|
Replies: 29
| visibility 1
|
Scout Team [196]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 265
Joined: 12/26/12
|
Here's The Issue W/ The "SEC > ACC" Argument
Dec 31, 2012, 3:31 PM
|
|
The idea that the SEC is better than any other conference may hold some truth, but is largely unfounded, or at least founded upon shaky ground.
The basis for the entire argument is a principle that is generally referred to as "better by association". This principle implies that SEC teams are better than all other teams simply because they are a member of the SEC. While the SEC has had a spectacular run in the BCS NC game and has continued to produce top teams year in and year out, there has yet to be any evidence that suggests that the lower-level SEC teams are, as a whole, better than their non-conference counterparts.
It is easy to make the argument that the SEC is the top conference in college football, and rightly so. The SEC has won six consecutive BCS National Championships and are in the hunt for a seventh, if Alabama can take down and undefeated and battle tested Notre Dame team. The SEC has also continually produced more Top 10 teams than all other conferences. While this is true, the argument can be made that the BCS is slanted toward the SEC. No actual proof can be found for this other than ranking quirks and the rankings themselves; however, some BCS computers admit that they take conference affiliation into account when determining ranking, therefore allowing a lesser SEC team to rank higher than a lesser ACC, Big 12, Big 10, or Pac 12 team, which in turn leads to the SEC continuing to climb the rankings as lesser teams begin to boost the rankings of better teams.
It is not so easy to make the argument that any other conference as a whole is better than the SEC. Game results time and again show the SEC leading the way with more wins out of conference than any other conference. Though the numbers may be true, they are also misleading. During the 2012 season the SEC played more games against FCS opponents than any other conference. The FCS as a whole was 10-96 against FBS teams. Also of note is the fact that the SEC played more games against non-AQ conferences than any other conference with 27. Second place goes to the Big 10 with 23. The ACC scheduled less games against non-AQ conferences than any other AQ conference, with 8. Finally, the SEC head to head versus all other BCS AQ conferences only holds a winning record against two of the five other AQ conferences, going 2-0 against the Pac-12 and 5-1 against the ACC. The SEC, in 2012, finished the regular season 0-1 against the Big 12, 1-1 against the Big 10, and 0-3 against the Big East.
In conclusion, while the upper echelon teams of the SEC are quite good and will continue to compete for the BCS title every year, the idea that the conference as a whole is better than all others is simply a farce.
References: All facts and statistical information was taken directly from Wesley N. Colley's findings as displayed on his website (http://www.colleyrankings.com/curconf.htmlColley)
Wesley N. Colley is the proprietor of the Colley Matrix, one of the six computers used by the BCS for ranking college football teams. The Colley Matrix is currently the only public formula of the six, and is therefore the most reliable source for statistical information concerning college football. The Colley Matrix also only inputs verifiable factual information into the formula, eliminating any bias.
|
|
|
|
 |
CU Guru [1838]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 6249
Joined: 12/17/06
|
head to head games. Last week of November proved that
Dec 31, 2012, 3:47 PM
|
|
# 4 SEC beats down ACC Champ
# 6 SEC beats # 2 ACC
# 9 Vandy beats NCSU and Wake
Tennessee as bad as they were beat NCSU who was contending for Atlantic
Even last year # 5 SEC beats the day lights out of ACC Champ
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scout Team [196]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 265
Joined: 12/26/12
|
Re: head to head games. Last week of November proved that
Dec 31, 2012, 3:52 PM
|
|
You don't get it do you? The whole post was about how the SEC overall is not any better than any other conference. The numbers back it up. I wouldn't expect a coot ### to understand that though, numbers can be so complicated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1838]
TigerPulse: 59%
Posts: 6249
Joined: 12/17/06
|
so you get half way down one conference
Dec 31, 2012, 3:55 PM
|
|
and it beats the best of the other, their equal?
