Now I Have Heard Everything - SEC Most Penalized By BCS System

[tigercpa]

The author feels the SEC is the most hurt conference by the BCS System...


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/frank_deford/10/08/sec/index.html

[Blue Hen]

jeez - what crap !

Go back to writing about figure skating and yacht racing, Frank DeFord.

[Jim]

jeez - what crap !

Go back to writing about figure skating and yacht racing, Frank DeFord.

Agreed Hen. Oh how depressing, will playing in and wining three of the last five BCS titles make the SEC feel better?

[Doc]

The SEC champ is going to get a higher rating from people because they are able to win the most difficult conference to run the table in. The coaches will argue that and the voters will listen. The past two years bear that out. Florida was elevated to the #2 spot after winning the SEC and so was LSU. Oklahoma didn't move up last year despite beating the #1 team in the country to win the Big 12 Championship. Hell, LSY jumped over Georgia from their own conference! Michigan actually dropped in 2006 despite not playing for two weeks. I'm not saying those things shouldn't have happened - especially since both teams bludgeoned my Buckeyes - but for DeFord to make the argument he did, that's ridiculous.

[HellYeahHokie]

He's getting senile

[CJHawkeyes]

The deck is stacked against the SEC? Holy crap, does this sport breed stupidity?

[EvilVodka]

hey, its pretty obvious the SEC should have an automatic bid in the Championship game

LSU beat the Big 10 and ACC champs last year by a combined score of 80-20

the only other program out there that can hang with the SEC is USC

[Blue Hen]

right Evil............that's what LSU proved....but LSU didn't prove anything against the other champs, and that, of course, is why we need a competition rather than an election to decide championships.

[aufan59]

The last ten years the BCS has been in place. Only 4 of those 10 years resulted in proper MNC games.

The other 6 did not include the best team in the nation, the SEC Champion.

Getting screwed 60% of the time is pretty bad, in my opinion.

[Blue Hen]

darn right. I think the SEC championship game should be the NCAA National Championship game....or don't even play the season. Have an SEC poll and select two teams in August to play a game for the National Title. Never mind that the SEC can only win 50% of its games vs BCS peers.

[aufan59]

darn right. I think the SEC championship game should be the NCAA National Championship game....or don't even play the season. Have an SEC poll and select two teams in August to play a game for the National Title. Never mind that the SEC can only win 50% of its games vs BCS peers.

Since 1998, the SEC has had the least amount of undefeated teams and the second least amount of 1 loss teams in conference standings.

Since 95% of teams playing for the BCS Title have had 0 or 1 losses, I would say that the SEC, based on statistics, has been the most punished under this system.

[HellYeahHokie]

Since 1998, the SEC has had the least amount of undefeated teams and the second least amount of 1 loss teams in conference standings.

Since 95% of teams playing for the BCS Title have had 0 or 1 losses, I would say that the SEC, based on statistics, has been the most punished under this system.

When a 2-loss SEC team can leap-frog 3 other 1-loss schools to get into a National Championship. When a 1-loss SEC team can leap-frog an idle 1-loss Big-10 team, whose only loss came to the #1 team. I'd say the system isn't treating the SEC too poorly.

[aufan59]

When a 2-loss SEC team can leap-frog 3 other 1-loss schools to get into a National Championship. When a 1-loss SEC team can leap-frog an idle 1-loss Big-10 team, whose only loss came to the #1 team. I'd say the system isn't treating the SEC too poorly.

Because the voters FINALLY realized what was up after 9 years doesn't mean it has been fair the majority of the time.

[CJHawkeyes]

Because the voters FINALLY realized what was up after 9 years doesn't mean it has been fair the majority of the time.


1999-Florida State/Virginia Tech or 10-2 Alabama (lost to Louisiana Tech)
2000-Oklahoma/Florida State or 10-2 Florida (lost to Florida State)
2001-Miami/Nebraska or 9-3 LSU
2002-Miami/Ohio State or 12-1 Georgia
2004-USC/Oklahoma or 12-0 Auburn
2005-USC/Texas or 10-2 Georgia

Other than Auburn, which of the SEC champions listed had an argument?

[Blue Hen]

Just the opposite of Deford's case - the SEC teams get more free, inflated, unearned rankings based on the hype which is basded on perceptions which are based on the great myth.

