Best Overall Conference

[milohimself]

Originally posted by OldVol@Apr 11, 2005 5:09 PM
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!!

In the SEC, you could hear somebody say "Tennessee and Georgia will finish ranked every season for the next five years" and while it's something brash to say, most would agree it's probably true.

In the Pac-10, while USC may not be contending for the national title ever year for the next five, I think that saying they have a good shot at finishing ranked every year for the next five wouldn't be a stretch.

But it's those single-season discrepancies that really make the difference. How will the middle section and the bottom feeders of each conference play out?

While I will handily say the mid-section of the SEC is better, I will say it's not really by a whole lot. I tend to ignore the historical rankings when looking at the present, instead using a more common-sense approach in actually looking at the strength of each team. We could go into a team-by-team analysis, but I would rather not.

I will just say the mid-section teams of the Pac are not nearly as bad as most let on; people just make it a forgone conclusion that the Pac-10 is far and away the worst of the BCS conferences, with the obvious exception of the Big East. But I believe looking at the list of Oregon State, Arizona State, UCLA, Oregon, Washington State and Stanford, one has to ask how much worse that part of the conference is than the SEC's. I believe they are not too much worse. You have a fairly equal share of upper-mid level teams and one-off season ruiners. Combine that with the likelihood that the Pac could eliminate all of it's bottom-feeding teams, and the seperation of strength is not really that much different.

But it still really goes back to those single-season anomalies. Which conference is more capable of them? You say the SEC by proof of historical rankings, and I will agree with you on that, but not on the same basis. Just more of a common-sense basis, really. I believe that the AP ranking system is full of its faults, which I'm sure many of you will agree with. These same faults tend to snub the Pac-10 on a pretty regular basis and run wild ranking teams in the "hot conference" of any particular season. The Big XII fiasco in 2004 is a perfect example of this. The SEC and Big Ten could easily get that kind of over-attention as well.

I'm done typing for now. OldVol, rebuttal. Now. :lol:

 

[OldVol]

Originally posted by milohimself+Apr 12, 2005 12:10 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (milohimself @ Apr 12, 2005 12:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-OldVol@Apr 11, 2005 5:09 PM
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&#33;&#33;

In the SEC, you could hear somebody say "Tennessee and Georgia will finish ranked every season for the next five years" and while it&#39;s something brash to say, most would agree it&#39;s probably true.

In the Pac-10, while USC may not be contending for the national title ever year for the next five, I think that saying they have a good shot at finishing ranked every year for the next five wouldn&#39;t be a stretch.

But it&#39;s those single-season discrepancies that really make the difference. How will the middle section and the bottom feeders of each conference play out?

While I will handily say the mid-section of the SEC is better, I will say it&#39;s not really by a whole lot. I tend to ignore the historical rankings when looking at the present, instead using a more common-sense approach in actually looking at the strength of each team. We could go into a team-by-team analysis, but I would rather not.

I will just say the mid-section teams of the Pac are not nearly as bad as most let on; people just make it a forgone conclusion that the Pac-10 is far and away the worst of the BCS conferences, with the obvious exception of the Big East. But I believe looking at the list of Oregon State, Arizona State, UCLA, Oregon, Washington State and Stanford, one has to ask how much worse that part of the conference is than the SEC&#39;s. I believe they are not too much worse. You have a fairly equal share of upper-mid level teams and one-off season ruiners. Combine that with the likelihood that the Pac could eliminate all of it&#39;s bottom-feeding teams, and the seperation of strength is not really that much different.

But it still really goes back to those single-season anomalies. Which conference is more capable of them? You say the SEC by proof of historical rankings, and I will agree with you on that, but not on the same basis. Just more of a common-sense basis, really. I believe that the AP ranking system is full of its faults, which I&#39;m sure many of you will agree with. These same faults tend to snub the Pac-10 on a pretty regular basis and run wild ranking teams in the "hot conference" of any particular season. The Big XII fiasco in 2004 is a perfect example of this. The SEC and Big Ten could easily get that kind of over-attention as well.

