Here's the ACC vs. all FBS conferences:

1998-2016, ACC vs...
SBC .909
MAC .830
USA .747
WAC .679
BWC .667
AAC .556
XII .540
MWC .500
SEC .463
B1G .381
PAC .326

Time period is also very important. I understand why the OP chose the years he did, but the middle of that range happens to be the worst period for ACC football in decades. Here's what you get if you just focus on the first 5 and last 4 years and leave out the middle years:

1998-2003, ACC vs...
SBC 1.000
MAC 0.800
WAC 0.750
USA .712
PAC .667
BWC .667
AAC .604
MWC .600
XII .583
SEC .557
B1G .419

2013-2016, ACC vs...
USA .833
SBC .833
MAC .818
XII .800
AAC .645
MWC .500
SEC .467
B1G .389
PAC .100

(06-27-2017 08:36 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 09:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 05:15 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 03:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 02:07 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  Well it's not P5 vs P5 because you are leaving out games against ranked power conference teams like Miami, VT, WVU, Pitt, UofL, Cincy, Rutgers and Syracuse.

Actually, what I posted was precisely "P5 vs P5". Including anything else would have rendered it something other than P5 vs P5.

Except you arbitrarily excluded a number of teams who are P5 teams now, and/or who were power teams then (there was no P5, only a P6).

In using your deeply flawed methodology, you got a result that you wouldn't have expected had you used a sound methodology. That's not really surprising :/

What 'conclusions did i draw'? And what is arbitrary about only including games vs P5 in an analysis of P5 records?

My methodology was perfect for what i was trying to accomplish - determine the records of all P5 vs other P5 since 1998.

If i had claimed these results show the PAC has been better than the BIG overall, then you could criticize my method because that conclusion would need to be based on all OOC games, not just vs P5. But i haven't claimed that.

So only someone with an ax to grind would object to it. :(

Here's an erroneous conclusion that you drew based on arbitrarily excluded data:
"Note that the SEC often gets critiqued for avoiding P5 games in favor of rent-a-wins, but this chart shows that SEC teams have actually played more overall games vs other P5 than any other conference."

Yes, if you randomly ignore power conference games to fit your argument, you can create data that supports any argument that you want. It just isn't valid.

Your bias is showing again. My conclusion was not erroneous, as i limited my claim to the SEC playing other P5 conferences. It was thus 100% accurate.

Your zealous desire to push your agenda - primarily by inserting the old Big East into an analysis in which it has no place- is causing you to trip over yourself.

(06-27-2017 09:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 08:36 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 09:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 05:15 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 03:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Actually, what I posted was precisely "P5 vs P5". Including anything else would have rendered it something other than P5 vs P5.

Except you arbitrarily excluded a number of teams who are P5 teams now, and/or who were power teams then (there was no P5, only a P6).

In using your deeply flawed methodology, you got a result that you wouldn't have expected had you used a sound methodology. That's not really surprising :/

What 'conclusions did i draw'? And what is arbitrary about only including games vs P5 in an analysis of P5 records?

My methodology was perfect for what i was trying to accomplish - determine the records of all P5 vs other P5 since 1998.

If i had claimed these results show the PAC has been better than the BIG overall, then you could criticize my method because that conclusion would need to be based on all OOC games, not just vs P5. But i haven't claimed that.

So only someone with an ax to grind would object to it. :(

Here's an erroneous conclusion that you drew based on arbitrarily excluded data:
"Note that the SEC often gets critiqued for avoiding P5 games in favor of rent-a-wins, but this chart shows that SEC teams have actually played more overall games vs other P5 than any other conference."

Yes, if you randomly ignore power conference games to fit your argument, you can create data that supports any argument that you want. It just isn't valid.

Your bias is showing again. My conclusion was not erroneous, as i limited my claim to the SEC playing other P5 conferences. It was thus 100% accurate.

Your zealous desire to push your agenda - primarily by inserting the old Big East into an analysis in which it has no place- is causing you to trip over yourself.

You're excluding P5 teams and calling me biased. Think about that.
You're excluding power teams and calling me biased. Think about that.

Your numbers are objectively cooked, and they're misleading at best. You are 100% ignoring power games against the ACC, B1G, and probably the Pac and Big XII (Utah) to create the illusion of parity w/ the SEC, when that isn't the case. That's a fact, not an opinion.

(06-27-2017 08:44 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  I preface this comment by saying it's simply my opinion.

