2015 College Football Strength of Schedule Rankings – Dec. 1

View Comments (42)

• Where are all the Crimson Tide haters now?! LOL Roll Tide!!

  • It will be COL after 'Bama is rolled into the trash heap! Your'e lucky that a more worthy Ohio State team probably won't be in the big dance or they'd whip your fat butts like they did last year, and YOU KNOW IT! The Bucks have not one, not two, but THREE QBs who are better than yours, and a better, more talented team overall. And they're more well coached, because Urban is better than Nick (not to mention much more personable as well: does that funeral home directer coach of yours ever even smile?)

    FYI, there are Crimson Tide haters EVERYWHERE, and with good reason. But that's for another time. Suffice it to say that southern schools like Alabama have lead the way in the steady erosion of academic standards in college football for decades in order to gain a competitive advantage. For you single-minded red-necks, it's 'college FOOTBALL' rather than the other way around, as it used to be and should be.

    You hicks love to rip on a worthy, classy team (and university) like Iowa, but how many teams ranked as highly as N'western has overrated (yes, OVERRATED!) Alabama defeated this season like Iowa has?

    I hope that the movement to include academic rankings in the CFB rankings takes root. If so, Alabama and most of the other SEC schools would rarely see the Top 25, while those from the Big Ten and PAC-12 would thrive!

  • The Tide will snap in Half by the Gators!!!!!

  • To paraphrase and add to what was posted by SCHOUP (below):

    "Strength of schedule has become BS. Sagarin has clear SEC bias because if you look at the Bama schedule no way it’s 2nd. 'Bama played just 3 teams in the last CFP top 25. Also take into account the SEC as a conference played the most FCS schools and the second-least P5’s out-of-conference . . . "

    Face it, the whole strength-of-schedule thing is science fiction (as it frankly has been since its inception) and is the biggest flaw of the current playoff selection system, as many other bloggers have noted (along with the fact that Alabama & the SEC are clearly over-rated!).

    Many games are decided by the whims of nature, key injuries, bad bounces & breaks of all kinds, ‘throw-out-the-record-book’ rivalries & grudge matches, and last-but-not-least the huge number of officials’ calls & no-calls. The Sagarin pseudo-science metrics don’t catch any of that. Combined with the regionally and otherwise biased kangaroo-court panels and polls, we’re still a long way from determining a true champion. In the meantime, 'Bama seems to reap the benefits of it all.

    "Mighty Alabama" played the CHARLESTON SOUTHERN BUCCANEERS a week and a half ago, the next-to-last Saturday of the season, while practically every other school played worthy opponents? And the U.L.-MONROE WARHAWKS in week four? And the MIDDLE TENNESSEE BLUE RAIDERS before that?

    And you're going to make fun of IOWA'S schedule? How many teams ranked as highly as N’western has Alabama defeated this season? Iowa beat ranked, now 10-2 N’western by 30 points, a team that yielded all of two FG's in its win over Stanford.

    Let's not forget, either, that the Wisconsin team 'Bama beat to open the season played with a decimated, green offensive line and was thin at running back with the departure of superstar Melvin Gordon. Yet they made a game of it and put up some respectable total yardage numbers. A rematch would likely yield a much closer result.

    Meanwhile, all the teams in the likewise-overrated SEC that 'Bama whupped have practically dropped out of existence. The one team that hasn't – a 3-loss Ole Miss team – whupped 'Bama (in Tuscaloosa no less!). That LSU squad 'Bama pummeled has since been exposed, that's for sure.

    And so one is left to wonder what and who is behind Bama's undeservedly lofty strength of schedule rating. Something smells fishy here, like all the 'Bama boosters and academic fraud that's been the norm down there for ages.

