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

[ABQduck]

What a futile debate. A playoff system would certainly end this line of reasoning. :fool:

 

[OHvol40]

I don't even think you believe some of the retarded sh!t you post. But I'm sure, tomorrow you'll have some weak explanation attempting to convince us that playing 12 games, 1 game against ranked opposition, and 4 games against bowl teams is the equivalent or better to playing 13 games, 6 games against ranked opposition, and 9 games against bowl teams.

You'll say "well Auburn played 8 home games!". And my response will be: "You're correct, but that has no relevance to the quality of opposition. Furthermore, they played one more game than Oregon".

You'll say, "They played 4 cupcakes!". And my response will be: By what measure? You're labeling Clemson as a cupcake, another bowl team, who's accomplished what more than half the Pac-10 couldn't. Bowl eligibility. So has Oregon played against 8 cupcakes? Because at the very least, Clemson is as good as 8 of the teams on Oregon's schedule.

And they you'll continue on with your hypotheticals, which for some reason, you believe have merit. "If Auburn had to play Stanford, they might not be undefeated!". And my response will be: Perhaps you're right. If Auburn were forced to play yet another bowl bound, ranked team; They may not be undefeated. But on the other hand, If Stanford would have been forced to play any ranked team at all, they wouldn't be going to a BCS bowl. Or if Oregon were forced to play Stanford or Cal again(Yes, pathetic Cal), then they perhaps wouldn't be undefeated. Yay for hypotheticals.

And then you'll surprise us all, and come up with something even more retarded to post. Yippie.

Well said, thank you.

Don't be silly. Clearly, the Big East was the toughest conference in 2001. Miami did win the BCS NC that year, thus, making the Big East the toughest conference. Facts are facts.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I don't think anyone is saying one team doing this in one season proves a conference is dominate. What DOES prove dominance is multiple teams from the same conference winning the NC over multiple years. In fact, I would venture to say that is the definition of dominance in this situation.

Auburn played 8 home games and 4 cupcakes. South Carolina, the "rigor" played 7 home games and 4 cupcakes. They lost 3 of 5 games against quality opponents. Not much of a rigor, imo. If Auburn had to play Stanford or even an Alabama re-match, they might not be going to the NC game.

I think that it's absolutely questionable that their schedule was more difficult than Oregon's.

Now you are talking just to hear yourself. I feel confident in saying you would be hard-pressed to find many Pac 10 fans that could agree with this.

If what you are saying were true, why is your conference moving to the same format of the SEC? The truth is everyone (including the people who run your conference) sees the value of playing a conference CG. Its the next best thing we have to a playoff system right now. If all conferences move this way, its just more fair and ends this debate.

What a futile debate. A playoff system would certainly end this line of reasoning. :fool:

Yep.

 

[tnrunner13]

At this point, it's clear that wheaton values being a contrarian more than making sense.

I'm inclined to agree. I have asked him to explain his argument from the point of view of why not other conferences use the SEC's crafty scheduling method multiple times, yet he skips over that to continue trying to make the only point he (thinks) has.

So, Wheaton, I ask again: if the SEC winning BCS NCs is a result of clever scheduling, why haven't the other conferences done this as well? There's lots of money to be made by replicating the SEC's success and, when you get down to it, that is the only reason conferences exist.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[HawaiiVol]

You think playing cupcakes is bad? Introduce Sagarin's Predictor ratings into the BCS and watch every team in the NCAA scramble to schedule as many weak teams as possible that they can run the score up on.

Horrible idea.

The PAC-10 has generally had wide open offenses and terrible defenses, hence their usual stay at the top of Sagarin's Predictor ratings. I've only ever seen PAC-10 fans argue that Sagarin's predictor numbers are indisputable. Most everyone else agrees that they are utter crap.

 

[wheaton4prez]

I don't even think you believe some of the retarded sh!t you post. But I'm sure, tomorrow you'll have some weak explanation attempting to convince us that playing 12 games, 1 game against ranked opposition, and 4 games against bowl teams is the equivalent or better to playing 13 games, 6 games against ranked opposition, and 9 games against bowl teams.

