Is the Big 12 really the best football conference?

[muck]

I thought this was pretty cool; conference rankings at the bottom of the page

[SEC=UGA]

No.

But, I'm biased and haven't pulled my head outta my ass long enough to do the real research.

[muck]

For this week, every computer system ranks the Big 12 as the #1 football conference ... every computer system ranks the SEC as the #2 football conference.

 

Different computers rank the Big 10 as being from 3rd to 6th (overall 3rd), Big East from 3rd to 6th (overall 4th), Pac 12 from 3rd to 6th (overall 5th) and ACC from 3rd to 6th (overall 6th).

[wildcat2334]

a strong argument can be made the Big 12 is the best thus far.

 

I think the Big 12 and SEC are neck and neck, and as good as LSU/Bama are at the top - I think the Big 12 is stronger top to bottom.

Edited October 12, 2011 by wildcat2334

[SEC=UGA]

For this week, every computer system ranks the Big 12 as the #1 football conference ... every computer system ranks the SEC as the #2 football conference.

 

Different computers rank the Big 10 as being from 3rd to 6th (overall 3rd), Big East from 3rd to 6th (overall 4th), Pac 12 from 3rd to 6th (overall 5th) and ACC from 3rd to 6th (overall 6th).

 

Computers scare me.

[muck]

The Big 12 is still the top-ranked conference...

[detlef]

The Big 12 is still the top-ranked conference...

I can't see how there can be any change at all with respect to relative conference strength once the conference season begins. Everyone is playing within their conference so it should be a net zero sum.

 

If the top teams lose to the bottom teams, then your conference is deep but without elite teams.

 

If the top teams beat the bottom teams, then it's top heavy but with legit top 10 teams.

 

Honestly, I'm caring less and less about college ball every year.

[Square]

Honestly, I'm caring less and less about college ball every year.

Meh, I enjoy it so much more than the NFL its really not even close. The system isn't perfect but nothing is (including the NFL).

[SEC=UGA]

TT beats Oklahoma and then gets CRUSHED by, who, Iowa freaking State?!?!

 

My post means nothing, really, I just wanted to point out that Oklahoma got beat by Texas Tech, who got BEAT UP by Iowa freaking State.

 

ANd the other thing that bugs me... Oklahoma got beat by Texas Tech, who, incidentally got CRUSHED by Iowa Freaking State, and is ranked ahead of Oregon, who's only loss is to the #1 team in the nation. Oklahoma lost to Texas Tech, a team that got DEMOLISHED by Iowa Freaking State, and is ranked ahead of Arkansas, who's only loss is to the #2 Ranked team in the nation. Oklahoma lost to Texas Tech, a team who got EMBARRASSED by Iowa Freaking State, and is ranked ahead of USC, a team who's only loss is to a top 25 team.

 

One can argue that Oklahoma has some "big" wins, they beat FSU (who has lost three games, one of those to a SOLID wake Forest team), they beat A KSU team, who I guess is pretty good, and they beat Texas team that has not played anyone. But, they got beat by Texas Tech who, at home, got ROUTED by Iowa Freaking State. At the end of the day, Oklahoma is ranked ahead of 9 teams, all of whom lost to top 25 opponents, despite them getting RUN OVER by Texas Tech, a team that just got DESTROYED by Iowa Freaking State!!!!

[detlef]

Meh, I enjoy it so much more than the NFL its really not even close. The system isn't perfect but nothing is (including the NFL).

This is why I care less and less about it. They care less and less about me.

 

It's a broken system that stands to get worse and worse as conferences play this stupid game of gobbling up schools. The product will undoubtedly get worse as we move towards the super conferences unless we somehow get a play-off, which they seem hell bent on denying the fans despite the massive groundswell of support for it.

 

The games themselves? Very exciting indeed. I worked late on Saturday but got home just in time for OT of the Stanford/USC game. Great theater.

 

It's just all this BS I can do without.

 

Had the NFL and its players not pulled their respective heads out of their respective asses and got their deal done, I would have ditched them instead. But they were smart enough to not kill the golden goose, something big time college football may be on the verge of doing themselves.

[SEC=UGA]

This is why I care less and less about it. They care less and less about me.

 

It's a broken system that stands to get worse and worse as conferences play this stupid game of gobbling up schools. The product will undoubtedly get worse as we move towards the super conferences unless we somehow get a play-off, which they seem hell bent on denying the fans despite the massive groundswell of support for it.

