Wednesday, January 10, 2007

2006 BCS Conference Comparison

My buddy Mark, a huge Arkansas fan, texted me first thing Tuesday morning:

“See, I told you we could play football in the south!”

After Florida’s 41-14 drubbing of Ohio State, SEC fans feel vindicated, Big Ten supporters aren’t picking up the phone, and WAC junkies are just begging for a chance.

The Which Conference is Better debate never really stops, but intensifies dramatically around bowl season, with top teams from every conference in the nation going doing battle throughout the holiday season. There are plenty of fans, maybe even a majority, who will throw their support behind conference rivals they can’t stand in November just so their conference looks better on a national stage. So which conference really is the best?

There’s not much question that the SEC has the most potent collection of dangerous teams and this year, of course, has the national champion. During the season, when Ohio State and Michigan appeared to be the two biggest baddies in the land, a few commentators hailed the Big Ten as America’s premier conference because it boasted the two best teams. Occasionally, the PAC-10 or Big XII will get a nod thanks to a confluence of great athletes in the same season.

One thing that drives me absolutely criminally insane about the way announcers cover college football is their adamant refusal to really examine a question for an extended period of time. ESPN has completely diminished the excitement of a great argument by not letting their commentators speak for more than 20-30 seconds about any particular issue. One might perhaps suggest that this time limit exists because Lou Holtz, Mark May and Lee Corso rarely know enough about any one topic to speak much longer. I hate this attention-deficit “debate”; talking spout one or two talking points, and nothing really gets discussed. I’d much rather see a weekly half-hour show devoted to one particular question, or topic, like this one, than see a show try to devote 30 seconds to every topic imagineable.

So, in that spirit, I’m going to use this column to try to rank the 6 BCS conferences in 2006.

To attempt such a thing, you have to first agree on a definition of “best.” I, for one, don’t buy that the SEC is the best conference just because the national champion is from there. You also can’t throw around meaningless stats like “conference X has the most bowl teams.” Almost all bowls are done because of conference affiliations, so all that number does is show how badly a conference’s teams were desired a few years ago when the contracts were written. No method is perfect, because everyone has a slightly different, personal definition of what “best” means. But, for my money, the “best” way to determine “best” is by asking this question:

If you were a completely average team, the most average team in America, 59.5th best out of 119 teams…in which conference would it be the hardest to have a winning record?

In order to answer this question, I’m going to utilize the following method:

List each conference in order of how the teams finished the regular season.
Compare all the first place teams against one another, and then the second, and so on, assigning point values (6 for 1st, 5 for 2nd, etc.)
Different conferences have different amounts of teams, and therefore different max points, so at the end, we’ll divide each conference’s points by their max points, and get a %, where 100% is the best possible.

And then maybe we’ll know, at least in 2006, which conference truly was the best.

#1

ACC – Wake Forest
Big 10 – Ohio State
Big 12 – Oklahoma
Big East – Louisville
Pac 10 – USC
SEC – Florida

Obviously, you’ve got to put Florida tops here, and based on what we saw Monday, its not that close. Second is a really close battle between Ohio State, USC and Louisville. I’d like to give Ohio State the benefit of the doubt, thinking that they can’t really be as bad as they looked Monday, and they probably aren’t. But USC flat-out drilled a team Ohio State struggled to beat on their home turf, and I don’t see how you could bet against Pete Carroll with any time at all to prepare. Louisville did beat West Virginia, and we’ll credit the Cardinals for building a great home field advantage. But without any real impressive performances outside of that, I think they’re behind OSU and USC. Oklahoma is a fairly clear next choice, with Wake Forest being pretty far behind the pack at #6.

SEC (6), 2. Pac-10 (5), 3. Big 10 (4), 4. Big East (3), 5. Big 12 (2), 6. ACC (1)

#2

ACC – Georgia Tech
Big 10 – Michigan
Big 12 – Nebraska
Big East – Rutgers
Pac 10 – Cal
SEC – Arkansas

Ranking the #2 choices is difficult, because its almost indisputable that two of the #3s (Wisconsin and LSU) are better than all these teams right now. Since Arkansas lost to a Wisconsin team that Michigan beat by 14, I’ll take the Wolverines tops, followed by the Hogs. Cal and Nebraska might play to a near standstill, but I’ll take Cal in third because they beat Texas A&M by 35, and Nebraska needed a late TD to win by 1. Cal also has a slightly better “best win,” drilling Oregon State by 28, while the Huskers probably claim a 14 point win over Missouri in this category. Georgia Tech looked very good in the Gator Bowl, and Reggie Ball did a lot more good on the pine than he did under center. But even at their best, the Ramblin’ Wreck lost by 3 to a team Rutgers took to 3OT in Morgantown. So I’ll take Rutgers 5th, Tech 6th.

Big 10 (10), 2. SEC (11), 3. Pac 10 (9), 4. Big 12 (5), 5. Big East (5), 6. ACC (2)

#3

ACC – VA Tech
Big 10 – Wisconsin
Big 12 – Texas
Big East – West Virginia
Pac 10 – Oregon State
SEC – LSU

This is a surprisingly potent collection of teams, with Wisconsin, LSU and West Virginia all being legitimate top 10 teams, and Texas the defending national champ. LSU’s win over Notre Dame isn’t that impressive, because Notre Dame is…well that’s a different column. Wisconsin got it done all year, and despite being outplayed most of the game against the Hogs, got a big win in the Capital One Bowl. I think its LSU by a hair over the Badgers, with West Virginia not that far behind in third. Texas is a very powerful team physically, but didn’t seem to have the focus that made its 2005 unit great, evidenced by the Kansas State loss and the squeaker over a bad Iowa team. Had VA Tech beaten Georgia in Atlanta, I might take them above the ‘Horns here, but I think its got to be Texas, the Hokies and then a team that’s impossible not to like, the 10-4 Oregon State Beavers.

