Chatelain: Playoff should reward conference champions

[Notre Dame Joe]

The SEC's schedule is designed to help them in the BCS. they play one fewer conference game and one extra high school team. That gives the middle of their conference better records than the ones that play 9 games. Add this to the fact that they never seem to travel to cold weather and only recently started adding marqui non conference, and you have one built for pumping up their own SOS.

 

Your implying that this is a trick to make they look better? Thats kinda what it sounds like. Here is a little heads up for you Joe, EVERY team/conference does this. There that been plenty of years where the big10/big12/Pac12 power teams played a bunch of puffs and never left the home state. Every coach or conference commish is out to do whatever it takes to better their team/group.

 

Secondly, yes, 12 of the SEC teams play 9 BSC opps this year. 2 play 10. But I guess what I am confused about is your point here. Nearly every team in the big10 plays 9 BCS level teams, about another 7 or 8 teams out of the pac12&big12 only play 9, only half of the ACC plays more than 9....

 

I guess I just dont get what your saying? Do you feel the same about the big10, big12 or pac12? What about the ACC? Or is it because you have a bias against the SEC?

 

And an FYI, you cant blame a setup schedule, or favortism, or a design to cheat the system when their conference has done what they have done in BCS games. They have clear and away the best winning percentage and total wins of the major conferences and have won 8 of the 14 BCS championships (big12 is second best with 2).

 

I am no SEC homer, but I am also not a hater. . The fact is that every little dig or reason that anyone of you have said is either false or applies to everyone else if college football.

 

ANd they all fail to see that regardless of all those excuses, they then still kick everyones butt on the field.

 

You nailed it there. There are teams like Florida who haven't played an OOC game outside the state of Florida in over 50 years! The SEC has crappy teams just like everyone else does too, both Mississippi teams blow, as does Vandy and Kentucky. Well, you can add Missouri on that list now too. Sorry, I coulnd't resist that one, but you get the point. Alabama last year at PSU and Georgia going to Ok State,Colorado, and Arizona State are the only ones that I can think of where SEC teams left the south for OOC games.

 

AF yes florida never leaves. I think thats pretty punk of them, But they also play Miami and FL ST in their non con. What they do is not that different from a number of other teams. But yes I am sure there are a number of fans that would like to see them leave the state, and I am one of them. But 1 team does not make a conference.

 

And FYI Vandy and MIss St are not crappy teams. They are actually decent teams that are on the rise. Vandy really has a great coach so they could be getting pretty good. And frankly Mizzou is about as crappy as Ne is.....so i'm cool with it as long as you are .

 

No the extra highschool team in place of a conference matchup gives the entire conference a better W-L record. In the 9th game, the PAC goes 6-6 against itself while the SEC goes 12-0 against schools that I had never heard of until I saw them on the ticker.

 

Now the top of the SEC is clearly the best in the country. The middle is often the best. But the entire SEC isn't as tough to get through as their W-L record makes them appear to be.

 

 

 

The fact is that every little dig or reason that anyone of you have said is either false or applies to everyone else if college football.

 

not in my conference

[fro daddy]

No the extra highschool team in place of a conference matchup gives the entire conference a better W-L record. In the 9th game, the PAC goes 6-6 against itself while the SEC goes 12-0 against schools that I had never heard of until I saw them on the ticker.

 

Now the top of the SEC is clearly the best in the country. The middle is often the best. But the entire SEC isn't as tough to get through as their W-L record makes them appear to be.

 

not in my conference

 

Whats your point Joe. They play the same number of conference games and the same number of OOC games as basically every conference. They play the same number of BCS teams OOC as basically every other team. There is no "extra highschool team" and that game doesnt replace any conference games. They just dont play all the OCC games in the first weeks. When they play them has nothing to do with who has better records. What your trying to say doesnt even make sense. Your basically saying that 1 big10 team that plays 8 conf games, 1 other bcs team and 3 puffs doesnt have as good of a record as an SEC team that plays 8 conf games, 1 other bcs team and 3 puffs because that SEC team plays a puff on NOV 17 and not Sept 17 like the big10 team.

 

Timing of wins and the effect it can have on voters, okay that is something i will listen too. But then you have to acknowledge that everyone else has an advangtage upfront because they pad their records with patsies in the first weeks while the SEC has premier conference games.

 

And Joe I know your not in a conference. And ND is the exception to the rule when it comes to building a schedule, but then again thats their own choice.

[Saunders]

Here are some of the games in the first 4 weeks of the sec while other are playing their puffs

Georgia @ Mizzou

Mizzou @ SC

FL @ aTm

FL @ Tenn

UK @ Fl

Vandy @ Georgia

SC @ vandy

Bama @ Arky

Aub @ Miss St

LSU @ Aub

Aub (8-5)

Mizzou (8-5)

Miss St. (7-6)

FL (7-6)

aTm (7-6)

Vandy (6-7)

UK (5-7)

Tenn (5-7)

 

Man, that's just brutal.

