Are SEC schedules overrated?
Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, the Abominable Snowman, and the weak SEC schedule. All of these are myths. Only one, however, can be mathematically proven to not exist – the weak SEC schedule.
For the past several years, several coaches and almost every fan from three of the other four Power Five conferences (notable exception being the Pac-12, where they just like to play ball and win a lot of games) have created the myth that the SEC plays a weaker overall schedule. They attribute this to one exclusive schedule component: the out-of-conference schedule. Persistence and hyperbole – as usual in our society – have gained traction where math and logic counter otherwise. They have created a narrative by attacking the easy targets of pre-season polls, men and women with a lifetime of experience who make decisions behind closed doors, and winners. There used to be a time in this country where we appreciated a winner. Now, we thirst to see the mighty fall and clamor for equal opportunity for championships.
The furor was at its peak as the SEC won seven consecutive championships so we completely retooled the system. We’ve marginalized (slightly) the regular season in turn for double the amount of teams playing for the championship (two to four). Now we are already assuming the inevitability of increasing the playoffs to eight. Everyone wants a chance at redemption after a bad loss or two or three in the regular season. This is the new American way in college football.
But is this narrative true? Of course not. It’s a product of many things, most notably the constant need to fill 24-hour news cycle, the adoration of ridiculousness in personalities like Skip Bayless, Danny Kanell, and Stephen A. Smith, and the grab for money and power in the growing business of college football.
After taking a comprehensive look at all Power Five schedules, I found something pretty amazing. If you apply a pretty even measurement to them, they are all about equal. Let’s take a look.
First, the methodology. My biggest problem with the “weak SEC schedule” myth is that it relies solely on how SEC schedule their out-of-conference (OOC) games. While that does turn out to be a slight weakness for the SEC, it is only one component of how to measure strength-of-conference schedules. Here’s how I did it:
-Because teams often schedule their OOC opponents at two-year intervals (Home and Away), I looked at 2014 and 2015 time frames only
-I completely eliminated any rankings; I use wins and losses, opponent’s wins and losses and numbers of Power Five OOC opponents
-Because Boise State won a CFP rotational bowl last year, I included them, along with all Independents, in the Power Five population. Using the two year rotational model, whichever Group of Five conference team plays in the CFP rotational bowl this year can be substituted for this exercise in the future
-I calculated four scores:
-Conference overall winning percentage. This measures how strong the conference is and, theoretically, how strong the “in-conference” schedule is. Again, this is not based on ranking, only on wins and losses. And it’s a winning percentage, so all conferences are leveled regardless of number of teams.
-Previous Year Bowl Results. Again, based on a two-year sample methodology, I used the previous year (2014) bowl performance as an additional gauge to measure the conferences against each other. This is useful because it shows how (theoretically) even-matched teams from each conference did against each other. It’s different from the season’s OOC numbers because it’s dictated by season results (wins and losses) rather than Athletic Director scheduling strategy. I added the percentage of conference teams that played in a bowl, the conference’s bowl winning percentage, and the conference’s bowl opponents’ winning percentage and the divided those three numbers by three.
-Previous Year OOC Factor. In this area, I measured each conference’s OOC performance from the previous year (2014 in this case). I calculated the percentage of OOC games that were against other Power Five/Independent/Boise St. throughout the conference (thus rewarding conferences for just playing – not winning but just playing other Power Five teams), the conference’s winning percentage in just those games, and the conference’s OOC opponents’ winning percentage. I added those three numbers and against divided by three.
Current Year OOC Factor. Similar to above, I determine the percentage of the all conference OOC games that are Power Five/Independent/Boise St. and then determine the 2014 winning percentage of all conference Power Five OOC opponents. I add those two numbers and divide by two.
-This gives me four numbers, all based out of 100 and all considering for the differences in number of teams in each conference. I add those numbers up for a comparison of the strength of the overall conference schdule.
Here is the table for this upcoming season:
So, the totals end up looking like this:
Surprise! The most notable result of this exercise is that the overall conference schedules – for the exception of the Big 12 – are fairly even. The other big takeaway? The Pac-12 seems to have a slight advantage over the SEC when considering the overall difficultly of schedules across the league. The Pac-12 had solid numbers across the board and pulled ahead of the SEC with the amount of OOC scheduling for 2014 and 2015. The SEC was strongest amongst all conferences when considering overall winning percentage and OOC opponents’ overall winning percentage. So while the PAC-12 is playing more OOC opponents and winning at a slightly higher percentage,, the SEC is playing fewer OOC opponents but playing significantly tougher competition and winning at a percentage just below the PAC-12.
The ACC, if you consider Notre Dame as an independent and not part of the ACC (see note below) is surprisingly close to the SEC’s second place number. While not outstanding in any one category, the ACC was middle-of-the-pack throughout. Including Notre Dame as part of the ACC for scheduling purposes significantly reduces their numbers.
The Big Ten was hurt by the performance of its middle- and lower-tier teams. However, statistically, a 19-point difference from first to fourth indicates a fairly even strength of conference schedule between these four conferences.
The Big 12 is lagging way behind. The conference’s bowl performance and overall performance in 2014 against OOC opponents really hurt their total. This is something that will continue to hurt a one-loss Big 12 team.
This analysis clearly shows that the idea that the SEC schedule is weak or overrated is certainly a myth. At best, it’s slightly less strong than the PAC-12’s overall schedule and still stronger than the other 60% of the Power Five. This strength of conference scheduling is intended to be used narrowly to compare the overall conference’s strength of schedule, not necessarily one individual team.
Some more minor notes:
-I included Ohio State’s National Championship Game (NCG) results, which helps the Big Ten slightly in two categories and helps out the ACC and SEC (very slightly) in two categories.
-I did not penalize Oregon (did not include the loss) in computing the PAC-12 numbers, which helps the PAC-12 (very) slightly in two categories.
-Neither of the above adjustments, based on Ohio State and Oregon winning a bowl game to advance to the NCG significantly affects the comparable numbers.
-What does affect the numbers is Notre Dame; Notre Dame’s status as an Independent and having nine games against Power Five teams greatly helps the ACC’s numbers and somewhat helps the Big Ten. If you consider Notre Dame as part of the ACC (as they have ten total games in the ACC between 2014 and 2015) the ACC’s total number drops to 211.6.
Main Photo:
