Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Is the SEC on the decline?
Author Message
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,335
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1211
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #21
RE: Is the SEC on the decline?
(12-10-2015 08:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(12-10-2015 01:44 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  
(12-09-2015 06:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(12-09-2015 05:39 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  It isn't so much that the SEC is "down," they are coming back to normal.

Yes. The SEC won 7 straight consensus national titles. No other conference has ever won more than three straight. What the SEC did recently has no precedent.

But how much of that is because of biased and weighted rankings and assumptions? Alabama didn't deserve it's shot at a rematch in 2011, at least any more than LSU.

The BCS system relied in part on computers, and computers are less biased than people (not necessarily more accurate, but less biased, two different things), so if anything, the SEC's titles won during the BCS era were at least as 'valid' as the poll-titles won before the BCS. Controversies about polls and rankings certainly didn't start in the BCS era.

You may not think Alabama deserved a rematch in 2011, but every ranking had them #2. The AP and Coaches polls both had them #2.

Bottom line is that the SEC did win 7 straight titles using the system all the conferences agreed to. Again, there is no precedent for that. The only other time a conference won as many as 3 titles in a row was the Big 10 from 1940 - 1942. It really had no precedent at all, nothing remotely close to it.

Heck, counting LSU in 2003, the SEC won 8 titles in 10 years. No other conference ever won more than 5 (SEC from late 50s to late 60s, Big 8 in the 1970s).

Computers, or to be more precise, the data they crunch, are not only less biased, they are more consistent from year to year. They don't care about "eye tests", which may be the most biased way of evaluating teams and conferences this side of preseason polls.

Performance on the field certainly matters the most. And during the recent SEC dominance, their on field performance has been statistically dominant. When that happens in a single season, it could just reflect the normal variation that is always present in all data. But when it happens repeatedly over time, it tends to reflect reality. The output of the "computers", or the algorithms those computers employ, tend to be pretty reliable.

Though their run started before 2009, I only have the data that far back. During that time, the SEC's performance, as measured by the data, was very consistent until 2014. That year, their performance spiked to its highest level of the 7 year period. But in 2015 it dipped sharply, to its lowest level. The average of those two seasons is right in line with the average of the previous 5 years.

What was remarkable to me was how consistent the SEC's performance was from year to year during their dominant stretch. All the other P5's besides the B1G had a much wider range between their strongest and weakest years. The PAC and B12 had the greatest variability, with the ACC in the middle.

In any given year, you can argue whether one specific team or another "deserved" to be picked for a bowl or a playoff. That's a large part of the fun of sports. But as for overall performance by conferences over a significant period of time, the data are pretty compelling. The SEC has been significantly better than everybody else for the past decade.

If we want to know if that will continue, we'll have to wait to see the data after the fact. Because there simply is no reliable data that let's us predict the future (no matter what recruiting services would like us to believe).
12-10-2015 06:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,908
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #22
RE: Is the SEC on the decline?
(12-10-2015 06:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(12-10-2015 08:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(12-10-2015 01:44 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  
(12-09-2015 06:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(12-09-2015 05:39 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  It isn't so much that the SEC is "down," they are coming back to normal.

Yes. The SEC won 7 straight consensus national titles. No other conference has ever won more than three straight. What the SEC did recently has no precedent.

But how much of that is because of biased and weighted rankings and assumptions? Alabama didn't deserve it's shot at a rematch in 2011, at least any more than LSU.

The BCS system relied in part on computers, and computers are less biased than people (not necessarily more accurate, but less biased, two different things), so if anything, the SEC's titles won during the BCS era were at least as 'valid' as the poll-titles won before the BCS. Controversies about polls and rankings certainly didn't start in the BCS era.

You may not think Alabama deserved a rematch in 2011, but every ranking had them #2. The AP and Coaches polls both had them #2.

Bottom line is that the SEC did win 7 straight titles using the system all the conferences agreed to. Again, there is no precedent for that. The only other time a conference won as many as 3 titles in a row was the Big 10 from 1940 - 1942. It really had no precedent at all, nothing remotely close to it.

Heck, counting LSU in 2003, the SEC won 8 titles in 10 years. No other conference ever won more than 5 (SEC from late 50s to late 60s, Big 8 in the 1970s).

Computers, or to be more precise, the data they crunch, are not only less biased, they are more consistent from year to year. They don't care about "eye tests", which may be the most biased way of evaluating teams and conferences this side of preseason polls.

Performance on the field certainly matters the most. And during the recent SEC dominance, their on field performance has been statistically dominant. When that happens in a single season, it could just reflect the normal variation that is always present in all data. But when it happens repeatedly over time, it tends to reflect reality. The output of the "computers", or the algorithms those computers employ, tend to be pretty reliable.

Though their run started before 2009, I only have the data that far back. During that time, the SEC's performance, as measured by the data, was very consistent until 2014. That year, their performance spiked to its highest level of the 7 year period. But in 2015 it dipped sharply, to its lowest level. The average of those two seasons is right in line with the average of the previous 5 years.

