Favorite team:Missouri 
Location:
Biography:
Interests:
Occupation:
Number of Posts:16
Registered on:3/14/2022
Online Status:Not Online

Recent Posts

Message
quote:

I did all 5 computers in the post above yours.


As I mentioned in the reply above, I think those averages you posted are wrong...

Specifically, which 5 computer models did you average?...

Please provide links so I can double-check your math.
quote:

Here's the average of the 5 BCS computer rankings...


That doesn't look right, GoGators1995... Can you please specify which 5 computer models you averaged (and provide links)... For example, none of the computer models I've seen have Army or Wazzu anywhere near the Top 25.

With that said, the BCS computer rankings were notoriously inaccurate because they only allowed a team's win-loss record to be considered... points (margins of victory/loss) could NOT be factored in. The rationale was that the BCS didn't want to encourage teams to "run up the score" as it was deemed unsportsmanlike at the time.

Sagarin often criticized the BCS for this limitation.

Anyway, I'm interested in looking at the models you averaged. Please provide the links. Thank you.


quote:

Someone will always be left out. Get over it.

You wouldn't feel that way ("Get over it") if Arkansas were one of the deserving SEC teams being left out.

The best teams should be selected, period.
quote:

To demand 50% of the 12 spots to the SEC is hilarious

Not really. Look at computer models like Sagarin (currently, 6 of the top 11 are SEC teams).

With that said, if the other conferences don't want to offer the SEC more AQ bids, that's fine... Then simply make the playoff selections based on computer analytics rather than (biased) human polls, similar to the BCS era.
This is interesting...
Compare the top computer model (Sagarin) to the AP's latest Top 25, and notice how the media has literally INVERTED the Top 5 in the Big Ten's favor:

Sagarin Ratings

1. SEC
2. SEC
3. Big Ten
4. SEC
5. SEC

Latest AP Top 25

1. Big Ten
2. Big Ten
3. SEC
4. Big Ten
5. Big Ten


This is an example of why computer rankings (especially late in the season, with a large sample size) are vastly superior to human polls.

Every single SEC team is underrated by the AP, compared to what the more accurate & objective computer models say. The conference is being punished for being the best conference, when the opposite should be happening.

There is absolutely no way the SEC is going to move to a 9-game schedule with this kind of subjective bias in the ranking systems. It would actually be more sensible to move to a 7-game schedule, since the league is by far the deepest in the country and already cannibalizing itself with 8 games (and that's with Florida, Oklahoma, and Auburn having down seasons!).

Some wonder why the Big Ten and sports media have put enormous pressure on the SEC to add a 9th conference game... Well, this is why. The rest of college football hates and envies the SEC. The reasons are numerous and obvious.

Sooner than later, the SEC (Sankey) is going to have to address this problem, otherwise deserving SEC teams will be left out of the expanded playoff.

The solutions are to:

(1) Switch to using computer models for ranking & selecting the teams (similar to the BCS era) instead of biased human polls & committees.
Or....
(2) Give the SEC six (6) automatic bids to the playoff (and if it expands to 16, then give the SEC 8 automatic bids).

Sankey will have leverage to negotiate this. The fact is, the CFP needs the SEC more than the SEC needs the CFP... It has more powerhouse brands than all the other leagues combined.

quote:

So, do you see more additions to the conference?


Good question. The PAC and ACC have no viable expansion options. The Big Ten would love to get Notre Dame, UVA, UNC and/or Duke, but it seems highly unlikely that any of those schools would leave the ACC. (The money would be tempting, but the rivalries, tradition, and geographic proximity would be a lot to to sacrifice, especially for the Carolina schools.) Also, there's no way Notre Dame would give up its independence in football, especially with the playoff set to expand in the next few years. The SEC would love to add UNC or UVA if the opportunity ever arose, but as I said before it seems unlikely those schools would leave the ACC, despite the revenue gap. So I think the new alignment will be stable.

quote:

Only reason we got stuck with Mizzou is because UF’s president at the time grew up in the state.

Keep telling yourself that. And I suggest actually reading the OP.
quote:

How the hell did Mizzou do anything to bridge the way to get OU/UT?

Read the OP... It's fully explained.
quote:

UTexas does not add anything athletically or academically to the SEC.

C'mon, I hate the Longhorns as much as anyone, but they are an academic and athletic powerhouse.

Considered a "public Ivy", their academic programs are highly ranked across the board. Their athletic programs are consistently ranked in the top 20 (if not top 10) in *all* sports. Multiple national title contenders every year.

Most lucrative AD in the country. Like Notre Dame, even when the Longhorns suck, people (and media) still follow and care about them. Half their games will be marquee matchups with national appeal and high TV ratings. Not to mention the old SWC and Big12 rivalries.

Plus, and perhaps most importantly, it gives the SEC a monopoly in the most fertile recruiting territory in the land. That would be the state of Texas.
quote:

The SEC already has our own historic rivalries.

The SEC would have had major problems if it remained at 12 as other leagues expanded. There's no do-overs in conference realignment. If the SEC had said "no thanks" to A&M and those schools had joined the PAC-16 instead, things would be a lot different.

Again, a lot of Oklahoma and Missouri fans didn't want to expand the Big 8, but times changed. You can either adapt, or get left behind in the dust.

Thankfully, Mike Slive chose the former.

quote:

SEC fans didn't want to expand past 12, FWIW

And a lot of Oklahoma and Missouri fans didn't want to expand the Big 8, but times changed... If the SEC hadn't expanded West with A&M/MU/OU/UT then another conference would have, and that wouldn't bode well for the league's interests down the road.
quote:

as for Sankeys body of work. We still win in FB, often having 2 in, our basketball league has gotten a lot better, baseball has been dominant by more than just one school during his time, and womens sports have become more dominant. He has done a good job in my eyes


Plus, landing Texas and Oklahoma.
quote:

We get a good amount of bias in football. Though not apples to apples because football doesn't have a 64 team tournament, we definitely get preferential treatment. Maybe its because of perceived fan support in the SEC vs. B1G?

True, but that "bias" is justified. This particular bias is NOT, as I explained in the OP.
quote:

Looks like Wake Forest got screwed also.

and SEC-bound Oklahoma, the highest-ranked team to NOT receive a bid
Kenpom is widely considered the best and most accurate ranking system in college basketball, as most of you probably know. The rankings can be found at kenpom.com (NCAA tournament teams are highlighted red).

If you analyze the rankings and selections, it doesn't take long to realize how favorably the Big Ten (B1G) was treated compared to all other conferences, in particular the SEC.

Every B1G team in the bubble-range received a bid (6 out of 6), including 18-13 Rutgers at #74 (#77 in the NCAA's official "NET" rankings).

By contrast, none of the SEC teams were selected, including 23-12 Texas A&M at #43 (in both Kenpom and NET).

So, what exactly was the selection committee's rationale for putting in Rutgers over Texas A&M?...

The SEC deserves an explanation considering how much money this cost the conference (payouts are based on # of bids/wins). Money that should be going to the SEC, going to the Big Ten instead. Not to mention, how unfair it is to the teams.

Here's a graphic that helps illustrate it: