On every message board and every website you hear arguments about strength of schedule (SOS).

But I have to ask what components make up SOS?

Some people argue things like wins and losses.

The problem there is the quality of the teams. What I mean is in a pure wins and losses set up a nine win Western Michigan means more than a seven win Clemson.

Or even a 10-2 Weber State gives a team more win/ loss points than 8-5 Kansas.

But ask yourself if you were in an argument about SOS, which one would you take more seriously?

There is the argument of playing x number of bowl teams as well. I don't like this one either.

If you made a nonconference schedule of Fresno State, FAU, Navy, and North Carolina State and then had one that consisted of Illinois, Stanford, Tennessee and Kansas State, which one looks harder? The first is a bunch of teams that were all in bowls while the second are teams that missed eligibility by one game.

Rankings makes sense, or at least in theory they do.

Do you go by the ranking of the team when the game was played or do you go by where the teams finish the season ranked?

The problem with ranking at the time of the game is, does it still count as a game against a ranked team if they bomb after word?

LSU was No. 7 to start the season but they did not finish ranked. On the other hand Utah was not ranked to start and finished No. 2.

So does that mean that teams that played LSU to start the season say they played a ranked LSU team while the teams that played Utah to start have to say they played Utah who finished No. 2? And what counts more to SOS?

There is also some perception problems for some teams. Some people can't get it out of their head the bad years of some teams like Stanford. Stanford went 5-7 in 2008. Are they then, any worse than other teams that went 5-7 that have a traditionally higher profile.

Say like Tennessee?

Many people would believe that a 5-7 Tennessee is better than a 5-7 Stanford. Maybe they are, but there is really no way to prove it. The only mutual opponent was UCLA and both lost by three. Neither team beat a ranked team at the time they played, but Stanford did beat Oregon State who finished in the top 25.

So was playing Tennessee or playing Stanford the harder opponent?

I honestly don't know if there is any one good way to determine strength of schedule and there may never be one. For every argument that can be made, a counter argument can also be made.

If anyone else has some insight in to how to gauge SOS, let me know.