 |
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Pauli G
Joined: 06 Aug 2007
Posts: 18
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 11:44 pm Post subject: OOC Scheduling - the numbers |
 |
|
Why-Leave-Town Scheduling Award
1. (tie) ACC (77% of OOC games at home)
1. (tie) Big XII (77% of OOC games at home)
3. (tie) Big Ten (75% of OOC games at home)
3. (tie) SEC (75% of OOC games at home)
5. Pac 10 (65% of OOC games at home)
6. Big East (59% of OOC games at home)
No-Team-Is-Too-Small Scheduling Award
1. ACC (31% of OOC opponents are not Div I-A)
2. SEC (23% of OOC opponents are not Div I-A)
3. Big XII (21% of OOC opponents are not Div I-A)
4. Big Ten (20% of OOC opponents are not Div I-A)
5. Big East (12% of OOC opponents are not Div I-A)
6. Pac 10 (6% of OOC opponents are not Div I-A)
Hall of Shame (more than 1 non-Div I-A OOC opponent) Award
Clemson (Citadel & South Carolina State)
Florida State (Western Carolina & Tennessee-Chattanooga)
Alabama (Western Kentucky & Arkansas State)
Virginia Tech (Furman & Western Kentucky)
Texas Tech (Eastern Washington & Massachusetts)
Georgia Tech (Jacksonville State & Gardner-Webb)
From http://www.sportsline.com/mcc/messages/chrono/6529146/0/1
Archived from group: rec>sport>football>college |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pauli G
Joined: 06 Aug 2007
Posts: 18
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 25, 2008 11:45 pm Post subject: Re: OOC Scheduling - the numbers |
|
|
On Feb 25, 9:44 pm, Pauli G wrote:
> Why-Leave-Town Scheduling Award
> 1. (tie) ACC (77% of OOC games at home)
> 1. (tie) Big XII (77% of OOC games at home)
> 3. (tie) Big Ten (75% of OOC games at home)
> 3. (tie) SEC (75% of OOC games at home)
> 5. Pac 10 (65% of OOC games at home)
> 6. Big East (59% of OOC games at home)
>
> No-Team-Is-Too-Small Scheduling Award
> 1. ACC (31% of OOC opponents are not Div I-A)
> 2. SEC (23% of OOC opponents are not Div I-A)
> 3. Big XII (21% of OOC opponents are not Div I-A)
> 4. Big Ten (20% of OOC opponents are not Div I-A)
> 5. Big East (12% of OOC opponents are not Div I-A)
> 6. Pac 10 (6% of OOC opponents are not Div I-A)
>
> Hall of Shame (more than 1 non-Div I-A OOC opponent) Award
> Clemson (Citadel & South Carolina State)
> Florida State (Western Carolina & Tennessee-Chattanooga)
> Alabama (Western Kentucky & Arkansas State)
> Virginia Tech (Furman & Western Kentucky)
> Texas Tech (Eastern Washington & Massachusetts)
> Georgia Tech (Jacksonville State & Gardner-Webb)
>
> Fromhttp://www.sportsline.com/mcc/messages/chrono/6529146/0/1
BCS OOC Opponents Scheduled
1. ACC (47%)
2. Pac 10 (45%)
3. Big East (39%)
4. (tie) Big XII (31%)
4. (tie) SEC (31%)
6. Big Ten (30%) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bill Lang
Joined: 06 Aug 2007
Posts: 54
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 8:18 am Post subject: Re: OOC Scheduling - the numbers |
|
|
On Mon 25 Feb 2008 09:44:32p, Pauli G (rioroad@hotmail.com) wrote
> Why-Leave-Town Scheduling Award
> 1. (tie) ACC (77% of OOC games at home)
> 1. (tie) Big XII (77% of OOC games at home)
> 3. (tie) Big Ten (75% of OOC games at home)
> 3. (tie) SEC (75% of OOC games at home)
> 5. Pac 10 (65% of OOC games at home)
> 6. Big East (59% of OOC games at home)
>
> No-Team-Is-Too-Small Scheduling Award
> 1. ACC (31% of OOC opponents are not Div I-A)
> 2. SEC (23% of OOC opponents are not Div I-A)
> 3. Big XII (21% of OOC opponents are not Div I-A)
> 4. Big Ten (20% of OOC opponents are not Div I-A)
> 5. Big East (12% of OOC opponents are not Div I-A)
> 6. Pac 10 (6% of OOC opponents are not Div I-A)
>
> Hall of Shame (more than 1 non-Div I-A OOC opponent) Award
> Clemson (Citadel & South Carolina State)
> Florida State (Western Carolina & Tennessee-Chattanooga)
> Alabama (Western Kentucky & Arkansas State)
> Virginia Tech (Furman & Western Kentucky)
> Texas Tech (Eastern Washington & Massachusetts)
> Georgia Tech (Jacksonville State & Gardner-Webb)
>
>
> From http://www.sportsline.com/mcc/messages/chrono/6529146/0/1
The ACC is bad and getting worse. It's time for Swofford to step
in.
