Food for thought

[sc69er]

This is a paste from another board:

What conference elite are overrated? Which conference is underrated? It sure makes for some spirited debated on the message boards.

Over the last 3-4 summers I have been running an updated post comparing the elite teams in each conference by the polling which is done each year. I looked at the AP preseason poll and final poll over the last seven years, from 2000- 2006. My definition of Elite teams is those that are ranked in the Top Ten in the polls.

Some conferences say they are the best, hands down. Like the SEC fans, or the Big Xll fans. And some say that they are underrated, or ignored by the rest of the nation, like the PAC 10. Well, I think that comparing the results of the AP Pre-Season Top 10 to the AP final Top Ten is a real good indicator of who is overrated/underrated when it comes to the Elite teams in each Conference.

The Following list shows the number of teams in each conference over the last seven years which were ranked in the Top Ten by the AP poll, preseason and after the Bowls. I used the Top Ten, not the Top 25, because I felt that the Top 10 was the best indicator of an Elite team and that there was much more consensus among fans nationwide at the end of the season on the Top 10 than those ranked 11-25.

RESULTS 2000- 2006


SEC Preseason Top Ten: 16
Final Top Ten: 15

Big Xll Preseason Top Ten: 19
FINAL Top Ten: 14

PAC 10 Preseason Top Ten: 7
Final Top Ten: 13

BIG 10 Preseason TOP Ten: 9
FINAL Top Ten: 12

Big East Preseason Top Ten: 9
FINAL Top Ten: 8

ACC Preseason Top Ten : 9
Final Top Ten : 3

A quick analysis shows that two conferences, the SEC and the Big East, perform very closely to their preseason rankings. Each has had one more team make the preseason Top 10 than have finished in the Top 10.

The Big Xll and the ACC both are extremely overrated at the beginning of the season when it comes to Elite teams. The ACC has had three times the teams make the preseason as finished in the top ten. That’s a huge percentage difference and shows that over the last 7 seasons the ACC is absolutely the most overrated conference in the nation when it comes to Elite teams.

The Big 10 is surprisingly underrated. The Big 10 has 33% more teams finish in the top 10 in the sample years than are rated preseason. Very underrated conference on the Elite level.

The PAC 10. All I can say is wow. Every other conference has had more teams ranked in the Top ten preseason. Yet the PAC has had almost twice as many Top ten finishes as the preseason rankings.

It’s obvious that at the Elite level, the ACC has been incredibly overrated on a national level over the last 7 seasons. The PAC 10 has been incredibly underrated in the same time period.

[Blue Hen]

It's hard for me to read and foster up any interest in stuff like that based solely on opinions ( polls and rankings )

[HellYeahHokie]

It's hard for me to read and foster up any interest in stuff like that based solely on opinions ( polls and rankings )

Put aside the issue of a comprehensive playoff, which we can all agree would crown a "true champion". Therefore, using polls to crown a champion is no longer relevant to your case. Then just focus on the polls themselves:

Despite your protests Hen, it has been shown statistically that polls, even biased human polls, are not irrelevant. Teams ranked higher usually win. Teams ranked in the Top 10 at the end of the season are teams that won most of their games. Human polls typically produce similar results as computer polls. Therefore, Top 10 teams at the end of a year can be considered the "elite" for that season. Sure, some deserving team might have finished 11th, but over time (and this analysis uses several years of data), statistically the teams finishing in the Top 10 can be considered elite.

Therefore, I think this analysis is good food for thought, particularly when you look at the contrast between the "worthless" preseason polls and the final polls. I think it would be better to look at individual teams, to see which teams are consistently overrated or underrated, but this is still an interesting comparison.

The ACC's poor performance is hardly surprising. FSU and Miami haven't been very good teams for the last 3-4 years, but everyone still rates them high because of all the great talent they get every year. I think VT finishes in the Top 10 when no one predicts it, but finishes out of the Top 10 when everyone does. So that's probably a wash.

[Blue Hen]

Oh sure, HYH, teams generally ranked high in 'polls' are generally better than unranked teams and all that . The fact that teams can schedule their way up polls, goofy pre season polls, head to head results not being always meaningful in polls ( between teams with equal records ), phony voting in polls, mandated voting for a specific team..........lots of polls stuff. I just don't trust 'em. Based on the polls , the guy's points are good but for me, I'll take scoreboard results over opinions.

