With everyone talking about the playoffs and who is in and who's not, I wanted to determine what teams actually beat good teams. Texas A&M schedule was weak but so was UVA's so how bad were their schedules vs others based on their wins.
I broke it up to wins against 10+ win teams (very few of those), wins against 8-9 wins teams, and then wins against 6-7 win teams (all done by percentage not actual wins because 1) hawaii and 2) I can use it throughout next season. The other columns are wins against teams below .500 and total wins against .500+ teams.
If you notice anOSU only has 11 wins, I don't count FCS for multiple reasons. I also cut it off to teams with 3 wins against winning teams because this would be long otherwise
What stands out to me is the Big 10 plays more winning teams. anOSU, Indiana, Oregon, USC are top 2 with Michigan being tied for 7th.
Texas A&M and UVA do better than I thought they would. Also Winsconsin ruining a lot of seasons. Ole Miss has one of the easier schedules. Texas only beats top teams.
I don't have a better way to compare the good wins verse great, I could weight them to give more benefit to the 10+ wins, but at the end of the day OSU has one of the tougher schedules but no top notch wins.
| # | name | 10 wins | 8/9 wins | 6/7 wins | 0-5 wins | wins vs winning |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ohio State | 0 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 7 |
| 2 | BYU | 1 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 6 |
| 3 | Indiana | 1 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 6 |
| 4 | James Madison | 0 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 6 |
| 5 | Oregon | 0 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 6 |
| 6 | USC | 0 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 6 |
| 7 | Alabama | 2 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 5 |
| 8 | Iowa State | 0 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 5 |
| 9 | Michigan | 0 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| 10 | North Texas | 0 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 5 |
| 11 | Notre Dame | 0 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 5 |
| 12 | Oklahoma | 1 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 5 |
| 13 | Texas A&M | 1 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 5 |
| 14 | Tulane | 0 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 5 |
| 15 | Virginia | 0 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 5 |
| 16 | Arizona | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 4 |
| 17 | Arizona State | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| 18 | Duke | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 4 |
| 19 | Georgia | 1 | 3 | 0 | 6 | 4 |
| 20 | Illinois | 0 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
| 21 | Kennesaw State | 0 | 0 | 4 | 4 | 4 |
| 22 | Miami | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 4 |
| 23 | NC State | 1 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 4 |
| 24 | Ole Miss | 2 | 0 | 2 | 6 | 4 |
| 25 | SMU | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
| 26 | Southern Miss | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 4 |
| 27 | Texas Tech | 2 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 4 |
| 28 | Vanderbilt | 0 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 4 |
| 29 | Wake Forest | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 4 |
| 30 | Arkansas State | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 |
| 31 | Boise State | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 3 |
| 32 | California | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 |
| 33 | Delaware | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 |
| 34 | East Carolina | 0 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 3 |
| 35 | Fresno State | 0 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 3 |
| 36 | Georgia Tech | 0 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 3 |
| 37 | Iowa | 0 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 3 |
| 38 | Jacksonville State | 0 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 3 |
| 39 | Louisville | 2 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 3 |
| 40 | LSU | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
| 41 | New Mexico | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 3 |
| 42 | Old Dominion | 0 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 3 |
| 43 | Pittsburgh | 0 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 3 |
| 44 | San Diego State | 0 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 3 |
| 45 | South Florida | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 3 |
| 46 | TCU | 0 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 3 |
| 47 | Texas | 3 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 3 |
| 48 | Toledo | 0 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 3 |
| 49 | Troy | 0 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 3 |
| 50 | UNLV | 0 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 3 |
| 51 | Utah | 0 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 3 |
| 52 | Washington State | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| 53 | Western Kentucky | 0 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 3 |
| 54 | Western Michigan | 0 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 3 |
| 55 | Wisconsin | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
Comments
Leave this here...
I'm embarrassed to be in this league...
