Strength of Schedule (Teams 1-117)

MsTechAnalysis

Jolly Good Fellow
Joined
Aug 11, 2002
Messages
1,816
and Tech ranks #3! Interesting how they come up with all of this and how things play out when the games are played. Also interesting, everyone talks about the SEC - look who plays the toughest schedule - ACC:

2003 Strength of Schedule from 1 to 117


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When looking at which team has the toughest schedule going into a season, it's worthless to take into account what happened the year before. In college football, every team changes dramatically from season to season. To determine the strength of schedule, we went by our 2003 CFN Rankings and how good we think the teams are going into the 2003 campaign.
Ohio State is ranked No. 1, so the Buckeyes get assigned one point to the teams playing them. Miami is second, so opponents get two points for playing them, and so on down to 117 points assigned for playing Buffalo. D-I games played on the road are counted in half. If a team plays Georgia Tech, ranked 46th in the country going into the season, at Georgia Tech, 23 points are assigned. All games against non-D-I teams get assigned 118 points. Therefore, the lower the score, the tougher the schedule. Hopefully this all makes sense. Obviously there's room for debate since they're dependant on our rankings, but a tough schedule is a tough schedule. Simply put, if you don't play cupcakes at home and have road games against highly ranked teams, you have a high strength of schedule rating. - Schedule Strength By Conference
2003 Schedules ACC | Big East | Big Ten | Big XII | CUSA | Ind | MAC | MWest | Pac 10 | SEC | Sun Belt | WAC


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida State

Toughest Schedule
1. SCORE 25.67

8/30 at No Carolina
9/6 Maryland
9/13 Georgia Tech
9/20 Colorado
9/27 at Duke
10/11 Miami
10/18 at Virginia
10/25 Wake Forest
11/1 at Notre Dame
11/8 at Clemson
11/15 NC State
11/29 at Florida

California

2. SCORE 26.27

823 at Kansas St
8/30 So Miss
9/6 Colorado St
9/13 at Utah
9/20 at Illinois
9/27 USC
10/4 Oregon St
10/18 at UCLA
10/25 Arizona
11/1 at Arizona St
11/8 at Oregon
11/15 Washington
11/22 at Stanford

Georgia Tech

3. SCORE 26.58

8/28 at BYU
9/6 Auburn
9/13 at Florida St
9/20 Clemson
9/27 at Vanderbilt
10/4 NC State
10/11 at Wake Forest
10/23 Maryland
11/8 at Duke
11/15 North Carolina
11/22 at Virginia
11/29 Georgia

Arizona

4. SCORE 29.13

8/30 UTEP
9/6 LSU
9/13 Oregon
9/20 at Purdue
9/27 TCU
10/4 at Wash St
10/11 UCLA
10/25 at California
11/1 at Oregon St
11/8 Washington
11/15 USC
11/20 at Arizona St

North Carolina

5. SCORE 29.54

8/30 Florida State
9/6 Syracuse
9/20 at Wisconsin
9/27 at NC State
10/4 Virginia
10/11 at E Carolina
10/18 Arizona St
10/25 at Clemson
11/1 at Maryland
11/8 Wake Forest
11/15 at Ga Tech
11/22 Duke


Colorado

6. SCORE 30.00

8/30 Colorado State
9/6 UCLA
9/13 Washington St
9/20 at Florida State
10/4 at Baylor
10/11 Kansas
10/18 at Kansas St
10/25 Oklahoma
11/1 at Texas Tech
11/8 Missouri
11/15 at Iowa St
11/29 Nebraska

Alabama

7. SCORE 30.67

8/30 South Florida
9/6 Oklahoma
9/13 Kentucky
9/20 No Illinois
9/27 Arkansas
10/4 at Georgia
10/11 Southern Miss
10/18 at Ole Miss
10/25 Tennessee
11/8 at Miss St
11/15 LSU
11/22 at Auburn
11/29 at Hawaii