SEC (17), 2. Big 10 (15), 3. Big East (9), 4. Big 12 (8), 5. ACC (4), 6. Pac 10 (10)

#4

ACC – Boston College
Big 10 – Penn State
Big 12 – Texas A&M
Big East – South Florida
Pac 10 – UCLA
SEC – Auburn

This is where you start to see a major dropoff in some of the weaker conferences. Auburn is a runaway #1 here, having beaten the 4th best 2nd place team in the Outback Bowl. Before the bowls, I think BC would have been a clear cut #2 here. They boast three good wins (Clemson, VA Tech, Maryland). TAMU’s win over Texas and UCLA’s win over USC are better, but those teams didn’t do a lot the rest of the year. A&M was close, losing to Nebraska by 1, Oklahoma by 1 and Texas Tech by 4 for its only pre-bowl losses. We learned a lot about UCLA in their awful bowl performance against the ‘Noles, and I think their 6 losses really keep them from being taken seriously. Penn State impressed me in the bowl game, but I still don’t think their offense is that impressive. This is probably the toughest group to rank of all, but I’ll take Penn State second, Boston College third, Texas A&M fourth and UCLA fifth. South Florida is, of course, 6th.

1. SEC (23), 2. Big 10 (20), 3. ACC (8), 4. Big 12 (11), 5. Pac 10 (12), 6. Big East (10)

#5

ACC – Clemson
Big 10 – Purdue
Big 12 – Texas Tech
Big East – Cincinnati
Pac 10 – Oregon
SEC – Tennessee

Before the bowls, I definitely had Clemson leading the pack here, but that hangover of a performance against Kentucky was a headscratcher. Maybe they didn’t want to be there, or maybe they just weren’t that good in the first place. Tennessee wasn’t great against Penn State, but didn’t produce the huge yawn that the Tigers did, so I’ll go with the Vols first, Clemson second. Texas Tech is a puzzle, but showed what they were capable of doing with that dazzling second half against Minnesota. In fourth, I think you have to take the Cincinnati Bearcats, one of the least respected 8 win teams in the country. They gave Louisville all they could handle, beat Rutgers, fought hard against VA Tech, and pounded South Florida. They’d beat Purdue on a neutral field, a team that didn’t beat another winning team all year, and got clobbered silly by every good team they faced. The Boilers have a slight edge over the Ducks, who are a bad call away from being 5-7, and have won three games since September.

1.SEC (29), 2. ACC (13), 3. Big 12 (15), 4. Big East (13), 5. Big 10 (22), 6. Pac 10 (13)

#6

ACC – Maryland
Big 10 – Minnesota
Big 12 – Missouri
Big East – Pitt
Pac 10 – Arizona State
SEC – Georgia

Talk about a quietly awesome year. The Georgia Bulldogs finished 9-4 in 2006 with wins over South Carolina, Auburn, GA Tech and VA Tech. Disappointing losses to Vandy and Kentucky mar that record a bit, but its still good enough for tops here. Missouri is a fairly easy second, and I don’t think there’s a lot of competition for Maryland being third behind those two. Arizona State really doesn’t have a good win all year and doesn’t have a single bad loss either. They went down to Cal, Oregon, USC, Oregon State, UCLA and Hawaii and beat everyone else. I think they’re a bit better than Minnesota, who was 3-6 a few weeks ago, and is now looking for a coach because they took their 31 point lead on Tech and choked like a chicken bone. Pitt’s a bad football team.

SEC (35), 2. Big 12 (20), 3. ACC (17), 4. Pac 10 (16), 5. Big 10 (24), 6. Big East (14)

#7

ACC – Virginia
Big 10 – Indiana
Big 12 – Kansas State
Big East – UCONN
Pac 10 – Washington State
SEC – Kentucky

Yeah, I’m getting sick of giving the SEC top billing, but what choice do I have after Kentucky beat down Clemson in the Music City Bowl? Washington State has easily the best quality wins of the remainder, boasting wins over Oregon State, Oregon, UCLA and Baylor. That’s a decent resume this far down the ladder, and combined, the four wins are a little bit better than Kansas State’s signature victory, the upset of Texas. Virginia beat Miami when they were in ultimate self-destruct mode: big deal. They also lost to East Carolina, W. Michigan and Indiana. I’ve got to take the Hoosiers 4th here, despite their loss to UCONN in September. Indiana beat Iowa and Western Michigan, and UCONN absolutely tanked after winning in Bloomington, so they finish dead last.

SEC (41), 2. Pac 10 (21), 3. Big 12 (24), 4. Big 10 (27), 5. ACC (19), 6. Big East (15)

#8

ACC – Florida State
Big 10 – Northwestern
Big 12 – Oklahoma State
Big East – Syracuse
Pac 10 – Arizona
SEC – South Carolina

Spurrier’s Gamecocks are the best of this bunch, easily. South Carolina played had Florida backed in a corner, lost by less than a TD to Tennessee, Auburn and Arkansas. Only two good wins over Clemson and Kentucky, but enough for first. Arizona has a surprising amount of quality wins: BYU in September, and three straight against Washington State, Cal and Oregon in November. I’ll take the Wildcats over the two bowl teams in this bunch. Oklahoma State gets a slight edge over Florida State thanks to their jaw-dropping-when-its-on passing attack led by Bobby Reid and Adarius Bowman. FSU did beat UCLA, but was just awful down the stretch, gagging in chances against NC State, BC, Maryland and Wake during the stretch drive. They only beat Western Michigan by 8, and that opening night win over Miami is pretty irrelevant. Syracuse and Northwestern were both bad, but the Wildcats beat the Iowa team with Drew Tate that ‘Cuse couldn’t beat without him, so I’ll take Northwestern fifth.

