Started By
Message
re: SEC "Not as Good as You Think"
Posted on 8/15/12 at 12:52 pm to loweralabamatrojan
Posted on 8/15/12 at 12:52 pm to loweralabamatrojan
Look when the sec sends there team vs whoever they play against the other team loses. Now the sec isn't crowning themselves so it's up to the other team to beat them. Now if they cannot accomplish this feat it's there fault. How can you say the system is rigged or your opponent isn't that good when you lose every game you play against them. You have no leg to stand on.
0
Posted on 8/15/12 at 1:25 pm to Crimson Legend
quote:
And in the case of last year, you could only argue that SEC bias was the reason IF both teams did not deserve to be there. Since nobody questioned the presence of LSU, it makes no sense to retroactively make the claim that the SEC was only there because of bias. LSU deserved to be there. That's indisputable. So you might make that case that Bama shouldn't have gone in favor of OSU, but you can't then claim that NEITHER team deserved to be there.
I agree. Look, I'm not going hide my disgust that Alabama made it into that game and I'm not trying to go there, but it's the only example where it can even be debated that SEC bias factored into a team making it. Both sides have valid points in the debate. And, as you stated, there was already one there.
Posted on 8/15/12 at 1:53 pm to loweralabamatrojan
quote:
Nope. It's less wear and tear on your team to play a late season FCS team or Sun Belt team than it is to play another conference game
You have got to be kidding me. Big Ten and Pac Ten teams had something like six or seven weeks between their last game and their bowl game and played no conference championship game. SEC champions (and runners up) played an SEC division champion in the SEC championship game a month before the BCS bowls. Every SEC team that has ever played the BCS title game, until Alabama last year, played nine games against SEC competition, including a guaranteed game against the best team in the other division, even in some years when they had already played that team earlier.
The whole argument is full of shite. The author of that garbage was just a Pac 12 fan trying to rationalize away the glaring evidence that keeps punching their teams in the mouth every year with an invalid and factually inaccurate line of bullshite.
Posted on 8/15/12 at 2:17 pm to Nuts4LSU
This guy in the comments hits the nail on the head.
This guy is me under my fake facebook account...God I need a new job.
quote:
This article is a weak attempt grab attention by an author with clear and distinct bias against the American South and even throws in childish generalization insults (e.g. "As though empirical evidence is akin to fossil records and climate change data, it's as if no one in the evangelical South is capable of copping to the evidence at hand.") WOW! So edgy!
Well, despite contradictions in his premise and evidence, he concludes that the SEC is no better than any of the other conferences and the others are more evenly matched. Okay. Well to be fair, "better" is a relative term. Define better? Championships, victories over top teams and consistently placing 3 or more teams in the final polls is a pretty decent measuring stick, but hey, it is relative.
My question to the author, and one he avoids while trashing the SEC, would b
e which conference would he consider "better" or even equal to the SEC? I see the W/L records but if you're going to go this far, who is better or equal? If he can't do that, what's the point? The SEC is the best…but not as good as you think…see, look at the results of the last 14 years they didn’t win every OOC game they played and all their success is largely due to media manipulation. Awesome point.
From my reading, his most relied upon evidence that the SEC is overrated is W/L records in the BCS era. As another poster mentioned and the author acknowledges, the SEC’s current run of success includes the last six years. No one claims the SEC to be the unquestionable leader before this point. As another poster wrote, the numbers from 2006-2011 are stronger. Did they win every game? No. I guess you win.
He also mentions out of conference scheduling which has been generally presumed to be weaker. Will do you as far as to say that SEC teams have overall and easier road to the BCS championship game? Say it. But give credit where credit is due. Maybe the SEC has just evolved quicker and does not see the ROI in playing risky games when they already play the best. Maybe the Pac 12 and Big 12 teams are need to overcompensate and foolishly let bravado trump reason? Neanderthals. Also, it’s a largely false assumption. LSU thumped Oregon at a neutral site and at WVU last year and has played at least one BCS team nearly every year. There are many examples of quality OOC games in recent years. Again, if you’re going to go here, say the SEC had an easier road and defend it.
