2005 Strength of Schedule Conf Rankings

[Master Capper]

First of all, Sagarin's is based on solely numbers and has many statistical faults that are above posting in a sports forum. To even state that the SEC is the easiest league in the country to run the table is absolutely moronic, so your basically saying that the 5th and 6th ranked leagues (Pac 10 and Big East) are tougher to run the table? The SEC has Tenn, Fla, Georgia, LSU, Aub, and Arkansas that are top 20 teams every year, can the Big East or Pac 10 make this claim. Surely you do not believe that it is harder to win on the road in Berkley or Pullman compared to Baton Rogue or The Swamp.

 

[Scott4USC]

:mj07: :wtf:

...statistics don't always show the real picture. :scared ...and if you really believe that the SEC is the easiest conference to run the table, then you're further from reality than I could imagine....

To even state that the SEC is the easiest league in the country to run the table is absolutely moronic, so your basically saying that the 5th and 6th ranked leagues (Pac 10 and Big East) are tougher to run the table? The SEC has Tenn, Fla, Georgia, LSU, Aub, and Arkansas that are top 20 teams every year, can the Big East or Pac 10 make this claim. Surely you do not believe that it is harder to win on the road in Berkley or Pullman compared to Baton Rogue or The Swamp.

:nono: :nono: :nono:

I like to back up my opinion with some FACTS! Facts you can't dispute! :mj07: Enjoy!


SEC people will say in the SEC you have FL, AU, UGA, TN, and LSU. Show me where the best team in the SEC plays ALL those opponents in the same season? You can't, because the best team in the SEC is one of those teams. Remember, the SEC is a 12 team conf. and you miss out on 3 conf. teams every year. Also note that in the SEC you play weak OOC competition and don't play on the road in OOC play. This creates more wins for the SEC in general, and doesn't take a toll on the teams (making them fresher for conf. play).

Half of the SEC hasn't been to BCS/Major Bowl games. You have 6 have's (Vols, AU, LSU, BAMA, FL, UGA) AND THE STIFFS WHO HAVEN'T HAD seasons like those I have above listed IN YOUR LIFETIME

Since 1998, the 6 teams which comprise the SEC west have played a TOTAL of 20 OOC games against BCS conference competition.
The record is startling: 4 wins - 16 losses.

The SEC plays just under 14% of their out of conference games on the road and just 5% of their out of conference games out of state.
I think they need to add another "C" to their conference title for the word "Coward."

SEC - Is it really so tough to play in that conference?

Looks to me like they have four teams that are perennial losers since 1990:

Florida 6 conference titles.
Tennessee conference titles.
Alabama 2 conference titles.
Georgia 1 conference title.
Auburn 1 conference titles.
LSU 2 conference titles.
Mississippi 0 conference titles.
Arkansas 0 conference titles.
Mississippi State 0 conference titles.
South Carolina 0 conference titles.
Kentucky 0 conference titles.
Vanderbilt 0 conference titles.

Out of 14 seasons only 6 teams have won the title (9 between Tennessee and Florida) You have Florida and Tennessee to worry about and every once in a while Georgia, Alabama and Auburn. LSU has gotten hot only recently and actually has a LOSING conference record during this period. The six other teams all pretty much populate the lower end of the standings year in and year out. MSU, Kentucky S Carolina and Vandy are with rare exception an easy win. Now what's this crap about "Our conference is so tough we HAVE to schedule weak OOC teams?" Gimme a break!

Compare the PAC 10

Washington 3 conf titles, 2 conf co-titles.
USC 2 conf title, 3 conf co-titles.
Oregon 2 conf titles, 1 conf co-title.
UCLA 1 conf title, 2 conf co-titles.
Stanford 1 conf title, 1 conf co-title.
Arizona State 1 conf title.
Arizona 1 conf co-title.
Washington State 2 conf co-titles.
Oregon State 1 conf co-title.
California 0 conf titles.


Since 1990, every team in the PAC 10 except Cal has either won or tied for the conference title.

90% of PAC 10 teams have won a conference title since 1990.
50% of SEC teams have won a conference title since 1990.

The PAC 10 is a more balanced conference, while the SEC is more two tiered, with some really good teams at top and some really bad ones at the bottom.

What makes the Pac 10 look weaker is its parity. Any team can beat the other on any day and that seems to happen. So great records are more difficult. At this time USC is the exception as it has risen to another level.

This is the difference between the two conferences; in the PAC every team is a threat to win on a given Saturday, however, in the SEC only a couple of teams pose a "serious" threat".

