BCS Rankings 11/7/2010

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

TheVrolok

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
24,254
4,090
136
My whole argument is there should be a playoff system, and that writing off TCU and Boise is just silly as they have proven they can beat the best teams. When a team goes years without losing and never get a chance at the NC game, there is a problem with the system. I'd hope you would agree with that.

I agree 100%, I've even said that in numerous college football threads we've had here. Even in a post in this thread I said I'd like to see a "legit BCS" team vs TCU OR Boise. The only reason I said I DON'T want Boise vs TCU in a NCG is because it doesn't answer any questions. Boise had a 1pt win over OU, and 2 half-decent wins over Oregen in the last few years - that's all the cred they've got. I'd love to see them play Auburn or LSU and then if they win again, they will be making a statement. Now, if they'd play Auburn/LSU and get shredded, what would you say? That they still deserve a shot?
 

roguerower

Diamond Member
Nov 18, 2004
4,563
0
76
My whole argument is there should be a playoff system, and that writing off TCU and Boise is just silly as they have proven they can beat the best teams. When a team goes years without losing and never get a chance at the NC game, there is a problem with the system. I'd hope you would agree with that.

You keep saying that they can beat the best teams but you don't give any proof. Here are the legit teams they've played for the past 9 years and how much they won/lost by:

2010:
-VT - won by 3 on a last ditch drive in the closing minutes of the 4th. VT is now 7-2
-Oregon State - Won by 13. OS is now 4-4
-Nevada - ?

2009:
-Oregon - Won by 11.
-TCU - Fiesta Bowl. Won by 7

2008:
-Oregon - Won by 5
-TCU - Poinsetta Bowl. Lost by 1

2007:
-Didn't play a single ranked team the entire regular season
-Lost to ECU in the Hawaii Bowl

2006:
-Didn't play a single ranked team the entire regular season
-Beat Oklahoma by 1 in OT in the Fiesta Bowl.

2005:
-Didn't play a single ranked team the entire regular season
-Lost to BC in the MPC Computers Bowl by 6

2004:
-Didn't play a single ranked team the entire regular season
-Lost to Louisville in the Liberty Bowl by 4

2003:
-Didn't play a single ranked team the entire regular season
-Beat TCU in the Capital Fort Worth Bowl by 3

2002:
-Didn't play a single ranked team the entire regular season
-Beat Iowa State in the Humanitarian Bowl by 18

Those are the facts. Nowhere in there is there any proof that Boise State has consistently played the best teams in the nation and won. Before 2008 they never played a single ranked opponent in the regular season. They've played maybe a half dozen ranked teams in the past 9 years. Just because a team goes undefeated does not guarantee them a shot at the NC. Not when you play NO ONE. Even the ACC in it's most dismal of seasons (like this one) is way better than either the MWC or the WAC.
 

thepd7

Diamond Member
Jan 2, 2005
9,423
0
0
Just because a team is undefeated doesn't mean it should go to the NC. Hawaii was undefeated in the 2007 regular season. They faced Georgia in the Sugar Bowl. They got blown out 47-10. By your reasoning they should have gone to the NC where they probably would have gotten beat even worse.

Boise has consistently won over the years because Boise consistently plays NOBODY! Go to the espn link: http://espn.go.com/college-football/team/schedule/_/id/68/year/2009/boise-state-broncos and look through their schedule going back the last 6-8 years. They do win, but that's because they're playing cupcake teams.

Boise and TCU are both plagued by their conferences. If there was another team in either the WAC (Boise) or MWC (TCU) that could consistently put together good seasons, we wouldn't be having this conversation. HOWEVER, since they are both one team conferences, it is difficult to lend credibility to a team that plays inconsistent, low-level FBS teams.

It is the same scenario as the Giants/Rangers. The 2009 Fiesta Bowl was the second lowest watched of the 5 BCS bowls. The lowest was the Orange between GT and Iowa (GT Lost). Same thing happened in 2006 with the Fiesta Bowl v. Oklahoma. Second lowest, only one lower was Orange between Louisville & Wake Forest. No one wants to see two underdogs fight against each other. People will watch a battle of East Coast v. West Coast (Auburn v. Oregon) or Big Dog v. Little Dog (Auburn/Oregon v. TCU/Boise).


