This whole thing is a joke. USC plays Nebraska...that's by far their toughest OOC game. Nebraska wasn't even a Top 25 team at the end of the year last year. Then they play ND...which SHOULDN'T have been a Top 25 team at ALL last year. VT...even at our place...makes our OOC schedule tougher this year.:thumb:

I'm not trying to be arumentitive ansd if I come off sounding that way, please excuse me, but let me explain this the best I can.

The formula(s) does/do reflect the games vs. UF,LSU,AU, USC and Wisconsin, it also reflects the games vs. Utah State and the 6 other teams they played that finished the year on the wrong side of the ledger. The fact is, when Arkansas played 1-11 Utah State, that basically nullifies (averages out if you will) their game vs. 13-1 UF. The same goes for when they played 3-9 MSU, 4-8 Ole Miss ect,ect.

To answer this, the Sagarin, Colley and the Anderson & Hester BCS computers all ranked UConn's SOS as stronger than Arkansas' SOS last year, not just Sagarin. All three of these computers take into account as to where the games are played, even though all three use different formulas to arrive at their conclusions.

The Massey and Billingsley computers don't care where the game is played and the Wolfe computer doesn't use SOS in their formula.

To begin with, I couldn't match up your list to any of the BCS computer SOS list, I'm assuming this is the SOS from the NCAA?

If so, the NCAA's SOS rankings only reflect won/loss records of a team and their opponents won/loss records. With that said, A win vs Buffallo at Tiger Stadium (example) counts the the very same as a win vs. Florida at the swamp (example). I think anyone who knows anything about CF will tell you which game was tougher, (play 1 weak team at home vs. one strong team on the road) yet the NCAA SOS rankings don't reflect this.

Finally, don't confuse SOS with the strength of a conference or the strength of a team, they are not synonymous. Most conferences play 4 OOC games every year, Pac 10 (3 OOC games), Big Eight(5 OOC games) excluded, and that opens the door to playing tougher/weaker opponents outside your conference that will skew the results at year end.

Regardless of how the SOS is calculated, most people believe them to be skewed and inaccurate and it is unlikely you will convince anyone here. You expect us to believe that the 2006 LSU team faced 4 teams on the road, ranked #8 or higher, and yet finished with a #38 for SOS? The below link is an example of somebody compiling their SOS and certainly is not the only one, but it shows the laughable conclusions that one makes after reading this. I would like to find the SEC fan who legitimately believes their team had a harder road in conference than LSU, and yet S. Carolina, Alabama, Ole Miss, Vandy, Auburn, Kentucky, Ark, Tenn, Florida, and Miss St all had higher SOS.

http://www.nationalchamps.net/2006/preview/sos/index.htm

The intent of this argument is to show that USC's or the PAC-10's OOC schedule makes up for a relatively weak conference schedule. Every PAC-10 homer falls back on this just like the SEC homers fall back on the tough road of the SEC. However, when you play twice as many conference games, it is more likely to pile up on you.

If you pile your games on teams ranked between #30-#70, then you can actually get a stronger SOS than a team that splits it games between 1/2 top 10, and 1/2 ranked over #70. You can tweak with elements like home or away, number of wins of your opponents, etc, but at the end of the day, we do not reward respect or championships by SOS, but by AP/USA rankings. Those rankings are given based upon who we played, where they were ranked, where we played, and ease of win.

The PAC-10 may play more teams that don't have losing records, but they don't play teams that are as highly ranked on a regular basis, ever. Considering that 1/2 our conference games will be against either top 25 teams or as last year, top 10 teams, and USC did not face a single Top 10 team all year(spare me on ND) until after the season in their bowl game vs Michigan, nobody here is going to buy that they had a tougher road.

Whatever your SOS rankings may show, they do not paint an accurate picture on the difficulty of an individual team's schedule, and more times than not, they merely muddy the argument.

Auburn 56, correct me if I'm wrong, because you obviously know more about this subject than I do, but I believe SOS is basically an averaging process. Thus team "A" playing the #1 team in the nation and the #101 team in the nation would have the same SOS as team "B" that played the #49 and #51 teams (presuming all were played at home or on the road). However, if team "A" beat the #1 team by a touchdown and beat the # 101 team by 82 points and team "B" beat both teams by only a point, I believe most fans would agree that team "A" is probably the better team, even though both have a "2" and "0" record and the same strength of schedule. This is always a concern with arithmetic averages. Remember the guy who has his feet in a hot oven and his head in the air conditioner is, on average, pretty comfortable.

