NCAA Conference Realignment & Expansion Message Boards

Discussions by Conference:
 
NCAA Map
  It is currently Thu May 25, 2017 11:24 am

Help support CollegeSportsInfo.com by shopping

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: SEC bias
PostPosted: Sun Nov 02, 2014 5:37 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1581
Image

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SEC bias ?
PostPosted: Mon Nov 03, 2014 2:55 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1581
Very interesting...

I didn't start this thread to complain about the Big12's lack of BCS bids or lower rankings (as I've said many times before UT/OU due to their markets/history/national appeal receive their fair share of bias while KSU/OSU have to fight tooth and nail for every scrap of respect). Nor did I intend to complain about Alabama, Auburn or LSU's pedigree (all three are well deserved).

The issue is that A&M, Miss St, Ole Miss, Arky, UGA, SC, TN, UK, Mizzou, Vandy and UF (after Meyer left, they deserved their status while he was there) all unfairly benefit from the "hype" the conference gets.

When a bad Arkansas team takes A&M, Bama, or MSU down to the wire we hear how tough the SEC is and how it was a great quality win, while if that had happened in the Big 12 we hear what a disappointing win it was.

Even in non SEC games like Oregon v Michigan St, we hear about how Michigan ST has an "SEC style defense" or Oregon has "SEC speed" and this game has absolutely nothing to do with the SEC. Talk about a backhanded compliment. Same thin happened when OkSU beat the hell outta Miss St last year in Houston and the announcers talked about how Oklahoma St had a team that would fit right in the SEC and bragged about their SEC style defense while they were beating an SEC team. Same thing happened when OU beat up on Bama in the Sugar Bowl and I remember the announcers saying the FSU beat Auburn because they had more "SEC caliber players."

I can go on and on but its clear to me that there's a bias. I'm NOT saying its a conspiracy due to the SECN or ESPN typing to frame the subject to get the SEC 2 bids or anything like that. But its getting old and I'm glad its becoming a topic of conversation. Maybe then the 2 schools in Arizona that are having a good year despite not doing anything in over a decade or 2 could get even half the amount of air time as the 2 schools in Mississippi that are having a good year despite not doing anything in over a decade or 2.

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SEC bias
PostPosted: Mon Nov 03, 2014 4:23 pm 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman

Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 8:54 am
Posts: 49
TKthunder wrote:
Gemofthehills wrote:
TKthunder wrote:
Gemofthehills wrote:
Exactly which conferences are playing more quality competitors than the SEC?
I'm not a fan of any SEC school but the schedules seem real similar to all the other conferences that would be considered for a playoff spot.

You should read the link I posted in the OP...

Quote:
Games played vs OOC power 5 teams by conference in 2014: B1G=16, ACC=12, B12=10, PAC12=9, SEC=7

I count 11 for the SEC?

That's games played so far this year, they still have 4 ACC rivalry games yet to be played.

The point is that the SEC out of all the conferences have played the least P5 opponents and the SEC West in particular has only played 4. And while yes they won those games schools like Ole Miss, Miss St, and A&M are getting credit for playing nobody.

The Big12, B1G, and ACC will all average at least 1 P5 OOC game per conference member and the PAC12 is only 1 game shy assuming we aren't counting BYU.

Meanwhile the SEC is 3 short of hitting the 1 per team average.

And let's not forget that the PAC12, B1G, and Big12 all play 9 OOC games to the SEC/ACC's 8 meaning that not only is the ACC lagging behind every other conference in P5 OOC opponents but they also lagging behind every conference in terms of total P5 opponents as every conference averages around 10 while the SEC doesn't even hit 9.

Funny that no one in the media ever points this out but people love to say that it's unfair the the Big12 doesn't have a CCG when they're already playing more quality P5 games than the mighty SEC.


I would count a game against BYU (plus some other non P5 teams) as a quality game if you count games against Purdue, Northwestern, Wake Forest, Syracuse, Indiana, Vanderbilt, Washington State, Colorado, Iowa State, Kansas and Texas Tech.

Being P5 doesnt mean you play good football.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SEC bias ?
PostPosted: Mon Nov 03, 2014 6:18 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2013 10:45 am
Posts: 331
I'm reposting this. I'm not sure what happened on my end, but this post was erased.

---------

Relevant or not, here are some numbers I've crunched between 1998-2013 (aka the BCS era)...