Stanford

8. SCORE 30.73

9/13 San Jose St
9/20 at BYU
9/27 at Washington
10/11 at USC
10/18 Washington St
10/25 at Oregon
11/1 UCLA
11/8 Arizona St
11/15 at Oregon St
11/22 California
11/29 Notre Dame

USC

9. SCORE 30.83

8/30 at Auburn
9/6 BYU
9/13 Hawaii
9/27 at California
10/4 at Arizona St
10/11 Stanford
10/18 at Notre Dame
10/25 at Washington
11/1 Washington St
11/15 at Arizona
11/22 UCLA
12/6 Oregon St

Conference Schedule Strength
Which leagues play the toughest schedules?

1. ACC 35.70
2. Pac 10 35.76
3. SEC 37.79
4. Big Ten 38.79
5. Big East 39.85
6. Big XII 42.38
7. Ind 54.81
8. M West 55.10
9. C USA 56.14
10. WAC 57.70
11. MAC 61.55
12. Sun Belt 65.81



Schedule Ranking CFN
Ranking Team Schedule Score
10 19 Notre Dame 33.33
11 60 Mississippi State 33.46
12 74 Northwestern 33.67
13 48 Texas Tech 33.92
14 31 Iowa 34.29
T15 11 Georgia 34.71
T15 58 West Virginia 34.71
17 20 UCLA 34.79
18 23 Purdue 34.83
19 32 Washington State 35.08
20 4 Oklahoma 35.25
21 45 Illinois 35.33
22 89 Indiana 35.50
23 53 Wake Forest 35.58
24 35 Oregon 35.88
25 40 Boston College 36.08
26 3 Texas 36.38
27 21 Florida 36.96
28 1 Ohio State 37.08
29 47 Iowa State 37.21
30 12 Tennessee 37.67
31 92 Vanderbilt 38.08
32 5 Auburn 38.13
T33 17 Virginia 38.25
T33 88 Temple 38.25
35 13 Wisconsin 38.63
T36 41 South Carolina 39.21
T36 44 Penn State 39.21
38 27 Texas A&M 39.42
39 28 Arkansas 39.46
40 57 Syracuse 40.71
41 34 Mississippi 40.79
T42 15 North Carolina St 40.88
T42 16 Michigan 40.88
44 2 Miami FL 41.04
45 14 LSU 41.08
46 8 Pittsburgh 41.25
47 78 Duke 41.63
48 37 Clemson 41.83
49 30 Nebraska 42.04
50 6 Virginia Tech 42.83
51 33 Washington 42.96
52 67 BYU 43.13
53 49 Michigan State 43.25
54 52 Kentucky 43.29
55 101 Rutgers 43.92
56 29 Arizona State 44.71
57 9 Maryland 44.54
58 24 Missouri 45.42
59 104 Baylor 45.83
60 18 Oregon State 47.21
61 94 Kansas 47.92
62 90 Louisiana Tech 48.04
63 71 East Carolina 49.50
64 100 Houston 50.17
65 36 Oklahoma State 50.50
66 69 UNLV 50.54
67 43 Southern Miss 50.63
68 42 Fresno State 51.50
69 80 UAB 51.67
70 99 SMU 53.75
71 113 Troy State 54.04
72 26 Minnesota 54.08
73 70 Utah 54.27
74 68 Miami University 54.38
75 108 Tulsa 54.43
76 86 Wyoming 54.68
77 66 Tulane 54.71
78 103 Ball State 55.00
79 85 San Diego State 56.71
T80 61 Cincinnati 56.75
T80 87 Nevada 56.75
82 81 South Florida 57.09
83 98 Ohio 57.13
84 39 Colorado State 57.83
85 73 Memphis 59.08
86 96 Western Michigan 59.38
87 56 Hawaii 60.00
88 110 Kent State 60.50
89 83 San Jose State 60.55
90 38 TCU 60.58
91 55 Louisville 60.67
92 77 Marshall 61.00
93 82 Toledo 61.17
94 93 Rice 61.42
95 63 New Mexico 61.54
96 84 Connecticut 61.58
97 117 Buffalo 61.67
98 97 New Mexico State 61.88
99 116 Utah State 62.08
100 72 Air Force 62.13
101 50 UCF 62.63
102 111 Eastern Michigan 63.79
103 62 Boise State 64.46
104 109 Louisiana Monroe 64.46
105 51 Northern Illinois 64.50
106 10 Kansas State 64.62
107 106 Central Michigan 65.25
T108 54 Bowling Green 65.50
T108 115 Louisiana Lafayette 65.50
110 107 Army 65.75
111 114 UTEP 66.12
112 79 North Texas 67.38
113 95 MTSU 67.58
114 102 Arkansas State 68.25
115 112 Idaho 69.33
116 91 Akron 69.79
117 105 Navy 71.29
 