Lastly, media manipulation and how does that translate overall. Since 2000 there has never been an SEC title contender that finished ahead in the human polls (most subject to manipulation) than the computers. The computers (non biased formulas) have either placed the SEC team higher or equal to the human polls. With the exception of Alabama’s mulligan, which stunk to high heaven, I dare you to name one example where you feel an undeserving SEC team went to the BCSCG.
This guy is me under my fake facebook account...God I need a new job.
This post was edited on 8/15/12 at 2:20 pm
Posted on 8/15/12 at 2:32 pm to Ghostfacedistiller
I fully recognize that the author was probably trolling and as such I shouldn't let it get under my skin, but his utter lack of regard for honesty was striking. I expect a certain amount of spin in an opinion piece but this was just overwhelming.
Some examples:
That last sentence is blatant spin. A spinless version would read something like "In head-to-head match-ups against other major conferences, the SEC has generally been a little better than even (0.538)". I could also put opposite spin on the same stats: "In head-to-head match-ups against other major conferences, the SEC has been better than even in general and especially dominant in bowl games". As others have pointed out, stats from a more recent period are even more favorable for the SEC.
No mention of Virginia Tech.
Dropped 2 spots in the AP, Coaches, and Harris Polls.
No mention of losses by Oklahoma State, Stanford, Boise State, Oregon, and Oklahoma in those 2 weeks.
No, they don't.
I don't mind opinion pieces, and I don't mind a little spin to support an arguement. But I hate it when someone produces stats, incorrectly summarizes the meaning of those stats, and then uses that incorrect summary to support his claim. If he wants to claim that ESPN and media bias have benefited the SEC, fine, he's welcome to do that but the stats do not support that conclusion.
Some examples:
quote:
SEC vs. PAC-12 regular season: 10-12
SEC vs. PAC-12 bowl games: 1-0
SEC vs. Big 12 regular season: 6-10
SEC vs. Big 12 bowl games: 21-8
SEC vs. ACC regular season: 42-36
SEC vs. ACC bowl games: 16-9
SEC vs. Big 10 regular season: 7-4
SEC vs. Big 10 bowl games: 19-19
SEC vs. Big East regular season: 16-15
SEC vs. Big East bowl game: 3-8
The record is clear. In head-to-head match-ups against other major conferences, the SEC has either a combined losing record or one that's generally only a little better than even.
That last sentence is blatant spin. A spinless version would read something like "In head-to-head match-ups against other major conferences, the SEC has generally been a little better than even (0.538)". I could also put opposite spin on the same stats: "In head-to-head match-ups against other major conferences, the SEC has been better than even in general and especially dominant in bowl games". As others have pointed out, stats from a more recent period are even more favorable for the SEC.
quote:
The double standard also allows non-conference victories rolled up by "champions" such as the 2009 Alabama Crimson Tide against the likes of Florida International, North Texas, and Tennessee-Chattanooga to be regarded as evidence of gridiron distinction by those inside the solipsistic cocoon of the self-congratulatory SEC echo chamber.
No mention of Virginia Tech.
quote:
When the SEC's then #2 Alabama Crimson Tide lost at home to #1 LSU in November, however, it dropped only one space in the polls, to number three
Dropped 2 spots in the AP, Coaches, and Harris Polls.
quote:
Within two weeks, just-beaten Alabama had been scooted back up to number two behind top-ranked LSU
No mention of losses by Oklahoma State, Stanford, Boise State, Oregon, and Oklahoma in those 2 weeks.
quote:
But as a top-to-bottom conference it is not better at football. The numbers bear that out
No, they don't.
I don't mind opinion pieces, and I don't mind a little spin to support an arguement. But I hate it when someone produces stats, incorrectly summarizes the meaning of those stats, and then uses that incorrect summary to support his claim. If he wants to claim that ESPN and media bias have benefited the SEC, fine, he's welcome to do that but the stats do not support that conclusion.
Posted on 8/15/12 at 2:38 pm to Ghostfacedistiller
quote:
The computers (non biased formulas) have either placed the SEC team higher or equal to the human polls
Actually, that's wrong. The computers were ridiculously biased towards the Big 12 last season.