SEC (47), 2. Pac 10 (26), 3. Big 12 (28), 4. ACC (22), 5. Big 10 (29), 6. Big East (16)

#9

ACC – Miami
Big 10 – Iowa
Big 12 – Kansas
Pac 10 – Washington
SEC – Alabama

The 9 hole is just littered with formerly proud programs who spent most of the year getting embarrassed. Every team on the list went 6-6, and this a balanced group in their mediocrity. I really think the best team on this list is the Kansas Jayhawks. KU won 3 of their last four, including a dominating victory over in-state rival K-State. The ‘Hawks took Nebraska to OT, lost to A&M by 1, and beat South Florida. That’s a better resume than anyone else on the list. Alabama is next, with a D that kept them in games they really had no business winning; their only losses by 8 or more points were to Florida and LSU. Iowa is a more disciplined team than the ‘Canes, and I think a Kirk Ferentz game plan would give the Hawks a narrow win. Washington was awful down the stretch, despite an exciting victory over Washington State in the finale.

Big 12 (33), 2. SEC (51), 3. Big 10 (32), 4. ACC (24), 5. Pac 10 (27)

#10

ACC – NC State
Big 10 – Michigan State
Big 12 – Baylor
Pac 10 – Stanford
SEC – Ole Miss

Its getting ugly down here. Ole Miss is the only team here that did anything at all down the stretch, getting wins over the worst two teams in the SEC. Baylor could score on any of these teams, and despite having no defense at all, I think they’d beat Ole Miss. I can’t believe I’m picking Michigan State to win anything, but NC State lost their last 7, and Stanford is the worst BCS team in the nation, so the Spartans come in third.

Big 12 (38), 2. SEC (55), 3. Big 10 (35), 4. ACC (26), 5. Pac 10 (28)

#11

ACC – UNC
Big 10 – Illinois
Big 12 – Colorado
SEC – Vanderbilt

You’ve got to give the edge to Vandy here, courtesy of their big win over Georgia. Colorado has the next best win, over Texas Tech, but I think Ron Zook’s Illini takes them on a neutral field. Illinois’ victory over Michigan State was the game that ruined John L. Smith’s season much more than the Notre Dame game. North Carolina is a distant fourth.

SEC (59), 2. Big 10 (38), 3. Big 12 (40), 4. ACC (27)

#12

ACC – Duke
Big 12 – Iowa State
SEC – Mississippi State

Somehow, the Bulldogs went to Tuscaloosa and won, making them a runaway top choice here. Iowa State wasn’t nearly as awful as their record indicated, but they’re not better than Mississippi State. Duke vs. Stanford. Now there’s a matchup you’d pay to see.

SEC (62), 2. Big 12 (42), 3. ACC (28)


OK, so we’ve done it. Top to bottom. Let’s look at the standings:

1. SEC 62 of 65 possible = 95.3%
2. Big 12 42 of 65 possible = 64.6%
3. Big 10 38 of 62 possible = 61.2%
4. Pac 10 28 of 58 possible = 48.2%
5. ACC 28 of 65 possible = 43.0%
6. Big East 16 of 48 possible = 33.3%

So, there you have it. To no one’s surprise, the SEC completely dominates these rankings, earning an astounding 95% of possible points. Maybe a bit surprising is the Big 12, coming in at 2nd place, barely edging the Big 10. The Big East had three pretty good teams, but going .500 in that conference should have been the easiest, by far, for a totally average team.

Even if you don’t agree with all the calculations, the overall trend of the results is hard to ignore.

And yes, Mark. They can play football in the south.

IMPORTANT:

One more thing - I love it when people link to my site, or post the contents on message boards, or elsewhere, so please keep that up. However, please make sure to also post a link to the site as well. Every time someone reads a column of mine without visiting my site, its money out of my pocket, so please, just throw a link up there. Thanks. Go Big East.

47 comments:

Anonymous said...

Interesting write up. I usually don't read Blogs but you kept my attention the whole way. I like it.

Anonymous said...

Hey, great write up! This must have taken you hours to write and I think you have a lot of great points. One thing I do think you overlooked is that the Big 12 had zero non-conference wins over ranked teams.

Now bad officiating and repeatedly bad replay officiating kept Oklahoma from getting a win against a then ranked team, but even that team ended up with an asterix marred 6-6 record.

I think that the ranking of yours that is the most skewed is the Texas A and M ranking. Their claim to fame was near losses to other Big 12 teams, one of which was to a team taht needed a record breaking comeback to beat the Big 10's 6th ranked team. Since the Big Ten is reanked below the Big 12, that win should have less value. Also, UCLA had close losses to Notre Dame and Cal, which were both high ranked teams. One of them shuoldn't be, but they both were...

Other than that good stuff! Thanks so much man!

Brian Golden said...

I'd have to agree with the TAMU comments, in hindsight. Close losses shouldn't count for that much, but perhaps be useful as a tiebreaker in certain situations. That being said, I would still bet on TAMU vs. UCLA on an neutral field. UCLA finished bad, on the whole, and lost badly to a 6-6 Florida State team in California.

Brian Golden said...

I'd have to agree with the TAMU comments, in hindsight. Close losses shouldn't count for that much, but perhaps be useful as a tiebreaker in certain situations. That being said, I would still bet on TAMU vs. UCLA on an neutral field. UCLA finished bad, on the whole, and lost badly to a 6-6 Florida State team in California.

