Strength of Schedule

[SWC75]

Someone mentioned in an earlier post that a big reason why we went undefeated in 1987 was the schedule and that if the 1987 had played the 1998 schedule, they would have lost a game or two. That could certainly be true. We’ll never know. But it created a desire to examine our strength of schedule over the years so we would at least have a concept of which ones were relatively “weak“ or “strong“ .

I decided to look at the same period I did for the “talent level” post: the Carrier Dome era, (1980-2011). There are, of course, various rankings for strength of schedule, (SOS) but I didn’t find a source that ranked them all the way back to 1980. That didn’t disappoint me because it’s more fun to come up with your own system.

There were 121 major college teams in 2011, the same number as 2010. That’s the most since 1981, when there was 138. There were 139 in 1980. (In 1982, a number of Division 1A teams, including the Ivy league dropped down to 1AA).

I found this website that ranked all the D1A teams from 1980, (they do it all the way back to 1869):
http://www.jhowell.net/cf/cfindex.htm

I don’t necessarily agree with all the rankings, (and, no, I don’t know what “Wild Card U” is), but at least here’s a database that ranks all the major college teams since 1980. He has a “SOS” ranking but I don’t know what it’s based on or what the number represents. #1 Pittsburgh’s 1980 SOS is .833. I prefer to know what the number means and how it was arrived at.

I decided to just see where Howell ranked each team and then average the rankings. If a team were not listed, (because they were not Division 1A), I gave them the next lowest ranking below the list, (even if they were not the best 1AA team: Howell didn’t rank 1AA teams). Teams that were “ranked” below Wild Card U. were moved up one ranking.
　
1980
We played Ohio State, who Howell ranked at #18.
We played Miami of Ohio. They were ranked #83, (but still above good ol’ Wild Card U., who was #122),
We played Northwestern, who went 0-11 and were ranked #134 but behind “The U“, meaning they were actually #133.
We played Kansas, who was ranked #57.
We played Temple, who was ranked #104.
We played Penn State, who was ranked #6.
We played Rutgers, who was ranked #49.
We played Pittsburgh, who was ranked #1.
We played Navy, who was ranked #35.
We played Boston College, who was ranked #39.
We played West Virginia, who was ranked #47.
That’s 11 teams and a total ranking of #572 or an average of #52. The average opponent in 1980 was the 52nd best team in the country, (at least according to Howell). That’s the number we will use to compare the 1980 team’s schedule to the schedules we played in other years. Here are the numbers for the years since by this system:

1981: Rutgers #85, Temple, #63, Illinois #34, Indiana #107, Maryland #52, Penn State #2, Pittsburgh #3, Colgate, (then a D1A team- they dropped down in 1982), #76, Navy #39, Boston College #62, West Virginia #17. 11 teams total #540. Average: #49
1982: Rutgers #71, Temple #61, Illinois #35, Indiana #64, Maryland #14, Penn State #1, Pittsburgh #6, Colgate, (now D1AA: there were 114 in Howell’s ranking but that includes Wild Card U, so…) #114, Navy #54, Boston College #28, West Virginia #12. 11 teams total #460. Average #42.
1983: Temple #66, Kent State #107, Northwestern #102, Rutgers, #93, Nebraska #2, Maryland #17, Penn State #27, Pittsburgh #13, Navy #92, Boston College #22, West Virginia #10. 11 teams. Total #551. Average: #50.
1984: Maryland #9, Northwestern #96, Rutgers #34, Nebraska #4, Florida #3, West Virginia #18, Penn State #43, Army #31, Pittsburgh #70, Navy #62, Boston College #6. 11 teams. Total #376. Average: #34.
1985: Mississippi State #46, Kent State #100, Virginia Tech #48, Louisville #105, Penn State #4, Temple #59, Pittsburgh #50, Navy #64, Boston College #56, Rutgers #81, West Virginia #38, Maryland #16. 12 teams. Total: #667. Average: #56.
1986: Mississippi State #56, Army #65, Virginia Tech #25, Rutgers #43, Missouri #89, Penn State #1, Temple #33, Pittsburgh #36, Navy #95, Boston College #18, West Virginia #69. 11 teams. Total #530. Average: #48.
1987: Maryland #51, Rutgers #48, Miami (Ohio) #64, Virginia Tech #68, Missouri #45, Penn State #26, Colgate, (1AA: there were 105 teams ranked but one was WCU so…) #105, Pittsburgh #19, Navy #100, Boston College #41, West Virginia #36, Auburn #5. 12 teams. Total #608. Average #51.
1988: Temple #77, Ohio State #60, Virginia Tech #71, Maryland #48, Rutgers #54, Penn State #46, East Carolina #66, Navy #84, Boston College #76, West Virginia #7, Pittsburgh #33, Louisiana State #21. 12 teams. Total: #643. Average: #54.
1989: Temple #99, Army #70, Pittsburgh #26, Florida State #3, Penn State #16, Rutgers #84, East Carolina #56, Boston College #91, Navy #79, West Virginia #25, Louisville #49, Georgia #37. 12 teams. Total: #635 Average ##53.

1990 Southern California #19, Temple, #46, Michigan State #21, Pittsburgh #67, Vanderbilt #99, Penn State #11, Rutgers #91, Army #81, Boston College #74, Tulane #78, West Virginia #80, Miami (Fla) #3, Arizona #41. 13 teams. Total #701. Average: #54
1991: Vanderbilt #62, Maryland #83, Florida #5, Tulane #101, Florida State #4, East Carolina #14, Pittsburgh #36, Rutgers #56, Temple #89, Boston College #44, West Virginia #41, Ohio State #34. 12 teams. Total #569. Average: #47.
1992: East Carolina #69, Texas #44, Ohio State #14, Louisville #51, Rutgers #40, West Virginia #37, Temple #101, Pittsburgh #93, Virginia Tech #78, Boston College #25, Miami (Fla) #3, Colorado #17. 12 teams. Total #572. Average: #48.
1993: Ball State #49, East Carolina #101, Texas #44, Cincinnati #36, Boston College #17, Pittsburgh #77, Miami (Fla) #12, West Virginia #7, Temple #105, Virginia Tech #21, Rutgers #65. 11 teams. Total #534. Average: #49.
1994: Oklahoma #41, Cincinnati #98, Rutgers, #54, East Carolina #39, Virginia Tech #28, Pittsburgh #79, Temple #86, Miami (Fla) #5, Boston College #22, Maryland #71, West Virginia #50. 11 teams. Total: #573. Average: #52.
1995: North Carolina #45, East Carolina #25, Minnesota #61, Rutgers #73, Temple #94, Eastern Michigan #60, West Virginia #64, Virginia Tech #12, Pittsburgh #87, Boston College #66, Miami (Fla) #29, Clemson #35. 12 teams Total: #651. Average: #54.
1996: North Carolina #9, Minnesota #57, Virginia Tech #12, Rutgers #99, Pittsburgh #83, Boston College #58, West Virginia #29, Tulane #85, Army #23, Temple #101, Miami (Fla) #20, Houston #39. 12 teams. Total: 615. Average: #51
1997: Wisconsin #44, North Carolina State #42, Oklahoma #78, Virginia Tech #55, Tulane #48, East Carolina #72, Rutgers #112, Temple #100, West Virginia #54, Boston College #88, Pittsburgh #69, Miami (Fla) #71, Kansas State #8. 13 teams. Total: #811. Average: #65.
1998: Tennessee #1, Michigan #12, Rutgers #74, North Carolina State #36, Cincinnati #102, Boston College #65, Pittsburgh #99, West Virginia #30, Virginia Tech #17, Temple #103, Miami (Fla) #25, Florida #6. 12 teams. Total: #570. Average: #48.
1999: Toledo #77, Central Michigan #104, Michigan #4, West Virginia #70, Tulane #97, Pittsburgh #68, Virginia Tech #3, Boston College #43, Temple #101, Rutgers #107, Miami (Fla) #13, Kentucky #51. 12 teams Total: #738. Average: #62