What was remarkable to me was how consistent the SEC's performance was from year to year during their dominant stretch. All the other P5's besides the B1G had a much wider range between their strongest and weakest years. The PAC and B12 had the greatest variability, with the ACC in the middle.

In any given year, you can argue whether one specific team or another "deserved" to be picked for a bowl or a playoff. That's a large part of the fun of sports. But as for overall performance by conferences over a significant period of time, the data are pretty compelling. The SEC has been significantly better than everybody else for the past decade.

If we want to know if that will continue, we'll have to wait to see the data after the fact. Because there simply is no reliable data that let's us predict the future (no matter what recruiting services would like us to believe).

When the computers program themselves I will accept this. Right now they are programmed by people. There will always be bias. Furthermore why even use a computer, a committee, or a poll. Just structure it to be decided by the play on the field. End of story.
12-10-2015 07:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
krup Offline
2nd String
*

Posts: 303
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation: 20
I Root For: Rutgers
Location:
Post: #23
RE: Is the SEC on the decline?
(12-10-2015 08:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(12-10-2015 01:44 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  
(12-09-2015 06:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(12-09-2015 05:39 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  It isn't so much that the SEC is "down," they are coming back to normal.

Yes. The SEC won 7 straight consensus national titles. No other conference has ever won more than three straight. What the SEC did recently has no precedent.

But how much of that is because of biased and weighted rankings and assumptions? Alabama didn't deserve it's shot at a rematch in 2011, at least any more than LSU.
The computer part of the BCS was powerless window dressing, because it only counted for 1/3 of the weight while human polls were 2/3.

To put it another way, there was not one instance during the BCS era where a team rated outside the top 2 in the human polls got into the championship game because it WAS rated in the top 2 by the computer. On the other hand, there were a few instances where the computers had a team 3 or 4 but they still got into the championship game because the polls had them in the top 2.

The BCS system relied in part on computers, and computers are less biased than people (not necessarily more accurate, but less biased, two different things), so if anything, the SEC's titles won during the BCS era were at least as 'valid' as the poll-titles won before the BCS. Controversies about polls and rankings certainly didn't start in the BCS era.

You may not think Alabama deserved a rematch in 2011, but every ranking had them #2. The AP and Coaches polls both had them #2.

Bottom line is that the SEC did win 7 straight titles using the system all the conferences agreed to. Again, there is no precedent for that. The only other time a conference won as many as 3 titles in a row was the Big 10 from 1940 - 1942. It really had no precedent at all, nothing remotely close to it.

Heck, counting LSU in 2003, the SEC won 8 titles in 10 years. No other conference ever won more than 5 (SEC from late 50s to late 60s, Big 8 in the 1970s).
12-10-2015 08:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HuskyU Offline
Big East Overlord
*

Posts: 22,802
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 1182
I Root For: UCONN
Location: The Big East
Post: #24
RE: Is the SEC on the decline?
As long as there are 5 P5 conferences and 4 playoff spots, one P5 conference will ALWAYS be left out of the playoff. The SEC will NEVER be left out. #TruthHurts
12-10-2015 08:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,335
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1211
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #25
RE: Is the SEC on the decline?
(12-10-2015 07:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-10-2015 06:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(12-10-2015 08:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(12-10-2015 01:44 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  
(12-09-2015 06:02 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Yes. The SEC won 7 straight consensus national titles. No other conference has ever won more than three straight. What the SEC did recently has no precedent.

But how much of that is because of biased and weighted rankings and assumptions? Alabama didn't deserve it's shot at a rematch in 2011, at least any more than LSU.

The BCS system relied in part on computers, and computers are less biased than people (not necessarily more accurate, but less biased, two different things), so if anything, the SEC's titles won during the BCS era were at least as 'valid' as the poll-titles won before the BCS. Controversies about polls and rankings certainly didn't start in the BCS era.

You may not think Alabama deserved a rematch in 2011, but every ranking had them #2. The AP and Coaches polls both had them #2.

Bottom line is that the SEC did win 7 straight titles using the system all the conferences agreed to. Again, there is no precedent for that. The only other time a conference won as many as 3 titles in a row was the Big 10 from 1940 - 1942. It really had no precedent at all, nothing remotely close to it.

Heck, counting LSU in 2003, the SEC won 8 titles in 10 years. No other conference ever won more than 5 (SEC from late 50s to late 60s, Big 8 in the 1970s).

Computers, or to be more precise, the data they crunch, are not only less biased, they are more consistent from year to year. They don't care about "eye tests", which may be the most biased way of evaluating teams and conferences this side of preseason polls.

Performance on the field certainly matters the most. And during the recent SEC dominance, their on field performance has been statistically dominant. When that happens in a single season, it could just reflect the normal variation that is always present in all data. But when it happens repeatedly over time, it tends to reflect reality. The output of the "computers", or the algorithms those computers employ, tend to be pretty reliable.

Though their run started before 2009, I only have the data that far back. During that time, the SEC's performance, as measured by the data, was very consistent until 2014. That year, their performance spiked to its highest level of the 7 year period. But in 2015 it dipped sharply, to its lowest level. The average of those two seasons is right in line with the average of the previous 5 years.