If one conference has BALANCE and PARITY THROUGHOUT it's entirety, it is safe to say it is a TOUGHER conference than one that has only a couple of "serious" threats.

Amazing, but True SEC factoid

In 72 years of SEC football there have been 57 teams that have gone undefeated in conference play. That is an undefeated team per every 1.26 SEC seasons......and folks, that happens to be the highest rate of in-conference undefeated teams among all 1A conferences. Go ahead and research it.

So please, don't believe the silly 'MYTH' that the SEC is the toughest conference to run the table in. :yup


So I guess that answers the initial question. SEC - Is it really so tough to play in that conference?

The answer- NO!

If there are any errors (i don't think there are any), let me know and I gladly will correct them! I did not calculate all the data myself.

 

[taoist]

...you are truly delusional.

 

[Scott4USC]

...you are truly delusional.

The definition of delusional is: A false belief or opinion

My opinion is supported with facts. I used that same criteria to compare both conferences. You cannot dispute facts. IMO I did not do an unfair comparison. I judged each team in each conf. fairly using "same" criteria.

Where exactly am I deslusional? You failed to mention that. You also failed to support your own opinion.

I suppose anybody who has a different opinion than taoist is delusional. Lets stick that definition in Websters dictionary!

 

[taoist]

Webster's Dictionary

Webster's Dictionary

One entry found for delusion.

Main Entry: de?lu?sion
Pronunciation: di-'l?-zh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin delusion, delusio, from deludere
1 a : the act of deluding : the state of being deluded b : an abnormal mental state characterized by the occurrence of psychotic delusions
2 a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated b : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self (Specifically the SEC....)



...most folks in here would agree that this definition applies to you, jack-off!

 

[Scott4USC]

One entry found for delusion.

Main Entry: de?lu?sion
Pronunciation: di-'l?-zh&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin delusion, delusio, from deludere
1 a : the act of deluding : the state of being deluded b : an abnormal mental state characterized by the occurrence of psychotic delusions
2 a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated b : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self (Specifically the SEC....)

...most folks in here would agree that this definition applies to you, jack-off!

Stop trying to make this thread about me.
Concentrate on the material being posted. If you can't participate in an intelligent debate, simply don't interact with me. Stop being immature. I posted my opinion with facts supporting it. Facts you can't dispute. Facts that tear down the SEC superiority. Facts that apparently leave you no other option but to call me "delusional" and a "jack-off." Next!

 

[BobbyBlueChip]

The problem with your debating style is that it's not about getting after the truth, it's about making your point whether the facts make sense or not. The truth never lies in the factoids that you produce, but in the information that you leave out.

Since 1998, the 6 teams which comprise the SEC west have played a TOTAL of 20 OOC games against BCS conference competition.
The record is startling: 4 wins - 16 losses

Why are you talking about the SEC West? More than likely, it's because if you used the East, you're stats wouldn't be so eye popping. In your years, off the top of my head, Bama's had a home and home with Oklahoma, Arkansas with Texas, Ole Miss with Texas Tech, Auburn with USC, LSU with VaTech. VaTech, USC, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech, USC - When do those teams play in the postseason? December or January? And then you state that the OOC is weak as if they both can be true.

Since 1990, every team in the PAC 10 except Cal has either won or tied for the conference title.

90% of PAC 10 teams have won a conference title since 1990.
50% of SEC teams have won a conference title since 1990.

When you include the share of the champion, you give the PAC 10 23 conference titles and the SEC only 14. If you compare teams that won an outright title, 6 of the 12 SEC teams have won compared to 6 of the 10 Pac 10 teams. Not really so much of a mismatch.

In 72 years of SEC football there have been 57 teams that have gone undefeated in conference play. That is an undefeated team per every 1.26 SEC seasons......and folks, that happens to be the highest rate of in-conference undefeated teams among all 1A conferences. Go ahead and research it.

You've been using 1990 as a starting point and then 1998 and now, you go back 72 years. What's the Pac 10 look like in that time? You were doing a comparison. I do know that it's only happened twice since 1998 in the SEC and twice in the past two years in the Pac 10. Must be because of all that "parity."

The Pac 10 is obviously an underrated conference as their ATS records show, but that's not because they're good, it's bacause the perception is skewed. As a conference, they're closer to the Big East than they are to the SEC.

 

[Coug LJ]

Excellent post, Bobby BlueChip. I am not as annoyed with Scott as many seem to be, but I think you hit the nail on the head. The truth is you can often find a statistic to support most any side of an argument. Statistics can undoubtedly be helpful, but they can also be selective and manipulated.