2000: Buffalo #113, Cincinnati #54, East Carolina #35, Brigham Young #62, Pittsburgh #40 Boston College #41, Virginia Tech #6, West Virginia #39, Temple #82, Miami (Fla) #2, Rutgers #96. 11 teams. Total #570. Average: #52.
2001: Georgia Tech #29, Tennessee #3, Central Florida #64, Auburn #39, East Carolina #54, Rutgers #109, Pittsburgh #41, Temple #91, Virginia Tech #20, West Virginia #85, Miami (Fla) #1, Boston College #27, Kansas State #28. 13 teams. Total: 591. Average: #45.
2002: Brigham Young 84, North Carolina 80, Rhode Island (1AA team- there were 118 !a teams. Taking out WCU, they get…) 118, Auburn 18, Pittsburgh 22, Temple 77, West Virginia 23, Rutgers 113, Central Florida 66, Virginia Tech 19, Boston College 27, Miami (Fla) 3. 12 teams. Total: #650. Average: #54
2003: North Carolina 92, Louisville 48, Central Florida 105, Toledo 52, Virginia Tech 36, Boston College 43, Pittsburgh 41, Temple 110, Miami (Fla) 7, West Virginia 42, Rutgers 75, Notre Dame 61. 12 teams. Total: #712. Average: #59.
2004: Purdue 26, Buffalo 119, Cincinnati 49, Virginia 21, Rutgers 92, Florida State 14, West Virginia 37, Connecticut 51, Pittsburgh 39, Temple 107, Boston College 27, Georgia Tech 32. 12 teams. Total: #614. Average: #51.
2005: West Virginia #7, Buffalo #119, Virginia #38, Florida State #24, Connecticut #80, Rutgers #59, Pittsburgh #69, Cincinnati #91, South Florida #43, Notre Dame #14, Louisville #22. 11 Teams. Total: #566. Average: #51.
2006: Wake Forest #21, Iowa #60, Illinois #102, Miami (Ohio) #111, Wyoming #70, Pittsburgh #55, West Virginia #10, Louisville #2, Cincinnati #34, South Florida #33, Connecticut #71, Rutgers #9. 12 teams. Total: #578. Average: #48.
2007: Washington #63, Iowa #73, Illinois #23, Louisville #54, Miami (Ohio) #88, West Virginia #2, Rutgers #45, Buffalo #96, Pittsburgh #67, South Florida #19, Connecticut #33, Cincinnati #13. 12 teams. Total: #576. Average: #48.
2008: Northwestern #39, Akron #93, Penn State #7, Northeastern (1AA/FCS: there were 120 !a/FBS teams so…) #121, Pittsburgh #22, West Virginia #29, South Florida #43, Louisville #85, Rutgers #37, Connecticut #40, Notre Dame #54, Cincinnati #18.. 12 teams. Total: #588. Average: #49.
2009: Minnesota #66, Penn State #10, Northwestern #55, Maine (FCS: there were 120 FBS teams, excluding WCU so…) #121, South Florida #44, West Virginia #29, Akron #109, Cincinnati #7, Pittsburgh #15, Louisville #83, Rutgers #37, Connecticut #31. 12 teams. Total: #607. Average: #51.

2010: Akron #120, (we played the worst team in FBS plus two FCS teams), Washington #43, Maine (FCS and 4-7 to Colgate’s 7-4 soo…) #122, Colgate #121, South Florida #50, Pittsburgh #35, West Virginia #25, Cincinnati #79, Louisville #60, Rutgers #91, Connecticut #47, Boston College #54, Kansas State #56. 13 teams. Total: #903. Average: #69.
2011: Wake Forest #74, Rhode Island #121, Southern California #14, Toledo #35, Rutgers #32, Tulane #116, West Virginia #21, Louisville #55, Connecticut #80, South Florida #73, Cincinnati #28, Pittsburgh #72. 12 teams. Total: #721. Average #60.
　
　
Here is a list of the average ranking of Syracuse opponents each year:
1980 #52, 1981 #49, 1982 #42, 1983 #50, 1984 #34, 1985 #56, 1986 #48, 1987 #51, 1988 #54, 1989 #53.
1990 #54, 1991 #47, 1992 #48, 1993 #49, 1994 #52, 1995 #54, 1996 #51, 1997 #65, 1998 #48, 1999 #62
2000 #52, 2001 #45, 2002 #54, 2003 #59, 2004 #51, 2005 #51, 2006 #48, 2007 #48, 2008 #49, 2009 #51
2010 #69, 2011 #60
There hasn’t been a wide variance in the overall quality of our opponents. 24 times in 33 years the average ranking of our opponents has been between #45-#54. Our toughest schedule has been in 1984 at #34. The schedule weakened after that but it simply returned to the historical norm. The 1998 team’s schedule wasn’t much different, (#48) than the 1987 team’s (51). Two of the weakest schedules were the teams before, (1997: #65) and after, (1999: #62) that. The weakest schedule was played by our “comeback” team of 2010.

But there is another way of looking at it. It’s possible to have a schedule weighted down with bad teams that obscure the number and strength of the good teams that were played. And it’s the good teams you are most likely to lose to. If you are a mid-level team, as Syracuse generally is, it probably doesn’t make that much difference if you are playing the 80th or the 100th ranked team in the country: you are supposed to beat them. It will make more of a difference is you are playing the 40th ranked team rather than the 60’s ranked team. And it will be harder to beat the 20th ranked team than the 40th ranked team. The number of losses you will sustain has more to do with the upper half of your schedule than the lower half. I re-calibrated averaging the first six teams in each schedule:
1980 #24, 1981 #25, 1982 #19, 1983 #15, 1984 #12, 1985 #34, 1986 #26, 1987 #29, 1988 #47, 1989 #26
1990 #24, 1991 #21, 1992 #23, 1993 #23, 1994 #31, 1995 #34, 1996 #22, 1997 #42, 1998 #15, 1999 #30
2000 #27, 2001 #18, 2002 #19, 2003 #37, 2004 #26, 2005 #25, 2006 #18, 2007 #23, 2008 # 32, 2009 #22
2010 #43, 2011 #31
The range of ratings isn’t that different, (#34-#69 vs. #12-#47) but as a percentage of each other, there’s a starker difference. 1987 is now #29 vs. #15 for 1998. We can now see that it was harder for SU to go undefeated in 1998 than in 1987. Whether the 1987 team would have gone undefeated vs. the 1998 schedule or how many losses they might have had, I don’t know but the 1998 team had a tougher row to hoe to get there.

Let’s compare five things: the number of future pros on each SU team, (from my “Talent Level” post), SU’s ranking according to Howell, the overall average ranking of their opponents, the average ranking of their top 6 opponents and their final record, in terms of wins, losses and ties:
1980 11 future pros, SU was #60, Overall schedule: #47, Top 6: #24, record: 5-6-0
1981 10 future pros, SU was #57, Overall schedule: #49, Top 6: #25, record: 4-6-1
1982 14 future pros, SU was #88, Overall schedule: #42, Top 6: #19, record: 2-9-0
1983 14 future pros, SU was #45, Overall schedule: #50, Top 6: #15, record: 6-5-0
1984 13 future pros, SU was #35, Overall schedule: #34, Top 6: #12, record: 6-5-0
1985 21 future pros, SU was #39, Overall schedule: #56, Top 6: #34, record: 7-5-0
1986 18 future pros, SU was #59, Overall schedule: #48, Top 6: #26, record: 5-6-0
1987 24 future pros, SU was #04, Overall schedule: #51, Top 6: #29, record: 11-0-1
1988 27 future pros, SU was #13, Overall schedule: #54, Top 6: #47, record: 10-2-0
1989 26 future pros, SU was #34, Overall schedule: #53, Top 6: #26, record: 8-4-0
1990 25 future pros, SU was #30, Overall schedule: #54, Top 6: #24, record: 7-4-2
1991 23 future pros, SU was #11, Overall schedule: #47, Top 6: #22, record: 10-2-0
1992 31 future pros, SU was #10, Overall schedule: #48, Top 6: #23, record: 10-2-0
1993 24 future pros, SU was #34, Overall schedule: #49, Top 6: #23, record: 6-4-1
1994 23 future pros, SU was #42, Overall schedule: #52, Top 6: #31, record: 7-4-0
1995 24 future pros, SU was #18, Overall schedule: #54, Top 6: #34, record: 9-3-0
1996 29 future pros, SU was #14, Overall schedule: #51, Top 6: #22, record: 9-3-0
1997 29 future pros, SU was #27, Overall schedule: #65, Top 6: #42, record: 9-4-0
1998 36 future pros, SU was #21, Overall schedule: #48, Top 6: #15, record: 8-4-0
1999 30 future pros, SU was #48, Overall schedule: #62, Top 6: #30, record: 7-5-0
2000 30 future pros, SU was #43, Overall schedule: #52, Top 6: #27, record: 6-5-0
2001 29 future pros, SU was #11, Overall schedule: #45, Top 6: #18, record: 10-3-0
2002 24 future pros, SU was #73, Overall schedule: #54, Top 6: #19, record: 4-8-0
2003 25 future pros, SU was #65, Overall schedule: #59, Top 6: #37, record: 6-6-0
2004 21 future pros, SU was #64, Overall schedule: #51, Top 6: #26, record: 6-6-0
2005 25 future pros, SU was #109, Overall schedule: #51, Top 6: #25, record: 1-10-0
2006 19 future pros, SU was #75, Overall schedule: #48, Top 6: #18, record: 4-8-0
2007 13 future pros, SU was #106, Overall schedule: #48, Top 6: #23, record: 2-10-0
2008 9+ future pros, SU was #97, Overall schedule: #49, Top 6: #32, record: 3-9-0
2009 7+ future pros, SU was #85, Overall schedule: #51, Top 6: #22, record: 4-8-0
2010 7+ future pros, SU was #55, Overall schedule: #69, Top 6: #43, record: 8-5-0
2011 5+ future pros, SU was #82, Overall schedule: #60, Top 6: #31, record: 5-7-0

