Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

Well keep in mind for comparing relative SOS that A&M and OU each played Texas, while Texas was dragged down by playing A&M and OU.  Just saying.


Also, if you're going to attempt to compare the relative W/L opponent record like this...

• Texas' SEC opponents went 24-40, Oklahoma's went 40-24

...then you are going to need to remove the games played against Texas, and OU, respectively. Because Texas delivered 7 of those losses to its opponents, while OU gifted 6 of those wins to its opponents.

Actual valid records for relative comparison are 23-33, 34-22.  There's still a sizeable delta, but it's not quite the same.

There is another mathematical problem that I have with this argument and I remember it from back when the BCS Formula used the exact same adjustment that you are proposing here.  

Forget about Texas vs Oklahoma because they play each other and are rivals.  Walk through this hypothetical for me:
Lets say that Texas and Tennessee do NOT play each other but that they play the EXACT same eight SEC opponents and that those SEC opponents had a cumulative record of 32-32.  Now lets say that Texas had a great year and went 7-1 while Tennessee had a terrible year and went 1-7.  If I understand your proposal here we would adjust their opponent records to exclude the games against the team in question so:

• Tennessee's SEC opponents are 25-31
• Texas' SEC opponents are 31-25

This makes no sense to me because Tennessee and Texas played the EXACT same eight teams.  How can you say that Texas played a tougher schedule when their schedule was literally EXACTLY the same as Tennessee's?  

SEC schedules tend to look a lot tougher in preseason it seems.

Texas and Tennessee actually did play very similar schedules, as I recall, so you might be able to move this away from being a thought experiment and into the real world.

They did play pretty similar schedules but they also had pretty similar records so the adjustment is a moot point.  It matters when we are comparing 7-1 Texas to 2-6 Oklahoma.  

But moving back to reality, when I see Texas' conference opponents being 24-40, the way you used the numbers, and I see that 7 of those 40 losses were directly because they played Texas, then what I'm taking away from that, is that nearly 20% of the Texas' opponents' losses, were to one team-- Texas.

I get it and I'm don't 100% disagree I'm just not sure the appropriate way to adjust it or if there is an appropriate way.  

Lets look at a team that Texas beat and that beat Oklahoma:  
Nevermind, there isn't one.  This is the problem with mega-conferences.  in 2024 Texas had the following SEC wins:

• MissSt
• Oklahoma
• Vandy
• Florida
• Arkansas
• Kentucky
• aTm

Oklahoma had the following SEC losses:

• Tennessee
• Texas
• USCe
• Ole Miss
• Mizzou
• LSU

Texas also lost to UGA while Oklahoma also beat the two Alabama schools so Texas and Oklahoma, despite playing in the same league, had ZERO common opponents.  That is just weird.  

I've got to go back to hypothetcal land:
Suppose that Texas beat "team x" and that "team x" beat Oklahoma and that "team x" finished 4-4 in the SEC.  

If we delete games against the team in question then "team x" is a 4-3 team on Texas' schedule and a 3-4 team on Oklahoma's schedule.  That makes no sense to me because it is the same freaking team.  You can't say that Texas' schedule is tougher because it isn't, it is EXATLY the same.  

I've been assured for decades that every SEC team is a rolling ball of flaming butcher knives, and that any win against any SEC team was far more important than any win against a non-SEC team.

Well, this is obviously true, and has been, even Vandy.  I would admit that beating an Ohio State level team is at least equal to beating say South Carolina on the road.

We've also has some pretty shitty uncompetitive teams that could upend OSU.

We've pulled those numbers.  It is so strange.  Purdue just has that effect on Ohio State.  If you look over the last 50 years, Purdue's record against Ohio State is better than a whole lot of teams that have been a lot better than Purdue overall.  

We've pulled those numbers.  It is so strange.  Purdue just has that effect on Ohio State.  If you look over the last 50 years, Purdue's record against Ohio State is better than a whole lot of teams that have been a lot better than Purdue overall. 

I know. And when it all boils down, it's probably just a function of randomness. I doubt there's any logical, schematic, or style of play "reason" why Purdue has done so well over the years. I think it's just that when you have a bunch of outcomes over a bunch of years, it's a large data set and there will ALWAYS be random statistical outliers that make no sense whatsoever. 

Still fun to tweak Buckeye fans about it tho 

I know. And when it all boils down, it's probably just a function of randomness. I doubt there's any logical, schematic, or style of play "reason" why Purdue has done so well over the years. I think it's just that when you have a bunch of outcomes over a bunch of years, it's a large data set and there will ALWAYS be random statistical outliers that make no sense whatsoever.

Still fun to tweak Buckeye fans about it tho

Statistically, I agree.  

Once upon a time I pulled each Big Ten team's record against each other Big Ten team for something like 50 years.  Over that 50 years Ohio State had the best overall record and, IIRC, Indiana had the worst with Michigan second best and, IIRC, Minnesota second worst.  

So, in theory, each team should have their worst record against tOSU, second worst against M . . . second best against Minnesota, best against Indiana.  

That general pattern did apply but every team had an outlier or two.