A little fuel to the "Pac-10 vs. everyone else" fire

[Zenitram]

The Pac-10 lost most of their big OOC games this season. Pointless to schedule them if you can't win em. I think Arizona's win over Iowa was the Pac's biggest OOC win this season.

And I personally don't see the big deal with playing 9 conference games. Being forced to play Washington and Washing State every season isn't scary.

With the schedules being made so far in advance, it's hard to account for "big" OOC matchups, sometimes you get unlucky (Washington-Nebraska) and sometimes you get very lucky (UCLA-Texas, Oregon-Tennessee). You don't see anyone scheduling those big names like the Pac-10 does, though.

BCS nonconference foes:
Tennessee
Wake Forest
Notre Dame (x2)
Iowa
Virginia
Minnesota
Louisville
Syracuse
Nebraska
Wisconsin
Colorado
Kansas St.
Texas
Oklahoma St.


Decent mid-major nonconference foes:
TCU
Boise St.
Hawaii
Nevada
BYU
Houston
SMU

Cupcakes:
New Mexico
Toledo

FCS:
Sacramento St.
Portland St. (x2)
Northern Arizona
UC Davis
Montana St.
Citadel


BCS foes: 15
Good mid-major contenders: 7
Mid-major cupcakes: 2
FCS: 7

BCS opponents make up 48% of the nonconference schedule, Good mid-majors make up another 23%. Now let's see the SEC:

BCS:
Clemson (x2)
South Florida
Florida St.
Colorado
Georgia Tech
Oregon
Louisville
Northwestern
UConn
Wake Forest
Texas A&M
UNC
West Virginia
Penn St.
Duke
Houston

Decent:
Southern Miss
Miami (OH)
Fresno St.

Cupcakes:
Troy
Louisiana-Lafayette (x2)
UAB (x2)
Memphis (x2)
WKU
Akron
Eastern Michigan
Arkansas St.
ULM (x3)
UTEP
San Jose St.
Tulane

FCS:
Furman
Appalachian St.
Charleston Southern
Idaho St.
Tennessee-Martin
Chattanooga
Tennessee Tech
McNeese St.
Georgia St.
Alcorn St.
Jacksonville St. (lol)

BCS: 17 (35%)
Decent: 3 (6%)
Cupcake: 17 (35%)
FCS: 11 (23%)

42% of the opponents are BCS or otherwise good (with a few liberties taken, like Miami (OH) and Southern Miss), and 58% are cupcakes or comical. I've never even heard of McNeese St. or Alcorn St. before this year.

 

[FREE EARL]

With the schedules being made so far in advance, it's hard to account for "big" OOC matchups, sometimes you get unlucky (Washington-Nebraska) and sometimes you get very lucky (UCLA-Texas, Oregon-Tennessee). You don't see anyone scheduling those big names like the Pac-10 does, though.

BCS nonconference foes:
Tennessee
Wake Forest
Notre Dame (x2)
Iowa
Virginia
Minnesota
Louisville
Syracuse
Nebraska
Wisconsin
Colorado
Kansas St.
Texas
Oklahoma St.


Decent mid-major nonconference foes:
TCU
Boise St.
Hawaii
Nevada
BYU
Houston
SMU

Cupcakes:
New Mexico
Toledo

FCS:
Sacramento St.
Portland St. (x2)
Northern Arizona
UC Davis
Montana St.
Citadel


BCS foes: 15
Good mid-major contenders: 7
Mid-major cupcakes: 2
FCS: 7

BCS opponents make up 48% of the nonconference schedule, Good mid-majors make up another 23%. Now let's see the SEC:

BCS:
Clemson (x2)
South Florida
Florida St.
Colorado
Georgia Tech
Oregon
Louisville
Northwestern
UConn
Wake Forest
Texas A&M
UNC
West Virginia
Penn St.
Duke
Houston

Decent:
Southern Miss
Miami (OH)
Fresno St.

Cupcakes:
Troy
Louisiana-Lafayette (x2)
UAB (x2)
Memphis (x2)
WKU
Akron
Eastern Michigan
Arkansas St.
ULM (x3)
UTEP
San Jose St.
Tulane

FCS:
Furman
Appalachian St.
Charleston Southern
Idaho St.
Tennessee-Martin
Chattanooga
Tennessee Tech
McNeese St.
Georgia St.
Alcorn St.
Jacksonville St. (lol)

BCS: 17 (35%)
Decent: 3 (6%)
Cupcake: 17 (35%)
FCS: 11 (23%)

42% of the opponents are BCS or otherwise good (with a few liberties taken, like Miami (OH) and Southern Miss), and 58% are cupcakes or comical. I've never even heard of McNeese St. or Alcorn St. before this year.

