5 speed
UKC Forum Member
Registered: Jul 2003
Location:
Posts: 86 |
quote:
Originally posted by Rip
Sorry 5-Speed, that "The" came after internet users were using the little tOSU to indicate Terry Porters Tainted Title. That's just how it was. Sorry you didn't know that, many tOSU fans jumped all over it because they have been known as The Ohio State University, but the subscript small t in tOSU used on the net has always meant "Tainted Title." I just think it's funny every time an OSU fan mistakenly uses it.
As for as the SEC OOC schedule, you better think again cause Tennessee has one of the toughest schedules year in and year out of ANY team in the country. It's usually top 10 or so in strength. Of course that's because they go play UCLA, CAL, Notre Dame, Miami etc OOC, and they play them HOME AND AWAY.
tOSU beat LSU in the shoe. tOSU is 0-8 against bowl SEC teams and what 0-2 or 0-3 against Granny Holtz led South Carolina? Gotta LMBO at that, 0-2 against South Carolina when they were the bottom feeders of the SEC East.
If you lost that many bowl games playing the middle of the pack/top of the SEC then where did your wins come from Vandy?
As per urbandictionary.com
1. tosu
THE Ohio State University
That is the only reference to this on the net that I could find. As for where tOSU beat LSU,,, who cares. A loss is a loss. Ohio State is going to play a home game with LSU next month. Is it a loss if they don't win? What if it is in overtime? (ask Les Miles. Those don't count)
What is strength of schedule?
The primary difficulty in ranking college football teams is that each team's performance must be evaluated relative to a different schedule. Strength of schedule becomes a key component in doing so: other things (usually wins and losses) being equal, we'd rank a team with a more difficult schedule higher than one with an easier one. But what makes a schedule difficult?
Most strength of schedule measures rely on the average quality of a team's opponents. For example the Ratings Percentage Index (RPI) is a weighted average of a team's winning percentage, their opponents' collective winning percentage and their opponents' opponents' collective winning percentage. Though no longer used, the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) contained a strength of schedule component which was a weighted average of opponents' winning percentage and opponents' opponents' winning percentage.
There are two serious problems with using an average measure like opponents' winning percentage (or variants thereof):
1. Average measures don't account for differences in games played.
2. Some average schedules are easier than others.
We'll illustrate these issues with a pair of examples.
Example #1: First, consider Auburn's 2004 season. Originally slated to face Bowling Green (at the time a Top-25 team from the respected Mid-American Conference), Auburn scrambled to schedule I-AA the Citadel to fill the slot after Bowling Green backed out to play Oklahoma instead. This game hurt the Tigers' strength of schedule and made it easier to dismiss them in the national championship conversation (which almost entirely revolved around Southern Cal and, ironically, Oklahoma). While Auburn was unlikely to lose to the Citadel, they were even less likely to lose to a bye week, however by considering opponents' average strength Auburn's strength of schedule was lower than had they simply not played at all.
Example #2: The other problem with averages is they don't contain any information about the variation in schedule composition. For instance, suppose there are three types of teams: good, average, and bad. If two teams have the same classification, each team has a 50% chance of winning a head-to-head game. Further, let's assume: (1) good teams beat average teams 75% of the time, (2) good teams beat bad teams 95% of the time and (3) average teams beat bad teams 80% of the time. Now consider these two schedules:
S1 = {Good, Good, Good, Bad, Bad, Bad}
S2 = {Average, Average, Average, Average, Average, Average}
Both schedules have the same average difficulty, but depending on how good your team is, you might prefer one to another. If you were a good team, you would prefer the second schedule because you could expect to win 4.5 games and lose 1.5 vs. winning 4.35 games and losing 1.65 against the first one. However, if you were a bad team, you'd prefer schedule number 1, since you would win 1.65 games on average vs. 1.6 games for schedule 2.
Now, what does all this mean?? Nothing. That is why they play the games.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|
12-05-2007 11:22 PM
