Best Overall Conference

#1
OldVol

OldVol

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
1,926
Likes
595
#1
This is based on teams who were major beginning in 1900. There were 6 teams not major by that date, so I ran a study based on their start date. It only slightly skews the study.

Any way you look at it, the SEC has and probably always will be the strongest conference. Some conferences accuse us of playing weak OOC games. When you look at the winning percentage of some of these teams, why should they bother with getting weak OOC opponents? Their patsies are built in to league play.

Team Name by Conf. Place

ACC
Clemson 27
Georgia Tech 21
Duke 50
Florida St 11
Maryland 40
Miami 13
N C St 54
North Carolina 34
Virginia Tech 25
Virginia 48
Wake Forest 79
Average Rank 36.54

Big 10
Illinois 45
Indiana 76
Iowa 44
Michigan State 22
Michigan 2
Minnesota 31
Northwestern 78
Ohio St 3
Penn St 10
Purdue 43
Wisconsin 38
Average Rank 35.63

Big 12
Baylor 52
Colorado 19
Iowa St 72
Kansas St 75
Kansas 63
Missouri 42
Nebraska 5
Oklahoma St 61
Oklahoma 6
Texas A&M 20
Texas Tech 62
Texas 7
Average Rank 40.33

Pac-10
Arizona 32
Arizona St 18
California 37
Oregon 39
Oregon St 69
Stanford 35
UCLA 25
USC 9
Washington St. 55
Washington 13
Average Rank 33.2

SEC
Alabama 4
Arkansas 24
Auburn 15
Florida 19
Georgia 12
Kentucky 58
LSU 14
Mississippi St 62
Mississippi 33
South Carolina 57
Tennessee 8
Vanderbilt 59
Average Rank 30.41
 
#3
#3
I say no one can match our top 3 teams this year, so what is the problem?
 
#4
#4
I'm honestly going to have to say the Big Ten is looking the toughest right now. They have three teams that could potentially make runs at the national title, the middle section of that conference is decent as well, and the low end does not make you cringe.

Not to take anything away from the SEC, though. While the middle section of the conference is firmly better than the Big Ten's, the extremely weak low end and the presence of only one real national power cause me to think the boys up north are playing a little bit better ball than those in the south.
 
#5
#5
With all the coaching changes in the SEC, I honestly have no earthly idea how strong the conference is going to be. Conventional wisdom is that the first year after a coaching change can be a struggle, but who knows?
 
#6
#6
OldVol, where did those stats come from? A few of them look questionable...

Texas at 70? Thought they would be much better. Also, Florida State and Miami at 11 and 13? Those programs weren't strong until the past 20 years - it could be right but I am a little surprised that they are so high... Just curious.

Interesting analysis though, comes as no surprise to me that the SEC is strongest over time.
 
#8
#8
It's a tough debate... I personally believe that no conferences are stronger than others, because they all have different characteristics. Each team in every conference prepares for their opponnents individually, and we all obviously have different opponnents. It makes each conference very different. Once you hit the level of playing in BCS conferences, and the talent is level for all intents and purposes, the goal does not to make the team better, per se, but to prepare them specifically for the season they are to have.

It basically amounts to trying to prove who is the strongest in any other perspective than in retrospect is impossible. Unfortunately, the decision-makers have to figure this stuff out.
 
#9
#9
Originally posted by Vol 4 Life@Apr 10, 2005 9:29 AM
OldVol, where did those stats come from?  A few of them look questionable...

Texas at 70?  Thought they would be much better.  Also, Florida State and Miami at 11 and 13?  Those programs weren't strong until the past 20 years - it could be right but I am a little surprised that they are so high...  Just curious.

Interesting analysis though, comes as no surprise to me that the SEC is strongest over time.
Click to expand...

Thanks for catching that. It was a typo on my part. I made the corrections to the final results as well. They were 7, I have no idea how that 1 got there .... :rolleyes:

This is how I performed the study. From the College Football Warehouse I used the earliest point that most all of the major teams began playing football.

