[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With USC's loss, and Florida's tougher schedule than Mich, I guess this will be a done-deal by the time the votes are in and the BCS computers put Florida ahead of Mich.
[/ QUOTE ]
Before the SEC championship game,
Sagarin had Michigan's schedule as #13 and Florida's as #27.
[/ QUOTE ]
And Florida played the schedule against the toughest opponenet win percentage.
[/ QUOTE ]
yeah a [censored] of cupcake nonconference matches
[/ QUOTE ]
What does this have to do with the fact that Fla. played the schedule with the highest opponent win %?
[/ QUOTE ]
because its artificially inflated, Michigan has a tougher SOS
[/ QUOTE ]
Again, Are you aware that it isn't "artificially inflated" by
4-7 UCF
2-9 Western Carolina (assuming they counted this one)
6-6 FSU (which actually HURTS that number, despite being FSU).
And then an 8-5 ConfUSA South.Miss.
Against D1A opponents: .609
Include WCU: .579
Explain to me which of the teams from that OOC list "artificially inflated" that statistic. I'll tell you, Southern Miss...who's win % was an astounding .615. (Wow that really "inflated it" up from the final .609 mark)
Then explain to me, please, which of these teams HURT that number. Well 2-9 surely if we include that. And even if we don't, a .500 FSU team and a 4-7 UCF surely knocked that overall number down a bit...
It just further shows how tough the In-Conference schedule of UF was....
Without their "cupcake schedule that artifically inflates Opp. Win %", UF's SEC opponents % was .651...
----
Now, since I was talking Opp. Win % and you said that Michigan played a tougher schedule because it wasn't artifically inflated...Let's get down in there real quick.
Michigan's Big-10 Opp. Win% - .583
Michigan's total Opp. Win % - .579
You can talk about the other Strength of Schedule measures all you want. But if you're going to say something entirely wrong (inflation?), then you're going to get called on it.
Do you get me now?