    With regard to rankings and cyber-metrics: many games are decided by the whims of nature, key injuries, bad bounces & breaks of all kinds, ‘throw-out-the-record-book’ rivalries & grudge matches, and last-but-not-least the huge number of officials’ calls & no-calls. The Sagarin pseudo-science metrics don’t catch any of that. Combined with the regionally and otherwise biased kangaroo-court panels and polls, we’re still a long way from determining a true champion. In the meantime, 'Bama seems to reap the benefits of it all.

    I know I speak for millions of other CFB fans when I proclaim: "GET ROLLED, TIDE!”

  • J C H: I agree SOS should be determined at the end of the year. How did Bama do?

• SOS have become BS. Sagarin has clear SEC bias b/c if you look at the Bama schedule no way it's 2nd. Bama played 3 teams in the last CFP top 25. Also take into account the SEC as a conf played the most FCS schools and the least P5's OOC besides B12 who only has 10 teams. The only reason Ole Miss is ranked is b/c they played no P5's OOC(including a FCS school), they were 4-4 vs actual p5 opponents. Miss St also dodged playing a p5 OOC

  There is no way Stanford is 16th...they played a harder schedule than Bama by far, Stanford played 11 games vs P5's and no FCS schools. Stanford had 2 OOC's ND (#6 CFP) and NW(#13). They played 6 teams in the CFP top 25. Also, they had 3 opponents that played no P5's USC, UCLA, ND. Stanford's P5 opponents played 3 less FCS opponents and combined played 109 games vs P5's..Bama's opponents played 84 games vs P5's.

  • Three out of the other four former BCS computer indexes (Massey, Colley, and Billingsley) also list Alabama with a tougher schedule than Stanford.

    This site also lists Alabama higher:

    https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/ranking/schedule-strength-by-other

  • SEC bias? There are 4 BIG teams in the top ten, only one SEC.

  • schoup, I don't think there is an attentional bias towards the SEC, but with the way the SOS measures and the schedules the SEC teams put forth there is an advantage to the weak schedules they put together. There is NO question Bama's SOS of 5 is WAY over inflated. You can even take a team like Minnesota and their 27 SOS ranking and put that in front of Bama's. I hope the CFP group see's through this error in calculation when ranking the teams tonight.

• I've been hearing all season long how tough Utah's schedule is, yet the Utes' SOS doesn't even rank in the top 25!

• @kevin

  I'm calling BS. They are putting in a bias they aren't mentioning. It only takes looking at the schedules and the numbers. Stanford has more ranked opponents, higher ranked opponents, opponents that played more games vs P5's and way less vs FCS schools. They are clearly not punishing for playing FCS directly like Bama did and for opponents not playing P5's. They are clearly have algorithm problem that is punishing a 9 game conf schedule over a 8 game.

  • These guys are computer data experts and have been doing this for many years. I have a hard time believing they insert a bias into their programs for SEC teams. Remember the NCAA used to use a combination of these rankings for the BCS formula.

  • As I stated elsewhere, the whole strength-of-schedule thing is science fiction (as it frankly has been since its inception) and is the biggest flaw of the current playoff selection system, as many other bloggers have noted (along with the fact that Alabama & the SEC are clearly over-rated!).

    Many games are decided by the whims of nature, key injuries, bad bounces & breaks of all kinds, ‘throw-out-the-record-book’ rivalries & grudge matches, and last-but-not-least the huge number of officials’ calls & no-calls. The Sagarin pseudo-science metrics don’t catch any of that. Combined with the regionally and otherwise biased kangaroo-court panels and polls, we’re still a long way from determining a true champion. In the meantime, ‘Bama seems to reap the benefits of it all.

    Kevin Kelley opined that "These guys (Sagarin, et al) are computer data experts and have been doing this for many years. I have a hard time believing they insert a bias into their programs for SEC teams. Remember the NCAA used to use a combination of these rankings for the BCS formula." (Sagarin....Sabarin....Saban....? Naw, it couldn't, could it?)