Solid. But I guess I'm not as blown away as I should be. Especially considering the Pac-10 ended up losing all the bolded games.

 

[milohimself]

no excuse to not be bowl eligible in this years pac-10. the conference stinks. i completely agree with it being easier for sec teams in general though with the extra joke nonconfernece game.

The 9 conference games thing hurts that. It's a mathematical fact that it is more difficult to become bowl eligible in the Pac-10 than in any other conference. Especially when the open slot from that extra game is usually occupied by San Jose State or Miami OH or Troy or whatever.

 

[wheaton4prez]

The SEC did not win 4 BCS titles. Individual SEC teams did. Entire conferences don't win titles.

That one SEC team in a given year won an NC does not mean that the sum of the conference was also the best in that year.

 

[TnScooby]

The polls would reflect a difference in the 2 conferences as well:
BCS Standings
1 Auburn
2 Oregon
3 TCU
4 Stanford
5 Wisconsin
6 Ohio State
7 Arkansas
8 Michigan State
9 Oklahoma
10 LSU
11 Boise State
12 Missouri
13 Nebraska
14 Oklahoma State
15 Virginia Tech
16 Alabama
17 Nevada
18 Texas A&M
19 South Carolina
20 Utah
21 Florida State
22 Mississippi State
23 Arizona
24 West Virginia
25 Northern Illinois

With the SEC having 6 of the top 22 teams,and the Pac-10 3 of the top 23, it seems fairly obvious that the "dwarves" of the SEC are comparatively better than the "dwarves" of the Pac-10..Just my .02 worth:salute:

 

[FREE EARL]

The SEC did not win 4 BCS titles. Individual SEC teams did. Entire conferences don't win titles.

That one SEC team in a given year won an NC does not mean that the sum of the conference was also the best in that year.

You're right, the SEC has won 6 BCS titles. :yes:

 

[FREE EARL]

The 9 conference games thing hurts that. It's a mathematical fact that it is more difficult to become bowl eligible in the Pac-10 than in any other conference. Especially when the open slot from that extra game is usually occupied by San Jose State or Miami OH or Troy or whatever.

Because those slots can instead be filled by Washington State. :yes:

 

[milohimself]

Who has, through most of their history, been a substantially better program than say, Vanderbilt.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[FREE EARL]

Who has, through most of their history, been a substantially better program than say, Vanderbilt.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Which may have some merit if we were discussing historical significance, but we aren't. The reality is that now, WSU is perhaps the worst of all the FBS programs.

I find annual games against FSU, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Texas A&M, etc, much more difficult.

 

[HawaiiVol]

The SEC did not win 4 BCS titles. Individual SEC teams did. Entire conferences don't win titles.

That one SEC team in a given year won an NC does not mean that the sum of the conference was also the best in that year.

But, 5 different teams have won 7 titles. I'd say that means that the sum of the conference is better than the PAC-10.

How many BCS championships have the PAC-10 won and by how many teams?

 

[FREE EARL]

But, 5 different teams have won 7 titles. I'd say that means that the sum of the conference is better than the PAC-10.

How many BCS championships have the PAC-10 won and by how many teams?

It's 6 by 4, 6-0 in BCS title games. It'll be 7 by 5 if Auburn wins.

And it's one, by one for the Pac-10.

 

[HawaiiVol]

Thanks. I was just going from what was previously stated and didn't verify. Bad me.

 

[wheaton4prez]

But, 5 different teams have won 7 titles. I'd say that means that the sum of the conference is better than the PAC-10.

How many BCS championships have the PAC-10 won and by how many teams?

It's the same problem. Individual teams being good in one season does not say anything about the conferences top-to-bottom strength in that season.

With the statistic you quote, you could say that the SEC is good at getting a team into the NC game. But, as the recent Ted Miller article points out, the SEC has advantages for that built into how they schedule.

So, I think that you definitely have a strong argument for the SEC having a clever scheduling strategy that is effective at targeting an NC game birth. Of course, that comes at the expense of having more glorified spring games to watch.

