SEC Still Best Football Conference in America!

[TheCusian]

Its not perfect but how do you then determine preseason rankings effectively if you wish to just start throwing any of that data out the window? Go ahead and give me your top 25 for next year and your metrics for doing so then I'll take the time to tear them apart. There is no perfect way to do it ... but give me your top 25.

The preseason rankings don't matter at all in the playoff era. There is a reason why they wait to do any official committee rankings until half way through the season.

I can tell you this - if an SEC team's rep is built by losing bowl games, beating Eastern Utah State, and winning in conference against other teams that haven't beat anyone - they should be penalized and not given anything. Play on the field matters (thankfully) in the playoff era and they need to step up. If you're the best, play the best. The end.

 

[wfschrec]

The preseason rankings don't matter at all in the playoff era. There is a reason why they wait to do any official committee rankings until half way through the season.

I can tell you this - if an SEC team's rep is built by losing bowl games, beating Eastern Utah State, and winning in conference against other teams that haven't beat anyone - they should be penalized and not given anything. Play on the field matters (thankfully) in the playoff era and they need to step up. If you're the best, play the best. The end.

They absolutely matter .. do you even watch college football?

 

[TheCusian]

They absolutely matter .. do you even watch college football?

In what way? For hyping a game and getting fans riled up, sure. In the post BCS era they've been put back in their place.

 

[Timonen]

They could look at what the teams have actually done this year, rather than counting NFL players. That's where the SEC's scheduling practices allow them to remain a mystery, which produces the type of analysis you are advocating. Maybe if we stopped doing that, they might change their scheduling practices.

I will again push back on the notion that their scheduling practice is any different from any other conference, with a mix of those who schedule tough games and those who schedule patsies. Lsu played Wisconsin. Bama played wvu. Florida played Florida st. Georgia played Clemson and g tech. South carolina played Clemson. Auburn played Kansas st. Tenny played Oregon. Ole miss played texas last year and Boise this year. These are the top teams and they all schedule a tough out of conference game! Texas am and mizzou have bad schedules and I wonder if that's on purpose as they acclimate to the tougher conference. Explain to me the problem here?!?! Look at ohio st, tcu and Baylor. None have tougher ooc schedules than any of these teams. Doesn't that comparison to highly ranked peers matter?

 

[wfschrec]

I will again push back on the notion that their scheduling practice is any different from any other conference, with a mix of those who schedule tough games and those who schedule patsies. Lsu played Wisconsin. Bama played wvu. Florida played Florida st. Georgia played Clemson and g tech. South carolina played Clemson. Auburn played Kansas st. Tenny played Oregon. Ole miss played texas last year and Boise this year. These are the top teams and they all schedule a tough out of conference game! Texas am and mizzou have bad schedules and I wonder if that's on purpose as they acclimate to the tougher conference. Explain to me the problem here?!?! Look at ohio st, tcu and Baylor. None have tougher ooc schedules than any of these teams. Doesn't that comparison to highly ranked peers matter?

Its hard for some to really sit and look at things without bias ... truly it is.

 

[wfschrec]

In what way? For hyping a game and getting fans riled up, sure. In the post BCS era they've been put back in their place.

Do I really ... really have to explain this to you? When ranked highly in a preseason poll and certain victories are obtained it can give a team an inside track on the playoff spot ... contrary to what you think preseason polls drive a lot of decisions on where to seed teams heading into the playoffs and gives weight to certain early season victories that might not be as valuable near seasons end.

This really isn't a difficult concept to grasp and is probably something that cost TCU since they were unranked and had to fight and climb into the playoff picture ... had they been ranked in the top 5 at the start of the season I would guarantee you they would have been in ahead of OSU because they would be constantly dissected and watched and talked about. You really need to step back from a rather jaded view and look at things objectively. FWIW a UF team that went 6-6 and struggled in the SEC east just beat the best team in NC ... a team that made a living beating ACC teams ... but you probably aren't aware of that either. ECU beat UNC and VT ... must mean UF is better than OSU right? ECU > VT > OSU ... its idiotic the games people play without looking at the big picture.

So again give me your top 25 for next year ...

