I started a project last year comparing the non-conference schedules of the Power 5 teams over the last 6 years (2012-2017). That range was somewhat arbitrary, as I mostly just got tired of searching backwards. But also, conference realignment was causing the numbers to get skewed.
I made a blog post, so I don't weigh down the forum with all of the numbers and math.
I came up with a points system, where a Power 5 team was 2 points, a Group of 5 team was 1 point, and an FCS team was 0 points. I thought about creating a weighted scale, but after about 5 seconds realized that it was too difficult, and would include a lot of hindsight bias.
Ultimately, I felt that each team at a minimum should schedule 1 Power 5 team per year, and allow one FCS game per year, and fill in the rest of the schedule with Group of 5 teams. In the ACC and SEC, that would generate 24 points over six years. NC State doesn't hit the minimum, Boston College is exactly the minimum, and the rest of the ACC exceeds the minimum. (Over in the SEC, only three teams exceed the minimum, and they're all East teams.) Granted, it would be nice if teams scheduled more than that.
To allow for an apples to oranges comparison with the different number of conference games in each conference, I adjusted the scores by adding points to represent the Power 5 teams everyone played in conference. This also let me compare Notre Dame to everyone else. Then I had to decide on a minimum score, but ran into a problem. Do I punish the ACC and SEC for having fewer conference games, and generally fewer Power 5 games on the schedule? Or do I punish the number conferences for having fewer non-conference games? Instead, I split the difference, and came up with a minimum range between 120 and 126.
Interestingly enough, VT is right in the middle in the 33rd spot (although tied with 7 other schools).
Of the 65 Power 5 teams, 47 fall into the minimum range. Only 13 teams exceed that range, while 5 fail to hit it. The five under the range are NC State, Vandy, Ole Miss, Texas A&M, and Mississippi State. And yes, if you look at all of the numbers, you see that the SEC West is the lowest ranked division, as none of them schedule above the bare minimum.
I wasn't completely sure what kind of comparisons I wanted to do, but at the very least wanted to have a reference for whenever the discussion comes up. At some point this summer, I plan to look into the (likely wrong) theory that the CFP will lead to better non-conference games.
Comments
"We use all of our non conference games to schedule weaker teams because our conference is so tough"
- the SEC
"We use all of our non conference games to schedule weaker teams because we wanna be in a crummy bowl game, and 6 wins is a stretch."
- UVa
"We canceled our non conference game with Virginia Tech because our head coach scheduled a back yard camping trip with a 2024 recruit on the same weekend."
- U. Michigan
"We canceled our non conference game with Virginia Tech because our head coach knows that Danny caught that ball."
- U. Michigan
Thanks for doing this. Largely validates what I suspected to be true as far as the SEC West. Definitely some surprises too though.
Any comparing the P5 divisions schedules and how the non-P5 opponents do in their respective seasons?
ie: do SEC West non P5 opponents perform poorer than those scheduled by ACC Coastal?
That's a lot of diving into numbers, but I can do a quick look at a couple of years. I picked last season's division winners.
2017:
Alabama:
-Fresno State (10-4, MW division champs)
-Colorado State (7-6)
-FCS Mercer (5-6, but they played both Auburn and Alabama)
Georgia:
-App State (9-4, Sun Belt co-champ)
-FCS Samford (8-4, lost in first found of playoffs)
Miami:
-FCS Bethune-Cookman (7-4)
-Toledo (11-3, MAC champs)
-Arkansas State (7-5) -- game was cancelled due to weather, but I still count it as scheduled.
Clemson:
-Kent State (2-10)
-FCS Citadel (5-6)
2016:
Alabama:
-Western KY (11-3, CUSA champs)
-Kent State (3-9)
-FCS Chattanooga (9-4, lost in second round of playoffs)
Georgia:
-FCS Nicholls State (5-6)
-La-Lafayette (6-7)
Miami:
-FCS Florida A&M (4-7)
-FAU (3-9)
-App State (10-3, Sun Belt co-champions)
Clemson:
-Troy (10-3)
-FCS SC State (5-6)
With this limited sample, it looks like it ends up being a wash.
I'll be willing to schedule anyone as long as we can take the likes of ECU and ODU out to the shed Old Yeller style.
A bit harsh but indeed
By this do you mean that ECU and ODU are cherished members of our family, who sacrifice their own well-being for us, and we all cry hysterically as we put them out of their misery only to never be able to forget their selfless devotion?
I'd personally rather go the Indiana Jones route. Don't know them, don't really care about them, make it a quick and somewhat humorous end and move on pretty much forgetting they ever existed.
via GIPHY
The backstory on this scene
Backstory
The backstory makes me want this to be how we deal with ODU/EDU even more. They prepare for months for this one awesome game.... and it's over in 5 minutes.
Thought it needed just a little tweaking.
Much obliged!
Han shoots first. Even when he's not Han.
Again, this is simply incorrect. "Han shoots first" implies that the other shoots second. First is an unnecessary modifier, that implies events that do not take place. The correct phrase should be, "Han shoots."
Except the statement "Han shoots" is ambiguous. It is correct for both the original scene as well as the bullshit doctored version where they had Greedo shoot at Han before Han shoots. It works for you because you seem to have rejected the existence of the second version. But, for a lot of people there is a version where Greedo does shoot at Han. And to differentiate between the two we need a phrase that says more than "Han shoots." I'd contend that "Greedo never shot" is the most clear option.