That was around the turn of the previous century. There were about 6 teams not playing football then, Texas Tech, UCLA, and much later were Miami Fl, and FSU.

So, I took their first year of play and figured that against their place based on that year. It does skew the results slightly, but not significantly.

What this proves is; many of the other conferences, the Pac-10 in particular complain because of the occasional out of division game SEC teams schedule. I am completely opposed to those games, but everyone, even the Pac-10 on occasion will schedule one. This just goes to prove that their complaints are groundless.

The Pac-10 has 6 teams ranked 32 or worse.

That's 60% of the conference.

The SEC has 7 teams in the top 25 and 6 of those are in the top 20, whereas the Pac-10 has only 4 in the top 25. Winning percentage very closely mirrors poll rankings. For example, it is not uncommon for the SEC to have 5 to 6 teams in the top 25.

That means that the Pac-10 historically has played 60% of its conference games agains unranked teams. Who needs to schedule a patsie?

In contrast, the SEC has played 58 percent of its conference games against ranked opponents, with a whopping 50% against the top 20 in winning percentage.

No other conference even comes close to that type of top drawer competition.

Let the others whine, the mantel of greatness resides in the Southeast.
 
#10
#10
Originally posted by milohimself@Apr 10, 2005 2:08 PM
It's a tough debate... I personally believe that no conferences are stronger than others, because they all have different characteristics. Each team in every conference prepares for their opponnents individually, and we all obviously have different opponnents. It makes each conference very different. Once you hit the level of playing in BCS conferences, and the talent is level for all intents and purposes, the goal does not to make the team better, per se, but to prepare them specifically for the season they are to have.

It basically amounts to trying to prove who is the strongest in any other perspective than in retrospect is impossible. Unfortunately, the decision-makers have to figure this stuff out.
Click to expand...

While there is a certain uniqueness to each league, it is difficult to ignore some of the big differences in numbers. For example; The SEC has 7 teams in the top 25 of winning percentage. That means the SEC played higher ranked teams in conference play, by far, than any other conference.

If your conference only provides 2 or 3 ranked teams then it should be much easier to win.

As it is, the SEC plays killer conference schedules, and still manages to have more than 50% of its schools in the top 25 in win percentage. This shows the conference has historically had more than one or two strong teams and that they have dominated their OOC play.
 
#11
#11
But even with rankings, it still is not telling of strength... At it's peak in 2004, the Big XII south had 5 of it's 6 teams in the top 25, except they came out and we all saw how good they really were.
 
#13
#13
The topic was meant to take a look at the HISTORICAL view point.

Every year any conference could challenge for conference of the year.

That really wasn't my point. My point is that many of the weaker conferences point to the SEC playing weak OOC schedules. If you look at the OOC games of each conference year in and year out, there's not a nickels worth of difference. Then, when you add into the equation that 7 of the SEC's teams are perennial top 25 teams, then you have to surmise that the overall SOS is by far superior in the SEC.

If you play in a 10 conference league and that league has 3 or 4 perennial top 25 teams then your chance of having a winning record should improve because you're playing a weaker schedule top to bottom year in and year out. With the SEC you always have UT, FL, GA, Bammers, Aubies, and LSU as perennial powerhouses, and then when you add in Ole Miss and Arkansas as top 35 teams you have to give it up to the SEC.
 
#15
#15
In the 2004 season, I noticed a lot of people using those same historical numbers, and connecting it to the future saying the SEC will continue to be far and away the toughest conference to play in. Excuse me? Every year? I'll say it right now, the bottom end of the SEC flat-out sucks. Vanderbilt, Kentucky and one other variable team are bottom of the barrel in all of D-IA football, and the mid-range of the conference is not that much better than the other BCS conferences.

As far as the top teams go, the SEC is usually stronger, but I think your list is a little inflated, bro. Florida is NOT a perennial power anymore; many of you have admitted that Florida with out Spurrier is not very good, and that Meyer will not likely bring Florida even close to its glory days. Auburn's image, it seems to me, is greatly inflated from their 13-0 season. There are too many isntances to name from the 2004 season where the arguement against them was "They just happened to be loaded this year, and that's all." And that's probably a true statement.