[fro daddy]

Here are some of the games in the first 4 weeks of the sec while other are playing their puffs

Georgia @ Mizzou

Mizzou @ SC

FL @ aTm

FL @ Tenn

UK @ Fl

Vandy @ Georgia

SC @ vandy

Bama @ Arky

Aub @ Miss St

LSU @ Aub

Aub (8-5)

Mizzou (8-5)

Miss St. (7-6)

FL (7-6)

aTm (7-6)

Vandy (6-7)

UK (5-7)

Tenn (5-7)

 

Man, that's just brutal.

 

 

Are you implying that playing a conference game is not as tough as playing puff noncons?? I guess I dont get what your saying here...

 

also curious as to why you left off some.

LSU (13-1)

Bama (12-1)

Arky (11-2)

SC (11-2)

Georgia (10-4)

Aub (8-5)

Mizzou (8-5)

Miss St. (7-6)

FL (7-6)

aTm (7-6)

Vandy (6-7)

UK (5-7)

Tenn (5-7)

[Notre Dame Joe]

No the extra highschool team in place of a conference matchup gives the entire conference a better W-L record. In the 9th game, the PAC goes 6-6 against itself while the SEC goes 12-0 against schools that I had never heard of until I saw them on the ticker.

 

Now the top of the SEC is clearly the best in the country. The middle is often the best. But the entire SEC isn't as tough to get through as their W-L record makes them appear to be.

 

not in my conference

 

Whats your point Joe. They play the same number of conference games and the same number of OOC games as basically every conference. They play the same number of BCS teams OOC as basically every other team. There is no "extra highschool team" and that game doesnt replace any conference games. They just dont play all the OCC games in the first weeks. When they play them has nothing to do with who has better records. What your trying to say doesnt even make sense. Your basically saying that 1 big10 team that plays 8 conf games, 1 other bcs team and 3 puffs doesnt have as good of a record as an SEC team that plays 8 conf games, 1 other bcs team and 3 puffs because that SEC team plays a puff on NOV 17 and not Sept 17 like the big10 team.

 

Timing of wins and the effect it can have on voters, okay that is something i will listen too. But then you have to acknowledge that everyone else has an advangtage upfront because they pad their records with patsies in the first weeks while the SEC has premier conference games.

 

And Joe I know your not in a conference. And ND is the exception to the rule when it comes to building a schedule, but then again thats their own choice.

 

 

I was actually borrowing a Pac whine about playing 9 conference games while the SEC plays 8. The extra conference game vs one fewer HS team distorts the strength of the conference in most of the metrics. I'd add that's quite pronounced in the ones that rate you highly for losing to a great team, paging Jeff Sagarin.

 

ND is in on this because now that UW wussed out, there are only 3 teams left that have never played a Div 1-aa-whatever school; ND, USC, and UCLA. And it was pretty recent that we were appalled to hear that we scheduled a MAC team.

[fro daddy]

I was actually borrowing a Pac whine about playing 9 conference games while the SEC plays 8. The extra conference game vs one fewer HS team distorts the strength of the conference in most of the metrics. I'd add that's quite pronounced in the ones that rate you highly for losing to a great team, paging Jeff Sagarin.

 

ND is in on this because now that UW wussed out, there are only 3 teams left that have never played a Div 1-aa-whatever school; ND, USC, and UCLA. And it was pretty recent that we were appalled to hear that we scheduled a MAC team.

 

some of those bigeast and acc teams you play are basically mac/1-aa teams :

 

Joking aside, I agree that there is no exact science to S.O.S. & Conf. RPI. Nobody has a perfect way, but if we are real about looking at the items in detail and not just sticking to an idea (not saying this about you) people can see the difference, IMHO. For example, the pac12 plays 9 conf games. The SEC currently plays 8. Put look at the games. Each have some tough ones, but when you put it on paper and look at it, which would you rather play?

 

 

Oregon - Zona (4-8), @Wazzou (4-8), Wash (7-6), @AZ ST (6-7), CU (3-10), @USC (10-2), @Cal (7-6), Stanford (11-2), @OR ST (3-9)

 

USC - @Stanford (11-2), Cal (7-6), @Utah (8-5), @Washington (7-6), CU (3-10), @Zona (4-8), Oregon (12-2), AZST (6-7), @UCLA (6-8)

 

OR plays 5 teams that were below .500. (62.5% of their conference games are to team with losing records & 60% of thier conf road games are to teams with losing records)

 

USC plays 4 below . 500. (44.4% overall and 40% of their road games)

 

Basically USC and Oregon have 1 tough game. Maybe 2 if Stanford is able to go again or someone unknown jumps up. The rest of their 7-8 conf. games are against avg or below average teams. Teams that scare nobody who is any good playing home or away.

