Great, but long article, about pumping up the SEC bias

saunders45 said:
Because Wisconsin lost to the team that was crowned best in their conference. You can't be the best in the nation if you're not even the best team in your own division, let alone conference.
Click to expand...
I believe Alabama proved this to be false.

 
Mavric said:
saunders45 said:
Because Wisconsin lost to the team that was crowned best in their conference. You can't be the best in the nation if you're not even the best team in your own division, let alone conference.

UCLA won their conference. With little cross conference play, that's the only fair way you can do it. Take the "best" from each conference and let them play.
Click to expand...
So you're saying a team that lost to three average teams is more deserving of a fourth shot than a team that lost to one great team is deserving of a second shot. No thanks.
Click to expand...
You're missing the point of a playoff.

UCLA loses their 3 games to teams with 9+, Wisconsin pads their record against crappy teams. Records and rankings are irrelevant.

It's funny, because a similar scenario happened in 2010 when bama (9-3) murdered MSU (11-1) 49-7.

 
Mavric said:
saunders45 said:
Because Wisconsin lost to the team that was crowned best in their conference. You can't be the best in the nation if you're not even the best team in your own division, let alone conference.
Click to expand...
I believe Alabama proved this to be false.
Click to expand...
Really? Was that after they didn't win their division, and conference and got gifted a beauty pageant rematch against LSU?

Please show me their marquee win over a team that wasn't in the SEC to show they were the best in the Nation.

It's absurd logic to say they were the best in the country when they weren't even the best team in their conference.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
saunders45 said:
the facts are, in the BCS era, the SEC is hovering around .500 against other conferences.
Click to expand...
tumblr_inline_mfe0osqEWC1qjxfzm.gif


 
Here's another one for you:

Oregon and LSU play the first game of the season. LSU beats Oregon. Oregon also loses their next game and loses to an undefeated USC team in the regular season but beats them in the rematch in the Pac 12 championship game. Meanwhile, LSU goes undefeated and Alabama loses to LSU. The B1G and Big XII aren't as good and Michigan, who got blown out by Alabama in the second week of the season, wins the B1G at 9-4 and Oklahoma wins the Big XII at 8-4.

So you have:

LSU (SEC Champ) - 13-0

Alabama - 11-1

USC - 12-1

Florida State (ACC Champ) - 11-2

Oregon (Pac 12 Champ) - 10-3

Michigan (B1G Champ) - 9-4

Oklahoma (Big XII Champ) - 8-4

So Alabama is penalized for being in the same division as the best team in the country and they get left out in favor of a team that they blew out earlier in the year and have a much better record, USC and Oregon split their two games with USC having a much better overall record but because they lost in the wrong order Oregon gets in. And both Alabama and USC are penalized because they played had great seasons in great conferences while Michigan is rewarded for having decent seasons in (relatively) a poor conference. That does not fit any definition of fair with which I am familiar.

 
saunders45 said:
UCLA loses their 3 games to teams with 9+, Wisconsin pads their record against crappy teams. Records and rankings are irrelevant.
Click to expand...
So now you're changing the story to say all three of UCLA's losses were to teams that won 9+ games? OK. That does help your argument.

But you're ignoring my point. Your argument against a one-loss Wisconsin team is "they had their shot." Why do they get one shot against a great team while UCLA gets three shots against decent teams? Didn't UCLA have their chance to have a better resume by winning some of those games they lost?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mavric said:
Here's another one for you:

Oregon and LSU play the first game of the season. LSU beats Oregon. Oregon also loses their next game and loses to an undefeated USC team in the regular season but beats them in the rematch in the Pac 12 championship game. Meanwhile, LSU goes undefeated and Alabama loses to LSU. The B1G and Big XII aren't as good and Michigan, who got blown out by Alabama in the second week of the season, wins the B1G at 9-4 and Oklahoma wins the Big XII at 8-4.

So you have:

LSU (SEC Champ) - 13-0

Alabama - 11-1

USC - 12-1

Florida State (ACC Champ) - 11-2

Oregon (Pac 12 Champ) - 10-3

Michigan (B1G Champ) - 9-4

Oklahoma (Big XII Champ) - 8-4

So Alabama is penalized for being in the same division as the best team in the country and they get left out in favor of a team that they blew out earlier in the year and have a much better record, USC and Oregon split their two games with USC having a much better overall record but because they lost in the wrong order Oregon gets in. And both Alabama and USC are penalized because they played had great seasons in great conferences while Michigan is rewarded for having decent seasons in (relatively) a poor conference. That does not fit any definition of fair with which I am familiar.
Click to expand...
You had to go scorched earth to prove why it's not fair. Show a season within the last 20 years like this. Maybe... one? The vast majority of the time, you're going to be arguing over a 1 loss at large vs a 2 loss conference champ. In that case, the conference champ is the correct pick every single time.