 

The games themselves? Very exciting indeed. I worked late on Saturday but got home just in time for OT of the Stanford/USC game. Great theater.

 

It's just all this BS I can do without.

 

Had the NFL and its players not pulled their respective heads out of their respective asses and got their deal done, I would have ditched them instead. But they were smart enough to not kill the golden goose, something big time college football may be on the verge of doing themselves.

 

One thing to think about... With super conferences don't we get somewhat of a playoff during the regular season?

 

Look at THE game this weekend, LSU-Bama, that is a playoff game to decide who is #1. Okie-Okie St. next weekend will likely decide who is #2. Oregon-Stanford will decide who is #3. Boise will get the #4 slot due to their being undefeated and will likely play #3 in a bowl game.

 

If we expand the conferences we will begin to see a clearer picture emerge on who is #1-#10. Once you get these head to heads of the powerhouses and then have a conference championship you begin to get more of a playoff system. The bowl games then become a match-up of the final conference winners and runner-ups to shore those rankings up at the end of the season.

 

I would rather have playoffs, but do believe that bigger conferences with a championship game will help to make things more clear.

[detlef]

One thing to think about... With super conferences don't we get somewhat of a playoff during the regular season?

 

Look at THE game this weekend, LSU-Bama, that is a playoff game to decide who is #1. Okie-Okie St. next weekend will likely decide who is #2. Oregon-Stanford will decide who is #3. Boise will get the #4 slot due to their being undefeated and will likely play #3 in a bowl game.

 

If we expand the conferences we will begin to see a clearer picture emerge on who is #1-#10. Once you get these head to heads of the powerhouses and then have a conference championship you begin to get more of a playoff system. The bowl games then become a match-up of the final conference winners and runner-ups to shore those rankings up at the end of the season.

 

I would rather have playoffs, but do believe that bigger conferences with a championship game will help to make things more clear.

At the expense of regional integrity. Further, are you sure we'd even get Stanford Oregon or LSU-Bama if we expanded? The conference schedule is going to be diluted. OK, maybe LSU-Bama sticks but what if it wasn't LSU and Bama but LSU and Florida or Georgia or some school outside of their division. Expanding the conference decreases the odds of those two teams playing each other.

 

It was odd. I wrote my beef, got in my car to go to work, and listened to Pat Forde basically rehash the entire thing. Everything CFB has done and continues to do is akin to giving it's customers the middle finger.

[SEC=UGA]

At the expense of regional integrity. Further, are you sure we'd even get Stanford Oregon or LSU-Bama if we expanded? The conference schedule is going to be diluted. OK, maybe LSU-Bama sticks but what if it wasn't LSU and Bama but LSU and Florida or Georgia or some school outside of their division. Expanding the conference decreases the odds of those two teams playing each other.

 

It was odd. I wrote my beef, got in my car to go to work, and listened to Pat Forde basically rehash the entire thing. Everything CFB has done and continues to do is akin to giving it's customers the middle finger.

 

You would definitely lose the some of the east west conference games and would absolutely lose the OOC games if you move to 16 to 20 team conferences. BUT, Let us look at a scenario:

SEC West:

A&M

Missou

LSU

Arkie

Miss

Miss St.

Bama

FSU

 

 

SEC East:

UGA

UF

Vandy

AU

USC

UT

KY

Va Tech

 

LSU and Bama are strong and usually compete for a top 4 spot in the SEC, these are your powerhouses. UF of course is the powerhouse in the East, but AU, UGA and TN have historically fielded fairly strong teams, at least 2 of which are usually in the top 4 of the SEC rankings. You have two of the four conference power house playing one another in divisional play each year, they play in a championship game and the winner of that conference comes out.

 

Another scenario:

PAC 12 Metro Sexual Division:

USC West

UCLA

Oklahoma

Utah

Colorado

ASU

Zona

Boise

 

Ghey Division:

Organ

Organ St.

Wash out

Wash St.

Cal

Stanford

Texas

Okie St.

 

Pairing up USC and Okie would be the regular season game to decide who is #1-3 and who is #5-9

In the Ghey division you would have the regular season match-up between organ, stan and TX.

You then have the determining gam in the conference champ game between the two winners, who have historically been one of those vying for the NC.

