Musings on Connectivity and Scheduling

by LaFortune Teller ⌂ @, South Bend, Tuesday, January 26, 2010, 20:20 (5977 days ago)
edited by LaFortune Teller, Tuesday, January 26, 2010, 20:27

College football was better in 1989 than in 2009. More specifically, college football connectivity, especially among its elite teams, was stronger.

In 1989, there were 106 Division 1-A teams. They played an average of only 10.6 scheduled* games per team against one another. They played a total of only 50 1-A vs. 1-AA games. There were 25 independents (24% of Divison 1-A).

In 2009, there were 120 FBS (formerly 1-A) teams. They played an average of 11.3 scheduled* games per team against one another. They played a total of 94 FBS vs. FCS games. There were only 3 independents.

*"Scheduled games" here means non-bowl and non-conference championship games.

Connectivity in college football has been exhaustively studied by Paul Kislanko for the last several years: http://football.kislanko.com/. He measures the "connectedness" of the field of teams similar to the Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon game. You are connected by 1 link to all of the teams you play head-to-head. You are connected by 2 links to all of the additional teams with which you share an opponent; by 3 links to all shared opponent-opponents, etc.

In 1989, despite fewer teams playing fewer games, connectivity on average was better. Before the bowls, 18 percent of all D1A teams in 1989 had a 1- or 2-link connection to at least 60 percent of all other teams. 13 of those teams ranked in the final pre-bowl AP top-25, including Nos. 1 through 6. In 2009, only 11 percent of all FBS teams had a 1- or 2-link connection to at least 60 percent of all other teams. Only four of those teams ranked in the final pre-bowl AP top-25.

The independent teams led the way in 1989, both for connectivity and in the rankings. Nine of the "60-percent connected" teams in 1989 were independents. Only two independents were "60-percent connected" teams in 2009. That said, it isn't as though 1989 and 2009 were dramatically different in terms of direct connectivity among the very best teams:

The final post-bowl rankings in 1989:
#1 Miami had played #2, #3, #9, #16, and #17.
#2 Notre Dame had played #1, #4, #7, #8, #15, #16, #17, and #18.
#3 Florida State had played #1, #6, #11, and #12.
(All three were independents.)

The final post-bowl AP rankings in 2009:
#1 Alabama had played #2, #3, #10, #17, #20
#2 Texas had played #1, #14, #21
#3 Florida had played #1, #8, #17

But the meat of the schedules of elite teams was much stronger in 1989. None of the top three teams played a 1-AA opponent in 1989. In 2009, instead of another game or two against a ranked team, Florida and Alabama each played an FCS opponent and two Sun Belt opponents; Texas' out-of-conference schedule last year consisted of UTEP, Wyoming, New Mexico, and Louisiana-Monroe (a team that was 1-AA in 1989).

1989 might not be fondly remembered by Notre Dame fans, but let it not be forgotten that we are two decades removed from what might have been the best overall college football season ever. 1990 saw a 34% increase in FBS vs. FCS games. Miami joined the Big East in 1991. Florida State joined the ACC in 1992, the same year the SEC expanded to 12 teams. By 1993, only 11 total independents remained. Since 2004, there have been four independents or fewer. Meanwhile, the number of FBS vs. FCS games has nearly doubled since 1989: 94 games this past season.

Where were all the great games in 2009? The same place as all the independents. The landscape hasn't just changed; it would be virutually unrecognizable to elite teams from 20 years ago.

Also, ND's connectivity in 2009 wasn't great.

by LaFortune Teller ⌂ @, South Bend, Wednesday, January 27, 2010, 16:57 (5977 days ago) @ LaFortune Teller

Especially for an independent. We ranked only 19th in connectivity following the bowl games (Army and Navy were #1 and #2). The independents (especially us) should be leading the way for college football connectivity.

(Connectivity in and of itself shouldn't be a scheduling goal, of course. We play games against 7 different conferences next year AND the two other independents, so we should very safely be the most connected team in college football next year. That we might simultaneously be one of the least connected teams to top-25 teams would be hilarious if it weren't so depressing).

Here's a bit of trivia: ND was connected to all but one team in college football in 2009 by 3 links or fewer. We are four degrees of separation, however, from Memphis.

How much of this is due to the fall of independents?

by Jeff (BGS) @, A starter home in suburban Tempe, Wednesday, January 27, 2010, 09:32 (5977 days ago) @ LaFortune Teller

While I do think that teams are deliberately watering down their schedule, certainly having fewer independents means more conference games and thus lower connectivity. While Independents did play each other, I suspect they provided many of the bridges between conferences.

I know the following teams were independents in 1989, but not today. I am sure there are more:
Boston College, Florida State, Miami, Virginia Tech, Penn State, Temple, East Carolina, Rutgers, Pitt, Syracuse, West Virginia, Cincinnati, Louisville, Memphis, Tulane, Tulsa, South Carolina, and Northern Illinois

Sounds like a lot of it to me.

by JRT, Island of Misfit Toys, Wednesday, January 27, 2010, 15:59 (5977 days ago) @ Jeff (BGS)

It sounds like the old independents were the "interconnectors" between the largely autonomous conference groupings.

Plus, I would think adding DI teams would tend to decrease "interconnectedness."

The connectivity decline culprits:

by LaFortune Teller ⌂ @, South Bend, Wednesday, January 27, 2010, 16:47 (5977 days ago) @ JRT

1. Fewer independents
2. More D-1 teams

Although, with the addition of the 12th game, 5 new conference championship games (very little effect), and twice as many bowl games, there shouldn't be a mathematical reason for connectivity to decline.

3. Nearly double the number of FBS vs. FCS games. Should be a crime.
4. Pac-10 electing to play 9 conference games (that's ten games that had the potential to connect more teams).

94 games. geesh

by Jay, San Diego, Wednesday, January 27, 2010, 09:25 (5977 days ago) @ LaFortune Teller

I took a look at this back in 2007. Here's where we were back then.

http://bluegraysky.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive.html#117226716462602091

'03: 23 games, BCS 23-0, average MOV 31.3
'04: 24 games, BCS 22-2, average MOV 23.4
'05: 32 games, BCS 31-1, average MOV 27.9
'06: 47 games, BCS 43-4, average MOV 27.6

It just keeps getting worse and worse. I also can't believe there's not more of a concerted outcry among CFB fans. There's local grumbling when the season ticket package forces fans to buy games like Florida versus Chattanooga, but this is a problem that afflicts every team with a good fan base.

The system has been gamed

by irishoutsider @, Wednesday, January 27, 2010, 04:51 (5977 days ago) @ LaFortune Teller

Or there is now a system to be gamed.

First, Div-I grew in the sense that lesser teams in mid-major conferences were now eligible for a BCS championship. In the past, they were simply cast aside by voters. With the championship field a bit flatter, teams have found every way to game the computers by playing weaker competition and crossing their fingers in the polls. This works to the advantage of historic and perennial contenders, who can coast through the polls on name recognition and preseason momentum.

The downside to this is what you have brought up, but I believe the upside is the rise of the middle in Div-I. The new mid-major power teams could not have been cultivated under the old system, and they will eventually raise the talent in their own conferences.

don't forget cash money, homey

by Jay, San Diego, Wednesday, January 27, 2010, 09:33 (5977 days ago) @ irishoutsider

These games aren't just appealing to the lion for competitive purposes. The lamb gets a fat check for these games; sometimes that check floats the entire athletic department budget for the year. There's incentive on both sides to schedule these slaughters.

CREAM

by irishoutsider @, Wednesday, January 27, 2010, 09:50 (5977 days ago) @ Jay

- No text -

powered by my little forum