 

[SWC75]

Do I really ... really have to explain this to you? When ranked highly in a preseason poll and certain victories are obtained it can give a team an inside track on the playoff spot ... contrary to what you think preseason polls drive a lot of decisions on where to seed teams heading into the playoffs and gives weight to certain early season victories that might not be as valuable near seasons end.

This really isn't a difficult concept to grasp and is probably something that cost TCU since they were unranked and had to fight and climb into the playoff picture ... had they been ranked in the top 5 at the start of the season I would guarantee you they would have been in ahead of OSU because they would be constantly dissected and watched and talked about. You really need to step back from a rather jaded view and look at things objectively. FWIW a UF team that went 6-6 and struggled in the SEC east just beat the best team in NC ... a team that made a living beating ACC teams ... but you probably aren't aware of that either. ECU beat UNC and VT ... must mean UF is better than OSU right? ECU > VT > OSU ... its idiotic the games people play without looking at the big picture.

So again give me your top 25 for next year ...

The committee's constant shuffling of their rankings had little to do with pre-season polls.

 

[wfschrec]

The committee's constant shuffling of their rankings had little to do with pre-season polls.

The preseason polls immediately feed into perception of the strength of wins .. that is a fact.

 

[bcubs9497]

Preseason polls; that's the problem. I absolutely hate the fact that there are a lot of pontificating geeks determining, via their "expertise", how things shake out. As far as I'm concerned, the whole playoff/bowl thing is an entertaining sham, and will continue to be so, until the pencil-necks get the !@#$ out of the way.

That happens with a playoff system comprised of conference champions and a few wild card teams.

 

[SWC75]

The preseason polls immediately feed into perception of the strength of wins .. that is a fact.

Not as much as the polls that follow actual results.

 

[wfschrec]

Not as much as the polls that follow actual results.

And again prime example ... Texas A&M vaulted in the rankings after beating SC in week 1 ... they then would lose to the Ole Miss/Miss St clubs inherently propping up their SOS ... the preseason poll serves as a foundation to this ... that is the first wag to determine who has an inside track on the playoffs and why it will be very difficult for a team like TCU to start unranked and make it .. they will spend time fighting and clawing to climb in the rankings while many teams who may or may not be as good merely need to win to hold their spots for all intents and purposes ... you fail to see the point. These things all feed into which teams deserve to be in ... there are 120+ teams to evaluate, the polls from preseason on are huge in this system whether you like it that way or not.

 

[SWC75]

And again prime example ... Texas A&M vaulted in the rankings after beating SC in week 1 ... they then would lose to the Ole Miss/Miss St clubs inherently propping up their SOS ... the preseason poll serves as a foundation to this ... that is the first wag to determine who has an inside track on the playoffs and why it will be very difficult for a team like TCU to start unranked and make it .. they will spend time fighting and clawing to climb in the rankings while many teams who may or may not be as good merely need to win to hold their spots for all intents and purposes ... you fail to see the point. These things all feed into which teams deserve to be in ... there are 120+ teams to evaluate, the polls from preseason on are huge in this system whether you like it that way or not.

In other words it's about 10% the preseason rankings and 90% what happened after that.

Here's the preseason Top 25:
http://espn.go.com/college-football/rankings/_/week/1

Here's the first Top 25 from the committee:
http://espn.go.com/college-football/rankings/_/week/10

Here's the final Top 25 from the committee:
http://espn.go.com/college-football/rankings/_/week/16

Flordia State, Alabama and Oregon remained high in the standings and made the playoff because they kept winning. Oklahoma did not and they were gone by the first Committee Top 25. Ohio State dropped 11 spots but came back to make the playoff based on their great run at the end. Auburn was still highly ranked with the first Committee poll but had dropped to #19 by the final one. UCLA dropped then came back a bit. Michigan State was #8 in all three polls. South Carolina disappeared. Baylor dropped and came back up to almost make the playoff. Stanford dropped out. Georgia remained about the same LSU dropped steadily. Wiscosnin dropped out and then reappeared. USC dropped out and then reappeared at #24. Clemson remained about the same. Notre Dame dropped out. Mississippi rose from #18 to #4, then dropped to #9 and got blown out by TCU in the bowl game. Arizona State remained about the same. Kansas State moved up from 20 to 9 to 11. Texas A&M was ranked before they played South Carolina but dropped out. Nebraska rose, then dropped out. North Carolina dropped out. Missouri dropped out and then reappeared to #16. Washington dropped out. TCU, Mississippi State, Arizona, Georgia Tech, Boise State, Louisville, Utah and Minnesota we all absent from the pre-season poll but made the final poll.

