Started By
Message
re: SOS of the Big 5 + A&M Since Expansion
Posted on 6/26/19 at 9:15 am to ClassicCityAlum
Posted on 6/26/19 at 9:15 am to ClassicCityAlum
quote:
Alabama can’t play themselves.
Would be interesting to compare.
Add Alabama to their schedule where Auburn is, then compare the two.
Do the same for the other teams that play Alabama and see how they compare.
1
Posted on 6/26/19 at 9:20 am to BHMKyle
Boy, UGA chest-beaters have sure come out of the woodwork in the Kirby era. Putting A&M in some “big 6” group over Tennessee is a joke. UGA is the most underachieving football program of all time given their advantages.
Posted on 6/26/19 at 9:25 am to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
Would be interesting to compare.
Add Alabama to their schedule where Auburn is, then compare the two.
Do the same for the other teams that play Alabama and see how they compare.
Why are posters here so damned lazy, or too stupid to figure out Excel?
Earlier post:
quote:
Contributions by school:
Alabama - 164
LSU - 75 (1 season worth 0 points)
Auburn - 46 (3 seasons worth 0 points, over half come from 2013)
Texas A&M - 39 (4 seasons worth 0 points)
This is inverse to this:
quote:
1. Texas A&M- 330
2. Auburn- 325
3. LSU- 272
4. Alabama- 205
Simple math:
If Alabama played Alabama instead of Auburn:
1. Texas A&M- 330
2. Auburn- 325
3. Alabama - 323
4. LSU- 272
If Auburn played Auburn instead of Alabama:
1. Texas A&M- 330
2. LSU- 272
3. Auburn- 207
4. Alabama- 205
Now let's apply the OP's logic, and that Auburn KNEW that Auburn would be a great team in 2013, and scheduled around that through psychic powers.
If Auburn played Auburn instead of Alabama (minus Minority Report warning AU of good AU team in 2013):
1. Texas A&M- 330
2. LSU- 272
3. Alabama- 205
4. Auburn- 183
Posted on 6/26/19 at 9:27 am to BHMKyle
quote:
Vandy and Kentucky do not need to be in the same Division. They are by far the weaklings of the league and to have them on the same side really is the root cause of the inequality.
I agree with a lot if what you say. But this is not true.
First, Tennessee and Vandy have been at the bottom of the SEC for quite a while.
Kentucky hasn't been the bottom 2 in the east since 2014 (and scar only had 1 more win to stay out of the bottom 2).
Second... the West has has some real poppers at the bottom. Just last season alone, arkie and Ole Miss combined for 1 conference win in 15 tries (of course, it was against eachother).
Posted on 6/26/19 at 9:39 am to skrayper
quote:
Why are posters here so damned lazy, or too stupid to figure out Excel?
So sorry for not reading the entire thread. Could have just linked the post.
quote:
Simple math:
If Alabama played Alabama instead of Auburn:
1. Texas A&M- 330
2. Auburn- 325
3. Alabama - 323
4. LSU- 272
Why is Auburn's number not 492? If the argument is because Alabama can't play Alabama and that is why they are lower, then add Alabama to their schedule, don't also remove it from the others.
quote:
Here is how the Big 5 + Texas A&M compare going back to the 2012 Expansion:
1. Auburn- 492
2. Texas A&M- 425
3. Florida- 407
4. LSU- 388
5. Georgia- 319
6. Alabama- 243
If you replace Auburn on Alabama's schedule, here is how they compare:
1. Auburn 492
2. Alabama 361
Texas A&M:
1. Texas A&M 425
2. Alabama 368
LSU:
1. LSU 388
2. Alabama 332
This post was edited on 6/26/19 at 9:45 am
Posted on 6/26/19 at 9:44 am to meansonny
quote:Good point, yet Kyle wants to move one of those East bottom dwellers to the West to increase the population of the cellar in the West? I guess Vandy could pal around with Arky/Ole Miss on some level they'd all fight for last place.
the West has has some real poppers at the bottom. Just last season alone, arkie and Ole Miss combined for 1 conference win in 15 tries (of course, it was against eachother).
Posted on 6/26/19 at 9:44 am to ClassicCityAlum
quote:
Alabama can’t play themselves.
Your premise is wrong OP - that is why their SOS is lower.
