By: Patrick

Patrick — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 22:58:51 +0000

I would like to add one more thing that I forgot to mention. I think it is somewhat of a misconception that a team is likely a better team because they win by large margins. I would argue that these teams are not as good because they lack the experience and ability to play a team that is not afraid of them or demoralized by them. I play competitive billiards, and one of the most important things I ever learned was how to shoot my best when someone else could “fire back” at me. Many competitors lack the poise, discipline, courage, and experience to face a competitor that is not afraid of them. College football is no different. Oregon knew how to play with a cushion but was not battle-tested like Auburn was. Oregon never faced a team like Auburn, yet Auburn had faced plenty of excellent football teams that gave them a run for their money. Winning games in the conference that Auburn did builds an incredible amount of confidence and swagger that is difficult to measure. And in all honesty, Auburn probably didn’t respect Oregon and didn’t care that Oregon was a media favorite (but not a gambling favorite).

–Patrick

By: Patrick

Patrick — Thu, 14 Apr 2011 22:42:02 +0000

While I do feel that your SRS ranking is a very important measure of how good a team is, I would argue that the SOS statistic may carry more weight in evaluating how elite teams stack up to other elite teams. For the sake of definition, I would call elite teams those teams that make it to a BCS Bowl as well as teams that make it to some of the bigger non-BCS bowls (e.g. 2010 LSU). I don’t believe this takes anything away from the SRS statistic, but I do feel that, especially with more elite teams like national champions and BCS bowl teams, the SOS should carry more weight in evaluating how an elite team stacks up to other elite team in years past or even the same year. Think about the following arguments.
2001 Miami, for instance, beat its opponents by approximately a touchdown more than Auburn beat its opponents. But, I strongly doubt that if they had as tough a conference and divisional schedule as Auburn did in 2010 that their SRS would be as high. I have a suspicion that with elite teams, the SOS should carry more weight.
The SEC West in 2010 was the BEST division in the best conference in college football. I welcome arguments to the contrary, but I think the facts are obvious. By the way, I would love to discuss with anybody that is willing why the SEC West is so good right now. Every team in the SEC West won their bowl game with the exception of Arkansas, who, in all reality, outplayed Ohio St. in the 2010 Sugar Bowl.
Also, SRS shows that you’re beating teams by significant margins, but it doesn’t accurately reflect how well a team plays CLOSE games, at least insofar as you are talking about a team with an exceptionally high SRS. Obviously, an undefeated team at any point in the season with a low SRS would probably reveal that the team doesn’t win by a large margin or overwhelmingly outplay its opponents, BUT the team wins. The 2010 National Championship between Auburn & Oregon is a good example of why SRS may not be as important as SOS in evaluating ELITE teams. Oregon was drilling people all year long with one (maybe two exceptions but my memory is failing me right now) exception in the Cal game. Oregon even had a higher SRS than Auburn, albeit by slightly less than a point. I personally KNEW that Auburn would win that game because they were used to playing in tight games against stiff competition EVERY Saturday. Oregon benefited from a conference that was weak from top to bottom. The only real competition Oregon faced in 2010 was Stanford. Auburn had to play one other BCS Bowl team in its division (Arkansas) and, arguably, two other teams that were deserving of a BCS Bowl (Alabama & LSU).
The MOST underrated team in the country was probably Alabama who showed that the Big Ten had no business playing the cream of the crop in the SEC (except for Ohio St., but even they squeaked by with a win against Arkansas. If Oregon had to play in the SEC West, they likely would not have been considered to play in the national championship.
Boise St. is another example of why I feel SRS should carry less value than SOS in evaluating elite teams. I would, at best, put Boise St. at about the lowest tier of elite teams. If they played in the SEC West, they would probably lose at least 4 divisional games. Yet, their SRS is higher than any other team in the SEC except for Auburn.
Also, while I think that the SRS statistic is a very valuable statistic, I think it does have a flaw in that it doesn’t account for circumstances and intangibles. By this I mean such factors as the conference that a team plays in, coaching, rhythm of play, team swagger and determination, as well as key victories. I know that this is a pretty obvious statement, and I do know that the SRS statistic is clear that it makes no attempt to measure these intangibles of this sort, but these intangibles SHOULD play a large role in determining who is the best of the best.

Conclusion: I don’t think that comparing BCS national champions and other elite teams almost exclusively in terms of SRS is an accurate measure of just how good a team is.

I look forward to reading your thoughts about the relationship between the SRS and SOS statistics. Also, I am curious to know how you would qualify quantitative differences in SRS and SOS among teams. For example, a team with an SOS of 3.0 is playing a team with an SOS of 2.3. Obviously, the team with an SOS of 3.0 has a tougher schedule. But, how much tougher of a schedule is .7 SOS points? And for that matter, how would you qualify quantitative differences in SRS?

–Patrick

Comments on: Auburn’s Place Among BCS Champions

By: Patrick

By: Patrick