The almighty SEC
Wednesday, November 2, 2005 at 05:18PM From the beginning on here at CFR I've turned a skeptical eye to the SEC. It hasn't been so much out of perceived biases, but annoyance. No other conference in the last decade has either tried to claim its superiority or gotten so many people to go along with these silly notions.
The whole thing has been argued ad nauseum on here, and the debate won't be dropped, but I think a lot of people are coming around on at least the idea that the conference is so great.
Look, in many seasons, the SEC is very good, but in just as many, its pretty average, if not worse. This year is a particularly bad one, so people may be piling on (although last year wasn't so hot, either). I just wish we were all a little more honest about the whole thing. I mean, it gets old to hear halftime shows with announcers who have never played in the SEC or played against an SEC team, say they're the best, nobody from X conference (usually Pac-10, but oftentimes the Big Ten or Big East) can play with SEC teams, they're just too fast, too strong, too talented, TOO GOOD. In reality, this has never, ever, never never never ever been the case. For the most part everybody performes relatively similar and on the big national stage (BCS games, big name OOC games) it's hard to say the SEC has come close to dominating the way they're talked about by fans and talking heads.
Well today I found a good article from the AJC (author Terence Moore) about this. Its not perfect, but in just a few grafs basically has them pegged, although I disagree with some of the logic about recruiting and perception of cheating. I follow recruiting quite a bit and I think the SEC continues to haul in a ton of talented kids. Even more important, the big recruits just never leave the south in any kind of large numbers (unless you want to count all the passed-over kids that end up at Pitt or Iowa or sometimes Ohio State). In reality, a lot of teams with a handful of good athletes and superior coaching are leveling the playing field with an antiquated SEC full of great athletes, but most of them on just six teams, most of them with crusty coaches who are slowly but surely starting to get lapped. The conference's saving grace has been the 12-team setup and its bifurcated schedule setup coupled with a ton of soft OOC games. Again, all of this stuff has been talked about plenty on here.
Get mad, but if you are you're one of those people who have been fooled. I know the arguments on here inevitably boil down to Pac-10 vs. SEC (makes sense, they're the most polarized conferences, scheme and talent-wise), but in reality, all the other conferences have just as much a stake in the debate as the Pac-10. Its a public perception versus reality issue, one in which I think people are starting to realize that the myth they've been force fed over the years is bunk. This isn't to say the SEC is junk, I'm not, repeat, not advocating that.
Anyway, take a look at the piece. Apparently others have, because it's up to 251 comments at last glance!
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (20)
Really... I just don't see it: the only teams not performing at or above expectations are Tennessee's and Florida's offense.
You are right in that most observers who know anything about the SEC would have observed that this wouldn't be the SEC's best season, yet SEC teams like Tenn are able to remain ranked for a long time because of hype and reputaiton.
While I hate the computer polls, all in all, the computers at least aren't brainwashed into thinking that a conference with probably the best TALENT in the nation that gets vastly underutilized or developed is worthy of overrating.
I think you've been fooled.
Note the ACC is 3-3 with 2 to go
The Big10 is 1-3 wint none to go
The Big12 is 2-3 with none to go
The Pac10 is 4-3 with 2 to go.
The Big east is 0-7 with 1 to go
I'm using massey, not masseyBCS.
That said, I have two bits:
(1) The Big 12 is by far the most overrated conference in the land. It may not get the hype of the SEC in terms of the talking heads, but more than makes up for it with the hype it gets in the polls.
Consider that in the final BCS standings, in 2004, OU was rated ahead of Auburn; in 2003, OU was rated ahead of both USC and LSU; and in 2001, feckin' 2-loss Colorado (with a loss to Fresno State, of all teams, and a 34-point loss to Texas), was ranked ahead of Pac 10 champ Oregon (not to mention Nebraska being ranked ahead of both). If not for a loss by TCU to SMU (I might have it backwards), Colorado would have been in the Rose Bowl playing Miami.
2001 was particularly insane; after 1-loss Oregon finished their season, 1-loss Nebraska, Oklahoma and Texas were ranked ahead of them in the BCS standings. After Colorado beat Texas in the Big 12 championship game, 2-loss Colorado jumped Oregon as well. So, you had four teams from one conference in the BCS mix in late November. Of course, when these teams stepped out to play legit teams from other conferences in the bowls, Texas and Oklahoma eked out wins as 13-point favorites against marginal Washington and Arkansas squads respectively, and Colorado and Nebraska absolutely got smoked.
