CFB 2013-2014

Rengak_sl said:

Dude, the Big 10 hasn't had a winning record in bowl games in 11 years.

Click to expand...

A good point, but this does not address the central thesis of my post:

To be a power conference it is not necessary for Big 10 teams to win every game, or even most games, against other power conference opponents, it is only necessary for there be a legit and roughly equal chance to beat those other teams on any given day.

To reconcile our positions would require stats work I'm not willing to do. I could contend that Big 10 teams, due to the fact that their fan bases travel well to bowl games, are often picked to play in bowl games against unequal competition, resulting in mid to low tier Big 10 teams losing bowl games they should not be in, considering player and coaching talent.

Gilgamel:
I made no claim that the SEC is even near roughly equal to the Big 10. You are making a straw man - you want to engage me in an argument you can easily win, rather than the actual argument I made.

I said the Big 10 is a power conference, and that the Big 10 is equal to Pac 10 - I would maintain the same between the Big 12 and possibly ACC. I used specific games to support my position.

Let me be clear: the SEC is the most dominant conference, as shown on the field every year. I have not doubted this since 2007.

Intrinsic:
The best you are going to get from that argument is that the Nebraska - Georgia game has no meaning in the context of a discussion of the relative strength of conferences. You cannot make a point that the Big 10 is bad using this data, nor can it be used to counter my argument that the Big 10 is a power conference roughly equal to all othersexcept the superior SEC.

Tea_sl said:

Well if UCF hangs on to win then there can't really be any debate that the American is the best conference of the modern era. Undefeated in BCS play is a stat beyond reproach.


On the other hand...

Click to expand...

The AAC (Big East) has always been shit on. The last few years have dramatically proven otherwise (even then, idiots still spout that AAC team "x" will always lose to SEC/ACC/B10 "y" even after we blow those teams out). I always loved the excuses: "they weren't motivated" or "the other team (AAC/Big East) had something to prove and went above their talent." The big football conferences have all been utterly overrated in comparison.

SEC is on it's way out, the ACC will probably be the new king. I hope the Bama fans cry themselves to death when they realize their conference sucks and has for awhile.

Intrinsic_sl said:

Well unfortunately I think the conversion will devolve in to argument about what a power conference is or what power conference means. I have no issue at all with the Big 10 being an AQ conference at all and would think most people agree. Now where the Big 10 fits in the ranking of AQ conferences is another story. Which I'm not sure I have an honest or informed opinion about.

Click to expand...

Spot on.

In order for any communication to be meaningful, participants must agree on definitions. As such, agreement on definitions is a precondition of any debate, and such discussion is only a devolution of the debate if participants cannot reach agreement. This often happens because most people feel that their own subjective definitions of terms are privileged above the subjective definitions of others and lack the ability to make and use consistently clear, unambiguous definitions.

My definition of a power conference follows from my (in bold) thesis.

You look at matchups between conferences in which teams with roughly equal in conference records compete, and if you find that between certain conferences those games usually result in very close games, you can conclude that the conferences are roughly equal.

From here I check scores between Big 10 teams and other conference opponents, and find that this tends to happen, with the exception of Big 10 teams playing against the very upper tier of the SEC (top 2-3 SEC teams depending on year).

Indeed, I find that close games between SEC teams and other conferences tend to happen when the SEC team has 1 more loss than their non-SEC opponent.

Going strictly by W/L can be very biased, even over a long period of time, because 1) in CFB rosters change frequently 2) W/L counts a blowout loss the same as a last second field goal loss.

Lost Virtue_sl said:

I hope the Bama fans cry themselves to death when they realize their conference sucks and has for awhile.

Click to expand...

Really? Now you're just talking nonsense. It sucks so bad and has for awhile that the conference has taken the last 7 titles? I am sure you can find oh every other conference in CFB that would love to wake up one morning and realize they suck and have sucked for awhile as they collect those BCS championships. Fucking insane bullshit you are spewing. Do you even read what you write?

SEC is on it's way out, the ACC will probably be the new king. I hope the Bama fans cry themselves to death when they realize their conference sucks and has for awhile.

Click to expand...

What is your evidence? A single team (that in my mind won't be tested until the NC game) does not make a conference. ACC conference runner up lost a shootout to a mid tier SEC team. Miami - overhyped and whipped by Louisville. VT - Whipped. BC - whipped. Syracuse - congrats, a close win against Minnesota.

Meanwhile the SEC is doing very well in their bowls.

Lost Virtue_sl said:

SEC is on it's way out, the ACC will probably be the new king.I hope the Bama fans cry themselves to death when they realize their conference sucks and has for awhile.

Click to expand...

LOOOL

PatrickStar_sl said:

Really? Now you're just talking nonsense. It sucks so bad and has for awhile that the conference has taken the last 7 titles? I am sure you can find oh every other conference in CFB that would love to wake up one morning and realize they suck and have sucked for awhile as they collect those BCS championships. Fucking insane bullshit you are spewing. Do you even read what you write?