Well since you're being a dumbass I'll have to bring up VT again. They were ranked what at the beginning of the season? 10? If they were undefeated right now, would you be saying a 1 loss LSU team should be ranked ahead of them? Hell no, and rightly so. No the ACC isn't what the SEC is but if they didn't lose a single game and played some ranked teams, the undefeated team should go to the NC.

Boise State was ranked what at the beginning of the season? 3? How in the world are you going to say that if the number 3 team has not lost a game and numbers 1 and 2 have (multiple times), that Boise State should not be in the top 2. That's absolutely moronic.

You know that Hawaii was nothing near Boise State, the polls know that Hawaii was nothing near Boise State, Hawaii was never ranked 3 at the start of the season, so stop that ridiculous argument.

People need to get off the SEC's ass. If the SEC is really 14 billion times harder than everyone else like people make it out to be then just crown the SEC winner the NC. SEC teams wouldn't dare schedule Boise State or TCU, they'd probably piss themselves.
 
Last edited:

roguerower

Diamond Member
Nov 18, 2004
4,563
0
76
1. Well since you're being a dumbass I'll have to bring up VT again. They were ranked what at the beginning of the season? 10? If they were undefeated right now, would you be saying a 1 loss LSU team should be ranked ahead of them? Hell no, and rightly so. No the ACC isn't what the SEC is but if they didn't lose a single game and played some ranked teams, the undefeated team should go to the NC.

2. Boise State was ranked what at the beginning of the season? 3? How in the world are you going to say that if the number 3 team has not lost a game and numbers 1 and 2 have (multiple times), that Boise State should not be in the top 2. That's absolutely moronic.

3. You know that Hawaii was nothing near Boise State, the polls know that Hawaii was nothing near Boise State, Hawaii was never ranked 3 at the start of the season, so stop that ridiculous argument.

People need to get off the SEC's ass. If the SEC is really 14 billion times harder than everyone else like people make it out to be then just crown the SEC winner the NC.

1. I'm not on the SEC's ass and keep dragging VT into the picture all you want, but when you do that you have to realize that you throw the existing argument out the window. If VT had won, Boise would not be in contention for the NC and we wouldn't be having this conversation. We'd be having a very different one and no one can say what that would be because it's an unknown.

2. An undefeated Boise State is impressive, however if you put their schedule next to LSU and compare the two, they aren't even close. LSU has played much harder teams all season and will continue to do so until the regular season closes. Undefeated in one of the 5 large conferences is one thing. Undefeated in the bottom 6 is something completely different.

3. You're arguement was: "I'll answer your question with another question: has Boise State or TCU lost a game this season?" To which I brought up Hawaii in 2007 when everyone was clamoring that they should go to the NC because they were undefeated. They didn't go and ended up in the Sugar Bowl where they got decimated. Hawaii was a pretty decent team in 2007. Boise is a pretty decent team now. Hawaii = Boise. Just because a team is undefeated DOES NOT mean they should get an automatic NC bid. I've said it before and I will keep saying it: the strength of their schedule MUST be weighed in. That is what hurts Boise State's argument. Their strength of schedule.

4. The SEC is a football powerhouse. That is pretty much it. Most other sports they are ok in, not great. They are very low on the academic totem pole. The conference is built to do one thing well: play football.
 

ZOOYUKA

Platinum Member
Jan 24, 2005
2,460
0
0
4. The SEC is a football powerhouse. That is pretty much it. Most other sports they are ok in, not great. They are very low on the academic totem pole. The conference is built to do one thing well: play football.

That is total BS. There are several respectable academic institutions in the SEC.
 

thraashman

Lifer
Apr 10, 2000
11,103
1,550
126
That is total BS. There are several respectable academic institutions in the SEC.

Other than Vanderbilt I think the highest academically ranked school is UGA (don't quote me though) which is far more well known as a party school than an academic institution.

