Steele has a post up showing the NCAA rankings for teams based on opponents’ won-loss totals. The NCAA doesn’t account for schedule strength in these calculations, so they should be taken with a grain of salt, but, still, ranked at #1, projected to play more teams with winning records (10) than any other school in the country, ladies and gentlemen, your Georgia Bulldogs.
Talking ’bout that schedule thing again
Filed under Georgia Football, Phil Steele Makes My Eyes Water
Get The Picture 
I have a little bit of a problem with that “10 winning teams” on the schedule number.
For one, that includes 1-AA Ga. Southern. I’m sure it includes 1-AA teams on the schedule for all teams, but GSU’s wins and losses in their league should not count as much as a win or loss for a D-1 school. The statistic assumes that GSU is a comparable team to Auburn, both being at 4-4 on the year [Let’s not actually get on that debate].
Playing devil’s advocate: since GSU is at 4-4, they are probably holding us down in opponent winning %. I assume that D-1 schools schedule the better 1-AA schools to play, so their winning % is probably less than the other 1-AA schools included in this stat.
Second, it includes teams who are at .500 as having a winning record. GSU is included in here too. Remember, the Falcons have never had back-to-back winning seasons because they finished 8-8 a year after they reached the playoffs.
I would rather see that number at 8 teams with a winning record (CMU, USC, UA, Vandy, LSU, UF, UK, GT).
LikeLike
The statistic makes no such assumption paul. This isn’t intended to be the last word in strength of schedule; it’s just another statistic Steele has put together for thought. It’s merely a ranking of “opponent win percentage”, in which case UGA is in fact #1 if Steele’s numbers are to be believe (and the usually are).
It’s in the analysis that we’re supposed to note things like GSU not being comparable to Auburn.
LikeLike