2010 Schedule and SOS theories

[jay santos]

Apparently we have the following OOC teams on the schedule in 2010.

Notre Dame
Washington
Ohio State
Florida State

I LOVE IT!

Some people (including Indy Coug) think that's suicide and schedule overkill. I strongly disagree (sorry IC, it's not personal I've been banging this drum since long before we clashed on CB).

If we had that schedule this year, we'd be listed as having SOS about #30.

This is about where we'd be ranked in the computers at the end of the regular season with that SOS:

0 loss: #2
1 loss: #4
2 loss: #7
3 loss: #15

Compare that with where we'd be ranked in the computers at the end of the season with our SOS this year (about #90):

0 loss: #5
1 loss: #11
2 loss: #18

To me, there's no question which schedule I'd rather play.

When it comes to schedule, I say the tougher the better. The benefits are numerous: respect in the media, respect in the polls--both computer and human, fun for fans, fun for players. The negatives? We might lose. That's just doesn't fly with me. If we think we're a top 30 program, let's have a schedule appropriate for a top 30 program.

There's also this idea that a tough schedule will beat you up and cause you to lose more in the future. I think that's just an anecdote with no factual basis. In 2000, we recovered enough to finish with two great wins over UNM and Utah.

SEC is the last conference to refuse to upgrade their scheduling, and it hurts them in the BCS every year. When it comes to BCS, better the schedule the better. There is no sweet spot where anything tougher is bad for you.

[Indy Coug]

There is no way to substantiate this kind of scheduling is what is required in order to be in a position to vie for a national title. The law of diminishing returns kicks in about halfway through that schedule and essentially we open ourselves up to a disproportionate amount of risk exposure with little to nothing gained in return. If we beat both Ohio State and Florida State, we could beat Eastern Washington and Tulsa in the other games and still have just as strong a claim on a national title bid, should we be undefeated.

This is really a theoretical exercise anyway because neither Ohio State or Notre Dame are on our 2010 schedule. Florida State has been listed in 2010 for about 4 years now, so they could possibly still be good to go for that year.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

There is no way to substantiate this kind of scheduling is what is required in order to be in a position to vie for a national title. The law of diminishing returns kicks in about halfway through that schedule and essentially we open ourselves up to a disproportionate amount of risk exposure with little to nothing gained in return. If we beat both Ohio State and Florida State, we could beat Eastern Washington and Tulsa in the other games and still have just as strong a claim on a national title bid, should we be undefeated.

This is really a theoretical exercise anyway because neither Ohio State or Notre Dame are on our 2010 schedule. Florida State has been listed in 2010 for about 4 years now, so they could possibly still be good to go for that year.

Where did you get this diminishing margins theory on scheduling? I completely disagree.

I've been arguing with BYU fans for ten years that express your same view. What I think they're trying to do is find a back door to a national championship game, a BCS game, or national respect. There is no back door.

In terms of computer rankings: in a typical year you will never be ranked #1 or #2 unless you have SOS in the top 30. There's usually an undefeated team with SOS higher than that (sometimes two), and usually a one loss SOS top 20 team that would beat you out. I can prove that with data. When it comes to human polls, my feeling is that they are getting more and more skeptical about non-BCS teams and undefeated teams with bad SOS--see Utah. Utah's SOS blew away our '84 SOS, yet they still never got close.

As far as a BCS game and computer rankings, same thing. The reality with computer rankings is that they're going to have you pegged pretty close to how good you are. You can't get over on them. If you're the #12 team, they're going to have you pretty close to #12. You can choose to do that as undefeated with #110 schedule, or you can do it 8-4 with the #1 schedule, or somewhere in between. I think the RISK comes in not allowing yourself to have a bad game or two. You understand risk. Risk comes when normal expected variance has a good chance at giving you a bad total result. A tough schedule minimizes the risk of uneven performance week to week.

In terms of human polls, that's tricky. There MAY be a dimishing return with SOS, but I highly doubt it. If you have a way to test it, go for it. Right now, human polls are definitely more SOS heavy than computer rankings--look at where Boise, Tulsa, and BYU stand. By the end of the season, this might correct itself. In 2004, the computers were more generous to Utah than the human polls. In 2001, the human polls were more generous to BYU than the computers.


Lastly, I hate this idea because it is rooted in the idea of getting over on the national football scene. It's needless risk to schedule ALMOST as tough as the programs that we're demanding to be ranked ahead of? It just doesn't fly with me.

If we want to be second tier, let's live in a second tier conference, and not try to make up for it with a schedule, but let's just shut up when it comes to demanding first tier prizes like BCS money and national rankings.

If we want to be top tier, we're a little screwed being in our second tier conference, but let's make up for it best we can with OOC SOS, and then we have a right to demand top tier prizes in the years we field teams that deserve it.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Apparently we have the following OOC teams on the schedule in 2010.