Notes: Big East and American are merged as one conference for the purposes of this "study"; this did take a bit of work, but I felt it was worth sharing if it was worth doing

AP Poll Preseason Rankings by Conference - conference at time ranked, not current conference
There were 400 preseason ranking spots over the 16 BCS years (16 years * 25 spots per year = 400 spots)
SEC - 22% (88/400)
B1G - 18.25% (73/400)
XII - 17.25% (69/400)
PAC - 13.5% (54/400)
ACC - 13% (52/400)
BE/AAC - 7.25% (29/400)
MWC - 3.5% (14/400)
Ind. - 2% (8/400)
WAC - 2% (8/400)
CUSA - 1% (4/400)
MAC - 0.25% (1/400)
SBC - 0% (0/400)
Big West - 0% (0/400)

AP Poll Preseason Rankings by School (max = 16)
16 - Ohio St --- every single BCS AP Preseason Poll (impressive, deserved, or...?)
15 - Florida, Florida St, Georgia
14 - LSU, Oklahoma, Texas, USC
13 - Virginia Tech, Wisconsin
12 - Michigan, Nebraska
11 - Tennessee
10 - Oregon
9 - Alabama, Auburn, Miami FL, Penn St, TCU
8 - Notre Dame, West Virginia
7 - Boise St, Clemson, Texas A&M, Kansas St
6 - Arizona St, Louisville
5 - Arkansas, California, Iowa, Michigan St, Oklahoma St, Purdue, South Carolina, UCLA, Virginia, Washington
4 - Georgia Tech, Pittsburgh
3 - Colorado, Colorado St, Maryland, Missouri, North Carolina, Oregon St, Stanford, Texas Tech
2 - Arizona, BYU, Illinois, Kansas, Mississippi, Mississippi St, Northwestern, Southern Miss, Utah
1 - Boston College, Fresno St, Hawaii, Marshall, Minnesota, North Carolina St, Rutgers, South Florida, Syracuse, Wake Forest, Washington St

Schools Appearing with Multiple Conferences
TCU (4) - WAC, CUSA, MWC, XII --- 4 different conferences says a lot more about the football program than any of the conferences
Boise St (2) - WAC, MWC
Colorado St (2) - WAC, MWC
Louisville (2) - CUSA, BE
Miami FL (2) - BE, ACC
Nebraska (2) - XII, B1G
Texas A&M (2) - XII, SEC
Virginia Tech (2) - BE, ACC
West Virginia (2) - BE, XII

Schools and Conferences - BCS At-Larges Bids
I'm not going to describe the rules to be a legitimate and possible BCS At-Large. I did follow all the rules. Only teams passed over are counted for being passed over. If a school was available but a higher-ranked school was selected, the school not selected does not count towards being passed over. Any school qualifying as an Automatic (for any reason) is not counted towards an At-Large.
1998 - At-Large (Ohio St, Florida), Passed Over (Kansas St, Arizona)
1999 - At-Large (Tennessee, Michigan), Passed Over (Kansas St)
2000 - At-Large (Oregon St, Notre Dame), Passed Over (Virginia Tech, Nebraska, Kansas St)
2001 - At-Large (Florida)
2002 - At-Large (Iowa)
2003 - At-Large (Ohio St)
2004 - N/A
2005 - N/A
2006 - At-Large (LSU, Notre Dame)
2007 - At-Large (Georgia, Kansas, Illinois), Passed Over (Missouri, Arizona St)
2008 - At-Large (Alabama, Ohio St), Passed Over (Boise St)
2009 - At-Large (Florida, Boise St, Iowa)
2010 - At-Large (Ohio St, Arkansas)
2011 - At-Large (Virginia Tech, Michigan), Passed Over (Boise St, Kansas St, Baylor)
2012 - At-Large (Oregon)
2013 - At-Large (Ohio St, Oklahoma, Clemson), Passed Over (Oregon)

Schools
Undeserved At-Larges (schools ranked lower than qualified schools passed over): Clemson, Virginia Tech, Illinois, Michigan (2), Ohio St (2), Notre Dame, Oregon St, Florida, Oklahoma, Kansas*
Passed Over (schools qualified but passed over for lower ranked schools): Virginia, Arizona, Arizona St, Oregon, Boise St (2), Baylor, Kansas St (4), Nebraska, Missouri*

Conferences
Undeserved At-Larges: ACC (2), B1G (5), Ind. (1), PAC (1), SEC (1), XII* (2)
Passed Over: BE (1), PAC (3), WAC (2), XII* (7)
*Missouri was ranked higher than Kansas but Kansas received the At-Large for the Orange Bowl (Illinois and Arizona St were ranked lower than both Kansas and Missouri but only either Kansas or Missouri could've been selected)

Most Passed Over: Conference (XII), School (Kansas St)
Most Undeserved At-Large: Conference (B1G), School (Ohio St & Michigan)
Only "perfect" season: 2009 (10 BCS spots filled by BCS ranked school #'s 1-10)
ACC/B1G/SEC never passed over
Boise St - only non-AQ selected for an At-Large and only non-AQ passed over

----------

I see maybe an SEC bias in the AP Preseason Poll (with a slight B1G bias). When it comes to the BCS Bowls I see a B1G bias with a fairly strong XII prejudice.