If TCU, Boise State, Auburn, and Oregon win out, I can see sending Auburn and Oregon to the NC game. Though I think it'd be a somewhat dull game with a final combined score of around 120. If either Auburn or Oregon lose however, whoever's higher TCU or Boise has spent years earning the right to play in the game.
 

ZOOYUKA

Platinum Member
Jan 24, 2005
2,460
0
0
Other than Vanderbilt I think the highest academically ranked school is UGA (don't quote me though) which is far more well known as a party school than an academic institution.

You are correct about Vandy. Florida would be ahead of Georgia. I understand that academically they will not compete with the Ivy League and several private colleges around the country. However, I do think compared to other major conferences that play sports the SEC represents itself well academically.

Also, what does partying have to do with academics? Just because someone likes to party doesn't mean they are not well versed academically.
 

roguerower

Diamond Member
Nov 18, 2004
4,563
0
76
Last edited:

cheezy321

Diamond Member
Dec 31, 2003
6,218
2
0
You are correct about Vandy. Florida would be ahead of Georgia. I understand that academically they will not compete with the Ivy League and several private colleges around the country. However, I do think compared to other major conferences that play sports the SEC represents itself well academically.

Also, what does partying have to do with academics? Just because someone likes to party doesn't mean they are not well versed academically.

No....just, no.
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
They lost to an FCS school 4 days after playing a tough late night game. They shouldn't have, but lets put all the cards on the table and the fact that they've won 7 straight since then counts for something. They are ranked at #20 in the BCS which is where they should be. I'm guessing that their current string of 6 10-win seasons in a row doesn't count for anything with you.

They lost to a 4-5 FCS team...at home, they should not be ranked. Period.

and no, what they did last season or the last 6 seasons has no bearing on this season, otherwise Texas would be ranked in the Top 10.
 

CPA

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
30,322
4
0
Agreed. Big East is not very good and hasn't been since the legit teams jumped ship for bigger and better things.

A playoff system would be nice but it wouldn't have the same flaws that the BCS system does, it would have it's own. How many teams? How do you arrange the games? Who get's into those games? Currently the FBS has the:

ACC
Big 12
Big East
Big 10
Conference USA
Independents
Mid-American
Mountain West
PAC-10
SEC
WAC

Now, of those you have 5 legit conferences: ACC, Big 12, Big 10, PAC-10, SEC. You also have a couple of legit teams from the WAC, MWC, and Big East, while the rest are just garbage. Any given game is a legit argument for a game, but not for a season, or when playing for the NC.

32 teams comes out nice and simple...32, 16, 8, 4, 2. That's an extra 5 games/weekends. Means more drinking :). Will probably mean capping the regular season at 10 games in order to meet the current time table that the BCS occupies (over my 2nd week in Jan). You can't play all the games at a neutral site unless you want teams traveling all over the country and be hell on the fans. Everyone trying to book travel and hotels on draw night would be INSANE.

I think that the easiest way to get this to work is such:

Top 4 teams from the ACC, Big 12, Big 10, PAC-10, SEC = 20 teams
Top 3 teams from the WAC, MWC, & Big East = 9 = 29
Top team from Independents, Conf. USA, Mid-American = 3= 32

The real question is how do you arrange those games? Do you play the bottom against the top like in NCAA basketball? Auburn v. Temple? That'd MOST LIKELY be a comedy skit, not a football game. Do you pit the conferences against each other in the first two rounds so you come out with the best team in the conference? That only works with the big 5 since they have 4,2,1. For the mid-3, how about the top v. bottom, and then the middle plays one of the lower conferences. That'll work out nice and easy...3+1, 2, 1.

Now you get to figure out the TRULY difficult task of how to pit the remainders against each other. Maybe this would require a coaches poll and some number crunching. Give the coaches poll a really low rating and trust the computer, but make the algorithm public so the entire process is transparent. Crunch, regular season schedule, offense ranking, defense ranking, opponents faced, etc. In the end though it'll just be a crap shoot.