So, your focus is in the wrong spot, I'd say. If VT runs the table in the ACC, it's straight up insane that they'd be left out of the Rose Bowl mix. But, given what's happened the last several years, it'd be no surprise if a Big 12 team got in there ahead of them instead--and got beat.
(2) Independent of the claims regarding the perceived 'greatness' of the SEC, the arguments regarding the so-called 'haves' inflating their records by feeding on the 'have-nots' do not stand up to scrutiny. Just because these teams cannot beat the likes of Fla, UT, LSU, et al. it does not mean they do not have quality; it simply means they aren't as good as those teams.
To illustrate, here are the records of the 6 'have-nots' against BCS opponents (plus ND) since the SEC took its current shape in 1992, with some other groupings thrown in for purposes of comparison:
USC: 23-14-1 (62%)
SEC top 6: 75-53-1 (59%)
Pac 10, other than USC: 96-99-1 (49%)
SEC bottom 6: 48-53-1 (48%)
So, essentially, if you took out USC and compared the other 9 teams in the Pac 10 to the bottom 6 in the SEC, they perform equally well against non-conference BCS opposition.
Certainly the top six in the SEC are better than the bottom six, but the bottom six hold their own when they are playing legitimate opponents outside the conference. At the very least, they manage results that are the equivalent of those put up by the bottom 90% of the Pac 10.
Wouldn't this imply that having some hyper-talented teams on the schedule (who perform even better against the control group, of course) is what's stopping these teams from having success?
1) Sample size way too small.
2) Matchups: So you're saying a team that hasn't won a game in the SEC (Ark.) didn't beat a team that hasn't lost a game in the Pac-10 (USC). Or the worst team in the SEC East (Kentucky) lost to a preseason top-6 team (Louisville) Wow. That proves a ton. Both teams have to be in the top 30 for it to mean really anything, and then the sample size would be even smaller. So the SEC is 0-1, with Auburn losing to Georgia Tech, who Massey actually rates ahead of them. So basically, the SEC hasn't upset anyone. That must mean they suck.
You can get numbers to prove anything, but they usually prove nothing at all.
And Stephen Kim: your comment can be completely explained by one thing: Preseason rankings are made by people who don't know what they're talking about.
But since you brought it up, which SEC teams haven't lived up to their preseason hype? Tennessee. And that's it. LSU was preseason top 10, which is where they are now. Florida was preseason top 10. If they win out, as they probably should, that's where they'll be. Georgia was preseason top 15. They've been above that all year. Auburn - top 20. They're right around there. Alabama - unranked by most, 20-25 at best. They're a top 5 team, way above preseason hype. South Carolina will probably end up in the "receiving votes" area, which is better than where they were expected to be. Vanderbilt is significantly better than expected. Nobody thought Arkansas, MSU, Ole Miss or Kentucky would be any good, and they didn't get any hype to begin with. So you're saying the SEC is overrated because one team has had a bad year. That's like predicting Purdue to win the Big Ten (like many did) and saying the whole conference is down because the team some picked to win stinks (despite Penn State, Wisconsin and Northwestern playing way better than expected). And how exactly is the SEC hype "self inflated"? I didn't realize the Coaches Poll and the Harris Poll were derived from SEC press releases. Mike Slive sure must have some pictures on the major media members. C'mon man, you've posted smarter comments than this before.
And also, there isn't a soul in Atlanta that takes Terrence Moore seriously. Honestly, he's one of those antagonistic columnistswho views his job as controvery-starter rather than truth-seeker. He's also a Notre Dame fan who has never written favorably about the SEC, and secondly a race-baiter that makes Jason Whitlock look reasonable. He wrote a column earlier this year calling all Georgia fans racists because they'd wear David Greene jerseys instead of buying new DJ Shockley jerseys. Seriously. Piggybacking his arguments won't get you very far.
All that said, I've done a study on "who's the best", with admitted statistical flaws, and it'll be up tonight. You might be surprised who my data shows is best (and it's not the SEC).
There are exceptions.but, usually the best talent will make the best teams.
"I think the jury is still out" didn't you understand?
But seeing as how you gave a litany of excuses, I'll deal with them now subject to revision when more games come in.
1. It was the matchups. Waaaaah.
Here's a tissue. They also include AU's loss to Ga Tech. Oh but that was the ACC #1 against the SEC #12 right? Ga Tech is sitting at 27. AU is sitting at 24. AU is 4-1 in the SEC, Ga Tech 3-2 in the ACC. It was at AU? Would you consider that being upset? Well subject to more results altering that assessment, I'd say right now you'd have to say yes. Also note the Pac10's figures include Losses by Washington, ASU, and Oregon St.. That's hardly a murderers row of the Pac10 is it? So it's not like the Pac10's teams aren't playing in such games. By the way this year is an anomoly. Usually the Pac10's bottom feeders end up in such games more often than their SEC counterparts.