What do y'all see?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SEC bias ?
PostPosted: Fri Nov 07, 2014 6:32 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 9:56 pm
Posts: 185
Location: Texas
My question was - why was Alabama ranked 4th with their only win against a "quality" non-conference opponent (3 loss West Virginia)? As opposed to say TCU who's only loss was to 1 loss Baylor? This to me ranks of ans SEC bias.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SEC bias ?
PostPosted: Sat Nov 08, 2014 2:03 pm 
Offline
Freshman
Freshman

Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 1:54 pm
Posts: 3
While the SEC is the best conference right now, the bias is still there. I have no doubt that if it comes down choosing teams for the playoffs, a SEC team is going to get the benefit of the doubt vs. any other team.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SEC bias ?
PostPosted: Mon Nov 24, 2014 10:03 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 10:21 pm
Posts: 1037
I think we can have a legitimate discussion about the bias for the SEC without getting into a “homerism” case.

I’m an Atlantic 10 guy, I’m not for one FBS conference over another. I don’t even think college football is DESIGNED to crown a champion. It’s like the post-olympic tour the US gymnastic teams goes on to make money.


I giggle at the argument that:
— The SEC is overrated and there’s a huge bias towards the SEC by the media.
— The SEC is the best football conference, period, bar none.

BOTH ARE TRUE!

The SEC is the best conference. Whomever survives the conference schedule is usually the best in college football.
But that doesn’t mean that the bottom half of the league is better than everyone else in college football.


SEC bias is the by-product of our hyperbole media. Texas A&M waltzed into the SEC from the “inferior” Big 12, and their record was better the first year. The SEC is not as good, top to bottom, as they are made out to be.

But the idea that the SEC isn’t very good because they don’t beat anyone OOC is also ridiculous. No one beats anyone OOC. It’s a dog and pony show in college football.


The backlash against SEC bias is because you see 8 SEC teams in the top 25 and it’s absurd. 1/3 of the Top 25 shouldn’t be SEC teams. They’re not THAT good.

But at the same time, the college football season is basically:
— 3-4 cupcakes in non-conference
- 3-5 cupcakes in conference against the bottom of the league
- 3-4 tough games against good opponents.




And the bigger injustice is that three-loss teams are ranked and UNDEFEATED MARSHALL HAS NO VOTES. NO VOTES. NOT JUST UNRANKED. NO FREAKING VOTES.


Marshall…
- beat Miami OH like Michigan & Cincy did
- beat the crap out of an FCS team like the entire SEC did
- beat Ohio like Kentucky did
- beat Akron like Penn State did (Akron beat Pitt, and beat Pitt by more than Iowa, Duke, UNC, or Virginia)
— beat Old Dominion (by way more than NC State or Vandy did)
- beat Middle Tennessee by more than Minnesota did
- beat FIU by more than Louisville did
- beat FAU, like Alabama and Nebraska did
- beat Southern Miss, by more than Alabama did
- beat Rice, by the same amount Texas A&M did (well, 17 instead of 18)
- beat UAB, like Mississippi State did

_________________
1897-1898 | 1900-06 | 1926-27 | 1929-30 | 1939 | 1942


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SEC bias ?
PostPosted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 12:54 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1581
JP-

Marshall not being ranked in criminal. Period end of story.

The SEC is the most successful football conference of the last decade...no debate.
The SEC's champ should get in the playoff over other conference champs with the same record...no complaint.

The issue is that the SEC and the media are trying to squeeze a 2nd SEC team into the playoffs over 2 conference champs with the same record...major issue.

The SEC is smart. Play a major conference game or 2 early and help some teams (like A&M this year) jump up in the polls quickly while giving the loser team plenty of time to recover from an early season loss...both help boost rankings. Limit inter-conference play (Bama hasn't played SC or UGA in 6 years) both help limit losses and boost end of the year rankings. Play a weak OOC opponent late prior to an OOC rivalry game with the weakest P5 fb conference. Place a majority of teams in bowls that you know that they'll win (see the SEC not wanting A&M to play Texas in the Texas Bowl). Thus all leads to artificially higher rankings and more hype more coverage and obvious bias when every conference win equals a quality win and every conference loss is a quality loss as the games are over hyped. This all lead to more rankings, more coverage, and so on and so on...it feeds itself.

The entire conference get the benefit of what UF, Bama, Aub, and LSU have done. Ole Miss and Miss St are having a good year people say how good they are, but Baylor/TCU have a good year and the story is how this is a down year for the Big 12 UT and OU.

