Posted by spasticity on 4/4/2012 4:32:00 PM (view original):
For what it's worth, I don't really consider a conference to be "tougher" just because all 12 coaches agree to game the RPI formula with their schedules (see above). I mean there's nothing at all wrong with that, but if you're just using conf RPI to say who is toughest, then I think that could be misleading.
Maybe billyg is using something more than that when he says "top x conference in the last 20 seasons", but I wanted to make the point.
thats really an experiment in the last 5 seasons only. interesting that our last 5 seasons have been worse generally speaking than historically in the dynasty rankings (i ran them a month back in the raw form but never posted), albeit with a lot more NT teams. maybe the teams just aren't going as far or something. or maybe its because a few teams always seem to forget to schedule, i don't know.
in the dynasty rankings it mostly took into account post season success, with a mix of rpi, but record is ignored. the rpi curve favors strong teams, and makes smaller distinction between the lower numbers - like i think the difference from 10 to 15 was equal to 50 to 100 or something like that. so i am guessing the dynasty rankings do not give much benefit to conferences who schedule like have been the last few seasons...