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

[ThatVolGuy]

I didn't dilute anything. I clarified the same position that I've made from the beginning since some people seem to be taking it as something that it's not.

I'm glad that you are now seeing that there is indeed a way for SEC teams to have won those titles without it meaning that the SEC is the top to bottom best conference.

Just out of curiosity, then, I'd be interested in hearing when you think the SEC was not the best conference in the years that an SEC team has been the BCS champion.

This is an honest question. I'm looking for you to move beyond the hypothetical scenarios you've been providing, because hypotheticals don't prove anything.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Head to head to Pac 10 hasn't had any issues with the SEC

That sample is clearly all encompassing. I'd use it constantly, but I'd try to find people who don't know it to be worthless.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[OHvol40]

Dear Pac-10,

Get a conference championship game, get some diversity (aka anyone but SC) into the BCS NC game, win a few of them, and then maybe we can have this debate. Until then SEC is king. Fair or not, thats just how it is.

 

[MaehlMan]

Dear Pac-10,

Get a conference championship game, get some diversity (aka anyone but SC) into the BCS NC game, win a few of them, and then maybe we can have this debate. Until then SEC is king. Fair or not, thats just how it is.

Conference championship game starts next year, we just got someone into the BCSNCG other than SC, and we'll work on the wins. K?

 

[tnrunner13]

I don't think it's cheating. In fact, I've written that I think it's smart and that I don't blame the SEC given the system we've been given to play in. I put the blame on the BCS system that rewards scheduling cupcakes, more home games, not traveling and fewer conference games.

If this were the case, every conference in the country would be doing it.

You are the very definition of insane. You keep making the same futile argument and expecting different results. You're wrong. You've been proven wrong by multiple people using far better logic, yet you continue with this asinine debate.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[wheaton4prez]

your mathematical hypothetical is cute, for one season or if one team was dominating the conference. However comma, that isn't remotely the case.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

My mathematical demonstration wasn't intended to claim what the case was. It just demonstrates how several NC teams being from the SEC does not prove the SEC is the top-to-bottom strongest conference.

Just out of curiosity, then, I'd be interested in hearing when you think the SEC was not the best conference in the years that an SEC team has been the BCS champion.

This is an honest question. I'm looking for you to move beyond the hypothetical scenarios you've been providing, because hypotheticals don't prove anything.

The math that I provided proves that multiple teams making it to the NC from a conference does not demonstrate the top-to-bottom strength of that conference. So, it does prove something.

Your question about who was the best conference in a given year goes back to the question I posted: best conference at doing what specifically?

The point being that there is no "best meter". The argument comes down to what criteria everyone accepts. If the measurement is how much each conference impressed tnrunner13, the SEC wins hands down, clearly. How meaningful such a measurement is to anyone else? Ehhh. I don't know.

Rankings, bowl games, etc. are so nuanced and full of outside factors and flaws that they're pretty easy to shoot down as reliable measurements. I think that Sagarin's ratings are good because they're based on simple football terms (how many points you score vs. how many are scored on you compared to other teams) and are 100% objective. According to those ratings, the SEC has been #1 most (if not all?) recent seasons. But, often by very little.

 

[FREE EARL]

My mathematical demonstration wasn't intended to claim what the case was. It just demonstrates how several NC teams being from the SEC does not prove the SEC is the top-to-bottom strongest conference.



The math that I provided proves that multiple teams making it to the NC from a conference does not demonstrate the top-to-bottom strength of that conference. So, it does prove something.

Your question about who was the best conference in a given year goes back to the question I posted: best conference at doing what specifically?

The point being that there is no "best meter". The argument comes down to what criteria everyone accepts. If the measurement is how much each conference impressed tnrunner13, the SEC wins hands down, clearly. How meaningful such a measurement is to anyone else? Ehhh. I don't know.

Rankings, bowl games, etc. are so nuanced and full of outside factors and flaws that they're pretty easy to shoot down as reliable measurements. I think that Sagarin's ratings are good because they're based on simple football terms (how many points you score vs. how many are scored on you compared to other teams) and are 100% objective. According to those ratings, the SEC has been #1 most (if not all?) recent seasons. But, often by very little.

Read his lips.

 

[wheaton4prez]

In other words, you have nothing.

 

[SEC Nightmare]

In other words, you have nothing.

Exactly.


I can't beleive that people are using the BCS as a legitimate way to determine who's the best team in college football.