It is PART of the reason... a small part actually. But it is also in large part to Bama playing a MUCH weaker annual opponent from the East compared to LSU and Auburn. And its compounded by Bama's soft OOC schedules.
Posted on 6/26/19 at 9:45 am to NDonahue
quote:
Boy, UGA chest-beaters have sure come out of the woodwork in the Kirby era. Putting A&M in some “big 6” group over Tennessee is a joke.
And who did this?
There is a reason the Title says "Big 5" + A&M. If I thought they were "Big 6" I would have just said "Big 6".
Posted on 6/26/19 at 9:50 am to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
So sorry for not reading the entire thread. Could have just linked the post.
People say this every day, the whole, "Now do X" - as if they were physically incapable of doing it themselves. If you were the first person to ask, I'd be more understanding, but this happens all the time here.
"You did work - now do more work to demonstrate what *I* want to see!!!!"
You used this list:
quote:
1. Auburn- 492
2. Texas A&M- 425
3. Florida- 407
4. LSU- 388
5. Georgia- 319
6. Alabama- 243
Which is fine. If Alabama plays themselves, but otherwise the schedules remain the same, then it becomes:
quote:
1. Auburn- 492
2. Texas A&M- 425
3t. Alabama - 407
3t. Florida- 407
5. LSU- 388
6. Georgia- 319
Alabama contributes 164 points. If Alabama starts playing Alabama but otherwise leaves their schedule intact, that's where it ends up. If Alabama and Auburn swap each other out (Alabama on Alabama's schedule, Auburn on Auburn's schedule, instead of the Iron Bowl), then the numbers become:
1. Texas A&M- 425
2. Florida- 407
3. LSU- 388
4. Auburn - 374
5. Alabama - 361
6. Georgia- 319
Because adding Alabama adds 164 points; removing Auburn removes 46 points. Over 7 years, that averages out:
1. Texas A&M - 61 points per season
2. Florida - 58
3. LSU - 55
4. Auburn - 53
5. Alabama - 52
6. Georgia - 46
Point illustrated?
This post was edited on 6/26/19 at 9:54 am
Posted on 6/26/19 at 9:53 am to skrayper
quote:
Why are posters here so damned lazy, or too stupid to figure out Excel?
And why are you so dishonest that you are only comparing the Division schedule strength with your little excel exercise.... completely leaving out the main strength discrepancy
quote:which is how easy your East schedule has been for years.
Simple math:
If Alabama played Alabama instead of Auburn:
1. Texas A&M- 330
2. Auburn- 325
3. Alabama - 323
4. LSU- 272
These are the numbers for just Division SOS, which I broke down simply so everyone could see all the inputs. If I had know dishonest Bammers would cut just that out and use it as if its a reflection on the schedule as a whole, I wouldn't have been so transparent.
If you really want to compare SEC West teams' schedules and take out the "We can't play ourselves" input, then add up the schedule strength in the OP for just opponents from the East and OOC:
Using the formula in the OP, Schedule difficulty since 2012 discounting all SEC West vs. SEC West games:
1. Auburn- 167
2. LSU- 116
3. Texas A&M- 95
4. Alabama- 38
There is absolutely zero factor of playing Bama in those numbers above. Now tell me again that all things are equal by you getting to play Tennessee every year?
Posted on 6/26/19 at 9:55 am to NDonahue
quote:
UGA chest-beaters have sure come out of the woodwork in the Kirby era.
Kyle is one of the better, fact-based posters on the Rant and always very objective.
Posted on 6/26/19 at 10:05 am to meansonny
quote:
I agree with a lot if what you say. But this is not true.
First, Tennessee and Vandy have been at the bottom of the SEC for quite a while.
Kentucky hasn't been the bottom 2 in the east since 2014 (and scar only had 1 more win to stay out of the bottom 2).
If you are going to look at changing up divisions you have to look further than just a 3-year period.... Surely you need a bigger picture than just a 3-year snapshot when discussing something so big as changing up divisions.
