If you want this to also be your basis for ranking teams, then, for the most part, you are taking all of the conferences outside the Big 6 and ranking them below vurtually every team in those conferences no matter how well they do against their schedule.
Not every team...but maybe the top half of the BCSonferences!
And just how do the non BCS conference teams do in whole against BCS conference teams? We had a whole gazillion page thread about this...older data from KTFfan (22005)
There's little to suggest that even the best mid-majors can compete with teams from the major conferences. While some mid-majors run through a weak schedule undefeated, they generally get left out of the BCS and justifiably so. Here are a few facts to indicate this:
Since the BCS started in 1998, mid-majors have won less then 20% of the games they've played overall when playing major conference teams.
Even at home, these mid-majors have one less then 1 in three of games played against major teams, but on the road have won less than 1 in 7.
Even the better mid-majors, ones with a winning conference record don't win a majority of the games in which the play the weaker majors, ones with a losing conference record and teams that have won mid-major championships win barely 1 in 3 games in which they play major teams.
Mid-majors that finished undefeated in their conference lost a majority of the games they played against major conference teams. These teams, in fact, lost over 1 in 3 games they played against major conference teams that finished with a .333 or less conference record.
Mid-majors that have finished ranked in the AP poll have even lost over 1/3 of their games against major teams that finished unranked or lower ranked then them. Also, mid-majors that finished ranked have only won 1 in 3 games they played against majors that finished ranked, indicating that mid-majors tend to have to do less to get ranked.
Is it not just as irrational to rank teams who beat nobody over teams who had wins over top twenty five teams? To assume that if you win a lot of games on a weak schedule that you ought to be ranked?
Wins must have a strong quality component. An SEC team playing a brutal schedule should not penalized for having a couple of losses when being comapared to a team with an extremely weak schedule who goes undefeated or has one loss. If you were the Koi in the goldfish pond (Hawaii) you clean up...just don't throw the Koi into the shark tank.
Shoot! You can win a lot by judiciously scheduling. Be a Koi in the local goldfish pond and don't schedule any sharks in OOC games...home free.
Sure, some teams don't have the schedule to allow them to play and beat good teams...but why penalize teams that do play a tough schedule?
A 9-4 Michigan would have been a much better game for Georgia, I'll bet, than Hawaii. Put Hawaii on Michigan's schedule or Florida's schedule, or FSU's schedule, and see if they have such a gaudy win total. Nope..they wouldn't have. Their wins were a function of their weak schedule.
Sooooo...Do we give a bonus to teams for playing weak schedules? Do we penalize teams that have a couple of losses but play a top 10 SOS?
I think that polls count wins vs losses to such an extent that it makes no sense for an AD to schedule a tough team in OOC. The chance of a loss is more powerful than what you might lose by scheduling a patsy. So your SOS drops some? Not a big deal compared to the dire consequences of a loss.