Yes, it can help to be highly ranked in the pre-season poll. But you've still got to win after that.

 

[wfschrec]

In other words it's about 10% the preseason rankings and 90% what happened after that.

Here's the preseason Top 25:
http://espn.go.com/college-football/rankings/_/week/1

Here's the first Top 25 from the committee:
http://espn.go.com/college-football/rankings/_/week/10

Here's the final Top 25 from the committee:
http://espn.go.com/college-football/rankings/_/week/16

Flordia State, Alabama and Oregon remained high in the standings and made the playoff because they kept winning. Oklahoma did not and they were gone by the first Committee Top 25. Ohio State dropped 11 spots but came back to make the playoff based on their great run at the end. Auburn was still highly ranked with the first Committee poll but had dropped to #19 by the final one. UCLA dropped then came back a bit. Michigan State was #8 in all three polls. South Carolina disappeared. Baylor dropped and came back up to almost make the playoff. Stanford dropped out. Georgia remained about the same LSU dropped steadily. Wiscosnin dropped out and then reappeared. USC dropped out and then reappeared at #24. Clemson remained about the same. Notre Dame dropped out. Mississippi rose from #18 to #4, then dropped to #9 and got blown out by TCU in the bowl game. Arizona State remained about the same. Kansas State moved up from 20 to 9 to 11. Texas A&M was ranked before they played South Carolina but dropped out. Nebraska rose, then dropped out. North Carolina dropped out. Missouri dropped out and then reappeared to #16. Washington dropped out. TCU, Mississippi State, Arizona, Georgia Tech, Boise State, Louisville, Utah and Minnesota we all absent from the pre-season poll but made the final poll.

Yes, it can help to be highly ranked in the pre-season poll. But you've still got to win after that.

Again you miss the point ... you do have to win .. but if you have others winning along with you and you aren't ranked high to begin with you can be at a clear disadvantage. Anyone who thinks it isn't important is naive at best.

 

[wfschrec]

In other words it's about 10% the preseason rankings and 90% what happened after that.

Here's the preseason Top 25:
http://espn.go.com/college-football/rankings/_/week/1

Here's the first Top 25 from the committee:
http://espn.go.com/college-football/rankings/_/week/10

Here's the final Top 25 from the committee:
http://espn.go.com/college-football/rankings/_/week/16

Flordia State, Alabama and Oregon remained high in the standings and made the playoff because they kept winning. Oklahoma did not and they were gone by the first Committee Top 25. Ohio State dropped 11 spots but came back to make the playoff based on their great run at the end. Auburn was still highly ranked with the first Committee poll but had dropped to #19 by the final one. UCLA dropped then came back a bit. Michigan State was #8 in all three polls. South Carolina disappeared. Baylor dropped and came back up to almost make the playoff. Stanford dropped out. Georgia remained about the same LSU dropped steadily. Wiscosnin dropped out and then reappeared. USC dropped out and then reappeared at #24. Clemson remained about the same. Notre Dame dropped out. Mississippi rose from #18 to #4, then dropped to #9 and got blown out by TCU in the bowl game. Arizona State remained about the same. Kansas State moved up from 20 to 9 to 11. Texas A&M was ranked before they played South Carolina but dropped out. Nebraska rose, then dropped out. North Carolina dropped out. Missouri dropped out and then reappeared to #16. Washington dropped out. TCU, Mississippi State, Arizona, Georgia Tech, Boise State, Louisville, Utah and Minnesota we all absent from the pre-season poll but made the final poll.

Yes, it can help to be highly ranked in the pre-season poll. But you've still got to win after that.

Yep and the polls play an extremely important part in differentiating between a gaggle of teams with the same records .. all those 1 loss teams .. and the perception of those teams starts before the season even starts.

