"Oklahoma’s one loss came in a rivalry game against the Longhorns. And the Longhorns’ upset win at Baylor on Saturday makes the earlier loss look a little better than Michigan State’s loss at lowly Nebraska. It also shouldn’t be forgotten that the Sooners’ strength of schedule was much stronger than the Spartans."Our first response on reading that was published as: Debunking Drew Sharp: MSUSpartan76 Proves Michigan State had a Tougher Schedule than Oklahoma.
In that article we showed that:
- MSU has more opponents ranked in the CFP top 15
- MSU opponents had an equal win-loss record
- MSU has more opponents going to New Years 6 bowls
- MSU beat more undefeated teams and late in the season
- MSU's 3 weakest opponents had better WL records than OK's 3 weakest
- MSU's 3 strongest opponents had better WL records than OK's 3 strongest
It was clearly shown that MSU's opponents comprised the stronger schedule based on the win loss records of Oklahoma's and MSU's opponents in terms of aggregate points scored and allowed including the margins of victories
In that piece I stated that I was not done with the comparison. Here is the rest.
"Lowly Nebraska." "Much stronger schedule." With his sharp comments, he implied that the Spartans had a soft schedule. In fact, he has insulted Iowa, Ohio State, and Michigan and, also, Oregon and Air Force and the rest of the Spartan slate of opponents. After all, those teams are the soft Spartan schedule.
Soft schedule means weak opponents.
The insulted fans really should make some noise about that.
Is the allegation true? No. Did Oklahoma have a "much stronger schedule?" NO.
In the previous articles we published in depth and in detail how Oklahoma's opponents fared over the season and also MSU's. Here is the rest of the story.
The Sooners went 11-1 vs 12 opponents with a combined record of 78-66 (0.542).
- Those 12 opponents played 1727 games amassing an aggregate record of 941-786 (0.545).
- Those 13 opponents played 1915 games amassing an aggregate record of 1090-836 (0.567).
- MSU played 2 conference championship contenders. Oklahoma played none. So adjusting the totals to just the regular season for those 2 opponents:
- The Spartans went 11-1 vs 12 opponents with a combined record of 78-66 (0.542) and did so versus opponents that went 1001-749 (0.572).
Agreed!"It also shouldn’t be forgotten..."
The head-to-head comparison.
For the WL comparison, an edge is a 1 win difference and an advantage is for a 2+ win difference.
For the combined record, an edge is either a better win or a better loss record, with the advantage given when both occur.
Iowa went 12-1 vs 13 opponents with a combined record of 79-79
Iowa played MSU in the B1G Ten Championship game. Oklahoma has no equivalent opponent.
Note: The Iowa loss in the B1G Ten Championship game is included in all of the opponents common to MSU (Nebraska, Purdue, and Maryland).
Ohio St. went 11-1 vs 12 opponents with a combined record of 75-72
- Edge: OSU for WL; Edge to OK St. for opp. WL.
Oregon went 9-3 vs 12 opponents with a combined record of 85-62
- Edge: TCU for WL; Advantage: Oregon for opp. WL.
Michigan went 9-3 vs 12 opponents with a combined record of 81-64
- Tied: WL; Advantage UofM for opp. WL.
Air Force (CO) went 8-5 vs 13 opponents with a combined record of 79-78, 8-4 & 69-75 disallowing the CCG.
- Tied: WL; Advantage: UT for opp. WL.
Penn St. went 7-5 vs 12 opponents with a combined record of 87-60
- Tied: WL; Advantage: PSU for opp. WL.
Western Michigan went 7-5 vs 12 opponents with a combined record of 83-62
- Tied: WL; Advantage WMU for opp. WL.
Central Michigan went 7-5 vs 12 opponents with a combined record of 74-70
- Tied: WL; Advantage CMU for opp. WL.
Indiana went 6-6 vs 12 opponents with a combined record of 82-64
- Tied: WL; Advantage IU for opp. WL.
Nebraska went 5-7 vs 12 opponents with a combined record of 90-57
- Edge: Tulsa for WL; Advantage Nebraska for opp. WL.
Rutgers (NJ) went 4-8 vs 12 opponents with a combined record of 76-68
- Edge: UT for WL; Advantage UT for opp. WL.
Maryland went 3-9 vs 12 opponents with a combined record of 105-43
- Tied: WL; Advantage UM for opp. WL.