Their method essentially gives road games double credit for strength of schedule. This seems a bit extreme to me. However, adjusting this weighting would still keep Tech near the top due to home games to AUB and UGA.

I'm super-excited about this year's home football schedule. It's going to be a blast.
 
I'm afraid our first and last home games will be ones where we get our butts handed to us.
 
Dang, MsTA, good work....I would have fatiguely fainted before going through all that. Excellent points....Good education for the open minded who read this board.
 
Excuse me, but we'll be doing the handing of the butts this year. Auburn will be tough, but we will be healthy and I think our offense will rise to the task. As for UGAg, to HELL with 'em. I've posted this here before, but UGAg last year with their O-line from Donnan was very experienced up front, they won't be this year. Sullivan is gone on D. Boss is gone on D. They were sooooooo close to being 7-5 or 6-6 themselves last year. Anybody remember the Clemson, SC, Alabama, Tennessee, and Auburn games? Of course the Gators took care of business, as usual.
 
Originally posted by SouthGa:
I'm afraid our first and last home games will be ones where we get our butts handed to us.
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Because raw talent has always beaten superior coaching.

Keep it close and think of something...
 
Originally posted by GTg8r:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Originally posted by SouthGa:
I'm afraid our first and last home games will be ones where we get our butts handed to us.
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Because raw talent has always beaten superior coaching.

Keep it close and think of something...
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">When we won the NC in 1990, I don't believe it was because of our overwelming talent. Nebraska probably had more and we handed them their butts. I don't think that when NC State won the BB NC that they had the superior edge in talent either. I could probably go on with more.
Talent has a lot to do with your work ethic and drive to win. Great coaching recognizes and adjusts to maximize the strengths of any team. We'll win ball games because Chan will do just so.
 
Originally posted by ahsoisee:
MsTa, you have no data to prove your opinions that you have just stated as fact. How can you say the new staff is not as good as the one with O'Leary, Friegden, and Roof?

You cannot compare staffs until a new staff has the tenure in to make a comparison. All you are doing is throwing guesses into the wind.

First, Tenuta has a far superior reputation on defense than Roof. Facts prove you wrong on the very first one compared. You lose here.

Secondly, Gailey's first year record is far superior than O'Leary's first 2 1/2 year record, so the second comparison proves Gailey is ahead on this one. You lose here.

The third comparison is solidly in your corner at this particular time, but with Nix's previous experience and spectacular results elsewhere, who knows at this point in time. You have the upper hand on the third comparison, but you do not know how Nix will turn out.

I cede you one out of three on the comparisons at this point, but will claim the other two in favor of Tenutan and Gailey with the facts.

wink.gif
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Ross did not inherit a program that finished #23 in the AP Poll the year before - Chan did. Ross did not inherit a program that had gone to ANY CONSECUTIVE BOWLS or was in the Top 25 years before, Chan did.

Go to the AP's records and find for yourself. Matter-of-fact, UGAG was a couple of notches ahead of us because they lost to BC in Memphis in their bowl and we beat a #11 Stanford team in ours.

