SMU - 2005 Strength of Schedule - 109 of 119

[Cheesesteak]

Heels coach says brutal schedule builds toughness

May 31, 2005
By Dennis Dodd
CBS SportsLine.com Senior Writer

This is the last of a weeklong SportsLine.com series on college football scheduling. Today: Strength of schedule.

North Carolina's schedule is a joke. Not in the I-AA, cream-puff, pushover sense. More like: What the Heel is John Bunting thinking?

"I've got to believe we have the toughest schedule," said Bunting, heading into his fifth season as coach of that other sport in Chapel Hill. "Our kids know that."

John Bunting's Tar Heels were 6-6 in 2004.
Hard to tell whether that is a boast or a cry for help. Some of it has been inherited, some of it is manufactured, but North Carolina's schedule has a lot in common with Ashlee Simpson's treatment of the musical scale.

Both are brutal.

If anything, the degree of difficulty has increased for 2005.

North Carolina and Georgia Tech tied for No. 1 in schedule strength, according to the formula devised by CBS SportsLine.com. That's not exactly a surprise considering Carolina had the second-toughest schedule in 2004, according to the NCAA and was No. 1 in the respected Sagarin Ratings.

The catch is that schedule strength doesn't necessarily translate into success. In fact, it makes it damn hard for programs like Carolina. Since 2001, the Heels are 6-9 in non-conference games, 2-6 against teams from BCS leagues.

A team like Kansas State has played a total of eight BCS-league non-conference games in the past 11 years. North Carolina did it in the past four, having played teams from seven different leagues during that span as the joke took shape.

"Some of that scheduling was there (when I arrived) and the ACC wasn't the way it is today," Bunting said. "The ACC the way it is now, you don't want to be scheduling powerhouses."
Rating by Conferences
Rnk Conference Rating
1 Big East 1.2955
2 SEC 1.1887
3 Big 12 1.1750
4 ACC 1.1544
5 Pac-10 1.1294
6 Indep. 1.0883
7 Big Ten 1.0716
8 WAC 0.9094
9 M. West 0.8908
10 MAC 0.7853
11 C-USA 0.7362
12 Sun Belt 0.6661

Bunting, 54, arrived at his alma mater at a weird time. ACC expansion had yet to become an issue in 2001. North Carolina was initially against it.

Meanwhile, the schedule had been upgraded from the Mack Brown-Carl Torbush days. With expansion, Miami is an annual opponent in the ACC Coastal Division and the non-conference hits just keep on coming. This year's out-of-league Burma Road includes Wisconsin, Utah and Louisville, a combined 32-4 in 2004.

"I was one that wanted it, because I think it will help us in recruiting," Bunting said of expansion. "I think we're the best university in the ACC, in terms of everything it has to offer."

Bunting asked his first team if they wanted to travel to Oklahoma to open the season in '01. What do kids know? Of course, the seniors voted enthusiastically to play the Sooners in their first game since winning the 2000 national championship.

"We almost got blown out in the first five, six minutes," he said. "A turnover returned for a touchdown, a kickoff returned for a touchdown. It was 28-0 at the end of the first quarter."

The Heels were respectable, losing by 14, but in the second week of September 2001, Bunting's first team was 0-3 after roadies to Oklahoma, Maryland and Texas. Then 9/11 hit, pushing a layup against SMU to the end of the season. But a funny thing happened during the two-week layoff -- Carolina got better. It beat Florida State at home, starting a five-game winning streak, the highlight of an 8-5 season.

In 2002, Carolina played Syracuse (win) and Texas (loss) back-to-back. In 2004, Louisville and Utah popped up on the schedule. The two top 10 teams whipped the Heels by a combined 80-16.

"Who knew that Louisville was going to be like they are (11-1)?" Bunting said. "Who knew that Utah was going to have Alex Smith and Urban Meyer was going to construct that type of offense that destroyed everybody?"

Before this year's first spring practice, Bunting had a short film made for his team embracing the schedule issue. It starred fifth-year quarterback Matt Baker.