Now this was just me working this out in my head and writing it down as things popped in. Will it work? Who knows. I do know that figuring out the logistics of who can play is a lot easier than figuring out where, why, how much, why them, etc.

People also gotta remember that when you complain about a football team being in a particular conference, a team can't simply pick up and move just because the fans want to. Academics, athletics (besides football), research, etc. all play an important role in why schools are where they are. As much as we'd like to see a certain team in a certain conference, it just isn't that easy.

/blog. If you don't feel like reading, I don't give a shit. Go get a script for Ritalin.

I'm curious as to why you don't have the Big East included with your Top 5, seeing as they have an auto BCS bid AND have had a better SOS, RPI and average ranking of their top program versus the ACC since the 05-06 season, not counting this down year.
 

skim milk

Diamond Member
Apr 8, 2003
5,784
1
0
I keep a close eye on the SEC conference so if Boise State or TCU faces Alabama, Auburn, or even LSU and wins, I will give them credibility. To me, ALA and AUB are proven to be legit contenders during this season and I'd love to see how BSU or TCU stacks up against them
 
Last edited:

roguerower

Diamond Member
Nov 18, 2004
4,563
0
76
They lost to a 4-5 FCS team...at home, they should not be ranked. Period.

and no, what they did last season or the last 6 seasons has no bearing on this season, otherwise Texas would be ranked in the Top 10.

Yes, they lost to JMU in what was the shittiest game I've ever seen them play (and there have been some real bad ones). Since then they have won 7 games. They are in no way in the running for the NC. IF they win out and win the ACC Championship, they will automatically be in the Orange Bowl. This would happen even if they weren't ranked. And this is because the BCS used the 04-07 seasons to judge who would be the AQs for the 08-10 seasons.

I'm curious as to why you don't have the Big East included with your Top 5, seeing as they have an auto BCS bid AND have had a better SOS, RPI and average ranking of their top program versus the ACC since the 05-06 season, not counting this down year.

CURRENTLY:
ACC has 12 teams. 4 is 33%
SEC has 12 teams. 4 is 33%
Big 12 has 12 teams. 4 is 33%
Big 10 has 11 teams. 4 is 36%
PAC-10 has 10 teams. 4 is 40%
Big East has 8 teams. 3 is 37%
MWC has 9 teams. 3 is 33%
WAC has 9 teams. 3 is 33%

Seems pretty fair to me.
 

Oil

Diamond Member
Aug 31, 2005
3,552
4
81
People need to get off the SEC's ass. If the SEC is really 14 billion times harder than everyone else like people make it out to be then just crown the SEC winner the NC. SEC teams wouldn't dare schedule Boise State or TCU, they'd probably piss themselves.

Stop talking out of your ass, LSU has a home-away with TCU in a few years (which was scheduled in 2006). Boise is playing Ole Miss next year.
 
Last edited:

thepd7

Diamond Member
Jan 2, 2005
9,423
0
0
1. I'm not on the SEC's ass and keep dragging VT into the picture all you want, but when you do that you have to realize that you throw the existing argument out the window. If VT had won, Boise would not be in contention for the NC and we wouldn't be having this conversation. We'd be having a very different one and no one can say what that would be because it's an unknown.

2. An undefeated Boise State is impressive, however if you put their schedule next to LSU and compare the two, they aren't even close. LSU has played much harder teams all season and will continue to do so until the regular season closes. Undefeated in one of the 5 large conferences is one thing. Undefeated in the bottom 6 is something completely different.

3. You're arguement was: "I'll answer your question with another question: has Boise State or TCU lost a game this season?" To which I brought up Hawaii in 2007 when everyone was clamoring that they should go to the NC because they were undefeated. They didn't go and ended up in the Sugar Bowl where they got decimated. Hawaii was a pretty decent team in 2007. Boise is a pretty decent team now. Hawaii = Boise. Just because a team is undefeated DOES NOT mean they should get an automatic NC bid. I've said it before and I will keep saying it: the strength of their schedule MUST be weighed in. That is what hurts Boise State's argument. Their strength of schedule.