It's my opinion that the OP used his flawed methodology to achieve the results he was looking for. He knew eliminating Big East results from this whatever you want to call it would result in devaluing The ACC. That is this OP's ultimate objective.

I would welcome someone else to do the same ranking with Big East records and note the results. I have a hunch you'll get different results that don't reflect the bias message of the OP.
CJ

CJ, I must say it never entered my mind for a second that there was an intentional (or unintentional) bias against the ACC in the OP. And, since someone actually did post the results including the BE, you can see that the results don't change in any meaningful way.

For a long time, the B1G and the ACC/BE have been neck and neck at the bottom of the AQ/P5 pecking order. All these numbers just bear that out.

If you want to do a fair P5 v P5 comparison then shouldn't you just use the time period when P5's existed? Going back to 1998 includes the BCS era when we had AQ & non AQ. What about ND, when have they ever not been considered among the powers? Also, to determine who played more games against "power conference" teams then conference size absolutely matters in that claim. Of course the largest conference in the time frame would play more, they had 1+ more opportunities to do so each year. To be fair though, noting their superior win % is spot on. As Quo said, more opportunities could have also led to more losses. With the analysis of the OP mixed with the numbers in post #32 & 34, the SEC still has the best win % in the time frame. However, the inclusion of all the "power conference" & AQ teams led to a 5% change in the win % in favor of the ACC & B1G (+3%) compared to the SEC (-2%).

(06-27-2017 09:19 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 09:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 08:36 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 09:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 05:15 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Except you arbitrarily excluded a number of teams who are P5 teams now, and/or who were power teams then (there was no P5, only a P6).

In using your deeply flawed methodology, you got a result that you wouldn't have expected had you used a sound methodology. That's not really surprising :/

What 'conclusions did i draw'? And what is arbitrary about only including games vs P5 in an analysis of P5 records?

My methodology was perfect for what i was trying to accomplish - determine the records of all P5 vs other P5 since 1998.

If i had claimed these results show the PAC has been better than the BIG overall, then you could criticize my method because that conclusion would need to be based on all OOC games, not just vs P5. But i haven't claimed that.

So only someone with an ax to grind would object to it. :(

Here's an erroneous conclusion that you drew based on arbitrarily excluded data:
"Note that the SEC often gets critiqued for avoiding P5 games in favor of rent-a-wins, but this chart shows that SEC teams have actually played more overall games vs other P5 than any other conference."

Yes, if you randomly ignore power conference games to fit your argument, you can create data that supports any argument that you want. It just isn't valid.

Your bias is showing again. My conclusion was not erroneous, as i limited my claim to the SEC playing other P5 conferences. It was thus 100% accurate.

Your zealous desire to push your agenda - primarily by inserting the old Big East into an analysis in which it has no place- is causing you to trip over yourself.

You're excluding P5 teams and calling me biased. Think about that.
You're excluding power teams and calling me biased. Think about that.

Your numbers are objectively cooked, and they're misleading at best. You are 100% ignoring power games against the ACC, B1G, and probably the Pac and Big XII (Utah) to create the illusion of parity w/ the SEC, when that isn't the case. That's a fact, not an opinion.

"To create the illusion of parity w/ the SEC"? Where do you come up with such nonsense? Somebody else thinks the purpose of the OP is to disparage the ACC. Also nonsense. If you aren't interested in what you consider a "flawed analysis" because it doesn't confirm some bias you have (and I have no idea what that might be), then why don't you just ignore it and post on some other thread?

(06-27-2017 10:14 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 09:19 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 09:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 08:36 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 09:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  What 'conclusions did i draw'? And what is arbitrary about only including games vs P5 in an analysis of P5 records?

My methodology was perfect for what i was trying to accomplish - determine the records of all P5 vs other P5 since 1998.

If i had claimed these results show the PAC has been better than the BIG overall, then you could criticize my method because that conclusion would need to be based on all OOC games, not just vs P5. But i haven't claimed that.

So only someone with an ax to grind would object to it. :(

Here's an erroneous conclusion that you drew based on arbitrarily excluded data:
"Note that the SEC often gets critiqued for avoiding P5 games in favor of rent-a-wins, but this chart shows that SEC teams have actually played more overall games vs other P5 than any other conference."

Yes, if you randomly ignore power conference games to fit your argument, you can create data that supports any argument that you want. It just isn't valid.

