Conference Change Impact by the Numbers

I’ve seen analysis that show s the it’s a wash losing Nebraska and Colorado . Maybe the computers will treat it that way but the voting public won’t. If the SEC lost Bama and Vandy not many would think the league had stayed the same.

Nice post, Huck. That’s what intuition and a little number crunching of my own told me, but it’s nice to have Barking Carnival’s HAL offer confirmation. People also tend to forget that USC’s derailments always happened at the hands of their Pac 10 mates after slaughtering various name programs in their non-con.
 
I also don’t love the immediate future for teams like Oklahoma State and Kansas either. Tech is now a bit of a mystery. The league just feels weak next year.

In the new Big 12(-2), for all of the 3-5 years it will exist, aggressive out of conference scheduling is going to make the difference between being Auburn 2004 and Oklahoma 2004 as far as the Big 12(-2) champion is concerned. Auburn may get to go to bed with their righteous indignation, but no one gives a shit because they didn’t play in the title game.

If Brown and Dodds didn’t learn the lesson in 2008 after watching OU get in on the strength of their offensive numbers and their much stronger perceived non conference schedule, they better call those BCS “consultants” to get the hell back to Austin. Because I think we’re going to see an undefeated UT team in 2011 getting sent to the Fiesta Bowl instead of the BCS title game in favor of an undefeated Pac 12 champ and/or a one loss SEC champ.

Who’s going to be undefeated in the pac 12 in 2011? We might have been if we had balls.

I’ve already circled 2011, but you’re right Nate. Perceived SOS by the voters is probably more important than the computers. A ranked noncon opponent every year is nonnegotiable.

Plonsky’s Rug—

1) Awesome handle.

2) What you meant to type was that “A ranked noncon opponent every year is a nonstarter”. The pussies running things inside the Texas AD, with Mack Brown’s approval, will not be scheduling anyone worth a damn in the non-con.

the human factor is much bigger IMO. How did you model the effect of ESPN and pretty much everyone else in the groupthinking reportosphere saying every single day how much

a) the big 12 sucks
b) how much Texas sucks
c) How much we shouldn’t deserve to play in a BCS bowl

Model that please.

What is really funny is that the same Barkers that were worshiping at Dodds feet are now calling everyone in Belmont a pussy.

And now they want to give MB some blame for things not working out the way they said it would. Gimme another laffer, please.

The continued bitching about schedule is really foolish. The guys that make the schedules know what it takes to sell out every game and get on national tv.

Face it, you guys are not as smart as you think you are.

What is really funny is that the same Barkers that were worshiping at Dodds feet are now calling everyone in Belmont a pussy.

I’d like to see your evidence that someone that called everyone in Bellmont a pussy here previously worshipped at Dodds’ feet.

And now they want to give MB some blame for things not working out the way they said it would. Gimme another laffer, please.

What? Is there a point hidden in there somewhere?

The continued bitching about schedule is really foolish. The guys that make the schedules know what it takes to sell out every game and get on national tv.

The scheduling complaints have never been about not selling out every game or getting on national TV. They’re about being able to see good games. Do you even understand what you’re reading?

Face it, you guys are not as smart as you think you are.

Perhaps. But we’re smarter than we think you are.

“If Brown and Dodds didn’t learn the lesson in 2008 after watching OU get in on the strength of their offensive numbers and their much stronger perceived non conference schedule, they better call those BCS "consultants" to get the hell back to Austin.”

Nate – for all the hoopla over their BCS consultants, I never got the sense that was the conclusion Mack came to about the whole thing (as I agree it should have been). The reaction I had perceived him having was more like “well, we just need to win every game.” Fine, but what if you don’t, or what if you do but everyone you beat sucks?

Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t ever remember him saying anything about that. Either he just doesn’t “get” computers and the BCS (the “aww shucks hypothesis”) or he knows damn well and just kept his mouth shut about it (the “avoid heart attack before retirement” hypothesis). If it’s the latter, I can’t say I blame him – as much as we fans love the marquee matchups, I’m sure they are extraordinarily stressful for coaches, especially early in the season.