[ktffan]

Yikes. Beside the factual errors, why top 10 instead of top 25? Because the top 25 tells a different story.

Why do people desparately grab anything and claim it proves something it doesn't?

[tigercpa]

Put aside the issue of a comprehensive playoff, which we can all agree would crown a "true champion". Therefore, using polls to crown a champion is no longer relevant to your case. Then just focus on the polls themselves:

Despite your protests Hen, it has been shown statistically that polls, even biased human polls, are not irrelevant. Teams ranked higher usually win. Teams ranked in the Top 10 at the end of the season are teams that won most of their games. Human polls typically produce similar results as computer polls. Therefore, Top 10 teams at the end of a year can be considered the "elite" for that season. Sure, some deserving team might have finished 11th, but over time (and this analysis uses several years of data), statistically the teams finishing in the Top 10 can be considered elite.

Therefore, I think this analysis is good food for thought, particularly when you look at the contrast between the "worthless" preseason polls and the final polls. I think it would be better to look at individual teams, to see which teams are consistently overrated or underrated, but this is still an interesting comparison.

The ACC's poor performance is hardly surprising. FSU and Miami haven't been very good teams for the last 3-4 years, but everyone still rates them high because of all the great talent they get every year. I think VT finishes in the Top 10 when no one predicts it, but finishes out of the Top 10 when everyone does. So that's probably a wash.


HYH,

I don't agree you get a "true champion" from a football playoff. You might, depending on how you define "true champion".

I think the CWS does produce what I would call a true champion, but a football playoff, probably not.

Suppose Mason won the NCAA tourney last year...would everyone agree they were the true champion, or would some say they were the tourney champion and got hot at the right time, while others may have had off nights?

How can college football legitimately crown a champion with just a series of one-and-done games that leave so much up to chance?

Would it be exciting? Sure it would. Would it be all-telling and conclusive? Hardly.

A college football playoff wouldn't make us feel any better than our current dilemma...the BCS with its false premise designed by then-SEC Commish Roy Kramer and his cronies to create/ensure an "entitlement" of a ticket to the MNC game for the SEC champion.

LSU gets one on a techicality / procedural issue in 2003 and Auburn gets "screwed" in 2004....can't have it both ways!

Sorry for the tangential...

A champion is however we want to define it. I just don't give much weight to someone surviving a series of one and done games as the best team in a sport, or its champion. It may be that tournament's champion, but not THE champion.

[GatorGrad]

Perhaps the PAC 10's final poll rankings are helped by their bowl games. Let's see...outside of the Rose Bowl, here is what the PAC 10 plays during the bowl season (feel free to correct anything that is untrue as this data comes from another post in another board.)

Holiday Bowl: Pac #2 vs. Big12 #3
Emerald Bowl: Pac #4/5 vs. ACC #5/6/7
Hawaii Bowl: Pac #3 vs. WAC #2
Pioneer Pure Vision Las Vegas Bowl: Pac #4/5 vs. MWC #1
*Sometimes they play in the Sun Bowl or the Insight Bowl
*In every single one of their games they are the higher ranked team in their conference or in 2 games automatically playing a non-BCS school, which can also happen in the Sun and Insight Bowl.

Just some more "food for thought." :)

[CJHawkeyes]

HYH,

I don't agree you get a "true champion" from a football playoff. You might, depending on how you define "true champion".

I think the CWS does produce what I would call a true champion, but a football playoff, probably not.

Suppose Mason won the NCAA tourney last year...would everyone agree they were the true champion, or would some say they were the tourney champion and got hot at the right time, while others may have had off nights?

How can college football legitimately crown a champion with just a series of one-and-done games that leave so much up to chance?

Would it be exciting? Sure it would. Would it be all-telling and conclusive? Hardly.

A college football playoff wouldn't make us feel any better than our current dilemma...the BCS with its false premise designed by then-SEC Commish Roy Kramer and his cronies to create/ensure an "entitlement" of a ticket to the MNC game for the SEC champion.

LSU gets one on a techicality / procedural issue in 2003 and Auburn gets "screwed" in 2004....can't have it both ways!

Sorry for the tangential...

A champion is however we want to define it. I just don't give much weight to someone surviving a series of one and done games as the best team in a sport, or its champion. It may be that tournament's champion, but not THE champion.

