1. Auburn 2. Miss St 3. Arkansas 4. LSU 5. Alabama 6. South Carolina 7. Ole Miss 8. Georgia 9. Tennessee 10. Kentucky 11. Oklahoma (how'd they get here) 12. Florida 13. vanderbilt
Kind of refutes anyone criticizing the SEC for weak scheduling.
Kind of refutes anyone criticizing the SEC for weak scheduling. It's a positive feedback loop, or self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. Because 2/3 of the games are going to be in conference, then if you decide that conference has the best teams then they are also going to have the toughest schedule. This doesn't actually mean that they are the toughest schedules or it is the best conference though because both are subjective and one helps the other in a subjective argument.
And like you said, you have no idea how they determine it. I could make some system that just puts my favorite teams at the top and keep the formula hidden. Could we dispute those rankings?
This doesn't actually mean that they are the toughest schedules or it is the best conference though because both are subjective and one helps the other in a subjective argument. Yeah, well...
I'm not even gonna argue with you because you're using logic and that's not fair. These boards are no place for logical, well-reasoned argument.
I actually really like that site and been a free member there for quite a while. has a lot of great info and I use it a lot but SoS isn't one of the reasons I visit it. lol
And like you said, you have no idea how they determine it. I could make some system that just puts my favorite teams at the top and keep the formula hidden. Could we dispute those rankings? Good point. Digging deeper into the website, I saw that Mike Slive was the webmaster and chief statistician. So to answer your question, no you can't dispute it. The SEC commissioner says the results are indisputable.
It's a positive feedback loop, or self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. Because 2/3 of the games are going to be in conference That means we eat our young.
Cant take this serious when UGA is not no1 of the 13 teams listed.... They're number 8, which isn't too bad. They didn't play Bama, but #1 SoS Auburn didn't play Florida. I guess Auburn gets the nod by benefit of playing mighty Ball State. Your Tigers did play both UF and Bama, but y'all didn't have the presence of mind to schedule a powerhouse like UT Chattanooga like my Tide.
BamaRlz, I wouldn't say that refutes the criticism of weak scheduling. Just like SEC fans and other BCS fans want to belittle teams like TCU and Boise State for their conference schedules, teams like Kentucky, Georgia and Mississippi State benefit tremendously (in terms of this ranking) from playing teams like Alabama, Florida and LSU.
The critics who talk about weak scheduling in the SEC are clearly referring to their non-conference schedules.
It would be interesting to see a ranking of the FBS schools strength of schedule based solely on the non-conference portions.
This web site is for gambling purposes. You somehow are better if you beat the point spread and a lot of other stuff that has nothing to do with your opponent. Big BOY Troy has it right how can your conference have the 12-13 toughest schedules when your teams dont finish above .500. It is wishful thinking on your part to suggest that SEC teams had 12 of the 13 toughest schedules. Alabama has a somewhat legit
And Florida's OOC Charleston Southern, Troy, FIU, a weak FLorida State Alabama's OOC Good VA Tech, FIU, North Texas, and Chattanooga
Give me a break your two top teams have the weakest OOC of the top 10 teams out there except for TCU and Cincinnati
That would explain it, 11 of 12 SEC teams are ranked in the top 25 on that website. LOL that website is junk and you might have a mild case of retardation for posting data from it and thinking it reasonably refutes anything. LOL, Tennessee is ranked 10th and UCLA is ranked 47th.
This is just an example of what happens when a southerner has been out of work for so long so he decides to dust off an old FORTRAN book before he dies from obesity.
FAIL!
Ahh, straight from the website, this should make it crystal clear:
How Our Rankings Work
The central idea behind our power rankings is to define numerical ratings for every team in a league such that together, all of the ratings "make sense." Got it? Great, we're done. Thanks for your time.
If you'd like some more explanation, however, here's an example. We have developed formulae which, given two teams, their respective numerical ratings, and the location of the game, will compute the odds of each team winning that game.
Just for kicks, let's randomly assign the Stanford basketball team a 40.2 rating.
Given our formulae, a numerical rating of 40.2 implies a certain number of wins, based on Stanford's rating, the ratings of their opponents (i.e. schedule strength), and where the games are played. (Margin of victory performance plays a role as well.) Let's imagine that according to our model, a 40.2 rating for Stanford implies 6.1 expected wins out of their 10 games played so far.
If in reality, Stanford is 7-3, then its numerical rating needs to improve; a 40.2 rating is too low. If Stanford is only 5-5, its rating needs to fall. If Stanford is 6-4, we've got them pegged pretty well.
Coming up with numerical ratings for all teams that "make sense" when taken together, especially when there are dozens or hundreds of teams in a league, is consequently a very complex and iterative process. In order for our rankings to be "correct", each team's expected number of wins, based on implied win probabilities for every game played, must equal its actual number of wins.
This equilibrium is achieved by looking at past statistics, using a variety of mathematical and statistical functions, testing a hypothetical set of ratings, and iterating like mad. It could take weeks, months or years for even a skilled mathematician to do these calculations manually, but today's computers can solve the puzzle in minutes.