The way the conference is framed is unrealistic to anyone outside of the South but the theme persists even in games NOT featuring the SEC. Oregon v Michigan State was billed as SEC speed against a SEC defense. When the Big 12 South +KU/MU were putting up crazy offensive numbers and had probably the greatest collection of college QBs I can recall (Bradford, RG3, McCoy, Weeden, Tannehill, Harrell, Gilbert, Reesing) the mantra was that they had no defense...flip the script a few years later and the Big 12 has lower scoring games and the SEC is flying high and people are talking about the lack of offense in the Big 12 and SEC speed in the South.

Its getting old. This isn't the Big 12 v the SEC (even though that's my personal observations), the B1G and PAC12 have also started seeing this too. I'd be real pissed if I was Arizona or ASU as they haven't even received 1/4th of the coverage the Mississippi schools have.

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SEC bias ?
PostPosted: Tue Nov 25, 2014 6:02 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 2:27 pm
Posts: 160
Wildcats and Sundevils right here. They known to the peiple that count. Pac can take care of themselves not run others down except when play. Pac 16 does not exist. That's not Pac 12 and includes nothing in Tex or Ok.

Marshall schedule is very weak. No strong opponents to advance case much higher.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SEC bias ?
PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 11:15 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1581
Mesa Lejos wrote:
Wildcats and Sundevils right here. They known to the peiple that count. Pac can take care of themselves not run others down except when play. Pac 16 does not exist. That's not Pac 12 and includes nothing in Tex or Ok.

Marshall schedule is very weak. No strong opponents to advance case much higher.

:?:

My best translation...

"Hello everyone, I am a fan of both the Arizona Wildcats as well as the Arizona State Sundevils. While they may not be getting a lot of attention in the national media, they are both well know in their respective communities. The PAC12 doesn't need to defend themselves by putting anyone down, except on the field of play where we will gladly defeat members of other conferences. The PAC16 does not exist. The PAC12 does not include any universities in the states of Texas nor Oklahoma.

Marshall's schedule is very weak as they have no strong opponents and do not deserve to be ranked."

Please let me know if I got all of that correct.

If so then, congratulations on a great season but the national storyline gives very little respect to the PAC12. If you don't care then fine but others do. I care about fairness. It was unfair when USC/Auburn/Texas/Oklahoma St didn't get to play for the title in '03/'04/'08/'11, the playoff should fix all of those problems.

The discussion isn't whether the SEC is getting preferential seeding in the playoff, its whether they are getting 2 chances to play for the title while the Big12/B1G get none, despite having quality/eligible teams. We have no idea if Alabama, Florida State, or Oregon are better than Baylor or Ohio State and never will unless they have a chance to prove it. We know Alabama is better than Mississippi State because they beat them on the field. Nothing I said above is putting down the SEC, in fact I said they are smart in how they do business which gets results.

I also never mentioned the PAC16 or anything about Texas or Oklahoma. the only thing I can think you are referring to is my avatar which I made in support of it back in 2010.

Also...Marshall is now ranked by the committee. So your comment about their weak schedule holding them back from being ranked was incorrect.

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SEC bias ?
PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 4:32 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 9:04 pm
Posts: 543
TKthunder wrote:
Mesa Lejos wrote:
Wildcats and Sundevils right here. They known to the peiple that count. Pac can take care of themselves not run others down except when play. Pac 16 does not exist. That's not Pac 12 and includes nothing in Tex or Ok.

Marshall schedule is very weak. No strong opponents to advance case much higher.

:?:

My best translation...

"Hello everyone, I am a fan of both the Arizona Wildcats as well as the Arizona State Sundevils. While they may not be getting a lot of attention in the national media, they are both well know in their respective communities. The PAC12 doesn't need to defend themselves by putting anyone down, except on the field of play where we will gladly defeat members of other conferences. The PAC16 does not exist. The PAC12 does not include any universities in the states of Texas nor Oklahoma.

Marshall's schedule is very weak as they have no strong opponents and do not deserve to be ranked."

Please let me know if I got all of that correct.

If so then, congratulations on a great season but the national storyline gives very little respect to the PAC12. If you don't care then fine but others do. I care about fairness. It was unfair when USC/Auburn/Texas/Oklahoma St didn't get to play for the title in '03/'04/'08/'11, the playoff should fix all of those problems.

The discussion isn't whether the SEC is getting preferential seeding in the playoff, its whether they are getting 2 chances to play for the title while the Big12/B1G get none, despite having quality/eligible teams. We have no idea if Alabama, Florida State, or Oregon are better than Baylor or Ohio State and never will unless they have a chance to prove it. We know Alabama is better than Mississippi State because they beat them on the field. Nothing I said above is putting down the SEC, in fact I said they are smart in how they do business which gets results.

I also never mentioned the PAC16 or anything about Texas or Oklahoma. the only thing I can think you are referring to is my avatar which I made in support of it back in 2010.

