Re: Thoughts on Wisconsin/MSU ending.
posted at 10/26/2011 6:33 PM EDT
In Response to Re: Thoughts on Wisconsin/MSU ending.
[QUOTE]My Criteria haven't changed, my criteria is how has the SEC fared in bowl games. The past 2 years I think they are 2 games over .500. You are the one who points to "unfair" matchups and calls 6th place ACC teams 3rd place ACC teams. I like your graph, but it doesn't change the fact that the top 8 Big Ten teams are .500 against the SEC in the past 12 years of bowl games. The MWC and Big East actually have a better winning % to the SEC, and the Pac 10 boasts some impressive numbers as well. How is it "curious" that the SEC keeps winning "national titles"? On June 1st the BCS championship game is SEC 1 vs ______. When you get a bye into the championship, you have a %50 chance of winning. It is not like Bama or Auburn ran away with either of the last 2 title games but it is unthinkable to suggest to an SEC fan that if they actually had to play 3 play-off games someone might knock them off. I have illuminated you. I don't think any conference really has a "tougher" schedule than the rest. As shown by the fact that a team like Pittsburgh beat Kentucky by 2 TD's more than eventual national champion Auburn. Auburn played 2 real teams outside the SEC last year, they beat Clemson 27-24 OT at home and beat Oregon 22-19. Sorry, nothing about that screams dominating. I said from the get go, that at the top (LSU, Bama) the SEC is the best conference but the notion that it is any more of "grind" than any other conference is baseless. Bama had a much tougher time with Penn St., maybe the 4th-6th best team in the big ten than they've had with anyone on the conference schedule. Who else is part of this grind that is unfound in other conferences? KSU plays its next four games against OU, OSU, A&M, UT. 4 ranked opponents. After Michigan St. plays @ Nebraska they will have played 4 straight ranked Big Ten teams. Every conference has tough schedules.
Posted by Thesemenarecowards[/QUOTE]
And yet they keep winning. Curious again. A 50/50 crapshoot, like you are saying it is, would suggest that one of the BIG-10 teams they faced in that span would have a 50/50 chance of knocking them off?
Funny how the coin keeps coming up heads ... isn't it?
Your argument is full of hollow claims (claiming that everyone plays an equally tough schedule), and cherry-picked inconsequential evidence (singling out upsets like the Georgia game that are statistical anomalies), ignoring your own criterion once it is exposed (record in bowl games), and then most critically, backtracking and using the very ranking system you are decrying as false to support your hollow claims (the BIG10's 'ranked' schedule).
Every conference has tough schedules... the SEC has the toughest schedule. We know this because SEC teams beat teams outside of their conference more consistently than they lose to other teams outside of their conference, and most frequently are doing so against top-notch competition from other conferences, not winning gimme podunk, non-BCS bowls to fatten their record. Unless you would disagree and offer another conference as having a tougher schedule?
I've backed my assertion that the SEC is the best major conference in bowl games. The BIG10 is overrated. You can't say that rankings are nonsensical then come back and talk about the 'ranked teams' on the BIG10 schedule making it tough.
If the rankings 'favored' the SEC the SEC wouldn't so consistently deliver. No go cherry pick random bowl games all you want. They don't really help your case. Here is the trend -- 2000-2010
BOWLS BCS Vs. RANKED
BIG10 (77) 31-46 (.400) (19) 7-12 (.368) (43) 18-25 (.418)
SEC 53-36 (.595) (17) 13-4 (.768) (55) 36-19 (.654)
And the only other major conference that has a winning record vs ranked teams is the PAC-10 sporting a 18-16 (.529) record in that span.
The BIG EAST, losing, the ACC, losing, the BIG12, losing record ... only the MWC is close against ranked teams at 7-4 ... What do those stats tell you? That the SEC, having played the most games vs ranked opponents by far, and having played with the best record easily if you throw out the MWCs small sample ... have essentially dominated ranked teams from other conferences.
How does that data show you that the SEC just wins because they get gimme bowls?
When the BIG10 is getting SERVED almost 60% of the time against ranked teams, in BCS games, AND in bowl games over all, and the SEC wins at a 600 clip in bowl games, .650 clip against ranked teams, and an astonishing .768 against BCS teams suggest the opposite.
They are in fact, ranked where they should be ranked, because they keep winning. Heck, if anything, those stats indicate the SEC is UNDERVALUED as a schedule, because their teams should be drawing tougher competition when they win 65% of the time ranked to ranked.
And before you go off about them being buoyed by their 'top', even without (and I don't know why I would bother doing this stat) the outrageous BCS winning percentage the SEC boasts, they are still 23-15 (.605) against ranked opponents in that span. 60% of the time their third and fourth and fifth best teams are winning against ranked compeition.
The SEC is undervalued. Once the .654 number comes down closer to .500, we'll know they are closer to being properly valued taking as a given that an accurate ranking system over the some hundreds of ranked contests would tend toward equlibirium, each conference hovering around .500 like the PAC10.
As it stands right now ... the SEC is simply taking out the trash on the BIG10, 12, ACC, etc, and the MWC gets to embarras overvalued teams like Wisconsin last season.
Conferences like the BIG10 (who you are whining for in this thread) are essentially done much more favors by the ranking system than the SEC, who earn their ranking by consistently defeating ranked opponents, BCS opponents, bowl opponents, and ranked opponents. If anything, the fact that the BIG10 gets more shots than they actually deserve (surprise surprise) at BCS games and wins much less than the 'rankings' would predict, suggests that they are overvalued against the SEC.
The BIG10 don't play a tough schedule. They play a middle of the pack schedule, padded with teams that are ranked based on reputations from 50 years ago that don't match how they actually perform against other ranked teams over the large sample (not cherry picking one or two games like you do).
Cherry-picking a game and asking why the 'dominant' SEC doesn't win it essentially ignores the overwhelming evidence of the SECs dominance in the NCAA based on actual samples.