Tomorrow? What about yesterday when I already pointed out how it's easier to be a "bowl team" when you play 4 cupcakes and 7-8 home games. "Bowl team" means nothing regarding the strength of a team because the path to become bowl eligible is not equal between all teams.

I recommend that you not use the word "retarded" to describe people you disagree with.

You'll say "well Auburn played 8 home games!". And my response will be: "You're correct, but that has no relevance to the quality of opposition. Furthermore, they played one more game than Oregon".

It does have relevance to the quality of the opposition when you're citing their bowl eligibility as a measurement of their strength.

You'll say, "They played 4 cupcakes!". And my response will be: By what measure? You're labeling Clemson as a cupcake, another bowl team, who's accomplished what more than half the Pac-10 couldn't. Bowl eligibility. So has Oregon played against 8 cupcakes? Because at the very least, Clemson is as good as 8 of the teams on Oregon's schedule.

Same problem. Making a bowl would only be an accurate measure of strength if every win was equal.

And they you'll continue on with your hypotheticals, which for some reason, you believe have merit. "If Auburn had to play Stanford, they might not be undefeated!". And my response will be: Perhaps you're right. If Auburn were forced to play yet another bowl bound, ranked team; They may not be undefeated. But on the other hand, If Stanford would have been forced to play any ranked team at all, they wouldn't be going to a BCS bowl. Or if Oregon were forced to play Stanford or Cal again(Yes, pathetic Cal), then they perhaps wouldn't be undefeated. Yay for hypotheticals.

I believe that there is merit behind saying that Alabama or Stanford would pose more of a challenge to Auburn than South Carolina. You don't? Did you not understand what was being discussed?

No, no it isn't.

Yes. Yes it is.

I don't think anyone is saying one team doing this in one season proves a conference is dominate. What DOES prove dominance is multiple teams from the same conference winning the NC over multiple years. In fact, I would venture to say that is the definition of dominance in this situation.

I've already agreed that the SEC has been good at getting A team into the NC game. However, I also pointed out how there are many factors outside of performance on the football field by the entire conference that affect which teams get into that game.

Now you are talking just to hear yourself. I feel confident in saying you would be hard-pressed to find many Pac 10 fans that could agree with this.

Maybe if I was trying to mold my thoughts according to what other Pac-10 fans think, I would be concerned about this. Do you try to mold your thoughts according to what other SEC fans think?

If what you are saying were true, why is your conference moving to the same format of the SEC? The truth is everyone (including the people who run your conference) sees the value of playing a conference CG. Its the next best thing we have to a playoff system right now. If all conferences move this way, its just more fair and ends this debate.

I'm not sure what you think I was trying to say. Some of you seem so defensive that you think every argument I make is intended to cast shame on the SEC and glorify the Pac-10. That has never been the case.

I'm not against having a CG game. With a 10+ team conference, it's a good idea. I just pointed out that Auburn having to play in a CG game does not automatically prove that they played a tougher schedule than anyone else who didn't play a CG game.

Honestly, some of you seem very uncomfortable with your opinions.

So, Wheaton, I ask again: if the SEC winning BCS NCs is a result of clever scheduling, why haven't the other conferences done this as well? There's lots of money to be made by replicating the SEC's success and, when you get down to it, that is the only reason conferences exist.

Money is not the only reason conferences exist. Tradition, practical considerations (travel distances for example), which sports a school has and shared academic principles (being part of certain research institutions, etc.) also play a role in conference decision-making.

Furthermore, the options available to each conference are different. TV Deals, stadium sizes, teams that can realistically join the conference, how much can be paid for home games, etc. are all varied between conferences and programs.

There are many layers that make the situation a lot more complex than a conference simply being able to change what they are doing next season because another conference had success with it.

You think playing cupcakes is bad? Introduce Sagarin's Predictor ratings into the BCS and watch every team in the NCAA scramble to schedule as many weak teams as possible that they can run the score up on.

Not true.

The ratings are based on performance relative to how other teams performed against those teams, recursively. So, beating a cup-cake by 50 points can actually earn a team less positive credit toward their rating than losing closely to a quality team.

Additionally, the Predictor rating includes a diminishing return factor that makes the credit earned less, the higher the margin is. This is to account for garbage time and running up scores.

