From: boisseau@chpc.utexas.edu (John R. Boisseau (Jay))
Subject: Re: Why so many Va Tech woofers?
Organization: The University of Texas System - CHPC
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 92 01:02:47 GMT

In article <Bu0urF.J2G@acsu.buffalo.edu> v262xxve@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Timothy C Pitts) writes:
>In article <1992Sep3.193921.3109@chpc.utexas.edu>, boisseau@chpc.utexas.edu (John R. Boisseau (Jay)) writes...
>#Yes there is, until I see a power rating comparing the two for the last
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 this is what I really wanted to see, but I do appreciate your efforts in
posting the other stuff below

>#three years, complete with breakdowns of how many "Top 25" caliber teams
>#each played, and how many "dogs" each whipped. Also, how did each do
>#in that span vs. common opponents?
>
>I'll do part of this, but I don't put much faith in ``power ratings'' so
>I'll ignore that part.

It's not a perfect way, but it's the only objective way to determine if the
original assertion, that Tech might have done as well as UVa against a 
similar schedule, is correct. I maintain that they wouldn't have...

> Note:  Since KOC/PC and bowl games are not true
>``scheduled'' games, I've omitted them.

Not fair. The KOC/PC games DO go into a team's record and ranking, and help
determine bowl bids. They ARE real games. So, I already know you've omitted
UVa's game against (i.e. whipping by) ND in 1989...

[complete results deleted for brevity--something I'm not known for--but
thanks for posting them!]

>                               Dogs             Decent teams
>        Top 25 teams:     (5 or less wins):  (7+ wins, I-A only):
>        UVA      VaTech    UVA     VaTech     UVA      VaTech
>1991     2         4        5        3         4         5
>1990     2         3        3        2         3         6
>1989     2         4        3        3         5         5
>Total    6        11       11        8        12        16
>

Two corrections to this table.
(1) Add ND to UVa list of ranked opponents for 1989
(2) Subtract UVa from Tech's list of ranked opponents for 1989 and 1990--if
    we are comparing the relative strength of each team's schedule, you can't
    give Tech credit for playing UVa (ranked). It isn't UVa's fault that
    Tech wasn't ranked each of those years. Also suvtract VT from UVa's
     list of "dogs" or "decent teams", as relevant...

Making these corrections, we see that the schedules were ALMOST
IDENTICAL in 1989 and 1990. I will concede that Tech had a much more
difficult schedule ONLY LAST YEAR... but I will not concede that they
would have fninished with a record identical to UVa's last year with
UVa's schedule as they clearly (like by 38 points) were not as good as
UVa last year.

>I think it's safe to say that at least for the past three years, VaTech
>has had a tougher schedule than Virginia has no matter how you measure it,
>I'd even go so far as to say that it is significantly better, and that
>VaTech could typically drop its toughest opponent, and many times its
>second toughest one and end up with a schedule the equivalent to (or stronger
>than) Virginia's.

Nope, your numbers, corrected to add the ND game for UVa and to remove
the games against each other, do not bear this out, except for last
year, when VT had a tough schedulewas having a clearly mediocre year,
capped by an ugly ending. There schedules were comparable in 1989 and
1990, and Virginia ended up with a better record each year.

Anyway, this doesn't prove anything. Just HAVING a strong schedule
(and getting beat) doesn't mean a the same team would win a LOT more
(or even any more) with an easier schedule--but maybe they would
Ratings are the best meaure, but they are certainly fallible, too. 
So I guess we'll never know for sure... but I claim the evidence
dooes not support the original assertion.

Jay
-- 
##################################
  John R. Boisseau ("Jay")        
  Department of Astronomy         
  University of Texas at Austin   
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.college,rec.sport.football.pro