No. 109
BCS guru Jerry Palm computes USC's strength of schedule to be the 109th-best in the nation, using the formula used by the BCS from 1999-2003. Palm estimates by the time USC finishes the tough part of its schedule, the Trojans could move up No. 54.
Thanks a lot Nebraska. But of couse none of this would have mattered had USC been able to stop Stanford on 4th and 20...
Thank you Professor nobody. This comes from a guy who probably never picked up a football in his life, or if he did, he had a wet dream about playing the game. “Pick me, pick me, I can play. Why I am always the last guy to be picked. I’m going to cry. I’ll show you, I’m going to my computer”. Freaking loser!
We're # 1...09!
I don't get it. During all the Les Miles hooplah over the summer, our strength of schedule was 2nd in the nation or something like that. Is this just because Nebraska and Notre Dame ended up being so bad? Cal is where everyone thought they might be, and Oregon exceeded everyone's expectations along with Arizona State. Are there really 53 schools with tougher schedules than playing at Oregon, at Cal, and at Arizona State? I want to see those 53, because I can only think of around 30 at best who could conceivably have a tougher schedule than that.
I agree with Greengables; lets see the list; the trouble is our out of conference, Idaho, Nebraska, and Notre Dame could maybe beat themselves. Notre Dame's one win hurts us since it is against UCLA
Any talk of changing out San Jose State in 09 for someone who matters; Moving that opening game up a week with a bye week also works well.
We moved up two spots in the computer rankings...were 23 last week, we're 21 this week. The BCS formula used four years ago is the same formula that screwed us out of the Sugar Bowl. Palm's just a computer geek...
And Richard Billingsly (sp?) has us #4, and two don't have us ranked at all, these guys are regional hacks, pure and simple.
#14, laugh it up, furball...
The strength of schedule rankings Palm generates are the same generated by the BCS several years ago; with two-thirds of the weight given to the records of your opponents to date, and one-third of the overall number based on your opponents' opponents to date. The formula does not consider margin of victory, or the site of the games.
Because USC has already played more than half of its schedule, it is difficult to climb the SOS rankings--they are going to be weighed down, no matter how good the rest of their opponents are.
By the way--on the 2003 debacle. Those who follow those things very closely state that, because of the SOS component, the SC v. LSU issue was not decided until the final game of the regular season. That game was Boise State at Hawaii. SC had defeated Hawaii earlier in the year, so the result of any Hawaii game impacted on SC's BCS score. I do not recall the exact numbers, but essentially it came to this: a Hawaii win, and SC goes to the the Sugar Bowl; a Boise State win, and LSU plays for the BCS Championship.
Call it a proxy playoff game.
You know the result.
A system where the result of a game between two non-BCS conference teams is essentially the tiebraker between "No. 2" and "No. 3" is seriously flawed. To prevent that from happening again, SOS was dropped from the BCS formula.
"BCS guru Jerry Palm computes USC's strength of schedule to be the 109th-best in the nation, using the formula used by the BCS from 1999-2003."
All I was saying is that if that is the formula that Palm is using, then it is flawed to begin with as it DOES include the SOS component and therefore margin of victory and opponents margin of victory. That said, Stanford's victory over Arizona helps us in that formula.
Hey Mikeg89:
I remember that Hawaii scenario as well, and was bummed that Sunday morning when I learned that Hawaii lost.
One other quirk that people may forget is that LSU got an artificial boost to its strength of schedule because it beat Georgia twice (the latter in the SEC Championship game). Georgia only lost the two games to LSU, and thus finished (I believe) like 11-2 before its bowl game. Thus, LSU was credited with beating an 11-2 team twice, even though it was the same team! Obviously, adding the second 11-2 record boosted LSU's strength of schedule and directly led to LSU passing USC for No. 2. It was ridiculous to add the second 11-2 record because LSU did not beat a Georgia team that went 22-4. That was another reason to get rid of strength of schedule.
Hey Respect:
Stanford's win over Arizona does not really improve our opponent's strength of schedule because Arizona was also on our schedule, and lost in the same game. At best, it is a push.