Click to expand...

Bama is the only team worth a damn. The same notion can be said however that Bama is great because they play against crap. It is the same notion when people said Big East/AAC teams are playing high-school teams. Sprinkle on a ton of hype and overrated teams and you have those 7 titles. The current and former BCS championship has been skewed all because of this. Thank God for the next one and the new system, it'll truly show who's been riding on the back of hype and overrated talent (and conference).

Btw, I'm more stirring the pot. Been too boring watching Baylor get dominated. Don't read much into my posts...

American conference confirmed greatest of the BCS era.

Tea_sl said:

American conference confirmed greatest of the BCS era.

Click to expand...

This is a perfect example of why straight W/L records are very poor indicators of relative conference strength.

frqkjt_sl said:

This is a perfect example of why straight W/L records are very poor indicators of relative conference strength.

Click to expand...

It is just a single game. It means nothing. For fuck's sake, a lot of stupid posts in this thread tonight.

Baylor just flat out thought they were going to be playing a cupcake and it showed, while UCF was ready to slay a giant. i mean good God, UCF turned it over three times in one quarter and the "best" offense in the country couldn't capitalize? Wow. Here's hoping that is not an indicator of the Big 12, or tonight is going to be a blood bath.

The Big 10 is still down.. But I will say this as I have said for the last 10 years: but hopefully they are turning a corner. The only problem is, one of the showcase teams (MSU) is awesome now but can it be sustained? Their QB which is showing brilliance was one of those rare diamond in the rough stories. Will they end up like Purdue with Brees? Be pretty good for a couple years then the QB position dries up and they go back to meh? Then you have Michigan who is sputtering currently. Hopefully the last couple good recruiting classes help right that ship, but that is not a guarantee. Nebraska... is Nebraska with Pelini and will always be underachievers. Wisconsin is just too vanilla, which works ok in the Big 10 while it's down, but doesn't seem to do a whole lot outside of the conference. And Penn State: God only knows how long it's going to take to get back on course for them. Had O'Brian staid, I would say it would have been ok. Now that he has bolted, I'm not too sure now. Iowa is done. Ferentz had a good couple of years in Iowa, but has not been able to come close to replicating that since really. Minnesota while the feel good story this year is just not a perennial team yet (if ever). The rest of the pack, including two very weak additions, are pretty terrible.

Yes, I happen to be a fan of an SEC team too, but their absolute dominance has actually made things pretty boring, and yes they are the best conference right now. The weak teams are pretty weak there is no doubt, but their top 5 or 6 can beat anyone in the country on any given Saturday, and they show that nearly every bowl season. Here's to hoping that the play off can introduce some interesting match ups we just rarely see, but until they lose, the SEC is still king.

Tea_sl said:

American conference confirmed greatest of the BCS era.

Click to expand...

I don't know which is more hilarious, that George O'Leary has a BCS bowl win or that Notre Dame is 0-4 in BCS games.

Namon_sl said:

Baylor just flat out thought they were going to be playing a cupcake and it showed, while UCF was ready to slay a giant. i mean good God, UCF turned it over three times in one quarter and the "best" offense in the country couldn't capitalize? Wow. Here's hoping that is not an indicator of the Big 12, or tonight is going to be a blood bath.

The Big 10 is still down.. But I will say this as I have said for the last 10 years: but hopefully they are turning a corner. The only problem is, one of the showcase teams (MSU) is awesome now but can it be sustained? Their QB which is showing brilliance was one of those rare diamond in the rough stories. Will they end up like Purdue with Brees? Be pretty good for a couple years then the QB position dries up and they go back to meh? Then you have Michigan who is sputtering currently. Hopefully the last couple good recruiting classes help right that ship, but that is not a guarantee. Nebraska... is Nebraska with Pelini and will always be underachievers. Wisconsin is just too vanilla, which works ok in the Big 10 while it's down, but doesn't seem to do a whole lot outside of the conference. And Penn State: God only knows how long it's going to take to get back on course for them. Had O'Brian staid, I would say it would have been ok. Now that he has bolted, I'm not too sure now. Iowa is done. Ferentz had a good couple of years in Iowa, but has not been able to come close to replicating that since really. Minnesota while the feel good story this year is just not a perennial team yet (if ever). The rest of the pack, including two very weak additions, are pretty terrible.

Yes, I happen to be a fan of an SEC team too, but their absolute dominance has actually made things pretty boring, and yes they are the best conference right now. The weak teams are pretty weak there is no doubt, but their top 5 or 6 can beat anyone in the country on any given Saturday, and they show that nearly every bowl season. Here's to hoping that the play off can introduce some interesting match ups we just rarely see, but until they lose, the SEC is still king.

Click to expand...