The 1984 team deserves a lot of respect. With the same number of future pros as the dismal 2007 team, they took on the toughest schedule of the entire period and produced a winning record and the greatest victory of the Carrier Dome era.

 

[SWC75]

I decided to look at the scores and see how we did against each team that had each particular ranking. I’ll just lost the rankings and scores. I’ll bet you can remember most of the games, depending on how long you’ve been an SU fan.

Vs.
#1 ranked teams: 6-43, 7-28, 3-42, 33-34, 0-59 (0-5, 49-206, average 10-41)
#2 ranked teams: 16-41, 7-63, 0-26, 13-28, 14-55 (0-5, 50-213, average 10-43)
#3 ranked teams: 10-23, 0-16, 10-41, 7-33, 10-16, 0-62, 9-33, 7-49 (0-8, 53-273, average 7-34)
#4 ranked teams: 17-9, 20-24, 14-46, 13-18, (1-3, 64-97, average 16-24)
#5 ranked teams: 16-16, 38-21, 6-27, (1-1-1, 60-64, average 20-21)
#6 ranked teams: 7-24,0-14,16-24, 10-31, 14-22 (0-5, 47-115, average 9-23)
#7 ranked teams: 9-31, 0-43, 10-17, 7-15, (0-4, 26-106, average 6.5-26.5)
#8 ranked teams: 18-35
#9 ranked teams: 23-7, 10-27, 7-38, (1-2, 40-72, average 13-24)
Vs. teams ranked #1-9: 3-34-1 (407-1181, average 11-31)

#10 ranked teams: 27-16, 17-41, 7-28, (1-2, 51-85, average 17-28)
#11 ranked teams: 21-27
#12 ranked teams: 0-26, 0-49, 7-31, 52-21, 38-28, (2-3, 97-155, average 19-31)
#13 ranked teams: 10-13, 13-45, 31-52, (0-3, 54-110, average 18-37)
#14 ranked teams: 3-26, 20-23, 13-35, 13-17, 10-34, 17-38, (0-6, 76-173, average 13-29)
#15 ranked teams: 10-37
#16 ranked teams: 18-35, 12-34, (0-2, 30-69, average 15-34.5)
#17 ranked teams: 27-24, 13-34, 26-22, 29-33, 28-26, (3-2, 123-139, average 25-28)
#18 ranked teams: 21-31, 10-20, 9-27, 34-37, 10-30, (0-5, 84-145, average 17-29)
#19 ranked teams: 24-10, 16-34, 50-42, 10-41, (2-2, 100-127, average 25-32)
Vs. teams ranked #10-19: 6-25-0 (646-1067, 21-34)

#20 ranked teams: 31-38, 22-14, (1-1, 53-52, average 26.5-26)
#21 ranked teams: 23-10, 23-23, 24-45, 10-31, 10-20, 49-23, (2-3-1, 139-152, average 23-25)
#22 ranked teams: 21-10, 0-31, 24-48, 17-41, 24-34, (1-4, 86-164, average 17-33)
#23 ranked teams: 42-17, 7-34, 20-41, (1-2, 69-92, average 23-31)
#24 ranked teams: 14-38
#25 ranked teams: 14-24, 17-26, 17-24, 27-10, 24-27, 66-13, 19-14, (3-4, 184-138, average 26-20)
#26 ranked teams: 48-21, 23-30, 0-51, (1-2, 71-102, average 24-34)
#27 ranked teams: 6-17, 39-28, 20-41, 43-17 (2-2, 108-103, average 27-26)
#28 ranked teams: 13-20, 28-20, 26-3, 13-30 (2-2, 80-73, 20-18)
#29 ranked teams: 24-35, 30-7, 7-13, 6-17, 13-34, (1-4, 80-106, average 16-21)
Vs. teams ranked #20-29: 14-25-1, (884-1020, 22-25.5)

#30 ranked teams: 28-35
#31 ranked teams: 27-16, 31-56, (1-1, 58-72, average 29-36)
#32 ranked teams: 14-51, 16-19, (0-2, 30-70, average 15-35)
#33 ranked teams: 27-24, 24-7, 10-27, 7-30, (2-2, 68-88, average 17-22)
#34 ranked teams: 14-17, 0-19, 24-17, 3-17, (1-3, 41-70, average 10-17.5)
#35 ranked teams: 3-6, 10-47, 41-0, 17-34, 14-45, 33-30, (2-4, 118-162, average 20-27)
#36 ranked teams: 24-20, 32-31, 31-27, 24-21, 17-38, 7-51, (4-2, 135-188, average 22.5-31)
#37 ranked teams: 19-18, 20-17, 6-27, 17-35, 31-13, (3-2, 93-110, average 19-22)
#38 ranked teams: 10-13, 29-27, (1-1, 39-40, average 19.5-20)
#39 ranked teams: 16-27, 23-35, 21-18, 30-17, 31-27, 31-14, 38-31, 10-30, (5-3, 200-199, average 25-25)
Vs. teams ranked #30-39: 19-21-0 (810-1034, average 20-26)

#40 ranked teams: 50-28, 24-17, 14-39, (2-1, 88-84, average 44-42)
#41 ranked teams: 45-17, 28-0, 16-10, 29-30, 13-20, 42-10, 14-34, (4-3, 187-121, average 27-17)
#42 ranked teams: 31-32, 23-34, (0-2, 54-66, average 27-33)
#43 ranked teams: 3-21, 10-16, 23-24, 39-14, 0-27, 13-45, 20-41, (1-6, 108-188, average 15-27)
#44 ranked teams: 38-16, 31-21, 21-21, 34-0, 20-34, (3-1-1, 144-92, average 29-18)
#45 ranked teams: 24-13, 20-9, 14-38, (2-1, 58-60, average 19-20)
#46 ranked teams: 3-30, 24-10, 19-9, (2-1, 46-49, average 15-16)
#47 ranked teams: 20-7, 31-7, 6-23, (2-1, 57-37, average 19-12)
#48 ranked teams: 20-3, 20-9, 30-19, 20-30, (3-1, 90-61, average 22.5-15)
#49 ranked teams: 17-9, 24-13, 35-12, 19-7, (4-0, 95-41, average 24-10)
Vs. teams ranked #40-49: 23-17-1 (927-799, average 23-19)

#50 ranked teams: 12-0, 0-13, 13-9, (3-0, 25-22, average 8-7)
#51 ranked teams: 25-11, 15-9, 20-13, 42-30, (4-0, 102-63, average 25.5-16)
#52 ranked teams: 17-17, 34-7, (1-0-1, 51-24, average 25.5-12)
#53 ranked teams: none
#54 ranked teams: 18-20, 34-20, 37-36, 40-10, 10-12, 44-30, 38-35, 24-23, 7-16, (6-3, 252-202, average 28-22)
#55 ranked teams: 3-31, 11-21, 37-34, 10-27, (1-3, 61-113, average 15-28)
#56 ranked teams: 41-21, 17-24, 18-16, 21-7, 36-34, (4-1, 133-102, average 27-20)
#57 ranked teams: 8-23, 33-35, (0-2, 41-58, average 20.5-29)
#58 ranked teams: 45-17
#59 ranked teams: 29-14, 9-31, (1-1, 38-45, average 19-22.5)
Vs. teams ranked #50-59: 20-10-1, (748-646, average 24-21)