Probably couldn't have said it better myself. I'll just add that numbers don't always paint the best picture. This isn't rocket science, it's football. I don't care how the numbers add up when you play on the road or at home. That can't be predicted numerically. Some "road" games are a joke. Play in a traditionally tough stadium (LSU, Florida, Michigan, etc) versus a stadium like UConn's. Just because you play a team on the road doesn't mean it's any tougher. A lot of times it may even be easier. For instance, what if you play in a dome, on the road, on a day where it's freezing and raining at your home stadium? The biggest problem right now is all of these "geniuses" who think they have football figured out numerically. I'm sorry, but I don't buy into it. You can take all of those rating formulas and shove 'em for all I care. They're NOT accurate and they're NOT precise. I don't care what the talking head on ESPN has to say about it. It's hogwash. There are too many variables that cannot be figured out numerically. Among those are: weather, crowd intensity, injuries and rivalries. Sometimes it may be tougher for a team to play a blood-rival than it is to play a top ten team.

i think it was gottlieb subbing for rome if i remember this show correctly. he talked of nebraska and notre dame as if they could easily beat florida and auburn or va tech.

the other part was he said we play app. st this year. and we're weak for doing so. i say he's weak for not doing research.:dis:

Nicely done. The best explanation I've seen.:thumb:

I'm still trying to figure out which 4 teams LSU played last year on the road that were ranked in the top 8. Considering LSU only played 4 road games last year, you can only be talking about #1 UF, #9 Auburn, #15 Arkansas and #25 Tennessee. Please don't give me the old "they were ranked in the top 8 when they played them" line either, now that the season is long finished, the only ranking that counts is the final ranking.

The only SOS that has any bearing on the BCS Bowls are the 5 BCS Computers that use SOS in their formula. It doesn't matter what the NCAA SOS rankings are, nor does it matter that some yahoo ranked LSU #38 in SOS if it wasn't one of the 5 BCS Computers.

As far as the 5 BCS Computer SOS rankings go, here are the results of what they came up with in their formulas.

Anderson & Hester BCS Computers ranked LSU at #20
Colley BCS Computers ranked LSU at #22
Sagarin BCS Computers ranked LSU at # 20
Massey BCS Computers ranked LSU at #8
Billingsley BCS Computers ranked LSU at #41 (Arkansas was #1)

Who cares if someone ranked LSU's SOS at #38, it had no bearing on the CF season whatsoever.

I agree with all of the above except to note that SOS does play roll in getting into the BCS Championship game only.

Interesting you say this...
2000 the Pac 10 had 3 teams in the final AP Poll top 10.
#3 Washington,#4 Oregon St, #7 Oregon
2001 the Pac 10 had 2 teams in the top 10.
#2 Oregon, 10 Washington State
2002 the Pac 10 had 2 teams, #4 USC and 10 Washington State
2003 there was #1 USC and #10 Washington State
2004 there was #1 USC and #9 California.
The SEC didn't match that record in this 5 year time period.
http://www.collegefootballpoll.com/polls_1936_present_h.html

These are not my rankings, those rankings belong to the 5 BCS Computers that use SOS in their formulas.

You are correct, it is in large part, but not completly, a system of averages and yes, Arkansas had their head in the oven vs. UF and their feet in the deep freeze vs. 1-11 Utah State and S.E. Missouri State. One would think that in knowing this that it doesn't make any sense to schedule those weak opponents, knowing what the cost could be, aka Auburn 2004.

No, that isn't actually the case, it's just a matter of your opinion and I believe it to be a crock of Sh*t. I certainly think it matters where you end up, but it is not the only criteria, and you won't find anyone here to agree with you that we did not play Top 10 teams on the road.

I never claimed that one mattered to the process and one did not, I claimed they are all misleading and subject to interpretation. For the most part, they are a joke.

A laughable disparity. You prove my point for me. I will arrive at my SOS rankings by throwing at a dart board and probably come up with similar numbers.

I said nothing about a BCS game. I said "reward respect or championships". Note that the 2003 USC team did not play in the NCG, and yet somehow is counted as winning the NC that year, along with LSU.

Only supported by your assertion that in season rankings mean nothing, while after season rankings mean everything. Nobody buys that. But that being said, you conveniently shortened the parameters to TOP 10 teams in the final rankings instead of "ranked teams" which is generally assumed to be the TOP 25. Go back and check your polls again. The SEC comes out on top again in the TOP 25 at the end of the year. The only time we did not have more teams was in 2001, when we tied. I don't put all my eggs in this basket, as you do, but you lose this argument anyway. Again, this strength of schedule is an argument about the difficulty and depth of the SEC vs the PAC-10. The PAC-10 loses again.

I am fully aware who compiled the BCS rankings and in no way meant to imply that you had any hand in their calculations. You are the only one defending them here, so in this argument they are yours by default.