Basically you have confernce champ A vs confernce Champion B. And then they are crowned best team amongst the conferences. {LMAO} How do we know that they are better than confernce champ C,D,E,F,G,H..etc? We don't. It's all mythological so don't get too cocky.


It's a cave man, money generating system that people buy into because there's nothing better. But that doesn't mean it makes sense. Hell, cutting off a limb use to be the best way to stop infection until someone said hey guys...there's another way.

 

[FREE EARL]

In other words, you have nothing.

There's an entire thread here squandering your pitiful efforts. At this point, your posts are merely filler. And honestly, your ****ty arguments have grown tiresome. :yes:

 

[ThatVolGuy]

The math that I provided proves that multiple teams making it to the NC from a conference does not demonstrate the top-to-bottom strength of that conference. So, it does prove something.

This is a point you've made ad nauseum in this thread, and despite your continued insistence to the contrary, we all get it. A team can win the BCS championship without being from the best conference.

My contention is that the SEC is usually the best football conference (something most people agree upon), and that probably held true in each of the years an SEC member won the championship.

I don't really understand why you think your point is so insightful.

Your question about who was the best conference in a given year goes back to the question I posted: best conference at doing what specifically?

Playing football well.

 

[FREE EARL]

This is a point you've made ad nauseum in this thread, and despite your continued insistence to the contrary, we all get it. A team can win the BCS championship without being from the best conference.

My contention is that the SEC is usually the best football conference (something most people agree upon), and that probably held true in each of the years an SEC member won the championship.

I don't really understand why you think your point is so insightful.



Playing football well.

Delusions of grandeur. All one need do is ask him to name a non power that has won a BCS title, and his argument crumbles.

Tennessee, Florida State, Oklahoma, Miami, Ohio State, LSU, USC‡, Texas, Florida, and Alabama. All premier programs that have had far more great seasons than poor ones, and generally field some of the better teams in the nation year in and year out.

But I'm sure, in his mind, that's not reflective of top to bottom strength.

 

[BigPapaVol]

Exactly.


I can't beleive that people are using the BCS as a legitimate way to determine who's the best team in college football.

Basically you have confernce champ A vs confernce Champion B. And then they are crowned best team amongst the conferences. {LMAO} How do we know that they are better than confernce champ C,D,E,F,G,H..etc? We don't. It's all mythological so don't get too cocky.


It's a cave man, money generating system that people buy into because there's nothing better. But that doesn't mean it makes sense. Hell, cutting off a limb use to be the best way to stop infection until someone said hey guys...there's another way.

Exactly. It's just two random conference champs picked from a random number generator. Also, those national champ type teams are typically only single year cinderellas, so ignoring the multiple different over a decade, give or take, is pure genius. Forget they eyeball test too. Keep arguing that you COULD mathematically be correct. I think that belongs in a Dumb and Dumber movie somewhere, but I can't quite place the spot.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[FREE EARL]

Exactly. It's just two random conference champs picked from a random number generator. Also, those national champ type teams are typically only single year cinderellas, so ignoring the multiple different over a decade, give or take, is pure genius. Forget they eyeball test too. Keep arguing that you COULD mathematically be correct. I think that belongs in a Dumb and Dumber movie somewhere, but I can't quite place the spot.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

You cant trust your eyes. Trust only in Sagarin. :sleep:

 

[OHvol40]

My mathematical demonstration wasn't intended to claim what the case was. It just demonstrates how several NC teams being from the SEC does not prove the SEC is the top-to-bottom strongest conference.



The math that I provided proves that multiple teams making it to the NC from a conference does not demonstrate the top-to-bottom strength of that conference. So, it does prove something.

Your question about who was the best conference in a given year goes back to the question I posted: best conference at doing what specifically?

The point being that there is no "best meter". The argument comes down to what criteria everyone accepts. If the measurement is how much each conference impressed tnrunner13, the SEC wins hands down, clearly. How meaningful such a measurement is to anyone else? Ehhh. I don't know.

Rankings, bowl games, etc. are so nuanced and full of outside factors and flaws that they're pretty easy to shoot down as reliable measurements. I think that Sagarin's ratings are good because they're based on simple football terms (how many points you score vs. how many are scored on you compared to other teams) and are 100% objective. According to those ratings, the SEC has been #1 most (if not all?) recent seasons. But, often by very little.

No, there IS a "best meter", even if you choose not to accept it (and try to substitute your own). Its called winning. Win your games against quality opponents and you will get a chance to play in the most meaningful game of the year. Win that game and you are the best in college football that year. That is the formula we have now.

