Opponents Records

[NT93]

These are the combined records of conference opponents only.  So, for example, our record doesn’t count Cal, FIU, etc.  I’m doing this on my phone and I just randomly looked at each team, so sorry they aren’t in any type of order.  Also, not going to guarantee 100% accuracy as this was done pretty quickly without any double checking.  It’s pretty close though. This is only through the games that have been played so far. 

UNT 39-20

Tulane: 23-37

SMU: 18-44

Memphis: 27-32

UTSA: 19-41

Navy: 25-35

Temple: 30-29

UAB: 37-23

FAU: 23-37

Tulsa: 31-29

Rice: 34-26

Charlotte: 29-30

USF: 26-34

ECU: 35-25

What’s the point?  None really.  Just thought I’d be interesting to see.

[NM Green]

What I take from that is that Rice has made a solid leap up. 
gmg

[keith]

Scheduling gods certainly were not kind to us this year.  Sometimes, however, you need to step up and beat a team you weren't supposed to or at least beat a team with a winning record.  The inability to do that has been a theme around here for too long.

Edited November 15, 2023 by keith

[SteaminWillieBeamin]

It isn't surprising though - since teams like UNT spot all of their opponents a victory. Teams like SMU hand all their opponents losses. So it will almost always appear that the good teams played a soft schedule, unless everyone in the league is hovering around .500.  

[Travis]

36 minutes ago, SteaminWillieBeamin said:

It isn't surprising though - since teams like UNT spot all of their opponents a victory. Teams like SMU hand all their opponents losses. So it will almost always appear that the good teams played a soft schedule, unless everyone in the league is hovering around .500.  

This!

[VideoEagle]

Most schools are members of conferences. Every conference win generates a conference loss for another team. Teams with the best records will have more wins against teams with losing records. It's just math, folks. Discounting wins against teams with losing records ignores basic math! 

[NT93]

1 hour ago, SteaminWillieBeamin said:

It isn't surprising though - since teams like UNT spot all of their opponents a victory. Teams like SMU hand all their opponents losses. So it will almost always appear that the good teams played a soft schedule, unless everyone in the league is hovering around .500.  

 

1 hour ago, VideoEagle said:

Most schools are members of conferences. Every conference win generates a conference loss for another team. Teams with the best records will have more wins against teams with losing records. It's just math, folks. Discounting wins against teams with losing records ignores basic math! 

This is, of course, true to an extent.  The fact that each school doesn’t play each other is what makes it relevant.  If the conference played a round robin schedule it would be basic math, but they don’t, so it isn’t.  Also, I figured it based on each team’s season record, not just their conference record, so that discounts “a win for Team A equals a loss for Team B.”

[UNTcrazy727]

1 hour ago, NT93 said:

 

This is, of course, true to an extent.  The fact that each school doesn’t play each other is what makes it relevant.  If the conference played a round robin schedule it would be basic math, but they don’t, so it isn’t.  Also, I figured it based on each team’s season record, not just their conference record, so that discounts “a win for Team A equals a loss for Team B.”

If we had this start to conference play we'd probably be bowl eligible right now. The difference in difficulty between our conference schedule and SMU's (even UTSA's) is crazy. 

Now, we should have still made a bowl game, but the AAC did us no favors. 

[Matt from A700]

56 minutes ago, UNTcrazy727 said:

If we had this start to conference play we'd probably be bowl eligible right now. The difference in difficulty between our conference schedule and SMU's (even UTSA's) is crazy. 

Now, we should have still made a bowl game, but the AAC did us no favors. 

Even though we had the most difficult conference schedule, still a frustrating season because our first six games were the most winnable half of a season in the 10 seasons I've followed. I feel like 5-1 should not have been an unrealistic dream. With even Bennett's defense from last season and Rogers starting all season we could have at least gone 7-5, and that's taking into consideration an 0-4 record during our death stretch.

[NT93]

1 hour ago, Matt from A700 said:

Even though we had the most difficult conference schedule, still a frustrating season because our first six games were the most winnable half of a season in the 10 seasons I've followed. I feel like 5-1 should not have been an unrealistic dream. With even Bennett's defense from last season and Rogers starting all season we could have at least gone 7-5, and that's taking into consideration an 0-4 record during our death stretch.

The FIU and Navy losses are the ones that define the season.  Win those two games and we’re considered a decent team.  But we lost them so we’re considered a bad team.  

[Zeleny' Orel]

1 minute ago, NT93 said:

The FIU and Navy losses are the ones that define the season.  Win those two games and we’re considered a decent team.  But we lost them so we’re considered a bad team.  

Totally agree!

[El Paso Eagle]

4 hours ago, UNTcrazy727 said:

If we had this start to conference play we'd probably be bowl eligible right now. The difference in difficulty between our conference schedule and SMU's (even UTSA's) is crazy. 

Now, we should have still made a bowl game, but the AAC did us no favors. 

No one is saying our season has not been disappointing, but with an unbalanced schedule, if you don't think it's made a difference, then you probably like to bitch to hear yourself bitch. 

[97and03]

13 hours ago, UNTcrazy727 said:

If we had this start to conference play we'd probably be bowl eligible right now. The difference in difficulty between our conference schedule and SMU's (even UTSA's) is crazy. 

Now, we should have still made a bowl game, but the AAC did us no favors. 

We lost to FIU and Navy and squeaked by LaTech early on. Why exactly do you think we would have magically been better against these teams?

[97and03]

10 hours ago, NT93 said:

The FIU and Navy losses are the ones that define the season.  Win those two games and we’re considered a decent team.  But we lost them so we are a bad team.  

FIFY

[NT93]

8 hours ago, 97and03 said:

FIFY

I almost stated it that way originally.  The only reason I didn’t is because I was wanting to make the point that regardless of winning or losing those games, we’re the same team, only people’s perception would change.  My point being, even if we’d have won those two games, we still wouldn’t be very good.  

[NT93]

Our conference losses are to the current top five teams in the conference standings.  

[UNTLifer]

9 minutes ago, NT93 said:

Our conference losses are to the current top five teams in the conference standings.  

Should not have lost to FIU, Navy, Memphis, Tulane and maybe even utsa. 

[NT93]

5 minutes ago, UNTLifer said:

Should not have lost to FIU, Navy, Memphis, Tulane and maybe even utsa. 

I don’t necessarily disagree, but I think any team in this conference would have trouble beating Tulane, Memphis, UTSA, and SMU in consecutive weeks.

[UNTLifer]

15 minutes ago, NT93 said:

I don’t necessarily disagree, but I think any team in this conference would have trouble beating Tulane, Memphis, UTSA, and SMU in consecutive weeks.

I agree. I would love to know what our record would be with smu’s cakewalk schedule.