What was remarkable to me was how consistent the SEC's performance was from year to year during their dominant stretch. All the other P5's besides the B1G had a much wider range between their strongest and weakest years. The PAC and B12 had the greatest variability, with the ACC in the middle.

In any given year, you can argue whether one specific team or another "deserved" to be picked for a bowl or a playoff. That's a large part of the fun of sports. But as for overall performance by conferences over a significant period of time, the data are pretty compelling. The SEC has been significantly better than everybody else for the past decade.

If we want to know if that will continue, we'll have to wait to see the data after the fact. Because there simply is no reliable data that let's us predict the future (no matter what recruiting services would like us to believe).

When the computers program themselves I will accept this. Right now they are programmed by people. There will always be bias. Furthermore why even use a computer, a committee, or a poll. Just structure it to be decided by the play on the field. End of story.

Are you suggesting that programmers want their ratings to specifically make the SEC look better than they should? Better than other conferences? And not just one programmer, but lots of them? That can't be a result of unintentional bias. That requires deliberate planning. I can't imagine a conspiracy of that magnitude being undetectable.

And how do you propose to decide how 128 teams should be ranked on the field, and over multiple seasons? The whole point of using computer algorithms is that you can't get everybody to play everybody else enough times to "decide it on the field". Now if you are suggesting that we not use computers, polls or committees to decide who should be in a playoff, I agree with you 100%.

But that's not the issue of this thread. The issue is whether the SEC, all 14 teams, is in a state of decline from its recent dominance. I don't see how you decide that on the field.
12-10-2015 10:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,908
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #26
RE: Is the SEC on the decline?
(12-10-2015 10:17 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(12-10-2015 07:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-10-2015 06:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(12-10-2015 08:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  
(12-10-2015 01:44 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  But how much of that is because of biased and weighted rankings and assumptions? Alabama didn't deserve it's shot at a rematch in 2011, at least any more than LSU.

The BCS system relied in part on computers, and computers are less biased than people (not necessarily more accurate, but less biased, two different things), so if anything, the SEC's titles won during the BCS era were at least as 'valid' as the poll-titles won before the BCS. Controversies about polls and rankings certainly didn't start in the BCS era.

You may not think Alabama deserved a rematch in 2011, but every ranking had them #2. The AP and Coaches polls both had them #2.

Bottom line is that the SEC did win 7 straight titles using the system all the conferences agreed to. Again, there is no precedent for that. The only other time a conference won as many as 3 titles in a row was the Big 10 from 1940 - 1942. It really had no precedent at all, nothing remotely close to it.

Heck, counting LSU in 2003, the SEC won 8 titles in 10 years. No other conference ever won more than 5 (SEC from late 50s to late 60s, Big 8 in the 1970s).

Computers, or to be more precise, the data they crunch, are not only less biased, they are more consistent from year to year. They don't care about "eye tests", which may be the most biased way of evaluating teams and conferences this side of preseason polls.

Performance on the field certainly matters the most. And during the recent SEC dominance, their on field performance has been statistically dominant. When that happens in a single season, it could just reflect the normal variation that is always present in all data. But when it happens repeatedly over time, it tends to reflect reality. The output of the "computers", or the algorithms those computers employ, tend to be pretty reliable.

Though their run started before 2009, I only have the data that far back. During that time, the SEC's performance, as measured by the data, was very consistent until 2014. That year, their performance spiked to its highest level of the 7 year period. But in 2015 it dipped sharply, to its lowest level. The average of those two seasons is right in line with the average of the previous 5 years.

What was remarkable to me was how consistent the SEC's performance was from year to year during their dominant stretch. All the other P5's besides the B1G had a much wider range between their strongest and weakest years. The PAC and B12 had the greatest variability, with the ACC in the middle.

In any given year, you can argue whether one specific team or another "deserved" to be picked for a bowl or a playoff. That's a large part of the fun of sports. But as for overall performance by conferences over a significant period of time, the data are pretty compelling. The SEC has been significantly better than everybody else for the past decade.

If we want to know if that will continue, we'll have to wait to see the data after the fact. Because there simply is no reliable data that let's us predict the future (no matter what recruiting services would like us to believe).

When the computers program themselves I will accept this. Right now they are programmed by people. There will always be bias. Furthermore why even use a computer, a committee, or a poll. Just structure it to be decided by the play on the field. End of story.

Are you suggesting that programmers want their ratings to specifically make the SEC look better than they should? Better than other conferences? And not just one programmer, but lots of them? That can't be a result of unintentional bias. That requires deliberate planning. I can't imagine a conspiracy of that magnitude being undetectable.

And how do you propose to decide how 128 teams should be ranked on the field, and over multiple seasons? The whole point of using computer algorithms is that you can't get everybody to play everybody else enough times to "decide it on the field". Now if you are suggesting that we not use computers, polls or committees to decide who should be in a playoff, I agree with you 100%.

But that's not the issue of this thread. The issue is whether the SEC, all 14 teams, is in a state of decline from its recent dominance. I don't see how you decide that on the field.