FYI- MSU has 3 11+ win seasons in the last 4 years with 2 different QBs (Cousins and now Cook). I would have agreed with you if you said this after Cousins left (and with a 7-6 season it was thought to be true). But the MSU QB isn't the reason this team is good. The defense is great and there is MORE talent waiting in the background. MSU should be fine as long as Dantonio is there. I always compare him to Belichick (yes not as good)... he has a system he runs and knows what players he needs for that system. Most of the team are 3-4 star recruits that are redshirt juniors and seniors. Very few underclassman play so when they finally do, they have been molded into the player he wants. He also seems to find a few diamonds in the rough that turn out to be All americans (Leveon Bell, Darquez Dennard, Jack Conklin). But really, hes a system guy and he runs a very simple, but effective system.


The Big10 is just top heavy. Wisconsin, OSU, and MSU have been the banner teams now for 5 years. Unfortunately two of those teams have shitty brands so ESPN doesn't like them. It is really stupid to argue about conference dominance in college football when none of the conferences play each other except one last game at the end of the season with match ups picked based on revenue instead of entertainment. The BCS is a joke and was created to keep the blue bloods on top. Its the most ridiculous system ever. I also hate the strength of schedule argument because its based on rankings; rankings that are skewed by media darlings. Is the SEC better at football? Of course, anyone that says otherwise is blind. But its not the gap people want to think it is and furthermore I also believe its really Alabama, and then everyone else - even though bama isnt playing in the national title this year, i still think they are the best team.

I really wish we had an 8 game playoff with 2 "wildcards" and each of the power conferences providing a team. 4 teams is going to end up being 2 sec + 2 others which, again, just tips the scale in the SEC's favor. Have their earned it? Probably... but its going to be dumb when a power conference doesn't get a spot because alabama got upset by some ridiculous events (3 missed field goals, or a outrageous field goal return, or half their team being injured for most of the year) and now some undeserving SEC team gets their spot so they take the 4th one. If the SEC was so dominate, two new teams(mizzou and TAMU) that are traditionally good but not great would not have been contenders the last two years. Instead, these two teams come into the conference and perform incredibly well. For comparison, Nebraska came from the same conference and has done good, but not great in the Big10.

Missouri is 9-7 in conference and A&M's best finish in the west is 3rd. Stop talking please.

WhatsAmmataU_sl said:

Missouri is 9-7 in conference and A&M's best finish in the west is 3rd. Stop talking please.

Click to expand...

And if georgia was in the west their best finish would be.... 6th? Calm down broseph, stop getting your jimmies rustled over simple discussion.

Anyone that objectively watches CFB realizes that Bama is playing its own game. The rest of the SEC is good, but no better than the other top teams from the other conferences. Its bama that tips the scales and screws up the bowls for everyone. LSU, Auburn, Florida, etc all have great teams every few years... but bama is elite EVERY year. They don't fall off. they don't rebuild. It's ridiculous. I'm not sure I've seen them ever outplayed. Sure, they lose... but typically in their losses the other team played out of their mind. Bama should just quit playing football so everyone else can have fun.

Lenaldo_sl said:

And if georgia was in the west their best finish would be.... 6th? Calm down broseph, stop getting your jimmies rustled over simple discussion.

Click to expand...

I'll leave the useless projections up to you. I was merely providing facts to counter your claim that A&M has performed "incredibly well", brosef.

2013: 9-4
2012: 11-2
2011: 7-6
2010: 9-4
2009: 6-7
2008: 4-8
2007: 7-6

I'd say that's performing incredibly well compared to where they were. Comon, everyone here and in the country said TAMU and Mizzou would go 0-8 every year in the SEC. The facts just don't support it. Conversely both teams have shown they can hold their own - granted the sample size is pretty small.

Oh ok. Now we are only comparing A&M to itself? If you don't like the argument you're losing, better change it!

Either you didn't know that missouri has a 56% win rate in conference, or you just made shit up to get in a shot at the SEC. Unfortunately for you, there are some people here who can see through the bullshit.

WhatsAmmataU_sl said:

Oh ok. Now we are only comparing A&M to itself? If you don't like the argument you're losing, better change it!

Either you didn't know that missouri has a 56% win rate in conference, or you just made shit up to get in a shot at the SEC. Unfortunately for you, there are some people here who can see through the bullshit.

Click to expand...

The 2-year window of A&M and Mizzou tells us almost nothing about their long-term prognosis in the SEC. A&M just had the best player in the history of their program and still couldn't win their division. With JFF gone, they'll fall back to a decent team, but a step below Alabama and LSU in the West. A&M shouldn't ever be bad, but they aren't going to be putting up 10 win seasons more often than not either.

And Mizzou will probably never have another season as bad as 2012 was, we had more injuries to starters in 2012 than we had in the 5 previous years combined. That being said, I also don't expect us to win 11 games every year either. Missouri will probably be about in the same place as A&M, probably 3rd or 4th most years in their division with the occasional year when the schedule aligns just right to jump up and win the division.

A&M has played WAY over their norm the last 2 years, Missouri is about right if you average the 2 years. I can see Mizzou as a perennial 5-3 in conference type team, which if you win your non-con games, thats a solid 9-3 season. I'll take that almost every year.