College Football III

[Kalbear]

Now, there's a shocking revelation coming from stupidguy.

[boiled leather]

You certainly didn't double-check your research. You missed three more Notre Dame games (wins for Stanford and USC and a loss by WSU).

Let's split both conferences in half.

The top half of the Pac 10 (UofO, OSU, Cal, USC, Furd) went 6-3 (counting BCS wins and all losses).

The bottom half (Arizona, UW, UCLA, ASU, WSU) went 2-5 (same).

The Pac 10 played a total of 14 NC games against BCS opponents, plus one more against a top 10 caliber non-BCS team (we'll ignore Oregon's win over Utah for now - though the Utes are ranked in the BCS). Now for the killer diller stat. NINE of those games were on the road (10 of the 15). Yep, NINE. Every single Pac 10 team save the Oregons played a non-conference road game against a BCS opponent. And both of the squads from the Beaver state went on road games to non-BCS teams - Boise State in the case of Oregon and UNLV (not so good) in the case of the OSU. 8-7 is not at all a bad record when shared across the conference and accounting for 10 of 15 on the road.

Arizona went to Iowa

Arizona State went to Georgia

California went to Minnesota

Stanford went to Wake Forest

UCLA went to Tennessee

USC went to Ohio State AND Notre Dame

Washington went to Notre Dame

Washington State went to Notre Dame

SEC comparison post to follow.

Doesn't Cal playing home and home against Maryland count?

[Arakasi]

Heh yeah although Maryland is crappy this year They weren't though when the schedule was made.

Stupidguy is stupid for sure, but the SE is probably the biggest region for football recruiting. Texas is huge of course as well (and so is California), but they are dwarfed still by the SE states. There tends to be a shocking correlation between where players play in high school and where they play in college. Surprising I know. But then against the SE has two whole conferences there (all the SEC, over half the ACC, half the Big East, plus significant number of teams from the C-USA) while there are less teams out west of the Mississippi.

[Rhom]

The SEC is given "special treatment" because they should ALWAYS have the better teams for one simple fact that everyone is ignoring: the population.

The majority of african americans live in the south. This means that there are a lot of black men in the south (40 % of the general population compared with 20 % nationwide). This means that college athletic teams have an advantage in regards to accessing the superior athletes. Most people figure that teams that are more likely to get the top athletes are more likely to be good.

:stunned:

[TheHoundRules]

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4707194

Richt finally cans Martinez and 2 others. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

[Black Dow]

I get 9-6 for the SEC, not 9-4. You said you would count the losses to non-BCS teams but didn't.

Florida, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, LSU, Mississippi (5-2)

South Carolina, Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Arkansas, Auburn, Missisippi State (4-4)

Florida beat Florida State

Tennessee lost to UCLA

Georgia beat Arizona State and at Georgia Tech and lost at Okie State

Alabama beat Virginia Tech on a neutral field

LSU won at Washington

Mississippi DNP

South Carolina won at NC State and beat Clemson

Kentucky DNP

Vanderbilt lost at Army and to Georgia Tech

Arkansas won at Texas A&M

Auburn beat West Virginia

Mississippi State lost to Georgia Tech and Houston

Let's count the road games here. I see 2 for Georgia, one for LSU, One for South Carolina, and one each for Vandy and Arkansas. Five road games vs. BCS opponents (plus a trip to Army for Vandy). And Alabama's neutral site game (generously called so as it was much closer to Bama than VTech). Of those five, one was played in the team's home state and two others in adjoining states (not much of a travel issue). Only one flight exceeded 1000 miles

And nine of those games were SEC home games and one a neutral site game. Only five true road games. And three of the five right nearby. None of the long travel you see on the Pac 10 list - save the one trip to Husky Stadium.

That was sloppy typing on my part. I had meant to count OOC games against BCS conference schools. With that, the SEC was 9-4. If I had counted games against OOC non-BCS schools as well, there would indeed have been six losses but probably at least 30 wins. I wasn't even looking at wins against non-BCS OOC teams, because for the most part, they aren't going to tell you much of anything (obviously, a win against, for example, Utah, could tell you quite a bit but that's an exception). I mentioned the losses to non-BCS conference teams because at that's more relevant, since the losses are going to be much fewer than the wins. A SEC victory over Army means jack but a loss to Army is fairly bad.

As far as the distance argument is concerned, it can work both ways for the PAC-10. Yes, a PAC 10 may have a greater disadvantage playing a OOC team on the road due to the distance but that same team will have a corresponding advantage playing the same OOC at home, because in the second instance the OOC is travelling the same distance as the PAC 10 team is travelling in the first.