Ken the various polls all had conferences that they favored and they were different conferences. And its pretty obvious that 128 schools don't belong in the same division when some of them have resources that approach 200 million a year and others don't have 20 million to work with. 4 P conferences where play is confined to the conference would each determine on the field a champion. The four champions then play for the title. We need two divisions within the FBS. They both can crown a champ and do so with on field play only. There are breaks in the levels of revenue generated about the 60th position, again at the 65, and again between the 71st and 72nd. It doesn't matter what point you choose but the differences are stark.

It's time to acknowledge the differences and get on with it.

Now as to the tie in to the SEC, to imply it is in decline is to imply that other conferences are stronger. If we move to a P4 with a playoff that debate will cease. The best of each will play and the outcome will be evident every year. The other bowls if finally set up with some logic can match schools that finished in the same position within each conference and that too would then provide a degree of direct competition from which a better assumption at which might be stronger could arise.

The problem with the bowls right now is that somebody's #3 will play somebody else's #5 and so on and so forth based on tie ins, who played in that bowl last year, and what rivalries might be renewed, and most importantly which fan base travels better. Because of this bowls are specious at best.

I say if you want to have a great bowl season you will take the champs for the play off and then pair off each conferences runner up, each conferences #3, all the way down to the 5th or 6th position. Those results would be a better indicator of conference strength when taken in total than anything we do now and that may be the only way to make such a determination on field.

I think it would spur the interest in the bowls and provide much better match ups than the garbage we get now. And it also gives the participants a little more incentive than the second runner up of a major conference getting stuck with Small School U's opportunity to tag a big boy. While the latter is interesting the conclusions that can be taken away from it will seldom be reliable. But to play a school from a rival conference with a little conference pride on the line might be a lot better motivation to show up.
(This post was last modified: 12-10-2015 10:45 PM by JRsec.)
12-10-2015 10:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Nebraskafan Offline
Banned

Posts: 1,342
Joined: Jul 2015
I Root For: Nebreaska
Location:
Post: #27
RE: Is the SEC on the decline?
(12-10-2015 08:57 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  As long as there are 5 P5 conferences and 4 playoff spots, one P5 conference will ALWAYS be left out of the playoff. The SEC will NEVER be left out. #TruthHurts

You will end up being wrong. There will be years when there is a 2 or 3 loss SEC champ and is left out. Every conference will eventually be left out.

Now that you have learned the REAL truth, don't let it hurt you.
12-10-2015 10:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
C2__ Offline
Caltex2
*

Posts: 23,634
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation: 552
I Root For: Houston, PVAMU
Location: Zamunda
Post: #28
RE: Is the SEC on the decline?
Per the comment about teams not having the same resources, no one is forcing Eastern Michigan (how will they ever compete being right next to Michigan?), UL-Monroe and UMass to play at the highest level. If I'm a hundred-thousandaire, should I try to compete with billionaires? Granted some have been playing for decades and what have you and perhaps it's not their goal to compete at the highest level but no is putting a gun to their head asking them to compete.
12-10-2015 10:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HuskyU Offline
Big East Overlord
*

Posts: 22,802
Joined: Jan 2014
Reputation: 1182
I Root For: UCONN
Location: The Big East
Post: #29
RE: Is the SEC on the decline?
(12-10-2015 10:48 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  
(12-10-2015 08:57 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  As long as there are 5 P5 conferences and 4 playoff spots, one P5 conference will ALWAYS be left out of the playoff. The SEC will NEVER be left out. #TruthHurts

You will end up being wrong. There will be years when there is a 2 or 3 loss SEC champ and is left out. Every conference will eventually be left out.

Now that you have learned the REAL truth, don't let it hurt you.

I'll believe it when I see it. Until then....
12-10-2015 11:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
splitstud Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,081
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 38
I Root For: Illuminati, BCS
Location: UH
Post: #30
RE: Is the SEC on the decline?
(12-10-2015 04:49 AM)BruceMcF Wrote:  
(12-10-2015 01:44 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  But how much of that is because of biased and weighted rankings and assumptions?
It's impossible to test, so many fans of the SEC are likely to say "not much, if at all", and many SEC skeptics will say "all or most of it".

That's college football: there really are not enough games among top schools between conferences to conclusively say "that is too much dominance to be a coincidence," but if the SEC was not by far the best conference for a good stretch there, it did an awfully good imitation.

well said
12-11-2015 12:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,335
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1211
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #31
RE: Is the SEC on the decline?
(12-10-2015 10:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-10-2015 10:17 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(12-10-2015 07:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-10-2015 06:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(12-10-2015 08:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The BCS system relied in part on computers, and computers are less biased than people (not necessarily more accurate, but less biased, two different things), so if anything, the SEC's titles won during the BCS era were at least as 'valid' as the poll-titles won before the BCS. Controversies about polls and rankings certainly didn't start in the BCS era.

You may not think Alabama deserved a rematch in 2011, but every ranking had them #2. The AP and Coaches polls both had them #2.

