Hardest conference to run the table in

[aufan59]

Since 1999 the amount of teams who have gone undefeated in each conference:


ACC: 2
Big10: 3
Big12: 2
Big East: 5
Pac10: 2
SEC:1

These numbers clearly show that the SEC is the hardest conference to go undefeated in based on the last 8 years.

[CJHawkeyes]

Why cutoff at 1999? The BCS began in 1998 and Tennessee ran the table which would create a four way tie at 2. The other unbeatens since expanding to 12 include 92 Alabama, 93 Auburn (no CCG), 95 Florida, and 96 Florida.

[Shawn Smut]

i agree, the SEC is the hardest

[GatorGrad]

The # of teams going unbeaten in a conference in any given time period does not always mean that the conference is easier or tougher to go unbeaten in. You can have several teams go unbeaten and they were simply just great teams going through a tough conference schedule. It doesn't mean that it was easy to do. You can also have very few teams go unbeaten and that doesn't always mean that the conference was that much tougher either. There could just be a lot of average teams with a lot of parity.

[CJHawkeyes]

The # of teams going unbeaten in a conference in any given time period does not always mean that the conference is easier or tougher to go unbeaten in. You can have several teams go unbeaten and they were simply just great teams going through a tough conference schedule. It doesn't mean that it was easy to do. You can also have very few teams go unbeaten and that doesn't always mean that the conference was that much tougher either. There could just be a lot of average teams with a lot of parity.

Precisely. Very rarely does the first place team lose more than once anyway. Such is the nature of competition.

[GatorGrad]

aufan,

I love the SEC, but for the reasons I pointed out above, this argument doesn't tell us much. And as someone else pointed out, starting in 1999 doesn't really make sense.

If you want to brag about our conference, a better stat might be the fact that the SEC is 3-0 in BCS Title Games since the BCS started in 1998. That's the best winning % in such games among all conferences, and the most national champs from any other conference in the BCS Era (3 out of 9 years.) And by 3 different schools in UT, LSU, and UF.

Also, since the SEC expanded in 1992 to 12 teams and the Bowl Coalition (first step to the BCS) was created, the SEC has produced 5 of the last 15 national champs...again, one-third of all national champs in that time period with Florida being the only 2x champ in that time span. And this does not include Auburn who went unbeaten in 1993 and 2004, but did not get a shot at the MNC in either season. 1993 was Auburn's own fault, but 2004 was not.

[JamesHowell]

And how many of those teams would have won in a playoff - definitely not the LSU squad or last year's UF; at the end of the season both years, USC was clearly the best.

[CJHawkeyes]

And how many of those teams would have won in a playoff - definitely not the LSU squad or last year's UF; at the end of the season both years, USC was clearly the best.

USC was clearly the best last year? Even if that is the case, the format of a playoff makes a difference. If a playoff is modeled after I-AA and USC meets Florida before the title game, then its in Gainesville. USC lost at Oregon State and UCLA. Winning at Florida is far from a sure thing.

[aufan59]

USC was clearly the best last year? Even if that is the case, the format of a playoff makes a difference. If a playoff is modeled after I-AA and USC meets Florida before the title game, then its in Gainesville. USC lost at Oregon State and UCLA. Winning at Florida is far from a sure thing.

USC 6 peated last year. 2002 they would have won in a playoff, 2003 they were the oh so important 'freely voted' champions, 2005 ESPN proved they were the best of all time, and 2006 they would have won a playoff.

[GatorGrad]

And how many of those teams would have won in a playoff - definitely not the LSU squad or last year's UF; at the end of the season both years, USC was clearly the best.

First of all, there was no playoffs so your point is moot. And if there was a playoff, this is nothing more than opinion anyways, but you state it as if it is fact. If there WAS a playoff, how can you say that LSU "definitely" would not have won in 2003 or that USC was "clearly the best" in 2006? Why was USC clearly the best at the end of 2006? Based on what? Because they lost their final regular season game to UCLA with a BCS Title Game Berth on the line? Because they handled Michigan, who probably was still wondering why they weren't in Glendale for the title game, in the Rose Bowl? USC handled Michigan in their bowl game, while Florida destroyed Ohio State 41-14 in the title game. Given that Ohio St beat Michigan, please explain to me this theory that USC was "clearly the best" at the end of the season.

[Scarlet Hayes]

I get a kick out of the folks that tell us that USC would've won some playoff that never happened. They had TWO losses in both '02 and '06. That tells me absolutely nothing. I'm sorry, but I'd roll with both '02 OSU and '06 UF. They both beat the season's big dog.

All I know is that "everyone" said Miami was going to destroy OSU and that OSU was going to destroy UF. That's why they play 'em.

I'll give USC their due for '03 and '04. But I'm not gonna slobber over a 2 loss team. Especially one that got punk slapped against an overmatched rival. UCLA shut that offense down--down cold.