Like I said, Once UT, UF, and Ga play the games that are left, and these aren't bottom feeders by any means, you'll probably have a much clearer picture, and your matchups in total would probably be about equal to ours no? Once the bowl games come in, we'll know even more.
Hence the phrase THE JURY IS STILL OUT!!!
You complain about Arkansas,USC but the Pac10 gets no credit for that game in my stat. Arky isn't top 30.
2. Lack of data Waaaaaah.
Here's another tissue. Ok this is a semi-legit gripe. I'd like more data, however, we don't have it yet. So do we just throw up our hands and say the SEC is best, end of storry? Well that's a typical SEC fan's argument. So what we do is make a tentative conclusion and note that the jury is still out ie the conclusion is subject to revision.
Want more data how bout top 60? SEC 3-4
Pac10 is 5-4.
Top 100 Pac10 13-7 SEC 9-6.
By the way against teams ranked 100 or lower the SEC has a loss, the Pac10 does not. (
Subject to revision as more results are in, would you say the sec has done anything yet to write home about so far?
3, Waaaaaah You can get numbers to prove anything, but they usually prove nothing at all.
Here's another tissue. I'll remember to throw that out there any time the numbers go against the Pac10.
4,
All that said, I've done a study on "who's the best", with admitted statistical flaws, and it'll be up tonight. You might be surprised who my data shows is best (and it's not the SEC).
You can get numbers to prove anything, but they usually prove nothing at all.
Ha!!! I LOVE THAT LINE!!!!!
I have not. A couple thoughts on that, though. The NFL to me, is an ultraconservative league, where teams first stockpile speed and talent because the rosters are so limited. They also play very conservative, attrition type ball, found heavily in the SEC.
In that regard, I think the NFL and the SEC are matches and I'm sure you will find plenty of SEC players in the NFL.
I disagree that best talent makes the best teams, at least in college. There's a talent/coaching continuum, which exist fairly equally in college. The SEC is usually loaded at the top of the talent continuum, and heavily clustered in the bottom of the coaching continuum. That leaves a lot of room for high talent teams to dominate, but there's also room for good coaches, like the guys at Florida, USC, Northwestern, etc. who can with varying levels of talent, succeed.
Obviously the goal is to get good coaching and talent, which is what you have at USC. I find the best combination of that means elite college success.
That's part of the reason why I have VT ahead of Texas. I think VT's coaches could run laps around Texas', but their talent isn't quite as good. Meanwhile, USC's talent is similar, but better (thanks to Bush, Leinart, Jarrett, White) to Texas, and they have a much finer coaching staff and coaching acumen.
Anyway, that's a tangent...
I think in general the NFL has the best football minds, but its also filled with a LOT of dummies. I know a handful of people with NFL connections and some of the things I could tell you would make your jaw drop.
College football is unique because there's room for innovation and experimentation and a lot of the new football thought comes from college.
Play nice! Heh. Dynasty, you're making good points, but I think Solon and LD are being reasonable here. No need to abuse each other. Lord knows I took enough over the preseason, it's not fun, just argue the argument at their merits if possible.
I want all of you around here continuing to discuss things, don't need any sore feeling or anything driving good people away :o).
In answer to the last question: perhaps.
I know I haven't gotten on the Big Twelve, and given my SEC stuff I probably should in all fairness. Especially this year if Texas goes to the Rose Bowl. It's just every weekend I hear some talking head or read some paper in the Midwest or somewhere once again proclaim SEC dominance. I just never hear this with the Big Twelve. The Big Twelve I guess is just more sneakily made to benefit like that (which is just as unfair, in many ways, as the SEC's boosterism), but without the promotion.
Maybe that will be a december thing for CFR? Care to combine on some B12 takedown project?
I'm not "giving excuses", I'm saying your argument is flawed. I don't need to make any excuses. While I'm a fan of one particular SEC team, it doesn't cloud my understanding of facts. If you had a better argument, I wouldn't have responded at all. I'm fine with the SEC being down, if in fact that's what the facts prove. You didn't prove that in your initial post and you don't in your follow up. That's what I took issue to.