Your bias is showing again. My conclusion was not erroneous, as i limited my claim to the SEC playing other P5 conferences. It was thus 100% accurate.

Your zealous desire to push your agenda - primarily by inserting the old Big East into an analysis in which it has no place- is causing you to trip over yourself.

You're excluding P5 teams and calling me biased. Think about that.
You're excluding power teams and calling me biased. Think about that.

Your numbers are objectively cooked, and they're misleading at best. You are 100% ignoring power games against the ACC, B1G, and probably the Pac and Big XII (Utah) to create the illusion of parity w/ the SEC, when that isn't the case. That's a fact, not an opinion.

"To create the illusion of parity w/ the SEC"? Where do you come up with such nonsense?. Somebody else thinks the purpose of the OP is to disparage the ACC. Also nonsense. If you aren't interested in what you consider a "flawed analysis" because it doesn't confirm some bias you have (and I have no idea what that might be), then why don't you just ignore it and post on some other thread?

1. I come up w/ that "nonsense" by reading what he wrote. He said "[n]ote that the SEC often gets critiqued for avoiding P5 games in favor of rent-a-wins, but this chart shows that SEC teams have actually played more overall games vs other P5 than any other conference." Now, where do you come up w/ the nonsensical belief that the above quote means anything other than what he said?

2. Bad math and logical errors bother me, so I fix them wherever I find them. What's your excuse?

(06-27-2017 08:44 AM)CardinalJim Wrote:  I preface this comment by saying it's simply my opinion.

It's my opinion that the OP used his flawed methodology to achieve the results he was looking for. He knew eliminating Big East results from this whatever you want to call it would result in devaluing The ACC. That is this OP's ultimate objective.

I would welcome someone else to do the same ranking with Big East records and note the results. I have a hunch you'll get different results that don't reflect the bias message of the OP.
CJ

I agree, use the results up to it's last year with a BCS auto-bid. Also we need to include Notre Dame which is definitely a power conference level school. The Irish play or played more B1G and Pac schools prior to it's addition to the ACC.

(06-27-2017 10:19 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 10:14 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 09:19 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 09:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 08:36 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  Here's an erroneous conclusion that you drew based on arbitrarily excluded data:
"Note that the SEC often gets critiqued for avoiding P5 games in favor of rent-a-wins, but this chart shows that SEC teams have actually played more overall games vs other P5 than any other conference."

Yes, if you randomly ignore power conference games to fit your argument, you can create data that supports any argument that you want. It just isn't valid.

Your bias is showing again. My conclusion was not erroneous, as i limited my claim to the SEC playing other P5 conferences. It was thus 100% accurate.

Your zealous desire to push your agenda - primarily by inserting the old Big East into an analysis in which it has no place- is causing you to trip over yourself.

You're excluding P5 teams and calling me biased. Think about that.
You're excluding power teams and calling me biased. Think about that.

Your numbers are objectively cooked, and they're misleading at best. You are 100% ignoring power games against the ACC, B1G, and probably the Pac and Big XII (Utah) to create the illusion of parity w/ the SEC, when that isn't the case. That's a fact, not an opinion.

"To create the illusion of parity w/ the SEC"? Where do you come up with such nonsense?. Somebody else thinks the purpose of the OP is to disparage the ACC. Also nonsense. If you aren't interested in what you consider a "flawed analysis" because it doesn't confirm some bias you have (and I have no idea what that might be), then why don't you just ignore it and post on some other thread?

1. I come up w/ that "nonsense" by reading what he wrote. He said "[n]ote that the SEC often gets critiqued for avoiding P5 games in favor of rent-a-wins, but this chart shows that SEC teams have actually played more overall games vs other P5 than any other conference." Now, where do you come up w/ the nonsensical belief that the above quote means anything other than what he said?

That has nothing to do with "the illusion of parity"

2. Bad math and logical errors bother me. What's your excuse?

I see no math or logical errors in the OP. It is what it is, and what the OP said it was. Nothing more, nothing less. If you think you can do better,
why don't you do so?

(06-27-2017 09:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 08:36 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 09:13 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 05:15 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-26-2017 03:43 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  Actually, what I posted was precisely "P5 vs P5". Including anything else would have rendered it something other than P5 vs P5.

Except you arbitrarily excluded a number of teams who are P5 teams now, and/or who were power teams then (there was no P5, only a P6).