Notre Dame
Washington
Ohio State
Florida State

I LOVE IT!

Some people (including Indy Coug) think that's suicide and schedule overkill. I strongly disagree (sorry IC, it's not personal I've been banging this drum since long before we clashed on CB).

If we had that schedule this year, we'd be listed as having SOS about #30.

This is about where we'd be ranked in the computers at the end of the regular season with that SOS:

0 loss: #2
1 loss: #4
2 loss: #7
3 loss: #15

Compare that with where we'd be ranked in the computers at the end of the season with our SOS this year (about #90):

0 loss: #5
1 loss: #11
2 loss: #18

To me, there's no question which schedule I'd rather play.

When it comes to schedule, I say the tougher the better. The benefits are numerous: respect in the media, respect in the polls--both computer and human, fun for fans, fun for players. The negatives? We might lose. That's just doesn't fly with me. If we think we're a top 30 program, let's have a schedule appropriate for a top 30 program.

There's also this idea that a tough schedule will beat you up and cause you to lose more in the future. I think that's just an anecdote with no factual basis. In 2000, we recovered enough to finish with two great wins over UNM and Utah.

SEC is the last conference to refuse to upgrade their scheduling, and it hurts them in the BCS every year. When it comes to BCS, better the schedule the better. There is no sweet spot where anything tougher is bad for you.

That would be an incredibly impressive OOC schedule.

Are your projected rankings based on what Notre Dame, Washington, Ohio State and Florida State are doing this year, assuming they would do about the same then? If so, if they had collectively better or worse seasons, how would it affect those projections?

I've always felt if you want to be considered the best, you have to find a way to play and beat the best on a year in- year out basis. I just wish the alleged power teams wouldn't be such wusses and allow the Utes to play them more often.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

That would be an incredibly impressive OOC schedule.

Are your projected rankings based on what Notre Dame, Washington, Ohio State and Florida State are doing this year, assuming they would do about the same then?

Nevermind - I reread your post and noticed that you mentioned that this would be the rankings if those teams were scheduled this year. My bad.

[Indy Coug]

BYU had a top 15 SOS in 2003 and 2004, and it didn't contain nearly as lethal a lineup as the alleged 2010 schedule.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

That would be an incredibly impressive OOC schedule.

Are your projected rankings based on what Notre Dame, Washington, Ohio State and Florida State are doing this year, assuming they would do about the same then? If so, if they had collectively better or worse seasons, how would it affect those projections?

I've always felt if you want to be considered the best, you have to find a way to play and beat the best on a year in- year out basis. I just wish the alleged power teams wouldn't be such wusses and allow the Utes to play them more often.

So your hand are tied to playing Utah State and/or non-D1 team every year?

My understanding is that BYU could create a schedule that's about as tough as it wanted it to be. My guess is that Utah could also do the same. There are maybe about 6-8 programs that would demand 2:1's but you could create a very difficult OOC SOS if you wanted.

And yes, that schedule is based on how those teams are doing this year. If anything the #30 might be a little too low because the MWC is down this year. But the 12 team SOS probably wouldn't change too dramatically because while one team might do better another might do worse.

[Jeff Lebowski]

What are you smoking, Jay? One or two top teams per year is plenty for a lightweight school like BYU. Put it this way, what is most likely way to get a top-ten ranking? Have zero or one loss with this year's schedule, or have two losses or less with the 2010 schedule?

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by jay santos

So your hand are tied to playing Utah State and/or non-D1 team every year?

My understanding is that BYU could create a schedule that's about as tough as it wanted it to be. My guess is that Utah could also do the same. There are maybe about 6-8 programs that would demand 2:1's but you could create a very difficult OOC SOS if you wanted.

And yes, that schedule is based on how those teams are doing this year. If anything the #30 might be a little too low because the MWC is down this year. But the 12 team SOS probably wouldn't change too dramatically because while one team might do better another might do worse.

I actually like the USU game simply because it's an in state game. That's the only reason to play it.

If there are schools out there willing to do a 2-1, I'd love to see the Utes get it done. My understanding is that, unfortunately, most of those big names want a 1 and done at their field. Even Meyer, who said he'd push for a 2-1 later said that it would have to be a 1 game only series or not at all.

[RockyBalboa]

Holmoe has said more than once that Notre Dame is NOT on any future schedules. His own words are "We do not have a contract in place with Notre Dame."

As for the Ohio State rumor it was posted by someone on Cougarboard who's been a member of the board for two weeks and very minimal posts. Take an entire Salt Factory with that post.

The teams for sure we play OOC in the future are:

UCLA
ARIZONA
UTAH STATE
TULSA
ARIZONA STATE
FLORIDA STATE
NEVADA
WASHINGTON

There are rumors that Eastern Washington is the 4th OOC team for our schedule next year, but that has not been verified either.