"He's going through the schedule, eyeballing it in the lockerroom," Bunting said. "The first time he shakes his head. The second time he goes, 'Oh wow' and the third time he goes, 'Holy S---, look at this schedule?'"

Then, mimicking a current office supplier commercial, Baker presses the "easy" button.

If it were only that simple.

You just wonder why Bunting continues to endure (or welcome?) the punishment. With a 19-30 record in his four seasons, he has played roulette with his career. Bunting has been close to termination (if you believe the pundits). Now the former Tar Heels all-ACC linebacker says he's close to glory.

"Our kids are toughened to the point where they don't get rattled," Bunting said. "Playing the types of opponents we play, they're not scared. I just think they're battle-hardened."

The evidence suggests that Carolina is making a slow, deliberate turnaround.

After a 5-19 patch in 2002 and 2003, Carolina rebounded in 2004 with a 6-6 bowl season that included a life-changing upset of the Hurricanes. Ninety minutes after the game, Bunting was surprised to find a fellow Class of '72 Tar Heel waiting to congratulate him -- Roy Williams.

If Carolina can beat the Canes with a third-string tailback (the departed Chad Scott) and a porous defense, think what it can do this year. Bunting has arguably his best team with the return of 18 seniors and 10 defensive starters. All that group has to do is get past four 2004 bowl teams in the first five weeks.

North Carolina (eight) and Georgia Tech (six) are at the top primarily because they face a combined 14 bowl teams. The programs are among a handful of the 119 I-A teams playing three teams with at least 10 wins from 2004.

The symmetry is beautiful. North Carolina opens the season at Georgia Tech on Sept. 10. The winner and loser know the schedule will only get harder.

Notes on the formula

Each conference team started with a base number. That number was reached by determining the overall 2004 winning percentage of each conference (based on 2005 membership). In the ACC that number was .571. To that number was added the percentage of 2004 bowl teams multiplied by .75. Seventy-five percent of the ACC's seven bowl teams (including Boston College) is .4374.

Added together the ACC's base number is 1.0088.

Teams were then given credit for playing 2004 bowl teams in the non-conference (.0178 per team) and for each game overall against a 10-win team (.109). The thinking being that even though it is a new year, bowl teams, especially really good bowl teams, will have some carryover.

Both Carolina and Georgia Tech were from the same conference. Each face three bowl teams in the non-conference and three 10-win teams from 2004. That's why their total is identical -- 1.3893.

The Big East has the toughest schedule strength overall largely because six of its eight teams went to bowls last season. The league got a huge boost in schedule strength by inheriting Louisville and Cincinnati, two 2004 bowl teams from Conference USA.

Seven of the top 12 teams in CBS SportsLine.com's strength of schedule rating are from that reconfigured Big East. That will be a big surprise to SEC (No. 2 in schedule strength) and Big 12 (No. 3) loyalists who annually argue about the strongest conference.

What about defending champion USC? It is in the middle at No. 56 overall. Orange Bowl opponent Oklahoma is tied for the 36th-toughest schedule. Not that that necessarily indicates success. Last year USC ended the season No. 18 in NCAA schedule strength. Oklahoma was No. 11.

In case you're wondering about the Big Three talent-producing states: Baylor (Texas), South Florida (Florida) and Stanford (California) have the toughest schedules in those states.