Personally, I hope that changes and all conferences make an effort to make their schedules more challenging. The LSU vs. Oregon match-up for next year is a step in the right direction, imo.

 

[FREE EARL]

It's the same problem. Individual teams being good in one season does not say anything about the conferences top-to-bottom strength in that season.

But having 5 different National Champions from the same conference, being 7-0 in BCS title games, and owning half the National Titles played does.

With the statistic you quote, you could say that the SEC is good at getting a team into the NC game. But, as the recent Ted Miller article points out, the SEC has advantages for that built into how they schedule.

So does every other conference not named the Pac-10.

So, I think that you definitely have a strong argument for the SEC having a clever scheduling strategy that is effective at targeting an NC game birth. Of course, that comes at the expense of having more glorified spring games to watch.

How many teams did the Pac-10 put in the title game prior to going to a 9 game schedule? I'll help you out. One.

Personally, I hope that changes and all conferences make an effort to make their schedules more challenging. The LSU vs. Oregon match-up for next year is a step in the right direction, imo.

LSU always plays tough OOC games. SEC teams consistently finish with top ranked SOS's. Perhaps it's the Pac-10 that needs to step up their scheduling?

Not everybody can be Stanford. Not having to beat any teams that'll finished ranked to wind up in a BCS bowl.

 

[wheaton4prez]

But having 5 different National Champions from the same conference, being 7-0 in BCS title games, and owning half the National Titles played does.

No it doesn't. That was my point. A different team making it in one year says nothing about the strength of the rest of the conference in that year.

Washington State has had great seasons in the past. Florida had a crappy season this year. Bundling every teams best seasons together and pretending like that's how they always all are is fantasy.

A more reality, football based measurement would be to simply look at the head-to-head record of conferences against each other. That way, you're getting a cross-section of all the teams.

What is the record between Pac-10 and SEC teams over the past 10 years?

So does every other conference not named the Pac-10.

That is true regarding the number of conference games. However, the distance traveled, the quality of opponents and the number of home games played are amongst the most hedged for the SEC. This has been well documented. See The Wiz of Odds .

How many teams did the Pac-10 put in the title game prior to going to a 9 game schedule? I'll help you out. One.

Yes. Back then, you could argue that it was a level playing field in that one regard. Now, it is not.

LSU always plays tough OOC games. SEC teams consistently finish with top ranked SOS's. Perhaps it's the Pac-10 that needs to step up their scheduling?

They do?

NCAA payouts 2008 | desmoinesregister.com | The Des Moines Register

Case closed there. Nice try though.

 

[FREE EARL]

No it doesn't. That was my point. A different team making it in one year says nothing about the strength of the rest of the conference in that year.

Yes it does. Your point sucks.

Washington State has had great seasons in the past. Florida had a crappy season this year. Bundling every teams best seasons together and pretending like that's how they always all are is fantasy.

Yea, Florida had a bad season, and Auburn, Alabama, LSU, Arkansas, Mississippi State, and South Carolina, had good to great seasons. It's called depth.

A more reality, football based measurement would be to simply look at the head-to-head record of conferences against each other. That way, you're getting a cross-section of all the teams.

No it wouldn't. Unless of course you're matching the elite from one conference versus the elite of another, and doing the same with cellar dwellers.

The number one team from conference A, beating up on 8th best from conference B, doesn't make conference A better.

What is the record between Pac-10 and SEC teams over the past 10 years?

13-9 in favor of the Pac-10

That is true regarding the number of conference games. However, the distance traveled, the quality of opponents and the number of home games played are amongst the most hedged for the SEC. This has been well documented. See The Wiz of Odds .

More excuses. Imagine that. The OOC scheduling for the Big XII and Big X is no more difficult than the SEC's scheduling. Naturally, the SEC's going to have annual rival games with the ACC due to the proximity of the universities.

And what the hell is linking some ambiguous dudes blog supposed to prove?

Yes. Back then, you could argue that it was a level playing field in that one regard. Now, it is not.

The conference sucked then and it sucked now. How did playing one extra conference game change that?

They do?

NCAA payouts 2008 | desmoinesregister.com | The Des Moines Register

Case closed there. Nice try though.

