Strength of Schedule: is it meaningful?: No, it is not...

» GKCruey - No, it is not...

The strength of schedule component in the BCS points system is a nearly meaningless point of national comparison because college football is regional and isolationist.

Take UCLA and Tennessee. They share a single opponent: lowly Houston. Other than that, UCLA's opponents are largely in the Big 12 and PAC 10. Tennessee plays Houston, SEC teams and independent UAB. UCLA and the Volunteers each play one game in the Big East - though not against the same opponent.

If you expand the comparison and ask about each teams' opponents, the picture is no better.

With Houston figured out of the equation, each teams' opponents played about 110 games. Tennessee's opponents played (and won) 2 Big 10 games; UCLA's opponents played (and won) 4 Big 10 games. But none of Tennessee's opponents played a team UCLA's opponents played in the Big 10.

Of the 110 games in question, only twice do we find a situation where someone who played a UCLA opponent also plays a Tennessee opponent: Nebraska has beaten UAB (whop-de-do) and Washington (which UCLA faces this week); FSU has beated USC and plays Florida later.

Not a single SEC-PAC10 matchup will occur in regular season play this year. The only SEC-Big 12 game was Mississippi State vs. Oklahoma State. The closest thing we get to a comparison between the PAC 10 and the SEC is that they spend a little of their time beating on helpless members of Conference USA. What does that measure?

Personally, I think the SEC has the best football in the country. Losing to any SEC team should not weigh against you the way that loosing to a Big 10 team or a PAC 10 team should. SEC teams have to play each other, so someone's got to loose.

But the Strength of Schedule comparison in the rankings is useless - or worse yet, padding to keep PAC10 teams in the running...

-- posted by GKCruey