#60 ranked teams: 9-26, 52-24, 13-20, 20-28, (1-3, 94-98, average 23.5-24.5)
#61 ranked teams: 18-23, 27-17, 38-12, (2-1, 83-52, average 28-17)
#62 ranked teams: 27-17, 29-0, 37-10, 42-14, (4-0, 135-41, average 33.5-10)
#63 ranked teams: 19-31, 12-42, (0-2, 31-73, average 15.5-36.5)
#64 ranked teams: 10-17, 24-20, 24-10, 22-0, 21-10, (4-1, 101-57, average 20-11)
#65 ranked teams: 28-33, 31-18, 42-25, (2-1, 101-76, average 34-25)
#66 ranked teams: 6-17, 38-14, 58-29, 38-35, 20-23, (3-2, 160-118, average 32-24)
#67 ranked teams: 20-20, 17-20, (0-1-1, 37-40, average 18.5-20)
#68 ranked teams: 35-21, 24-17, (2-0, 59-38, average 29.5-19)
#69 ranked teams: 34-23, 42-21, 32-27, 17-34, (3-1, 125-105, average 31-26)
Vs. teams ranked #60-69: 21-12-1 (926-698, average 27-21)

#70 ranked teams: 13-7, 10-7, 30-7, 40-34, (4-0, 93-55, average 23-14)
#71 ranked teams: 31-8, 35-0, 21-16, 33-13, 20-14, (5-0, 140-51, average 28-10)
#72 ranked teams: 56-0, 20-33, (1-1, 76-33, average 38-16.5)
#73 ranked teams: 27-17, 0-35, 17-37, (1-2, 44-89, average 22-44.5)
#74 ranked teams: 35-6, 70-14, 36-29, (3-0, 141-49, average 47-16)
#75 ranked teams: 7-24
#76 ranked teams: 47-24, 45-20, (2-0, 92-44, average 46-22)
#77 ranked teams: 31-21, 24-21, 35-12, 16-17, (3-1, 106-71, average 26.5-18)
#78 ranked teams: 24-26, 28-9, 34-36, (1-2, 86-71, average 29-24)
#79 ranked teams: 38-17, 31-7, (2-0, 69-24, average 34.5-12)
Vs. teams ranked #70-79: 22-7-0 (854-511, average 29-18)

#80 ranked teams: 31-7, 22-30, 7-26, 21-28, (1-3, 81-91, average 20-23)
#81 ranked teams: 27-29, 31-14, 26-14, (2-1, 84-57, average 28-19)
#82 ranked teams: 42-10, 31-12, (2-0, 73-22, average 36.5-11)
#83 ranked teams: 36-24, 31-17, 55-7, 9-10, (3-1, 131-58, average 33-14.5)
#84 ranked teams: 49-21, 49-28, 21-42, (2-1, 119-91, average 40-30)
#85 ranked teams: 31-7, 24-13, 28-21, (3-0, 83-41, average 28-14)
#86 ranked teams: 49-42
#87 ranked teams: none.
#88 ranked teams: 20-13, 14-17, (1-1, 34-30, average 17-15)
#89 ranked teams: 41-9, 27-6, (2-0, 68-15, average 34-7.5)
Vs. teams ranked #80-89: 17-7-0 (722-447, average 30-19)

#90 ranked teams: none
#91 ranked teams: 23-11, 45-3, 16-22, 13-10, (3-1, 97-46, average 24-11.5)
#92 ranked teams: 14-7, 42-0, 49-47, 41-31, (4-0, 146-85, average 36.5-21)
#93 ranked teams: 17-13, 41-10, 28-42, (2-1, 86-65, average 29-22)
#94 ranked teams: 31-14
#95 ranked teams: 31-22
#96 ranked teams: 13-12, 49-21, 20-12, (3-0, 82-45, average 27-15)
#97 ranked teams: 47-17
#98 ranked teams: 34-19
#99 ranked teams: 43-3, 49-14, 42-0, 45-28, (4-0, 179-45, average 45-11)
Vs. teams ranked #90-99: 17-2-0, (733-358, average 39-19)

#100 ranked teams: 34-0, 34-10, 60-7, (3-0, 128-17, average 43-6)
#101 ranked teams: 24-0, 38-7, 41-22, 36-15, 27-10, (5-0, 166-54, average 33-11)
#102 ranked teams: 35-0, 63-21, 31-21, (3-0, 129-42, average 43-14)
#103 ranked teams: 38-7
#104 ranked teams: 31-7, 47-7, (2-0, 78-14, average 39-7)
#105 ranked teams: 48-0, 52-6, 52-3, 38-14, (4-0, 190-23, average 47.5-6)
#106 ranked teams: none
#107 ranked teams: 21-7, 22-10, 21-24, 24-34, (2-2, 88-75, average 22-19)
#108 ranked teams: none
#109 ranked teams: 24-17, 28-14, (2-0, 52-31, average 26-15.5)
Vs. teams ranked #100-109: 22-2-0, (869-263, 36-11)

#110 ranked teams: 41-7
#111 ranked teams: 34-14
#112 ranked teams: 50-3
#113 ranked teams: 63-7, 45-14, (2-0, 108-21, average 54-10.5)
#114 ranked teams: 49-15
#115 ranked teams: none
#116 ranked teams: 37-34
#117 ranked teams: none
#118 ranked teams: 63-17
#119 ranked teams: 37-17, 31-0, (2-0, 68-17, average 34-8.5)
Vs. teams ranked #110-119: 10-0-0, (450-128, average 45-13)

#120 ranked teams: 29-3
#121 ranked teams: 30-21, 41-24, 42-7, 21-14, (4-0, 134-66, average 33.5-16.5)
#122 ranked teams: 38-14
#123-129 ranked teams: none
Vs. teams ranked #120-129: 6-0-0, (201-83, average 33.5-13.8)

#130-132 ranked teams: none’
#133 ranked teams: 42-21
We played no teams ranked lower than that.

Our greatest win was 17-9 over a Nebraska team that wound up ranked #4 in Howell’s rating in 1984. There is a tie for our worst loss, 21-24 to Rutgers in 1999 and 24-34 to Temple in 2004. Those #107 teams are a bitch.

By the way, G-Rob’s 10 mighty victories came against teams ranked #119, #112, #111, #70, #71, #54, #96, #121, #85 and #54, an average of #89 in the country.

 

[bnoro]

0-5 against #1 ranked teams... time to put a 1 in the win column?

 

[DNABB5]

SWC you are awesome. #17 is the first where we have a winning record but those #43 ranked teams kick our ass

 

[suloyalfan]

It's interesting to see that once we get to teams #30 or lower, we're pretty much 50-50 to win or better... top 30, under .500. That's actually not as bad as I thought it would be. With that in mind, statistically we have 1 "sure" win against Stony Brook, 10 games that are probably "50-50"... and 1 game (USC) that is an almost certain loss. That leads us to a 6-6 record. I think we'll end up 7-5 because I'm sure that some of the teams that we'll play against will be significantly below the #30 rank, so we're bound to have a better than 50-50 chance for a win! This is all statistically speaking, of course...

 

[rrlbees]

We've softened the schedule the last 2 seasons it seems.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[kcsu]

I decided to look at the scores and see how we did against each team that had each particular ranking. I’ll just lost the rankings and scores. I’ll bet you can remember most of the games, depending on how long you’ve been an SU fan.

