NCAA 2009

[Berkut]

3- The SEC is harder to win than the Pac-10. The SEC has 3+ elite teams every year, plus a championship game. That means winning the SEC is going to be hard every year no matter what. The Pac-10 champion will face, at best 1-2 in-conference elite opponents. Obviously, both the Pac-10 champ and the SEC champ will have to avoid upsets to mediocre teams every year.

This is simply false. Your definition of "elite" is "a team that plays a easy enough schedule to avoid getting too many losses to fall out of the top-10". So no, I do not agree that the SEC has three teams every year better than the three best in the Pac-10 at all. The difference is only that the SEC has three teams every year that manage to get through their 4 OOC games without a loss, then play fewer in conference games against weaker in conference opponents so they manage to not lose more than 1 or 2 games, and get their high ranking.

Whereas in the Pac-10, every team has 1 less gimme game, every team must play every other team, including the other elite teams (no getting a break from playing Florida). Who cares of there is no championship game - it would certainly just be a re-match, since everyone already plays everyone anyway! How can that be harder - the fact that there is 1 game where two teams play each other, when in the Pac-10 EVERY team has to play every other team?

How can you argue that playing a championship game somehow makes the conference HARDER, as opposed to simply having every single team play every other team? Take off the blinders man, this argument makes no sense at all!

[Eddie Teach]

You're putting way too much confidence in those Sagarin ratings. The fact is they can be manipulated with or without including score. With purely win/loss taken into account, you manipulate it by taking on a better class of patsy. The computer is programmed to think a 15 point win over San Diego St. is indicative of a better team than a 50 point win over Troy. That is simply not true. This works out great, assuming your team has no real danger of losing to San Diego St(as most decent BCS schools won't).

[Berkut]

So you think coaches, years in advance, are manipulating their schedules to 'take on a better class of patsy"?

Is "better class of patsy" code for a "better team"? Is that why the SEC plays such crappy OOC schedules, they don't want to be accused of manipulating the Sagarin ratings by playing teams they might lose to?

The Sagarin ratings have their own set of problems, but the one thing they are is at least objective, and do not simply focus on losses, the way the top-25 polls do.And the top-25 polls, by definition, only have 26 possible ratings - everyone NOT in the top-25 is equal, and the "rankings" reflect that, even though we all know that is simply not at all true.

I can see why the SEC fans want to believe that the human polls are the perfect ranking system, since the SEC does an excellent job of using them to artificially create those 2-3 "elite" teams each year. But they don't stand up to even the most cursory examination when it comes to actually predicting which teams are better, much less which conferences are the best. The sagarin ratings do a MUCH better job of that.

[dps]

The SEC has 3+ elite teams every year

That's bull.  There have been years when they had 3 elite teams, and some years where they arguably had more than 3, but they certainly don't have 3 elite teams this year.  At best, they have 2 this year (we'll see if Alabama gets exposed again come bowl season, and while given what Florida accomplished last year--and that almost all of that team was back this year--Florida should be an elite team, they haven't looked like it at times this season).  I find it laughable to argue that anyone else in the conference has an elite team this year.  Having said that, I don't think that the Pac-10 has any elite teams this year, just a bunch of good-to-very-good ones, plus a terrible WSU.

Overall, I do think that the SEC is the strongest conference, but I also think that it's over-rated in that the margin by which it's superior to the other BCS conferences is a lot thinner than some people think.  I also agree that saying that, on the whole, SEC teams play weak OOC schedules is a valid point.  (Actually, that's true of the other BCS conferences as a whole, but it's less true of the Pac-10 than the other 5 conferences.) 

[Ed Anger]

I didn't even have to do my "real football stops at the Big 12, Big Ten and SEC" shtick.

[Eddie Teach]

Overall, I do think that the SEC is the strongest conference, but I also think that it's over-rated in that the margin by which it's superior to the other BCS conferences is a lot thinner than some people think.  I also agree that saying that, on the whole, SEC teams play weak OOC schedules is a valid point.  (Actually, that's true of the other BCS conferences as a whole, but it's less true of the Pac-10 than the other 5 conferences.)

Yeah, I'd agree with all that, I just don't think the Pac-10's out of conference schedule is tougher by a big enough margin to justify losing twice as often.

Also, I think Berkut's insistence on only considering what's happened this year really hampers conference comparisons. They just don't play each other often enough. The Pac 10 has played BCS teams 11 times and won 6 of those; that is no grounds to claim they're better than the other 5 conferences. Wait until at least a full season + bowl games shows your guys on top to start crowing about it.

[dps]

Overall, I do think that the SEC is the strongest conference, but I also think that it's over-rated in that the margin by which it's superior to the other BCS conferences is a lot thinner than some people think.  I also agree that saying that, on the whole, SEC teams play weak OOC schedules is a valid point.  (Actually, that's true of the other BCS conferences as a whole, but it's less true of the Pac-10 than the other 5 conferences.)

Yeah, I'd agree with all that, I just don't think the Pac-10's out of conference schedule is tougher by a big enough margin to justify losing twice as often.