Also...Marshall is now ranked by the committee. So your comment about their weak schedule holding them back from being ranked was incorrect.

I'll try to say this without getting booted. Apparently my comments a few weeks back on this got censored or deleted. Freaked/Quinn, please allow me to address Mr. TK. I assure you my comments are comparatively kinder.
(1) You proceed to edit the comments of the poster above, calling it translation. Not everyone has the same writing skills, experience with this site, or depth of knowledge on the subject matters presented. One can respond without insulting another's message by re-writing it, whether the intent is understood or not. If not understood, let it be.
(2) Agree with the poster, a PAC 16 logo is not reality, at least not now and no time soon.
(3) Obviously you have a small band of followers here as you toot the flute tip-towing through the tulips in lame SEC and Mississippi bashing efforts. If you paid attention to Long's comments from the selection committee, MSU is not the controversial one. He said 4 through 7 were close. Below that they get into two loss teams. By the way, had MSU, Auburn, Alabama, and others not beaten some of the other SEC teams, then they would be ranked. MSU (-2) could lose to Ole Miss this weekend, and they would be out of the top 4. Others could lose as well. An only and close loss to Alabama at Bryant Denny is nothing to be ashamed of. MSU earlier had beat three top ten teams in a row. The selection commitee noticed, and if they didn't, that would be extreme bias.
(4) SEC bias does not come from pollsters particularly or the selection committee. It is within the SEC, and Alabama is constantly touted even when they were not #1. Listen to Paul Finebaum on the SEC Network. I counted who was mentioned in a two-hour period, and Alabama's name was dominated by 74% by word count. Auburn was second, largely due to playing Alabama this weekend.
(5) Yes, Marshall just got ranked by the selection committee. They will not make it to the top four because of schedule. But to contradict the ML remarks on it after you and JP talked by the injustice for Marshall is hypocritical.
(6) There are outrageous comments about scheduling from posters. End of the season OOC rivalry games are traditional with certain ACC and SEC schools. That was done way before the BCS was even thought about. UGA/GT and SC/Clemson have been that way for decades. SC/Clemson was a Big Thursday game (Thanksgiving) at state fairgrounds for a couple of generations. Louisville and Kentucky don't have the same level of history, and had played earlier in the season oftentimes. Coaches and AD's wanted to move these games actually earlier in the season, but fans, boosters, and tradition oppose it. It's actually easier to do OOC rivalries earlier, if you looking for a championship game or bowl.
(7) Schools don't have that much flexibility with scheduling. All P5 schools want preferably 8 home games, for economics reasons. Louisville can't just call up Ohio State and ask them to come to Pappa John's the second week in September. Some bigtime schools have put messages to near all schools trying to find an opponent on a particular open date. The ACC and the SEC are going to 9 power 5 games per season, one being OOC P5. That is more interactive than having an incestuous 9 game conference schedule. Sure there are cupcakes getting scheduled. I don't prefer it personally. But that's not limited to the ACC or the SEC either. Some P5 conferences have cupcakes already built into their conference; they don't have to go outside. Even Alabama is having trouble scheduling home-at-home with power 5. Several in the ACC and SEC are three years out trying to get an OOC power five opponent. Each P5 and G5 conference can have their own scheduling models within the guidelines. One conference does not dictate how another schedules. If they don't like it, adapt it or reject it, but take care of one's own business.
(8) There is data for power rankings of each school and conference. The selection committee incorporates that information. Look as Sarrigan and a host others. Selective examples can be used for anything, including focusing on one game.
(9) Ranking are largely subjective. That does not mean the selection committee is in conspiracy with ESPN to load up the top four by half or more schools from one conference. Not everyone plays everyone else. And across-conference power five games are limited for all of them. My #1 pick: Oregon. They are playing the best ball right now. But that's just an opinion as all the rest delivered here.
(10) ESPN promotes SEC games because they have a contract to broadcast SEC games. But the SEC and the ACC are not the only conferences with game contracts with ESPN. ESPN has a lone one with the Texas LHN which is has been viewed as a failure. ESPN is based in Conn. and part of Disney and not run by officials of one particular conference. They are about profit and promote what delivers it. If ESPN is besting Fox and others, that's corporate competition.
It would be in TV's best interest if the final four were from different conferences and all of them premier names. If it is about having all conference champions, then for most times, it will not be the four best. The selection committee studying these results doesn't want to make the Notre Dame mistake that was evident in a BCS title games a couple of years back. That's why they don't have FSU #1 right now, due to some close and multiple come-from-behind games with some modest performing teams. Yet, they have not been beaten.
(11) If the playoff did go to all conference champions, and people here mention fairness, then expand the selections to 8 or more. But a conference such as the B12 should not get away with fewer numbers and avoiding a CCG. And Notre Dame should not be granted a conference participation exemption. There will still be complaints if the field is expanded, because all conferences are not equal. For example in the future, the ACC's #2 could be left out, but ranked higher than the Big 12's #1 who gets the bid.
(12) And to all those awaiting the breakup of the ACC to fulfill B1G desires, there is the GoR. They all signed it. UVA is not going to be the test case by any indication. UVA has got enough worries right now with fraternities and alleged sexual assaults.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SEC bias ?
PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 7:25 pm 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star