Let's look at your follow up response:
#1 PAC TEN vs #12 SEC. Not ACC. Do you not see the "USC" and the "Arkansas"? That was the point. A bottom feeder versus an elite team doesn't prove a thing in terms of relative strength of the conferences. Just like Arizona State losing at home to LSU doesn't prove the SEC is better than the Pac 10. "The Pac 10 gets no credit" for the USC win over Arkansas... but the SEC gets knocked for it? No logical consistency. Flaw in your arguement.
In re Auburn and GT: Go back and look at Massey. Auburn is 27. GT is 24. Those rankings would probably be reversed if Auburn had beaten GT, perhaps. So in fairness, I'll give it to you. You've got ONE SINGLE GAME as data. You think that's a trend for the whole conference? Your flaw is imputing Auburn's loss to the other 11 members of the conference, and imputing Georgia Tech's win to not only the ACC, but every other conference as well. Flaw in your argument.
And indeed, you admit that lack of data is a flaw in your argument. So you go from one game to 10 or 20? Anyone with a half a brain and some rudimentary statistical knowledge knows that that doesn't prove anything. You'd need to have much more data to find anything. And that cannot be tallied without going into past years (which has nothing to do with current teams). Also, adding more games doesn't correct the matchup flaw (good teams vs. bad team) or the imputation flaw.
Statistically, it _is_ a fools errand. It is impossible to ever say with a factual certainty that Conference A is better than Conference B. The data set isn't large enough. The data is impeachable and flawed because of the matchups themselves. You must rely on opinion. Which, of course you are free to do (as am I and anyone else). You say "the jury is still out somewhat." The jury will always be out. You can have your opinion, others can have theirs. But there can be no factual certainty on this.
You can mock me about the study I blogwhored, or you can wait until I've posted it and challenge it. And I clearly admit the statistical flaws and the quixotic nature of the debate. But, then again, you don't really read what I write, so what's the point?
And I apologize for bringing this into it, RA, but I feel I have to respond.
The "Waaaaah..." bit:
Look, RA doesn't want this to be a flame board, and I don't troll places like that anyway. But dude, if you're not even going to read carefully comments and just respond to arguments with ad hominem attacks, you'll get no respect around here. Plenty of mouthbreather SEC Fans have been run off, and you don't appear much better. Go back to the flame boards if you want to make yourself feel smarter. If you want to hang out around here, try using logic instead of base mockery.
Let us look at two doormats, Vandy and Arizona.
Now Arizona wasn't a doormat in the 90s so we better just use 2000-2004.
Vandy's BCS teams played and ranking (massey) the year in which they were played.
34 Ga Tech Lost
43 Ge Tech Lost
98 Rutgers Lost
147 Wake Forest won
156 Duke Won
182 Duke Won.
Now Arizona's.
1. LSU Lost
21 Wiscy Lost
22. Purdue Lost
31 Ohio St. Lost
37 Wiscy Lost.
This isn't to say it will look like this across the board but you get the illustrative point. So the SEC bottom 6 gets credit for 3-3 and Pac10 other than SC gets credit for 0-5 when Vandy played only one team remotely the quality of the BCS teams Arizona played.
I note from 2000-4, the Pac10 has
13 top 10
16 11-20
13 21-30
9 31-40
Among the BCS teams they've played.
Whereas those numbers for the SEC bottom 6 are
2, 5, 4, 7.
At least in 2000-2004, you've got schedule distortion going on. I think it's going to show the same.
I assume the SEC bottom 6 are SC, Vandy, UK, Miss, Miss St., and Arky? Or did you swap in Bama?
Let me compare like to like in the years 2000-2004. Since you're interested, I'll compare the Pac10 less USC to the entire SEC less LSU from 2000-2004.
Vs 1-10 (massey)
Pac10 7-12 take out SC, 3-11
SEC 4-17. Take out LSU 3-16
Vs 11-20
Pac10 12-10 take out SC 9-9
SEC 13-12 take out LSU 10-11
Vs 21-30
SEC 10-6 take out lsu 10-5
Pac10 8-11 Take out SC 7-11
31-40
Pac10 8-12 take out sc 7-9
SEC 7-13 take out LSU 7-13
41-50
Pac10 11-7 take out SC 8-7
SEC 8-8 take out LSU 8-8
51-60
Pac10 7-3 Take out SC 7-3
SEC 7-6 Take out LSU 7-5
To make a long post shorter, I'll just tell you the result holds most of the way down.
And of course I noted that it was flawed due to a lack of data at the moment and subject to revision once the SEC and Pac10 complete their OOC's and bowl games. Hnce the phrase, the jury is still out. Yet you continue to act as if you've caught me with some divine revelation that I failed to note.
"The Pac 10 gets no credit" for the USC win over Arkansas... but the SEC gets knocked for it? No logical consistency. Flaw in your arguement.