[Black Dow]

The SEC is given "special treatment" because they should ALWAYS have the better teams for one simple fact that everyone is ignoring: the population.

The majority of african americans live in the south. This means that there are a lot of black men in the south (40 % of the general population compared with 20 % nationwide). This means that college athletic teams have an advantage in regards to accessing the superior athletes. Most people figure that teams that are more likely to get the top athletes are more likely to be good.

Your premise is very questionable (to put it gently) but assuming that it's true, are you then suggesting that the SEC is highly ranked because they, in fact, do have the best athletes, or because the SEC is merely perceived as having the best athletes?

[Kalbear]

I don't really worry about distance these days. It's a longer trip, but it really isn't that special any more. The telling thing is how many games that they play away from home against quality teams, and that's something that the SEC (largely) hasn't been doing as much.

Though honestly? The SEC has nothing to apologize for. They've been very good for a while, and they have teams willing to travel and willing to play good teams from other conferences (Georgia, LSU, Tennessee, Auburn have all done decent profile games).

Who I hate? The Big-12.

[Arakasi]

I would agree with Kal about the Big 12 (and the Big 10 is pretty close too) OU actually plays a pretty respectable schedule, and OSU and Nebraska aren't bad either. But the rest of the conference pads their numbers with creampuffs.

Still Bronn's point stands. Pac 10 has 30 OOC games. SEC has 48 OOC games. It is telling that the Pac 10 plays more BCS teams than the SEC does. Also not all non BCS teams are created equal. The majority of Pac 10 non BCS OOC games are against the MWC, with teams from the WAC and CUSA often popping up. SEC feasts on the Sun Belt and other lesser conferences more often. Compare games played against non Division 1 foes and the SEC comes out way on top there too.

If you compare the quality of teams played it is no competition. I agree with Kal that other than Hawaii most travel games are pretty overrated as difficulty goes. What I do care about is home games versus away games. Pac 10 plays an balanced schedule, the SEC does not (although like Kal said some like the Big 12 are far worse)

When you factor in Bowl records, BCS records, quality of OOC wins, OOC SOS and so on the Pac 10 holds it's own with the SEC. The SEC is rightfully at the top most years, but the Pac 10 as often as not is right with them. The numbers and stats clearly show this. However the media narrative does not look at the results on the field, and the sad fact we have no bowl games between the two isn't helping. What little direct head to head we have does favor the Pac 10 as of late, but the sample is too small to convince any of the diehard faithful.

[Bronn Stone]

As far as the distance argument is concerned, it can work both ways for the PAC-10. Yes, a PAC 10 may have a greater disadvantage playing a OOC team on the road due to the distance but that same team will have a corresponding advantage playing the same OOC at home, because in the second instance the OOC is travelling the same distance as the PAC 10 team is travelling in the first.

Perhaps so. But it really doesn't matter. Because every year the Pac 10 plays the highest percentage of road games against BCS opponents OOC.

The important numbers are these.

The Pac 10 played 120 games total. 104 out of the 120 were against BCS conference opponents (counting ND). 86.6%.

The SEC will play (after Saturday) 145 games total. Only 110 of those were against BCS conference opponents. 75.8%.

More road games per team. More BCS conference games per team. Tougher schedule. The travel is a minor point.

And yes, the Big 12 is much worse.

[Ken Stone]

:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: <------ My impression of PAC 10 fans.

[Kalbear]

Hee.

It doesn't end up mattering; the Pac-10 wins more than it loses against quality teams, the Pac-10 does better in bigger bowl games than almost any other conference does, and they have the most awesomest uniforms in the league.

So there. Pffffbbbt.

[Black Dow]

the Pac-10 does better in bigger bowl games than almost any other conference does

I would give that it does do better than almost any other conference in bigger bowl games; the exception, of course, being the SEC.

[Arakasi]

:cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: :cry: <------ My impression of PAC 10 fans.

Well considering that twice teams who have been absolutely destroyed in Big 12 title games have gone on to play in the national championship instead of a more deserving Pac 10 team we have a right to be annoyed. Big 12 fans have no right to complain. They've been given plenty of chances, just a shame the conference has squandered most of them.

[Arakasi]

I would give that it does do better than almost any other conference in bigger bowl games; the exception, of course, being the SEC.

The Pac 10 I believe is 9-4 in BCS games. The SEC is 12-5. The numbers are about as close to even as they can be.

[Bronn Stone]

One good matchup out of four OOC games is not good enough. There should be at least two per team - one against a powerful opponent and one against a decent one.