2005 Strength of Schedule
Rnk School Conf. Rating
1 North Carolina ACC 1.3893
1 Georgia Tech ACC 1.3893
3 West Virginia Big East 1.385
3 Rutgers Big East 1.385
5 Notre Dame Independent 1.380
6 Kentucky SEC 1.369
7 Syracuse Big East 1.320
8 South Florida Big East 1.293
9 Georgia SEC 1.287
10 Connecticut Big East 1.276
10 Pittsburgh Big East 1.276
12 Cincinnati Big East 1.258
13 Arizona Pac-10 1.2718
13 Stanford Pac-10 1.2718
15 South Carolina SEC 1.269
16 UCLA Pac-10 1.262
17 Arkansas SEC 1.260
18 Duke ACC 1.235
19 Baylor Big 12 1.229
20 Maryland ACC 1.226
21 Kansas Big 12 1.2208
21 Oklahoma State Big 12 1.2208
21 Texas A&M Big 12 1.2208
24 Ohio State Big Ten 1.213
25 Texas Tech Big 12 1.211
26 Illinois Big Ten 1.189
27 Florida SEC 1.178
28 Louisville Big East 1.030
29 LSU SEC 1.1697
30 Mississippi SEC 1.1697
31 Alabama SEC 1.1608
32 Kansas State Big 12 1.1565
33 Missouri Big 12 1.1565
34 Washington Pac-10 1.153
35 Oregon Pac-10 1.144
36 Colorado Big 12 1.1386
36 Iowa State Big 12 1.1386
36 Oklahoma Big 12 1.1386
36 Texas Big 12 1.1386
40 Washington State Pac-10 1.136
41 Virginia ACC 1.1356
42 Miami (Fla) ACC 1.1356
43 Mississippi State SEC 1.134
43 Vanderbilt SEC 1.134
45 Nebraska Big 12 1.129
46 NC State ACC 1.1178
46 Boston College ACC 1.1178
48 Temple Independent 1.101
49 Tennessee SEC 1.087
50 Penn State Big Ten 1.0861
50 Michigan Big Ten 1.0861
50 Northwestern Big Ten 1.0861
50 Purdue Big Ten 1.0861
54 Indiana Big Ten 1.0683
54 Wisconsin Big Ten 1.0683
56 Arizona State Pac-10 1.0449
56 Southern Cal Pac-10 1.0449
58 Florida State ACC 1.0445
59 Auburn SEC 1.042
60 Clemson ACC 1.0266
60 Virginia Tech ACC 1.0266
62 California Pac-10 1.018
63 Hawaii WAC 1.011
64 Wake Forest ACC 1.008
65 Army Independent 1.004
66 Air Force Mountain West .9857
66 TCU Conf. USA .9857
68 Fresno State WAC .9851
68 Utah State WAC .9851
70 Ball State MAC .9778
71 Michigan State Big Ten .9771
72 Iowa Big Ten .968
73 Minnesota Big Ten .959
74 Oregon State Pac-10 .944
75 Rice Conf. USA .927
76 San Diego State Mountain West .912
77 New Mexico State WAC .902
78 Colorado State Mountain West .894
79 Boise State WAC .893
80 BYU Mountain West .8767
80 Wyoming Mountain West .8767
82 Louisiana Tech WAC .867
83 Navy Independent .866
84 New Mexico Mountain West .8589
84 UNLV Mountain West .8589
86 Bowling Green MAC .8511
86 Ohio MAC .8511
88 Idaho WAC .8494
88 Nevada WAC .8494
90 San Jose State WAC .840
91 Kent State MAC .8332
91 Miami (Ohio) MAC .8332
93 Tulsa Conf. USA .818
94 Marshall Conf. USA .7734
94 Memphis Conf. USA .7734
94 Tulane Conf. USA .7734
94 UAB Conf. USA .7734
98 Utah Mountain West .767
99 Louisiana-Lafayette Sun Belt .7536
100 Louisiana-Monroe Sun Belt .7535
101 Buffalo MAC .7421
102 Eastern Michigan MAC .7240
103 Western Michigan MAC .733
104 Akron MAC .7242
105 Northern Illinois MAC .7152
105 Toledo MAC .7152
107 Central Michigan MAC .706
108 East Carolina Conf. USA .6734
109 SMU Conf. USA .6734
109 UCF Conf. USA .6734
111 Southern Miss Conf. USA .6644
111 UTEP Conf. USA .6644
113 Florida Atlantic Sun Belt .6535
113 Middle Tennessee Sun Belt .6535
115 Houston Conf. USA .646
116 North Texas Sun Belt .6356
116 Troy Sun Belt .6356
118 Arkansas State Sun Belt .626
119 Florida International Sun Belt .617

[huntnfish]

then there should be no excuses if we do not have a winning season- and if we don't fire Copeland

[Dooby]

Not saying it is and not saying it isn't, but isn't interesting that (i) Dennis Dodd is from North Carolina ; (ii) he came up with his own methodology for determining strenght of schedule; and (iii) low and behold, North Carolina has the toughest schedule in the NCAA.