4. The SEC is a football powerhouse. That is pretty much it. Most other sports they are ok in, not great. They are very low on the academic totem pole. The conference is built to do one thing well: play football.

1. Stop saying it's a completely different story. It's not. If VT had won out you would expect them to be in the top 2, as you should.

2. So if Boise State was in the ACC and undefeated you would say they should be in the NC?

3. No one with any brains was clamoring for Hawaii in the title game. Hawaii was a decent team. Boise State is a dominant team.

Winning is everything (within reason). It's funny the double standard with the BCS: LSU beats Tennessee (an AWFUL team) by two points in an AWFUL game and yet that's not considered because they won. However, Boise State and TCU get kicked behind them because "they didn't play anyone" when they played some good teams and won every game.

Again, you and I both know Hawaii years ago and Boise State now are worlds apart. If you think those teams are anywhere close I'll stop addressing you because you either didn't watch Hawaii or Boise State play or you don't know anything about football.

4. We'll never know if the SEC is really that good at football because they rarely play anyone outside their conference in the regular season. It's a catch 22: we have the best conference therefore hardest strength of schedule so we won't schedule anyone difficult outside of the conference. So if the SEC isn't as good as everyone thinks we'll never know unless they consistently lay an egg in bowl games, which they won't do because they are talented (even if they are overrated) and they pay tons of money to get good coaches.


Stop talking out of your ass, LSU has a home-away with TCU in a few years (which was scheduled in 2006). Boise is playing Ole Miss next year.

What year? Good for them, I hadn't heard that. And Ole Miss? Seriously? lol.
 

ZOOYUKA

Platinum Member
Jan 24, 2005
2,460
0
0
4. We'll never know if the SEC is really that good at football because they rarely play anyone outside their conference in the regular season. It's a catch 22: we have the best conference therefore hardest strength of schedule so we won't schedule anyone difficult outside of the conference. So if the SEC isn't as good as everyone thinks we'll never know unless they consistently lay an egg in bowl games, which they won't do because they are talented (even if they are overrated) and they pay tons of money to get good coaches.

False. LSU played UNC this year and West Virginia. Next year they play West Virginia again and and the current #1 team Oregon.
 

skim milk

Diamond Member
Apr 8, 2003
5,784
1
0
4. We'll never know if the SEC is really that good at football because they rarely play anyone outside their conference in the regular season. It's a catch 22: we have the best conference therefore hardest strength of schedule so we won't schedule anyone difficult outside of the conference. So if the SEC isn't as good as everyone thinks we'll never know unless they consistently lay an egg in bowl games, which they won't do because they are talented (even if they are overrated) and they pay tons of money to get good coaches.




What year? Good for them, I hadn't heard that. And Ole Miss? Seriously? lol.

You do realize that SEC teams have won the past four BCS championships right?
Against the top teams in other conferences like Big 12 and Big 10

The overall record of SEC teams in BCS championships games? 6-0
 

Gibsons

Lifer
Aug 14, 2001
12,530
35
91
4. We'll never know if the SEC is really that good at football because they rarely play anyone outside their conference in the regular season. It's a catch 22: we have the best conference therefore hardest strength of schedule so we won't schedule anyone difficult outside of the conference. So if the SEC isn't as good as everyone thinks we'll never know unless they consistently lay an egg in bowl games, which they won't do because they are talented (even if they are overrated) and they pay tons of money to get good coaches.




What year? Good for them, I hadn't heard that. And Ole Miss? Seriously? lol.
You're full of it. SEC teams tend to play one good OOC team per year.

Just this year: Auburn played Clemson, bama played PSU, UGa played Colorado, LSU played West Virginia, Florida plays FSU, Arkansas played Tamu, and Tennessee played Oregon. Those are all big programs from BCS conferences, even if some aren't great this year. No way to control that.

As for the SEC laying eggs in bowl games? The SEC has dominated the BCS bowls. The Big 10 has more appearances but fewer wins and an overall losing record. Six SEC teams have won bowl games, more than any other conference. Oh yeah, and 6-0 in mnc games by four different teams.
 