As a fan of the Pac-10 school I am inclined to defend the honor of the league. I DO think the league has gotten better of late. Also, USC is on an incredible, historic run and has been the best team in College Football the last two years and is the unamimous #1 pick going into the 2005 season.

Outside of USC, the strength of the Pac-10 is it's balance. There are no cupcakes like Vanderbildt or Kentucky. Saying that, the last really great team in the Pac-10 besides the current USC team was probably Washington in the early 1990's. It is not and has not been a top-heavy league.

If you are a fan of the Pac-10, you have to like the fact that having the #1 team in the nation has shifted the focus of College Football. USC demands respect and, to some degree, so does the Pac-10.

The Pac-10 plays an exciting brand of football. The Offenses are more high-powered and passing oriented and has sent more than it's share of players to the NFL. I don't know if it is the effect of trying to keep up with USC, but the league has gotten better. There have been some solid coaching hires and the league, overall, is on the best footing it has been in many years.

That all said, the average school in the Pac-10 doesn't have anywhere near the resources that many schools have in the Big Ten, SEC and Big 12. This would logically show up on the field.

 

[taoist]

I posted my opinion with facts supporting it. Facts you can't dispute. Facts that tear down the SEC superiority. Facts that apparently leave you no other option but to call me "delusional" and a "jack-off." Next!

...get your head out of your ass, fuk-stick! :scared

...you're retarded. 'nuff said. :moon: :jerkit: :fingerc:

 

[Dice34]

Why break balls on someone who is entitled to their opinion and then they back it up with facts. Although they could be misleading but of course they are going to favor his point.... I see youre from Tennessee, maybe youre jealous that USC went into the Volunteers back yard and took the #1 recruit from the state... I dunno...but the more information thats out there, the better it is for posters and non posters to view and absorb and make informed decisions. Just let it go my man

 

[taoist]

I dunno...

...you're right. you don't. :mj07:

 

[Sun Tzu]

There are lies, damn lies and statistics. A factoid doesnt mean diddly, and trying to make every post "I am right" is not informative.

 

[Scott4USC]

Good post BobbyBlueChip. Enjoyed reading it. Finally someone using there head and not reverting to name-calling.

I am a big fan of the SEC and the SEC may be stronger conf. than Pac 10. You can make an argument for that. I def. think the SEC has more elite teams and the Pac 10 is stronger 1-10 vs 1-12 in SEC. If you value elite teams you are in favor of SEC but if you value competitive play you might be in favor of Pac 10. But overall, I would say SEC may be a better conf. as a whole. But we are talking about teams 1-12 in SEC and teams 1-10 in Pac 10. Each carrying same weight. My arguments are not the Pac 10 is better than the SEC, it is the SEC is "not" vastly superior. I believe I have presented a very strong case. In addition, I have facts supporting my opinion which makes my case even stronger. My arguments are not about which conf. is better, it is one conf. is not vastly superior.

The problem with your debating style is that it's not about getting after the truth, it's about making your point whether the facts make sense or not. The truth never lies in the factoids that you produce, but in the information that you leave out..

Why do I need to make an argument for the SEC? All the data I present supports my argument. Some data carries more weight but each data is relevant. Facts are facts!

Since 1998, the 6 teams which comprise the SEC west have played a TOTAL of 20 OOC games against BCS conference competition.
The record is startling: 4 wins - 16 losses

Why are you talking about the SEC West? More than likely, it's because if you used the East, you're stats wouldn't be so eye popping. In your years, off the top of my head, Bama's had a home and home with Oklahoma, Arkansas with Texas, Ole Miss with Texas Tech, Auburn with USC, LSU with VaTech. VaTech, USC, Oklahoma, Texas, Texas Tech, USC - When do those teams play in the postseason? December or January? And then you state that the OOC is weak as if they both can be true. .

I am talking about the SEC west because the SEC west is half the SEC conf. and they have done poorly against BCS competition. If the SEC is vastly superior, wouldn't they do well against BCS competition? At least 500 record? Or do they do well only against La. Monroe, Citadel, Tenn. Chattanooga, Georgia Southern, etc. Sorry, beating those teams by 50pts doesn't impress me. True, its gets you wins and gets you to bowl games but doesn't impress me. Remember the argument, SEC being superior? This factoid is relevant and supports my opinion!

Since 1990, every team in the PAC 10 except Cal has either won or tied for the conference title.

90% of PAC 10 teams have won a conference title since 1990.
50% of SEC teams have won a conference title since 1990.

When you include the share of the champion, you give the PAC 10 23 conference titles and the SEC only 14. If you compare teams that won an outright title, 6 of the 12 SEC teams have won compared to 6 of the 10 Pac 10 teams. Not really so much of a mismatch..