 

Seriously, if TX, Stan, and Organ played during the year, USC and Oklahoma played and then Oklahoma played Texas in the conference championship, you could pretty much say, with a greater degree of certainty that the winner of that game is a top 2 or three team.

 

You then have LSU and Bama playing one another and UGA, UF, AU and TN playing one another. Say Bama and UF play in the championship game and Bama wins.

 

Then Bama plays Oklahoma and whips their ass in the NC game, wouldn't you think that you could say with more certainty that Bama was the NC?

 

Again, I would much rather see a playoff, but when you look at the games that can occur in these bigger conferences I believe it adds more validity to a conference champ holding the title of NCAA champ.

Edited November 1, 2011 by SEC=UGA

[detlef]

To be honest, only part of my gripe comes from the fact that we have to guess at which two teams should be playing for all the marbles. My desire for a playoff has as much to do with the journey as it does with the result. The 8-12 team tourney itself would be amazing. That some suit refuses to create a product that people would kill for and make him plenty of money because he'd rather make money through some effed-up convoluted manner, is what pisses me off. And it's his product, so he's free to do with it what he wants. And that only sort of makes me bored with the game as a whole.

 

But now you've got this greedy little game of musical chairs piled on top of that, and I'm about to say enough. Not so much that I'm never going to watch another college game, but certainly enough that I've emotionally detached myself from the whole thing. I really don't care. I'm done being fired up or pissed off or excited about any of the big-picture outcomes from the game because the powers that be are doing everything they can to do away with that.

 

So they can have it.

 

Honestly, when I looked at your breakdown, I just saw a bunch of diluted conferences. There's too many teams in each one to play even close to enough teams to bother putting them in the same conference. So then it's just a bunch of 8 team conferences, and we're right back where we started.

[muck]

It looks like they're still (unanimously) ranked as the #1 conference (top to bottom) according to the computers.

[theprofessor]

It looks like they're still (unanimously) ranked as the #1 conference (top to bottom) according to the computers.

 

Shhhh ...... don't tell those guys from the conference that can beat all those NFL teams.

[detlef]

It looks like they're still (unanimously) ranked as the #1 conference (top to bottom) according to the computers.

And again, what could possibly make this change from before? Everyone is playing in-conference now, so how is any conference going to look better or worse relative to another?

 

There's one thing, and one thing only that we can use as a measuring stick for relative conference strength, and that's how everyone does OOC. The problem is, far too many schedule lame OOC games, so even that is useless. Do we have to resort to relative margins of victory over the Citadel?

 

I'm not saying the computer rankings are wrong, just that they're stupid.

[SEC=UGA]

Shhhh ...... don't tell those guys from the conference that can beat all those NFL teams.

 

At this point I will have to admit... I do think that LSU could beat Indianapolis.

[SEC=UGA]

And again, what could possibly make this change from before? Everyone is playing in-conference now, so how is any conference going to look better or worse relative to another?

 

There's one thing, and one thing only that we can use as a measuring stick for relative conference strength, and that's how everyone does OOC. The problem is, far too many schedule lame OOC games, so even that is useless. Do we have to resort to relative margins of victory over the Citadel?

 

I'm not saying the computer rankings are wrong, just that they're stupid.

 

This computer ranking thing has always concerned me... The initial inputs are done by a human. So, Oklahoma starts out no 1 in the country, Bama no 2, Oregon no 3, etc... and the power ranking is predicated from this.

 

Basically, at the outset some dude thought that Missou was a stronger team than, say, Penn St. This gives a win against Missou a heavier weighting and voila, whoever beats Missou has a better win than a team who beats Penn St.... Even if both teams have the same record (or in this case even if Penn St. ends up with 2 more wins than Missou.)

Edited November 29, 2011 by SEC=UGA

[detlef]

This computer ranking thing has always concerned me... The initial inputs are done by a human. So, Oklahoma starts out no 1 in the country, Bama no 2, Oregon no 3, etc... and the power ranking is predicated from this.

 

Basically, at the outset some dude thought that Missou was a stronger team than, say, Penn St. This gives a win against Missou a heavier weighting and voila, whoever beats Missou has a better win than a team who beats Penn St.... Even if both teams have the same record (or in this case even if Penn St. ends up with 2 more wins than Missou.)

And there's that

[muck]

I thought the power rankings were iterative and were not set in stone at the outset. If they're set in stone at the outset, then the computers are f'd up.