Ross, Friedgen and O'Leary came here under much worse circumstances and BUILDING was the word of the day not REBUILDING. They came here with no recent good history for the program - Chan on the other hand did. Going 7-6 is because he had something to work with, matter-of-fact if he knew how to coach he SHOULD HAVE DONE BETTER, yet still we looked bad.

Had he come here under similar circumstances as Ross, O'Leary and Friedgen - I would have thought differently and given him some slack but not after what I saw. Matter-of-fact, he probably would not have come here in that era because he DID NOT WANT TO FIX ANYONE'S MESS AND WANTED TO GO TO A TOP 25 PROGRAM!!

Ross already had his successes in Div. 1 football before he came here. Friedgen and O'Leary were in similar positions on offense and defense.

Our HC, OC and DC in that era were much better for taking a program that had nothing going for it and making something of it. Now we take our program that had something going for it and take it to having nothing going for it. I'll take the strength and experience of their skills over any coach today on GT's campus.

Ditto on O'Leary's return - the only difference for O'Leary GT was in rubble and burning after winning a NC a few years before and everyone was looking at the team who slid into oblivion after Ross. No one looked at us before Ross, we were just another Div. 1 team in the Curry era.
 
Ross was 0-6 first year in ACC, 0-7 second year in ACC. Curry didn't even do that badly. We even won the All American bowl without Dewberry. I guess if the internet was around in 1987, Ross would've been run off and 1990's NC would have never happened. We were in all of our ball games last year save UGA and Maryland. That ain't too shabby for a first year coach that is installing new offensive and defensive philosophies with new coaches all around. Give Chan a damn break someone. He'll do fine. I am sick of hearing about Fridgen. He was blessed with Sean Jones early and Joe Hamilton later. Maryland's run is gonna end and he won't look like our savoir any longer. Besides, I don't want him keeling over on OUR sidelines because he won't push away from the supper table.
 
Players need to be coached by whoever is here those players you mentioned had good coaching ... I believe that's why they are hired to coach to the best of their ability.

Heck, nobody saw Godsey as the redeemer after Joe left. He had good coaching, they all did - they were all successful. The program now VS. the Ross and O'Leary days were different and those coaches then had a heck of a time getting it on track, building and rebuilding will do that EVERY TIME.

Curry went to (1) bowl in all those years. I would not say he was successful and he did not finish with a Top 25 ranking but that one season.
 
Originally posted by JJacket:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Originally posted by GTg8r:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Originally posted by SouthGa:
I'm afraid our first and last home games will be ones where we get our butts handed to us.
<font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">Because raw talent has always beaten superior coaching.

Keep it close and think of something...
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">When we won the NC in 1990, I don't believe it was because of our overwelming talent. Nebraska probably had more and we handed them their butts. I don't think that when NC State won the BB NC that they had the superior edge in talent either. I could probably go on with more.
Talent has a lot to do with your work ethic and drive to win. Great coaching recognizes and adjusts to maximize the strengths of any team. We'll win ball games because Chan will do just so.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Sans-Serif">The Ross, Freidgen and O'Leary staff was one of the better staffs here or anywhere for that matter. I don't think the current staff have these talents in place.
 
MsTa, you have no data to prove your opinions that you have just stated as fact. How can you say the new staff is not as good as the one with O'Leary, Friegden, and Roof?

You cannot compare staffs until a new staff has the tenure in to make a comparison. All you are doing is throwing guesses into the wind.

First, Tenuta has a far superior reputation on defense than Roof. Facts prove you wrong on the very first one compared. You lose here.

Secondly, Gailey's first year record is far superior than O'Leary's first 2 1/2 year record, so the second comparison proves Gailey is ahead on this one. You lose here.

The third comparison is solidly in your corner at this particular time, but with Nix's previous experience and spectacular results elsewhere, who knows at this point in time. You have the upper hand on the third comparison, but you do not know how Nix will turn out.

I cede you one out of three on the comparisons at this point, but will claim the other two in favor of Tenutan and Gailey with the facts.

wink.gif
 
Back
Top