[Yoda]

Since 1999 the amount of teams who have gone undefeated in each conference:


ACC: 2
Big10: 3
Big12: 2
Big East: 5
Pac10: 2
SEC:1

These numbers clearly show that the SEC is the hardest conference to go undefeated in based on the last 8 years.

So the WAC, MWC, MAC, CUSA and Sun Belt aren't conferences? Because you seem to have overlooked them in making your analysis.

I'm not sure quite what the point of your post is. The difficulty of going undefeated in a conference isn't indicative of the strength of the conference. Rather, it is a measure of the parity in that conference.

Yoda out...

[Don]

And how many of those teams would have won in a playoff - definitely not the LSU squad or last year's UF; at the end of the season both years, USC was clearly the best.

In 2003 your own system has LSU #1 as do 65 of the 072 polls/systems in Masseys composite. Your system has USC ranked #2 but 30 of the 97 listings in the composite have USC #1. In 2006 your own system has UF #1 as do 81 of the 102 polls/systems in Masseys composite. Your system has USC ranked #3 but 12 of the 102 listings in the composite have USC #1. So, I'm wondering what exactly you mean by "clearly"?

[ktffan]

So the WAC, MWC, MAC, CUSA and Sun Belt aren't conferences? Because you seem to have overlooked them in making your analysis.

I'm not sure quite what the point of your post is. The difficulty of going undefeated in a conference isn't indicative of the strength of the conference. Rather, it is a measure of the parity in that conference.

Yoda out...

Teams in each conference that finished with zero conference losses since 99:

http://www.sportslinknetwork.com/cfbtrivia/count.php?fry=1999&thy=2006&nls=on&nll=00&nlh=00&nlsc=on&fcn=on&desc=on

[JamesHowell]

I said "at the end of the season."

Florida was the best team and most deserving of the MNC last year; but that USC team "at the end of the season" was better.

[aufan59]

This post was trying to bait Hokiehen into arguing against my logic. He has used the same logic against the SEC. Either he has no counter point or is still researching one.

[Blue Hen]

There's been 58 unbeaten teams in 74 years of SEC play.....an unbeaten per every 1.276 seasons. Not sure, but that may be the highest rate of unbeatens among the various conference histories.

[buckeyejim]

There's been 58 unbeaten teams in 74 years of SEC play.....an unbeaten per every 1.276 seasons. Not sure, but that may be the highest rate of unbeatens among the various conference histories.

You must consider the fact that the SEC, for many years, had a policy of playing fewer conference games than most conferences. In the '70's and most of the '80's you would see SEC teams playing only 6 conference games and 5 non-conference games while a conference like the Big Ten was generally playing 8 conference games and 3 non-conference games.

That meant that there were 2 fewer chances to lose a conference game for SEC teams and a greater chance to go undefeated in conference play.

In the late '80's the SEC went to 7 conference games and in 1992 (after Arkansas and South Carolina were added) the SEC went to 8 conference games.

I always felt that 6 conference games was a joke and did not really determine the best SEC team in some years.

Playing 5 non-conference games also was a way to "pad" the W-L records and getting more schools in bowl games.

[GatorGrad]

I said "at the end of the season."

Florida was the best team and most deserving of the MNC last year; but that USC team "at the end of the season" was better.

I know you said "at the end of the season." And again I ask...based on what? Their last two games were UCLA and Michigan. They lost to UCLA with the BCS Title Game berth on the line, and beat Michigan who was probably sleepwalking wondering why they weren't in Glendale. A Michigan team that lost to Ohio St who got clobbered by Florida 41-14. Florida ended with wins over FSU, Arkansas, and Ohio State. How can you say that USC's end, which included a loss to UCLA and a win over Michigan, means that they were better than Florida "at the end of the season?" Give me one logical reason to support this opinion. How can Florida beat 12-0 Ohio State 41-14 in the BCS Title Game and not be considered the best team "at the end of the season?"

[GatorGrad]

You must consider the fact that the SEC, for many years, had a policy of playing fewer conference games than most conferences. In the '70's and most of the '80's you would see SEC teams playing only 6 conference games and 5 non-conference games while a conference like the Big Ten was generally playing 8 conference games and 3 non-conference games.

That meant that there were 2 fewer chances to lose a conference game for SEC teams and a greater chance to go undefeated in conference play.

In the late '80's the SEC went to 7 conference games and in 1992 (after Arkansas and South Carolina were added) the SEC went to 8 conference games.

I always felt that 6 conference games was a joke and did not really determine the best SEC team in some years.

Playing 5 non-conference games also was a way to "pad" the W-L records and getting more schools in bowl games.