It's always amazed me that there are 66 conferences playing NCAA football but in only one of those conferences do we find conference members actually beating other conference members and adding losses to their records which diminish the post season opportunities for those losing teams.....only in one conference does this happen !!!!!!! Simply astonishing.

[Doc]

They've over come very well....4 NC's in the history of the BCS championship game - I believe that's 4 out of 10.

Big Ten - 1
Big 12 - 2
ACC - 1
Pac 10 - 1
Big East - 1

Imagine if the system wasn't stacked against them - might as well make the SEC championship game THE national championship game, as well!

[Blue Hen]

Your Auburn Tigers are a perfect example, Aufan. Seriously, please explain why Auburn is ranked....other than just sounding like it should be good.
Now, when these other SEC teams beat Auburn they are given credit for beating a 'ranked' team and thus get BOD for their own rankings. It's an endless and completely bogus cycle. Now, this certainly happens in all leagues , no doubt, but never more than in the SEC.

[aufan59]

Your Auburn Tigers are a perfect example, Aufan. Seriously, please explain why Auburn is ranked....other than just sounding like it should be good.
Now, when these other SEC teams beat Auburn they are given credit for beating a 'ranked' team and thus get BOD for their own rankings. It's an endless and completely bogus cycle. Now, this certainly happens in all leagues , no doubt, but never more than in the SEC.

They were ranked because they had a good amount of talent and the coaching hires looked respectable. Same reason Auburn was ranked, then crashed, in '03. A loss to #3 and a Vandy team that you love and was undefeated by an extra point should put them out of the top 25?

The SEC went 7-2 last year in bowls despite being out matched in the majority of them based on conference standings. Of course that gets them the benefit of the doubt for the next year's preseason poll. Your point is that the polling system is a bad one, which is completely valid, but you find a way to bash the SEC while pointing these flaws out.

Please Hen, every time you complain about something, don't link it to the SEC. You should try to hide your silly obsession, or else people will think you are crazy. ;)

[aufan59]

1999-Florida State/Virginia Tech or 10-2 Alabama (lost to Louisiana Tech)
2000-Oklahoma/Florida State or 10-2 Florida (lost to Florida State)
2001-Miami/Nebraska or 9-3 LSU
2002-Miami/Ohio State or 12-1 Georgia
2004-USC/Oklahoma or 12-0 Auburn
2005-USC/Texas or 10-2 Georgia

Other than Auburn, which of the SEC champions listed had an argument?

They all did, because they won the SEC Championship. Any team that has the talent, depth and coaching to do that deserves a shot.

[Blue Hen]

SEC mythology is my discipline.......yep, that sounds crazy to many CF fans for sure.

You're probably right about teams being ranked on perceived talent and great coaching. That's dumb, isn't it ? Shouldn't on field performance count for more ? Polls are a joke. But to tie your comment about perceived talent getting teams high rankings...........can you see the SEC's perceived talent and speed giving its teams inflated rankings? USC receives the same BOD while some 'off brand' teams have to actually earn rankings with on field performance. Its not a fair system.

[HellYeahHokie]

You're probably right about teams being ranked on perceived talent and great coaching. That's dumb, isn't it ? Shouldn't on field performance count for more ? .

Preseason polls are based on perceived talent and coaching. End-of season polls are based on on-field performance.

And these polls that are a joke, very frequently agree very closely with the computer polls at the end of the season.

None of that diminishes an argument for a playoff, but it does diminishes your conviction that polls are meaningless.

[CJHawkeyes]

Preseason polls are based on perceived talent and coaching. End-of season polls are based on on-field performance.

And these polls that are a joke, very frequently agree very closely with the computer polls at the end of the season.

None of that diminishes an argument for a playoff, but it does diminishes your conviction that polls are meaningless.

The argument against polls is not that their results differ significantly from the various objective systems. The problem, as I have stated many times before, is that their results are abitrary and tell us nothing. Even if season ending polls were all about on-field performance (which they certainly are not), what hell is the difference between finishing 1st rather 2nd, 2nd rather than third, and so on? Simply having a majority of jokers say that Team A's on-field performance rates higher Team B's according to their personal, unknowable, and unaccountable subjective standard tells me nothing. My personal objection with polls is not who wins or finishes where. What matters is why. Polls cannot answer that question and are meaningless as a result.