To show the flaw in his methodology, he starts with the assumption that the Big East is the best conference in college football. I am going to have to disagree with that; I don't think anybody in their right mind believes that. I will also point out that in the formula used in this article, you never see the word "winning percentage". If this methodology were used by anyone else or even used in past years by Dodd, which I can't find that it was, I would have more faith in this.

Is our schedule softer than past years? On paper, yes. TCU had a down year last year (nobody knows how good they will be this year). We don't have both Texas Tech and OSU on the schedule, but we do have A&M, whihc beat both of them last year. We also play the Big XII doormat Baylor. Baylore beat us two years ago and beat A&M last year. We played 4 bowl teams last year, we play 4 bowl teams this year; the difference is 3 of this years bowl teams are in conference as opposed to two last year.

We are a year removed from an 0-11 season and are going into a new conference that the vast majority of people consider better than the one we left, demanding a winning record is setting yourself up for (a) disappointment; and (b) failure.

[jtstang]

We are a year removed from an 0-11 season and are going into a new conference that the vast majority of people consider better than the one we left, demanding a winning record is setting yourself up for (a) disappointment; and (b) failure.

You speak wisdom beyond your years.

[Stallion]

I seriously doubt that CUSA will have a significantly higher RPI than the WAC from last year. CUSA West is a Weekly Pillow Fight. I believe the thesis of this article will be confirmed by other polls that CUSA at least right now has a very low composite rating--far far below MWC for example.

[huntnfish]

two years removed from 0-11, BUT two supposedly top tier recruiting classes in the WAC and another "great" one last year- if we are going to pronounce how much better of a job we are doing recruiting you eventually have to back it up with wins

it is time to show some improvement

[HorsePower]

I don't know what to make of the strength of schedule. Baylor, I think, will be better -- not like a Miami or even a Texas Tech, but better. A&M is good, possibly very good. TCU will tail off some more, I think (and I hope), but they still have some talent. And frankly, I don't know a great deal about the teams in C-USA -- I know UAB has great athletes, Marshall seems to be pretty good every year, East Carolina is supposed to be undisciplined but extremely athletic (read: ambush game), UTEP had a great year last year, Rice always gives us fits ....

I think we'll be considerably improved this year, as our talented players are older, stronger and more mature. I just wonder how that's going to pan out in wins and losses.

[HorsePower]

two years removed from 0-11, BUT two supposedly top tier recruiting classes in the WAC and another "great" one last year- if we are going to pronounce how much better of a job we are doing recruiting you eventually have to back it up with wins

it is time to show some improvement

I think we will be better. But I haven't read anything that called this year's class "great." If anything, I'm hoping this year's class is underrated, because of the lack of info about some JUCOs. But if I'm not mistaken, I think last year's class had a higher rating. This year's class is good, I think, but I don't get the sense that the recruiting pundits are looking at this year's class and asking "how did SMU get THOSE guys?" Now it's time for the recruits to show those "experts" that they were short-changing SMU.

[Dooby]

I agree with Stallion. **shocking** Overall, I think Conference-USA is tougher than the WAC, but not dramatically so, and I agree that the West is weaker than the East as arguably the three best teams are all in the East.

Still, I think the main point of this article was to talk about North Carolina and the author could care less about the Mountain West, WAC, Conference USA, MAC or the Sunbelt.

I think the methodology is junk. Thinking about the methodology further, there is little if any difference between scheduling a 5-6 team from the WAC and the worst I-AA team in the country. When the BCS was trying to include strength of schedule, they at least factored in winning percentage and also deducted points for scheduling I-AA teams. Case in point, look at no. 3 West Virginia-they have scheduled the fighting Wofford Terriers. I don't think you can schedule I-AA competition and lay claim to one of the toughest schedules in the country.