Anonymous said...

Big 12 cant win out of conference...

and WVU was the big east number two not Rutgers.

Anonymous said...

You have flaws in your analysis ... fatal flaws.

First, technically, RU finished 3rd in the Big East, niot 2nd, behind WVU.

Second, RU and WVU are both EASILY better than Nebraska. You could also make a casse that any of the Top 3 Big East teams are better than ANY Big 12 team.

Third, why is Arkansas clearly better than RU? I would agree that LSU was better. But Arkansas?

Fourth, why do you say Wisconsin is clearly better than either RU or WVU? Wisconsin beat NOBODY in the regular season, though they had a nice bowl win.

Fifth, why on earth do you say that USF is clearly last? Why would they be behind a 7-5 regular season UCLA? Because UCLA beat USC in a rivalry game? How about USF's win over a Top 10 WVU ... on the road? Is not that equally impressive? And I think USF is better than BC also ... BC would be completely unable to score on USF. And I have no idea whether A&M is any good at all.

Sixth, Cincy is probably better than both Texas Tech and Purdue.

Seventh, why is Pitt any worse than ASU or Minny. Thse 2 teams are pretty mediocre teams, like Pitt.

Most importantly, your ENTIRE ANLAYSIS IS USELESS BECAUSE OF THE METHODOLOGY USED. How so? You cannot compare the Big East's 7th and 8th place teams against the 7th and 8th place teams of other conferecens with 10-12 teams in them. You have to compare the Big East's bottom 25% of their teams wityh the bottom 25% of the other conference teams. Otherwise your entire methodology is completely flawed and useless. Your end of the piece "true-up" does not come CLOSE to doing that as anyone familiar with any type of legitimate statistical analysis can tell you. Compare UConn and Syracuse to teams like Ole Miss, Vandy, Duke, UNC, Illinois, Miss St., Colorado, Stanford and Iowa St., to mention a few. The Big East's bottom teams are WORLDS better than the other conferences bottom teams.

The Big East's Top teams are on par with other conference's top teams, generally. And the Big East's middle teams are better or on par with some conferences middle teams, and worse than others. If your analysis cannot pick that up, then it is completely useless. And any analysis that comes up with a result that suggests that the ACC was better than the Big East THIS PAST SEASON, is also completely useless.

Brian Golden said...

I appreciate the feedback. You have a point with comparing Big East's bottom teams to other conference's middle teams. You have me there, and I'm not sure how to address that in an analysis. I can't just arbitrarily say - USF matches up with 9th/10th place teams or something like that. The goal was to take arbitrary decisions out of the equation. But in general, I'll concede that you have a good point, but that the only conference that really hurts in the analysis is the Big East. And since you're clearly a Big East fan, I can see how you feel shafted.

As to your other points.

Rutgers did indeed get 3 in the Big East. I don't really think that affects the analysis one way or the other. The teams are interchangeable in my eyes as far as how good they are.

I don't think you cuold watch the two teams this year and call Rutgers better than Arkansas. I loved watching Rutgers this year, but Arkansas has these quality wins: Tennessee, Alabama, at Auburn and at South Carolina. The one win Rutgers has to hang its hat on is over a Louisville team that, while good, is traditionally not so good on the road. Also beating K-State is good. Losses: Arkansas lost to USC, LSU and Florida, 3 of the top 4 teams in the country. Rutgers lost to WVU and Cincinnati. There's no comparison.

Your fifth and sixth points are correlated. If I'm not supposed to overevaluate UCLA based on beating USC, you can't overvalue Cincy's win over Rutgers. What, other than that, did Cincy do to warrant them being better than Texas Tech? Cincy and Purdue would probably be a close game. I don't think Tech vs. Cincinnati would be that close.

Pitt vs. ASU vs. Minnesota - yeah, down at this point in the standings it gets really tough to evaluate, because none of the teams really have many quality wins. But AZ State gave USC a scare, made a bowl, and pounded Wazzu. I'll take that over Pitt's 5 straight season losses and two Big East wins over Cuse and those deadly Cincinnati Bearcats anyway.

The ACC was harder than the Big East to go .500 in this year. If you're a totally average time, you're going to lose to Rutgers WVU and Louisville almost every time. But you're also going to pound Cuse, Pitt and UCONN almost every time. As far as mid pack teams go, USF and Cincinnati just don't compare to Clemson, Virginia and Florida State.

Do you really think USF beats Clemson and UCONN beats Virginia/Florida State? Come on.

Anonymous said...

Brian -- I saw your link to this analysis on the Rutgers message board, and I posted my comments to you there. I explain why your analysis is flawed, and you have only concluded that bigger is better.

Anonymous said...

Clemson was one of the most schizophrenic teams of the year. USF shut down White and Slaton, who are light years better than Davis/Spiller. And White has better downfield recievers and the offensive scheme at WVU is actually creative. USF can only be beaten with superior strength, like Rutgers. Clemson would not beat Rutgers, USF lost on a dropped two-point conversion. Some how, you've missed the Big East OOC schedule, which was best in the land. The ACC was dominated, even humiliated by the Big East this year. In Tallahassee, FSU and USF would play close. In Tampa, no way FSU wins. FSU and UVA just were not good teams. Whom did they beat? No one. Remember, USF easily beat Pitt which stomped UVA. This follows some of your other logic used. You can rank all you want, but at some point, you have to drop the idea that Big East is no good and actually look at the records. Before you bash me, I'm a UF grad living in Tampa, and I attended 14 college games this season in the state (Thanks to USF's handy Thursday and Friday games).