Vs.
#1 ranked teams: 6-43, 7-28, 3-42, 33-34, 0-59 (0-5, 49-206, average 10-41)
#2 ranked teams: 16-41, 7-63, 0-26, 13-28, 14-55 (0-5, 50-213, average 10-43)
#3 ranked teams: 10-23, 0-16, 10-41, 7-33, 10-16, 0-62, 9-33, 7-49 (0-8, 53-273, average 7-34)
#4 ranked teams: 17-9, 20-24, 14-46, 13-18, (1-3, 64-97, average 16-24)
#5 ranked teams: 16-16, 38-21, 6-27, (1-1-1, 60-64, average 20-21)
#6 ranked teams: 7-24,0-14,16-24, 10-31, 14-22 (0-5, 47-115, average 9-23)
#7 ranked teams: 9-31, 0-43, 10-17, 7-15, (0-4, 26-106, average 6.5-26.5)
#8 ranked teams: 18-35
#9 ranked teams: 23-7, 10-27, 7-38, (1-2, 40-72, average 13-24)
Vs. teams ranked #1-9: 3-34-1 (407-1181, average 11-31)

#10 ranked teams: 27-16, 17-41, 7-28, (1-2, 51-85, average 17-28)
#11 ranked teams: 21-27
#12 ranked teams: 0-26, 0-49, 7-31, 52-21, 38-28, (2-3, 97-155, average 19-31)
#13 ranked teams: 10-13, 13-45, 31-52, (0-3, 54-110, average 18-37)
#14 ranked teams: 3-26, 20-23, 13-35, 13-17, 10-34, 17-38, (0-6, 76-173, average 13-29)
#15 ranked teams: 10-37
#16 ranked teams: 18-35, 12-34, (0-2, 30-69, average 15-34.5)
#17 ranked teams: 27-24, 13-34, 26-22, 29-33, 28-26, (3-2, 123-139, average 25-28)
#18 ranked teams: 21-31, 10-20, 9-27, 34-37, 10-30, (0-5, 84-145, average 17-29)
#19 ranked teams: 24-10, 16-34, 50-42, 10-41, (2-2, 100-127, average 25-32)
Vs. teams ranked #10-19: 6-25-0 (646-1067, 21-34)

#20 ranked teams: 31-38, 22-14, (1-1, 53-52, average 26.5-26)
#21 ranked teams: 23-10, 23-23, 24-45, 10-31, 10-20, 49-23, (2-3-1, 139-152, average 23-25)
#22 ranked teams: 21-10, 0-31, 24-48, 17-41, 24-34, (1-4, 86-164, average 17-33)
#23 ranked teams: 42-17, 7-34, 20-41, (1-2, 69-92, average 23-31)
#24 ranked teams: 14-38
#25 ranked teams: 14-24, 17-26, 17-24, 27-10, 24-27, 66-13, 19-14, (3-4, 184-138, average 26-20)
#26 ranked teams: 48-21, 23-30, 0-51, (1-2, 71-102, average 24-34)
#27 ranked teams: 6-17, 39-28, 20-41, 43-17 (2-2, 108-103, average 27-26)
#28 ranked teams: 13-20, 28-20, 26-3, 13-30 (2-2, 80-73, 20-18)
#29 ranked teams: 24-35, 30-7, 7-13, 6-17, 13-34, (1-4, 80-106, average 16-21)
Vs. teams ranked #20-29: 14-25-1, (884-1020, 22-25.5)

#30 ranked teams: 28-35
#31 ranked teams: 27-16, 31-56, (1-1, 58-72, average 29-36)
#32 ranked teams: 14-51, 16-19, (0-2, 30-70, average 15-35)
#33 ranked teams: 27-24, 24-7, 10-27, 7-30, (2-2, 68-88, average 17-22)
#34 ranked teams: 14-17, 0-19, 24-17, 3-17, (1-3, 41-70, average 10-17.5)
#35 ranked teams: 3-6, 10-47, 41-0, 17-34, 14-45, 33-30, (2-4, 118-162, average 20-27)
#36 ranked teams: 24-20, 32-31, 31-27, 24-21, 17-38, 7-51, (4-2, 135-188, average 22.5-31)
#37 ranked teams: 19-18, 20-17, 6-27, 17-35, 31-13, (3-2, 93-110, average 19-22)
#38 ranked teams: 10-13, 29-27, (1-1, 39-40, average 19.5-20)
#39 ranked teams: 16-27, 23-35, 21-18, 30-17, 31-27, 31-14, 38-31, 10-30, (5-3, 200-199, average 25-25)
Vs. teams ranked #30-39: 19-21-0 (810-1034, average 20-26)

#40 ranked teams: 50-28, 24-17, 14-39, (2-1, 88-84, average 44-42)
#41 ranked teams: 45-17, 28-0, 16-10, 29-30, 13-20, 42-10, 14-34, (4-3, 187-121, average 27-17)
#42 ranked teams: 31-32, 23-34, (0-2, 54-66, average 27-33)
#43 ranked teams: 3-21, 10-16, 23-24, 39-14, 0-27, 13-45, 20-41, (1-6, 108-188, average 15-27)
#44 ranked teams: 38-16, 31-21, 21-21, 34-0, 20-34, (3-1-1, 144-92, average 29-18)
#45 ranked teams: 24-13, 20-9, 14-38, (2-1, 58-60, average 19-20)
#46 ranked teams: 3-30, 24-10, 19-9, (2-1, 46-49, average 15-16)
#47 ranked teams: 20-7, 31-7, 6-23, (2-1, 57-37, average 19-12)
#48 ranked teams: 20-3, 20-9, 30-19, 20-30, (3-1, 90-61, average 22.5-15)
#49 ranked teams: 17-9, 24-13, 35-12, 19-7, (4-0, 95-41, average 24-10)
Vs. teams ranked #40-49: 23-17-1 (927-799, average 23-19)

#50 ranked teams: 12-0, 0-13, 13-9, (3-0, 25-22, average 8-7)
#51 ranked teams: 25-11, 15-9, 20-13, 42-30, (4-0, 102-63, average 25.5-16)
#52 ranked teams: 17-17, 34-7, (1-0-1, 51-24, average 25.5-12)
#53 ranked teams: none
#54 ranked teams: 18-20, 34-20, 37-36, 40-10, 10-12, 44-30, 38-35, 24-23, 7-16, (6-3, 252-202, average 28-22)
#55 ranked teams: 3-31, 11-21, 37-34, 10-27, (1-3, 61-113, average 15-28)
#56 ranked teams: 41-21, 17-24, 18-16, 21-7, 36-34, (4-1, 133-102, average 27-20)
#57 ranked teams: 8-23, 33-35, (0-2, 41-58, average 20.5-29)
#58 ranked teams: 45-17
#59 ranked teams: 29-14, 9-31, (1-1, 38-45, average 19-22.5)
Vs. teams ranked #50-59: 20-10-1, (748-646, average 24-21)

#60 ranked teams: 9-26, 52-24, 13-20, 20-28, (1-3, 94-98, average 23.5-24.5)
#61 ranked teams: 18-23, 27-17, 38-12, (2-1, 83-52, average 28-17)
#62 ranked teams: 27-17, 29-0, 37-10, 42-14, (4-0, 135-41, average 33.5-10)
#63 ranked teams: 19-31, 12-42, (0-2, 31-73, average 15.5-36.5)
#64 ranked teams: 10-17, 24-20, 24-10, 22-0, 21-10, (4-1, 101-57, average 20-11)
#65 ranked teams: 28-33, 31-18, 42-25, (2-1, 101-76, average 34-25)
#66 ranked teams: 6-17, 38-14, 58-29, 38-35, 20-23, (3-2, 160-118, average 32-24)
#67 ranked teams: 20-20, 17-20, (0-1-1, 37-40, average 18.5-20)
#68 ranked teams: 35-21, 24-17, (2-0, 59-38, average 29.5-19)
#69 ranked teams: 34-23, 42-21, 32-27, 17-34, (3-1, 125-105, average 31-26)
Vs. teams ranked #60-69: 21-12-1 (926-698, average 27-21)

#70 ranked teams: 13-7, 10-7, 30-7, 40-34, (4-0, 93-55, average 23-14)
#71 ranked teams: 31-8, 35-0, 21-16, 33-13, 20-14, (5-0, 140-51, average 28-10)
#72 ranked teams: 56-0, 20-33, (1-1, 76-33, average 38-16.5)
#73 ranked teams: 27-17, 0-35, 17-37, (1-2, 44-89, average 22-44.5)
#74 ranked teams: 35-6, 70-14, 36-29, (3-0, 141-49, average 47-16)
#75 ranked teams: 7-24
#76 ranked teams: 47-24, 45-20, (2-0, 92-44, average 46-22)
#77 ranked teams: 31-21, 24-21, 35-12, 16-17, (3-1, 106-71, average 26.5-18)
#78 ranked teams: 24-26, 28-9, 34-36, (1-2, 86-71, average 29-24)
#79 ranked teams: 38-17, 31-7, (2-0, 69-24, average 34.5-12)
Vs. teams ranked #70-79: 22-7-0 (854-511, average 29-18)