Purdue (IN) went 2-10 vs 12 opponents with a combined record of 94-52
- Advantage: PU for WL; Advantage PU for opp. WL.
Team WL records:
- Oklahoma opponents: 3 edges, 7 ties
- Michigan State opponents: 1 advantages, 1 edge, 7 ties
Combined Opponent WL records:
- Oklahoma opponents: 2 advantages, 1 edge
- Michigan State opponents: 9 advantages
Are you listening Drew?
What about "lowly" Nebraska?
Nice insult there, Drew. I am sure Cornhuskers all over the country are applauding your insights.
Somehow in Drew Sharp's imagination, Texas beating Baylor somehow erased the Oklahoma loss to Texas, but "lowly" Nebraska beating MSU proves a soft Spartan schedule.
- Texas went 3-7 against a schedule of opponents that went 65-55 (not counting the Oklahoma and Baylor records).
- "Lowly" Nebraska not only beat B1G Ten CCG Champion MSU but also took down Southern Mississippi, C-USA CCG runner-up. Subtracting out those 2 team records, Nebraska went 3-7 versus opponents that tallied a 69-52 record.
- CFP No. 3 Michigan State 12-1
- CFP No. 4 Oklahoma 11-1
- Baylor 9-3
- Southern Mississippi 9-4
Maybe Texas beating Baylor doesn't so much make the win over Oklahoma insignificant but rather makes the Oklahoma win over Baylor less impressive.
Now to diverge.One of the Drew chUMp's claims (chump is a synomym for idiot, by the way) is the CFP committee did not want Alabama to face an Oklahoma home field advantage.
Driving distance (by car) to the bolw sites (stadium to stadium) per Google maps:
Cotton Bowl
- Oklahoma 191 miles 3 hr 3 min.
- Alabama 584 miles, 8 hr 14 min.
- Clemson 904 miles 13 hr 8 min.
- MSU 1119 miles, 16 hr 47 min.
- Clemson 710 miles, 10 hr 46 min.
- Alabama 773 miles 11 hr 47 min.
- MSU 1421 miles 20 hr 47 min.
- Oklahoma 1484 miles 21 hr 41 min.
- Oklahoma 1027 miles 14 hr 47 min.
- Alabama 1667 miles 23 hr 26 min.
- Clemson 1986 miles, 29 hr 0 min.
- MSU 1993 miles 29 hr 0 min.
If the CFP Committee had manipulated things to achieve parity, then the MSU - Oklahoma game should have been in the Orange Bowl and Clemson - Alabama game in the Cotton Bowl. As it is now, Oklahoma gained a substantially greater home field advantage over MSU than they would have had versus Alabama. Had it been otherwise, Clemson would have had the greatest home field advantage (playing MSU) as is proper for the No. 1 seed.
So Drew Sharp is saying the CFP Committee made the selections based on home field advantage (travel time and distance being part of it). This just further proves that Drew Sharp is a chUMp. It is incredulous that the CFP committee would so badly tarnish the integrity of the selection process by allowing such favoritism to be permitted especially given the close scrutiny of tens of millions of fans. What really happened is the CFP matched the teams for the best possible games. Regardless...
We Spartans will play any team, any day, any stadium.
It isn't over and it will never be over here.
It's just starting.
REACH HIGHER!
Tweet
****** Click on NO COMMENTS (or # comments) below to enter and view reader comments.
----- Remember to check Spartan Headline links, updated real time, in the left column of SpartanResource.com (Web version only).
*****Note: If you are receiving this post via automated email, you need to go to the site to view headline links and embedded videos in this post: http://spartanresource.com/ (Web version only). SIGN UP TO RECEIVE POSTS VIA EMAIL, TWITTER OR FACEBOOK IN THE RIGHT COLUMN.*****
76: AWESOME, BABY!
ReplyDeleteThis site has spent the better part of two months trying to discredit Michigan and prove they were a fraud all season. Now you use the Wolverines and their "fraud" record to bolster the Spartans SOS... Forgive me, it's ironic.
ReplyDeleteI wish Oklahoma had stayed ranked ahead of the Spartans. I'd much rather MSU play Bama in the Finals as opposed to the first round. I think Sparty matches up much better against Clemson (who I think is the real fraud of the four teams in the playoff).
Total disbelief, here. How did you reach those conclusions?
DeleteObviously you missed the pint of the article and of this blog site.