Anonymous said...

This is garbage, because you are making unfair comparisons of different sized conferences, and you don't account for the fact that in larger conferences, teams don't play every other team, giving them an easier path to a 500 record. A comparison of the B12 and BE shows how much garbage this is.

Try this: instead of starting with the top teams in each conference, start with the bottom teams, since these are the teams easiest to beat to get your winning record.

Compare Iowa St to Syracuse, Colorado to Connecticut, Baylor to Pittsburgh, Kansas to Cincinnati, Oklahoma St to Rutgers, Kansas St to West Virginia, and Louisville to Missouri.

Or let's look at actual schedules for teams just below the halfway point in each conference which finished at or above 500.

Kansas St finished 7th with a 4-4 record. But to get the 4 wins, they could have beaten any 4 of the following teams on their schedule: Oklahoma St, Kansas, Baylor, Colorado, and Iowa St. Kansas St could lose one game to an inferior team, and still finish at 500.

Cincinnati, on the other hand finished just below halfway in the BE, 5th with a 4-3 record. But to get those 4 wins, they had to beat every team below them (Pittsburgh, UConn, Syracuse) plus they had to steal a game from a team above them (Rutgers, WVU, or Louisville). If they lost a game to a team below them, they would have had to steal two games from a team above them.

Looking at it this way, it seems to be tougher to go 500 in the Big East than the Big 12.

Anonymous said...

brian,

I can answer some of your points, not in order of what you wrote, but what I remember (since by hitting reply, I lose your comments from view):

1) I do not think USF is better than Clemson (though they really choked down the stretch, losing 4 of 5). But, yeah, I think USF is better than very average Florida St. and UVA teams. USF struggled early in the season ... they had a froh QB and were missing their best RB and best DL due to suspensions. Their defense is FAST, and their QB is really dangerous.

2) Well ... I may grant you your point on Pitt. yet, early in the seaosn, Pitt CRUSHED UVA abd beat michigan St. easily ... and we agree that USF is better than Pitt. Pitt's wheels fell off after RU just dominated them.

3) Cincy played a good OOC schedule, including @Ohio St., @ V. Tech. They were competitive with Ohio St., and I think were leading V. Tech in the 4th quarter.

4) The Big East had a winning record against the ACC, for whatever that is worth.

5) I saw Arkansas 3 times this year, They are a very fine team ... very fine. But your analysis just blithely assumes they are better. I think RU's defense would smother Arkansas ... they HAVE NO QB PLAY. One dimensdional offensive teams were very unable to move the ball at all against RU all year, no amtter how good those 1 dimensions were (Pitt's passing offense was smothered, and Navy's rushing offense, as examples).

6) All your reasoning happens to be arbitrary, which you claim you are taking out of the equation, or trying to. How so? Because Arkansas has some decent wins IN their own conference, you give them credit ... but do NOT giev Big East teams credit fro wins against teams with similar records inside the Big East. That is ciscular, and feeds on itself.

7) I am actually woeking on an article for the RU Rivals site that looks at all sorts of otehr criteria .. and reaches the opposite conculsion. One of my problems with the SEC (though I do believe they are the best conference) is that NO ONE IN THE SEC plays ANYONE outside the SEC. The 12 teams of the SEC played 14 or 15 BCS teams out of conference, c=in aggregate. The 8 teams of the Big East played 18 BCS opponents out of conference. The article will break this down in many ways, for most of the major conferences. My point is that we do not really know how good ANY conference is, exept to the extent that they play OTHER conferences. Playing within your own conference proves NOTHING about how good you are relative to other conferences. By this measure, including bowl games, the SEC does acquit themselves well (but it took the bowl season to do so). But guess what? SO does the Big East. The Big East had a very good OOC record this year, a winning record against BCS oppoentns in the regular season, a 5-0 bowl record, and its OOC opponents had a winning record, in aggregate.

I would say that this year the Big East was about the 3rd best conference. the ACC is CLEARLY the worst conference ... CLEARLY. The Big 12 was actually quite weak this season. the Big 10 had 3 excellent teams, and not much else (and Wisconsin did not play anyone, really). The PAC 10 was very top heavy ... but to their credit played a LOT of tough OOC opponents.

From the guy who wrote the other long comment.

Anonymous said...

good stuff. go dawgs!

Anonymous said...

You use your opinions not real math based on true game results, Final Rankings, OOC Record, Bowl Results, how many teams have winning records, and other objective factors.

Your system is true folly, the fact is we have results by games played against ranked competition and then divide them by number of schools in a conference. Not judging schools just using their own numbers in games, Bowls and Final Rankings!

Quit fixing the outcome you desire!

Anonymous said...

In respsonse to everyone's criticism of the SEC's OOC schedule and their lack of playing top ranked teams, WHY should they. When they get into conference play, they are almost guaranteed to play at least 2-4 teams throughout the year ranked in the top 10 to 15. Unlike most conferences, teams dont have an off week every other week in the SEC> Every SEC team must bring their A game each week just to ensure they dont get embarrassed on the field

Anonymous said...

Well, that was 10 minutes of my life that I'll never get back. Poorly thought out and factually flawed. Nice try, though.

Anonymous said...

Big East is ranked 2nd in Sagarin rating, 3rd in Anderson & Hester, 3rd in Bilingsley, 1st in Matrix, 3rd in Massey, and 2nd in Wolfe. All of these ratings are part of BCS computer ranking.

(http://www.bcsfootball.org/bcsfb/rankings)

Yet, you found a way to put Big East very distant last place by ignoring all the games played but using your gut feeling?

Anonymous said...