Bottom line is that the SEC did win 7 straight titles using the system all the conferences agreed to. Again, there is no precedent for that. The only other time a conference won as many as 3 titles in a row was the Big 10 from 1940 - 1942. It really had no precedent at all, nothing remotely close to it.

Heck, counting LSU in 2003, the SEC won 8 titles in 10 years. No other conference ever won more than 5 (SEC from late 50s to late 60s, Big 8 in the 1970s).

Computers, or to be more precise, the data they crunch, are not only less biased, they are more consistent from year to year. They don't care about "eye tests", which may be the most biased way of evaluating teams and conferences this side of preseason polls.

Performance on the field certainly matters the most. And during the recent SEC dominance, their on field performance has been statistically dominant. When that happens in a single season, it could just reflect the normal variation that is always present in all data. But when it happens repeatedly over time, it tends to reflect reality. The output of the "computers", or the algorithms those computers employ, tend to be pretty reliable.

Though their run started before 2009, I only have the data that far back. During that time, the SEC's performance, as measured by the data, was very consistent until 2014. That year, their performance spiked to its highest level of the 7 year period. But in 2015 it dipped sharply, to its lowest level. The average of those two seasons is right in line with the average of the previous 5 years.

What was remarkable to me was how consistent the SEC's performance was from year to year during their dominant stretch. All the other P5's besides the B1G had a much wider range between their strongest and weakest years. The PAC and B12 had the greatest variability, with the ACC in the middle.

In any given year, you can argue whether one specific team or another "deserved" to be picked for a bowl or a playoff. That's a large part of the fun of sports. But as for overall performance by conferences over a significant period of time, the data are pretty compelling. The SEC has been significantly better than everybody else for the past decade.

If we want to know if that will continue, we'll have to wait to see the data after the fact. Because there simply is no reliable data that let's us predict the future (no matter what recruiting services would like us to believe).

When the computers program themselves I will accept this. Right now they are programmed by people. There will always be bias. Furthermore why even use a computer, a committee, or a poll. Just structure it to be decided by the play on the field. End of story.

Are you suggesting that programmers want their ratings to specifically make the SEC look better than they should? Better than other conferences? And not just one programmer, but lots of them? That can't be a result of unintentional bias. That requires deliberate planning. I can't imagine a conspiracy of that magnitude being undetectable.

And how do you propose to decide how 128 teams should be ranked on the field, and over multiple seasons? The whole point of using computer algorithms is that you can't get everybody to play everybody else enough times to "decide it on the field". Now if you are suggesting that we not use computers, polls or committees to decide who should be in a playoff, I agree with you 100%.

But that's not the issue of this thread. The issue is whether the SEC, all 14 teams, is in a state of decline from its recent dominance. I don't see how you decide that on the field.

Ken the various polls all had conferences that they favored and they were different conferences. And its pretty obvious that 128 schools don't belong in the same division when some of them have resources that approach 200 million a year and others don't have 20 million to work with. 4 P conferences where play is confined to the conference would each determine on the field a champion. The four champions then play for the title. We need two divisions within the FBS. They both can crown a champ and do so with on field play only. There are breaks in the levels of revenue generated about the 60th position, again at the 65, and again between the 71st and 72nd. It doesn't matter what point you choose but the differences are stark.

It's time to acknowledge the differences and get on with it.

Now as to the tie in to the SEC, to imply it is in decline is to imply that other conferences are stronger. If we move to a P4 with a playoff that debate will cease. The best of each will play and the outcome will be evident every year. The other bowls if finally set up with some logic can match schools that finished in the same position within each conference and that too would then provide a degree of direct competition from which a better assumption at which might be stronger could arise.

The problem with the bowls right now is that somebody's #3 will play somebody else's #5 and so on and so forth based on tie ins, who played in that bowl last year, and what rivalries might be renewed, and most importantly which fan base travels better. Because of this bowls are specious at best.

I say if you want to have a great bowl season you will take the champs for the play off and then pair off each conferences runner up, each conferences #3, all the way down to the 5th or 6th position. Those results would be a better indicator of conference strength when taken in total than anything we do now and that may be the only way to make such a determination on field.

I think it would spur the interest in the bowls and provide much better match ups than the garbage we get now. And it also gives the participants a little more incentive than the second runner up of a major conference getting stuck with Small School U's opportunity to tag a big boy. While the latter is interesting the conclusions that can be taken away from it will seldom be reliable. But to play a school from a rival conference with a little conference pride on the line might be a lot better motivation to show up.

You say that various polls favored different conferences. That may or may not be true. But if you are saying that some of those were not really polls, but rather computer algorithms, then I'd need to see some pretty strong evidence of that.

Do you think that Sagarin, Massey, Colley, Billingley or Wolfe have a conference specific bias in their algorithms? And if not, would that not suggest that the AP and Coaches' polls, which produce rankings very similar to those algorithms, aren't biased either (at least not enough to matter)?

Again, I'm not suggesting that they be a primary determinant of who plays where in the postseason. I personally have a strong bias toward conference champions. But at some point, even some champions are going to have to be left out, and it's just not practical in football to determine which those are on the field without some type of seeding. And seeding requires applying some form of judgment, whether it's a committee, a poll or a computer algorithm.