Multiple SEC programs (not just one) have been able to accomplish this since the BCS was created. They have all done so while having to go through the SEC Championship game. (which, as Tennessee fans know, can knock a team out of contention)

This championship game negates any argument from a PAC 10 schedule point-of-view. Period.

So, the fact that 4 (possibly 5) different SEC teams have run this gauntlet and defeated their national championship opponent does, in fact, prove without a doubt that the SEC as a WHOLE CONFERENCE has dominated college football during the BCS era in a way that no other conference has been able to approach.

This is not some made up formula, this is not theory, this is fact. We will see how much this changes/doesn't change over the next several years.

 

[VolBuck24]

No, there IS a "best meter", even if you choose not to accept it (and try to substitute your own). Its called winning. Win your games against quality opponents and you will get a chance to play in the most meaningful game of the year. Win that game and you are the best in college football that year. That is the formula we have now.

Multiple SEC programs (not just one) have been able to accomplish this since the BCS was created. They have all done so while having to go through the SEC Championship game. (which, as Tennessee fans know, can knock a team out of contention)

This championship game negates any argument from a PAC 10 schedule point-of-view. Period.

So, the fact that 4 (possibly 5) different SEC teams have run this gauntlet and defeated their national championship opponent does, in fact, prove without a doubt that the SEC as a WHOLE CONFERENCE has dominated college football during the BCS era in a way that no other conference has been able to approach.

This is not some made up formula, this is not theory, this is fact. We will see how much this changes/doesn't change over the next several years.

Just because the sec has had the best team most years doesn't mean that the conference as a whole is the best every year.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[tnrunner13]

My mathematical demonstration wasn't intended to claim what the case was. It just demonstrates how several NC teams being from the SEC does not prove the SEC is the top-to-bottom strongest conference.



The math that I provided proves that multiple teams making it to the NC from a conference does not demonstrate the top-to-bottom strength of that conference. So, it does prove something.

Your question about who was the best conference in a given year goes back to the question I posted: best conference at doing what specifically?

The point being that there is no "best meter". The argument comes down to what criteria everyone accepts. If the measurement is how much each conference impressed tnrunner13, the SEC wins hands down, clearly. How meaningful such a measurement is to anyone else? Ehhh. I don't know.

Rankings, bowl games, etc. are so nuanced and full of outside factors and flaws that they're pretty easy to shoot down as reliable measurements. I think that Sagarin's ratings are good because they're based on simple football terms (how many points you score vs. how many are scored on you compared to other teams) and are 100% objective. According to those ratings, the SEC has been #1 most (if not all?) recent seasons. But, often by very little.

you have yet to explain why the SEC has managed to make the secret scheduling trick work, yet no other conference has tried it. SEC teams continue to dominate the BCS because of how much better it is. a championship team is not made up of one year's work and all the pieces falling into place. it is the culmination of multiple years and the experience gained from the rigors of years past. auburn was a better team this year because of their struggles last year (and cam newton, and i'll concede that, in his case, one player makes a HUUUUGE difference). you're right, florida has dropped off a bit from where they were the past 4 years or so, but they were there for 4 years.

the simple fact of the matter is the SEC continues to win in the BCS because of how tough it is. it is not some myth put out there by SEC fans and the media. The SEC has performed well in their bowls (i don't know the bowl record, nor do i care to look it up) and in out of conference games (except when compared to the PAC-10, but if you remove Tennessee and USC from that equation, i believe it swings in the SECs favor).

every year, the SEC has more ranked teams than any other conference. they have higher ranked recruiting classes. they typically have higher ranked strengths of schedule (which are determined by your favorite unbiased computers). this is not coincidence. no, these rankings are not an exact science, but they are a good measuring stick by which we can determine the best conference. the culmination of all of this is the BCS championships. due to the rankings and the battle to win the SEC, an SEC team is usually in the title game. when nearly half the conference accomplishes this feat, it is proof of the conference's strength.

your point about which conference impresses me most is also without merit. i am usually impressed by high scoring teams with flashy offenses (much like i am impressed by oregon this year), but i cannot deny a simple truth. i hate the rest of the SEC, but i recognize that it is the strongest conference hands down. there's a reason top flight recruits frequently want to play IN THE SEC, not just at alabama or florida.

 

[OHvol40]

Just because the sec has had the best team most years doesn't mean that the conference as a whole is the best every year.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Completely disagree.