In response to the person who wrote: "In respsonse to everyone's criticism of the SEC's OOC schedule and their lack of playing top ranked teams, WHY should they. When they get into conference play, they are almost guaranteed to play at least 2-4 teams throughout the year ranked in the top 10 to 15."

Teams in other many other conferences also play 2-4 in-conference games against top-15 competition. Cincinnati for example had to play 3 Big East teams which finished the year ranked in the top-12. But that didn't stop them from also playing Ohio State and Virginia Tech. Compare that to LSU, who played 3 top-15 teams plus #25 Tenn, but didn't schedule any potential top-25 OOC games.

Anonymous said...

You say Kansas is the best team in the #9 slot. Well, USF barely lost to Kansas in Manhattan, and you even mention that the victory consummates a better resume. And yet you want to say that Miami or Iowa is better then USF? Your logic is terribly flawed, and you clearly don't know anything about using one logical idea throughout a column. The other comment about USF beating Pitt which KILLED UVA is that same logic you use to try and keep the Big East down. Your method is terrible-mainly b/c you've punished the Big East for having fewer teams, despite the strength up and down. You should use the method everyone else uses: Wins vs. Losses. The SEC was best this year, followed by the Big East, PAC-10, Big 10, Big 12, and the ACC was just a bit better than the WAC. This is objective analysis right here: SEC had some of the best teams- LSU and UF (UT lost to PSU), and those two teams were great. But they also got to play 'Bama, Ole Miss, Miss State. Big East had a great team- UL, and two damn good teams in WVU and RU. 'Cuse was the worst, and still beat IU and almost took out Iowa and Wake. Pac-10- USC killed UM, and Cal was damn good. The Oregon teams had their moments, too. Big 12 was in a down year, Texas was complacent, Oklahoma had too many distractions, and Nebraska is a year away. Big 10 had one good moment in the bowl games, and Ohio State's win at Texas apparently wasn't very good, as Texas showed. ACC was a joke, the top of the ACC struggled with the bottom of the Big East, and most matches with the SEC were a nightmare (but the ACC fared better against the SEC than they did with the Big East). WAC had a great team in Boise and another good one in Hawaii and it's 345# RB. QED. If you don't know what that means, stop writing about college football because you must not have gone to college, as your idiotic methodology clearly indicates. To perform research, you need equal sample sizes, and some objectivity. You really failed in the latter, and the former is a solveable problem.

Anonymous said...

(I'm the previous poster)
"Pitt's a bad football team." And Arizona State isn't!?!? You've got to be kidding, right. Pitt is far better than the train wreck at ASU. And do you really think Clemson could beat Cincy? After the minefield that Cincy went through, Clemson would be a piece of cake. The worst though, is your USF analysis. How is BC, which barely beat Navy, which died to Rutgers and had an epic struggle with UCONN, better then USF? USF would torch, BC, as every team with speed did, and USF has two things: speed and heart. BC has neither. BTW- USF plays at Auburn next season. We'll see then. In the #3 slot, who exactly did Wisconsin beat? They had to bend the rules to beat Penn State and collapsed to Michigan. WVU would crush Wisconsin. At #2, using your logic, RU is ahead of Big Red, which lost to Texas, which lost to K-State, which was killed by Rutgers. You had a good idea for a column, but you did not perform objective analysis, used terrible logic, and showed that you really don't know much about college football. I suggest you try again, and look at the only thing that matters in this discussion: OOC wins and losses. In which case, the Big East ends up #1, but in deference to UF and LSU, I'll say the SEC was #1.

Anonymous said...

(I'm the previous poster)
"Pitt's a bad football team." And Arizona State isn't!?!? You've got to be kidding, right. Pitt is far better than the train wreck at ASU. And do you really think Clemson could beat Cincy? After the minefield that Cincy went through, Clemson would be a piece of cake. The worst though, is your USF analysis. How is BC, which barely beat Navy, which died to Rutgers and had an epic struggle with UCONN, better then USF? USF would torch, BC, as every team with speed did, and USF has two things: speed and heart. BC has neither. BTW- USF plays at Auburn next season. We'll see then. In the #3 slot, who exactly did Wisconsin beat? They had to bend the rules to beat Penn State and collapsed to Michigan. WVU would crush Wisconsin. At #2, using your logic, RU is ahead of Big Red, which lost to Texas, which lost to K-State, which was killed by Rutgers. You had a good idea for a column, but you did not perform objective analysis, used terrible logic, and showed that you really don't know much about college football. I suggest you try again, and look at the only thing that matters in this discussion: OOC wins and losses. In which case, the Big East ends up #1, but in deference to UF and LSU, I'll say the SEC was #1.

Anonymous said...

wow.. lots of garbage in that article. obviously he didn't watch enough football during the regular season or during the bowl season to have a real feel for how the standing should go.

i would have liked to see this article written b4 the bowl games then again after them.

ex: Texas lost there last 2 regular season games do to McCoy's pinched nerve they were BCS bound till then.

In the game Texas started out slow but came on well mid to late 2nd quarter. They were playing a healthy Iowa team which hasn't been "healthy" at all this year, especially at QB.

i do feel it would be hard to argue Texas up higher, but to place a 6-6 Kansas team that played neither Oklahoma or Texas ahead of Iowa is rediculous. 3 of those last 4 arguement isn't too hot either considering who they were against. victories over teams w/ a record 3-13 between the 2 schools that don't come from Kansas.

Brian Golden said...

QED?? I'm pretty sure I know what that means.

It means "and thus it is true." Or something close to that.

Yeah, I went to college. And not in the Big East.

Anonymous said...

Totally flawed analysis. But the biggest flaw, you ask, "If you were a completely average team, the most average team in America, 59.5th best out of 119 teams…in which conference would it be the hardest to have a winning record?"