Sorry but that doesn't hold water. Last year the bottom of the SEC East annihilated, in Winston, the team that was a missed FG away from winning the Atlantic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scout Team [196]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 265
Joined: 12/26/12
|
Re: so you get half way down one conference
Dec 31, 2012, 3:59 PM
|
|
What do the numbers say? Tell me! What do they say? Take an unbiased look at the numbers and tell me what they say! They tell me that the SEC play just as well against other AQ conferences as they play against the SEC. They tell me that the ACC was weak, and so was the Big East, who still managed three wins and ZERO losses against big bad SEC teams.
So what do the numbers really say then? I'm waiting!
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amateur [34]
TigerPulse: 19%
Posts: 100
Joined: 12/17/12
|
Re: Here's The Issue W/ The "SEC > ACC" Argument
Dec 31, 2012, 3:49 PM
|
|
You are failing to take into account several things.
1. The top 6 SEC teams are the top 10 best in college football. The next couple are better than other conference's #7 and #8 teams. And the rest of the SEC teams are on par with the rest of the teams in other conferences. They aren't any worse.
So if you go down the list like SEC #1 vs. Big 12 #1, SEC #2 vs Big 12 #2, etc, and keep going down the line, the SEC has more elite teams, better average teams, and equal bad teams.
2. You can't just take into account SEC ooc games from this year because that is heavily based on particular match-ups. Only if you used a lot of data will the uneven match-ups even out.
If you took the data from the past 6 years (to align with the 6 SEC national championships), the SEC has a winning record against all other conferences.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
keep sucking that SEC teat***
Dec 31, 2012, 3:53 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scout Team [196]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 265
Joined: 12/26/12
|
Re: Here's The Issue W/ The "SEC > ACC" Argument
Dec 31, 2012, 3:55 PM
[ in reply to Re: Here's The Issue W/ The "SEC > ACC" Argument ] |
|
I took the information from THIS season, not last or any others before, simply to show the CURRENT situation in college football. Rankings are crap, I showed that. The idea that the SEC has a better OOC record is crap, I showed that. I'm not looking at #1 against #1. I'm looking at conference against conference. As it turns out the SEC is a draw against other AQ conferences, 2-2-1. Looks pretty .500 to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2432]
TigerPulse: 76%
Posts: 3108
Joined: 6/21/11
|
nov 24 -- Sec 4 Acc 0
Dec 31, 2012, 4:10 PM
|
|
What are you talking about it is being 2-2-1? Plus, what is the 1, a tie!!!
Are you celebrating a bit early friend?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member [20]
TigerPulse: 27%
Posts: 93
Joined: 3/3/11
|
Re: nov 24 -- Sec 4 Acc 0
Dec 31, 2012, 4:19 PM
|
|
The 2-2-1 the poster is talking about isn't individual games. The 2 wins are the SEC's 2-0 record against the PAC-12 and the SEC's 5-1 record against the ACC. The 2 losses are the 0-1 record against the Big 12 and the 0-3 record against the Big East. The tie comes from the SEC's 1-1 record against the Big 10.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scout Team [196]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 265
Joined: 12/26/12
|
Re: nov 24 -- Sec 4 Acc 0
Dec 31, 2012, 4:20 PM
[ in reply to nov 24 -- Sec 4 Acc 0 ] |
|
This isn't about SEC vs. ACC. It's about the SEC as a whole.
As far as the 2-2-1 goes, I'll make it simple so you can understand since you're obviously a coot with no mental capacity:
SEC vs. Big 10: 1-1 (tie)
SEC vs. Big 12: 0-1 (loss)
SEC vs. Pac 12: 2-0 (win)
SEC vs. ACC: 5-1 (win)
SEC vs. Big East: 0-3 (loss)
Now if we remember kindergarten at all we can count SEC Wins, Losses, and Ties. 2 wins, 2 losses, and 1 Tie (2-2-1).
Overall the SEC was 7-6 against AQ opponents, barely over .500, and remember 5 of those came against the weak ACC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member [20]
TigerPulse: 27%
Posts: 93
Joined: 3/3/11
|
Re: nov 24 -- Sec 4 Acc 0
Dec 31, 2012, 4:25 PM
|
|
> This isn't about SEC vs. ACC. It's about the SEC as a
> whole.