 

[SWC75]

Yep and the polls play an extremely important part in differentiating between a gaggle of teams with the same records .. all those 1 loss teams .. and the perception of those teams starts before the season even starts.

But how many of the teams in the final poll are ranked where they are because of the pre-season poll? Would Oregon and Ohio State not be in the final if they weren't ranked that high at the beginning? Ohio State lost their high ranking and regained it during the season. Oregon retained theirs because they won. They wound up in the same place because they kept winning. TCU almost wound up there after starting out unranked, because they kept winning.

My point was that the final ranking is at least 90% based on what happened during the season and that statement is obviously correct.

 

[wfschrec]

But how many of the teams in the final poll are ranked where they are because of the pre-season poll? Would Oregon and Ohio State not be in the final if they weren't ranked that high at the beginning? Ohio State lost their high ranking and regained it during the season. Oregon retained theirs because they won. They wound up in the same place because they kept winning. TCU almost wound up there after starting out unranked, because they kept winning.

My point was that the final ranking is at least 90% based on what happened during the season and that statement is obviously correct.

My point continues to go over your head ... the perception of the preseason poll and how good OSU is vs the perception of how good TCU is and what their respective SOSes are is what drives this whole thing ... that starts with a preseason poll. All 120 teams don't play each other ... they have an SOS that is contrived from rankings since you can't have a round robin scheme. These rankings form their foundation in the pre season poll. This poll gives a lot of weight to future calculations ... i.e. wins over a top 5, top 10 etc which are obviously much better than a win over a team that is unranked. Even though the rankings adjust as they should those wins are still held in high regard based on the PRESEASON POLL ... per my A&M reference. Who was given a lot of latitude in the polls because of a win over a top 10 program. This is not rocket science ... even then a team might lose and drop out of the top 10 for a loss ... but at that point in time they were highly ranked and therefore the win is held in high regard ... how many times when reviewing a schedule and they talk about wins vs ranked foes do they say ... oh so and so beat the #5 team in the country but since they aren't #5 anymore that win is less important ... NO ONE. It still holds significant weight throughout the season.

 

[TheCusian]

The preseason polls immediately feed into perception of the strength of wins .. that is a fact.

You're applying the way things worked previously to how they will work in they playoff era. You may be right - but that would cut against everything the committee has stated publicly and has shown by the shuffling of teams during this first season.

The preseason polls mean nothing in the playoff era. As it should be. Losing their influence and playing things out on the field is exactly why I cared about games not involving Syracuse in the first time for a long time.

All conferences should schedule according to winning games against good OOC teams to bolster both team and conference strength.

TCU didn't get in because they didn't have a conference title game (so they are down a quality game vs a good team).

Go ahead and cling to the old way if you want. But in the new era, you schedule good teams to show how good you are - and you stop relying on the past and meaningless metrics from previous seasons.

 

[TheCusian]

Preseason polls; that's the problem. I absolutely hate the fact that there are a lot of pontificating geeks determining, via their "expertise", how things shake out. As far as I'm concerned, the whole playoff/bowl thing is an entertaining sham, and will continue to be so, until the pencil-necks get the !@#$ out of the way. That happens with a playoff system comprised of conference champions and a few wild card teams.

Could not agree more. College Football - where you play your meaningless exhibition games at the end of the season.

 

[TheCusian]

Again you miss the point ... you do have to win .. but if you have others winning along with you and you aren't ranked high to begin with you can be at a clear disadvantage. Anyone who thinks it isn't important is naive at best, in 2013.

Fixed.

 

[wfschrec]

You're applying the way things worked previously to how they will work in they playoff era. You may be right - but that would cut against everything the committee has stated publicly and has shown by the shuffling of teams during this first season.

The preseason polls mean nothing in the playoff era. As it should be. Losing their influence and playing things out on the field is exactly why I cared about games not involving Syracuse in the first time for a long time.

All conferences should schedule according to winning games against good OOC teams to bolster both team and conference strength.

TCU didn't get in because they didn't have a conference title game (so they are down a quality game vs a good team).

Go ahead and cling to the old way if you want. But in the new era, you schedule good teams to show how good you are - and you stop relying on the past and meaningless metrics from previous seasons.