As for avoiding that dilemma by subdividing the FBS to produce four 16-team "high resource" conferences, I believe that, aside from some fans, there is no stomach for forcing schools to either associate with others to create symmetry or be left out of the game. I also believe that if a majority of the P5 schools were to unite to try to force that to happen, they would invite successful legislation at both state and federal levels that would prevent it from happening in my lifetime.

I doubt you could find 64 schools among the current P5 members that would be willing to be part of such a division. More likely, you might get 32. And if the number you do get gets small enough, the NCAA now has enough leverage to expel them and exclude them from all other championships including basketball. That might not mean much to an Alabama or Auburn, but I bet it does to Kentucky.

The idea of a symmetrical super division sounds great in theory, but I just don't believe it is possible. And if it's not, then we all just need to learn to accept imperfection and asymmetry, because it's the best we can do.
(This post was last modified: 12-11-2015 11:16 AM by ken d.)
12-11-2015 10:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
GE and MTS Offline
Moderator
*

Posts: 3,656
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 83
I Root For: Liberty/Penn St
Location: FBS!!!
Post: #32
RE: Is the SEC on the decline?
Is the SEC on the decline? I guess they are declining from a period of being "the best" to now being "one of the best." Looking back on the BCS in 30 years, it's unlikely people will remember biases and/or perceived favoritism and all you'll see is final rankings and box scores that show the SEC in a dominant position unlikely to be repeated. It is what it is.
12-11-2015 11:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ken d Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 17,335
Joined: Dec 2013
Reputation: 1211
I Root For: college sports
Location: Raleigh
Post: #33
RE: Is the SEC on the decline?
(12-10-2015 10:43 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-10-2015 10:17 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(12-10-2015 07:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(12-10-2015 06:55 PM)ken d Wrote:  
(12-10-2015 08:45 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The BCS system relied in part on computers, and computers are less biased than people (not necessarily more accurate, but less biased, two different things), so if anything, the SEC's titles won during the BCS era were at least as 'valid' as the poll-titles won before the BCS. Controversies about polls and rankings certainly didn't start in the BCS era.

You may not think Alabama deserved a rematch in 2011, but every ranking had them #2. The AP and Coaches polls both had them #2.

Bottom line is that the SEC did win 7 straight titles using the system all the conferences agreed to. Again, there is no precedent for that. The only other time a conference won as many as 3 titles in a row was the Big 10 from 1940 - 1942. It really had no precedent at all, nothing remotely close to it.

Heck, counting LSU in 2003, the SEC won 8 titles in 10 years. No other conference ever won more than 5 (SEC from late 50s to late 60s, Big 8 in the 1970s).

Computers, or to be more precise, the data they crunch, are not only less biased, they are more consistent from year to year. They don't care about "eye tests", which may be the most biased way of evaluating teams and conferences this side of preseason polls.

Performance on the field certainly matters the most. And during the recent SEC dominance, their on field performance has been statistically dominant. When that happens in a single season, it could just reflect the normal variation that is always present in all data. But when it happens repeatedly over time, it tends to reflect reality. The output of the "computers", or the algorithms those computers employ, tend to be pretty reliable.

Though their run started before 2009, I only have the data that far back. During that time, the SEC's performance, as measured by the data, was very consistent until 2014. That year, their performance spiked to its highest level of the 7 year period. But in 2015 it dipped sharply, to its lowest level. The average of those two seasons is right in line with the average of the previous 5 years.

What was remarkable to me was how consistent the SEC's performance was from year to year during their dominant stretch. All the other P5's besides the B1G had a much wider range between their strongest and weakest years. The PAC and B12 had the greatest variability, with the ACC in the middle.

In any given year, you can argue whether one specific team or another "deserved" to be picked for a bowl or a playoff. That's a large part of the fun of sports. But as for overall performance by conferences over a significant period of time, the data are pretty compelling. The SEC has been significantly better than everybody else for the past decade.

If we want to know if that will continue, we'll have to wait to see the data after the fact. Because there simply is no reliable data that let's us predict the future (no matter what recruiting services would like us to believe).

When the computers program themselves I will accept this. Right now they are programmed by people. There will always be bias. Furthermore why even use a computer, a committee, or a poll. Just structure it to be decided by the play on the field. End of story.

Are you suggesting that programmers want their ratings to specifically make the SEC look better than they should? Better than other conferences? And not just one programmer, but lots of them? That can't be a result of unintentional bias. That requires deliberate planning. I can't imagine a conspiracy of that magnitude being undetectable.

And how do you propose to decide how 128 teams should be ranked on the field, and over multiple seasons? The whole point of using computer algorithms is that you can't get everybody to play everybody else enough times to "decide it on the field". Now if you are suggesting that we not use computers, polls or committees to decide who should be in a playoff, I agree with you 100%.

But that's not the issue of this thread. The issue is whether the SEC, all 14 teams, is in a state of decline from its recent dominance. I don't see how you decide that on the field.