In using your deeply flawed methodology, you got a result that you wouldn't have expected had you used a sound methodology. That's not really surprising :/

What 'conclusions did i draw'? And what is arbitrary about only including games vs P5 in an analysis of P5 records?

My methodology was perfect for what i was trying to accomplish - determine the records of all P5 vs other P5 since 1998.

If i had claimed these results show the PAC has been better than the BIG overall, then you could criticize my method because that conclusion would need to be based on all OOC games, not just vs P5. But i haven't claimed that.

So only someone with an ax to grind would object to it. :(

Here's an erroneous conclusion that you drew based on arbitrarily excluded data:
"Note that the SEC often gets critiqued for avoiding P5 games in favor of rent-a-wins, but this chart shows that SEC teams have actually played more overall games vs other P5 than any other conference."

Yes, if you randomly ignore power conference games to fit your argument, you can create data that supports any argument that you want. It just isn't valid.

Your bias is showing again. My conclusion was not erroneous, as i limited my claim to the SEC playing other P5 conferences. It was thus 100% accurate.

Your zealous desire to push your agenda - primarily by inserting the old Big East into an analysis in which it has no place- is causing you to trip over yourself.

How do you say that the old Big East has no place? You are dismissing a national champ and two national runner ups plus multiple BCS bowl winners. In the BCS era the BE won way more BCS bowls than the ACC.

(06-27-2017 10:32 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 10:19 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 10:14 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 09:19 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 09:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Your bias is showing again. My conclusion was not erroneous, as i limited my claim to the SEC playing other P5 conferences. It was thus 100% accurate.

Your zealous desire to push your agenda - primarily by inserting the old Big East into an analysis in which it has no place- is causing you to trip over yourself.

You're excluding P5 teams and calling me biased. Think about that.
You're excluding power teams and calling me biased. Think about that.

Your numbers are objectively cooked, and they're misleading at best. You are 100% ignoring power games against the ACC, B1G, and probably the Pac and Big XII (Utah) to create the illusion of parity w/ the SEC, when that isn't the case. That's a fact, not an opinion.

"To create the illusion of parity w/ the SEC"? Where do you come up with such nonsense?. Somebody else thinks the purpose of the OP is to disparage the ACC. Also nonsense. If you aren't interested in what you consider a "flawed analysis" because it doesn't confirm some bias you have (and I have no idea what that might be), then why don't you just ignore it and post on some other thread?

1. I come up w/ that "nonsense" by reading what he wrote. He said "[n]ote that the SEC often gets critiqued for avoiding P5 games in favor of rent-a-wins, but this chart shows that SEC teams have actually played more overall games vs other P5 than any other conference." Now, where do you come up w/ the nonsensical belief that the above quote means anything other than what he said?

That has nothing to do with "the illusion of parity"

2. Bad math and logical errors bother me. What's your excuse?

I see no math or logical errors in the OP. It is what it is, and what the OP said it was. Nothing more, nothing less. If you think you can do better,
why don't you do so?

I'm surprised he hasn't complained that the defunct Southwest Conference wasn't included.

(06-27-2017 11:23 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 10:32 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 10:19 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 10:14 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 09:19 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  You're excluding P5 teams and calling me biased. Think about that.
You're excluding power teams and calling me biased. Think about that.

Your numbers are objectively cooked, and they're misleading at best. You are 100% ignoring power games against the ACC, B1G, and probably the Pac and Big XII (Utah) to create the illusion of parity w/ the SEC, when that isn't the case. That's a fact, not an opinion.

"To create the illusion of parity w/ the SEC"? Where do you come up with such nonsense?. Somebody else thinks the purpose of the OP is to disparage the ACC. Also nonsense. If you aren't interested in what you consider a "flawed analysis" because it doesn't confirm some bias you have (and I have no idea what that might be), then why don't you just ignore it and post on some other thread?

1. I come up w/ that "nonsense" by reading what he wrote. He said "[n]ote that the SEC often gets critiqued for avoiding P5 games in favor of rent-a-wins, but this chart shows that SEC teams have actually played more overall games vs other P5 than any other conference." Now, where do you come up w/ the nonsensical belief that the above quote means anything other than what he said?

That has nothing to do with "the illusion of parity"

2. Bad math and logical errors bother me. What's your excuse?

I see no math or logical errors in the OP. It is what it is, and what the OP said it was. Nothing more, nothing less. If you think you can do better,
why don't you do so?