    They may or may not be "computer data experts" (i.e., nerds), and there may or may not be "bias inserted" with regard to SEC teams. But the situation should be looked into very thoroughly, because something is clearly wrong. It's not fair to the other teams swimming upstream trying to make the playoff.

    “Mighty Alabama” played the Charleston Southern Buccaneers just a week and a half ago, the U.L.-Monroe Warhawks in week four, and the Middle Tennessee Blue Raiders before that. That alone should whack 'Bama's strength-of-schedule rating considerably, if the system is fair. (And recall that the Wisconsin team ‘Bama beat to open the season played with a decimated, green offensive line and was thin at running back with the departure of superstar Melvin Gordon.)

    Note also that all the teams in the likewise-overrated SEC that ‘Bama whupped have practically dropped off the radar screen. The one team that hasn’t – a 3-loss Ole Miss team – whupped ‘Bama (in Tuscaloosa no less). What's the currently highest-ranked team Alabama has defeated this entire season, anyway? That 3-loss, #13/#16 Ole Miss team. And the LSU squad ‘Bama pummeled has since been exposed, that’s for sure.

    Meanwhile, the rest of us can only watch and listen as all the "experts" and talking heads go on and on about how tough Bama's schedule has been as they and continue to kiss Tide butt and bow down to worship at the altar of the SEC . . .

• OSU played 6 teams with 500 or worse winning percentage. Indiana, Maryland, Rutgers, Hawaii, Minnesota, Illinois, and Va Tech. My bad i was wrong 7, plus 2 mac teams.

• Either way, stop crying.

  • Would you "stop crying" if it was you're team getting shafted?

• The fact that you talk as if Bama is the ONLY team in the country that played an FCS school this season. Clemson started the year off playing an FCS school, while Bama played an OOC power 5 team in Wisconsin. North Carolina has played TWO FCS schools throughout the season. Did Ohio State play anyone worth mentioning out of conference? No, they played a mediocre Virginia Tech and Hawaii, that's it. Both Baylor & OK State played FCS teams during the season on top of having 2 bye weeks this season (and of course they don't play a conference championship). That's why Oklahoma is the only team I respect out of the B12, because they at least had the balls to take on Tennessee & won.

  And by the way, in regards to Stanford's schedule, out of all of the team's they've played this season only 7 of them have finished with winning records (meaning they have 7 or more wins). Bama has 9 opponents on its record that have finished with winning records.

  • Look, I can buy that these SOS rankings are legit and that Bama deserves to be up among the top.... But number of wins against "above .500 teams" is an utterly meaningless statistic out of context, i.e., with no reference to who those wins came against. Let me clarify, it seems absurd to argue that Alabama's sked is clearly stronger than Stanford's because they have 2 more wins against >.500 teams when those two wins came against a 7-5 Conf-USA Middle Tennessee and a 9-2 Charleston Southern in the Big South (FCS).

    Moreover, who do Alabama's opponents play that allow them to often rack up winning records? My point is that if you want to make these kind of comparisons it seems worth considering who teams choose to schedule for non-conference games.

    Take the Pac-12 for example, where each team plays 3 non-conf opponents. Of those 36 games this year, 10 were against Power 5 teams, 19 were against non-Power 5 FBS conf teams and 7 against FCS.

    Now look at the SEC whose teams play 4 non-conf games each. Of those 56 games, 11 were against Power 5, 32 against non-Power 5 FBS and 13 against FCS. Or to summarize:

    Pac-12 non-conf opponents:

    Power 5: 28%
    Other FBS: 53%
    FCS: 19%

    SEC non-conf opponents:

    Power 5: 20%
    Other FBS. 57%
    FCS: 24%

    My point is not to bag on the SEC, but to point out that there is an argument to be made that when it comes to national reputation and rankings there is a bias baked into the system in favor of the SEC because they choose to play more non-conference games, and those non-conf opponents are much more likely to be inferior to the quality of non-conf opponents played elsewhere.