#80 ranked teams: 31-7, 22-30, 7-26, 21-28, (1-3, 81-91, average 20-23)
#81 ranked teams: 27-29, 31-14, 26-14, (2-1, 84-57, average 28-19)
#82 ranked teams: 42-10, 31-12, (2-0, 73-22, average 36.5-11)
#83 ranked teams: 36-24, 31-17, 55-7, 9-10, (3-1, 131-58, average 33-14.5)
#84 ranked teams: 49-21, 49-28, 21-42, (2-1, 119-91, average 40-30)
#85 ranked teams: 31-7, 24-13, 28-21, (3-0, 83-41, average 28-14)
#86 ranked teams: 49-42
#87 ranked teams: none.
#88 ranked teams: 20-13, 14-17, (1-1, 34-30, average 17-15)
#89 ranked teams: 41-9, 27-6, (2-0, 68-15, average 34-7.5)
Vs. teams ranked #80-89: 17-7-0 (722-447, average 30-19)

#90 ranked teams: none
#91 ranked teams: 23-11, 45-3, 16-22, 13-10, (3-1, 97-46, average 24-11.5)
#92 ranked teams: 14-7, 42-0, 49-47, 41-31, (4-0, 146-85, average 36.5-21)
#93 ranked teams: 17-13, 41-10, 28-42, (2-1, 86-65, average 29-22)
#94 ranked teams: 31-14
#95 ranked teams: 31-22
#96 ranked teams: 13-12, 49-21, 20-12, (3-0, 82-45, average 27-15)
#97 ranked teams: 47-17
#98 ranked teams: 34-19
#99 ranked teams: 43-3, 49-14, 42-0, 45-28, (4-0, 179-45, average 45-11)
Vs. teams ranked #90-99: 17-2-0, (733-358, average 39-19)

#100 ranked teams: 34-0, 34-10, 60-7, (3-0, 128-17, average 43-6)
#101 ranked teams: 24-0, 38-7, 41-22, 36-15, 27-10, (5-0, 166-54, average 33-11)
#102 ranked teams: 35-0, 63-21, 31-21, (3-0, 129-42, average 43-14)
#103 ranked teams: 38-7
#104 ranked teams: 31-7, 47-7, (2-0, 78-14, average 39-7)
#105 ranked teams: 48-0, 52-6, 52-3, 38-14, (4-0, 190-23, average 47.5-6)
#106 ranked teams: none
#107 ranked teams: 21-7, 22-10, 21-24, 24-34, (2-2, 88-75, average 22-19)
#108 ranked teams: none
#109 ranked teams: 24-17, 28-14, (2-0, 52-31, average 26-15.5)
Vs. teams ranked #100-109: 22-2-0, (869-263, 36-11)

#110 ranked teams: 41-7
#111 ranked teams: 34-14
#112 ranked teams: 50-3
#113 ranked teams: 63-7, 45-14, (2-0, 108-21, average 54-10.5)
#114 ranked teams: 49-15
#115 ranked teams: none
#116 ranked teams: 37-34
#117 ranked teams: none
#118 ranked teams: 63-17
#119 ranked teams: 37-17, 31-0, (2-0, 68-17, average 34-8.5)
Vs. teams ranked #110-119: 10-0-0, (450-128, average 45-13)

#120 ranked teams: 29-3
#121 ranked teams: 30-21, 41-24, 42-7, 21-14, (4-0, 134-66, average 33.5-16.5)
#122 ranked teams: 38-14
#123-129 ranked teams: none
Vs. teams ranked #120-129: 6-0-0, (201-83, average 33.5-13.8)

#130-132 ranked teams: none’
#133 ranked teams: 42-21
We played no teams ranked lower than that.

Our greatest win was 17-9 over a Nebraska team that wound up ranked #4 in Howell’s rating in 1984. There is a tie for our worst loss, 21-24 to Rutgers in 1999 and 24-34 to Temple in 2004. Those #107 teams are a bitch.

By the way, G-Rob’s 10 mighty victories came against teams ranked #119, #112, #111, #70, #71, #54, #96, #121, #85 and #54, an average of #89 in the country.

Im amazed by the amount of work and effort you put into your post. Thank you so much i always look forward to the data that you provide.

 

[alphaorange]

Appreciate the effort in all these statistics. That being said, the average ranking of the teams on the schedule would seem to be nearly without value. A couple of teams on either end of the spectrum could skew the value to the point it makes the entire schedule look like something it is not. Some formula that used points scored/given up against a given ranking would likely be more accurate. I have no idea what that formula would like like but that would seem to be the a better metric.

 

[SUFan44]

0-5 against #1 ranked teams... time to put a 1 in the win column?

Since it's a post-season ranking done by Howell, very rarely (if ever) would the #1 team that ends the season have one loss.

 

[retro44]

I decided to look at the scores and see how we did against each team that had each particular ranking. I’ll just lost the rankings and scores. I’ll bet you can remember most of the games, depending on how long you’ve been an SU fan.

Vs.
#1 ranked teams: 6-43, 7-28, 3-42, 33-34, 0-59 (0-5, 49-206, average 10-41)
#2 ranked teams: 16-41, 7-63, 0-26, 13-28, 14-55 (0-5, 50-213, average 10-43)
#3 ranked teams: 10-23, 0-16, 10-41, 7-33, 10-16, 0-62, 9-33, 7-49 (0-8, 53-273, average 7-34)
#4 ranked teams: 17-9, 20-24, 14-46, 13-18, (1-3, 64-97, average 16-24)
#5 ranked teams: 16-16, 38-21, 6-27, (1-1-1, 60-64, average 20-21)
#6 ranked teams: 7-24,0-14,16-24, 10-31, 14-22 (0-5, 47-115, average 9-23)
#7 ranked teams: 9-31, 0-43, 10-17, 7-15, (0-4, 26-106, average 6.5-26.5)
#8 ranked teams: 18-35
#9 ranked teams: 23-7, 10-27, 7-38, (1-2, 40-72, average 13-24)
Vs. teams ranked #1-9: 3-34-1 (407-1181, average 11-31)

#10 ranked teams: 27-16, 17-41, 7-28, (1-2, 51-85, average 17-28)
#11 ranked teams: 21-27
#12 ranked teams: 0-26, 0-49, 7-31, 52-21, 38-28, (2-3, 97-155, average 19-31)
#13 ranked teams: 10-13, 13-45, 31-52, (0-3, 54-110, average 18-37)
#14 ranked teams: 3-26, 20-23, 13-35, 13-17, 10-34, 17-38, (0-6, 76-173, average 13-29)
#15 ranked teams: 10-37
#16 ranked teams: 18-35, 12-34, (0-2, 30-69, average 15-34.5)
#17 ranked teams: 27-24, 13-34, 26-22, 29-33, 28-26, (3-2, 123-139, average 25-28)
#18 ranked teams: 21-31, 10-20, 9-27, 34-37, 10-30, (0-5, 84-145, average 17-29)
#19 ranked teams: 24-10, 16-34, 50-42, 10-41, (2-2, 100-127, average 25-32)
Vs. teams ranked #10-19: 6-25-0 (646-1067, 21-34)

#20 ranked teams: 31-38, 22-14, (1-1, 53-52, average 26.5-26)
#21 ranked teams: 23-10, 23-23, 24-45, 10-31, 10-20, 49-23, (2-3-1, 139-152, average 23-25)
#22 ranked teams: 21-10, 0-31, 24-48, 17-41, 24-34, (1-4, 86-164, average 17-33)
#23 ranked teams: 42-17, 7-34, 20-41, (1-2, 69-92, average 23-31)
#24 ranked teams: 14-38
#25 ranked teams: 14-24, 17-26, 17-24, 27-10, 24-27, 66-13, 19-14, (3-4, 184-138, average 26-20)
#26 ranked teams: 48-21, 23-30, 0-51, (1-2, 71-102, average 24-34)
#27 ranked teams: 6-17, 39-28, 20-41, 43-17 (2-2, 108-103, average 27-26)
#28 ranked teams: 13-20, 28-20, 26-3, 13-30 (2-2, 80-73, 20-18)
#29 ranked teams: 24-35, 30-7, 7-13, 6-17, 13-34, (1-4, 80-106, average 16-21)
Vs. teams ranked #20-29: 14-25-1, (884-1020, 22-25.5)