In the last 5 seasons, LSU has played North Carolina, West Virginia, Washington, Virginia Tech, Arizona, and Arizona State in OOC games.(You can hold on to 2008, a single season in which they didn't have a decent opponent. That's fine)

Like I said, LSU has always had a tough OOC schedule. and unlike a lot of teams from the Pac-10, they actually win their OOC games.

 

[wheaton4prez]

Yea, Florida had a bad season, and Auburn, Alabama, LSU, Arkansas, Mississippi State, and South Carolina, had good to great seasons. It's called depth.

Or, it's called several cup-cakes, lots of home games and an unbalanced conference.

No it wouldn't. Unless of course you're matching the elite from one conference versus the elite of another, and doing the same with cellar dwellers.

The number one team from conference A, beating up on 8th best from conference B, doesn't make conference A better.

In other words, if the equivalent SEC teams haven't played the equivalent Pac-10 teams, you don't know and have no basis for saying that they are better. The head-to-head record is the closest thing we have to evidence and it favors the Pac-10. If you play the equivalency card, that only means that you don't know one way or another.

13-9 in favor of the Pac-10

Thank you. No cherry picking the data. Just all of the match-ups in recent times.

More excuses. Imagine that. The OOC scheduling for the Big XII and Big X is no more difficult than the SEC's scheduling. Naturally, the SEC's going to have annual rival games with the ACC due to the proximity of the universities.

As I pointed out, this has been documented. It's not an excuse, it's fact.

It's true that other conferences have tried similar strategies. But, there are degrees. Look it up.

And what the hell is linking some ambiguous dudes blog supposed to prove?

He has posted a lot of research there about how far conferences travel for games, the number of cupcakes, etc. You would do well to read through it.

The conference sucked then and it sucked now. How did playing one extra conference game change that?

The conference has not sucked then or now, hence the winning record against every other conference over the last 10 years. Playing an extra conference game makes it mathematically more difficult for conference members to have good records, especially if there is parity, no matter how good they are. They could all be tied for 1st in ability but still end up with 4-5 losses.

In the last 5 seasons, LSU has played North Carolina, West Virginia, Washington, Virginia Tech, Arizona, and Arizona State in OOC games.(You can hold on to 2008, a single season in which they didn't have a decent opponent. That's fine)

Along with around 14 glorified spring games counted as wins.

Like I said, LSU has always had a tough OOC schedule. and unlike a lot of teams from the Pac-10, they actually win their OOC games.

I know. You said that LSU has always had a tough OOC schedule and I promptly proved that wrong.

 

[HawaiiVol]

For all the number crunching, one thing is very obvious. The SEC has figured the system out and is raking in Championships hand over fist while the other conferences are standing around crunching numbers saying it shouldn't be that way.

And they call the South stupid.

 

[FREE EARL]

Or, it's called several cup-cakes, lots of home games and an unbalanced conference.

Wouldn't having 5 National Champions from a 12 team conference fit the definition of balanced? :loco:

As for the cupcakes? Cry on. Not everyone gets to play Washington State every season. Instead, annual games with FSU are scheduled.

In other words, if the equivalent SEC teams haven't played the equivalent Pac-10 teams, you don't know and have no basis for saying that they are better. The head-to-head record is the closest thing we have to evidence and it favors the Pac-10. If you play the equivalency card, that only means that you don't know one way or another.

Those who are champions are usually considered best. The SEC has the most champions, championships, and championship appearances. That's my basis.

Thank you. No cherry picking the data. Just all of the match-ups in recent times.

Um... ok.

As I pointed out, this has been documented. It's not an excuse, it's fact.

No it isn't.

It's true that other conferences have tried similar strategies. But, there are degrees. Look it up.

Do your research for you? Na, I'm good. You're the one crying about it.

He has posted a lot of research there about how far conferences travel for games, the number of cupcakes, etc. You would do well to read through it.

Or, if you want it read, you can copy and paste it in your post like a good boy.

The conference has not sucked then or now, hence the winning record against every other conference over the last 10 years. Playing an extra conference game makes it mathematically more difficult for conference members to have good records, especially if there is parity, no matter how good they are. They could all be tied for 1st in ability but still end up with 4-5 losses.

Yes it has.

Along with around 14 glorified spring games counted as wins.

And let me guess. A victory over Washington State is a solid win right? lol:

I know. You said that LSU has always had a tough OOC schedule and I promptly proved that wrong.