VTech's schedule this year is mung.
--
wjlmuttatyeahwhodotcom
"I before E except after C, and E before N in chicken" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Daniel Seriff
Joined: 18 Feb 2008
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 4:05 am Post subject: Re: OOC Scheduling - the numbers |
|
|
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:44:32 -0600, Pauli G wrote
(in article
):
> Alabama (Western Kentucky & Arkansas State)
> Virginia Tech (Furman & Western Kentucky)
In fairness to these two, WKU is in the middle of reclassifying to IA and
will finally become an all-sports member of the Sun Belt in 2009.
Not that that's much better, but still. Accuracy is important.
--
Daniel Seriff
The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more
ready he is to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race,
or his holy cause.
--- Eric Hoffer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stephenj
Joined: 06 Aug 2007
Posts: 88
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 12:59 pm Post subject: Re: OOC Scheduling - the numbers |
|
|
> Pauli G wrote:
> Why-Leave-Town Scheduling Award
> 1. (tie) ACC (77% of OOC games at home)
> 1. (tie) Big XII (77% of OOC games at home)
> 3. (tie) Big Ten (75% of OOC games at home)
> 3. (tie) SEC (75% of OOC games at home)
> 5. Pac 10 (65% of OOC games at home)
> 6. Big East (59% of OOC games at home)
OOC scheduling matters of course, but the real issue is overall SOS, and
we won't know what that looks like until the season plays out.
For example, let's look at the final 2007 Sagarin SOS rankings for the
SEC and Big East teams. Sure, Sagarin isn't the Bible, but it's
representative of how SOS is calculated so will serve our purpose pretty
well:
SEC (team, and SOS rank out of 120 teams):
Florida....... 3
S. Carolina... 8
Tennessee .... 9
LSU .......... 11
Ole Miss ..... 13
Vandy ........ 15
Kentucky ..... 17
Georgia ...... 23
Bama ......... 30
Miss. State .. 33
Auburn ....... 35
Arkansas ..... 43
SEC average: 20
Big East
USF .......... 21
Syracuse ..... 32
WVU .......... 40
Pitt ......... 46
Louisville ... 51
UConn ........ 61
Rutgers ...... 65
Cincy ........ 69
Big East average: 48.1
So we see that *seven* SEC teams had tougher schedules than the
*toughest* Big East schedule. That's the bottom line.
--
Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature,
the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions.
It is the opium of the people.
- Karl Marx |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the_andrew_smith
Joined: 19 Oct 2007
Posts: 50
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 11:03 am Post subject: Re: OOC Scheduling - the numbers |
|
|
On Feb 26, 8:59 am, stephenj wrote:
> > Pauli G wrote:
>
> > Why-Leave-Town Scheduling Award
> > 1. (tie) ACC (77% of OOC games at home)
> > 1. (tie) Big XII (77% of OOC games at home)
> > 3. (tie) Big Ten (75% of OOC games at home)
> > 3. (tie) SEC (75% of OOC games at home)
> > 5. Pac 10 (65% of OOC games at home)
> > 6. Big East (59% of OOC games at home)
>
> OOC scheduling matters of course, but the real issue is overall SOS, and
> we won't know what that looks like until the season plays out.
>
> For example, let's look at the final 2007 Sagarin SOS rankings for the
> SEC and Big East teams. Sure, Sagarin isn't the Bible, but it's
> representative of how SOS is calculated so will serve our purpose pretty
> well:
>
> SEC (team, and SOS rank out of 120 teams):
>
> Florida....... 3
> S. Carolina... 8
> Tennessee .... 9
> LSU .......... 11
> Ole Miss ..... 13
> Vandy ........ 15
> Kentucky ..... 17
> Georgia ...... 23
> Bama ......... 30
> Miss. State .. 33
> Auburn ....... 35
> Arkansas ..... 43
>
> SEC average: 20
>
> Big East
>
> USF .......... 21
> Syracuse ..... 32
> WVU .......... 40
> Pitt ......... 46
> Louisville ... 51
> UConn ........ 61
> Rutgers ...... 65
> Cincy ........ 69
>
> Big East average: 48.1
>
> So we see that *seven* SEC teams had tougher schedules than the
> *toughest* Big East schedule. That's the bottom line.