Then proceed to compare #1s, etc. It doesn't matter which #1 from each conference is the best. The 59.5th best team would hypothetically lose to all of them. And it doesn't matter which is the better #12 team in the conferences that have that many teams. The 59.5th team would hypothetically beat all of them.

Next time try to answer your own question.

Brian Golden said...

Obviously the 59.5th best team wouldn't lose to the #1 team in the country 100 times out of 100. THere are varying degrees of likeliness in all outcomes, and in college football, its usually somewhere between 100% and 0%. Next time, try not to be a mathematical absolutist.

Anonymous said...

Maybe not, but then that's probably the better way to approach this question. Out of 100 games against Florida, what would the record of the 59.5th best team be? .01? Against USC? .03? Then how about the bottom? Mississippi State, .80? Duke, .95? Stanford, .95?

Then you average the likely winning percentage of the hypothetical team against each team in a given conference. Then you have attempted to answer your own question. It's still subjective, but it's a heck of a lot more valid.

By the way, it's not about mathematical absolutism. It's about logical flow of thought. You asked an interesting question. I would be curious to see it answered.

Anonymous said...

Nice blogpost. I think you got it 100% correct. Big East fanboys, get over it!

Anonymous said...

It's funny to read how upset primarily Big East fans with an inferiority complex are getting over one sports fan's ambitious attempt in a blog to rate the conferences. I get a mental picture of these guys sitting in the glow of their computer monitors, red-faced, gritting their teeth as they pound their frustrations out on the keyboard.

Anonymous said...

clemson would ass rape any big east team! the big east blows!

Anonymous said...

Whom, exactly, does the Big East have to beat to get any respect? I guess the entire damn nation isn't good enough, is it?

Brian Golden said...

I guess I wouldn't call it "the entire damn nation" when the teams they beat all finished worse in their respective conferences than the Big East teams playing them.

#3 Rutgers beat big 12 #8 Kansas State in a bowl and Big Ten #10 Illinois in regular season, and Rutgers fans talk about their awesome out of conference performance. Uh, OK.

#1 Louisville beat ACC #1 Wake Forest, but thats reflected in the ratings.

My favorite is the Big East fans pointing to Syracuse coming within a TD of Big Ten #9 Iowa in the Carrier Dome without Iowa's starting QB. Um, is that your landmark performance?

I completely admit comparing 8-team league to 12-team league in this fashion favors the 12-team league.

However, the Big East is not the second best conference in the country, as many of them claim. Syracuse, UCONN and Pitt were totally brutal by the end of the year.

USF, contrary to one of their fans telling me they had "played brilliant all year," wouldn't be .500 in any other conference but the ACC.

Anonymous said...

You're unemployed and you're an Iowa State fan. but at least you have your blog.

Anonymous said...

Brian --
The real flaw here is that you only rank #1 against #1, #2 against #2, etc. There could be a cas where the #3 or #4 team in a conference could handle the #1 or #2 team in another conference. Just saying.

Anonymous said...

You've used an interesting blend of "science" and opinion to arrive at your conclusions. The problem is that the methodology is so overtly, nakedly foolish (and you almost arbitrarily use transitive properties in some instances) that I am disinclined to value the opinion-based elements of your analysis either. I've seen that you posted this on practically every board in cyberspace, so I was ultimately drawn to give it a look, but you should be embarassed to put something so ill-conceived out there.

Brian Golden said...

There's not a lot of "science" in your response, either. Although there is some name calling.

Sure, the system has flaws. I'm not a genius. What are they? Specifically? Let's discuss it, instead of using jargon and name calling without specifics.

Anonymous said...

This is BS and how you can compare eight teams to twelve overall. Plus UConn beat Indiana at Indiana so saying they are not as good shows your bias. Plus the top two ACC teams lost to the top two Big East schools. Also the Big Twelve had zero big time out of conference wins.
SEC deserves number one but not to put the Big East number two while every other poll does shows your lack of understanding of college football.

Brian Golden said...

Head to head alone isn't a very strong argument, when UCONN won only 1 Big East game, got killed from October on. Indiana won 3 conference games, including Iowa and Michigan State. Neither of them powerhouses, but they showed a pulse after October 1.

That being said, the bottom teams are hard to rank. None of them have quality wins. That makes it tough.

I may be wrong about certain times, and the system may be flawed. But I don't have a bias leading me one way or the other.

Maybe the Big East's bottom teams just are really poor, making it awfully easy to get a winning record there?

Anonymous said...

Three huge flaws.

1) You can't compare SEC #8 to Big East #8. SEC #8, when considering where they stand in the conference, is comparable to #5 or 6 in the Big East.

2) You give the SEC 6 pts for having the best team in the country, and 6 pts for having the best #8 team in the country. So, techincally, through 8 teams, a conference could have the best 1,2,3,and 4 teams, while another had the best 5,6,7,and 8 teams and they'd be awarded the same amount of points...that my friend doesn't make sense.

3) You try to say that you are making this less arbitrary, however by one guy, you, ranking teams, you're making this entirely arbitrary.

Anonymous said...

"clemson would ass rape any big east team! the big east blows!"

Clemson lost to Kentucky in a game that wasn't even as close as the score indicated. Kentucky was drilled by Louisville (Big East).

So, you're wrong.

Anonymous said...

"Maybe the Big East's bottom teams just are really poor, making it awfully easy to get a winning record there?"

Wait a second. Wake Forrest narrowly defated the Big East's two worst teams record-wise ... UConn and Syracuse. Look at the box scores and you will discover that Wake scored a touchdown in the final minute of what were both dogfights. And in the case of Syracuse, this was before Wake lost their tailback, starting QB and star lineman, and thus the only game all year they played at full strength.