No you didn't. :hi:

 

[FREE EARL]

And while we're discussing this, I figured I'd post the Pac-10's tremendous OOC schedule.

PAC 10 Nonconference schedule

Oregon
New Mexico (1-10)
Tennessee (5-6)
Portland State - Division 1-AA

Stanford
Sacramento State - Division 1-AA
Wake Forest (2-9)
Notre Dame (6-5)

Arizona
Toledo 7-4 (Mid-American)
Citadel - Division 1-AA
Iowa (7-4)

Oregon State
TCU - loss (11-0)
Louisville (5-6)
Boise State - loss (10-0)

USC
Hawaii (8-3) WAC
Virginia (4-7)
Minnesota (2-9)
Notre Dame (6-5)

UW
BYU - L (6-5)
Syracuse (7-4)
Nebraska - L (9-2)

Cal
UC Davis - Division 1-AA
Colorado (5-6)
Nevada - L (10-1)

ASU
Portland State - Division 1-AA
Northern Arizona - Division 1-AA
Wisconsin - L (10-1)

UCLA
Kansas State - L (6-5)
Houston (5-6)
Texas (5-6)

WSU
Oklahoma State - L (10-1)
Montana State - Division 1-AA
SMU - L (6-5)

So, taking out the Division 1-AA teams AND teams under .500, the Pac 10 went 6-9. They're awesome.

The SEC

South Carolina
Southern Miss (8-3)
Furman – Division 1-AA
Troy (5-5)
Clemson (6-5)

Florida
Miami (OH) (7-4)
USF (6-4)
Appalachian State - Division 1-AA
FSU (8-3)

Georgia
Louisiana-Lafayette (2-9)
Colorado (5-6) L
Idaho State - Division 1-AA
GT (6-5)

Kentucky
Louisville (5-6)
Western Kentucky (2-9)
Akron (0-11)
Charleston Southern - Division 1-AA

Tennessee
Tennessee-Martin - Division 1-AA
Oregon (10-0) L
UAB (4-7)
Memphis (1-10)

Vanderbilt
Northwestern (7-4)
Connecticut (6-4)
Eastern Michigan (2-9)
Wake Forest (2-9)

Auburn
Arkansas State (4-7)
Clemson (6-5)
Louisiana-Monroe (5-6)
Chattanooga - Division 1-AA

LSU
UNC (6-5)
West Virginia (7-3)
McNeese State - Division 1-AA
Louisana-Monroe (5-6)

Alabama
San Jose State (1-10)
Penn State (7-4)
Duke (3-8)
Georgia State - 1-AA

Arkansas
Tennessee Tech - 1-AA
Louisiana-Monroe (5-6)
Texas A&M (8-3)
UTEP (6-6)

Miss. State
Memphis (1-10)
Alcorn State - 1-AA
Houston (5-6)
UAB (4-7)

Ole Miss
Jacksonville State - 1-AA
Tulane (4-7)
Fresno State (6-4)
Louisiana-Lafayette (2-9)

Same Standard. Only games already played against Division 1-A teams above .500.

The SEC went 9-4

 

[StoVol]

And while we're discussing this, I figured I'd post the Pac-10's tremendous OOC schedule.

PAC 10 Nonconference schedule

Oregon
New Mexico (1-10)
Tennessee (5-6)
Portland State - Division 1-AA

Stanford
Sacramento State - Division 1-AA
Wake Forest (2-9)
Notre Dame (6-5)

Arizona
Toledo 7-4 (Mid-American)
Citadel - Division 1-AA
Iowa (7-4)

Oregon State
TCU - loss (11-0)
Louisville (5-6)
Boise State - loss (10-0)

USC
Hawaii (8-3) WAC
Virginia (4-7)
Minnesota (2-9)
Notre Dame (6-5)

UW
BYU - L (6-5)
Syracuse (7-4)
Nebraska - L (9-2)

Cal
UC Davis - Division 1-AA
Colorado (5-6)
Nevada - L (10-1)

ASU
Portland State - Division 1-AA
Northern Arizona - Division 1-AA
Wisconsin - L (10-1)

UCLA
Kansas State - L (6-5)
Houston (5-6)
Texas (5-6)

WSU
Oklahoma State - L (10-1)
Montana State - Division 1-AA
SMU - L (6-5)

So, taking out the Division 1-AA teams AND teams under .500, the Pac 10 went 6-9. They're awesome.