I'm not clinging to anything ... you do realize that many scheduling agreements are done years in advance right? When Alabama scheduled teams like Va Tech, WVU, PSU or Michigan its assumed they will be good simply because of name but how did that all work out? You CANNOT have a good system where you are trying to evaluate 120 teams against each other without some form of a measuring stick.

Adding that extra game for TCU wouldn't have made enough of a difference in the rankings their SOS wouldn't have been high enough to move them ahead of OSU, Bama or FSU ... hmmm how do they determine SOS again? It was explicitly stated that SOS is a strong criteria in considering candidates .. how is that done again? The system isn't perfect and I don't like the way it is now .. nor am I advocating it stays that way .. but your myopic view of these things not having any impact is silly at best.

Its the same thing as all the Rutgers crap ... we bash their schedule (deservedly so) and then they puff out their chests because they play big bad Arkansas of the SEC .. turns out Arkansas nose dives and has god awful seasons the years they play RU ... but when the game was originally scheduled it was a big deal to RU. And if you wish to ignore previous seasons than all schools should be treated as equals and not one single win should carry more weight than any other since we can just casually throw everything prior to the season out the window right? That means a win over lets say Wake Forest is equal to a win over Alabama ... are you friggin kidding me?

 

[TheCusian]

I'm not clinging to anything ... you do realize that many scheduling agreements are done years in advance right? When Alabama scheduled teams like Va Tech, WVU, PSU or Michigan its assumed they will be good simply because of name but how did that all work out? You CANNOT have a good system where you are trying to evaluate 120 teams against each other without some form of a measuring stick.

Adding that extra game for TCU wouldn't have made enough of a difference in the rankings their SOS wouldn't have been high enough to move them ahead of OSU, Bama or FSU ... hmmm how do they determine SOS again? It was explicitly stated that SOS is a strong criteria in considering candidates .. how is that done again? The system isn't perfect and I don't like the way it is now .. nor am I advocating it stays that way .. but your myopic view of these things not having any impact is silly at best.

Its the same thing as all the Rutgers crap ... we bash their schedule (deservedly so) and then they puff out their chests because they play big bad Arkansas of the SEC .. turns out Arkansas nose dives and has god awful seasons the years they play RU ... but when the game was originally scheduled it was a big deal to RU. And if you wish to ignore previous seasons than all schools should be treated as equals and not one single win should carry more weight than any other since we can just casually throw everything prior to the season out the window right? That means a win over lets say Wake Forest is equal to a win over Alabama ... are you friggin kidding me?

Alabama didn't play any of the teams you mentioned except WVU this season. And they won and get the "rewards" from that win. They also played: Western Carolina, Florida Atlantic, and Southern Miss (presumably years in advance - maybe they thought Western Carolina would be a national player by then?!).

Adding an extra game for TCU vs Baylor (thier only loss) would have kept OSU out, IMO.

A Rutgers example? You are right they are crap... Anyways... the polls vs committee will be much like the current basketball model - where there is time to self correct by the committee (something they did a lot of). In your previous example, A&M got credit with the polls for a win over South Carolina - when Carolina started to show that they were not a very good team - A&M should have slid back in the polls. But historically, well known teams tend to cling to the top longer (and the SEC bias is real and documented). The committee has no such issues - mainly because they have rules and guidelines that they use, they talk them out, and have more consistent data to pull from than your random AP voter. Luckily A&M slid because they lost. But on the whole - the committee is more nimble than the AP. If the process is worked out how it's laid out - we should see the committee favoring teams that schedule and win tougher OOC schedules than what the SEC has grown accustomed to. This is a great thing for the sport.

I've never said you erase all the prior years data, only that it's rendered much, much less meaningful by the committee. That's a good thing. I'd suggest that minimizing polls of independent voters with varying and vague criteria is probably the second best thing to come out of the new system (the actual playoff games being 1st).

