Re: OOC Scheduling - the numbers
- From: stephenj <sjek@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 18:42:56 -0600
Seapig wrote:
On Mar 6, 10:42 am, stephenj <s...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Seapig wrote:
On Mar 6, 8:08 am, stephenj <s...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Seapig wrote:
how can it be theoretical when KU did lose out to a team that had a
worse record? Actually, a few teams.
I'm talking about undefeated teams. KU wasn't undefeated.
why would we limit our discussion to that? the logic should apply at
every level of losses, no?
No, because we've gone over several factors that worked against KU
that wouldn't apply to an unbeaten team.
.. but SOS, which is what we're discussing, would.
yes, not winning their conference was a factor, but SOS was a big one,
too. A big mark against KU was "mizzou was their only real test, and
they failed it".
Undefeated teams don't fail tests.
well, hawaii did. because their SOS was very soft. solely because of that.
If you want to call a weak SOS a "test", fine, but I would say that
Hawaii didn't fail (during the regular season) because they weren't
tested.
call it a 'test' or something else - it was still the big reason they
were left out of the title picture.
They were left out of the title picture because they play in the WAC.
'WAC' being synonomous with "soft schedule". remember, the computers didn't have them ranked in the top 5 either, and they don't know what conference a team is from, at least not in a markee value sense.
well perhaps they should try? Big East teams usually have "soft" poll
position. They usually aren't the "highest ranked team with X number of
losses". which means they just about have to go undefeated to make the
title game. and going undefeated is very difficult, even against a
comparatively soft big east schedule.
other conferences have placed several 1-loss, even 2-loss teams in title
games, because of "hard" poll positioning and SOS boosts in computers.
a team like WVU could probably boost its chances of reaching the title
game by scheduling tougher OOC, so their poll positioning isn't soft.
Their poll positioning was just fine with the OOC schedule they played
last year.
It was for a week, only because other teams lost. WVU needed to be "one
better" in the loss column than teams like LSU, because of softer
scheduling.
If they want to boost their chances, they should try
beating Pitt before they start thinking about taking on the rest of
the world.
No doubt, but that just goes to show how difficult a strategy based on
going undefeated (which is what your argument about scheduling weak SOS
boils to) is to implement. Strong SOS makes it more likely you'll lose,
but also more likely you'll still be alive if you lose. Since most years
no more than 1 team goes undefeated, better to have a schedule that
gives you second and even third chances, eh?
Yes, going undefeated is difficult. Still, three Big East teams have
ridden the "let's go undefeated" strategy to the BCS championship. No
Big East team has ever succesfully implemented your "let's have the
same record as somebody else, but beat them out via a strong schedule"
strategy.
None of those teams are in the current Big East. Miami was an independent power, with the respect that comes with it, long before joining the Big East, and they account for 2 of those 3 times.
Yes, VT in 99 is the exception. And they helped change the landscape in that regard.
not very sensible. teams play 12 games. ilet's see if numbers will
help you. imagine SOS is rated on a 1-10 scale, with 10 being
suicidal. Team X and Y both play 8 conference and 4 OOC games. Team X,
from a tough conference, plays 8 conference games that average a "7"
on the SOS scale. Team Y, from a weaker one, plays 8 games that
average a "5".
Team X, facing the tougher conference schedule, schedules 4 OOC games
that average a "3". Team Y schedules 4 that average a "5".
Team X overall SOS = 5.7
Team Y = 5.0
I guess Team X can make room in the trophy case for that crystal
football they give to the team with the best SOS - oh, wait, there's
no such thing. SOS means nothing by itself; it only matters if we
know what the teams do against those schedules.
well of course. this example has nothing to do with each team's won-loss
record, which is why i didn't mention it. it has to do with what it
means to be 'chickenous'.
It would defy reason to call Team X "chickenous" for scheduling easier
OOC when its overall SOS is still tougher, unless you define
"chickenous" to mean something bizarro ...