Even Jaros is right sometimes.
a. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
xyzzy
Joined: 06 Aug 2007
Posts: 11
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 11:58 am Post subject: Re: OOC Scheduling - the numbers |
|
|
On Feb 26, 12:05 am, Daniel Seriff wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:44:32 -0600, Pauli G wrote
> (in article
> ):
>
> > Alabama (Western Kentucky & Arkansas State)
> > Virginia Tech (Furman & Western Kentucky)
>
> In fairness to these two, WKU is in the middle of reclassifying to IA and
> will finally become an all-sports member of the Sun Belt in 2009.
>
> Not that that's much better, but still. Accuracy is important.
>
Also Furman is pretty good for a I-AA team. In fact the southeast has
quite a few I-AA teams that could probably beat a lower-tier team from
any BCS conference and sometimes a top team (App state says hi) and
would contend in the MAC or CUSA or WAC.
Since those teams are in the southeast, it's natural that the ACC and
SEC would be scheduling them. The Southeast doesn't have the MAC or
the WAC handy to provide patsies for low travel costs, we have very
good (for I-AA) I-AA teams.
Not that we should be playing them. But Furman and WKU are no worse
than MAC teams that are scheduled by conferences more northerly
situated |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeff Singleton
Joined: 05 Dec 2007
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 11:41 pm Post subject: Re: OOC Scheduling - the numbers |
|
|
In article ,
Bill Lang wrote:
> On Mon 25 Feb 2008 09:44:32p, Pauli G (rioroad@hotmail.com) wrote
>
> > Why-Leave-Town Scheduling Award
> > 1. (tie) ACC (77% of OOC games at home)
> > 1. (tie) Big XII (77% of OOC games at home)
> > 3. (tie) Big Ten (75% of OOC games at home)
> > 3. (tie) SEC (75% of OOC games at home)
> > 5. Pac 10 (65% of OOC games at home)
> > 6. Big East (59% of OOC games at home)
> >
> > No-Team-Is-Too-Small Scheduling Award
> > 1. ACC (31% of OOC opponents are not Div I-A)
> > 2. SEC (23% of OOC opponents are not Div I-A)
> > 3. Big XII (21% of OOC opponents are not Div I-A)
> > 4. Big Ten (20% of OOC opponents are not Div I-A)
> > 5. Big East (12% of OOC opponents are not Div I-A)
> > 6. Pac 10 (6% of OOC opponents are not Div I-A)
> >
> > Hall of Shame (more than 1 non-Div I-A OOC opponent) Award
> > Clemson (Citadel & South Carolina State)
> > Florida State (Western Carolina & Tennessee-Chattanooga)
> > Alabama (Western Kentucky & Arkansas State)
> > Virginia Tech (Furman & Western Kentucky)
> > Texas Tech (Eastern Washington & Massachusetts)
> > Georgia Tech (Jacksonville State & Gardner-Webb)
> >
> >
> > From http://www.sportsline.com/mcc/messages/chrono/6529146/0/1
>
> The ACC is bad and getting worse. It's time for Swofford to step
> in.
>
> VTech's schedule this year is mung.
Dude - adding Wofford is not going to help, even if they did replace
Duke.
Jeff
--
wvu, gt, umd newport news
rugby #5 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Henchman
Joined: 06 Aug 2007
Posts: 7
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 4:46 am Post subject: Re: OOC Scheduling - the numbers |
|
|
"Pauli G" wrote in message @34g2000hsz.googlegroups.com...
> Texas Tech (Eastern Washington & Massachusetts)
All the colleges in Texas that Texas Tech can schedule but instead they go
to Mass and E. Washington?
That's real weak. What a way to recruit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
unclejr
Joined: 06 Aug 2007
Posts: 4
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 10:30 pm Post subject: Re: OOC Scheduling - the numbers |
|
|
On Feb 26, 8:03 am, "the_andrew_sm...@yahoo.com"
wrote:
> Even Jaros is right sometimes.
False.