At the top, that leaves Tennessee, Georgia and LSU who are all perennial powers. Not really a whole lot more than other conferences. Year in and year out, you'll have one or two of these teams floating around top 10, and the other floating elsewhere around top 25, and one or two more of those mid-level teams somewhere in the top 25.

Basically, from my observations, the SEC is good but not substantially better than the Big 10, Pac-10, Big XII and maybe the up-and-coming ACC, depending on how things shape up there.
 
#16
#16
Originally posted by milohimself@Apr 11, 2005 5:47 PM
In the 2004 season, I noticed a lot of people using those same historical numbers, and connecting it to the future saying the SEC will continue to be far and away the toughest conference to play in. Excuse me? Every year? I'll say it right now, the bottom end of the SEC flat-out sucks. Vanderbilt, Kentucky and one other variable team are bottom of the barrel in all of D-IA football, and the mid-range of the conference is not that much better than the other BCS conferences.

As far as the top teams go, the SEC is usually stronger, but I think your list is a little inflated, bro. Florida is NOT a perennial power anymore; many of you have admitted that Florida with out Spurrier is not very good, and that Meyer will not likely bring Florida even close to its glory days. Auburn's image, it seems to me, is greatly inflated from their 13-0 season. There are too many isntances to name from the 2004 season where the arguement against them was "They just happened to be loaded this year, and that's all." And that's probably a true statement.

At the top, that leaves Tennessee, Georgia and LSU who are all perennial powers. Not really a whole lot more than other conferences. Year in and year out, you'll have one or two of these teams floating around top 10, and the other floating elsewhere around top 25, and one or two more of those mid-level teams somewhere in the top 25.

Basically, from my observations, the SEC is good but not substantially better than the Big 10, Pac-10, Big XII and maybe the up-and-coming ACC, depending on how things shape up there.
Click to expand...

Seems as though every conference has their bottom of the barrel teams, look at Northwestern and Indiana in the Big 10, Arizona and now Washington in the Pac-10(and any team not named USC wouldn't have been able to hang much in any other conference this past year), Duke and Wake Forest in the ACC.

So yes, SEC has their terrible teams that suck, as does every other conference.
 
#17
#17
You know, there were other decent teams in the Pac-10 in 2004 besides USC. Perhaps you've heard of Arizona State, California or Oregon State...
 
#18
#18
Here's another peak at the Pac-10 head to head with the SEC.

If you're attempting to say the Pac-10 is close to the SEC in top 25 ranks, this is a study I did a few months back that debunks that.

The study shows top 25 AP poll finishes by team and year.

The SEC had 71 top 25 finishes since 1990 while the Pac-10 had 41.

When you factor that by percentage 39.4 % of all SEC teams were ranked during the 15 year study compared to 27.3% of the Pac-10. You can maintain there is little difference if you wish, but all the numbers just flat out dispute that.

As for the bottom-feeders: Yes, we have 2. But, when you look at this study, you will see that even the number 10 team in the conference, South Carolina, was ranked twice. The drag that Kentucky and Vandy put on the bottom is far and away offset by the top 6 teams that are consistently ranked.

When you consider that the 39.4% to 27.3% ranking ratio indicates that an SEC team in any given year is 31% more likely to be ranked top 25 than a Pac-10 team, then I think that's a considerable gulf in most anyone's book.

When you look at a 15 year study and the conclusion is that for any of those years any given SEC team is 31% more likely to be ranked than a team from the Pac-10, then I'd say that's a pretty substantial figure.

There will always be years that serve as anomalies, but a 15 year study is pretty supportive of the argument.
 

Attachments

  • Pac_10_vs._SEC.jpg
    Pac_10_vs._SEC.jpg
    79.4 KB · Views: 0
#19
#19
Yes, I remember that.

