This was originally posted on Orangebloods.com "Inside the 40 Acres," so it obviously focuses on the BCS from the perspective of Texas fans.
Overview
▪ Despite an appalling out-of-conference schedule, Texas projects in the middle of the pack in terms of its schedule strength (“SOS”), when compared to the consensus preseason Top 10 teams.
▪ Texas played the nation’s most difficult schedule in 2008, but its 2009 schedule is significantly easier (36th out of 120 FBS schools).
▪ The main risk Texas faces in keeping its SOS respectable for BCS posturing purposes is the strength of the Big XII, which was essentially tied with the SEC in 2008 as the best conference in football.
▪ Although a repeat of 2008 seems unlikely, Texas is very poorly positioned for another 3-way tie in the Big XII South (presumably between Texas, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State), as the other teams possess far stronger schedules.
I. Top 10 SOS Analysis
As followers of the BCS know very well, the computer rankings contribute 1/3 of a team’s BCS calculation, and those computers are highly influenced by a team’s win/loss record and SOS. To analyze the contenders for the preseason, I have projected each team’s SOS. To be technical, I analyzed each team's opponents W/L records and opponents’ opponents W/L records using their 2009 schedule, but with the team records posted in 2008 (including bowls, and excluding non-FBS victories). Using the top 10 contenders based on a consensus of preseason polls, I arrive at the following:
Team Schedule Rankings (Overall SOS, out of 120 FBS teams)
1. Oklahoma State (2)
2. Oklahoma (5)
3. Virginia Tech (12)
4. Texas (36)
5. Florida (38)
6. Southern Cal (53)
7. Ohio State (69)
8. Penn State (89)
9. Mississippi (95)
10. Alabama (98)
Note that the above does not include potential conference championship games, which would be expected to improve SOS for teams such as the Big XII, SEC and ACC contenders. Clearly, the Big XII is in the catbirds seat based on this projection, with the SEC teams at a disadvantage (Alabama is a serial offender of having a terrible schedule, and 2009 is no exception). Southern Cal, despite playing Ohio State, is hampered by the recent weakness of its home conference.
II. Understanding Texas’ 2009 SOS
The main risk, of course, of using 2008 data for a 2009 preseason projection is that teams are materially different from year to year. The team in particular that jumps out on Texas’ schedule is Texas Tech, which posted a 9-2 (excluding 2 non-FBS victories) record, but seems highly unlikely to repeat such a strong record given personnel losses. With that said, Texas’ 2009 schedule is expected to be significantly less impressive than 2008, by virtue of four terrible non-BCS opponents out of conference:
Texas Longhorns 2009 Out-of-conference Schedule (2008 W/L)
Louisiana Monroe (3-8)
Wyoming (3-8)
UTEP (5-7)
Central Florida (3-8)
These schools are even worse because they have posted sub-0.500 records in particularly weak conferences (captured in their opponents’ opponents calculations). So as an example, even though UTEP posted a 5-7 record and A&M posted a 4-8 record, the latter is actually less harmful to strength-of-schedule because A&M played much more difficult opponents than UTEP.
Obviously, Texas would appreciate help from Louisiana Monroe, Wyoming, UTEP and Central Florida if they would outperform their 2008 mediocrity. But I suspect as you see these teams pop up on the score ticker when you are watching a game on a Saturday, you’ll tend to see them on the losing end. If any kind of BCS horserace develops as the year goes on, it will be imperative for these teams to at least tread water in their weaker conferences.
III. Can the Big XII repeat its excellence?
Texas played four top-10 quality teams consecutively in 2008, which tremendously helped its national credibility. But how did this happen? Quite simply, the Big XII posted a very strong out-of-conference record (indicated below), allowing more of its teams to have higher quality (at times undefeated) records later in the season.
2008 Conference Rankings (out-of-conference winning percentage)
1. SEC (0.723)
2. Big XII (0.711)
3. Big East (0.650)
4. Mountain West (0.629)
5. ACC (0.614)
6. Big Ten (0.571)
7. Pac 10 (0.500)
8. WAC (0.343)
9. Conference USA (0.319)
10. MAC (0.316)
11. Sun Belt (0.224)
The main risk I worry about is that the Big XII does not keep up with its lofty 2008 standards. As a result of the terrible out-of-conference schedule discussed earlier, it could leave Texas vulnerable in competing against other teams. These concerns would be more pressing in the case of one-loss contenders jockeying for position. I also would be shocked to see the Pac 10 post a terrible year like they did in 2008 (where they merely broke even out of conference, which is one of the worst achievements ever for a BCS conference). Any upside posted by the Pac 10 would be very helpful to contenders such as USC and Oregon, especially since they play 9 conference games on their schedule (compared to 8 for most other teams).
IV. What about a 3-way tie?
My point on the 3-way tie scenario in the Big XII South can be fairly brief: Texas has really put itself behind the eight ball relative to the schedules of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State. With Oklahoma playing Miami, Tulsa and BYU out-of-conference, and with Oklahoma State playing Georgia, Houston and Rice, it appears they will have huge advantages on SOS which will pad their computer stats. Of course, if Texas and Oklahoma were the highest ranked teams (as they were last year, with Tech ranked third) in this three way tie, the human vote may favor Texas as they would compensate for Texas getting the short end of the stick in 2008. For what it’s worth, I think lighting hitting twice on this controversy is unlikely.
V. Final Thoughts
Mack Brown indicated that they would talk to BCS experts during this offseason to try and get a better sense of what they can do better in the future. We will grant the Texas Athletic Department that modifying the 2009 schedule in the spring of 2009 is nearly impossible given the short time frame, but for future reference…. This season’s schedule is exactly what not to do for the BCS. As I said earlier, it is needlessly putting Texas behind the 8-ball. One does not have to schedule Ohio State type teams every year to help their cause in the BCS. There is a middle ground. But scheduling 4 non-BCS teams with a combined record of 14 wins and 31 losses?
Most FBS teams believe in having one or two cupcakes on their schedule, and that is fine. But to put itself in better position to compete in the BCS, without necessarily risking an early season loss, Texas should either be scheduling middle to lower rung BCS conference opponents (4-8 to 7-5 type records, programs the stature of Minnesota, Louisville, etc.), or middle to higher end non-BCS schools (9-3 type records in weak conferences, such as Tulsa, Air Force, etc.).
I know one big counterargument: teams like Central Florida that had been moderately decent a few years ago have gotten worse since then. It’s hard to predict what will be a decent team three years from now. But you can’t tell me anyone thought Wyoming, Louisiana Monroe, UTEP and UCF was ever expected to be considered a half-way decent schedule.
You get the sense something slipped through the cracks. I can’t fully remember, but maybe a team backed out of their commitment to playing Texas this year. But if Mack is serious about taking a look at the BCS, there needs to be a major change in the scheduling philosophy.
This post was edited on 7/9 4:29 PM by SynTex1