They're not playing tougher games, because they're afraid they might
lose them.
what does that mean? they are playing tougher games, period. any team X
that plays more tougher games than a team Y that plays less-tough games
(overall) can't be called 'chickenous' compared to Y, regardless of its
discretionary choices in scheduling. Because those discretionary choices
have to be evaluated in the context of the games they have no choice
over - tough versus soft conference.
Why?
For the reasons i stated back in my first or second post, before you
took us on a tour down several dry tributaries?
but to reiterate: it's easy to 'brave' OOC when you have soft conference
games. harder when you already face several stiff tests in-conference.
say teams X and Y are playing a 2-game schedule, where losses are
deadly. if team X has to play the NE Patriots in week one, but then gets
to choose its opponent for week two, it would be absurd for me to call
them chickenous if they picked a 5-11 team. heck they've already had to
run a big risk of a loss in week one. OTOH, if a team "has" to play the
Miami Dolphins in week one, well then damn straight they are chickenous
if they pick a 5-11 team as their next week opponent, because they
haven't run the gauntlet yet.
My "dry tributaries" have repeatedly led to real world examples that
show that I'm right and you're wrong. Jaros Creek has taken us to an
imaginary world where teams play 2-game schedules and losses are
deadly.
Your dry tributaries have led you exactly back to this point: unable to explain why X, who faced the Pats in week one, can plausibly be called 'chickenous' as compared to team Y, who "has" to play hapless Miami.
At its core, you have a very strange definition of "chickenous".
If you play a soft conference, it is fair to call you chickenous for scheduling soft OOC. You are soft all the way around. But a team that plays a hard conference schedule? obviously they've already earned their stripes, so it would be silly to call them chickenous for scheduling soft OOC.
this is patently obvious, so what's the problem?
But any team that plays a tougher schedule than another team can't be
reasonably called chickenous, at least not relative to that other
team.
So, by definition, every college team is more chickenous than every
NFL team? Every high school team if more chickenous than every
Division I college team?
why would my claim cross levels of play? it makes no sense to compare
NFL teams to college teams, particularly since the former have no choice
at all in their scheduling. 'chickenous' has to have an 'intent'
component, right?
Yes, it does have to have an intent component; by looking at only the
OOC games we isolate the games that teams intend to play from the
games they have to play.
That's your big mistake: isolation. If we did that, we might draw the
absurd conclusion that, in my example above, the team that played Miami
in week one and the team that played NE in week one are equally
chickenous because they both chose 5-11 teams with their discretionary
choice.
There's nothing absurd about that conclusion.
true, if we define "nothing" to mean "everything".
but by evaluating those choices in light of what was required of each,
we draw the correct conclusion - X isn't chickenous, or at least they
are far less so than Y.
I'm sure you're familiar with the phrase "pick on someone your own
size." The SEC is like a bunch of sixth graders who pick on second
graders at lunch time.
LOL. Except that unlike in the schoolyard, these "second graders" BEG to be "picked on", since they pocket around $500,000 for the priviledge.
Heck, iirc a couple years back a legislator from Lafayette, a UL-Lafayette grad, submitted a bill that would have REQUIRED lsu to rotate an OOC game among 2 or 3 of the small louisiana schools, on the grounds that the $500k windfall should stay in the state.
--
"when i visited Aden before collectivization,
all the markets were full of fish product. After
collectivization, the fish immediately disappeared."
- Aleksandr Vassiliev, Soviet KGB official
.
- References:
- Re: OOC Scheduling - the numbers
- From: stephenj
- Re: OOC Scheduling - the numbers
- From: stephenj
- Re: OOC Scheduling - the numbers
- From: stephenj
- Re: OOC Scheduling - the numbers
- From: stephenj
- Re: OOC Scheduling - the numbers
- From: estebanJ
- Re: OOC Scheduling - the numbers
- From: stephenj
- Re: OOC Scheduling - the numbers
- From: stephenj
- Re: OOC Scheduling - the numbers
- Prev by Date: the neo-classics never die....
- Next by Date: Re: Ace-King off suit
- Previous by thread: Re: OOC Scheduling - the numbers
- Next by thread: Re: OOC Scheduling - the numbers
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
