Did you miss this line? For years I have heard you argue how tough the SEC is, that any other conference champion would have three or four losses if they played the murderer's row that is the SEC conference schedule. However, based on the evidence with which we have been gifted the last two years in A&M and Missouri, I would say the AQ conference teams of the other conferences would have about as much success as they do in their current conference. Then, you want to cry to me that the SEC is on the "short side of the draw" in their bowl matchups? (Yes, I saw the "once or twice" but the implication was that this is a regular occurrence.) Even when SEC teams were favored in EVERY bowl game they were in the last two years? THREE YEARS AGO less than half of the SEC teams were on the "short side of the draw" and this somehow validates your feelings? I can only imagine you're trying to make this argument to try to explain the bowl results, but if you compare the bowl results to what SHOULD have happened if the SEC was as strong as perceived, I would say the SEC greatly underperformed. Even while going 17-11 in the last three years, which on the surface looks pretty good. However, compared to what your "wise guys" pegged the line at, it looks pretty pedestrian: 2012: Vegas said the SEC should go 9-0, being favored in all nine bowls Results showed the SEC going 6-3 2011: Vegas said the SEC should go 8-1, being favored in seven bowls but having both teams in the NCG Results showed the SEC going 6-3 2010: Vegas said the SEC should go 6-4, being favored in six of the ten bowls Results showed the SEC going 5-5 If you truly think the bowl results reflect the true strength of a conference: Then the SEC hasn't been as tough in at least the last three years as previously perceived.
Let me extrapolate from your post. I said sometimes on the short side.... and meant just that. What I have been saying is in rebuttal to the notion that the bowl match-ups are decidedly in the SEC's favor.... making it easier for the SEC to own the all-time lead in bowl wins over the other conferences.... which the SEC does. I guess if you think being a one point favortite or even a three point favorite means that the deck is stacked for the SEC in bowls then I won't be able to change your mind.
Real good article from SB Nation in May of this year: http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2013/5/7/4308512/sec-football-conferences-compared-depth Bowl records of the last decade by conference show the leader SEC at 64% winning perecntage vs. 54 for the 2nd place PAC 12.
You have to go back to 2008 before the SEC actually outperformed what was expected of them in the bowls: 2009: Vegas said the SEC should go 7-3 Results showed the SEC going 6-4 2008: Vegas said the SEC should go 3-4 (and one off) Results showed the SEC going 6-2 When the SEC SHOULD win 100% of their bowls because they're all-world, 67% is pretty average. You started with the premise that Vegas odds indicate quality of team. If the SEC team is favored by one point, are they not expected to be the better team? If that favored team loses, did they not underperform compared to expectations?
Code: <i> </i>P12: Year Vegas Actual 2010 1-3 1-3 2011 1-6 2-5 2012 6-2 4-4 TOTAL 8-11 7-12 (%) 0.42 0.37 -0.05 SEC: 2010 6-4 5-5 2011 8-1 6-3 2012 9-0 6-3 TOTAL 23-5 17-11 (%) 0.82 0.61 -0.21 In the last three years, the bowl record of the SEC has been 20 percentage points lower than what was expected based on their perceived strength. The P12 has been 5 percentage points lower. Yet going by the bowl record of 17-11 you would think the SEC is killin' it, until you realize they SHOULD have gone 23-5 if they were who we thought they were!! Factor in against whom they were playing and the PAC wasn't even expected to win half of those bowl games. Last year the PAC climbed back to respectability based on the regular season, but had a disappointing bowl season. By the same token, the last three years should have been a disappointment for the SEC.
One point.... three points.... aren't you pulling hairs here? If the line is one point I honestly couldn't tell you by that who is going to win such a game or who is supposed to.... and I used to bet these games. It does tell you that the match-up is pretty dead even close and either team could win. You can't discount the 64-54 winning percentage lead that the SEC has over 2nd place... and the small margin odds prove that it's not that way because of a perceived "decided" advantage the SEC has playing strong teams against weaker teams. If that advantage exists maybe.... just maybe it exists because the SEC truly has been the strongest conference.... as evidenced by all of the BCS titles, BCS bowl wins and 10 percentage lead in all bowls in the last decade. When you look at that it kinda falls in to place that... lo and behold the SEC has been the strongest conference in the last decade. :wink:
I was starting with your argument as a baseline. If you had bet against all the SEC teams that were favored in the last five years, you'd be up huge. If you had bet with all the SEC teams that were favored...wait, is that why: Everyone in the world has agreed that the BCS titles won by the SEC is the standard to which we all strive and I have shown you that the planted flag theory is well documented and supported by the data. I have also showed you that if the SEC was who you and the experts say they were, the SEC's bowl record would be even better than it is. You can twist and turn being favored by "only" one to three points as really meaning it's a coin flip, but I don't think that would fly with your book if you tried to bet it that way. When a team is favored by a point, when everything, including venue, is taken into account, they are viewed as the favorite. And if you then lose, you didn't meet expectations. There have been years where the SEC was the best, and it's likely a majority of the last ten years (five years? six? seven?) but the difference between #1 SEC and #2 is not as great as you continue to make it out to be, as shown by the cold, hard facts. I know you don't put a lot of stock in facts, but most of us have to live in the world as it exists, not as we'd like it to be.