A champion is the winner of first place in a competition. Nothing more and nothing less. It does not mean best team. The manner in which first place is determined is what matters. If you don't give weight to a football team surviving four straight games versus probable top 16 competition in a playoff of equal size, what do you give weight to?

You ask if a playoff would be all-telling and conclusive? About what? A playoff would simply determine the winner of first place in a more fair and inclusive manner. If my team won, I don't need to know anything else. I certainly don't care if the result convinces everyone or no one that my team is the best team. A football playoff in conjunction with an objective ranking system would eliminate the problems I see within college football. As such, our current dilemma would be solved to my satisfaction.

BTW, LSU did not win on a technicality in 2003. They finished the regular season ranked 2nd in the BCS and beat #1 in the title game to win the BCS title. The mandated vote in the coaches poll is an unecessary agreement to recognize such. If no such agreement, were made, the BCS would almost certainly recognize the title game winner in another manner.

[Blue Hen]

Post Season Exhibition Games are business/entertainmenmt events. Geographical location of teams and conferences often determine which of these things will draw best. The P10 doesn't have the options of the teams and leagues in the lucrative Southeastern Bowl Belt. The P10 has to take what they get. The exhibition post season of big time CF isn't very fair or very well balanced.

[GatorGrad]

Tip: Focus on CONFERENCE RACES...don't worry about polls or bowls!

[tigercpa]

A champion is the winner of first place in a competition. Nothing more and nothing less. It does not mean best team. The manner in which first place is determined is what matters. If you don't give weight to a football team surviving four straight games versus probable top 16 competition in a playoff of equal size, what do you give weight to?

You ask if a playoff would be all-telling and conclusive? About what? A playoff would simply determine the winner of first place in a more fair and inclusive manner. If my team won, I don't need to know anything else. I certainly don't care if the result convinces everyone or no one that my team is the best team. A football playoff in conjunction with an objective ranking system would eliminate the problems I see within college football. As such, our current dilemma would be solved to my satisfaction.

BTW, LSU did not win on a technicality in 2003. They finished the regular season ranked 2nd in the BCS and beat #1 in the title game to win the BCS title. The mandated vote in the coaches poll is an unecessary agreement to recognize such. If no such agreement, were made, the BCS would almost certainly recognize the title game winner in another manner.

LSU absolutely won on a technicality. Despite a monster team and an incredible season that certainly could justify a #1 ranking, LSU received the begrudging votes of the the coaches due to a contractual relationship with the BCS. In other words, both the human polls, media and coaches, that have histrorically made up the mythical national championship were in agreement that USC was the #1 team in the land. The media voted their conscience. The coaches caved to the lawyers (most of them, at least).

So, the fact pattern goes like this:

1. USC was the consensus #1 team in both polls prior to the bowls.
2. The coaches are contractually obligated to vote the winner of the BCS game the winner of the AFCA National Championship Trophy (i.e, the Coaches Poll).
3. Before 2003, the coaches had never changed their #1 if the team won its bowl game.

The computers favored LSU and that's a fact. The humans overwhelmingly favored USC and that's a fact. A contract with the BCS forced the coaches to change their votes against their better judgement and that's a fact. The CFB establishment was so outraged by a debacle where the consensus #1 team did not get to play in the MNC that they immediately changed the formula so that it could never happen again and that's a fact. That sounds like a general repudiation of the entire outcome to me, but that's my opinion.

And, my opinion is heresy in the State of Louisiana, and in LA no one cares about this argument. The folks in Red Stick like to believe that the asterisk for 2003 is on USC, when factually, it should reside on their side of the ledger.

It all comes down to integrity....I believe a wise poster on here coined that phrase...

[CJHawkeyes]

LSU absolutely won on a technicality. Despite a monster team and an incredible season that certainly could justify a #1 ranking, LSU received the begrudging votes of the the coaches due to a contractual relationship with the BCS. In other words, both the human polls, media and coaches, that have histrorically made up the mythical national championship were in agreement that USC was the #1 team in the land. The media voted their conscience. The coaches caved to the lawyers (most of them, at least).

So, the fact pattern goes like this:

1. USC was the consensus #1 team in both polls prior to the bowls.
2. The coaches are contractually obligated to vote the winner of the BCS game the winner of the AFCA National Championship Trophy (i.e, the Coaches Poll).
3. Before 2003, the coaches had never changed their #1 if the team won its bowl game.