-Junior |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the_andrew_smith
Joined: 19 Oct 2007
Posts: 50
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 12:07 am Post subject: Re: OOC Scheduling - the numbers |
|
|
On Feb 26, 8:30 pm, unclejr wrote:
> On Feb 26, 8:03 am, "the_andrew_sm...@yahoo.com"
>
> wrote:
> > Even Jaros is right sometimes.
>
> False.
For those of you whose OOC is an upgrade to your schedule, you are
correct.
For the rest of us, well....
a. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trent Woodruff
Joined: 06 Aug 2007
Posts: 360
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 1:17 am Post subject: Re: OOC Scheduling - the numbers |
|
|
>On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 07:59:20 -0600, stephenj wrote:
>OOC scheduling matters of course, but the real issue is overall SOS, and
>we won't know what that looks like until the season plays out.
Ok, so then...
>So we see that *seven* SEC teams had tougher schedules than the
>*toughest* Big East schedule. That's the bottom line.
You're an idiot for using this as criticism of the Big East because
it's not their fault...it's the teams on the schedule that are to
blame for not holding up their end of the bargain!
--
....I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When
you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I
dismiss yours.
- Stephen Roberts |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trent Woodruff
Joined: 06 Aug 2007
Posts: 360
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 1:18 am Post subject: Re: OOC Scheduling - the numbers |
|
|
>On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:07:02 -0800 (PST), "the_andrew_smith@yahoo.com" wrote:
>>On Feb 26, 8:30 pm, unclejr wrote:
>>> On Feb 26, 8:03 am, "the_andrew_sm...@yahoo.com"
>>> Even Jaros is right sometimes.
>> False.
>For those of you whose OOC is an upgrade to your schedule, you are
>correct.
>For the rest of us, well....
....you'll just continue to hide behind the falsehood that says the SEC
is a tougher conference than any other.
--
....I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When
you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I
dismiss yours.
- Stephen Roberts |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Trent Woodruff
Joined: 06 Aug 2007
Posts: 360
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 1:19 am Post subject: Re: OOC Scheduling - the numbers |
|
|
>On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 23:46:39 GMT, "The Henchman" wrote:
>>"Pauli G" wrote in message
>> Texas Tech (Eastern Washington & Massachusetts)
>All the colleges in Texas that Texas Tech can schedule but instead they go
>to Mass and E. Washington?
The SEC claims that they only schedule those southeastern weakass
teams because the travel costs are too high to go out of the
region...huh.
--
....I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When
you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I
dismiss yours.
- Stephen Roberts |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the_andrew_smith
Joined: 19 Oct 2007
Posts: 50
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 10:48 am Post subject: Re: OOC Scheduling - the numbers |
|
|
On Feb 26, 11:18 pm, Trent Woodruff wrote:
> >On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 19:07:02 -0800 (PST), "the_andrew_sm...@yahoo.com" wrote:
> >>On Feb 26, 8:30 pm, unclejr wrote:
> >>> On Feb 26, 8:03 am, "the_andrew_sm...@yahoo.com"
> >>> Even Jaros is right sometimes.
> >> False.
> >For those of you whose OOC is an upgrade to your schedule, you are
> >correct.
> >For the rest of us, well....
>
> ...you'll just continue to hide behind the falsehood that says the SEC
> is a tougher conference than any other.
When we all know the Big East is by far the greatest conference.
EVAR!
a.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Related Topics: | software for NFL scheduling, results, players I don't play fantasy football bt I'm an enthusiastic fan of NFL and I'd like to have a software for PC and/or PALM, better with online auto synchronize. What's the best for that? I apologize for my bad english. Angius
what are best numbers to pick for Superbowl squares ? ... for example .. if a game ends 24-17 and, you picked the square where row 4 and column 7 intersect, you would win -- does anyone have a break down of the best numbers to pick (0-9 of course) ... a percentage breakdown would be great - but any info woul
Numbers reveal Cowboys star one of the best receivers of his Numbers reveal Cowboys star one of the best receivers of his era By Bob Buttitta, Ventura County Star February 12, 2006 Last Saturday, M
PACKERJEST Fartre kicks off the upcoming dismal year at the Packers solidify their unglory years by being the joke of the NFL. Yes yes...y'all can still cite the glory years...Much like Great Britain remembers when IT ruled the waves. All hail
Rush was right about McNabb and Media Salon sports nut Rush Limbaugh Was Right Donovan McNabb isn't a great quarterback, and the media do overrate him because he is black. By Allen Barra Posted Thursday, October 2, 2003, at 3:33 PM PT Limbaugh leaves over unfair football flap In his notor |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
