Strength of Schedule

[thekidnapper]

With Tulane now in the Top 25, I was curious what our current SoS is. One metric ranks us as having the 28th hardest schedule in the country (see here); I think another was at 34th. 

Does that justify our record (i.e., injuries + SoS = current record)? Does any of that matter if the perception of us is so low with recruits and fans? Sincerely do not want this to be a CJS bash thread since we've done that ad nauseam. Just some existential rumination of realistic vs. unrealistic expectations.

 

[Brad]

19 minutes ago, thekidnapper said:

With Tulane now in the Top 25, I was curious what our current SoS is. One metric ranks us as having the 28th hardest schedule in the country (see here); I think another was at 34th. 

Does that justify our record (i.e., injuries + SoS = current record)? Does any of that matter if the perception of us is so low with recruits and fans? Sincerely do not want this to be a CJS bash thread since we've done that ad nauseam. Just some existential rumination of realistic vs. unrealistic expectations.

 

I hinted at this in another thread where the neg nancies were attacking something else.  Not many, including some Bulls fans, seem to be considering the schedule and in fact blasted Scott for mentioning it.  No doubt, even our best teams would have had a rough road with this one.  On a related note, losing to Alabama next year will not be a good time to jump on how the coach talks or does press conferences.  That is a pretty solid L from here on in.

I think recruits would like our schedule.  To me, if I can't play for X team, I'll be happy to play against them - and have a chance to beat them.  I think a weak schedule gives us a better chance to have a better record (fans happy), but I don't think recruits want to play lower level teams.

Of course we have to start hitting HRs in many areas, no one adjustment will revive us.

[Sk00b]

Sure it justifies the record somewhat. However, you have to win one of those games at the very least. We left a couple Ls that should have been Ws. This is why your fans are pissed. No one expected much but so far we have failed to meet those low expectations. Win one of those games and fans would be fine. 

I think we will pull off a couple wins down the stretch but if we don't this board, fans, boosters (little still left) will absolutely lose it if VPMK doesn't act.

What @Brad said about recruits. Keep scheduling the way we are. I have to imagine that is appealing to HS kids looking to make a play/be in the spotlight against the big name brands.

Edited October 22, 2022 by Sk00b

[Bulls On Parade]

It was tough we got close on UF, Cincy and Tulane time to now close the deal on some of these easier teams. 

If we can close out the last part of season and win maybe 3-4+ of those games it would show improvement, not as much as we wanted but it would show team is trending slowly right direction.  Going to be tougher now minus GB. 

[thekidnapper]

42 minutes ago, Sk00b said:

Sure it justifies the record somewhat. However, you have to win one of those games at the very least. We left a couple Ls that should have been Ws. This is why your fans are pissed. No one expected much but so far we have failed to meet those low expectations. Win one of those games and fans would be fine. 

I think we will pull off a couple wins down the stretch but if we don't this board, fans, boosters (little still left) will absolutely lose it if VPMK doesn't act.

What @Brad said about recruits. Keep scheduling the way we are. I have to imagine that is appealing to HS kids looking to make a play/be in the spotlight against the big name brands.

I understand and I am not justifying the losses. However, as @Brad mentioned, our best USF teams have lost to good and bad teams. I think it is realistic to be upset about getting our doors blown off by ECU and Louisville.

Edited October 22, 2022 by thekidnapper

[Ghostbuster]

It's *a* factor for how hard it is to win those games.  However my complaint about the SoS defense, is when people automatically try to exchange a top 25 loss with a win.  Like "oh well we'd *actually* have 3 or more wins by now if we just hadn't played those other teams".

But that's not how it works.  If you take the worst team in FBS and have them play Ohio State, Alabama, Clemson, etc in a single season, it doesn't mean they would have wins in place of those losses had they played someone else.  It just means they weren't good enough to beat the teams they played.

If we had only 5 wins this season, you could justify the lack of a bowl game on the schedule.  If you have 1 win total, that's a different story.

[Brad]

7 minutes ago, Ghostbuster said:

If you take the worst team in FBS and have them play Ohio State, Alabama, Clemson, etc in a single season, it doesn't mean they would have wins in place of those losses had they played someone else. 

I don't think anyone is sugesting that.  We clearly have an issue beating conference mates.  But playing 3-4 Top 25 teams in 7 games would clearly be a greater challenge than all Temple or FITB.

[Ghostbuster]

7 minutes ago, Brad said:

I don't think anyone is sugesting that.  We clearly have an issue beating conference mates.  But playing 3-4 Top 25 teams in 7 games would clearly be a greater challenge than all Temple or FITB.

I can't find the post with the press conference to link to, but Jeff Scott absolutely led off with that one week.  He said we woulda been 3-2 and everyone would have said "oh we turned the corner", but the team still would have had problems with fundamentals under the surface.

[Brad]

1 minute ago, Ghostbuster said:

I can't find the post with the press conference to link to, but Jeff Scott absolutely led off with that one week.  He said we woulda been 3-2 and everyone would have said "oh we turned the corner", but the team still would have had problems with fundamentals under the surface.

Could have been, but we'll never know.  But let's try to address what the OP is asking.  He also said:

Quote

Sincerely do not want this to be a CJS bash thread since we've done that ad nauseam.

He was asking the question independent of anything Scott said. 

[Ghostbuster]

6 minutes ago, Brad said:

Could have been, but we'll never know.  But let's try to address what the OP is asking.  He also said:

He was asking the question independent of anything Scott said. 

I answered the question originally without mentioning Scott.  Others have made the same claim (that we would have more wins otherwise) and I'm simply saying that is not what a hard schedule means.

SoS does not equal free "would have been wins".

And that fact (as I see it) has nothing to do with Scott...I only mentioned his name because you claimed no one has made that argument, but he is the most prominent example of it.  I can reference board members too and 'pull up receipts' but I wasn't trying to start anything just explain why I think SoS shouldn't be used to "give" a win that was otherwise a loss. 

You can't now claim I'm trying to bash the coach and bring him up; that's not what I came here to do.  I was answering your reply.