall.
Based on name alone and the rankings in the polls Texas is the rack LSU hangs their hat on.
If we use Southern Miss and Vanderbilt we can cancel those two out as equals. That'll leaves us with NMS and South Carolina against two unranked teams. (you can shuffle these any way you want.)
Does it all boil down to Texas and Duke? Is the narrative going to be "since LSU played Texas they've had a harder schedule than Bama's Duke game?"
If so, let's look at that for a second.
I'm looking at a Bama defense, with its youth, facing a Cutcliffe scheme which started out using the triple option. Ask yourself, "how often was that practiced against?" It wasn't. We watched a team face an offensive attack they weren't expecting. Once in the first half, and then Duke attacking the weaknesses of the Bama defense in the second half (much to the degree we expected.)
I'm looking at a LSU defense with its experience returning facing a Texas offense with Herman at the helm, Ehlinger leading the attack. What did Texas do that was any different than what everyone expected Texas to do? Mano vs Mano, right, scheme versus scheme, with the only "surprise" in the game found on the offensive side (LSU.) But, we're talking about defense here...not Texas adjusting to LSU.
In the end we're left with a question. Did LSU have a more difficult team to prepare and play in Texas or did Alabama and Duke? There are pro's and con's on both sides here, but I'm seeing close to a wash. A wash, because Bama's defense was facing Cutcliffe and the game plans that he brings to the field of play. LSU is able to prepare for one because that's what Texas does. Alabama isn't able to prepare for the other, because that's not what Duke has done. LSU wasn't faced with immediate, in game, scheme adjustments whereas Bama had to deal with the same from the first snap of the game.
In the end, I'm looking from a purely statistical standpoint. We can't discount two of the four teams LSU has faced aren't even ranked in the FPI's index. They aren't good enough. All four for Bama. Overall, how can LSU's schedule be considered more difficult right now?
That being said, by the time the ninth of October rolls around LSU will have a schedule strength argument having faced both Florida and Auburn versus Bama having to deal with A&M (a team I don't consider to be "all that.") And, on the same note, by that time we should expect the statistical comparisons between to the two teams to be even more slanted to Bama's favor.