Perhaps. But we’re smarter than we think you are.

Clearly.

Not sure i agree with your analysis huck. SOS is based 2/3 on who you play and 1/3 on who your opponents play right?

So not only will we replace a Rice or NM state team with the likes of a K-state. All our conference brethren will also replace a team of ULALA caliber with a Texas or Kansas team.

Just look at the Pac-10 last year. Only one school wasn’t in the top 30 schedules. Texas would’ve had the 9th toughest schedule in the pac-10 last year according to sagarin.

Just remember that the north teams only played half the big XII south before. Now they’ll play every team. The entire SOS of our conference can’t help but go up. The problem with the COLLEY system is that it only lets you change a couple games…. What about our opponents games?

Just look at Mizzou as an example for 2009. Take away the games against Colorado, Nebraska & Furman…. and then add games against A&M, Tech, & OU. (already played TX)

Those new 3 games are MUCH stronger than the old 3. So their SOS goes way up. A similar thing happens to every big XII school, so our SOS also goes up.

Again I refer you to Sagarin. EVEN AFTER Texas playing an extra game (CCG) AND Bama in the bowl game we STILL had a worse SOS than 9 teams in the PAC-10. Not because the Pac-10 scheduled all these juggernauts in OOC, but because they were the ONLY conference that had 9 BCS conference games on their schedules.

My conclusion isn’t that we’ll be better off. No CCG will certainly hurt us. But playing 9 conference teams will help us in the comps more than many think.

There is no SoS component in the BCS anymore. It is indirectly taken into account by the computers and pollsters.

1. I agree with Scipio, Tech is an unknown at the moment. The league needs them to remain strong.

2. I think folks are underestimating what is going on up in Manhattan, KS. I expect Snyder to quickly ramp the Wildcats back up. KSU is where I think the Big 12 “replaces” the strength (and I use that term loosely) of NU.

3. Every time at OkStU faces a UGA-level program, the conference needs the win (a la 2009).

Huck. That’s not what i meant. All the comps still use SOS to determine their ratings. They use your schedule AND your opponents schedule to determine that SOS rating, don’t they?

“If the SEC lost Bama and Vandy not many would think the league had stayed the same.”

Agreed. I don’t think NEB=Bama, however. CO is an approximation of Vandy. We only played NEB two of every six years. Our conference schedule is close to a wash.

Gah! This leaves me rooting for amu in all their games not against Texas, so that a win over them on T-day is that much more of a boost, and at a critical time.

And I’d gotten so used to gorging on maroon schadenfreude.

This means that OSU, ISU, Baylor, Kansas, Mizzou, and KSU have got to become the loss-sinks of the conference, with some combination of 0u, amu, and prairie aggie being hot properties each season, or UT’s wins over them won’t be enough.

Gentlemen, start your bullshit. Bevo needs you.

“A ranked noncon opponent every year is a nonstarter"

So the question is going to be are these enough:

2011 – UCLA, BYU, UCF, Rice (hopefully Rice or UCF is the one that is dropped)
2012 – Ole Miss, UTEP, Wyoming
2013 – Ole Miss, ?, ?
2014 – ?, ?, ?
2015 – Cal, Minnesota, ?
2016 – Cal, Minnesota, ???

2011, 2015 and 2016 all look pretty good assuming they stay the same and BYU is not the team that is dropped in 2011. There are opportunities for 2013 and 2014. 2012 at least has an SEC team.

Great stuff, thanks for crunching the numbers. It was already obvious but it is nice to have some evidence that it is easier for UT to get to a perfect season than it used to be. As far as the SOS is concerned, it is less important to human voters than you concluded. If Texas and Cincinnati (for example) finish undefeated, human voters are going to give UT enough edge over Cincinnati to get into the MNC game no matter what the computers say about SOS. A stronger, more interesting schedule would be awesome but it is doubtful that it makes getting to an MNC game more probable.

When we beat CU in the Big 12 championship game a few years ago, it did not help our BCS computer rating because we had already beaten CU earlier in the season. Is it still true that the second victory over a team in one season does not help your computer rating? If so, did you factor that into your analysis? Historically, it is tough to beat a good football twice in the same season. Was there any way to factor that into your analysis?

