2010 Schedule and SOS theories

[jay santos]

Apparently we have the following OOC teams on the schedule in 2010.

Notre Dame
Washington
Ohio State
Florida State

I LOVE IT!

Some people (including Indy Coug) think that's suicide and schedule overkill. I strongly disagree (sorry IC, it's not personal I've been banging this drum since long before we clashed on CB).

If we had that schedule this year, we'd be listed as having SOS about #30.

This is about where we'd be ranked in the computers at the end of the regular season with that SOS:

0 loss: #2
1 loss: #4
2 loss: #7
3 loss: #15

Compare that with where we'd be ranked in the computers at the end of the season with our SOS this year (about #90):

0 loss: #5
1 loss: #11
2 loss: #18

To me, there's no question which schedule I'd rather play.

When it comes to schedule, I say the tougher the better. The benefits are numerous: respect in the media, respect in the polls--both computer and human, fun for fans, fun for players. The negatives? We might lose. That's just doesn't fly with me. If we think we're a top 30 program, let's have a schedule appropriate for a top 30 program.

There's also this idea that a tough schedule will beat you up and cause you to lose more in the future. I think that's just an anecdote with no factual basis. In 2000, we recovered enough to finish with two great wins over UNM and Utah.

SEC is the last conference to refuse to upgrade their scheduling, and it hurts them in the BCS every year. When it comes to BCS, better the schedule the better. There is no sweet spot where anything tougher is bad for you.

[Indy Coug]

There is no way to substantiate this kind of scheduling is what is required in order to be in a position to vie for a national title. The law of diminishing returns kicks in about halfway through that schedule and essentially we open ourselves up to a disproportionate amount of risk exposure with little to nothing gained in return. If we beat both Ohio State and Florida State, we could beat Eastern Washington and Tulsa in the other games and still have just as strong a claim on a national title bid, should we be undefeated.

This is really a theoretical exercise anyway because neither Ohio State or Notre Dame are on our 2010 schedule. Florida State has been listed in 2010 for about 4 years now, so they could possibly still be good to go for that year.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

There is no way to substantiate this kind of scheduling is what is required in order to be in a position to vie for a national title. The law of diminishing returns kicks in about halfway through that schedule and essentially we open ourselves up to a disproportionate amount of risk exposure with little to nothing gained in return. If we beat both Ohio State and Florida State, we could beat Eastern Washington and Tulsa in the other games and still have just as strong a claim on a national title bid, should we be undefeated.

This is really a theoretical exercise anyway because neither Ohio State or Notre Dame are on our 2010 schedule. Florida State has been listed in 2010 for about 4 years now, so they could possibly still be good to go for that year.

Where did you get this diminishing margins theory on scheduling? I completely disagree.

I've been arguing with BYU fans for ten years that express your same view. What I think they're trying to do is find a back door to a national championship game, a BCS game, or national respect. There is no back door.

In terms of computer rankings: in a typical year you will never be ranked #1 or #2 unless you have SOS in the top 30. There's usually an undefeated team with SOS higher than that (sometimes two), and usually a one loss SOS top 20 team that would beat you out. I can prove that with data. When it comes to human polls, my feeling is that they are getting more and more skeptical about non-BCS teams and undefeated teams with bad SOS--see Utah. Utah's SOS blew away our '84 SOS, yet they still never got close.

As far as a BCS game and computer rankings, same thing. The reality with computer rankings is that they're going to have you pegged pretty close to how good you are. You can't get over on them. If you're the #12 team, they're going to have you pretty close to #12. You can choose to do that as undefeated with #110 schedule, or you can do it 8-4 with the #1 schedule, or somewhere in between. I think the RISK comes in not allowing yourself to have a bad game or two. You understand risk. Risk comes when normal expected variance has a good chance at giving you a bad total result. A tough schedule minimizes the risk of uneven performance week to week.

In terms of human polls, that's tricky. There MAY be a dimishing return with SOS, but I highly doubt it. If you have a way to test it, go for it. Right now, human polls are definitely more SOS heavy than computer rankings--look at where Boise, Tulsa, and BYU stand. By the end of the season, this might correct itself. In 2004, the computers were more generous to Utah than the human polls. In 2001, the human polls were more generous to BYU than the computers.


Lastly, I hate this idea because it is rooted in the idea of getting over on the national football scene. It's needless risk to schedule ALMOST as tough as the programs that we're demanding to be ranked ahead of? It just doesn't fly with me.

If we want to be second tier, let's live in a second tier conference, and not try to make up for it with a schedule, but let's just shut up when it comes to demanding first tier prizes like BCS money and national rankings.