Joined: Sat Jun 09, 2012 9:47 am
Posts: 1347
Location: Columbus, OH
I'm going to be blunt about this: the SEC has no business having a 2nd team in the playoffs if there are Power 5 conference champions ranked in the top 6. Regardless of what people seem to think, winning a conference should still mean something. A school that didn't even win their 6 or 7 team division simply doesn't deserve to play for a NATIONAL TITLE if they couldn't even win a conference title or even a divisional one.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SEC bias ?
PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 9:37 pm 
Offline
All-Conference
All-Conference

Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 9:04 pm
Posts: 543
fighting muskie wrote:
I'm going to be blunt about this: the SEC has no business having a 2nd team in the playoffs if there are Power 5 conference champions ranked in the top 6. Regardless of what people seem to think, winning a conference should still mean something. A school that didn't even win their 6 or 7 team division simply doesn't deserve to play for a NATIONAL TITLE if they couldn't even win a conference title or even a divisional one.


Every conference signed off on the rules. There is no rule about limiting the number from any P5 onference. They all chose the committee and defined their charge. You stated that the "SEC has no business...". Why did you not say any conference? The 'business' is not done by the SEC, but the committee. Your argument would eliminate the B12 (no division and likely the same number of games played as a runner-up in another conference) and ND right off the bat. Keep in mind the season is not over. A school should not be penalized because another conference member is in the mix especially at this point in the process.

The B C S had a L S U / Alabama re-match a few years back with reverse results, both of the same division.. The Selection Committee was to broaden the field, not the goal of eliminating potential re-matches. No power conference was promised a representative.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SEC bias ?
PostPosted: Wed Nov 26, 2014 10:45 pm 
Offline
Senior
Senior

Joined: Wed Apr 03, 2013 12:01 pm
Posts: 184
I would say there probably is an SEC bias, but I think they have earned it. The conference is deep through about 8-10 teams each year. I think in most years if you put the top 6 teams in the SEC vs the champions of the other Power 5 leagues, Notre Dame when they are good and the G5 champ, the SEC would be at least .500 or better. I'm not sure that you can say that for another conference, especially year in and year out. Maybe the SEC wouldn't be .500, but I think you could make an argument that the SEC could. I don't think you could say that for the ACC, or Big 10. The Pac 12 might and the Big 12 might, but I think the SEC has better teams in the top half over those other two leagues.

I hear people say a bad Arkansas team, I think they are referring to last year's squad, which actually played decent football down the stretch. The goal for every team is to get better each week. I don't know how anybody who has watched Arkansas play this season can say that the Hogs have not done that. They are playing lights out on defense and they run the ball very well (kind of like a Wisconsin team). The only thing they don't do well is throw it.

Kentucky is actually a decent team this year. I know they are struggling down the stretch. I think that is more of a reflection of the depth Stoops has yet to have time to build there. But they look like they have made huge strides over the Kentucky teams of the past 2-3 seasons.

To me the bottom of the SEC is Vandy, and Vandy alone. They are the only truly bad team in the SEC this year. When I look at the other power 5 leagues, I see at least two or three in each of those leagues. Pac 12 might only have one (Oregon State and WSU are not terrible). Colorado is bad, but at least they seem to play hard and are competitive, they just can't seem to win.