I agree with this wholeheartedly. Leg.
To create more separation you could award a bonus point or multiplier for teams that scheduled more than 1 OOC P5 team (so 3 or 4 points for the second team) as well as deduct points if a team has more than one FCS team.
I think that doing something like that would skew the numbers too much. Generally, the points scale takes care of itself.
For instance, FSU in 2012. Originally they had Murray State, USF, and Florida on the schedule with WVU. (USF counted as a P5 team that year, being in the BCS era Big East). They would have earned 6 points for the year. By replacing WVU with a second FCS team, it dropped them down to 4 points. Regardless, any points lost for the second FCS team would have been negated by the bonus points for multiple P5 teams.
Also, that would have unfairly rewarded some ACC or SEC teams. If they schedule 2 P5 teams, they have the same number of P5 games overall as a Big Ten/Pac-12/Big 12 team with only 1 P5 OOC game. Not to mention that some ACC teams can take care of that by just playing their SEC rival and Notre Dame, neither of which they really have to work to schedule.
I took a look at the non-conference games that really affected the CFP races the last four years. I'm not sure if there's enough data to support either side of the theory about the playoff creating better in-season non-conference games.
2014 and 2015 don't have any good examples. The only non-conference loss from any top 6 team in those years was Ohio State losing to us.
In 2016, if Oklahoma hadn't scheduled either Ohio State or Houston, they would have likely gotten into the CFP. Also, if Penn State hadn't played Pitt, they would have been in the CFP. However, would you really consider Pitt a risk on your non-conference schedule?
2017 has the most obvious examples of the "big" games that hurt teams too much. First is Oklahoma beating Ohio State. If both teams played an ECU-level team that week instead, then Alabama doesn't get into the playoff. Ohio State would have been 12-1 and conference champs. (And before anyone mentions them shitting the bed against Iowa, that's a conference game, and the schedule couldn't be adjusted.)
Also, USC could have decided that since they added Texas to their schedule, they could skip out on the long standing Notre Dame rivalry. That would have given them a 12-1 record.
And if neither of those games had occurred, we could have had all five Power 5 champs sitting at 12-1 with that loss coming from the conference. Now that would have been an exciting debate.
All we need is for ESPN, CBS, and every media outlet south of Maryland to declare that UNC, GT, Pitt are GREAT HISTORIC Teams, and such TOUGH places to play and a loss there is as good as a win. You know, like they do for the SEC west.. and then we are set.
Normally I like when the Bear does his thing with numbers, but this time, he's really cherry picking the data.
First of all, it doesn't take the entire season into account. As shown above, if you take that first game off of Alabama's schedule, the rest of it is pretty weak.
Second, a more fair comparison would be to look at the first two weeks of the season. Before the week 1 neutral site games really took off, most teams scheduled their "big" non-conference games for week 2, after they had a tune up in week 1.
Just look at VT. While we've only had the P5 opener 5 times since 2008 (2009 Alabama, 2012 GT, 2013 Alabama, 2015 anOSU, and 2017 WVU), we've had a P5 week two game twice (2014 anOSU, and 2016 Tennessee). Plus, we had Boise State for an opener in 2010, which I would argue was just as good as scheduling a P5 team.
The other primary gripe is that Bama plays most of these P5 games at neutral sites (and almost all in the south - Arlington, TX and Atlanta) and won't schedule home and home series. The last road P5 OOC game Bama played was at Penn State in 2011.
The unfortunate reality of the neutral site conundrum is that those games are bringing the school a tremendous amount of money. I hear the arguments that neutral sites take away from great home and home series, and that they aren't in the "true spirit" of college football, and I agree with them, but I won't fault any team for taking those huge neutral site game payouts. We've taken a lot of them and I am grateful because that money can be used to make our football program better. Alabama is trying to stay on the cutting edge and top of the college football world, it would be unwise for them to turn down these big money neutral site games to appease fans and the r/cfb subreddit.
Think before Penn State they played a home and home with Duke.
Here's the reality of these "number of P5 opponents stats":
The vast majority of P5 teams schedule one P5 OOC opponent. Sometimes teams will schedule two, especially when they have a non-conf P5 rival, so the past 3 years Clemson has hit 10 because they play USCjr every year + Auburn and this year A&M. Georgia for example last year had 10 P5 opponents because of their GT crossover rivalry + Notre Dame. However, most teams only schedule 1 P5 OOC opponent.
So here's where the numbers get skewed and the ACC and SEC look worse in comparison to the other conferences. We only play 8 conference games, and there isn't a uniform body telling us we have to play 9. So when you set the threshold at 10, it's going to be easy for teams that play 9 conference games to hit that "10 P5 opponents" threshold by just scheduling their usual 1 P5 OOC opponent just like the majority of other P5 teams.
Until we get told that we have to play 9 conference games, I'm not going to pretend like the B1G or Pac teams are so brave for scheduling 10 P5 opponents when they have to play 9 conference games whether they want to or not. So if they chuck Indiana or Wake Forest on their non-conf schedule to hit 10 P5 games I'm not going to pretend like that is more difficult than an SEC or ACC team playing a much better P5 OOC opponent even if that leaves them below this arbitrary threshold of 10 P5 games created to prop up the 9 conf teams.