The SEC

South Carolina
Southern Miss (8-3)
Furman – Division 1-AA
Troy (5-5)
Clemson (6-5)

Florida
Miami (OH) (7-4)
USF (6-4)
Appalachian State - Division 1-AA
FSU (8-3)

Georgia
Louisiana-Lafayette (2-9)
Colorado (5-6) L
Idaho State - Division 1-AA
GT (6-5)

Kentucky
Louisville (5-6)
Western Kentucky (2-9)
Akron (0-11)
Charleston Southern - Division 1-AA

Tennessee
Tennessee-Martin - Division 1-AA
Oregon (10-0) L
UAB (4-7)
Memphis (1-10)

Vanderbilt
Northwestern (7-4)
Connecticut (6-4)
Eastern Michigan (2-9)
Wake Forest (2-9)

Auburn
Arkansas State (4-7)
Clemson (6-5)
Louisiana-Monroe (5-6)
Chattanooga - Division 1-AA

LSU
UNC (6-5)
West Virginia (7-3)
McNeese State - Division 1-AA
Louisana-Monroe (5-6)

Alabama
San Jose State (1-10)
Penn State (7-4)
Duke (3-8)
Georgia State - 1-AA

Arkansas
Tennessee Tech - 1-AA
Louisiana-Monroe (5-6)
Texas A&M (8-3)
UTEP (6-6)

Miss. State
Memphis (1-10)
Alcorn State - 1-AA
Houston (5-6)
UAB (4-7)

Ole Miss
Jacksonville State - 1-AA
Tulane (4-7)
Fresno State (6-4)
Louisiana-Lafayette (2-9)

Same Standard. Only games already played against Division 1-A teams above .500.

The SEC went 9-4

IMO that about wraps it up... its the number of champions tho.. that indicates the breadth of strength in the conf... it is not just one good team.. the strength is that 6 of our twelve could win it all in any given year... pac-10 is usually two good teams sometimes three ... USC is their only champion and they paid their players for that title

 

[Serene]

No it doesn't. That was my point. A different team making it in one year says nothing about the strength of the rest of the conference in that year.

Washington State has had great seasons in the past. Florida had a crappy season this year. Bundling every teams best seasons together and pretending like that's how they always all are is fantasy.

A more reality, football based measurement would be to simply look at the head-to-head record of conferences against each other. That way, you're getting a cross-section of all the teams.

I don't understand. How can you arbitrarily throw out the fact that nearly half of our conference teams have been Nat'l Champions in recent times, but then quote the head-to-head record from the same time frame? We could use the same argument for that record. Just because a given couple or few Pac-10 teams beat a given couple or few SEC teams in any given year, doesn't mean the Pac-10 is better than the SEC as a whole. It just means that the teams that won are better in that given year than the teams that lost, correct? Well, I say that the Pac-10 teams that beat the SEC teams in the last few years just had their best seasons in those years and now they're crappy again. So, assuming we can only count this year, Oregon beat Tennessee (I believe that was the only matchup this year, but correct me if I'm wrong). The Pac-10's best team beat one of the SEC's worst teams. Yeah, that definately proves that the Pac-10 is better from top to bottom.You can't really get a true, unbiased gauge of conference strength from top to bottom unless the top 10 teams from the SEC play their counterparts from the Pac-10. Every single year.

Oh, and the conference games making it mathematically more difficult thing is killing me. Although that makes it impossible for them to gain an extra five wins throughout the conference that other conferences MAY (or MAY NOT) achieve, it also guarantees them five wins throughout the conference that other conferences MAY (or MAY NOT) always win.

I guess the SEC should just go schedule a bunch of games against opponents we can't beat. Oh, I know! We can play only NFL teams every year. We may lose all our games, but we can still argue that we are the best because we play the hardest opponents. Actually having a winning record against those hard opponents doesn't really matter, right?

 

[Escape Goat]

If there were a playoff I wouldn't bet against Stanford.

There is not a playoff so your post is irrelevant.