As far as Marshal goes, we may never know how good they are because of their terrible schedule. I don't know if that is their fault or some good teams bailed on them and got off their schedule. In conference play, there is not one credible win. I don't think they have a single win against a top 60 ball club. I'm not sure you can reward a team with an access bowl when they haven't played one decent team the entire season.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: SEC bias ?
PostPosted: Thu Nov 27, 2014 1:45 am 
Offline
All-Star
All-Star
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2010 11:40 pm
Posts: 1581
louisvillecard01 wrote:
I'll try to say this without getting booted. Apparently my comments a few weeks back on this got censored or deleted. Freaked/Quinn, please allow me to address Mr. TK. I assure you my comments are comparatively kinder.
(1) You proceed to edit the comments of the poster above, calling it translation. Not everyone has the same writing skills, experience with this site, or depth of knowledge on the subject matters presented. One can respond without insulting another's message by re-writing it, whether the intent is understood or not. If not understood, let it be.
(2) Agree with the poster, a PAC 16 logo is not reality, at least not now and no time soon.
(3) Obviously you have a small band of followers here as you toot the flute tip-towing through the tulips in lame SEC and Mississippi bashing efforts. If you paid attention to Long's comments from the selection committee, MSU is not the controversial one. He said 4 through 7 were close. Below that they get into two loss teams. By the way, had MSU, Auburn, Alabama, and others not beaten some of the other SEC teams, then they would be ranked. MSU (-2) could lose to Ole Miss this weekend, and they would be out of the top 4. Others could lose as well. An only and close loss to Alabama at Bryant Denny is nothing to be ashamed of. MSU earlier had beat three top ten teams in a row. The selection commitee noticed, and if they didn't, that would be extreme bias.
(4) SEC bias does not come from pollsters particularly or the selection committee. It is within the SEC, and Alabama is constantly touted even when they were not #1. Listen to Paul Finebaum on the SEC Network. I counted who was mentioned in a two-hour period, and Alabama's name was dominated by 74% by word count. Auburn was second, largely due to playing Alabama this weekend.
(5) Yes, Marshall just got ranked by the selection committee. They will not make it to the top four because of schedule. But to contradict the ML remarks on it after you and JP talked by the injustice for Marshall is hypocritical.
(6) There are outrageous comments about scheduling from posters. End of the season OOC rivalry games are traditional with certain ACC and SEC schools. That was done way before the BCS was even thought about. UGA/GT and SC/Clemson have been that way for decades. SC/Clemson was a Big Thursday game (Thanksgiving) at state fairgrounds for a couple of generations. Louisville and Kentucky don't have the same level of history, and had played earlier in the season oftentimes. Coaches and AD's wanted to move these games actually earlier in the season, but fans, boosters, and tradition oppose it. It's actually easier to do OOC rivalries earlier, if you looking for a championship game or bowl.
(7) Schools don't have that much flexibility with scheduling. All P5 schools want preferably 8 home games, for economics reasons. Louisville can't just call up Ohio State and ask them to come to Pappa John's the second week in September. Some bigtime schools have put messages to near all schools trying to find an opponent on a particular open date. The ACC and the SEC are going to 9 power 5 games per season, one being OOC P5. That is more interactive than having an incestuous 9 game conference schedule. Sure there are cupcakes getting scheduled. I don't prefer it personally. But that's not limited to the ACC or the SEC either. Some P5 conferences have cupcakes already built into their conference; they don't have to go outside. Even Alabama is having trouble scheduling home-at-home with power 5. Several in the ACC and SEC are three years out trying to get an OOC power five opponent. Each P5 and G5 conference can have their own scheduling models within the guidelines. One conference does not dictate how another schedules. If they don't like it, adapt it or reject it, but take care of one's own business.
(8) There is data for power rankings of each school and conference. The selection committee incorporates that information. Look as Sarrigan and a host others. Selective examples can be used for anything, including focusing on one game.
(9) Ranking are largely subjective. That does not mean the selection committee is in conspiracy with ESPN to load up the top four by half or more schools from one conference. Not everyone plays everyone else. And across-conference power five games are limited for all of them. My #1 pick: Oregon. They are playing the best ball right now. But that's just an opinion as all the rest delivered here.
(10) ESPN promotes SEC games because they have a contract to broadcast SEC games. But the SEC and the ACC are not the only conferences with game contracts with ESPN. ESPN has a lone one with the Texas LHN which is has been viewed as a failure. ESPN is based in Conn. and part of Disney and not run by officials of one particular conference. They are about profit and promote what delivers it. If ESPN is besting Fox and others, that's corporate competition.
It would be in TV's best interest if the final four were from different conferences and all of them premier names. If it is about having all conference champions, then for most times, it will not be the four best. The selection committee studying these results doesn't want to make the Notre Dame mistake that was evident in a BCS title games a couple of years back. That's why they don't have FSU #1 right now, due to some close and multiple come-from-behind games with some modest performing teams. Yet, they have not been beaten.
(11) If the playoff did go to all conference champions, and people here mention fairness, then expand the selections to 8 or more. But a conference such as the B12 should not get away with fewer numbers and avoiding a CCG. And Notre Dame should not be granted a conference participation exemption. There will still be complaints if the field is expanded, because all conferences are not equal. For example in the future, the ACC's #2 could be left out, but ranked higher than the Big 12's #1 who gets the bid.
(12) And to all those awaiting the breakup of the ACC to fulfill B1G desires, there is the GoR. They all signed it. UVA is not going to be the test case by any indication. UVA has got enough worries right now with fraternities and alleged sexual assaults.

Your post wasn't pulled as far as I know, the website crashed and after it recovered and restored from a backup a few recent posts went missing (its happened before and will happen again) including BePcr07's great post on this thread which has nothing controversial about it (thankfully he was able to repost it).

