Right...some of which is completely irrelevant to current on field results and injects an inherent bias and perpetuates the circus....the human polls and several of the computer polls use prior year results to "seed" their data - prior year results have no bearing on this years action. Kes's analysis isn't subject to such a bias and instead focuses only on the relevant facts.....what happened on the field this year, which is, after all, what we are supposed to be measuring
Come on man, the data doesn't support Dave's conclusion that what ever the question is the answer is that the SEC is better, or you couldn't do that in the SEC.
Big 10 plays lower-division competition, with the Pac-12 close behind. The SEC and Big 12 play about twice as money lower-division teams. From 1978 (when Div. I split into IA and IAA) through 2011, below are the records of each team against FCS teams (I consider ‘the best’ those teams that have played three or fewer games against FCS opponents, about one every 10 years): Pac-10: Arizona: 8-0 ASU: 10-0 Cal: 5-0 Colorado: 1-1 Oregon: 8-0 Oregon St.: 14-5 Stanford: 2-1 UCLA: 0-0 USC: 0-0 Utah: 12-2 Washington: 1-0 WSU: 16-0 Average: 7.17 FCS games per team, 0.21 per team per year Add in the 9 2012 FCS games, average goes to 7.92 per team, 0.23 per team per year SEC: Alabama: 8-0 Arkansas: 9-1 Auburn: 17-0 Florida: 14-0 Georgia: 13-0 Kentucky: 13-0 LSU: 8-0 Mississippi: 19-1 Mississippi St.: 15-1 Missouri: 11-0 S. Carolina: 19-2 Tennessee: 3-0 Texas A&M: 16-0 Vanderbilt: 12-0 Average: 13.00 FCS games per team, 0.38 per team per year Add in the 15 2012 FCS games, average goes to 14.07 per team, 0.40 per team per year Big 10: Illinois: 11-0 Indiana: 8-1 Iowa: 9-0 Michigan: 2-1 Michigan St.: 3-0 Minnesota: 12-3 Nebraska: 8-0 Northwestern: 7-2 Ohio St.: 2-0 Penn St.: 7-1 Purdue: 7-0 Wisconsin: 9-0 Average: 7.75 FCS games per team, 0.23 per team per year Add in the 8 2012 FCS games, average goes to 8.42 per team, 0.24 per team per year Big 12: Kansas St.: 22-6 Oklahoma: 5-0 Texas: 4-0 Oklahoma St.: 20-0 Texas Tech: 14-1 TCU: 8-2 Iowa St.: 21-4 West Virginia: 9-0 Baylor: 17-0 Kansas: 21-2 Average: 15.60 FCS games per team, 0.46 per team per year Add in the 9 2012 FCS games, average goes to 16.50 per team, 0.47 per team per year The only three FBS teams to never have played an FCS team: USC, UCLA, Notre Dame Atta boy (5 or less): Pac 12 (6): Cal, Colorado, Stanford, Washington, USC, UCLA SEC (1): Tennessee Big 10 (3): Michigan, Michigan St., Ohio St. Big 12 (2): Oklahoma, Texas Embarrassing (15 or more): Pac 12 (2): Oregon St., Washington St. SEC (5): Auburn, Mississippi, Mississippi St., S. Carolina, Texas A&M Big 10 (1): Minnesota Big 12 (6): Kansas St., Oklahoma St., Texas Tech, Iowa St., Baylor, Kansas
I have the data for the Big 10 and Big 12, but I'm not going to type up the individual teams unless people want to discuss it. So, here's the short version: Big 10 ranking: Really good: Ohio St. Good: Nebraska, Michigan, Okay/average: Northwestern, Penn St., Wisconsin Not good: Minnesota, Iowa, Michigan St., Purdue, Indiana Horrible: Illinois An average of 4.92 games against decent competition (average or better). This is about on par with the SEC with fewer really good programs, making the SEC the better conference. Plus, if either PSU or Wisconsin are moved down below average, the calculation gets worse. Looking at the OOC schedule, you see the Big 10 doesn’t drop down in competition as often as the SEC. Big 10 out of conference games: 2xACC 1xBig 12 3xBig East 5xConference USA 12xMAC 3xMWC 4xPac 12 2xSEC 1xSun Belt 2xWAC 3xNotre Dame 2xNavy 8xFCS = 0.75 FCS games per team
Big 12 ranking: Really good: Kansas St., Oklahoma Good: Texas Okay/average: Oklahoma St. Not good: Texas Tech, TCU, Iowa St., West Virginia, Baylor Horrible: Kansas I place Texas Tech in the “not good” category because they have two wins over teams over .500 (TCU, Iowa St.) and against a 5-5 West Virginia team. They are the best of the worst in the Big 12, which is not good. I place TCU in the “not good” category because their best win is against a 5-5 West Virginia team. I place Iowa St. in the “not good” category because, although they have a “quality” win against 9-2 Tulsa, they have split their only games against any other team over .500 (TCU, Texas Tech). An average of 4.0 games against decent competition (average or better). This is well below even the SEC with less success, making the SEC the better conference. Looking at the OOC schedule, you see the Big 12 doesn’t drop down in competition as often as the SEC, but plays more FCS teams than either the Big 10 or Pac 12. Big 12 out of conference games: 3xACC 1xBig 10 6xConference USA 1xMAC 3xMWC 1xPac 12 1xSEC 3xSun Belt 1xWAC 1xNotre Dame 9xFCS = 0.90 FCS games per team
So basically, it comes out like this when considering level of competition and relative success: Pac 12 SEC Big 10 Big 12
And Notre Dame: 3-0 against okay or better: Michigan, Stanford, Oklahoma 8-0 against BAD teams: Navy, Purdue, Michigan St., Miami (FL), BYU, Pitt, BC, Wake Forest 1 game left against GOOD USC 4 games against decent competition With all of the above information, everyone knows that you can’t schedule three years in advance and know who is going to be a competitive program. For instance, recently Navy, Purdue, Michigan St., Miami (FL), BYU and BC have all had good years that could have made this year’s ND schedule absolutely brutal. But, facts is facts and the competition was what it was this year. One final note. Although you can move one or team teams around in the categories, the relative strength of the conferences is still accurately represented by the data above. The problem isn’t those couple of teams I may have called “not good” or “average”, but those MANY subpar programs many teams play throughout the year. These subpar programs bloat the win totals of the power conferences that should be expected to blow out the lower-tier conferences (and divisions). NOW, NO MORE DATA FROM ME unless specifically requested. Sorry for such long posts, but without the data, it's just another opinion.