#30 ranked teams: 28-35
#31 ranked teams: 27-16, 31-56, (1-1, 58-72, average 29-36)
#32 ranked teams: 14-51, 16-19, (0-2, 30-70, average 15-35)
#33 ranked teams: 27-24, 24-7, 10-27, 7-30, (2-2, 68-88, average 17-22)
#34 ranked teams: 14-17, 0-19, 24-17, 3-17, (1-3, 41-70, average 10-17.5)
#35 ranked teams: 3-6, 10-47, 41-0, 17-34, 14-45, 33-30, (2-4, 118-162, average 20-27)
#36 ranked teams: 24-20, 32-31, 31-27, 24-21, 17-38, 7-51, (4-2, 135-188, average 22.5-31)
#37 ranked teams: 19-18, 20-17, 6-27, 17-35, 31-13, (3-2, 93-110, average 19-22)
#38 ranked teams: 10-13, 29-27, (1-1, 39-40, average 19.5-20)
#39 ranked teams: 16-27, 23-35, 21-18, 30-17, 31-27, 31-14, 38-31, 10-30, (5-3, 200-199, average 25-25)
Vs. teams ranked #30-39: 19-21-0 (810-1034, average 20-26)

#40 ranked teams: 50-28, 24-17, 14-39, (2-1, 88-84, average 44-42)
#41 ranked teams: 45-17, 28-0, 16-10, 29-30, 13-20, 42-10, 14-34, (4-3, 187-121, average 27-17)
#42 ranked teams: 31-32, 23-34, (0-2, 54-66, average 27-33)
#43 ranked teams: 3-21, 10-16, 23-24, 39-14, 0-27, 13-45, 20-41, (1-6, 108-188, average 15-27)
#44 ranked teams: 38-16, 31-21, 21-21, 34-0, 20-34, (3-1-1, 144-92, average 29-18)
#45 ranked teams: 24-13, 20-9, 14-38, (2-1, 58-60, average 19-20)
#46 ranked teams: 3-30, 24-10, 19-9, (2-1, 46-49, average 15-16)
#47 ranked teams: 20-7, 31-7, 6-23, (2-1, 57-37, average 19-12)
#48 ranked teams: 20-3, 20-9, 30-19, 20-30, (3-1, 90-61, average 22.5-15)
#49 ranked teams: 17-9, 24-13, 35-12, 19-7, (4-0, 95-41, average 24-10)
Vs. teams ranked #40-49: 23-17-1 (927-799, average 23-19)

#50 ranked teams: 12-0, 0-13, 13-9, (3-0, 25-22, average 8-7)
#51 ranked teams: 25-11, 15-9, 20-13, 42-30, (4-0, 102-63, average 25.5-16)
#52 ranked teams: 17-17, 34-7, (1-0-1, 51-24, average 25.5-12)
#53 ranked teams: none
#54 ranked teams: 18-20, 34-20, 37-36, 40-10, 10-12, 44-30, 38-35, 24-23, 7-16, (6-3, 252-202, average 28-22)
#55 ranked teams: 3-31, 11-21, 37-34, 10-27, (1-3, 61-113, average 15-28)
#56 ranked teams: 41-21, 17-24, 18-16, 21-7, 36-34, (4-1, 133-102, average 27-20)
#57 ranked teams: 8-23, 33-35, (0-2, 41-58, average 20.5-29)
#58 ranked teams: 45-17
#59 ranked teams: 29-14, 9-31, (1-1, 38-45, average 19-22.5)
Vs. teams ranked #50-59: 20-10-1, (748-646, average 24-21)

#60 ranked teams: 9-26, 52-24, 13-20, 20-28, (1-3, 94-98, average 23.5-24.5)
#61 ranked teams: 18-23, 27-17, 38-12, (2-1, 83-52, average 28-17)
#62 ranked teams: 27-17, 29-0, 37-10, 42-14, (4-0, 135-41, average 33.5-10)
#63 ranked teams: 19-31, 12-42, (0-2, 31-73, average 15.5-36.5)
#64 ranked teams: 10-17, 24-20, 24-10, 22-0, 21-10, (4-1, 101-57, average 20-11)
#65 ranked teams: 28-33, 31-18, 42-25, (2-1, 101-76, average 34-25)
#66 ranked teams: 6-17, 38-14, 58-29, 38-35, 20-23, (3-2, 160-118, average 32-24)
#67 ranked teams: 20-20, 17-20, (0-1-1, 37-40, average 18.5-20)
#68 ranked teams: 35-21, 24-17, (2-0, 59-38, average 29.5-19)
#69 ranked teams: 34-23, 42-21, 32-27, 17-34, (3-1, 125-105, average 31-26)
Vs. teams ranked #60-69: 21-12-1 (926-698, average 27-21)

#70 ranked teams: 13-7, 10-7, 30-7, 40-34, (4-0, 93-55, average 23-14)
#71 ranked teams: 31-8, 35-0, 21-16, 33-13, 20-14, (5-0, 140-51, average 28-10)
#72 ranked teams: 56-0, 20-33, (1-1, 76-33, average 38-16.5)
#73 ranked teams: 27-17, 0-35, 17-37, (1-2, 44-89, average 22-44.5)
#74 ranked teams: 35-6, 70-14, 36-29, (3-0, 141-49, average 47-16)
#75 ranked teams: 7-24
#76 ranked teams: 47-24, 45-20, (2-0, 92-44, average 46-22)
#77 ranked teams: 31-21, 24-21, 35-12, 16-17, (3-1, 106-71, average 26.5-18)
#78 ranked teams: 24-26, 28-9, 34-36, (1-2, 86-71, average 29-24)
#79 ranked teams: 38-17, 31-7, (2-0, 69-24, average 34.5-12)
Vs. teams ranked #70-79: 22-7-0 (854-511, average 29-18)

#80 ranked teams: 31-7, 22-30, 7-26, 21-28, (1-3, 81-91, average 20-23)
#81 ranked teams: 27-29, 31-14, 26-14, (2-1, 84-57, average 28-19)
#82 ranked teams: 42-10, 31-12, (2-0, 73-22, average 36.5-11)
#83 ranked teams: 36-24, 31-17, 55-7, 9-10, (3-1, 131-58, average 33-14.5)
#84 ranked teams: 49-21, 49-28, 21-42, (2-1, 119-91, average 40-30)
#85 ranked teams: 31-7, 24-13, 28-21, (3-0, 83-41, average 28-14)
#86 ranked teams: 49-42
#87 ranked teams: none.
#88 ranked teams: 20-13, 14-17, (1-1, 34-30, average 17-15)
#89 ranked teams: 41-9, 27-6, (2-0, 68-15, average 34-7.5)
Vs. teams ranked #80-89: 17-7-0 (722-447, average 30-19)

#90 ranked teams: none
#91 ranked teams: 23-11, 45-3, 16-22, 13-10, (3-1, 97-46, average 24-11.5)
#92 ranked teams: 14-7, 42-0, 49-47, 41-31, (4-0, 146-85, average 36.5-21)
#93 ranked teams: 17-13, 41-10, 28-42, (2-1, 86-65, average 29-22)
#94 ranked teams: 31-14
#95 ranked teams: 31-22
#96 ranked teams: 13-12, 49-21, 20-12, (3-0, 82-45, average 27-15)
#97 ranked teams: 47-17
#98 ranked teams: 34-19
#99 ranked teams: 43-3, 49-14, 42-0, 45-28, (4-0, 179-45, average 45-11)
Vs. teams ranked #90-99: 17-2-0, (733-358, average 39-19)

#100 ranked teams: 34-0, 34-10, 60-7, (3-0, 128-17, average 43-6)
#101 ranked teams: 24-0, 38-7, 41-22, 36-15, 27-10, (5-0, 166-54, average 33-11)
#102 ranked teams: 35-0, 63-21, 31-21, (3-0, 129-42, average 43-14)
#103 ranked teams: 38-7
#104 ranked teams: 31-7, 47-7, (2-0, 78-14, average 39-7)
#105 ranked teams: 48-0, 52-6, 52-3, 38-14, (4-0, 190-23, average 47.5-6)
#106 ranked teams: none
#107 ranked teams: 21-7, 22-10, 21-24, 24-34, (2-2, 88-75, average 22-19)
#108 ranked teams: none
#109 ranked teams: 24-17, 28-14, (2-0, 52-31, average 26-15.5)
Vs. teams ranked #100-109: 22-2-0, (869-263, 36-11)

#110 ranked teams: 41-7
#111 ranked teams: 34-14
#112 ranked teams: 50-3
#113 ranked teams: 63-7, 45-14, (2-0, 108-21, average 54-10.5)
#114 ranked teams: 49-15
#115 ranked teams: none
#116 ranked teams: 37-34
#117 ranked teams: none
#118 ranked teams: 63-17
#119 ranked teams: 37-17, 31-0, (2-0, 68-17, average 34-8.5)
Vs. teams ranked #110-119: 10-0-0, (450-128, average 45-13)

#120 ranked teams: 29-3
#121 ranked teams: 30-21, 41-24, 42-7, 21-14, (4-0, 134-66, average 33.5-16.5)
#122 ranked teams: 38-14
#123-129 ranked teams: none
Vs. teams ranked #120-129: 6-0-0, (201-83, average 33.5-13.8)

#130-132 ranked teams: none’
#133 ranked teams: 42-21
We played no teams ranked lower than that.