I agree buckeyejim...when the SEC played only 5, 6, and even 7 games I thought that was silly. You had way to many unbeatens and co-champs, because there weren't enough games to separate teams in the standings. That's why my personal "modern era" of college football begins in 1992, when the SEC went to 12 teams and added the CCG. That was also the first year of the Bowl Coalition which tried to match up #1 vs #2 in the bowls (#2 Alabama beat #1 Miami in the Sugar Bowl to win the MNC that season.) It was the first season that the SEC had 8 conference games, and was guaranteed to produce one undisputed champion no matter what. Now, the only BCS Conference without either a CCG format or round robin, the two acceptable formats IMO, is the Big Ten. Hopefully, that will change when they add a 12th team.

[buckeyejim]

I know you said "at the end of the season." And again I ask...based on what? Their last two games were UCLA and Michigan. They lost to UCLA with the BCS Title Game berth on the line, and beat Michigan who was probably sleepwalking wondering why they weren't in Glendale. A Michigan team that lost to Ohio St who got clobbered by Florida 41-14. Florida ended with wins over FSU, Arkansas, and Ohio State. How can you say that USC's end which included a loss to UCLA and a win over Michigan means that they were better than Florida "at the end of the season." Give me one logical reason to support this opinion. How can Florida beat 12-0 Ohio State 41-14 in the BCS Title Game and not be considered the best team "at the end of the season?"

I'll say it with confidence, "Florida was the best team in college football at the end of the season". The Gators peaked at the right time and won when they HAD to win and USC didn't.

That being said, I would say that USC is the premeire college football program in college football these days but that doesn't mean they're the best team every season.

[Bucs90]

Have to seriously disagree. The premiere college football program these days is.....not sure. USCal is a great program, but whats with being the team that "shoulda" won it all 5 out of 6 years? That sounds like underachieving, or over-hyping. Nothing premiere about either term. This season could define the premiere team of the past 7 years though. LSU could collect a 2nd ring, as could Texas or USC. As Miami and FSU have set the tone, you really need 2 rings in a decade to be top dog, IMO. And, in actuality, one could truly argue Florida as the premiere program right now. 2 National Championships since 96, some SEC championships.....not too shabby, only a Zook moment to tarnish it.

If hyped recruiting classes = premiere, then yeah, USC has that. But to underachieve 5 out of 6 years, and even that 1 is disputed by Auburn, thats not premiere, unless USC talent has been overhyped, thus creating expectations so high that a 2 or less ranking is a disappointment.

Right now, I would consider Ohio State, Florida, LSU, Texas, USC, and to some extent, maybe Louisville and Boise St (for their success as underdogs) as premiere program models.

[buckeyejim]

Have to seriously disagree. The premiere college football program these days is.....not sure. USCal is a great program, but whats with being the team that "shoulda" won it all 5 out of 6 years? That sounds like underachieving, or over-hyping. Nothing premiere about either term. This season could define the premiere team of the past 7 years though. LSU could collect a 2nd ring, as could Texas or USC. As Miami and FSU have set the tone, you really need 2 rings in a decade to be top dog, IMO. And, in actuality, one could truly argue Florida as the premiere program right now. 2 National Championships since 96, some SEC championships.....not too shabby, only a Zook moment to tarnish it.

If hyped recruiting classes = premiere, then yeah, USC has that. But to underachieve 5 out of 6 years, and even that 1 is disputed by Auburn, thats not premiere, unless USC talent has been overhyped, thus creating expectations so high that a 2 or less ranking is a disappointment.

Right now, I would consider Ohio State, Florida, LSU, Texas, USC, and to some extent, maybe Louisville and Boise St (for their success as underdogs) as premiere program models.


Even though some will disagree, USC already has 2 rings this decade because the AP Champion in their final poll is just as recognized (and more so in my eyes) as the champion of the final Coached Poll. Remember, after the bowl games there are still two major polls that are released, the AP Poll and the Coaches Poll. I'll admit that the Coaches Waterford Crystal Trophy is nicer than the average looking AP Champion Trophy but a recognized champion is still a recognized champion.

[Blue Hen]

I'm aware of that factor, buckeyejim ,but in actuality, there was hardly any difference at all among the conferences. In the 70s and 80s, the B8, SEC, ACC and P10 champions averaged 7 conference games. The B10 averaged 8.

Even with that ,bj, the B10, historically, has been the easiest conference to run the table in....the SEC the next easiest.

[Blue Hen]

The plain old NCAA FB championship trophy still beats all those other assorted opinion driven trophies.......as far as meaningfullness.

[buckeyejim]

The plain old NCAA FB championship trophy still beats all those other assorted opinion driven trophies.......as far as meaningfullness.

Southern accent here: "Yea, but they aint as purdy!"

[Blue Hen]

That's the truth. I've gotten nicer plaques for winning local fiddling contests than those generic looking NCAA things.