From: tamu@uxh.cso.uiuc.edu (Todd Henderson)
Subject: Re: Schedule Strengths, Again
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:47:33 GMT

noonan@icd3 (Michael Noonan) writes:

>If you want to look at just two games, let's look at the two 
>toughest games (my picks) of the teams you listed:

>-------------------------------------------------------------
>Notre Dame       Michigan      Penn State
>Penn State       Miami        @Notre Dame
>Nebraska        @Washington    Oklahoma/Colorado
>Colorado         Oklahoma      Nebraska
>Clemson          Florida St   @NC St
>California      @Washington    Stanford
>NC State         Florida St    Clemson
>Tennessee        Florida       Alabama
>Miami            Florida St   @Penn St
>Washington       Stanford      Nebraska
>Oklahoma        @Colorado      Nebraska
>UCLA             Stanford     @BYU
                                ^^^^^ ??????
>Ohio State      @Michigan     @Syracuse
                                ^^^^^^^^  I hope that after this weekend
                                          SU is considered a worse team or
                                          tu is considered a better team for
                                          schedule strength.

>Georgia Tech     Florida St    Clemson

>Texas A&M       *Stanford      Tulsa
                                ^^^^^  LSU at LSU should be considered 
tougher.
>-------------------------------------------------------------

As someone else pointed out, strentgh of schedule can only be truly 
measured after the games are in.  If Stanford were to climb in the polls
for instance, then I would argue that they were a better team than originally
thought and boosted the schedule strength.  A measure of schedule
strength is almost useless for anything but toilet paper, it's not even
worth that since we are using an eltronic medium. :):):)


>These facts have been posted previously (I sum them up here)...
>  Texas A&M plays 3 returning bowl teams, the least of any top 10 team.

     I thought more than one SWC team made it to a bowl?  The three teams
would be:  Stanford/Tulsa/(Texas/Houston/???which SWC team other than A&M,
maybe we should include scrimages with A&M second string :):) )

>  Texas A&M plays only 4 returning winning teams.

    How many of the (SWC)teams had winning records against non-conference foes?

>  Texas A&M plays only one team in the AP top 25 (Stanford, not even on
>     their regular schedule).
>  Texas A&M plays no top 10 teams.

As I said in a previous post, Washington as well as A&M most rely on a bowl
game.  However, Washington is stuck playing a big 10(11->50(everone joins
the big 10) :):)) team so it doesn't help them much. :):)


>My own personal gripe with A&M's schedule is the localized aspect of it.

In previous years I can remember a Washington team(WSU/UW I don't remember
which, maybe the other one the following year.  I seem to remember a good game
there and a bad game there, maybe the illinois air is getting to me.), I think
an Alabama team one year....  It seams like A&M's schedule changes a lot in
the out of conference area.  Probably because they are trying to jockey up to
some better opponents????

My early Christmas wish(already going down the toilet):

Houston can play with the one or two big 10/11/../50 teams they play.
tu makes a respectable showing(if MSU continues to win, the tu/msu horror
  won't be so bad.  Can they stay with SU?? They continue to beat ou)
Baylor can stay with CU(they play them again right)
other schools show up to the games!

>If more respect in the polls is what you want, play a Big East team,
>play a Big 10 team or an ACC team.  How about a series with a Pac10 or
>even a WAC team?  Spread it around a little.  The only regular season
>team you guys play that is not in Texas (SWC) or borders Texas (Tulsa,
>LSU), is Missouri.  You don't even have to pick the toughest team in
>those leagues - when the voters see you playing in their area, they will
>give you more respect.  Right or wrong, that's the way it is (IMO).
>Actually, I think A&M is getting a tremendous amount of repect in the 
>polls this year anyway, so maybe my point is moot.


>Cheers...

>-Mike Noonan