Big Ten Versus SEC: More Analysis of Non-Conference Schedules

In Dan Boss' article Big Ten Versus SEC: Controversy Over Non-Conference Scheduling, Boss gives in-depth analysis on the Big 10 and SEC non-conference schedules. 

Just for kicks, I'm going to add another factor: Non-conference opponent winning percentage.

I got to thinking: Is it right that a 12-2 FCS opponent like Southern Illinois is only worth one point, while Duke, which is in a BCS conference, is worth five?

I am using Boss' points system, which was:

Away game versus projected top 25 opponent = 8 points

Home game versus projected top 25 opponent = 7 points

Away game versus BCS opponent = 6 points

Home game versus BCS opponent = 5 points

Away game versus non-BCS opponent = 4 points

Home game versus non-BCS opponent = 3 points

Away game versus FCS opponent = 2 points

Home game versus FCS opponent = 1 point

My added factor will work in this manner: 

Point values are established for a non-conference schedule, and I multiply those points by average winning percentage of the opposing teams.

If a team has a 10-point non-conference schedule, and those teams have an average winning percentage of .500, then the team is awarded five points.

The format here is School Name, Points, and Percentage.  The number in parentheses is there to delineate the rank in Mr. Boss’ article.

23 (23). Indiana

Western Kentucky: 3, .583; Murray State: 1, .182; Ball State: 3, .538; Central Michigan: 3, .571

Average Winning Percentage: .467

Final Score: 4.67

22 (7). Iowa

Maine: 1, .364; Florida International: 3, .091; Iowa State: 5, .250: @ Pittsburgh: 8, .417

Average Winning Percentage: .281

Final Score: 4.77

21 (22). LSU

Appalachian State: 1, .866; Troy: 3, .667; North Texas: 3, .167; Tulane: 3, .333

Average Winning Percentage: .508

Final Score: 5.08

20 (21). Minnesota

Northern Illinois: 3, .167; @ Bowling Green: 4, .615; Montana State: 1, .545; Florida Atlantic: 3, .615

Average Winning Percentage: .486

Final Score: 5.346

19 (9). Tennessee

@ UCLA: 6, .461; UAB: 3, .167; Northern Illinois: 3, .417; Wyoming: 3, .417

Average Winning Percentage: .366

Final Score: 5.49 

18 (19). Mississippi State

@ Louisiana Tech: 4, .416; Southeastern Louisiana: 1, .273; @ Georgia Tech: 6, .538; Middle Tennessee: 3, .416

Average Winning Percentage: .411

Final Score: 5.754

17 (13). Northwestern

Syracuse: 5, .167; @ Duke: 6, .091; Southern Illinois: 1, .857; Ohio: 3, .500

Average Winning Percentage: .404

Final Score: 6.06 

16 (12). Penn State

Coastal Carolina: 1, .455; Oregon State: 5, .692; @ Syracuse: 6, .167; Temple: 3, .333

Average Winning Percentage: .412

Final Score: 6.18

15 (20). Kentucky

@ Louisville: 5, .500; Norfolk State: 1, .727; Middle Tennessee: 3, .417; Western Kentucky: 3, .583

Average Winning Percentage: .557

Final Score is 6.684

14 (4). Purdue

Northern Colorado: 1, .083; Oregon: 7, .692; Central Michigan: 3, .571, @ Notre Dame: 6, .250

Average Winning Percentage: .399

Final Score: 6.783

13 (17). Michigan

Utah: 3, .692; Miami (OH): 3, .461; @ Notre Dame: 6, .250; Toledo: 3, .416

Average Winning Percentage: .455

Final Score: 6.82

12 (18). Wisconsin

Akron: 3, .333; Marshall: 3, .250; @ Fresno State: 8, .692; Cal Poly: 1, .636

Average Winning Percentage: .478

Final Score: 7.17 

11 (5). Michigan State

@ California: 6, .538; Eastern Michigan: 3, .333; Florida Atlantic: 3, .615; Notre Dame: 5, .250

Average Winning Percentage: .434

Final Score: 7.378 

10 (1). Vanderbilt

@ Miami (OH): 4, .462; Rice: 3, .250; Duke: 5, .083; @ Wake Forest: 8, .692

Average Winning Percentage: .372

Final Score: 7.44

9 (8). Mississippi

Memphis: 3, .538; @ Wake Forest: 8, .692; Samford: 1, .364; Louisiana-Monroe: 3, .500

Average Winning Percentage: .524

Final Score: 7.86

8 (2). South Carolina

North Carolina State: 5, .417; Wofford: 1, .692; UAB: 3, .167; @ Clemson: 8, .692

Average Winning Percentage: .492

Final Score: 8.364

7 (6). Alabama

@ Clemson: 8, .692; Tulane: 3, .333; Western Kentucky: 3, .583; Arkansas State: 3, .417

Average Winning Percentage: .506

Final Score: 8.602

6 (10). Illinois

@ Missouri: 8, .857; Eastern Illinois: 1, .750; Louisiana-Lafayette: 3, .250; @ Western Michigan: 4, .417

Average Winning Percentage: .569

Final Score: 9.104

5 (15). Auburn

Louisiana-Monroe: 3, .500; Southern Miss: 3, .538; @ West Virginia: 8, .846; Tennessee-Martin: 1, .364

Average Winning Percentage: .625

Final Score:  9.375

4 (11). Florida

Hawaii: 3, .923; Miami (FL): 5, .417; Citadel: 1, .636; @ Florida State: 6, .538

Average Winning Percentage: .629

Final Score: 9.435  

3 (16). Arkansas

Western Illinois: 1, .545; Louisiana-Monroe: 3, .500; @ Texas: 8, .770; Tulsa: 3, .714

Average Winning Percentage: .632

Final Score: 9.48

2 (14). Ohio State

Youngstown State: 1, .636; Ohio: 3, .500; @ USC: 8, .846; Troy: 3, .750

Average Winning Percentage: .683

Final Score: 10.245

1 (2). Georgia

Georgia Southern: 1, .636; Central Michigan: 3, .571; @ Arizona State: 8, .769; Georgia Tech: 5, .538

Average Winning Percentage: .629

Final Score: 10.69 

In this system, the biggest losers are primarily SEC teams UT, Vandy, and South Carolina.  Purdue also plummeted 10 spaces.  Most of this was due to a single opponent with a low winning percentage who dragged the rest of the teams down with them. 

The biggest winners were Ohio State, Arkansas, Auburn, and Florida.  In all cases, they had a team with a good winning percentage and/or top 25 ranking to help boost the scores.

Keep in mind that schedules can be deceiving.  Just because a team was phenomenal last year doesn’t mean they’ll be so great this year (Hawaii). 

The opposite is true, of course.  Pitt, which had a .417 winning percentage, is projected to be a top 25 team by ESPN. 

More so than anything, though, this article illustrates the obsessive lengths a football crazy fan will go to in the offseason.  Here on the doldrums of July we sit stranded.  If you’re like me, I have some advice:  Keep your head up—we’ve got less than a month and half to go.  Offseasons only seem like they last forever.