It seems the much more interesting and relevant comparison is between the new Big 12-2 round robin schedule vs the proposed Pac 16 arrangement because that is the choice UT actually faced. The old Big 12 conference championship game was not an option once Nebraska and Colorado left the Big 12 because NCAA rules require that a conference have a minimum of 12 teams to play a conference championship game. It seems obvious that it would be much tougher to go undefeated in the proposed Pac 16 than in the new Big 12-2 round robin but it would be nice to see the numbers.

BTW, Scipio compared you to a psychopathic, murderous computer that had to have its memory modules forcibly removed to stop it from killing any more crew members.

I am pretty excited about 2011’s schedule, although I expect some stupidity with the Nebraska replacement. Can we have Missouri, please? Oh, good!

Bill Bixby—

Outside of the strawman construction you push forward, I’ll address another point you attempt to make. Why do I give a shit about sold out stadiums? With a living alumni base pushing on a million people and the program in a major city, the sell out should be a given. You type as though that should be lauded. And come talk to me about national TV beyond the OU and ATM games on a yearly basis. No doubt the viewing public will be clamoring for that ISU matchup. A 3-8 Missouri team coming to Austin? Yee haw.

I am not sure who isn’t as smart as they think they are, but you’d have to be a real dumbass not to have a rudimentary understanding that the downside of the new alignment exceeds the upside. Brand deterioration, shitty conference games, tougher path to a title, weak academic associations, and mediocre secondary sports matchups. You keep touting the wizardry.

Owned.

Since the computers don’t consider SOS as Huckleberry mentioned, the truth is it’s the perception of SOS that matters. Therefore, if you play Nebraska, a historical powerhouse, traditional media (The AP) gives you credit for a strong schedule regardless of the fact that they really haven’t been very good (even last year they lost to Iowa State for heaven’s sake).

Right now the loss of CU and UNL will give people the perception that the Big 12 is weaker. The AP voters will not bother with statistical analysis to verify actual SOS.

If we played Michigan this year, regardless of how bad they actually perform on the field, voters would say either — they played UofM the school with the most wins in history OR they would say well UofM is down this year, but Texas didn’t know that ten years ago when the game was scheduled. If we play Cincinatti the perception is that they are a commuter school with no football history even though they were in a BCS game just last year.

I don’t think a undefeated big 12 team would ever finish behind a 1 loss SEC, PAC 10 or Big 10 team. The problem is that undefeated seasons are extremely rare. A Big 12 team will likely have to have a superior record to a team from the other 3 BCS conferences (Big East not included)

The computers DO consider SOS. How else can they distinguish between several 1-loss or 2-loss teams???

Since the computers don’t consider SOS as Huckleberry mentioned, the truth is it’s the perception of SOS that matters. Therefore, if you play Nebraska, a historical powerhouse, traditional media (The AP) gives you credit for a strong schedule regardless of the fact that they really haven’t been very good (even last year they lost to Iowa State for heaven’s sake).
 
This makes scheduling Notre Dame imperative.

Bill Bixby,

The point of BC is not cogent analysis, it is about scathing, irreverent, funny, well written commentary. It is hard to dot all your i’s and cross all your t’s and still be funny.

Longhorns Inc is in the entertainment business so entertainment has to be one of the primary considerations. Scheduling more interesting games in non conference games would be more entertaining (a 60-6 slaughter does nobody any good and is no fun to watch). The downside of a more interesting schedule is that it makes it tougher to finish undefeated and probably tougher to get into MNC game.

A playoff system would decrease the importance of finishing the regular season undefeated and would encourage more courageous scheduling. Big 10 commissioner Delany is both the architect of the super conference idea and the most important foe of the playoff system in college football. It is possible that super conferences are not intended to encourage the introduction of a college football playoff system (and the accompanying more aggressive scheduling) but will instead increase the power of super conferences (and their commissioners) at the expense of the have nots.

Yeah, schedule ND. Also schedule UConn because Espn would be all over it (since Espn is based in Conn). Maybe schedule Rutgers because of the proximity to NYC and probable intense media coverage.

Donny:

I’m not going to argue with Huckleberry about the computer rankings, but go ahead if you want to give it a shot.

Scipio:
Having Notre Dame on the schedule is the poster boy for adding SOS where it doesn’t really exist.

Just ask USC

That said, we could solve a ton of our national perception problems by entering into an agreement with ND to play several games a year against Big 12 schools in exchange for letting their Non revenue sports join. (You think Texas got a sweet deal from the Big 12 how about ND’s deal with the Big East—they don’t even participate in the football side of the conference). Apparently the Catholic schools in the Big East are tired of carrying ND"s non-revenue sports and want them gone (or maybe its just a Jesuit thing).

If ND football gives two or three games a year to the Big 12 and we were to play ND every year at Jerry world or alternate with OU every other year and give a game or two against ND to the rest of the conference to rotate among the other schools the revenue might outstrip the Big 12 championship game money (although only half of it would go to the Big 12 and ND would get the rest).

I see lots of win win here: national interest game; big time revenue; ND gets more exposure to Texas recruiting (not likely to damage us too much once Texas kids get a look at South Bend in the winter); its a non-conference game so it won’t completely kill a MNC chance; and the former big 12 north get the promise of an eventual game against ND so they can sell out the stadium.

That’s what I meant by “it’s indirectly taken into account by the computers and pollsters.”

There is not a computer system in the BCS that assigns it as 2/3 opponents and 1/3 opponents’ opponents, though. It is far more complicated than (and mathematically superior to) that.

Not trying to argue with anyone… but it still perplexes me why (especially in Sagarin) how inflated the Pac-10’s numbers were last year. As I’ve seen reported several times, a 3-6 Washington was ranked HIGHER than a 6-3 Nebraska in his ELO-Chess ratings at one point last year. The only reason is because of SOS. Looking at the schedules, Washington wasn’t THAT more superior to Nebraska’s.

The only way it made sense to me was because of every pac-10 team playing 9 conference games. THe cumulative effect of that is very important. Just looking at one team taking away a cupcake and adding a conference game isn’t that big… but with EVERY team in the conference doing so… THe cumulative effect is big imho.

I posted this on another topic but didn’t get any takers…anybody?

One thing I don’t get…why can’t we just schedule tougher OOC games? Seems like Big 12 got weaker…OK, but why should that matter? Every decent team wants to play TX and have their stock pop if they can give it to us. I realize we now have 9 instead of 8 games for Big 12-2 but all I see this doing is forcing stronger OOC games for TX. Factoring a decent Top 25 team into the analysis instead of a WY or UTEP has got to change it at least back to normal.

Thoughts>?

I have to agree w/ Donny Boudreaux.

The whole conference bumping up to 9 BCS games helps overall in the computers. Especially if we schedule another BCS game ( Cal, Ole Miss, Minnesota ).

Our SoS ratings have always been weak. USC’s ( 9 BCS games + Notre Dame ) has always been sick. This new arrangement might vault ours into a Top 25 or even Top 10 SoS if Cal/Ole Miss/Minnesota loses to us and continues to have a decent ( .500+ ) year.

It doesn’t bump the whole conference up; that’s not the way the BCS computers work.

As a quick test, do this:

Go here

Add these games:

Texas Tech beats Kansas
Kansas beats Kansas State
Kansas State beats Baylor
Baylor beats Iowa State
Iowa State beats Texas Tech

Remove these games:

Iowa State beats Kent
Kansas beats UTEP
Louisiana-Lafayette beats Kansas State (this should theoretically double-help)
Texas Tech beats Rice
Baylor beats Kent

What happens to Texas’ rating? It goes down slightly. There’s not much difference in the average league ranking if any. A group of teams playing more games amongst themselves will not improve their average ranking. Even if you’ve removed games against inferior teams to play those games then it still probably won’t improve the average ranking.