I mean why not look at the last 10:
Numbers according to Stassen:
PAST 10 YEAR SEC STANDINGS (W%):
1. Alabama- .898
2. LSU- .683
3. Georgia- .659
4. Florida- .602
5. Auburn- .542
6. Texas A&M- .536
7. S. Carolina- .519
8. Missouri- .466
9. Miss St.- .463
10. Arkansas- .350
11. Ole Miss- .350
12. Tennessee- .312
13. Kentucky- .300
14. Vanderbilt- .263
There they are, dead last. If you take it back to 20 years, its even more glaring how far back they are ahead of the other 12:
PAST 20 YEARS:
1. Alabama- .735
2. Georgia- .679
3. Florida- .677
4. LSU- .663
5. Auburn- .588
6. Texas A&M- .536
7. Tennessee- .479
8. S. Carolina- .472
9. Missouri- .466
10. Arkansas- .407
11. Arkansas- .407
12. Misss. St.- .375
13. Kentucky- .281
14. Vanderbilt- .225
It's obvious those two schools are the weakest and they also care the least about football. They don't need to be in the same division. That's probably the biggest root cause of the imbalance which is compounded by Tennessee's demise.
Posted on 6/26/19 at 10:06 am to BHMKyle
Then I must misunderstand this post because you seem to be giving aTm credit for playing 22 TN but knocking Bama for playing the same team. Look u til last year Alabama always played a great OOC opponent to start the year. Last years would have been great if Jackson had stayed but he left. Other than that you’ve got SC in the east with a natural rival in Clemson and the Florida schools who have natural rivals with three good in State schools. If the rest of the conf would go to a 9 game conf schedule like Alabama has wanted to do in the past teams like Georgia would rotate into the schedule more often.
Posted on 6/26/19 at 10:07 am to GoCrazyAuburn
quote:
GoCrazyAuburn
quote:Thank you!
SEC has no interest at this time to do so. They've completely shut it down every time it gets brought up.
Per Sankey: "Is that an agenda item? No,"
If the SEC headquarters slaps that notion down, then all these threads about shaking up the divisions is nothing more than idle talk.
Posted on 6/26/19 at 10:15 am to skrayper
quote:
People say this every day, the whole, "Now do X" - as if they were physically incapable of doing it themselves. If you were the first person to ask, I'd be more understanding, but this happens all the time here.
"You did work - now do more work to demonstrate what *I* want to see!!!!"
Well, considering I never saw the original post you referenced, I had no clue as to what the point assignments were.
All you had to do was link the post. Instead you decided to be an arse. Go figure.
quote:quote:
You used this list:
Well yea, that looks at the total schedule. Why would you use any other list? It is the one in the OP.
quote:
Which is fine. If Alabama plays themselves, but otherwise the schedules remain the same, then it becomes: quote: 1. Auburn- 492 2. Texas A&M- 425 3t. Alabama - 407 3t. Florida- 407 5. LSU- 388 6. Georgia- 319
What? Please explain how you get Alabama has 407 points?
quote:
Alabama contributes 164 points. If Alabama starts playing Alabama but otherwise leaves their schedule intact, that's where it ends up. If Alabama and Auburn swap each other out (Alabama on Alabama's schedule, Auburn on Auburn's schedule, instead of the Iron Bowl), then the numbers become:
This is just dumb. There is no reason to switch out Alabama on Auburn's schedule. If the argument is that Alabama is hurt because they don't get to play Alabama, then replace Alabama for one of the teams and compare. You don't simultaneously remove Alabama from that other schedule. Then you are just back where you started, disadvantaging a team because they didn't play Alabama.
quote:
Point illustrated?
No. Here is the point properly illustrated:
quote:
If you replace Auburn on Alabama's schedule, here is how they compare:
1. Auburn 492
2. Alabama 361
Texas A&M:
1. Texas A&M 425
2. Alabama 368
LSU:
1. LSU 388
2. Alabama 332
Posted on 6/26/19 at 10:15 am to RT1941
These issues mostly disappear if Tenn ever turns it around correct?
I mean, I think Tenn being so down is a drag on Alabama in these metrics if I read it correctly.
Likewise, Tenn is a prime example of why no one is letting Gus off the hook. Yes, it is pretty doubtful AU can go undefeated, but losing to Tenn is a prime example of why it is not just about the schedule.
I am not sure when/if Tenn really turns this around, but if they do, I think it would make the SEC better overall.
I mean, I think Tenn being so down is a drag on Alabama in these metrics if I read it correctly.
Likewise, Tenn is a prime example of why no one is letting Gus off the hook. Yes, it is pretty doubtful AU can go undefeated, but losing to Tenn is a prime example of why it is not just about the schedule.