Though looking at this the ACC has 10 teams that beat teams that are .500 or better three times, the SEC only had 8 teams, the Big 10 has 8 teams and the Big 12 is 7 teams. So while our top end looks bad, we actually do well in the middle of the pack.
I was about to reply something along the line of 'man, we suck' referring to the entire conference. But you kind of beat me to it. Good lord.
Will say one thing, the table above us makes me feel better about my Cyclones.
We wouldn't have
thisas bad of a problem if we hadn't abandoned the divisions... UVA would still be there, the question would be who they play depending on how SMU and Cal got allocated... This could be UVA vs. SMU (8-4), UVA vs. Cal (7-5), or it would fall to UVA vs. Clemson (7-5). Still ugly from a record standpoint, but UVA vs. SMU looks a lot more appealing.Have you checked out Bill C's Resume Rankings?
SP+ is meant to be predictive, but his resume rankings are meant to grade past performances:
I have but this gives me a chances to fool around with coding as I don't do that any more professionally
A couple issues based on his ratings verse what i saw from the work I did:
Running up the score helps you for the Resume Ratings, which needs to be accounted for for certain aspects but tells a different story. Using the whole schedule doesn't make sense for that. If a top 5 team would beat okst would predictively beat OK state by 45 points and you only win by 28 because you put in backups then your not top 5 so you dont get credit, but its OK state, After 3 scores who cares how much some one won by, they suck, you should win A win no matter by how many points isn't impressive. In addition, blowing out bad teams can get you more points than beating good teams
BYU is 14th, yet they have more wins over winning teams than every not named Ohio State. Because they are not beating teams by enough they are lower than teams that scored better against losing teams.
Miami vs OU is a good example, OU has beating more teams with a winning record yet Miami which is hanging its season on the ND game is rated higher because they did better in scoring margin against teams with losing records.
That's probably why it's called Resume rankings. Resumes are designed to showcase your strengths and hide limitations. Some employers, when looking for college grad hires are focused on GPA. If you have a 3.8 GPA from VT in engineering you might get passed over for some kid from directional Michigan school because they have a 4.0. Employers aren't going to care about your "strength of schedule". They're going to see 4.0>3.8 and go from there. On your resume, style points matter.
Beating a bunch of losing teams by a average margin of 30 points is going to look more impressive on paper than beating winning teams by a margin of 3. Is that fair or an accurate representation of how good the teams actually are? Probably not. But that's kinda how resumes work. I think it's an apt name.
no disagreement and I think there are tons of ways to compare teams with no dorect data, so its all guess work st dome point.
Not feeling this take at all. As somebody that has hired hundreds of folks I always look at the school because a high GPA at a "directional Michigan" is barely worth the paper it is printed on. However, graduating from a school that has high academic standards does in fact mean something. I have brothers that went to "directional michigan" and they didn't attend class for most of their school days. I have kids that are in VT engineering and they barely see the light of day but they will graduate with ready to apply job skils. So, when people are looking at a team's "resume" I believe very little weight is given to blowing out nobody teams but wins over big time programs, even by a small margin, carry much more weight. My two cents.
I think the world is big enough that some places look at the school, others look only at the number, and some only look for the fact-of having a degree.
I know of a lot of engineering companies that will take a Tech grad over a UVA grad any day of the week for ready to apply skills.
You know that I am longtime SP+ fan, as we have discussed it a lot over the years, but I have found his divergence from FPI pretty significantly this year to be a bug rather than a feature. I haven't seen the final numbers yet, but FPI has felt much more accurate in its assessment of the top teams, and SOR has seemed a lot better than Resume SP+ to my eyes.
the one thing I dont like about the advanced statistics (which i love) is that a lot of time they give you a number they calculated and its hard to know exactly what made the number that way. What I compiled here is a more simple look at who beats winning teams, I wouldn't use this as a sole way to judge how a team played. But it shows that certain teams have been tested (and passed) more than others.
Earlier this week Fanduel (I believe) came out and said that both UVA and Duke would be 3pt dogs to Penn State (6-6) on a neutral field if they played this Saturday.