The point of this argument was to show the balance of the Pac 10 conf. EVERY team has contended for conf. title and 9/10 teams have won/shared the conf. title. There are no teams in the Pac 10 who stay at the bottom. Another reason why teams in the Pac 10 do not go undefeated in conf. play at the same rate as the SEC. SEC has teams who consistently stay at the bottom of their conf. Automatic wins for the elite teams.

I should have presented another "factoid" showing how many winless/1 loss teams there are in the SEC in conf. play year in year out.

Remember, the argument is teams 1-12 in SEC, not only the teams 1-4. Whenever people generally talk about how tough SEC is, they always talk about teams 1-4 and other 8 seem to never exist. How would you like to play >>>>, >>>>,>>>>, >>>>.

[In 72 years of SEC football there have been 57 teams that have gone undefeated in conference play. That is an undefeated team per every 1.26 SEC seasons......and folks, that happens to be the highest rate of in-conference undefeated teams among all 1A conferences. Go ahead and research it.

You've been using 1990 as a starting point and then 1998 and now, you go back 72 years. What's the Pac 10 look like in that time? You were doing a comparison. I do know that it's only happened twice since 1998 in the SEC and twice in the past two years in the Pac 10. Must be because of all that "parity.".

People claim how tough it is to go undefeated in the SEC. SEC being the toughest conf. to go undefeated etc. Well this little factoid says differently. Nobody can dispute it. That is why this factoid is relevant! You can't say it doesn't support MY OPINION!

All my arguments are not going to support SEC. I am not arguing for the SEC. I am arguing against the SEC.

People who are pro SEC often don't have anything to support there opinion. Or they only talk about the top 4 teams. They express there opinion/belief but often have nothing to back it up. They often revert to name-calling. Sometimes people can't handle the truth!

The Pac 10 is obviously an underrated conference as their ATS records show, but that's not because they're good, it's bacause the perception is skewed.

Pac 10 plays in west coast so people on East don't get to watch games. Everyone on west coast gets to watch the nation play at reasonable hours.
Pac 10 has horrible TV exposure. ESPN just recently signed deal to broadcast Pac 10 games starting I think 2007. Prob. more to due with USC and relationship with ABC. You can't be well respected across the country if people can't watch you play at reasonable hours. USC is the only team in west coast that gets respect from the East. UW did to a certain extent. Then you have writers/fans who only look at wins/losses. Well the Pac 10 might have a lot of 5, 6, 7 win teams but that has more to do with them playing tough OOC games and playing on road. Also conf. play is almost impossible to go undefeated in and will result in multiple upsets. Only 1 team in the last 10 years has gone undefeated in conf. play.

There is no doubt in my mind if Pac 10 played weaker OOC and played more OOC games at home, they would garner more respect. For example, CAL 5-1 is playing UCLA who is 5-0 this sat. HUGE MATCHUP! Lets say 4 of Cals wins were against cupcakes and 3 of UCLA's wins were against cupcakes. The reality is you get CAL at 3-3 vs UCLA at 3-2 and not get any hype. People focus too much on wins/losses and not who and where a team played. Add to that, if the Pac 10 played reasonable hours AND better TV exposure, the Pac 10 would be well respected.

Nobody is going fool me into thinking the SEC is vastly superior. I do not only focus on wins/losses or elite teams in a conf. I look at EVERYBODY! I have not seen a good argument yet to change my opinion. I only read that the SEC is the best etc. but nobody can say why.

Here is another factoid!

NCAA is allowing teams to play 12 game schedules. Pac 10 has agreed to use that extra game in conf. play so every team plays everyone. All teams in past would miss 1 conf. opponent each year. I wonder what conferences will use that extra game to play div. 1aa opponents. I believe in the SEC you miss out on 3 conf. games every year. That is a lot! People forget that!

 

[Scott4USC]

Why break balls on someone who is entitled to their opinion and then they back it up with facts. Although they could be misleading but of course they are going to favor his point.... I see youre from Tennessee, maybe youre jealous that USC went into the Volunteers back yard and took the #1 recruit from the state... I dunno...but the more information thats out there, the better it is for posters and non posters to view and absorb and make informed decisions. Just let it go my man

EXACTLY! I get a kick out of how threatened certain poster are of my posts.

 

[taoist]

EXACTLY! I get a kick out of how threatened certain poster are of my posts.

No one is threatened by you, Scooter. Most of us pity you and your closed mind.

 

[kosar]

No one is threatened by you, Scooter. Most of us pity you and your closed mind.

There's a factoid.