The Predictor rating would have the exact opposite effect of what you describe. Teams would be scrambling to fill their schedules with ALL quality opponents. Why any fan wouldn't want to see that is beyond me.

The PAC-10 has generally had wide open offenses and terrible defenses, hence their usual stay at the top of Sagarin's Predictor ratings. I've only ever seen PAC-10 fans argue that Sagarin's predictor numbers are indisputable. Most everyone else agrees that they are utter crap.

The Pac-10 has occasionally done well on Predictor. But, not always. The SEC has done well according to his rating also.

 

[BeecherVol]

You have the SEC and "everybody" else.

 

[MaehlMan]

Wheaton, you're a good guy and I agree with and respect your opinion on a lot of stuff.

That being said, you aren't presenting a very good argument for this. The SEC is the best conference by every reputable measure.

Just stop. You're giving Duck fans a bad name.

 

[wheaton4prez]

Wheaton, you're a good guy and I agree with and respect your opinion on a lot of stuff.

That being said, you aren't presenting a very good argument for this. The SEC is the best conference by every reputable measure.

Just stop. You're giving Duck fans a bad name.

Let me get this straight.

Because you disagree with an opinion that I have and continue to argue for it, that means that I'm giving Duck fans a bad name?

 

[MaehlMan]

Let me get this straight.

Because you disagree with an opinion that I have and continue to argue for it, that means that I'm giving Duck fans a bad name?

It would be different if it was something that there was disagreement about. The SEC is the best conference in the country, bar none. Playing cupcakes doesn't diminish that. Is it cheap? Yeah. That doesn't matter though.

You always formulate these huge arguments and argue with these huge, marathon posts until you're blue in the face...just let it go.

 

[wheaton4prez]

There IS disagreement about conference strength, schedule difficulty, etc. Look at the original post. It's about a Ted Miller article that points out the disadvantages of Pac-10 scheduling that led to fewer bowl eligible teams. Just because you see it as a closed case doesn't mean anyone else has to or that they are doing something wrong by having a different opinion about it.

From the OP: "I've always been a big fan of this discussion/battle." What do you think this thread is supposed to be about?

I enjoy debating football. I'm not the only one. That is generally what people do on football forums. Nobody is forcing you to read or post anything. So, maybe it is you that needs to "let it go."

 

[tnrunner13]

Money is not the only reason conferences exist. Tradition, practical considerations (travel distances for example), which sports a school has and shared academic principles (being part of certain research institutions, etc.) also play a role in conference decision-making.

Furthermore, the options available to each conference are different. TV Deals, stadium sizes, teams that can realistically join the conference, how much can be paid for home games, etc. are all varied between conferences and programs.

There are many layers that make the situation a lot more complex than a conference simply being able to change what they are doing next season because another conference had success with it.

ok, i will concede that money isn't the SOLE reason conferences exist. it is however, the driving force behind almost every decision made by any conference. what do you think was the reasoning behind last summer's conference shakeups? tradition? location? no, it was MONEY. that being said, this is an entirely separate argument and one i actually agree that you've made some quality points on.

however, you still managed to avoid legitimately answering my question. changing schedules is only complex in so far as the schedules need to be filled. that isn't that hard to accomplish within a 1-2 year timespan. so, why hasn't the SEC's model been used by other conferences? answer: IT HAS. the big XII follows the same model and hasn't achieved the same success. outside of texas and oklahoma, they haven't had much to go on, yet they have the same schedule prototype. why does it work so well for the SEC, but not the big XII? i would guess that it has something to do with the SEC being better...

and before you try to turn this around to suit your agenda, i will acknowledge that the big XII has been in the BCS championship numerous times, but, since the 2003-04 season, they haven't accomplished anything outside of texas and oklahoma. the big 10 has made multiple games, but only at the hands of OSU. the pac-10 has made multiple games, but, once again only by USC and now oregon. so, i ask again, why does this scheduling work well enough for the SEC to keep putting different teams in the title game (AND WINNING), but the big XII can only seem to get it to work for texas and oklahoma? and why haven't the other conferences adopted this surefire model?

the pac10, big10, big XII, big east (miami amd VaTech pre ACC), ACC, and SEC have all participated in multiple BCS championship games, but why does the SEC have more wins? and why does the SEC keep sending DIFFERENT teams to the game while all the other conferences are consistently sending the same 1-2 teams? it is not a result of clever scheduling. it IS a result of conference strength, plain and simple. that doesn't even take into account the hose job that auburn got in 2004, nor the other BCS games (the SEC is 14-5 in BCS bowl games, pac10 is 9-5, big10 is 10-11, bigXII is 7-10, and the rest aren't worth mentioning). the record speaks for itself.