Also, I think Berkut's insistence on only considering what's happened this year really hampers conference comparisons. They just don't play each other often enough. The Pac 10 has played BCS teams 11 times and won 6 of those; that is no grounds to claim they're better than the other 5 conferences. Wait until at least a full season + bowl games shows your guys on top to start crowing about it.

Yeah, single-year comparisons are inherently less accurate and therefore less valuable than multi-year comparisons.  OTOH, if we were trying to figure out (hypothetically) whether 1-loss Cal was more deserving than a 1-loss Maryland of a spot in BCS title game against an undefeated Arkansas, what has happened in previous seasons isn't necessarily relevent.

For example, I said earlier that the SEC has no more than 2 elite teams this year, but it's also true that the SEC has several programs that I would consider elite--LSU, Georgia, Tennessee, and Auburn, in addition to Alabama and Florida.  Tennessee and Auburn may be slipping, which is why they have new coaches this year.  No other conference has that many elite programs, even without the Volunteers and Tigers.  That's why I think the SEC is the best conference.

[Berkut]

For example, I said earlier that the SEC has no more than 2 elite teams this year, but it's also true that the SEC has several programs that I would consider elite--LSU, Georgia, Tennessee, and Auburn, in addition to Alabama and Florida.  Tennessee and Auburn may be slipping, which is why they have new coaches this year.  No other conference has that many elite programs, even without the Volunteers and Tigers.  That's why I think the SEC is the best conference.

But it is easier to be an "elite" program in a conference where you don't even play every other school, and you consistently load up your schedule with more crappy OOC games instead of playing the presumably quality opponents in conference.

The definition of elite, after all, is something like "is consistently ranked in the top-20, year after year". And how do you get ranked in the top-20? Play crappy teams and don't lose to them.

This all comes back to that - the human polls give way too much weight to not losing, rather than playing good games against quality opponents. Losing a game to a great team is always seen as less important than pounding some cupcake.

This is one thing that the NCAA has gotten right - the post-season relies on a selection committee who insists that just winning against chumps is not enough - you have to have quality wins, and even quality losses are worth more than meaningless wins. Within reason, of course.

There is no such mechanism in college football. If you are ranked #18 in the country, and lose to #1, you drop in the polls. If you are #18 in the country, and beat #92 by 50, you go up in the polls.

[dps]

The definition of elite, after all, is something like "is consistently ranked in the top-20, year after year". And how do you get ranked in the top-20? Play crappy teams and don't lose to them.

My definition of and elite program would probably be something along the lines of "a program, which, in a normal year, will likely be considered a pre-season contender for a BCS bowl game". 

you are ranked #18 in the country, and lose to #1, you drop in the polls. If you are #18 in the country, and beat #92 by 50, you go up in the polls.

Actually, a number 18 team in that situation would likely only move up because teams ahead of them lost.

[Berkut]

My definition of and elite program would probably be something along the lines of "a program, which, in a normal year, will likely be considered a pre-season contender for a BCS bowl game". 

Fair enough - and that is based mostly on the human polls, which are based mostly on not losing games. Same problem.

That is why the SEC is so "good" - they understand the system very well, and schedule accordingly. It is no coincidence that the SEC is one of the big opponents of a playoff system, or any revision to the BCS. They make a fortune off of it.

[Ed Anger]

Speaking of soft OOC schedules and cupcakes, one program that I think hurts itself by playing 3 cupcakes (plus the required MAC cupcake for a total of 4) is Penn State. It seems when they get into the Big Ten part of the schedule, they seem way overconfident. Thus, Iowa and OSU go into Happy Valley and kick them in the nuts.

[Berkut]

Syracuse basketball does the same thing. They don't fucking play *anyone* OOC!

I hope Miller sticks to the Arizona tradition of playing (relatively) brutal OOC schedules. Of course, whether he can continue the Lute Olson tradition of winning a lot of those brutal OOC games is another story entirely.

[dps]

It is no coincidence that the SEC is one of the big opponents of a playoff system, or any revision to the BCS. They make a fortune off of it.

To be fair, Alabama's pasting last year by Utah notwithstanding, SEC teams do tend to do well in those BCS games--at least compared to, say, the Big Ten.

[Berkut]

It is no coincidence that the SEC is one of the big opponents of a playoff system, or any revision to the BCS. They make a fortune off of it.

To be fair, Alabama's pasting last year by Utah notwithstanding, SEC teams do tend to do well in those BCS games--at least compared to, say, the Big Ten.

Indeed they do.

I am perfectly willing to admit that the SECs top programs are as good as they get, and deserve plenty of accolades. I just think the conference as a whole is over-rated, and that the Pac-10 is a better than people think. most people just look at AP/Coaches Top-25, and all that is is a ranking based on loss records (at least in teh BCS schools), for the most part.

[Valmy]

Would PAC-10 refs have given LSU that interception?  I think that alone should determine whose conference is better.

Don't get me started.

The last thing we need is an argument hanging our hats on teh quality of Pac-10 officiating.

Fucking Washington.

Well...when the SEC refs call this interception incomplete:



I think the PAC-10 refs could give them a run for their money.