[SEC=UGA]

I thought the power rankings were iterative and were not set in stone at the outset. If they're set in stone at the outset, then the computers are f'd up.

 

You may be correct, I'll have to look into it. Though, it was my understanding that from top to bottom there is till a human ranking in order to facilitate the computer... BRB.

 

It appears some do and some don't...

 

I'm still curious as to how they get their actual SOS though...

 

http://thenationalchampionshipissue.blogsp...r-rankings.html

Edited November 29, 2011 by SEC=UGA

[GWPFFL BrianW]

Big 12 is the deepest conference this year. SEC's claim to fame is they have 2 extreme heavy hitters on the top. But overall the SEC is 4 deep, and Arkansas isn't that good and Georgia got lucky missing LSU, Bama, and Arkansas. SEC East is pretty much a joke, though not near the joke the Big 12 North was in the middle of the last decade. With all of that said, Alabama still doesn't deserve to be anywhere near any type of national championship game under this system, but this is the BCS, the most flawed system ever developed.

 

BTW Rocker, you say a playoff would make the end of the regular season meaningless... I give you this weekends batch of games. Thanks to the BCS, this is the first time that I can remember where there is literally no meaning. LSU vs Bama is all but set in stone regardless of the outcome of the SEC CG, which I'm told by almost all SEC fans, is the hottest ticket in the south. I'm also curious to know what your true feelings would be if the most undeserving team of all time, Alabama, beats LSU in that mythical national title game. Would you, as a solid LSU fan still think the BCS is a better system than a playoff system of 8-12 teams? This is also an argument against conference title games too and why they are nothing more than designs to make money, no more no less. Clemson took care of business against Va Tech already, and Sparty took care of Wisconsin. They're forced to beat these teams again just to get a lucrative BCS spot.

 

Now wouldn't it be interesting if the AP voters decided that LSU's body of work (one of the most impressive I've ever seen btw) is so good that even if they were to lose to Alabama, they still decided to give the nod to LSU. Wondering if any Tiger fans would change their tune about 2003.

[Rockerbraves]

BTW Rocker, you say a playoff would make the end of the regular season meaningless... I give you this weekends batch of games. Thanks to the BCS, this is the first time that I can remember where there is literally no meaning. LSU vs Bama is all but set in stone regardless of the outcome of the SEC CG, which I'm told by almost all SEC fans, is the hottest ticket in the south.

Let me first say I truly believe the two best college football teams this season are LSU and Bama. And since the goal of the BCS is to match up the two best teams at the end of the season, I really have no problem with a re-match should it happen.

 

So you REALLY don't think any of these last few games matter at all?

 

According to the experts, a re-match is NOT set in stone. Especially since most college football fans don't really want to see an all SEC Championship.

 

The good news for those anti SEC fans should a rematch happen is they would finally get to see a SEC team lose a BCS NC Game.

 

The truth is both Oklahoma State and Virginia Tech still have an outside shot.

 

Looking at Oklahoma State arn't they #1 in all the computers? From what I can gather that means if they beat the Sooners they would only need to get one third of the human vote to get the invite over Alabama. And a big double digit win just might persuade enough voters who arn't interested in an all SEC final. You could argue the Cowboys biggest obstacle in getting to the big dance might not be the Sooners, but Virginia Tech and Stanford who are stealing votes from them. Ideally the Cowboys need to win by a large margin and have Tech to lose this weekend and then hope Stanford voters think a conference champion like OK State deserves it more.

 

Taking a look at Virginia Tech. The Hookies claim especially should OK State loses is that we are a BCS conference champion despite our poor computer rankings. of course, Tech would need a ton more voters that OK state to jump Bama, so that is alot less likely, but it could happen.

 

And who knows what MIGHT happen if LSU were to lose to Georgia by a large margin and Virginia Tech were to lose? Would the voters favor Bama and Oklahoma State over the Tigers? So as you can see these last few games do have some meaning.

[wildcat2334]

Okie State does have a shot with a big W over OKL, I would agree there. AN Okie State v LSU matchup wouldn't be the worst thing in the world.

 

Va Tech? not a chance - that team is average. If they played in a legit conference they would have 3-4 losses Minimum. Easily the most overrated team in the country.

 

Just a cluster and fwiw OKL probably beats Okie State and we are all fed with LSU/Bama rematch.