Case in point: Kansas State 4th? Oklahoma 7th? (as of DECEMBER)
Posted on 8/15/12 at 2:44 pm to Meaux Bettah
quote:
This is also why in June, as soon as SEC presidents and athletic directors announced their support of a four-team playoff -- so long as that four-team playoff might include the theoretical possibility that all four teams would come from the SEC, rather than from an equal dispersal of conference champions
This guy has excuses for shite that's never even happened.
Posted on 8/15/12 at 2:51 pm to sarc
quote:
But I hate it when someone produces stats, incorrectly summarizes the meaning of those stats, and then uses that incorrect summary to support his claim.
No shite. ...and most likely, they have acquired just enough knowledge regarding statistics to be able to talk shite in an attempt to fool another idiot into believing that they actually know what they're talking about.
Posted on 8/15/12 at 2:51 pm to CGSC Lobotomy
Not in the final BCS standings regarding actual contenders. Maybe they were overall but looking at the top teams with a chance, the non-SEC team was rated higher or equal to the SEC team in every year in the polls.
The point is, if anything the computers have favored the SEC where the humans have not. This article claims a conspiracty that the SEC rigs the system. If anything can be manipulated, it's the humans who don't favor the SEC.
The final Poll rankings were as follows:
1. LSU
2. Alabama
3. OSU
4. Stanford
5. Oregon
7. Arkanas
I don't have 6 recorded.
The point is, if anything the computers have favored the SEC where the humans have not. This article claims a conspiracty that the SEC rigs the system. If anything can be manipulated, it's the humans who don't favor the SEC.
The final Poll rankings were as follows:
1. LSU
2. Alabama
3. OSU
4. Stanford
5. Oregon
7. Arkanas
I don't have 6 recorded.
This post was edited on 8/15/12 at 2:56 pm
Posted on 8/15/12 at 2:52 pm to sarc
quote:
SEC vs. PAC-12 regular season: 10-12
SEC vs. PAC-12 bowl games: 1-0
SEC vs. Big 12 regular season: 6-10
SEC vs. Big 12 bowl games: 21-8
SEC vs. ACC regular season: 42-36
SEC vs. ACC bowl games: 16-9
SEC vs. Big 10 regular season: 7-4
SEC vs. Big 10 bowl games: 19-19
SEC vs. Big East regular season: 16-15
SEC vs. Big East bowl game: 3-8
The record is clear. In head-to-head match-ups against other major conferences, the SEC has either a combined losing record or one that's generally only a little better than even.
also forgets to mention that in most of these bowls, a lower placed SEC team plays a higher placed opponent.
Posted on 8/15/12 at 2:56 pm to cigsmcgee
quote:
SEC vs. PAC-12 regular season: 10-12
Looking at you Tennessee....
Posted on 8/15/12 at 3:02 pm to Ghostfacedistiller
quote:
Not in the final BCS standings regarding actual contenders. Maybe they were overall but looking at the top teams with a chance, the non-SEC team was rated higher or equal to the SEC team in every year in the polls.
Final BCS Poll
Computer Average: (major outliers in bold)
1 - LSU
2 - Oklahoma State
3 - Alabama
4 - Kansas State
5 - Stanford
5 - Arkansas
7 - Oklahoma
8 - Oregon
9 - Boise State
10 - South Carolina
11 - Baylor
12 - Georgia
13 - Virginia Tech
14 - Wisconsin
15 - Michigan
16 - Clemson
17 - TCU
18 - Houston
19 - Nebraska
19 - Texas (unranked in both human polls)
21 - Michigan State
21 - Auburn (unranked in both human polls)
23 - Penn State
24 - Southern Miss
25 - West Virginia
Posted on 8/15/12 at 3:15 pm to CGSC Lobotomy
Damn, you're right. I made a spreadsheet of this stuff when I had the flu a few months back. (I know, I know)...
I wrote down Final Standings and Poll Standings but didn't include the computer rankings specifically in order.
Still, this is the exception and Alabama 2011 is really the only example of "SEC" bias that could be argued.
I wrote down Final Standings and Poll Standings but didn't include the computer rankings specifically in order.
Still, this is the exception and Alabama 2011 is really the only example of "SEC" bias that could be argued.
This post was edited on 8/15/12 at 3:17 pm
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News