Thanks Kes, I'm a data junkie myself....I loved it. That is a helluva lot of number crunching....thanks for the time and effort.
Kes has a little too much time on his hands while waiting for the Turkey Day whistle! :wink: Since you put my team in the "Embarrasing" category, I've got to throw out a small rebuttal. The Aggies have balanced the little guys by scheduling home and home with "better" teams. We've played at: Notre Dame, Miami, Va Tech, LSU, Clemson, Utah, etc. I have no problem with scheduling a "buy" game as long as that's not all you play.
"the human polls and several of the computer polls use prior year results to "seed" their data - prior year results have no bearing on this years action. " I wonder how in the hell is Ohio State so highly ranked in the current BCS poll because last year they sucked at 6-7. So really what you are saying is that it doesn't matter a lick that ND is ranked number one in the BCS ratings......no sir.... doesn't mean squat. They haven't earned it because it's all goulash and bad numbers with bad.... biased opinions... and it has absolutely nothing to do with what the Irish have done on the field this season. :wink: Well OK then.... if you insist. :wink: Hold on I got it. If it's Ohio State, Oregon or ND that is highly rated then you're damned straight it matters because those teams have proved something by golly. If it's the SEC then different story.... don't mean ****.
Scott – As we discussed, I was quite surprised to see A&M had played down that often. But, I had set the requirements prior to seeing where it led, rather than the other way around. It just so happens my two favorite teams ended up in the embarrassing end of the scale. BuckT – thanks! Sometimes I don’t know what the data means, but I sure know the answer must be there somewhere!  CoCo – you may not have put me up to it, but I did this in your honor. I miss the days where you were able to do this FOR me. Sid – thank you sir!
Kes Jim loved all the work you did on this and thinks you are the genius he always knew you to be. just saying
When the SEC starts losing on the biggest national stages instead of winning as the conference has been doing the past several years then you can say that the SEC isn't playing the calber of football as maybe some other conferences are.....take your pick which one. But consistently in bowl games and of course in the BCS Title game the SEC has been dominant. The only way to change it is to beat the best SEC teams on the field.... not the Kentuckys of the conference. To play a schedule of the top SEC/BCS rated teams as Florida has done this year is a daunting task and it's the reason UF's schedule is #1 ranked by the NCAA and that UF is so high in the BCS computers. Throw in an OOC Florida State at the end of the season and I don't give a rats ass what you think of UF playing Jacksonville State and neither does any of the mechanisms in place that will decide if an 11-1 Florida will play for the national title should ND not beat USC on Sat. night. The same deal went down in 2006 and UF represented the SEC pretty darned well vs. a conference that truly was overrated that year. If you don't like it.... just whip our ass when it counts.
Yes it was a trick question... my bad. Instead of the vagaries of the coaches and Harris voters plus reams of computer data the Buckeyes have only the alcohol fogged minds of sportswriters to value just where their team should be ranked.
And I’m guessing your love of the computers has nothing to do with the fact that six of them (out of seven) rank Florida higher than Alabama (and Georgia)? However, four of the computers also rank KSU ahead of Georgia, five rank KSU ahead of Oregon! Oklahoma is ranked higher than Texas A&M in four. Hell, almost every one of the computers have Oklahoma, Nebraska, Oregon St., Texas ranked higher than FSU, that team that will “make” your schedule (or as in your reference, already makes it the “toughest” in the land). It’s known as GIGO. You can only get out of a computer what someone has programmed into it. They don’t pass the eyeball or smell tests. I prefer to look at the underlying data, not depend on someone else’s algorithms to tell me what that data means.