 

[wheaton4prez]

ok, i will concede that money isn't the SOLE reason conferences exist. it is however, the driving force behind almost every decision made by any conference. what do you think was the reasoning behind last summer's conference shakeups? tradition? location? no, it was MONEY. that being said, this is an entirely separate argument and one i actually agree that you've made some quality points on.

I agree that it was about money. Though, the way things happened and the layers of resistance faced due to traditional rivalries being broken up, etc... Doesn't that support what I'm saying that changing conferences isn't easy? After all the talk about big changes, it ended up being just a few teams moving.

Really, I can't explain why. But, some conferences have seemed more resistant to change than others. I think that the SEC has played the hand they were dealt better than any other conference.

I'd just like to see the hand change so that everyone plays it in a way that benefits fans most (no cupcakes at all for anyone).

however, you still managed to avoid legitimately answering my question. changing schedules is only complex in so far as the schedules need to be filled. that isn't that hard to accomplish within a 1-2 year timespan. so, why hasn't the SEC's model been used by other conferences? answer: IT HAS. the big XII follows the same model and hasn't achieved the same success. outside of texas and oklahoma, they haven't had much to go on, yet they have the same schedule prototype. why does it work so well for the SEC, but not the big XII? i would guess that it has something to do with the SEC being better...

I don't have an argument with this. It's true that various conferences have tried similar strategies to different degrees.

 

[FREE EARL]

I agree that it was about money. Though, the way things happened and the layers of resistance faced due to traditional rivalries being broken up, etc... Doesn't that support what I'm saying that changing conferences isn't easy? After all the talk about big changes, it ended up being just a few teams moving.

Really, I can't explain why. But, some conferences have seemed more resistant to change than others. I think that the SEC has played the hand they were dealt better than any other conference.

I'd just like to see the hand change so that everyone plays it in a way that benefits fans most (no cupcakes at all for anyone).



I don't have an argument with this. It's true that various conferences have tried similar strategies to different degrees.

You're living in a fantasy if you think there will ever be a method of scheduling that eliminates matchup's against cupcakes(You've never defined what a cupcake is. You do seem to consider Clemson one though). Even 1-A basketball programs, playing in a system that employs the preferred method of determining a champion, schedule "cupcakes". It's a necessary evil, and such methods will always exist in amateur athletics. One can argue that "cupcakes" exist in professional athletics as well.(E.g. Detroit Lions, LA Clippers, etc)

 

[Vols520]

I for one don't think oregons schedule was that easy.

Sec game on the road.

USC on the road.

Stanford.

Rivalry game to making NCG.

Arizona- who played well until conf play.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[wheaton4prez]

You're living in a fantasy if you think there will ever be a method of scheduling that eliminates matchup's against cupcakes(You've never defined what a cupcake is. You do seem to consider Clemson one though). Even 1-A basketball programs, playing in a system that employs the preferred method of determining a champion, schedule "cupcakes". It's a necessary evil, and such methods will always exist in amateur athletics. One can argue that "cupcakes" exist in professional athletics as well.(E.g. Detroit Lions, LA Clippers, etc)

There is nothing "necessary" about scheduling cupcake games.

There may never be a system that leads to only competitive games. I never claimed that there would be and would be the first to agree that a lot stands in the way of it. However, I don't think it's out of the question for the simple reason that demand is a strong force in any market and competitive games are far more enjoyable to watch than gimme games.

 

[DarthVisor]

We need a more reliable system to help us determine our National Champion. You know...like the one the FCS uses.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[SEC Nightmare]

We need a more reliable system to help us determine our National Champion. You know...like the one the FCS uses.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

This.


The current system is a load of crap. Those trophies should say BCS Champion. But no way in hell should it say "National Champion".