I am not sure when/if Tenn really turns this around, but if they do, I think it would make the SEC better overall.
Posted on 6/26/19 at 10:18 am to RT1941
quote:
If the SEC headquarters slaps that notion down, then all these threads about shaking up the divisions is nothing more than idle talk.
The SEC shoots down lots of things before finally caving. That doesn't mean you stop trying to push it.
Posted on 6/26/19 at 10:24 am to GoCrazyAuburn
There is a pretty easy solution to this and it has been addressed 100x here and that is a radical change to the way the league is set up in regards to it's structural makeup (divisions/pods/etc) and it's scheduling from that. There does not have to be a "this or that" choice between continuing to play century old rivals and more diverse and fair scheduling. It's ridiculous that we as a conference/league/sport allow ourselves to be boxed into that choice.
One of the great things about college football is rivalries and history. One of the other great things about college football is the unique aspects of every school and playing different schools (especially within your league).
There are solutions and plans out there, very well thought out and very reasonable, that address and solve both these issues. It's a shame that nobody in power has a passion to get it right.
One of the great things about college football is rivalries and history. One of the other great things about college football is the unique aspects of every school and playing different schools (especially within your league).
There are solutions and plans out there, very well thought out and very reasonable, that address and solve both these issues. It's a shame that nobody in power has a passion to get it right.
This post was edited on 6/26/19 at 10:25 am
Posted on 6/26/19 at 10:38 am to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
There are solutions and plans out there, very well thought out and very reasonable, that address and solve both these issues. It's a shame that nobody in power has a passion to get it right.
Agreed. As an Auburn fan, we all want to play UT and Florida more. Those are traditional games that we loved to see. Now, we just can't.
Current SEC office does not want to put in the work required to overhaul how the SEC operates. I fully understand why they don't. Current format has worked out quite successfully for the SEC. Bama has been fortunate to have the pieces fall into place for them at the right time (home run hire in Saban, favorable east schedule, etc). Other SEC teams have shown that they can still make it to the title as well. As far as the SEC is concerned, if it's not broke, don't fix it.
As a fan that just sucks to hear because there are some really great solutions out there.
This post was edited on 6/26/19 at 10:40 am
Posted on 6/26/19 at 10:45 am to BHMKyle
quote:
1. Auburn- 167
2. LSU- 116
3. Texas A&M- 95
4. Alabama- 38
SEC East contributions:
1. LSU - 86
2. Auburn - 84
3. Texas A&M - 58
4. Alabama - 8 (despite playing Missouri, Georgia, and Florida during that time frame - thank goodness for our psychic agents)
OOC Games contributions:
1. Auburn - 83 (Clemson 2012, KSU 2014, Clemson 2016, Clemson 2017, Washington 2018
2. Alabama - 36 (Michigan 2012, Wisconsin 2015, USC 2016, Louisville 2018)
2. LSU - 30 (Wisconsin 2014, Wisconsin 2016)
3. Texas A&M - 25 (Clemson, 2018)
The biggest discrepancies stem from:
LSU 2012 & 2018 (73 of 86 points from these two seasons)
Texas A&M 2012 & 2013 (38 out of 58 points)
Only Auburn can really complain it is because of their recurring opponent (Georgia 2012, 2017 and 2018 version account for 64 of their 84 points) and getting the worst luck on Clemson landing on their schedule just as they were hitting their stride (Clemson 2016 & 2017 account for 47 of their 83 points).
What is the reason for LSU not winning the West in 2013 (both Alabama and LSU had 0 from non-West schools), in 2014 (0 points for both from East schools), or 2015 (Alabama had more points from East schools than LSU and OOC opponents)?
Auburn in 2015 (0 points from East and OOC schools) or 2016 (0 points from East schools)?
A&M had a accumulated 4 points from East opponents and OOC opponents from 2014 to 2017. That's less than Alabama.
Even when the West teams had easier schedules, they failed to win the SEC West. Only in 2013 did both Alabama and Auburn have identical points from non-West sources (0) did Alabama fail to win the West. LSU has not done it in seasons when they had equivalent or easier schedules, nor has Texas A&M.
LSU fans can complain about 2012 & 2018. Auburn fans can complain about having Georgia.
That's really the only point being made here.
This post was edited on 6/26/19 at 10:49 am
Page 7 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News