 

[FREE EARL]

I don't understand. How can you arbitrarily throw out the fact that nearly half of our conference teams have been Nat'l Champions in recent times, but then quote the head-to-head record from the same time frame? We could use the same argument for that record. Just because a given couple or few Pac-10 teams beat a given couple or few SEC teams in any given year, doesn't mean the Pac-10 is better than the SEC as a whole. It just means that the teams that won are better in that given year than the teams that lost, correct? Well, I say that the Pac-10 teams that beat the SEC teams in the last few years just had their best seasons in those years and now they're crappy again. So, assuming we can only count this year, Oregon beat Tennessee (I believe that was the only matchup this year, but correct me if I'm wrong). The Pac-10's best team beat one of the SEC's worst teams. Yeah, that definately proves that the Pac-10 is better from top to bottom.You can't really get a true, unbiased gauge of conference strength from top to bottom unless the top 10 teams from the SEC play their counterparts from the Pac-10. Every single year.

Oh, and the conference games making it mathematically more difficult thing is killing me. Although that makes it impossible for them to gain an extra five wins throughout the conference that other conferences MAY (or MAY NOT) achieve, it also guarantees them five wins throughout the conference that other conferences MAY (or MAY NOT) always win.

I guess the SEC should just go schedule a bunch of games against opponents we can't beat. Oh, I know! We can play only NFL teams every year. We may lose all our games, but we can still argue that we are the best because we play the hardest opponents. Actually having a winning record against those hard opponents doesn't really matter, right?

That's what'd I've always wondered. What's the point of scheduling all those "tough" OOC games when you lose most of them? And how exactly is losing those games an indication of conference supremacy?

 

[wheaton4prez]

For all the number crunching, one thing is very obvious. The SEC has figured the system out and is raking in Championships hand over fist while the other conferences are standing around crunching numbers saying it shouldn't be that way.

And they call the South stupid.

No doubt about it. I think that the SEC has done circles around every other conference in terms of the business/strategy decisions. It is a business at the end of the day and I can't blame anyone for treating it as such.

All the more reason though, in my view, to revise the system so that scheduling weak games isn't rewarded. I don't care who ends up being the best conference. I just want to see more competitive games and an apples to apples contest for the bowl games.

Wouldn't having 5 National Champions from a 12 team conference fit the definition of balanced? :loco:

If they all occurred in the same season, yes. Not possible though, is it? Hence the disadvantage the Pac-10 has playing 9 conference games.

As for the cupcakes? Cry on. Not everyone gets to play Washington State every season. Instead, annual games with FSU are scheduled.

Not everyone gets to play Vandy either.

Those who are champions are usually considered best. The SEC has the most champions, championships, and championship appearances. That's my basis.

I know that's your basis. I've just pointed out it's flaws. You are free to maintain it anyway. Carry on my wayward son!

I don't understand. How can you arbitrarily throw out the fact that nearly half of our conference teams have been Nat'l Champions in recent times, but then quote the head-to-head record from the same time frame?

I'm not throwing it out. I'm just pointing out that it isn't a measurement of conference strength. Florida winning a recent National Championship doesn't change the fact that they aren't as good now, for example.

The head-to-head record is also not the entire story because you have to consider the nuances of who tends to schedule who and small sample sizes (as you point out). Which brings us to the point I had made that neither head-to-head record or NC game historical records can logically be used to claim top-to-bottom strength.

Oh, and the conference games making it mathematically more difficult thing is killing me. Although that makes it impossible for them to gain an extra five wins throughout the conference that other conferences MAY (or MAY NOT) achieve, it also guarantees them five wins throughout the conference that other conferences MAY (or MAY NOT) always win.

I think this would be a salient point if the record of OOC opponents against BCS conferences was anywhere near .500.

I guess the SEC should just go schedule a bunch of games against opponents we can't beat. Oh, I know! We can play only NFL teams every year. We may lose all our games, but we can still argue that we are the best because we play the hardest opponents. Actually having a winning record against those hard opponents doesn't really matter, right?

Ideally, the system would be changed so that playing cupcakes is discouraged. I'm just coming from the perspective that it's more entertaining to watch competitive football games than to watch blow-outs against over-matched teams.

Would you seriously trade watching UT vs. Florida for UT vs. Chattanooga? I think that fans have lost sight of what is enjoyable about football when they would rather their team play more cupcakes so that they can brag about statistics on forums.

That's what'd I've always wondered. What's the point of scheduling all those "tough" OOC games when you lose most of them? And how exactly is losing those games an indication of conference supremacy?

The point of scheduling tough OOC games is that they're a lot more fun to watch. Remember that? Watching and enjoying good football games?