    Again, I have no hate for the SEC. Maybe they are the best conference in the country as many believe. I just think they should step up and prove it. And, to me, you don't necessarily prove it by winning a national championship. You prove it by consistently playing strong teams from all around the country year in and year out and winning.

    All this is to say that until there is greater consistency in how teams schedule their season there will never be a fair and reasonable process to determine national rankings.

    If it were up to me every Power 5 school would play 9 conference games, 2 of their 3 non-conf games would have to be against Power 5 schools, and they would play ZERO games against FCS teams. Also it would be nice if the Big-12 could somehow manage to actually have 12 teams so they could play a conference championship game like the other 4 conferences do.

    No this would not eliminate controversy or subjectivity about who are the best teams and conferences in a given year, but it would be a massive improvement over the current system. Plus there would be a ton more exciting matchups to watch and it would be a whole lot more fun.

    End of ludicrously verbose and essentially meaningless in the grand scheme of things blog comment. Though that is redundant on its face.

  • Well said Casey McG.

• And where is Tennessee in all of this? They did lose but played two teams in the top four by 2 to Bama and in OT to Oklahoma and lost to 10-2 Florida team and a decent Arkansas team. Though it doesn't count in this season they spanked a 12-0 Iowa team in a bowl game this year, the last time Iowa lost a game.

  • See posting below . . .

• Duhhhh, so what? That's about average, given that they played 12 games!

  I'm a huge Michigan fan & alum, and there's no love lost for Ohio State (or Mich State) in this camp. But I must say that the Buckeyes showed their true makeup Saturday in whipping us (although it must be noted that our top 3 D-linemen were out, fatal for a defensive squad that has been thin from the beginning). And perhaps the only reason Ohio State lost to Mich State was the driving, freezing rainstorm they played in. History shows that conditions like that often lead to upsets. And then there was Urban Meyer's decision to not give the ball to Ezekiel Elliott, apparently due to the weather and risk of fumbling.

  Fact is, Ohio State may well be the best, most talented, and well-coached team in the land, but will probably not make the playoff because - face it - the system is still badly flawed. The whole strength-of-schedule thing is science fiction the biggest flaw - as many bloggers have noted, along with the fact that Alabama & the SEC are hugely over-rated. (I will say that Phillip makes some good points about Tennessee, a team I've been impressed with all season. Ditto for North Carolina of the ACC, a team that should be at least on the bubble of the 'final four'.)

  Many games are decided by the whims of nature, key injuries, bad bounces & breaks of all kinds, 'throw-out-the-record-book' rivalries & grudge matches, and last-but-not-least the huge number of officials' calls & no-calls. (Two grotesque examples: Michigan's D-captain was ejected for targeting after being pushed down on top of MSU QB by a Spartan lineman?! Nebraska receiver scored the winning TD vs Mich State after going out-of-bounds of his own volition and pushing the Spartan DB to the ground when re-entering the field?!)

  The Sagarin pseudo-science metrics don't catch any of that. Combined with the regionally and otherwise biased kangaroo-court panels and polls, we're still a long way from determining a true champion.

  For many years (decades, actually) I have wondered and vocalized as to why a simpler, fairer, and more sensible method wasn't being used or even considered: Keep existing conference races, tie-ins, and bowls intact, and play-off the two or four (or even eight) teams left standing. That would have answered the concerns of college administrators, bowl officials, and critics who, for so many years, rightly rejected the idea of a playoff because it would ruin those treasured traditions. Now, the importance of traditional conference rivalries and championships, and bowl games, have been minimalized. Imagine that Ohio State will likely have to 'settle' for the Rose Bowl, a 'consolation prize' as many are calling it. That is, IF the Rose Bowl will have them, as it seems the 'Granddaddy of Them All' may prefer to land two conference champions instead.

• Well said, indeed! Makes too much sense for the moronic, territorial "powers that be" to seriously consider, though . . . .