I also disputed that the numbers do not count for many anomalies. Oregon State coming in at the beginning of the '04 season and out-playing LSU would be one. Georgia and LSU playing at or below the level of seemingly inferior Big Ten teams.

And looking over that chart, I'd say it's really amazing what Spurrier did for the SEC in the 90's. Looking even more recently than that, though, and you'll see Richt and Fulmer the only ones running consistent programs. In the Pac-10, I can pretty much guarantee you will start to see consistently ranked programs at USC, Cal and either Oregon, Oregon Stare, Arizona State or any combination of those three. Also, as far as the bottom end goes, I'm predicting in the next five years, the Pac-10 will be enitrely free of any real bottom-end (any teams hovering near the 80-100 rank) as Washington has the cash to pull themselves out and Arizona is really starting to pick up the recruiting, and showing signs of vitality.

But overall, as far as a head-to-head comparison, yes I will admit that the SEC is probably "better" than the Pac-10, although "different" is a term that is far more appropriate. As the Beavers showed us in '04, when a mid-level team from a seemingly inferior conference can walk into the house and outplay them in every major aspect of the game, who's to say who is better?
 
#20
#20
Originally posted by milohimself@Apr 11, 2005 6:11 PM
Yes, I remember that.

I also disputed that the numbers do not count for many anomalies. Oregon State coming in at the beginning of the '04 season and out-playing LSU would be one. Georgia and LSU playing at or below the level of seemingly inferior Big Ten teams.

And looking over that chart, I'd say it's really amazing what Spurrier did for the SEC in the 90's. Looking even more recently than that, though, and you'll see Richt and Fulmer the only ones running consistent programs. In the Pac-10, I can pretty much guarantee you will start to see consistently ranked programs at USC, Cal and either Oregon, Oregon Stare, Arizona State or any combination of those three. Also, as far as the bottom end goes, I'm predicting in the next five years, the Pac-10 will be enitrely free of any real bottom-end (any teams hovering near the 80-100 rank) as Washington has the cash to pull themselves out and Arizona is really starting to pick up the recruiting, and showing signs of vitality.

But overall, as far as a head-to-head comparison, yes I will admit that the SEC is probably "better" than the Pac-10, although "different" is a term that is far more appropriate. As the Beavers showed us in '04, when a mid-level team from a seemingly inferior conference can walk into the house and outplay them in every major aspect of the game, who's to say who is better?
Click to expand...

I think the most telling figure of all is that when you have a historical study of that length which presents an extrapolative premise, it just cries for attention.

For me to say; “Vanderbilt stands as great a chance of being ranked in 05 as USC” would not be a logical hypothesis when using the figures as a root for that argument.

It would, however, be accurate to state that any given team in the SEC, top to bottom, has a 31% better statistical chance of being ranked at year’s end than any given team in the Pac-10.

A single season discrepancy could occur, but a study of that length lessens the possibility of it.

Good discussion!!
 
#21
#21
Originally posted by milohimself@Apr 11, 2005 5:57 PM
You know, there were other decent teams in the Pac-10 in 2004 besides USC. Perhaps you've heard of Arizona State, California or Oregon State...
Click to expand...

Heard of them, and they are just what you described them...decent., not an adjective you really want desrcibing most of the teams that are at the top on the conference.
 
#25
#25
Originally posted by GoVolsDogg+Apr 11, 2005 8:11 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (GoVolsDogg @ Apr 11, 2005 8:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-milohimself@Apr 11, 2005 5:57 PM
You know, there were other decent teams in the Pac-10 in 2004 besides USC. Perhaps you&#39;ve heard of Arizona State, California or Oregon State...
Click to expand...

Heard of them, and they are just what you described them...decent., not an adjective you really want desrcibing most of the teams that are at the top on the conference. [/quote]
I know, I underexaggerated that statement on purpose. Considering Serna wouldn&#39;t have shanked those kicks against LSWho, OSU would have been ranked as well. They were something like 21st in the computers this last season, but they got very little media attention, and what they did was negative.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top