It's perfectly consistent. The USC win over Arkansas wasn't a top 30 win. Should I count it anyeay? Or should I not count the SEC loss? I have to do one or the other if my argument is flawed. Would that make it consistant? Counting a win against the 70th ranked team as a good firm top 30 win? Yeah. Count a non top 30 win as a top 30 win because it's just not logical to count a top 30 loss in the SEC column without also counting a top 30 win in the Pac10 column for the same game even though Arky is ranked in the 70s? Set up a criteria of top 30, then let non top 30 wins into it or drop top 30 out of it? The fact is had Arky beat USC, then gone into the tank, it would count as a big top 30 win for the SEC and a junk loss for the Pac10 and logically so. SEC fans would be all over that one would they not? As it is, it counts as a junk win for the Pac10 and a loss against a top team for the SEC and logically should. Nothing wrong with my logic.
Now I usually don't go for just top 30. I like to look at the whole thing. But forgive me if I refrain from posting 20 pages.
Furthermoore, you act as if the SEC hadn't been upset at all. Yet you completely ingored that in my response, I proved that indeed it had Auburn and Ga Tech, which you conveniently ignored and tried to deflect back to Arkansas and USC.
Lastly. I proved that our teams that aren't the greatest in our conference played in such games and at the end of the season when your better teams have played their games against such, we'll have a better idea. So your complaint about a difference in matchups will at the end of the season likely be neutralized.
"Statistically, it _is_ a fools errand. It is impossible to ever say with a factual certainty that Conference A is better than Conference B."
I never said I proved the Pac10 was better than the SEC with factual certainty. You can't prove that smoking is bad for you to a statistical certainty. But that doesn't mean tentative conclusions cannot be drawn from the evidence at hand. And I repeat one more time the jury is still out. The year isn't over.
Again I ask you the bottom line question. Does the data show that the SEC has done anything to write home about yet?
By the way my answer to the same question coming back re the pac10 would be answered no. We haven't done anything to write home about yet.
____________
"But dude, if you're not even going to read carefully comments and just respond to arguments with ad hominem attacks, you'll get no respect around here. Plenty of mouthbreather SEC Fans have been run off, and you don't appear much better. Go back to the flame boards if you want to make yourself feel smarter. If you want to hang out around here, try using logic instead of base mockery."
Hi Pot. I'm Kettle. Pleased to meet you. What's that you're saying about my color? Oh I I'm seasoned cast iron you say?.....
"Apparently English classes are lacking at USC. Reading comprehension, not a strong point... "
(Note: the point about taking USC out is that people claim that the Pac 10 is a 1-team league (I don't agree with that, of course, but that's why I used the other 9 to compare).)
RA, I've been meaning to email you for a couple of weeks. I'll do it as soon as I get a little time. I have a few off-season projects planned that you might be interested in (whether I'll have time to actually do the research is another matter altogether). Perhaps you can give me some idea as to whether or not that clown CFBPundit is ever going to update his blog!
I don't really hate the Big 12, I'm just amazed how much it has underachieved since day one. I am also amazed that I've not heard a single talking head talk about how much they have sucked on the big stage the past couple seasons. I mean, they just love parroting the talking point about how SEC offenses are shit, but they aren't talking about how the entire Big 12 outside of Texas is complete rubbish and how Texas is benefitting mightily.
Just a quick teaser on some of the stuff I want to look at--since the Big 12 was formed in 1996, here's the average fall in the AP poll for Top 10 teams after November/December losses (late, so there's less fluctuation):
Big 12: -68/16 (-4.25)
Pac 10: -43/7 (-6.14)
It's a small sample size, and there may not be anything to it, but if it holds up it's pretty substantial.
Anyway, I'll get in touch with you at some point.
Staggering that last part...you know what makes me crazy is when people go "X amount of teams ranked in the top 15 or whatever" when there's a whole debate yet to have been made anywhere about how sound those rankings are in the first place (the whole overrated/underrated thing creeps in here).
Yeah with any #'s based stuff, it's the time element that always gets in the way. I'd be MUCH more of a stathead if I had a little more passion for grinding it out with the numbers.
As far as CFBPundit, I talked to HP Saturday and he was just as vexed about the lack of updates.
Headline on Yahoo Sports CFB page titled "Big 12 has been a bust in BCS title games"
http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news;_ylt=AsiKXWz8uShOChLOpKPNLxMcvrYF?slug=dw-texas110305&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
Once in a while I almost think someone is out there listening. And then I hear craig james...