Well..... this year my gut feel is that the SEC is a tad off. I think Vegas feels that too so the spreads will be tight even if the SEC team is favored. 6-4 might be all we get out of the SEC this year.... if that.
Bobda, There are some bowl games that are better indicators than others. MCG, too much "Black Helicopter" stuff for me. Scott, how are they supposed to match up teams from different conferences. A&M and LSU have the same records, will draw a big crowd and a big tv audience. If they don't schedule this game, you could complain that you deserved that bowl and didn't get it because of some bias or something. Kesley, You have caught MCG's "Black Helicopter" disease. Who is in this conspiracy to make the bowl matchups advantageous to the SEC? I see that you included the BCS Championship Game in you presentation. Do you think Alabama should not have been in it? Do you think Notre Dame should not have been in it? Do you think Alabama should not have been favored? Just wondering. 8)
kp - I don't see any conspiracy in it. The bowl contracts ended up that way; I don't think anyone steered them that way. I also don't think it should have been anyone except Bama and ND in the CG last year. If Tressel hadn't been stupid, OSU probably would have been a better choice, but they weren't eligible. The numbers are what they are. Some perspective with relation to the numbers was required, which I tried to provide.
Can we just waive a magic wand and do away with the BCS for this season and use what is going to happen next year instead? That would show the bad old SEC. Assuming that Ohio State and FSU win Sat the the four teams would be Ohio State FSU Alabama Winner of Auburn and Missouri Since the two SEC teams would both have one loss they would likely be seed 3 & 4. with one playing Ohio State and one playing FSU. Likely the seeds would be 1. FSU 2. Ohio State 2. Winner of Auburn/Missouri 4. Alabama Heck of a chance we would get two SEC teams in the final game again!
Hey look y'all, I think you may be right about the 4 teams in the playoff but I have been telling you all season that this Alabama team is not as good as the last few Alabama teams. We would be competitive but that is the best I can say. Our defense this year is not as dominant as it has been. :?
I really do think that this Auburn team is the weakest SEC Champion that the league has trotted out on the BCS Championship field in the last 7 years. It is a team that is ripe for an ass whipping of major proportions by what looks to be an excellent FSU squad. Otherwise the SEC match-ups in bowls look manageable..... but we will see how the league fares this year in those games. My guess is an overall record of 6-5 is the best the league will muster.
I'll welcome the playoff next year, but I also predict a lot of bitching about some teams that didn't make the cut..esp since the top 4 will be determined by a committee and not by BCS Poll numbers. Will the BCS Poll still exist next year?
I think the real bitching about who did or didn't make the playoff would diminish with team #9 and disappear altogether with team # 17. I think we could do very well with an 8 team format and not have much controversy. Team #5 will always have a basis to bitch loudly imho.
Although I'm sure some enterprising individual will continue to do a BCS-like calculation, I think I had read that the Harris Poll would be going away. (It was created to replace the AP Poll in the BCS selection process. No BCS, no Harris.) Agreed. Eight in my world would be perfect. It may not happen every year, but eventually all of the big five will have at least one team they feel belongs in the playoff. If you include eight, the #9 team has only itself to blame. For instance, even though the selection committee will not likely use the BCS rankings, taking #1-#8, here's what an eight team would look like: Quarterfinal: #1 FSU vs. #8 Mizzou #2 Auburn vs. #7 Ohio St. #3 Bama vs. #6 Baylor #4 Michigan St. vs. #5 Stanford You'd have five of the major conference champions, and the only one "deserving" that is left out in this scenario is Oregon. Too bad, so sad for Oregon: shouldn't have lost to Arizona for your SECOND loss! Otherwise, who else would have a real beef? Plus, this bracket would be greatness! If I had to fill out my bracket: Semifinal: #8 Mizzou vs. #5 Stanford #2 Auburn vs. #3 Bama Final: #5 Stanford vs. #3 Bama What is NOT to like about this?!?!?!?
Kes, You and I have been preaching this privately and publicly for a while. 8 teams is the way to go to eliminate the VALID bitching while still putting together a title-worthy field. If people step back and really look at this, they'd see it's the way to go. I see the 4 team playoff as nothing more than an extension of the BCS, but it is the first true 'right step' toward a NC in college football.