>
> As far as the 2-2-1 goes, I'll make it simple so you
> can understand since you're obviously a coot with no
> mental capacity:
>
> SEC vs. Big 10: 1-1 (tie)
> SEC vs. Big 12: 0-1 (loss)
> SEC vs. Pac 12: 2-0 (win)
> SEC vs. ACC: 5-1 (win)
> SEC vs. Big East: 0-3 (loss)
>
> Now if we remember kindergarten at all we can count
> SEC Wins, Losses, and Ties. 2 wins, 2 losses, and 1
> Tie (2-2-1).
>
> Overall the SEC was 7-6 against AQ opponents, barely
> over .500, and remember 5 of those came against the
> weak ACC.
To be fair, you called the above poster a "coot with no mental capacity" and referenced kindergarten math, yet you got the wrong answer when adding 5+2+1. The SEC was 8-6 against AQ teams and not 7-6.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2432]
TigerPulse: 76%
Posts: 3108
Joined: 6/21/11
|
thank you -- thumbs up to you***
Dec 31, 2012, 4:29 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scout Team [196]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 265
Joined: 12/26/12
|
Re: nov 24 -- Sec 4 Acc 0
Dec 31, 2012, 4:31 PM
[ in reply to Re: nov 24 -- Sec 4 Acc 0 ] |
|
My apologies, but thank you for pointing out the mistake. 8-6 is correct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Member [20]
TigerPulse: 27%
Posts: 93
Joined: 3/3/11
|
Re: nov 24 -- Sec 4 Acc 0
Dec 31, 2012, 4:39 PM
|
|
You're welcome. I wasn't trying to be a jerk to you, but I think these discussions tend to go better when both sides aren't resorting to name calling. I know I'm on a rival board, so I try to be somewhat civilized when posting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scout Team [196]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 265
Joined: 12/26/12
|
Re: nov 24 -- Sec 4 Acc 0
Dec 31, 2012, 4:41 PM
[ in reply to Re: nov 24 -- Sec 4 Acc 0 ] |
|
Agreed.
I just want to point everyone back to the numbers. The only way to get the facts is to go to the facts. At least, that's what I believe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2432]
TigerPulse: 76%
Posts: 3108
Joined: 6/21/11
|
coots have some brain -- you have none
Dec 31, 2012, 4:27 PM
[ in reply to Re: nov 24 -- Sec 4 Acc 0 ] |
|
"Overall the SEC was 7-6 against AQ opponents, barely over .500, and remember 5 of those came against the weak ACC."
for the SEC loses, were those losses by strong SEC teams genius or the weak wins like Auburn losing to everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scout Team [196]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 265
Joined: 12/26/12
|
Re: coots have some brain -- you have none
Dec 31, 2012, 4:39 PM
|
|
It doesn't matter. I set out to investigate the claim that the SEC, as a whole, is better than all other conferences in college football. I made the concession, continually, that the SEC continues to produce the most highly ranked teams in the country, and obviously continues to produce more national champions than any other conference.
During my investigation I uncovered the numbers that I put forth in my argument. I didn't spin the numbers, I didn't misrepresent the numbers, and I didn't inject any of my own bias into the numbers. I allowed the numbers to speak for themselves.
So, it doesn't matter which team lost to which, or whether said team was a strong team or a weak team. All that matters is the non-conference results of the SEC.
If we are going to accept the idea that the level of play of the elite SEC teams elevates the level of play of the weak teams, as so many SEC supporters wish to say, then we must also accept the idea that the level of play of the weak teams brings the conference down.
You can't have your cake and eat it to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amateur [31]
TigerPulse: 82%
Posts: 33
Joined: 10/8/04
|
Re: nov 24 -- Sec 4 Acc 0
Dec 31, 2012, 5:03 PM
[ in reply to Re: nov 24 -- Sec 4 Acc 0 ] |
|
> This isn't about SEC vs. ACC. It's about the SEC as a
> whole.