OSU and Texas Tech are both top 25 and we have already discussed their extremely weak non-conference schedules. At the end of the day, it is little more than a ranking of conferences and I think this guys ranking of conferences is off base.

In no way am I saying we have a "tough" schedule, although I think you can debate whether this year's schedule is tougher or easier than last year's schedule.

[huntnfish]

think about it we are playing everybody in the old SWC this year except UT, Tx Tech, and Arkansas- which are three of the top 4 of old

talking about how good Baylor, TCU, UAB or Marshall is would not have held water 10 years ago, we were playing much better competition, not to include the Wisconsins, UCLAs and UNCs of the world

it is time to win- we have been playing weaker competition with supposedly better players for too many years

[Dooby]

two years removed from 0-11, BUT two supposedly top tier recruiting classes in the WAC and another "great" one last year- if we are going to pronounce how much better of a job we are doing recruiting you eventually have to back it up with wins

it is time to show some improvement

I ran the numbers a couple of months ago on the records of teams two years removed from a 0-11 (or 0-12) season. The average improvement was around two wins. So that puts us arguably at 5-6. Should be pointed out that Bennett exceeded the average for the season following a losing campaign by winning three when the average was just over two.

But really, have you looked at the schedule? Where will those six wins come from? If you can't identify six wins, how can you impose those expectations on the team?

I have looked at the schedule and can come up with all kinds of scenarios to winning anywhere from one to seven games (if absolutely everything goes perfectly, which it won't). I think the most realistic expectation is four wins; five if we can capitalize in one of the first two home games. But that is just my opinion.

[huntnfish]

anything less than 5 wins is a big dissappointment in year 4, considering the better recruiting classes that everyone keeps talking about that we have had, the weak competition and the much better facilites we have now compared to 10 years ago

[Dooby]

think about it we are playing everybody in the old SWC this year except UT, Tx Tech, and Arkansas- which are three of the top 4 of old

talking about how good Baylor, TCU, UAB or Marshall is would not have held water 10 years ago, we were playing much better competition, not to include the Wisconsins, UCLAs and UNCs of the world

it is time to win- we have been playing weaker competition with supposedly better players for too many years

Is it time for the old **NEWSFLASH: WE SUCK** post again already? Didn't we go through this just a week ago?

The following has happened over the past 20 years:
We did not have a football team for two years.
We allowed a nimrod who knew nothing about athletics to dictate the policies of the athletic department, some of which are (apparently) still in place today.
We allowed that same nimrod to dismantle many of the building blocks that contributed to SMU's earlier success.
We seriously pondered dropping out of Division I-A.
We stood by while the best schools in our old conference bolted and left us for dead.
We have been no better than mediocre at any point in the last 20 years.

[Stallion, did I leave anything out?]

All of the above culminated in the worst season in team history in 2003.

We need to improve and we need to get better. We need to judge progress and improvement relative to where we are today as opposed to where we were 20 years ago. The "cargo cult" mentality of some people on this board has got to stop.

[huntnfish]

that's my point, I am tired of hearing that same old song, I don't believe it is too much to ask for 5 wins in a coach's 4th year & I am sure Bennet would agree

and if you want to compare to where we were, here's a quick recap- Rossley was turing the thing around in 1996 when he went 5-6 in very tough WAC, Cavan comes in and goes 6-5 with all of Rossley's players depsite trying to bench the all-time offensive leader, then we got worse and worse with terrible recruiting years despite playing against weaker and weaker competition and great facilities

it's year 4 and time to win and I guarantee you Bennett agrees on this- hopefully he can do it despite Copeland

[Stallion]

now HuntNFish you know I'm not going to let you get away with that comparison to Rossley in Bennett's 4th year. Rossley in his 4th and 5th years was 2-19-1 about a .09% winning percentage. 99.9% of the coaches with that record in their 4 or 5th years would be fired-Tom Rossley being the only exception.