TheVrolok

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
24,254
4,090
136
False. LSU played UNC this year and West Virginia. Next year they play West Virginia again and and the current #1 team Oregon.

Bama also played Penn State. Given, PSU is having a pretty serious rebuilding year, but they play again next year (@PSU) so it may be a closer game (though PSU will still be heavily rebuilding). The SEC out of conference games are getting better.
 

roguerower

Diamond Member
Nov 18, 2004
4,563
0
76
1. Stop saying it's a completely different story. It's not. If VT had won out you would expect them to be in the top 2, as you should.

2. So if Boise State was in the ACC and undefeated you would say they should be in the NC?

3. No one with any brains was clamoring for Hawaii in the title game. Hawaii was a decent team. Boise State is a dominant team.

Winning is everything (within reason). It's funny the double standard with the BCS: LSU beats Tennessee (an AWFUL team) by two points in an AWFUL game and yet that's not considered because they won. However, Boise State and TCU get kicked behind them because "they didn't play anyone" when they played some good teams and won every game.

Again, you and I both know Hawaii years ago and Boise State now are worlds apart. If you think those teams are anywhere close I'll stop addressing you because you either didn't watch Hawaii or Boise State play or you don't know anything about football.

4. We'll never know if the SEC is really that good at football because they rarely play anyone outside their conference in the regular season. It's a catch 22: we have the best conference therefore hardest strength of schedule so we won't schedule anyone difficult outside of the conference. So if the SEC isn't as good as everyone thinks we'll never know unless they consistently lay an egg in bowl games, which they won't do because they are talented (even if they are overrated) and they pay tons of money to get good coaches.

1. Ok, I'll agree to this. IF they'd won out (knowing my chokies that's not possible) then I would expect them to be up at the top but overall, the caliber of the teams the Hokies play is much better than that of the MWC or WAC.

2. Yes. Without any hesitation. The ACC would add credibility to their accomplishment.

3. No, I didn't want them to be in the NC game because they weren't that good. They were good, but not good enough. However, the argument that was raised was that based solely on the fact that they are undefeated, TCU & Boise should automatically be in the NC. I answered that with my Hawaii statement, a team which was also undefeated that year and by the argument raised, that should have qualified them for the NC.

LSU did catch a break with Tennessee and the Tigers are damn lucky that Tennessee blew it for themselves. However, a W is a W at the end of the season. LSU didn't go up or down in the rankings after that game. They have since gone up because the teams ahead of them keep losing.

4. I don't even have to answer this, just look at the responses between this post and yours.
 

Oil

Diamond Member
Aug 31, 2005
3,552
4
81
What year? Good for them, I hadn't heard that. And Ole Miss? Seriously? lol.

2013-2014

Yes, the same Ole Miss who beat 11-1 TTU and 9-3 Okie State the past two years in the Cotton Bowl.
 

ZOOYUKA

Platinum Member
Jan 24, 2005
2,460
0
0
LSU did catch a break with Tennessee and the Tigers are damn lucky that Tennessee blew it for themselves. However, a W is a W at the end of the season. LSU didn't go up or down in the rankings after that game. They have since gone up because the teams ahead of them keep losing.

and the fact they keep winning.
 

Svnla

Lifer
Nov 10, 2003
17,986
1,388
126
4. We'll never know if the SEC is really that good at football because they rarely play anyone outside their conference in the regular season. It's a catch 22: we have the best conference therefore hardest strength of schedule so we won't schedule anyone difficult outside of the conference. So if the SEC isn't as good as everyone thinks we'll never know unless they consistently lay an egg in bowl games, which they won't do because they are talented (even if they are overrated) and they pay tons of money to get good coaches..

Rarely? Really?