 

Alabama - @Arky (11-2), OleMiss (2-10), @Mizzou (8-5), @Tenn (5-7), Miss St (7-6), @LSU (13-1), ATM (7-6), Auburn (8-5

 

LSU - @Auburn (8-5), @FL (7-6), SC (11-2), @ATM (7-6), ALA (12-1), MIss St (7-6), OleMiss (2-10) & @Arky (11-2)

 

Ala plays 2 teams that were below .500. (25% of their conference games are to team with losing records & 25% of thier conf road games are to teams with losing records)

 

LSU plays 1 below . 500. (12.5% overall and 0% of their road games)

 

LSU & Ala both play eachother, like Oregon and USC. They both play another high level team in Arky, who unlike Stanford, returns nearly their entire team. But here is where things differ, you in your own words have said so;

 

Now the top of the SEC is clearly the best in the country. The middle is often the best.

- NOTRE DAME JOE 6/4/12

 

I think that most people would see that middle group of teams in the SEC and feel they are better teams, tougher places to play on the road & have a better chance of beating good teams than the group of pac12 teams.

 

Its not a huge difference, but the best way to look at it I think is to take any one of those middle SEC teams and give them the USC or Oregon schedule. How do you think they would do. win 6 of 9? maybe a game better or worse? Now take a middle pac12 team and give them the Bama or LSU schedule, how many do they win? 2 or 3 of the 8? maybe one better or worse?

 

To be frank, I think that Mizzou or Auburn or Florida would stand a much better chance against the pac12 then Wash., UCLA, or Cal would against the SEC. And that is a pretty big difference when you start looking at the number of teams that finish .500 or below in the SEC and how they would finish .500 or above in pac12. Then look at all those .500 or below and put them in the SEC, their record would be even worse than they are in the pac12. Thats where in my opinion the pac12 can shove it.

 

The big12 WOULD have a leg to stand on with that complaint. They play 9 conf games and have higher level teams in depth than the pac12. But the funny thing with that is, they dont cry and complain about things like that like some other conferences. I find it funny that when looking at the 9 games in the big12 against the 9 in the pac12 its really not that close, but yet the easier of the two says the SEC has an unfair advantage while the more difficult of the two agree with the SEC on their stance and has no complaints.

[Notre Dame Joe]

 

 

 

Ala plays 2 teams that were below .500. (25% of their conference games are to team with losing records & 25% of thier conf road games are to teams with losing records)

 

 

LSU & Ala both play eachother, like Oregon and USC. They both play another high level team in Arky, who unlike Stanford, returns nearly their entire team. But here is where things differ, you in your own words have said so;

 

 

That's the rub I was talking about. THe SEC has more teams above .500, but if they scheduled 3 North Texas type teams than that isn't saying much.

 

Now the top of the SEC is clearly the best in the country. The middle is often the best. - NOTRE DAME JOE 6/4/12

 

I think that most people would see that middle group of teams in the SEC and feel they are better teams, tougher places to play on the road & have a better chance of beating good teams than the group of pac12 teams.

 

Its not a huge difference, but the best way to look at it I think is to take any one of those middle SEC teams and give them the USC or Oregon schedule. How do you think they would do. win 6 of 9? maybe a game better or worse? Now take a middle pac12 team and give them the Bama or LSU schedule, how many do they win? 2 or 3 of the 8? maybe one better or worse?

 

To be frank, I think that Mizzou or Auburn or Florida would stand a much better chance against the pac12 then Wash., UCLA, or Cal would against the SEC. And that is a pretty big difference when you start looking at the number of teams that finish .500 or below in the SEC and how they would finish .500 or above in pac12. Then look at all those .500 or below and put them in the SEC, their record would be even worse than they are in the pac12. Thats where in my opinion the pac12 can shove it.

 

The big12 WOULD have a leg to stand on with that complaint. They play 9 conf games and have higher level teams in depth than the pac12. But the funny thing with that is, they dont cry and complain about things like that like some other conferences. I find it funny that when looking at the 9 games in the big12 against the 9 in the pac12 its really not that close, but yet the easier of the two says the SEC has an unfair advantage while the more difficult of the two agree with the SEC on their stance and has no complaints.

 

The methods I hear the most often are % chance of going undefeated and average total wins. I think in most years a team would have fewer wins in the SEC but harder to run the table in the PAC. That's because the PAC had perennial 11-1 USC, the twist is of course that USC never had to play itself.

 

Now I don't know where it is. If you were an SEC East team that dodged Bama or LSU then the # is way higher than it should be. The SEC is still #1 but not by as much as it appeared.

 

The big12 only once had its champ shut out last year. The Big12 actually overachieved last year, I forget where they ranked. a 1 or 2 loss USC was always shunned so they had the most to whine about.