The real solution is having non-conference games mostly irrelevant toward the national championship. And here is my proposal to that end. :)

Forget a playoff. A playoff solves nothing. We get the same bullsh** lobbying by the SEC and the Big 12 with a playoff that we get now.

We need *drum roll* a TOURNAMENT OF CHAMPIONS!

Eight teams. The six champions of the six BCS conferences and the highest ranked champion from other conferences. The final slot goes to either the highest ranked qualifying independent (say nine wins vs. FBS teams) or the highest ranked champion from another non BCS conference.

No wild cards. No lobbying (except by the minors). No nothing.

You can even keep the bowl structure. The Pac 10 and Big 10 can be tied to the Rose Bowl. The SEC to the Sugar, the ACC to the Orange and the Big 12 to the Fiesta. The Big East, the TROC (top ranked other champion) and the HRCI (Highest remaining champion or Independent) could then rotate through the other three bowls. Semi Final and Final games would be in three separate regions - Southeast, Midwest and West. Stadia would bid to host those games. Each state would be assigned to one region or another and the geography would be fudged a bit to more closely resemble conferences and to account for the desire to play the games in decent weather in January.

Filling out the minor bowls becomes easier because you know that each conference is only going to send one team to the tournament.

[Arakasi]

Yeah Bronn that isn't a bad system. Really it is sort of similar to what the original BCS system was when it was only 4 games.

Crazy game last night. So many mistakes by Oregon in the first half to give the lead to the Beavers. Two short fields off turnovers and some missed tackles/penalties. But that was a clutch second half, and we stepped up and stopped Quiz when we needed to. James and Blount carried the second half, and then Masoli in that last drive was clutch with the two fourth down conversions. I was scared of Canfield if Oregon State got the ball back. Thankfully they never did. Now on to OSU part 3 in the Rose Bowl. (4th time in the last 13 months we've played an OSU :P )

[Ken Stone]

Well considering that twice teams who have been absolutely destroyed in Big 12 title games have gone on to play in the national championship instead of a more deserving Pac 10 team we have a right to be annoyed. Big 12 fans have no right to complain. They've been given plenty of chances, just a shame the conference has squandered most of them.

First off there aren't any Big 12 fans complaining.

Second off there isn't one example of a Big 12 team who was destroyed in the title game going on to play in the NC game.

Your post is full of fail. Just like your conference. :p

[Ken Stone]

One good matchup out of four OOC games is not good enough. There should be at least two per team - one against a powerful opponent and one against a decent one.

The real solution is having non-conference games mostly irrelevant toward the national championship. And here is my proposal to that end. :)

Forget a playoff. A playoff solves nothing. We get the same bullsh** lobbying by the SEC and the Big 12 with a playoff that we get now.

We need *drum roll* a TOURNAMENT OF CHAMPIONS!

Eight teams. The six champions of the six BCS conferences and the highest ranked champion from other conferences. The final slot goes to either the highest ranked qualifying independent (say nine wins vs. FBS teams) or the highest ranked champion from another non BCS conference.

No wild cards. No lobbying (except by the minors). No nothing.

You can even keep the bowl structure. The Pac 10 and Big 10 can be tied to the Rose Bowl. The SEC to the Sugar, the ACC to the Orange and the Big 12 to the Fiesta. The Big East, the TROC (top ranked other champion) and the HRCI (Highest remaining champion or Independent) could then rotate through the other three bowls. Semi Final and Final games would be in three separate regions - Southeast, Midwest and West. Stadia would bid to host those games. Each state would be assigned to one region or another and the geography would be fudged a bit to more closely resemble conferences and to account for the desire to play the games in decent weather in January.

Filling out the minor bowls becomes easier because you know that each conference is only going to send one team to the tournament.

This has always been my favorite solution. Settle it on the field instead of opinion polls.

[Arakasi]

Second off there isn't one example of a Big 12 team who was destroyed in the title game going on to play in the NC game.

Your post is full of fail. Just like your conference. :p

Oklahoma lost 35-7 to Kansas State in 2003. They went to the title game in front of USC, who was number 1 in both polls.

Your Nebraska team got slaughtered by Colorado in the not even Big 12 title game. Oh yeah your team went to the title game and couldn't even get to your own conference's title game. Miami then punked the Cornhuskers and Oregon slaughtered Colorado.

For a pretty smart guy Ken you're making some stupid posts lately. Your conference sucks, you don't play anyone, and when you do play teams OOC you lose. What was your best OOC win this year? Illinois? Lol.