Ken the various polls all had conferences that they favored and they were different conferences. And its pretty obvious that 128 schools don't belong in the same division when some of them have resources that approach 200 million a year and others don't have 20 million to work with. 4 P conferences where play is confined to the conference would each determine on the field a champion. The four champions then play for the title. We need two divisions within the FBS. They both can crown a champ and do so with on field play only. There are breaks in the levels of revenue generated about the 60th position, again at the 65, and again between the 71st and 72nd. It doesn't matter what point you choose but the differences are stark.

It's time to acknowledge the differences and get on with it.

Now as to the tie in to the SEC, to imply it is in decline is to imply that other conferences are stronger. If we move to a P4 with a playoff that debate will cease. The best of each will play and the outcome will be evident every year. The other bowls if finally set up with some logic can match schools that finished in the same position within each conference and that too would then provide a degree of direct competition from which a better assumption at which might be stronger could arise.

The problem with the bowls right now is that somebody's #3 will play somebody else's #5 and so on and so forth based on tie ins, who played in that bowl last year, and what rivalries might be renewed, and most importantly which fan base travels better. Because of this bowls are specious at best.

I say if you want to have a great bowl season you will take the champs for the play off and then pair off each conferences runner up, each conferences #3, all the way down to the 5th or 6th position. Those results would be a better indicator of conference strength when taken in total than anything we do now and that may be the only way to make such a determination on field.

I think it would spur the interest in the bowls and provide much better match ups than the garbage we get now. And it also gives the participants a little more incentive than the second runner up of a major conference getting stuck with Small School U's opportunity to tag a big boy. While the latter is interesting the conclusions that can be taken away from it will seldom be reliable. But to play a school from a rival conference with a little conference pride on the line might be a lot better motivation to show up.

What if a bunch of the best football programs all got together in a single conference? This is what I came up with. Let's call it the National Conference.

SECish
Alabama
Auburn
Clemson
Florida State
Florida
Georgia

B1Gish
Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan State
Wisconsin
Nebraska
Iowa

Big XIIish
Texas
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Texas A&M
LSU
Arkansas

PACish
Washington
Oregon
USC
UCLA
Stanford
California

During the first 3 weeks of the season, all these schools play two games against schools not in this super conference. The extra week allows for more than one school to play the same outsider (for example, Notre Dame might play both USC and Stanford as well as Texas).

For the next 10 weeks, they all play only within their division, and play a full round robin home and home. That gives everybody 12 games.

In what is now championship week, each division champion (based only on record within the division) plays one of the other three on a rotating basis. The two winners of these games play after all the bowls are completed to determine the National Conference Champion.

All the remaining teams are paired off by the conference to play each other in whichever bowls want to contract with them. I'm guessing the competition among the bowls to contract with the National Conference would be fierce.

The remaining 104 FBS schools can then do whatever they want, and crown anybody they want to be their champion.
(This post was last modified: 12-11-2015 04:40 PM by ken d.)
12-11-2015 01:46 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
quo vadis Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 50,018
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 2372
I Root For: USF/Georgetown
Location: New Orleans
Post: #34
RE: Is the SEC on the decline?
(12-10-2015 07:38 PM)JRsec Wrote:  When the computers program themselves I will accept this. Right now they are programmed by people. There will always be bias.

Yes, that's why different computers produce different rankings - because their programmers differ on what it means for a team to be good.

But, unless you think that, e.g., Sagarin has a line of code that says "if team X is from the ACC, deduct 10 points from their ranking", then the bias isn't biased, so to speak, there is no biases for/against any specific teams or conferences. Computers don't know that Alabama is "Alabama" like people do. To a computer, Alabama, and the SEC, are just a pile of numbers.

Whereas people can have their prejudices about specific teams and conferences.
(This post was last modified: 12-11-2015 02:16 PM by quo vadis.)
12-11-2015 02:14 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
C2__ Offline
Caltex2
*

Posts: 23,634
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation: 552
I Root For: Houston, PVAMU
Location: Zamunda
Post: #35
RE: Is the SEC on the decline?
(12-11-2015 01:46 PM)ken d Wrote:  What if a bunch of the best football programs all got together in a single conference? This is what I came up with. Let's call it the National Conference.

Some wouldn't be so good, someone has to lose as often as someone wins.
12-13-2015 01:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
EvilVodka Offline
stuff

Posts: 3,585
Joined: Jan 2014
I Root For: FSU LSU
Location: Houston, TX
Post: #36
RE: Is the SEC on the decline?
(12-10-2015 07:51 AM)krup Wrote:  It seemed from what i read that Alabama fans seemed pretty happy to get Mich St in the playoff this year. The old saying "be careful what you wish for, you just might get it" comes to mind.

Last year already had people questioning some of the SEC's championships under the old system because they lost to the 3rd place team in the playoff but likely would have won an Alabama/FSU championship game if the BCS were still in effect.

If they follow that up by again losing to a B1G team (that wouldn't made the BCS) in a 1st round playoff, it will strongly reinforce the point that the SEC wasn't really so dominant, it was just the pollsters overrating them in the previous faulty system for determining champion.

Actually, I don't think Alabama matched up well with either FSU or Oregon last year....

