Some comments about Notre Dame in another thread got me thinking. I had always assumed the Irish played a relatively patsy schedule, given that they're not locked into a major conference. I knew they had (mostly) annual games against Michigan, Michigan State, USC, Stanford and/or Purdue, but I didn't see how that was any different than, say, Nebraska playing (mostly) annual games against Oklahoma, Texas, A&M, Colorado and Missouri in the Big XII.
I was wrong, though. Not ashamed to admit it. The Irish actually have one of the tougher schedules in the nation. Below are two charts I threw together using data from the College Football Database. A couple of points. Both charts are cumulative averages, meaning that they represent a typical season for a team. Especially in 12+ team conferences, we know cross-divisional play is a big factor. Some years you get Ohio State-Michigan-Penn State and other years you get Rutgers-Maryland-Indiana. But on average, this evens out.
Secondly, I only ran this for teams who have ever finished in the AP Top 25 Poll at least once in their lifetimes. That's 101 total schools. The database includes data on most every FBS/FCS Team, but I really didn't want to have a chart that went three miles horizontally because I included Bucknell, Yale or even Creighton from when they used to field football. Onto the eye candy!
Strength of Schedule
Nebraska holds it own here. #27 overall. But man-oh-man, check out the Big Ten. Ohio State, Northwestern, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Purdue and Indiana are all ranked above Nebraska. You have to drop to #13 before you hit the SEC (Georgia). Certainly confirms the suspicion that the SEC plays weak-ass schedules.
But not nearly as weak as the ACC. Most of the ACC tends to be in the bottom half of the chart with notable exceptions for Georgia Tech, Pitt plus the FSU-Miami combo. In a ACC-B1G comparison, I'd expect Maryland's SOS to rise over the years as they are now annually playing some monsters in the Big Ten East. Same for Rutgers, who's riding the "used-to-be Big East" train for now.
Oklahoma plays a slightly weaker schedule than Nebraska, but it's not a massive difference. Texas is likewise slightly higher, but again, all within a fraction of a point.
Boston College is essentially the break-even point. They're just slightly below zero, but closer to zero than West Virginia. So the barometer here says that if you're playing a weaker schedule than BC, your schedule is actively working against you when it comes time for bowl selections.
Now onto the Simple Rating System. SRS is a measurment that essentially calculates your Strength of Schedule against Point Differentials. It's a clever metric because teams who dominate against weaker schedules can forecast more favorably than teams with hard schedules who crumble. In some respects that does give a lift to a team like Florida, who may skip Alabama, LSU and Auburn plus load up on non-cons like Citadel. Supposing they blow the socks off their NAIA opponents, they aren't overly penalized. But it's not enough to overcome a team like Nebraska edging out quality wins over teams like Iowa or Wisconsin. Another way to look at SRS is to ask yourself, "did this game beat the teams they should have?"
This is what you'd expect from college blue bloods. Ohio State, Notre Dame, USC, Michigan, Alabama, Oklahoma, Texas and Florida State all come in ahead of Nebraska at #9. Of those top teams, however, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Florida State make the biggest jumps when comparing this chart against SOS.
USC, Notre Dame and Ohio State all trade places among the Top 3 on both charts, which says that they schedule tough teams and then beat said teams. But the massive jump by NU, OU and FSU screams to me that we schedule solidly good teams (~Top 25 SOS) but then absolutely annihilate them since the difference between SOS and SRS is point differential. That would seem to bear out, anecdotally, as people often point to NU teams along with some of Switzer and Bowden's squads as absolute nightmares who would yank teams' arms off like a Wookie.
A few call outs on the SRS chart:
The SEC gains ground on the Big Ten here. I alluded to this earlier with my Florida-Citadel example, and it kind of confirms the notion that SEC beats themselves up = good, while B1G beats themselves up = bad. I think more than anything, the difference here is non-conference opponents and the B1G historically takes on higher caliber non-cons. Even when we schedule outside of the Power 5, it's often to a MAC school which is filled with solidly coached teams like the Fighting Frankies of Ohio. Contrast that against all the regional SunBelt and D2 squads that the SEC likes to gobble up. Our upcoming game with Cincinnati is a great example of a solid mid-major who could pose some problems. Or same for BYU a few years ago. It's kind of an age old question of whether it's better to upend some crappy team or play a tough team and -maybe- get a win.