>
Then why did you title your original post: "Here's The Issue W/ The "SEC > ACC" Argument"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scout Team [196]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 265
Joined: 12/26/12
|
Re: nov 24 -- Sec 4 Acc 0
Dec 31, 2012, 5:06 PM
|
|
Because the argument used by almost all SEC supporters to show that it is better than the ACC is that the SEC performs better out of conference and is therefore better than the ACC.
I'm pretty sure I laid that our clearly in my post, but if I didn't then here it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1321]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 2764
Joined: 11/27/11
|
Yet direc comparisons of SEC teams to ACC teams
Dec 31, 2012, 5:35 PM
|
|
are moot in your argument? So we'll take the long way around to prove the SEC "may not" be better than the ACC instead of the direct rout which proves pretty straightforwardly, that the SEC is a better conference... Not following your logic here chief.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [28802]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 58393
Joined: 11/14/03
|
some people here just want to complain...
Dec 31, 2012, 4:11 PM
[ in reply to Re: Here's The Issue W/ The "SEC > ACC" Argument ] |
|
they would rather poor-mouth everthing about us and see the greener grass on the other side than believe anything good about us. They really need to believe the SEC is only slightly worse than the NFC East and that every team in the ACC would lose to the sisters of the poor so that they can lord it over Clemson and ACC leadership. So they'll ignore any numbers you can show them that support the contrary, and just repeat some stat that shows otherwise no matter how many times you say anything different.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17854]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8917
Joined: 12/24/96
|
California sits on shaky ground too
Dec 31, 2012, 3:59 PM
|
|
but there sure is a lot of gold that comes from it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93567]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95365
Joined: 12/25/09
|
It's not an issue.
Dec 31, 2012, 4:34 PM
|
|
The ACC sucks ###. We are probably the fourth conference in the pecking order.
We get bowl contracts because of geography. Many times Clemson has been third or fourth in the conference and been invited to a good bowl because we travel and the bowls are relatively local to us.
The SEC is handsdown a better football conference because they will take boys that can't remember their last names, much less write them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [919]
TigerPulse: 43%
Posts: 2275
Joined: 3/19/09
|
Re: It's not an issue.
Dec 31, 2012, 6:17 PM
|
|
Wait a second are you really trying to say the SEC = to the Big 10 because Vandy lost to Northwestern way back in September or that the Big 8 is better than the SEC because Texas beat up on the 11th place Ole Miss team.
I have heard some weak arguments before but that takes the cake.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10849]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15023
Joined: 8/6/10
|
TL;DR. No rationalization will change the fact that
Dec 31, 2012, 6:24 PM
|
|
the SEC has two or three elite teams every year, any one of which could play in the national title game and beat the opponent, whoever it is.
I hate where we're at right now, but pretending that the SEC isn't the dominant conference is just childish and counterproductive. The ACC is weak and sucks, but could be a great football conference with the number of schools we have, if just 2 or 3 up their game (including Clemson.)
Until we do, it's moronic to talk trash about the SEC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commissioner [919]
TigerPulse: 43%
Posts: 2275
Joined: 3/19/09
|
Re: TL;DR. No rationalization will change the fact that
Dec 31, 2012, 6:31 PM
|
|
I guess if we follow the original poster logic.....the Southern Conference is better than the Big 10.
After all App State beat Michigan at the Big House a few years back.
We are #1 We are #1 We are #1.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [1051]
TigerPulse: 31%
Posts: 3302
Joined: 6/10/12
|
Re: TL;DR. No rationalization will change the fact that
Dec 31, 2012, 6:34 PM
|
|
so do we want to be in the sec or stay in the acc?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amateur [34]
TigerPulse: 19%
Posts: 100
Joined: 12/17/12
|
Re: Here's The Issue W/ The "SEC > ACC" Argument
Dec 31, 2012, 6:56 PM
|
|
Your reasoning is highly suspect. Pretty much every loss the SEC had came from the absolute bottom of the conference losing to the best from other conferences.
Yet many of the SEC's wins come from lesser-ranked SEC teams beating higher-seeded teams in the other conferences.
I had a big, long message typed out with every game the SEC played against OOC competition this year, but right before I posted the power went out.
So I posted this from my phone without all of the games posted. But you still get my general point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 29
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