The SEC can only put two teams into the SEC Championship game and (for all intensive purposes) one team in the BCS NC most years. Every SEC team can't make every championship game every year.

What the SEC CAN do to prove superiority is put multiple programs into the BCS NC game and dominate in those chances that they do get to participate.

I don't understand why there is even an argument against the SEC at this point. I'm not saying the SEC is invincible, I'm saying they have, as a whole, proven to have the best compilation of programs as compared to any other conference thus far in the BCS era. Nobody can argue that.

 

[VolBuck24]

Completely disagree.

The SEC can only put two teams into the SEC Championship game and (for all intensive purposes) one team in the BCS NC every year. Every SEC team can't make every championship game every year.

What they CAN do to prove superiority is put multiple programs into the BCS games and dominate in those chances that they do get to participate.

I don't understand why there is even an argument against the SEC at this point. I'm not saying the SEC is invincible, I'm saying they have, as a whole, proven to have the best compilation of programs as compared to any other conference thus far in the BCS era. Nobody can argue that.

I think that all bowl games should be considered when talking about the best top to bottom, not just bcs games. I know that most years they're the best, but sometimes its just the hype they've attained. For example this year, a case can definitely be made that the big ten is the best since the sec east is garbage.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[wheaton4prez]

There's an entire thread here squandering your pitiful efforts. At this point, your posts are merely filler. And honestly, your ****ty arguments have grown tiresome. :yes:

My arguments are tiresome. Yet, you feel a need to respond to every one of them in one way or another.

 

[wheaton4prez]

Playing football well.

There isn't a consensus on this. Paying football well according to who?

No, there IS a "best meter", even if you choose not to accept it (and try to substitute your own). Its called winning. Win your games against quality opponents and you will get a chance to play in the most meaningful game of the year. Win that game and you are the best in college football that year. That is the formula we have now.

And I pointed out that the BCS system is full of nuance and flaws. The opposite of what you're asserting here, most football fans agree that the BCS system as a whole is flawed.

This championship game negates any argument from a PAC 10 schedule point-of-view. Period.

No it doesn't. Playing one quality opponent doesn't negate the advantage of playing 8 home games and 4 cupcakes.

This is not some made up formula, this is not theory, this is fact. We will see how much this changes/doesn't change over the next several years.

You haven't shown how your personal opinion is supported by any facts.

Just because the sec has had the best team most years doesn't mean that the conference as a whole is the best every year.

Thank you!

I don't understand why there is even an argument against the SEC at this point. I'm not saying the SEC is invincible, I'm saying they have, as a whole, proven to have the best compilation of programs as compared to any other conference thus far in the BCS era. Nobody can argue that.

Yes. They can. For example:

Based on what? The BCS that the vast majority of people agree is flawed?

 

[OHvol40]

There isn't a consensus on this. Paying football well according to who?



And I pointed out that the BCS system is full of nuance and flaws. The opposite of what you're asserting here, most football fans agree that the BCS system as a whole is flawed.



No it doesn't. Playing one quality opponent doesn't negate the advantage of playing 8 home games and 4 cupcakes.



You haven't shown how your personal opinion is supported by any facts.



Thank you!



Yes. They can. For example:

Based on what? The BCS that the vast majority of people agree is flawed?

Based on winning national championships. Winning is not flawed. You cannot argue that.

Of course the BCS is flawed, we all know a playoff would be better. The problem is that the BCS is what we have right now, and though it is flawed, the BCS is much better than what we had before. The BCS has done a fairly good job at pitting the two best teams against each other at the end of the season.

Since you are obviously a butt-hurt PAC 10 fan, why don't you tell me when the BCS has failed to put a DESERVING PAC 10 team in the BCS National championship game?

 

[wheaton4prez]

Winning is not flawed. However, your argument is not based on winning. It's based on a system that includes human votes, bowl tie-ins, scheduling patterns of varying degrees of difficulty and multiple variably flawed computer formulas. Additionally, I've already demonstrated how one team making the NC game is not a reflection of over-all conference strength.

Deserving Pac-10 team into NC game? 2001 for example.

 

[FREE EARL]

Based on what? The BCS that the vast majority of people agree is flawed?

Yet you're a disciple of Sagarin's ratings, one of the 6 formulas those composes the "flawed" BCS system. Go figure.

 

[wheaton4prez]

How many times do I have to correct you on the same points?

I, along with Sagarin himself, prefer his Predictor rating. Which is not used in the BCS system.