Huck. The colley computers were always more favorable to us last year. It was the anomaly in that regard. Its the other comps that were more troublesome to me throughout the year last year.

It wasn’t just washington. USC & Oregon and others with one or even 2 losses were ahead of us in several computers throughout the year even though we were undefeated. The reason can’t just be because of OOC games.

Take a look for yourself…

 5 BIG 12 (A) = 74.61 75.54 ( 4) TEAMS= 12 75.32 ( 5)
FINAL College Football 2009 through games of 2010 January 7 Thursday the BCS uses the ELO_CHESS from here
HOME ADVANTAGE= 3.31 RATING W L SCHEDL VS top 10 | VS top 30 | ELO_CHESS | PREDICTOR
   3 Texas A = 92.39 13 1 73.09( 38) 0 1 | 3 1 | 91.81 4 | 92.51 4
  14 Nebraska A = 84.06 10 4 71.83( 52) 0 2 | 1 3 | 80.01 25 | 89.64 5
  17 Oklahoma A = 83.15 8 5 74.59( 22) 0 1 | 1 5 | 79.13 29 | 88.52 8
  25 Texas Tech A = 80.25 9 4 70.25( 62) 0 1 | 2 1 | 77.53 36 | 83.05 18
  40 Oklahoma State A = 77.28 9 4 72.25( 49) 0 1 | 2 3 | 78.07 33 | 76.07 43
  54 Missouri A = 73.42 8 5 71.09( 58) 0 1 | 0 2 | 73.35 53 | 73.01 57
  58 Texas A&M A = 71.72 6 7 72.48( 45) 0 1 | 1 4 | 70.78 64 | 72.19 58
  62 Kansas A = 70.88 5 7 71.74( 53) 0 1 | 0 4 | 68.08 82 | 73.52 55
  66 Iowa State A = 70.30 7 6 69.32( 71) 0 1 | 1 1 | 71.91 61 | 68.34 76
  68 Kansas State A = 69.79 6 6 69.73( 66) 0 0 | 0 3 | 69.21 73 | 69.90 64
  80 Baylor A = 67.37 4 8 75.06( 18) 0 1 | 0 5 | 69.14 74 | 65.24 90
  91 Colorado A = 65.89 3 9 72.56( 42) 0 1 | 0 2 | 64.70 92 | 66.63 83

While the PAC-10 with one less OOC game and one more conference game…

 3 PAC-10 (A) = 76.23 75.45 ( 5) TEAMS= 10 75.77 ( 4)
FINAL College Football 2009 through games of 2010 January 7 Thursday the BCS uses the ELO_CHESS from here
HOME ADVANTAGE= 3.31 RATING W L SCHEDL VS top 10 | VS top 30 | ELO_CHESS | PREDICTOR
  11 Oregon A = 85.27 10 3 76.29( 6) 0 2 | 2 3 | 84.35 11 | 85.77 9
  20 Southern California A = 81.95 9 4 74.96( 19) 1 0 | 1 2 | 81.04 20 | 82.41 22
  29 Stanford A = 78.89 8 5 73.85( 29) 0 0 | 2 1 | 76.19 43 | 81.61 24
  34 Oregon State A = 78.35 8 5 74.56( 23) 0 1 | 1 4 | 78.63 31 | 77.61 34
  37 Arizona A = 77.64 8 5 76.16( 11) 0 1 | 2 3 | 78.59 32 | 76.29 42
  46 California A = 75.77 8 5 73.93( 27) 0 0 | 1 3 | 77.15 39 | 74.05 52
  50 UCLA A = 75.03 7 6 73.78( 30) 0 0 | 0 3 | 75.42 46 | 74.19 51
  52 Washington A = 74.34 5 7 75.46( 14) 0 0 | 1 3 | 73.27 55 | 74.97 49
  67 Arizona State A = 70.11 4 8 73.07( 39) 0 0 | 0 4 | 68.11 81 | 71.77 59
 126 Washington State A = 57.16 1 11 75.36( 16) 0 0 | 0 3 | 61.75 107 | 52.01 148

Hope that all formats right. :) From the link… http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc09.htm

I think the fact that the Pac-10 schedules better OOC games accounts for having some lead on us over SOS… but does not account for ALL of it. Compare the Pac-10 with every other conference SOS.. (at least based on Sagarin) and they cream the competition except for the SEC.