I was wrong, though. Not ashamed to admit it. The Irish actually have one of the tougher schedules in the nation. Below are two charts I threw together using data from the College Football Database. A couple of points. Both charts are cumulative averages, meaning that they represent a typical season for a team. Especially in 12+ team conferences, we know cross-divisional play is a big factor. Some years you get Ohio State-Michigan-Penn State and other years you get Rutgers-Maryland-Indiana. But on average, this evens out.
Secondly, I only ran this for teams who have ever finished in the AP Top 25 Poll at least once in their lifetimes. That's 101 total schools. The database includes data on most every FBS/FCS Team, but I really didn't want to have a chart that went three miles horizontally because I included Bucknell, Yale or even Creighton from when they used to field football. Onto the eye candy!
Strength of Schedule
Nebraska holds it own here. #27 overall. But man-oh-man, check out the Big Ten. Ohio State, Northwestern, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Purdue and Indiana are all ranked above Nebraska. You have to drop to #13 before you hit the SEC (Georgia). Certainly confirms the suspicion that the SEC plays weak-ass schedules.
But not nearly as weak as the ACC. Most of the ACC tends to be in the bottom half of the chart with notable exceptions for Georgia Tech, Pitt plus the FSU-Miami combo. In a ACC-B1G comparison, I'd expect Maryland's SOS to rise over the years as they are now annually playing some monsters in the Big Ten East. Same for Rutgers, who's riding the "used-to-be Big East" train for now.
Oklahoma plays a slightly weaker schedule than Nebraska, but it's not a massive difference. Texas is likewise slightly higher, but again, all within a fraction of a point.
Boston College is essentially the break-even point. They're just slightly below zero, but closer to zero than West Virginia. So the barometer here says that if you're playing a weaker schedule than BC, your schedule is actively working against you when it comes time for bowl selections.
Now onto the Simple Rating System. SRS is a measurment that essentially calculates your Strength of Schedule against Point Differentials. It's a clever metric because teams who dominate against weaker schedules can forecast more favorably than teams with hard schedules who crumble. In some respects that does give a lift to a team like Florida, who may skip Alabama, LSU and Auburn plus load up on non-cons like Citadel. Supposing they blow the socks off their NAIA opponents, they aren't overly penalized. But it's not enough to overcome a team like Nebraska edging out quality wins over teams like Iowa or Wisconsin. Another way to look at SRS is to ask yourself, "did this game beat the teams they should have?"
This is what you'd expect from college blue bloods. Ohio State, Notre Dame, USC, Michigan, Alabama, Oklahoma, Texas and Florida State all come in ahead of Nebraska at #9. Of those top teams, however, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Florida State make the biggest jumps when comparing this chart against SOS.
USC, Notre Dame and Ohio State all trade places among the Top 3 on both charts, which says that they schedule tough teams and then beat said teams. But the massive jump by NU, OU and FSU screams to me that we schedule solidly good teams (~Top 25 SOS) but then absolutely annihilate them since the difference between SOS and SRS is point differential. That would seem to bear out, anecdotally, as people often point to NU teams along with some of Switzer and Bowden's squads as absolute nightmares who would yank teams' arms off like a Wookie.
A few call outs on the SRS chart:
The SEC gains ground on the Big Ten here. I alluded to this earlier with my Florida-Citadel example, and it kind of confirms the notion that SEC beats themselves up = good, while B1G beats themselves up = bad. I think more than anything, the difference here is non-conference opponents and the B1G historically takes on higher caliber non-cons. Even when we schedule outside of the Power 5, it's often to a MAC school which is filled with solidly coached teams like the Fighting Frankies of Ohio. Contrast that against all the regional SunBelt and D2 squads that the SEC likes to gobble up. Our upcoming game with Cincinnati is a great example of a solid mid-major who could pose some problems. Or same for BYU a few years ago. It's kind of an age old question of whether it's better to upend some crappy team or play a tough team and -maybe- get a win.