This year they did or will play these division 1 schools (not those little Div 2 schools):

LSU = North Carolina, W. Virginia
Auburn = Clemson
Tenn = Oregon, Memphis
Bama = Penn St.
Florida = S. Florida, Florida St.
Ark = Texas A&M, UTEP
S. Carolina = Clemson, Southern Miss.
Georgia = Georgia Tech, Colorado
Kentucky = Louisville
Vandy = Northwestern, Connecticut, Wake Forest
Ole Miss = Tulane
Miss. State = Memphis, Houston

If SEC is really that good at football? Let see:

Who won the last 4 BCS Championships straight? Answer = SEC teams.

Who won the MOST BCS Championships since its inception in 1998? Answer = SEC teams.

Like I said before in my previous post with stats to back me up. The top 10 BCS teams that have the highest/strongest Strength Of Schedule are LSU (4th) and Auburn (7th). The "mighty" teams such as Oregon = 94th, TCU = 60th, Boise St. = 70th.
 
Last edited:

sactoking

Diamond Member
Sep 24, 2007
7,582
2,817
136
4. We'll never know if the SEC is really that good at football because they rarely play anyone outside their conference in the regular season. It's a catch 22: we have the best conference therefore hardest strength of schedule so we won't schedule anyone difficult outside of the conference. So if the SEC isn't as good as everyone thinks we'll never know unless they consistently lay an egg in bowl games, which they won't do because they are talented (even if they are overrated) and they pay tons of money to get good coaches.

You're going to get hammered for saying this but it's really quite true. The SEC has a rep of being a tough conference because they play all of these ranked teams, except all the ranked teams they play are in the SEC. It's a circular argument: they're good because they beat ranked teams (other SEC teams) and they're ranked because they're good (because those teams beat other SEC teams).

If you want to get picky you'll notice these SEC stats:
12 teams
A total of 48 non-conference games
TWO of 48 NC games against ranked opponents (4.167%)
ONE of 48 NC games won against ranked opponents (2.083%)
ELEVEN of 48 NC games against D1-AA cupcakes (22.917%)
TWENTY-THREE of 48 NC games against "powerhouse" programs like San Jose State, Duke, Louisiana-Monroe, Arkansas State, Clemson, South Florida, Louisiana-Lafayette, Louisville, Western Kentucky, Akron, Tulane, Fresno State, Memphis, Troy, Northwestern, Connecticut, and Eastern Michigan (47.917%)

That means that the conference as a whole played 34 out of 48 (70.833%) games of their collective non-conference schedule against 1-AA teams and bad 1-A teams. 12 out of 48 (25%) games were against respectable 1-A opponents. 2 out of 48 (4.167%) were against very good 1-A opponents.

That, my friends, is nothing at all to brag about when you want to tout yourself as the best around and other people point out your non-conference xenophobia.
 

TheVrolok

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
24,254
4,090
136
You're going to get hammered for saying this but it's really quite true. The SEC has a rep of being a tough conference because they play all of these ranked teams, except all the ranked teams they play are in the SEC. It's a circular argument: they're good because they beat ranked teams (other SEC teams) and they're ranked because they're good (because those teams beat other SEC teams).

If you want to get picky you'll notice these SEC stats:
12 teams
A total of 48 non-conference games
TWO of 48 NC games against ranked opponents (4.167%)
ONE of 48 NC games won against ranked opponents (2.083%)
ELEVEN of 48 NC games against D1-AA cupcakes (22.917%)
TWENTY-THREE of 48 NC games against "powerhouse" programs like San Jose State, Duke, Louisiana-Monroe, Arkansas State, Clemson, South Florida, Louisiana-Lafayette, Louisville, Western Kentucky, Akron, Tulane, Fresno State, Memphis, Troy, Northwestern, Connecticut, and Eastern Michigan (47.917%)

That means that the conference as a whole played 34 out of 48 (70.833%) games of their collective non-conference schedule against 1-AA teams and bad 1-A teams. 12 out of 48 (25%) games were against respectable 1-A opponents. 2 out of 48 (4.167%) were against very good 1-A opponents.

That, my friends, is nothing at all to brag about when you want to tout yourself as the best around and other people point out your non-conference xenophobia.

Great argument, and one with which I agree, but you're going to get the typical response "We dominate bowl games, including the NCG."