Average team ranked SOS for the Pac-10 was #21.
Average team ranked SOS for the Big-12 was #48. (and we had benefit of extra game thanks to CCG)

Interesting…

Then I have no idea why the PAC 10’s SoS is so high. Maybe their OOC record is just that good.

Just as an example…. Arizona played the juggernauts Central Michigan, Northern Iowa, & Iowa in their 3 OOC games last year. Further they played no CCG. Their SOS was 11. Ours was 38.

Or how about our equal according to Sagarin. Look at Arizona State. They played Idaho State, Louisiana Monroe, & Georgia in OOC games. We played an extra 2 games and yet their final SOS was #39 and ours was #38.

What about Wazzuu? They played Hawaii, SMU, & Notre Dame. They played 2 less games than us and finished with an SOS of #16.

I admit i don’t know how all the computers work. But there is something fishy going on if the extra conference game isn’t the way to explain it.

The first thing you have to do is ignore how many total games a team played. That plays very little into the schedule ratings.

As for how the Pac-10 was rated so highly compared to us, it’s pretty simple. The Big 12 was bad last year. Every other team in the conference had at least 4 losses. Every single one. We had zero non-conference wins over 9-win BCS conference teams.

2009 Big 12 Non-Conference Wins over BCS Opponents:

Missouri beat Illinois (3-9)
Kansas beat Duke (5-7)
Oklahoma State beat Georgia (8-5)
Baylor beat Wake Forest (5-7)
Oklahoma beat Stanford (8-5)
Nebraska beat Arizona (8-5)

2009 Big 12 Non-Conference Losses:

Missouri lost to Navy (10-4, Ind)
Nebraska lost to Virginia Tech (10-3, ACC)
Iowa State lost to Iowa (11-2, Big Ten)
Kansas State lost to Louisiana-Lafayette (6-6, Sun Belt)
Kansas State lost to UCLA (7-6, Pac-10)
Colorado lost to Colorado State (3-9, MWC)
Colorado lost to Toledo (5-7, MAC)
Colorado lost to West Virginia (9-4, Big East)
Oklahoma lost to BYU (11-2, MWC)
Oklahoma lost to Miami (9-4, ACC)
Texas lost to Alabama (14-0, SEC)
Oklahoma State lost to Houston (10-4, C-USA)
Texas Tech lost to Houston (10-4, C-USA)
Baylor lost to Connecticut (8-5, Big East)
Texas A&M lost to Arkansas (8-5, SEC)
Texas A&M lost to Georgia (8-5, SEC)

The conference as a whole had three wins over a BCS conference team with a winning record. Meanwhile, we lost to seven mid-majors. We were 6-9 against other BCS conferences overall. It’s not that the Pac-10 was that great, it’s that the Big 12 was bad. Look at some of the ACC schedule ratings or the SEC.

As for Sagarin’s rankings, the Schedule rating you’re looking at uses the overall rating, not the ELO_CHESS rating.

I still think if we schedule 1 decent OOC opponent, our SoS will work out for the better.

9 in conference BCS opponent games + 1 OOC BCS opponent.

I don’t think our SoS will go down at all, and we don’t need to schedule a “marquis” game. Cal, Minnesota, and Ole Miss will do fine.

Good data points Huck. Still. Its not like the PAC-10 were world beaters in OOC last year.

They were 3-2 against the MWC. 3-2 against the WAC. And here’s the kicker… 1-2 against the Big XII. Compare that to the Big XII who was 4-2 against the MWC and 2-0 against the WAC. Overall, we were 39-17 OOC and they were 23-14. Our winning % would be 69.6% and theirs would be 62%. For BCS conference opponents ours would be 44% and theirs 46%. I agree with Colley’s conclusions that we were better than the Pac-10. Obviously, Sagarin came up with massively different conclusions. (elo-chess anyways)