Irrelevant.
We're talking about overall schedule, not OOC schedule.
That list is ignorant. We had the #2 SOS last year.
Final 2011 College Football Strength of Schedule Rankings
It uses a mathematical formula, just as the list you posted does as well. The NCAA's formula is a very simple one, just using winning percentages for all teams played on the schedule.
Yeah but you can't not give a team points at all because they played an FCS school... and give teams points for playing FBS schools.. It doesn't make sense... It's like saying well ok This team played the Number 1 2 and 3 teams in the nation but we aren't going to rank them high bc they played an FCS school... On the other hand... Heres an SEC school that didn't play any of those top teams but they did play an easy FBS team so well rank them in the top 10.... Just stupid is what it is...
Try the official NCAA site. It shows us 6th
web1.ncaa.org/mfb/2011/Internet/toughest%20schedule/fbs_9games_cumm.pdf
1 LSU
2 Kansas
3 Auburn
4 OK State
5 Bammers
6 Tennessee
oh. and down a ways are
41 Vandy
The idea behind it is because FCS teams only play 1 or 2 FBS teams a year, while an FBS team...well, plays 10-12 FBS teams per year, and thus, will have a somewhat reliable sample size to be ranked properly.
Not gonna convince me... I think anyone in the country would argue that this ranking is a complete JOKE... Care to explain how Vandy is higher??? That's a complete JOKE... Do you honestly think GA had a harder schedule than TN? or are you just defending a stupid Mathematical formula?
I could give a damn about the formula. I was simply pointing out the reasons the rankings are the way they were.
Vandy actually played roughly the same conference schedule that we did, but they played some low level BCS conference teams. (Connecticut and Wake Forest)
Did Georgia have a harder schedule than Tennessee? Over a 12 game period, Tennessee had the better schedule. If you took everything into account, would Georgia have played the harder slate at the end of the year? Yes, I believe so.