Using ESPN analytics to solve Iowa State, SMU athletic directors' strength of schedule debate

AMES Forget a 13-person committee ranking college football teams behind closed doors, its more fun when athletic directors bring the debate to social media.

Tuesday night, the College Football Playoff Committee unveiled its week 14 rankings, ranking Iowa State No.

16.

Iowa State athletic director Jamie Pollard offered his opinion on X, saying its Disappointing that strength of schedule clearly does not matter for SMU, Indiana and Boise State.

Disappointing that strength of schedule clearly does not matter for SMU, Indiana and Boise State.

Message is clear - win as many games as possible regardless of who you play.

Time to rethink non-conference scheduling.

Very different standards than the basketball committee.

https://t.co/TsZEAjYNYx Where Iowa State's 2025 football recruiting class ranks nationally Here are the schools involved in Pollards tweet: No.

8 SMU (11-1 overall, 8-0 ACC) No.

9 Indiana (11-1 overall, 8-1 Big 10) No.

10 Boise State (11-1 overall, 7-0 Mountain West) No.

16 Iowa State (10-2 overall, 7-2 Big 12) Using ESPNs power index tool , each of the schools can be ranked by its strength of schedule, which is defined as "the rank among all FBS teams of games already played schedule strength, from the perspective of an average top-25 team." Of the four teams in the equation, Indiana has played the most difficult schedule.

Indiana No.

65 Iowa State: No.

68 SMU: No.

75 Boise State: No.

86 One conclusion can be in Boise States case, the CFP isnt penalizing Boise State for its relatively weak strength of schedule.

Of course, the Broncos have lost just one game (to No.

1 Oregon).

Indiana, ISU and SMU have played roughly equally difficult schedules, considering there are 134 FBS teams and they are within 10 spots of each other.

SMU athletic director Rich Hart took exception to Pollards tweet, calling it a bad take.

Jamie, respect you but bad take.

ISU had No.

D, Iowa, Ark.

St.

non-con.

SMU had Nev., HCU, TCU, BYU.

(And scrambled due to Vandy dropping us.) SMU 1 of 2 to win all conf.

games, 1 of 3 with 9 P4 wins, trailed a TOTAL of 6+ mins.

last 9 games.

I could go on...

Stay off my lawn! https://t.co/gsGSAbL9KR Hart pointed out Iowa State played nonconference games against North Dakota, Iowa and Arkansas State (average Football Power Index score of 69 plus an FCS opponent) while SMU played Nevada, HCU, TCU and BYU (average FPI score of 57.3 plus an FCS opponent).

Hart is correct that SMUs non-conference strength of schedule was better than Iowa States, but he fails to mention Iowa States conference schedule was more difficult than SMUs.

Rick, beat Clemson Saturday and I will respect your ranking.

Until then you did not play Clemson, Miami, Georgia Tech or Syracuse AND lost to BYU at home.

Looks like your lawn may be artificial https://t.co/TulYldXdPK We will continue to control what we can control.

Pony Up! https://t.co/hQWRCAd63N Both schools have a chance to secure a automatic bid in the College Football Playoff bid on Saturday by winning their conference championships.

Iowa State plays No.

15 Arizona State while SMU plays No.

17 Clemson.

3 takeaways from Iowa State's top-5 win against Marquette: Cyclones have case as nations best Bowl projections: Iowa State football predictions after Kansas State win Ben Hutchens is an Iowa State University beat writer for the Lee Enterprises network.

Follow him on X or send him an email at [email protected] .

Get local news delivered to your inbox!.

This article has been shared from the original article on nonpareilonline, here is the link to the original article:

https://nonpareilonline.com/sports/college/football/using-espn-analytics-to-solve-iowa-state-smu-athletic-directors-strength-of-schedule-debate/article_b29af02e-4f5e-56a5-b1b7-8a7fb9aa9dc0.html