If you want to dismiss the fact that Iowa was lucky to escape Syracuse with a win simply because Tate was out, then you have to deal with that.

Illinois scored two touchdowns in garbage time against Syracuse, but it was otherwise their most lopsided defeat all year save for Rutgers where they never crossed mid-field. And yet Illinois managed to be competitive in all their Big Ten games and somehow that is merely evidence that they improved? So much for logic. The whole point of using OOC games as a measuring stick only seems to apply when it aids your pre-existing opinions.

As mentioned, UConn-Wake was a dog fight. And UConn actually dominated the game statistically. Obviously the ultimate outcome is what matters, but that factoid does at least aid adding to the sum your bad judgement.

UConn also beat Indiana in Bloomington. You choose to dismiss that, but only because, again, you choose to weigh their Big East struggles as being the ultimate measure.

And finally number six Pitt. Again, they decimated Virginia. Their most lopsided loss of the year. They also handed Toledo their most lopsided loss of the year. Toledo may not be much, but they were good enough to beat Iowa State and Kansas from your #2 (LOL) conference.

Your analysis is just silly. Sure, by now you know that it makes no sense to measure an 8 team conference using your formula. But the Big East head to head with the ACC should alone be enough to make you feel silly. 7-3. The three losses were the two to Wake that I've mentioned by our two weakest teams. And the third was Cincinnati AT Virginia Tech. Feel free to check out the box score on that one as well. You'll see that it is the third loss and the third example of a game that was very tight right to the end.

So maybe the bottom Big East teams are really poor. Or, maybe, you just don't know what you're talking about.

Anonymous said...

Here's your most factual, although obvious, statement,"I'm not a genius."

Anonymous said...

I feel retarded after having read this. That was ridiculously, ridiculously awful.

Anonymous said...

Brian -- why are you continuing to link this all over the Rivals and Scout networks. It is terribly flawed. Linking it 150 times doesn't make it less flawed.

Anonymous said...

what a load of crap

Anonymous said...

"Clemson lost to Kentucky in a game that wasn't even as close as the score indicated. Kentucky was drilled by Louisville (Big East).

So, you're wrong."

No, you're wrong. We could play that game all day long of"a beat b and b beat c, therefore you're an idiot." Everybody knows the Big East is by far the absolute worst excuse for a conference around. Nobody knows what teams are even in it since they change depending on the month and the weather outside. Its pathetic!

Anonymous said...

Brian
I enjoyed reading your article and I think the final rankings you came up with are pretty accurate, except I would've switched the Big East and the ACC. Some issues I have with your ranking system:
1. You use the transitive property a lot, which can come in handy, but I think you'd be better off comparing the two team's performance over the entire schedule, not just based on a common opponent. There are many circumstances that can affect one game, it creates a better estimate if you use an entire season to analyze a team's performance.
2. IMO, this system doesn't accurately weight the value of top teams v. bottom teams. Ranking the 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc. makes sense, but you must account for the fact that having the best of the best is more valuable than having a better 7th place team than everybody else. My suggestion would be this. Let's say your ranking 1st to 10th for example. I would make the 1st place rank be worth 1-6 points times 10 b/c it is the highest ranking. Then, for the 2nd place rank it would be 1-6 times 9. That way the system weights top teams higher.
3. My last issue would be that the system does not account for the fact that certain conference's 4th best team are better than another conference's 3rd or even 2nd best team. I can't think of any way to account for this off the top of my head, other than doing an objective scale for each team which would be a complete pain in the ass. If you ranked every team 1 to 100, that would account for weaker conferences and also help with the 2nd suggestion I had.

Overall, I think you made a solid attempt, but focused too much on matchups instead of looking at team's performance and body of work over the entire season. My opinion is that the rankings are pretty accurate, except I believe the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th conferences are a little closer and that the 5th and 6th teams should be switched.
I'd love to hear what you think of my analysis.

Stephen Morita
stephenmorita@hotmail.com

Anonymous said...

Heavily flawed as other posters have pointed out - you can't compare teams by slot finish in conferences of different sizes.

As a Pac 10 homer and UW fan, I think the Pac 10 was weak this year and it shows in this analysis. Where I think Brian Golden got it wrong is where he claims the Big 12 would do so well. I think the Big 12 was the 5th best conference this season just ahead of the ACC. The Big 12 had no legitimate top 10 or even top 15 teams for the first time in a long time. The Pac 10 could be 2nd, 3rd or 4th depending on what one thinks of the Big East and the Big 10. But all these conferences are light years behind the SEC this year.

The Big 10 was exposed as a fraud in the bowl season as was the Big 12 all year. The Pac had 3 tough teams at the top (like the Big East) but no real depth (which the Big East did have). But I'm confident the top 3 Pac teams blow away Texas and Ohio State and Michigan and Oklahoma (as USC did to Michigan). Remember, USC's only tough games came against the Pac 10 foes. They easily handled Texas, Notre Dame, and Michigan while struggling against Washington, Washington State, and Arizona State. The Big East top teams probably couldn't compete with USC, or Cal and would struggle against Oregon State but the depth of the Big East is undeniable compared to the Big 12 or Big 10.

The SEC was lights out, especially at the top in Florida and LSU.

Anonymous said...

An interesting approach. I'm not going to overanalyze and critique it like many posters already have, but I think you are on to something here. Thanks for posting and keep working on it - you've already got more of my respect than Sagarin:-)

Obligatory critique: LSU should be #2 in the SEC and is better than any of the others in that bunch.