I&#39;m done typing for now. OldVol, rebuttal. Now. :lol: [/quote]
Well, we&#39;re in agreement that single seasons can deviate.

I guess we&#39;re also in agreement that the numbers don&#39;t really lie; a 15 year study is a very solid basis for future predictions.

I disagree somewhat on the AP poll. While it isn&#39;t perfect, it&#39;s by far the nearest thing we have to perfection in predicting the best teams. The media guys probably watch more of a cross-section of teams than most fans. The computer configurations are usually chaotic at best. They leave no room for the human element (was it raining, was the game away or at home, did a team play uncharacteristically, etc.) thus the AP poll, with its participant&#39;s ballots public, is the best barometer of greatness. The coaches&#39; poll is a sham. They&#39;re too afraid someone is going to know how they voted. I really don&#39;t blame them. A few of them have recently admitted they don&#39;t have the time and give the task to a subordinate. Their poll should not be used in determining post season play though. Think about it. It’s like allowing politicians to elect themselves.

It&#39;s never been my objective to belittle the Pac-10. I have engaged other posters on other boards who were not the least bit realistic about their perceptions of that conference. You are not among that number. I do think you may be more enthusiastic about their place in the food chain than you should be, but that&#39;s your right. The statistical perusal I put forth at the beginning of this thread actually puts them in 2nd place beneath the SEC. I know the Pac-10 had a bad run a few years back, but historically they’ve been on par with the other top conferences. Their premier team, USC, has a winning edge against the Big-10. They’re 5/4 against Michigan and 11/9/1 against Ohio St. The second team in the Pac-10, UCLA, has a losing record against Michigan but is 4/4/1 against Ohio St.

Disagreement is what feeds message boards. I&#39;m up for a Big Orange cheer thread from time to time. The real enjoyment is when ideas are freely exchanged, and yes, often oppose one another.

It&#39;s called thinking for yourself. Keep doing it.

I say again. Good discussion&#33;&#33;

 

[milohimself]

Indeed. You haven&#39;t been around long enough to see the kind of things said during the football season.

You mentioned people who defend the Pac-10, and for every one of those you will find five more who view the conference as nothing more than the Big East with one good team. Those same people said that USC is only undefeated because they play easy teams. I tend to think it&#39;s more because USC is actually that good, the 2004 squad being possibly one of the best single-season football teams in the history of college ball. And I know there are still plenty who believe that they couldn&#39;t have gone undefeated in a tougher conference. Alls I know is that I&#39;m ready for this era of USC dominance to come to a close so they can stop making the rest of the Pac teams look bad.

You are right in that the Pac-10 is coming off a slump. But with USC nearly finished cementing their place as the best team of this decade, the miraculous turnarounds in California, Oregon State and Arizona State (and Arizona and Washington about to accomplish the same, I believe), I think there is a lot of potential in the future.

There is a lot of ignorance on both sides of the fence... Big East with one good team? I don&#39;t think so.

 

[U-T]

The future of the SEC lies with UF, UGA, and UT

Auburn will never be consistently great under Tubby, Alabama is well....Alabama without cheating, and LSU will fall under much tougher times without Saban....arguably one of the best in the SEC...ever

 

[toddbond007]

no mention of s.c. interesting... :question: :question: :question:

 

[U-T]

Why mention them? They have a past of winning absolutely nothing....with Spurrier still wont rack in near the talent that he had at UF....and are still...well....South Carolina.

Spurrier may win 1 SEC Title and 1-2 East Titles but he wont be there long and he wont win half as much as people think, imo.

 

[GAVol]

SC is going to have to show something before anybody believes. We&#39;ve already been through the savior routine with Lou Holtz.

 

[toddbond007]

i think spurrier will suprise many this year...

 

[U-T]

Spurrier may surprise people in 2-3 years but his laughingstock at QB next year and his average WR&#39;s, lack of depth on defense, and tons of other problems will come about.

 

[GAVol]

7-8 wins at SC would be a miracle season next year.

 

[toddbond007]

:cross: hope ur right :cross:

 

[U-T]

South Carolina wins the SEC