The computers favored LSU and that's a fact. The humans overwhelmingly favored USC and that's a fact. A contract with the BCS forced the coaches to change their votes against their better judgement and that's a fact. The CFB establishment was so outraged by a debacle where the consensus #1 team did not get to play in the MNC that they immediately changed the formula so that it could never happen again and that's a fact. That sounds like a general repudiation of the entire outcome to me, but that's my opinion.

And, my opinion is heresy in the State of Louisiana, and in LA no one cares about this argument. The folks in Red Stick like to believe that the asterisk for 2003 is on USC, when factually, it should reside on their side of the ledger.

It all comes down to integrity....I believe a wise poster on here coined that phrase...


That is not a technicality. Had there been no agreement in place between the BCS and coaches poll, LSU would have still been the BCS champions. LSU won its share by winning the BCS title game, not by being mandated first in the coaches poll. If there is an asterik, it belongs with USC because the BCS title game and not the polls now serve as the primary national champion determiner (is that word?). The BCS should have just released a post-bowl BCS rankings with first place mandated to the title game winner. Instead, they used the coaches poll in order to recognize their own champion which I find nonsensical. However, even if both polls were allowed to vote their conscience, LSU would have won a share of the title and there would be no technicality.

BTW, I don not believe the formula prevents the same scenario from happening again although it is probably less likely now that the worthless opinion polls are weighed so much more.

[HellYeahHokie]

Based on the polls , the guy's points are good but for me, I'll take scoreboard results over opinions.

End of season polls are based on scoreboard results. There's subjectivity, but they are based on results. Preseason polls aren't of course, but the issue of forcing coaches to pick a team is only relevant to the top position, not the top 10.

[HellYeahHokie]

You will note that I used "true champion" in quotes, because I don't mean it would determine the best team. It often doesn't. Villanova and NCSU were clearly not the best basketball teams in the mid-1980s, but they most assuredly are the true champions of the NCAA.

A playoff doesn't define the best team, it crowns a winner of the playoff.

[HellYeahHokie]

Yikes. Beside the factual errors, why top 10 instead of top 25? Because the top 25 tells a different story.

Why do people desparately grab anything and claim it proves something it doesn't?

Because he was specifically talking about "Elite" teams. He said as much. These are teams that have earned an "elite" status and therefore get the benefit of the doubt in preseason polls. The obvious examples are FSU and Miami, who have not been elite for a few, but always seem to get high preseason ranking.

A #25 team is not considered elite.

I don't see that he was desperately grabbing anything and claimed it proved anything. The title of the thread was "Food for Thought", which is all it was. Message board fodder. No reason to jump down his throat for it.

[Blue Hen]

GG,that's a good tip for true CF afficionados, or for those that aspire to be true afficionados. Unfortunately, the non discriminating CF fan masses are obsessed with the 'mythical' $hit........to the absolute delight of the media.

[ktffan]

Because he was specifically talking about "Elite" teams. He said as much. These are teams that have earned an "elite" status and therefore get the benefit of the doubt in preseason polls. The obvious examples are FSU and Miami, who have not been elite for a few, but always seem to get high preseason ranking.



But to view only top 10 (and one poll no less), is very limiting. Was Oklahoma 'elite' last year? I'd say yes. If they win their bowl game, which they almost did 3 time, they finish top 10 easy. To me, this is not nearly enough information to draw the conclusions from that they do.

[tigercpa]

That is not a technicality. Had there been no agreement in place between the BCS and coaches poll, LSU would have still been the BCS champions. LSU won its share by winning the BCS title game, not by being mandated first in the coaches poll. If there is an asterik, it belongs with USC because the BCS title game and not the polls now serve as the primary national champion determiner (is that word?). The BCS should have just released a post-bowl BCS rankings with first place mandated to the title game winner. Instead, they used the coaches poll in order to recognize their own champion which I find nonsensical. However, even if both polls were allowed to vote their conscience, LSU would have won a share of the title and there would be no technicality.

BTW, I don not believe the formula prevents the same scenario from happening again although it is probably less likely now that the worthless opinion polls are weighed so much more.