 

[SWC75]

My point continues to go over your head ... the perception of the preseason poll and how good OSU is vs the perception of how good TCU is and what their respective SOSes are is what drives this whole thing ... that starts with a preseason poll. All 120 teams don't play each other ... they have an SOS that is contrived from rankings since you can't have a round robin scheme. These rankings form their foundation in the pre season poll. This poll gives a lot of weight to future calculations ... i.e. wins over a top 5, top 10 etc which are obviously much better than a win over a team that is unranked. Even though the rankings adjust as they should those wins are still held in high regard based on the PRESEASON POLL ... per my A&M reference. Who was given a lot of latitude in the polls because of a win over a top 10 program. This is not rocket science ... even then a team might lose and drop out of the top 10 for a loss ... but at that point in time they were highly ranked and therefore the win is held in high regard ... how many times when reviewing a schedule and they talk about wins vs ranked foes do they say ... oh so and so beat the #5 team in the country but since they aren't #5 anymore that win is less important ... NO ONE. It still holds significant weight throughout the season.

But by the time the Committee meets their perceptions of a team's wins and losses is based on how those opponents have done to that point in the season, not what they were presumed to be in a pre-season poll. And then the committee showed a willingness to change their standings from week to week based not just on wins and losses but how impressive or unimpressive that team looked in the previous week's games. The preseason poll is a fossil by the time the committee starts voting.

 

[wfschrec]

But by the time the Committee meets their perceptions of a team's wins and losses is based on how those opponents have done to that point in the season, not what they were presumed to be in a pre-season poll. And then the committee showed a willingness to change their standings from week to week based not just on wins and losses but how impressive or unimpressive that team looked in the previous week's games. The preseason poll is a fossil by the time the committee starts voting.

If that were the case Alabama would not have finished the season ranked #1 ...

 

[wfschrec]

Alabama didn't play any of the teams you mentioned except WVU this season. And they won and get the "rewards" from that win. They also played: Western Carolina, Florida Atlantic, and Southern Miss (presumably years in advance - maybe they thought Western Carolina would be a national player by then?!).

Adding an extra game for TCU vs Baylor (thier only loss) would have kept OSU out, IMO.

A Rutgers example? You are right they are crap... Anyways... the polls vs committee will be much like the current basketball model - where there is time to self correct by the committee (something they did a lot of). In your previous example, A&M got credit with the polls for a win over South Carolina - when Carolina started to show that they were not a very good team - A&M should have slid back in the polls. But historically, well known teams tend to cling to the top longer (and the SEC bias is real and documented). The committee has no such issues - mainly because they have rules and guidelines that they use, they talk them out, and have more consistent data to pull from than your random AP voter. Luckily A&M slid because they lost. But on the whole - the committee is more nimble than the AP. If the process is worked out how it's laid out - we should see the committee favoring teams that schedule and win tougher OOC schedules than what the SEC has grown accustomed to. This is a great thing for the sport.

I've never said you erase all the prior years data, only that it's rendered much, much less meaningful by the committee. That's a good thing. I'd suggest that minimizing polls of independent voters with varying and vague criteria is probably the second best thing to come out of the new system (the actual playoff games being 1st).

Again nimble is not the issue ... it is the perception created from the preseason moving forward. You can call the SEC bias or favoritism but the fact is they dominate OOC games .. Bowl games and every other statistic out there just about every season, this season was not the case but look at history on the whole. If the committee favored teams that scheduled stronger then how is that strength determined ... here is an answer for you ... the polls ... and it starts in the preseason ... they have a precanned notion of who is strong and who is not. That perception does shift but it is built before week 1, how else is strength of schedule determined? I don't see the committee calling any of us for "unbiased analysis". Good lord this makes my head hurt ... YOU CANNOT DO AWAY WITH THE POLLS OR THEIR IMPACT.

 

[wfschrec]

But by the time the Committee meets their perceptions of a team's wins and losses is based on how those opponents have done to that point in the season, not what they were presumed to be in a pre-season poll. And then the committee showed a willingness to change their standings from week to week based not just on wins and losses but how impressive or unimpressive that team looked in the previous week's games. The preseason poll is a fossil by the time the committee starts voting.

And again show me an analysis where they look at a team's schedule and tabulate top 5, top 10 and top 25 wins and then throw them out when the team they defeated plummets in the rankings ... IT DOES NOT HAPPEN. A win vs a #6 SC for A&M in week 1 is treated as a win against a top 10 team all year ... and still carries a significant weight ... whether its week 1 or week 8.