Our greatest win was 17-9 over a Nebraska team that wound up ranked #4 in Howell’s rating in 1984. There is a tie for our worst loss, 21-24 to Rutgers in 1999 and 24-34 to Temple in 2004. Those #107 teams are a bitch.

By the way, G-Rob’s 10 mighty victories came against teams ranked #119, #112, #111, #70, #71, #54, #96, #121, #85 and #54, an average of #89 in the country.

we can thank the NYS pension system for giving you the time to do this kind of goodwork.

 

[SWC75]

we can thank the NYS pension system for giving you the time to do this kind of goodwork.

Federal.

 

[SWC75]

Appreciate the effort in all these statistics. That being said, the average ranking of the teams on the schedule would seem to be nearly without value. A couple of teams on either end of the spectrum could skew the value to the point it makes the entire schedule look like something it is not. Some formula that used points scored/given up against a given ranking would likely be more accurate. I have no idea what that formula would like like but that would seem to be the a better metric.

I did break down the top 6 as well. That eliminates the impact of the realy bad teams.

 

[alphaorange]

I did break down the top 6 as well. That eliminates the impact of the realy bad teams.

Got it...thanks

 

[Chip]

Since it's a post-season ranking done by Howell, very rarely (if ever) would the #1 team that ends the season have one loss.

Especially a loss to Syracuse.

 

[wfschrec]

2010 SOS was a lot lower than 69 ... you can't just plug in Colgate and Maine as 121 and 122 ... there were teams much better than them at the FCS level ... our SOS was 85th in 2010 and jumped all the way up to 48th in 2011 ... which as I have stated numerous times on this board was a big reason we didn't repeat our 8-5 magic last season ... you should refer to sports-reference.com and look at the college football section .. they use SRS and SOS and give you an idea of how strong our schedule has been the last few years. For those unaware SRS is merely the measure of point differential when analyzing the strength of schedule ... according to them our SOS was 58th in 1987 and 36th in 1998. Attached is an explanation of their rankings:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=37

 

[SWC75]

2010 SOS was a lot lower than 69 ... you can't just plug in Colgate and Maine as 121 and 122 ... there were teams much better than them at the FCS level ... our SOS was 85th in 2010 and jumped all the way up to 48th in 2011 ... which as I have stated numerous times on this board was a big reason we didn't repeat our 8-5 magic last season ... you should refer to sports-reference.com and look at the college football section .. they use SRS and SOS and give you an idea of how strong our schedule has been the last few years. For those unaware SRS is merely the measure of point differential when analyzing the strength of schedule ... according to them our SOS was 58th in 1987 and 36th in 1998. Attached is an explanation of their rankings:

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/blog/?p=37

I nedded a source that had the info I needed back to 1980, since I was looking at the Carrier Dome era. That source didn't rate the 1AA/FCS teams so I had to come up with something. Also I find the #60 as an average rating for an opponent a little easier to digest that an SOS of 2.19 and and SRS of -3.15.

 

[wfschrec]

I nedded a source that had the info I needed back to 1980, since I was looking at the Carrier Dome era. That source didn't rate the 1AA/FCS teams so I had to come up with something. Also I find the #60 as an average rating for an opponent a little easier to digest that an SOS of 2.19 and and SRS of -3.15.

While it may provide a 2.19 it tells you where that would stand in the rankings ... frankly to say our SOS was pretty similar in 2010 to that of 2011 is not really valid ... they don't even compare ... USC > Washington ... Wake > Akron ... and Toledo is a heckuva lot better than Maine or Colgate ... not even close honestly. I can't find it easy to look at the schedules for each of those seasons and say they were comparable ... i.e. #60 & #69 ...

 

[SWC75]

While it may provide a 2.19 it tells you where that would stand in the rankings ... frankly to say our SOS was pretty similar in 2010 to that of 2011 is not really valid ... they don't even compare ... USC > Washington ... Wake > Akron ... and Toledo is a heckuva lot better than Maine or Colgate ... not even close honestly. I can't find it easy to look at the schedules for each of those seasons and say they were comparable ... i.e. #60 & #69 ...

In 2010 we had a non-conference record of 4-2. In 2011 it was 4-1. the difference between the two season was that in 2010 we won four Big East road games. In 2011, we didn't win any.

 

[wfschrec]

In 2010 we had a non-conference record of 4-2. In 2011 it was 4-1. the difference between the two season was that in 2010 we won four Big East road games. In 2011, we didn't win any.

Ok so lets decompose this:

2010:
South Florida #50,
Pittsburgh #35,
West Virginia #25,
Cincinnati #79,
Louisville #60,
Rutgers #91,
Connecticut #47

2011:
South Florida #73,
Pittsburgh #72,
West Virginia #21,
Cincinnati #28,
Louisville #55,
Rutgers #32,
Connecticut #80

4 of 7 were higher in the SOS and in some circumstances significantly which feeds into the premise that our SOS was much further along than a mere 9 slots based on conference and OOC schedule. Not even sure why it matters where the losses came from either ... its overall SOS not OOC or in conference SOS ... its overall and our record reflected the fact that we had a tougher schedule. While UConn, USF and Pitt did take a tumble overall our in conference schedule was tougher than the prior season ... as well as our OOC ... FWIW 2 of those road conference wins were against teams that improved tremendously between 2010 and 2011 and then became home losses which gives even more ammunition for my argument with those two programs being Cincy and RU ... Granted the RU game was a giveaway ... it still reflects an overall tougher schedule.

 

[HtownOrange]

Thanks, SWC75.

Just a reminder that assuming you could manage to schedule the top 12 teams in one season, you SOS would still average 6.5. Our overall average would not be the ranking in order, but a number that is actually a pretty good number overall.

I wounder how other teams would fare in your method, especially SEC teams that are naturally overinflated anyway. My guess is that Syracuse has a respectable scheduling policy.

Very interesting work that can only lead to requests for much more work...and you claim to be a former Government employee...you should know better. (sarcasm off). Thanks, again.

 

[SWC75]

Ok so lets decompose this:

2010:
South Florida #50,
Pittsburgh #35,
West Virginia #25,
Cincinnati #79,
Louisville #60,
Rutgers #91,
Connecticut #47

2011:
South Florida #73,
Pittsburgh #72,
West Virginia #21,
Cincinnati #28,
Louisville #55,
Rutgers #32,
Connecticut #80

4 of 7 were higher in the SOS and in some circumstances significantly which feeds into the premise that our SOS was much further along than a mere 9 slots based on conference and OOC schedule. Not even sure why it matters where the losses came from either ... its overall SOS not OOC or in conference SOS ... its overall and our record reflected the fact that we had a tougher schedule. While UConn, USF and Pitt did take a tumble overall our in conference schedule was tougher than the prior season ... as well as our OOC ... FWIW 2 of those road conference wins were against teams that improved tremendously between 2010 and 2011 and then became home losses which gives even more ammunition for my argument with those two programs being Cincy and RU ... Granted the RU game was a giveaway ... it still reflects an overall tougher schedule.

Nonetheless, we didn't go from an 8-5 record to a 5-7 record because Maine and Colgate were off the schedule, which was your original point. The Big East was about the same overall, (and average fo #55 vs. #52). Both schedules were weak compared to prior years. The big thing is that we had a better defense in 2010 than in 2011.

 

[wfschrec]

Nonetheless, we didn't go from an 8-5 record to a 5-7 record because Maine and Colgate were off the schedule, which was your original point. The Big East was about the same overall, (and average fo #55 vs. #52). Both schedules were weak compared to prior years. The big thing is that we had a better defense in 2010 than in 2011.

Actually if you take either Maine or Colgate and replace one of those OOC losses with them we go bowling ... its that simple. And again like I said RU and UC ... two teams we beat the prior year were vastly improved ... and beat us at home ... again our SOS was significantly better ... we had one more OOC loss than the prior year ... the difference between being .500 and one game under is it not? Was our D better in 2010 yes ... it was ... how much of that was driven by schedule vice driven by actual talent? Probably not as much as one would believe.