[Blue Hen]

Yeah, tell him, CJH......and HYH, don't assume that I'm a big fan and believer in computer geeks deciding things in CF . Sometimes I think the computer systems are , perhaps, the lesser of the two evils, but the whole, overall, BCS system is a joke, imo.

[CJHawkeyes]

Yeah, tell him, CJH......and HYH, don't assume that I'm a big fan and believer in computer geeks deciding things in CF . Sometimes I think the computer systems are , perhaps, the lesser of the two evils, but the whole, overall, BCS system is a joke, imo.

As a "computer geek", I don't want an idea like mine deciding who wins the title. I prefer it be used to determine qualifiers and seeds for a larger playoff. That said, I think concern about computer geeks is misplaced. With my idea, wins and losses and opponents' wins and losses is the only information needed to separate any pair of teams better than 99% of the time. Imagine having rules that encourage and reward stronger scheduling and determine placement based on wins and losses rather than a collection of opinions based on.........whatever. Objective rules versus subjective rules is not about the lesser of two evils. One is the right choice and the same choice made by every other competition and the other is inherently worthless.

[HellYeahHokie]

And you and I have different definitions of arbitrary.

I understand the merits of your system over ones involving human opinion. That doesn't mean that human opinion is arbitrary. We use human opinion for all sorts of ratings in life and we don't have a problem with it. We elect our leaders based on human opinion...oh wait...bad example.

[HellYeahHokie]

Your problem is with the lack of a playoff, which I understand.

Your opinions about polls are biased because of their use in determining a champion. Using polls to determine a champion might be a joke, but the polls themselves do have some validity and are based on results on the field. Statistics bear this out over and over.

[CJHawkeyes]

And you and I have different definitions of arbitrary.

I understand the merits of your system over ones involving human opinion. That doesn't mean that human opinion is arbitrary. We use human opinion for all sorts of ratings in life and we don't have a problem with it. We elect our leaders based on human opinion...oh wait...bad example.

So, how are they not arbitrary if we don't know who will place where given all possible results BEFORE they occur? Sure, we have a good idea that the pool of teams the ultimate winner will be selected from will likely only include unbeatens and one loss teams, but nothing tells us why one team places above another. USC had the 2nd or 3rd best on-field performance last year? Based on what? Again, what is the difference between 2nd and 3rd? What is the least that needed to happen for teams placed anywhere to trade positions?

[HellYeahHokie]

What you define as arbitrary, I define as 'subjective'. And something that is subjective, is not arbitrary.

[CJHawkeyes]

What you define as arbitrary, I define as 'subjective'. And something that is subjective, is not arbitrary.

The last time we went down this road, I discovered that arbitrary and subjective are synonyms. Perhaps, they aren't synonyms in this instance. I don't know how that would be, but it is neither here nor there because my case against polls does not hinge on whether or not my issues with are polls are rightly defined as arbitrary. The bottom line is that polls provide no specifics, A > B and B > A are both true statements, and who wins comes down to whose voting for unknowable, unverifiable, and unaccountable reasons. The fact that subjectivity is a necessary and acceptable way to decide things in other areas of life does not mean that is the case when it comes to placing teams in college football especially when there are an infinite number superior objective methods to choose from that guarantee that on-field results are all that ever matter.

[Blue Hen]

I think they are based on opinionated interpretations of results on the field and perceptions of relative team strength...often based on reputation and name brand recognition, not to mention human biases. There are no guidelines for poll voters. It's crap, HYH. I know you know that.

[tigercpa]

Just the opposite of Deford's case - the SEC teams get more free, inflated, unearned rankings based on the hype which is basded on perceptions which are based on the great myth.

It's always amazed me that there are 66 conferences playing NCAA football but in only one of those conferences do we find conference members actually beating other conference members and adding losses to their records which diminish the post season opportunities for those losing teams.....only in one conference does this happen !!!!!!! Simply astonishing.

“Ole Miss loses to Wake Forest and people say, ‘Well, they’re a bottom feeder of the SEC anyway.’

But then they go and beat Florida and the same people say, ‘Oh, that’s how tough the SEC is every week.’

It’s perception...

[Blue Hen]

You beat me to it. Perfect example of SEC fantasyland perceptionism