I'll have to disagree. With the creation of the BCS, nothing has changed with respect to how we determine a national championship. College football's national championship is mythical, not ordained by the NCAA. The AP awards its trophy, as does the Coaches poll. The Coaches poll is determined by the winner of the BCS title game, but the AP remains as it always has. So what has changed? How is figuring the winner of the national title any different now than it was in 1985? Only the method of determining the Coaches poll, which comes down to a mathematical formula and a final game.

One can only assume that people who think that only the BCS title is the only legitimate title are relative newcomers to watching college football. They must have gotten their start around, oh, 1998 or so. It was never created as such.

THe BCS website even says so...

For the only time since the BCS was formed, there is a split national champion. LSU finishes atop the coaches' poll by beating Oklahoma in the Sugar Bowl in a pairing of the top two teams in the BCS Standings. USC, ranked first in both polls on Bowl Selection Sunday, is left out of the BCS championship game when the Trojans finish third in the BCS standings. But USC wins the Associated Press' championship after beating Michigan in the Rose Bowl. Oklahoma, which spent the season as the top-ranked team in both polls, earns a spot in the Sugar Bowl by finishing first in the final BCS Standings even though the Sooners lose to Kansas State in the Big 12 championship game. LSU, the SEC champion, edges USC for second place in the final BCS Standings to advance to the Sugar Bowl. Result: A split decision: LSU finishes atop the coaches' poll; USC is No. 1 in the Associated Press poll.

Nohting has changed, we still have two organizations that vote a mythical national championship. Both continue to be recognized as equal in stature, although the AP continues to carries more integrity.

Good discussion CJ, and as I have no dog in this hunt, I am content to honor 70 years of precedence (and 11 times where there have been co-champs).

[CJHawkeyes]

I'll have to disagree. With the creation of the BCS, nothing has changed with respect to how we determine a national championship. College football's national championship is mythical, not ordained by the NCAA. The AP awards its trophy, as does the Coaches poll. The Coaches poll is determined by the winner of the BCS title game, but the AP remains as it always has. So what has changed? How is figuring the winner of the national title any different now than it was in 1985? Only the method of determining the Coaches poll, which comes down to a mathematical formula and a final game.

One can only assume that people who think that only the BCS title is the only legitimate title are relative newcomers to watching college football. They must have gotten their start around, oh, 1998 or so. It was never created as such.

THe BCS website even says so...

For the only time since the BCS was formed, there is a split national champion. LSU finishes atop the coaches' poll by beating Oklahoma in the Sugar Bowl in a pairing of the top two teams in the BCS Standings. USC, ranked first in both polls on Bowl Selection Sunday, is left out of the BCS championship game when the Trojans finish third in the BCS standings. But USC wins the Associated Press' championship after beating Michigan in the Rose Bowl. Oklahoma, which spent the season as the top-ranked team in both polls, earns a spot in the Sugar Bowl by finishing first in the final BCS Standings even though the Sooners lose to Kansas State in the Big 12 championship game. LSU, the SEC champion, edges USC for second place in the final BCS Standings to advance to the Sugar Bowl. Result: A split decision: LSU finishes atop the coaches' poll; USC is No. 1 in the Associated Press poll.

Nohting has changed, we still have two organizations that vote a mythical national championship. Both continue to be recognized as equal in stature, although the AP continues to carries more integrity.

Good discussion CJ, and as I have no dog in this hunt, I am content to honor 70 years of precedence (and 11 times where there have been co-champs).


I don't really disagree with anything you say here. I just don't see LSU's title as being won based on a technicality. They won according to the rules agreed upon. A post-bowl poll isn't even necessary in order for the BCS to recognize its own champion. In this instance, the purpose of a post-bowl poll is to recognize the title game winner and allow pollsters to place remaining teams 2nd thru 25th.

[HellYeahHokie]

But to view only top 10 (and one poll no less), is very limiting. Was Oklahoma 'elite' last year? I'd say yes. If they win their bowl game, which they almost did 3 time, they finish top 10 easy. To me, this is not nearly enough information to draw the conclusions from that they do.

I think this analysis is limited, certainly. But I don't think that's it's irrelevant in terms of message board "food for thought". It does tell a story. Not a complete story, but a story nonetheless.

And it did read like you came down pretty hard on him for his analysis, which I don't believe he would even say was conclusive evidence of anything.