The problem with Alabama, is they don't face any real offensive threats all year...when they do, they have problems. They play real ineffective offenses, and the front seven is awesome at stuffing the run. They are pretty much designed to shut down LSU and Arkansas type teams.

If there's an offense that can pass the ball around and effectively spread out the Bama defense, it almost always causes trouble for the Tide.

Michigan State is an exact copy of Bama...they are designed to stop the run first. The real difference is Cook....Cook is > than Coker IMO. If he can sustain drives and produce points offensively, Bama will have a game on their hands.
12-17-2015 11:58 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bluesox Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,295
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation: 84
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #37
RE: Is the SEC on the decline?
The SEC needs to redo their divisions, their west is too strong. Same thing with the big 10 east but that is a much easier fix, move Purdue to the east and Michigan State to the West.
12-17-2015 02:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
EvilVodka Offline
stuff

Posts: 3,585
Joined: Jan 2014
I Root For: FSU LSU
Location: Houston, TX
Post: #38
RE: Is the SEC on the decline?
(12-17-2015 02:19 PM)bluesox Wrote:  The SEC needs to redo their divisions, their west is too strong. Same thing with the big 10 east but that is a much easier fix, move Purdue to the east and Michigan State to the West.

no way...no re-doing divisions based on strength

Strength is cyclical....the SEC East used to be the dominant division for years....

One day Saban will leave, and the power will shift
12-17-2015 02:52 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
YNot Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,671
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 298
I Root For: BYU
Location:
Post: #39
RE: Is the SEC on the decline?
(12-11-2015 01:46 PM)ken d Wrote:  What if a bunch of the best football programs all got together in a single conference? This is what I came up with. Let's call it the National Conference.

SECish
Alabama
Auburn
Clemson
Florida State
Florida
Georgia
Tennessee
Ole Miss

ACCish
Notre Dame
Virginia Tech
Maryland
Virginia
North Carolina
Duke
Kentucky
Illinois

B1Gish
Ohio State
Michigan
Michigan State
Wisconsin
Nebraska
Iowa
Penn St.
Indiana

Big XIIish
Texas
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Texas A&M
LSU
Arkansas
Kansas
Missouri

PACish
Washington
Oregon
USC
UCLA
Stanford
California
Arizona St.
Colorado

I expanded to add some markets and basketball blue-bloods. The result is FIVE divisions of 8 teams. Play 7 division games (no home-home) and three or four schools from the other divisions. Teams could elect to play up to TWO OOC games (to accommodate Georgia v. Georgia Tech, Iowa v. Iowa St., Oregon v. Oregon St. rivalry-type games and other regional matchups. At least one of these OOC games must be against the Trans American Affiliation - see next post).

The conference championship tournament involves certain NY6 bowl games:

ROSE: B1Gish division champ v. PACish division champ
SUGAR: SECish division champ v. B12ish division champ
ORANGE: ACCish division champ v. Wild card from SECish/B1Gish
COTTON: Wild card from PACish/B12ish v. Wild card from ACCish/B12ish/B1Gish

The National Conference Final Four is held about a week later at rotating sites. The National Conference Championship is held a week after that at highest-bidder venue.
12-17-2015 03:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
YNot Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,671
Joined: May 2014
Reputation: 298
I Root For: BYU
Location:
Post: #40
RE: Is the SEC on the decline?
Meanwhile, the remaining 25 P5 leftovers join forces with a few call-ups to form the 32-team Trans-American Alliance, split into EAST and WEST CONFERENCES with each having four 4-team divisions.

WEST CONFERENCE
Pacific: Washington St., Oregon St., San Diego St., Arizona
West: Utah, Kansas St., BYU, Colorado St.
Southwest: Texas Tech, TCU, Baylor, Houston
South: Mississippi St., Vanderbilt, Louisville, Memphis

EAST CONFERENCE:
NorthEast: Pitt, Boston College, Syracuse, Rutgers
Midwest: Northwestern, Minnesota, Purdue, Iowa St.
Central: NC State, Wake Forest, West Virginia, Cincinnati
Southeast: Miami, Georgia Tech, South Carolina, USF

The Trans-American Alliance schools play 3 divisional games; 2 "regional" games against the "neighboring division" (Pacific-West; South-Southwest; NorthEast-Midwest; Central-SouthEast); 3 games against other teams in their conference, but outside their region; and 2 games against other Trans-American Alliance schools outside of their conference. The Trans-American Alliance schools play two OOC games, mostly against National Conference opponents, but can play up to ONE OOC game against the Group of Five conferences.

The Trans-American Alliance championship starts the week before Christmas, with the Conference Semi-finals: the Pacific and West division winners meeting in the Las Vegas; the Southwest and South division winners meeting in Dallas; the NorthEast and MidWest division winners meeting in New York; and the Central and Southeast division winners meeting in Orlando.

The EAST and WEST Conference Finals are held as part of the NY6 in the Fiesta and Peach Bowls. The Trans-American Championship rotates venues among the highest bidder.
(This post was last modified: 12-17-2015 03:10 PM by YNot.)
12-17-2015 03:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.