I'm surprised he hasn't complained that the defunct Southwest Conference wasn't included.

Except the BE was a power conference for 15 years out of that 18 years used in the analysis.

(06-27-2017 11:29 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 11:23 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 10:32 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 10:19 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 10:14 AM)ken d Wrote:  "To create the illusion of parity w/ the SEC"? Where do you come up with such nonsense?. Somebody else thinks the purpose of the OP is to disparage the ACC. Also nonsense. If you aren't interested in what you consider a "flawed analysis" because it doesn't confirm some bias you have (and I have no idea what that might be), then why don't you just ignore it and post on some other thread?

1. I come up w/ that "nonsense" by reading what he wrote. He said "[n]ote that the SEC often gets critiqued for avoiding P5 games in favor of rent-a-wins, but this chart shows that SEC teams have actually played more overall games vs other P5 than any other conference." Now, where do you come up w/ the nonsensical belief that the above quote means anything other than what he said?

That has nothing to do with "the illusion of parity"

2. Bad math and logical errors bother me. What's your excuse?

I see no math or logical errors in the OP. It is what it is, and what the OP said it was. Nothing more, nothing less. If you think you can do better,
why don't you do so?

I'm surprised he hasn't complained that the defunct Southwest Conference wasn't included.

Except the BE was a power conference for 15 years out of that 18 years used in the analysis.

Big Whoop! That is not the point of the OP. Big East doesn't exist and only used existing Power Conferences.
If the Big 12 disappeared, I'm sure Quo wouldn't have included them because they would not exist anymore.

(06-27-2017 10:32 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 10:19 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 10:14 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 09:19 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 09:06 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Your bias is showing again. My conclusion was not erroneous, as i limited my claim to the SEC playing other P5 conferences. It was thus 100% accurate.

Your zealous desire to push your agenda - primarily by inserting the old Big East into an analysis in which it has no place- is causing you to trip over yourself.

You're excluding P5 teams and calling me biased. Think about that.
You're excluding power teams and calling me biased. Think about that.

Your numbers are objectively cooked, and they're misleading at best. You are 100% ignoring power games against the ACC, B1G, and probably the Pac and Big XII (Utah) to create the illusion of parity w/ the SEC, when that isn't the case. That's a fact, not an opinion.

"To create the illusion of parity w/ the SEC"? Where do you come up with such nonsense?. Somebody else thinks the purpose of the OP is to disparage the ACC. Also nonsense. If you aren't interested in what you consider a "flawed analysis" because it doesn't confirm some bias you have (and I have no idea what that might be), then why don't you just ignore it and post on some other thread?

1. I come up w/ that "nonsense" by reading what he wrote. He said "[n]ote that the SEC often gets critiqued for avoiding P5 games in favor of rent-a-wins, but this chart shows that SEC teams have actually played more overall games vs other P5 than any other conference." Now, where do you come up w/ the nonsensical belief that the above quote means anything other than what he said?

That has nothing to do with "the illusion of parity"

2. Bad math and logical errors bother me. What's your excuse?

I see no math or logical errors in the OP. It is what it is, and what the OP said it was. Nothing more, nothing less. If you think you can do better,
why don't you do so?

1. So you think that whether or not the SEC played power teams as frequently as other power conferences has nothing to do w/ whether or not they played teams from a power conference? Riddle me that.

2. What do you want me to do? I did do better. I explained that his bizarre results and suggested a better way to analyze the issue. Someone else followed up w/ that analysis, and the results conformed w expectations.

The OP's statement/implication that the SEC is unduely criticized for not playing enough power teams is not supported by adaquate proof due to poor methodology, and it's disproven by a later poster who pulled in more data. If you don't call that a logical error, then we have different definitions of "logical error."

Meh, rename it ACC, B1G, BIG 12, SEC and PAC records against each other since...and call it a day.

(06-27-2017 01:13 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 11:29 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 11:23 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 10:32 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 10:19 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  1. I come up w/ that "nonsense" by reading what he wrote. He said "[n]ote that the SEC often gets critiqued for avoiding P5 games in favor of rent-a-wins, but this chart shows that SEC teams have actually played more overall games vs other P5 than any other conference." Now, where do you come up w/ the nonsensical belief that the above quote means anything other than what he said?