If we want to be top tier, we're a little screwed being in our second tier conference, but let's make up for it best we can with OOC SOS, and then we have a right to demand top tier prizes in the years we field teams that deserve it.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

There is no way to substantiate this kind of scheduling is what is required in order to be in a position to vie for a national title. The law of diminishing returns kicks in about halfway through that schedule and essentially we open ourselves up to a disproportionate amount of risk exposure with little to nothing gained in return. If we beat both Ohio State and Florida State, we could beat Eastern Washington and Tulsa in the other games and still have just as strong a claim on a national title bid, should we be undefeated.

This is really a theoretical exercise anyway because neither Ohio State or Notre Dame are on our 2010 schedule. Florida State has been listed in 2010 for about 4 years now, so they could possibly still be good to go for that year.

ND has been listed on ND sites for about 4 years too.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

ND has been listed on ND sites for about 4 years too.

That very well may be, but Holmoe has gone on record in the Deseret News by saying it simply isn't the case.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Apparently we have the following OOC teams on the schedule in 2010.

Notre Dame
Washington
Ohio State
Florida State

I LOVE IT!

Some people (including Indy Coug) think that's suicide and schedule overkill. I strongly disagree (sorry IC, it's not personal I've been banging this drum since long before we clashed on CB).

If we had that schedule this year, we'd be listed as having SOS about #30.

This is about where we'd be ranked in the computers at the end of the regular season with that SOS:

0 loss: #2
1 loss: #4
2 loss: #7
3 loss: #15

Compare that with where we'd be ranked in the computers at the end of the season with our SOS this year (about #90):

0 loss: #5
1 loss: #11
2 loss: #18

To me, there's no question which schedule I'd rather play.

When it comes to schedule, I say the tougher the better. The benefits are numerous: respect in the media, respect in the polls--both computer and human, fun for fans, fun for players. The negatives? We might lose. That's just doesn't fly with me. If we think we're a top 30 program, let's have a schedule appropriate for a top 30 program.

There's also this idea that a tough schedule will beat you up and cause you to lose more in the future. I think that's just an anecdote with no factual basis. In 2000, we recovered enough to finish with two great wins over UNM and Utah.

SEC is the last conference to refuse to upgrade their scheduling, and it hurts them in the BCS every year. When it comes to BCS, better the schedule the better. There is no sweet spot where anything tougher is bad for you.

That would be an incredibly impressive OOC schedule.

Are your projected rankings based on what Notre Dame, Washington, Ohio State and Florida State are doing this year, assuming they would do about the same then? If so, if they had collectively better or worse seasons, how would it affect those projections?

I've always felt if you want to be considered the best, you have to find a way to play and beat the best on a year in- year out basis. I just wish the alleged power teams wouldn't be such wusses and allow the Utes to play them more often.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

That would be an incredibly impressive OOC schedule.

Are your projected rankings based on what Notre Dame, Washington, Ohio State and Florida State are doing this year, assuming they would do about the same then?

Nevermind - I reread your post and noticed that you mentioned that this would be the rankings if those teams were scheduled this year. My bad.

[Indy Coug]

BYU had a top 15 SOS in 2003 and 2004, and it didn't contain nearly as lethal a lineup as the alleged 2010 schedule.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

BYU had a top 15 SOS in 2003 and 2004, and it didn't contain nearly as lethal a lineup as the alleged 2010 schedule.

A few comments on this.

1. Sagarin's SOS ratings were very generous to us those years. Sagarin had us #14 in 2003 and #11 in 2004. Massey (also in BCS) had us #31 in 2003 and #18 in 2004.

2. Most certainly, those schedules are as lethal as the 2010 schedule (based on rankings this year).

2003 for our OOC (using my rankings)
#2
#12
#33
#44
(I threw out #69 Stanford because we added another conference game since then)

2004
#1
#10
#31
#46

2010
#1
#13
#46
#52

The 2010 schedule is actually the easiest of the three. The point being that "names" don't always equate to great SOS. Tulsa will end up as our toughest opponent this year.

3. With those schedules, we went 4-8 and 5-6 with some lousy teams. If we had a this year's team, I believe we'd go 9-3 and have a better shot at going BCS than we would this year. If we somehow had an amazing team that could compete for national championship, if we were undefeated we'd be #1, if we had one loss, we'd be #2. Compare that to about #5 with this year's schedule if we're undefeated.

4. In 2004, Utah was undefeated, raising our SOS significantly. We can't count on the MWC to provide us with any kind of SOS.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by jay santos

...If we had a this year's team, I believe we'd go 9-3 and have a better shot at going BCS than we would this year.

Since when does 9-3 ever give you a shot at the BCS?