The whole point of the playoff is to whittle down teams to find a champion. By using the conference champion, you already have a built in entry qualifier with no human bias.

 
For anyone that doesn't really care what the media perception is, and wants to know how conferences actually compare based on game results and inter-conference correlations, here are a few popular computer systems that release conference ratings:

Massey

SEC, 1.92

Pac-12, 1.86

Big 12, 1.74

ACC, 1.67

Big 10, 1.64

AAC, 1.33

Colley Matrix

SEC, 0.749

Pac-12, 0.730

Big 10, 0.670

ACC, 0.653

Big 12, 0.621

(Sun Belt)

AAC, 0.442

Anderson Hester

SEC, .638

Pac-12, .622

Big 10, .578

ACC, .577

Big 12, .545

AAC, .433

Peter Wolfe

SEC, 5.83

Pac-12, 5.57

Big 10, 5.17

Big 12, 4.98

ACC, 4.69

AAC, 4.01

Billingsley

SEC, 271

Pac-12, 262

Big 12, 259

Big 10, 255

ACC, 250

AAC, 223

If we adjust these numbers to a common scale to be able to compare across systems, with the top ranking receiving a 1.00 and subsequent rankings based on that, then average the results and move to a 100 point scale, here are the results:

1. SEC, 100.0

2. Pac-12, 96.8

3. Big 10, 89.6

4. Big 12, 88.0

3. ACC, 87.5

6. AAC, 69.4

So, there you have it. If you take every non-conference game that's been played this year and analyze every one with equal weight in several of the well known and respected computer rating systems, that's what you get. The SEC is number one, with the Pac-12 a close but not that close runner-up. Then you have a pretty significant drop-off, with the Big 10, Big 12 and ACC all very close to each other in spots three through five. And of course the AAC is a very, very distant last place.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mavric said:
saunders45 said:
UCLA loses their 3 games to teams with 9+, Wisconsin pads their record against crappy teams. Records and rankings are irrelevant.
Click to expand...
So now you're changing the story to say all three of UCLA's losses were to teams that won 9+ games? OK. That does help your argument.

But you're ignoring my point. Your argument against a one-loss Wisconsin team is "they had their shot." Why do they get one shot while UCLA gets three shots? Didn't UCLA have their chance to have a better resume by winning some of those games they lost?
Click to expand...
I never said UCLA's losses were to average teams. You did.

Did UCLA lose to a team that's in the conference playoff? No. Did Wisconsin? Yes.

In this scenario, UCLA played a tougher schedule, while Wisconsin had an inflated record/ranking due to playing weak teams.

The whole point is to eliminate rematches and whittle down the pool.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
2011 Bama beat PSU(9-4) Auburn(8-5) Arkansas (11-2). It lost 6-9 to LSU(13-0).

2011 OkieState beat OU(10-3) KSU(10-3) Baylor(10-3). It lost to ISU(6-7) 31-37 2OT

Now take away preconceived notion of rankings, factor in Okies conference title and who would you pick?

 
2011:

LSU (SEC) - 13-1

Alabama - 12-1

OK St. (XII) - 12-1

Stanford - 12-1

Oregon (Pac) - 12-2

Wisconsin (B1G) - 11-2

Clemson (ACC) - 10-3

Alabama's only loss: LSU by 3 in OT. Stanford's only loss to Oregon. Wisconsin loses to 10-3 MSU and 6-6 tOSU. Clemson loses to 8-4 GT, 7-5 NC St. and 10-2 SCar.

Not very far off by itself and if you swap the 2012 B1G season for 2011 you're right there.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mavric said:
2011:

LSU (SEC) - 13-1

Alabama - 12-1

OK St. (XII) - 12-1

Stanford - 12-1

Oregon (Pac) - 12-2

Wisconsin (B1G) - 11-2

Clemson (ACC) - 10-3

Alabama's only loss: LSU by 3 in OT. Stanford's only loss to Oregon. Wisconsin loses to 10-3 MSU and 6-6 tOSU. Clemson loses to 8-4 GT, 7-5 NC St. and 10-2 SCar.

Not very far off by itself and if you swap the 2012 B1G season for 2011 you're right there.
Click to expand...
I see 4 conference winners with 11 or 12 wins.... not 8 or 9 wins and 4 losses.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top