1. That post as written added nothing to the conversation. And even after translating it, it added very little. I also checked his previous posts and they seemed to be understandable so I made an attempt to respond but other than attacking my avatar (see blow) that had nothing to do with this thread and he didn't add anything of substance other than saying that I shouldn't talk about the PAC12 (which I will continue to do) or that I put down the SEC (which I did not).
2. Its been around since I joined and its here to stay...this is a realignment message board after all. I don't care what you or he thinks about it but I've wanted UT to join the PAC since the 90's and still hope that is UT's eventual home.
3. If I have a following then its news to me, but I created this thread to remove these posts from the realignment threads and derailing them. This thread is specifically about this subject, if anyone doesn't like this topic, you don't have to read it. But I'm all for debate, so if you want to continue this conversation then I'm willing, but this once again gets into overrating/ranking team and calling everything a quality win/loss. I don't care what the rankings were when they played, only what they are now. Even Sargin's admits the early season ranking are highly flawed. When looking at the current rankings...

TCU has beat currently ranked Minn, OU, KSU plus unranked/bowl eligible WVU and likely UT and lost to Baylor;
Baylor has beat currently ranked TCU, OU, and likely KSU plus unranked/bowl eligible UT and lost to WVU but will be the conference champion;
MSU has beat currently ranked Auburn and likely Ole Miss plus unranked/bowl eligible A&M/LSU/Arky.

It doesn't seem that MSU is far and away better than either, and in my opinion if its close I would ALWAYS opt to include another conference over ANY conference's #2 team. Pretend MSU and Oregon both loss this weekend, I'll be making the same argument for tOSU's inclusion over the Big12's #2 team. The argument in my opinion should be whether to reward TCU for playing a better OOC or Baylor for winning the conference (neither can be claimed by MSU assuming a Bama wins over Aub).
4. I agree w/in the SEC its bad in favor of Bama, but the national scene makes a difference too. Unless the committee is sequestering themselves all season and only watching games without announcers and blocking out poll rankings they are going to be influenced. There is a reason high profile court cases do this and while I'm not claiming the committee should do this, I think its at least important to admit that bias...especially confirmation biases could and most likely does influence them.
5. Not seeing how but whatever, we said they should be ranked, he said they shouldn't due to their weak schedule. He can have that opinion but they got ranked so its now a moot discussion.
6. I actually like the SEC/ACC rivalries but, I hate they way the SEC has gamed the system by having a weak OOC team the week before. I also hate how the SEC proclaims a great OOC record without any context and unfortunately these games seem to continually perpetuate that claim.
7. Copout answer. They CAN find those games, they just don't WANT to as it would limit their ability to be bowl eligible most years. Look at MSU's schedule from 2018-2023 (@KSU, KSU, @NCSU, NCSU, @Zona, Zona).
8. ok, no issues with that.
9. No one said it was a conspiracy, that's often use to belittle the topic. Simply put bias has filtered into the system and the SEC is doing everything it can to perpetuate it as it benefits them directly. If Baylor, TCU, tOSU all had 2 losses I and most people wouldn't care if they were #4, but as is the SEC's reputation has kept them ahead of these three 1 loss teams.
10. No issue with that statement except that ESPN is the biggest in sports media reporting and has the ability to frame an issue anyway it sees fit. This is like Fox News framing issues with an anti Obama slant and MSNBC framing it with a pro Obama slant except there is only really 1 side and its controlled by ESPN. That gives them the most influence in cfb and don'tt forget that they also have the most stake in the outcome as the largest broadcaster of cfb. Once again, I don't think this is a conspiracy but it certainly has an 'insider trading' feel to it and I think ESPN knows it which is why they've started responding and addressing it.
11. Agree on ND, disagree on Big12, they play everybody in 9 conference games while the SEC/ACC only play 8 w/ the CCG acting as the 9th. If they passed a rule making everyone play 9 conference games and a CCG then I'd be ok with your proposal but just a CCG makes no sense (why is it needed if you play everybody). Personally I want 4 conferences (4x16) w/ auto bids for champs.
12. There is a GOR until 2027 for the ACC and 2025 for the Big12 and the playoff contract ends in 2025 along with a majority of conference TV deals. I think the tipping point is 2025 (the extra 2 years of the ACC's GOR are negligible, they'll just announce the move in 2025 for the TV deals for the 2027 season)...telling that UVA and UNC are both in hot what at the moment.

_________________
Fan of the Big 12 Conference, the Mountain West Conference and...
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
 

 




Looking for College Sports apparel? Support our partner:








Support Our Partners: Search Engine Marketing - Search Engine Optimization - Search Engine Training - Online Marketing for Restuarants

Subway Map Shirts - Food and Travel

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group