That has nothing to do with "the illusion of parity"

2. Bad math and logical errors bother me. What's your excuse?

I see no math or logical errors in the OP. It is what it is, and what the OP said it was. Nothing more, nothing less. If you think you can do better,
why don't you do so?

I'm surprised he hasn't complained that the defunct Southwest Conference wasn't included.

Except the BE was a power conference for 15 years out of that 18 years used in the analysis.

Big Whoop! That is not the point of the OP. Big East doesn't exist and only used existing Power Conferences.
If the Big 12 disappeared, I'm sure Quo wouldn't have included them because they would not exist anymore.

They do exist! Miami, VT, PItt, Cuse, BC, Rutgers, WVU etc etc etc didn't just up and disappear. The OP made the claim that the SEC plays more power schools in OOC while dismissing 15 years of the ACC & B1G playing power conference teams in the BE. So Ohio States national championship game win against Miami doesn't count? Or Florida States National Championship game win against VT doesn't count? Pretty frickin convenient huh?

And his list would be even more dubious if it dismissed 15 years of games against Texas and Oklahoma.

(06-27-2017 01:13 PM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 11:29 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 11:23 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 10:32 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 10:19 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  1. I come up w/ that "nonsense" by reading what he wrote. He said "[n]ote that the SEC often gets critiqued for avoiding P5 games in favor of rent-a-wins, but this chart shows that SEC teams have actually played more overall games vs other P5 than any other conference." Now, where do you come up w/ the nonsensical belief that the above quote means anything other than what he said?

That has nothing to do with "the illusion of parity"

2. Bad math and logical errors bother me. What's your excuse?

I see no math or logical errors in the OP. It is what it is, and what the OP said it was. Nothing more, nothing less. If you think you can do better,
why don't you do so?

I'm surprised he hasn't complained that the defunct Southwest Conference wasn't included.

Except the BE was a power conference for 15 years out of that 18 years used in the analysis.

Big Whoop! That is not the point of the OP. Big East doesn't exist and only used existing Power Conferences.
If the Big 12 disappeared, I'm sure Quo wouldn't have included them because they would not exist anymore.

So it was relevant as to whether SEC teams were ducking competition 83% of the time in question. That's why it's a big whoop.

Also, 67% of the BE ended up in an existing power conference (plus ND). That number is even higher if you time weight the membership.

(06-27-2017 03:31 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 10:32 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 10:19 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 10:14 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 09:19 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  You're excluding P5 teams and calling me biased. Think about that.
You're excluding power teams and calling me biased. Think about that.

Your numbers are objectively cooked, and they're misleading at best. You are 100% ignoring power games against the ACC, B1G, and probably the Pac and Big XII (Utah) to create the illusion of parity w/ the SEC, when that isn't the case. That's a fact, not an opinion.

"To create the illusion of parity w/ the SEC"? Where do you come up with such nonsense?. Somebody else thinks the purpose of the OP is to disparage the ACC. Also nonsense. If you aren't interested in what you consider a "flawed analysis" because it doesn't confirm some bias you have (and I have no idea what that might be), then why don't you just ignore it and post on some other thread?

1. I come up w/ that "nonsense" by reading what he wrote. He said "[n]ote that the SEC often gets critiqued for avoiding P5 games in favor of rent-a-wins, but this chart shows that SEC teams have actually played more overall games vs other P5 than any other conference." Now, where do you come up w/ the nonsensical belief that the above quote means anything other than what he said?

That has nothing to do with "the illusion of parity"

2. Bad math and logical errors bother me. What's your excuse?

I see no math or logical errors in the OP. It is what it is, and what the OP said it was. Nothing more, nothing less. If you think you can do better,
why don't you do so?

1. So you think that whether or not the SEC played power teams as frequently as other power conferences has nothing to do w/ whether or not they played teams from a power conference? Riddle me that.

2. What do you want me to do? I did do better. I explained that his bizarre results and suggested a better way to analyze the issue. Someone else followed up w/ that analysis, and the results conformed w expectations.

The OP's statement/implication that the SEC is unduely criticized for not playing enough power teams is not supported by adaquate proof due to poor methodology, and it's disproven by a later poster who pulled in more data. If you don't call that a logical error, then we have different definitions of "logical error."

I give up. You must be on crack. Your No. 1 makes no sense whatever. As for No. 2, that follow up analysis conformed with the OP. It didn't "disprove" it. Maybe if you would stop obsessing with a throwaway aside about how many good teams the SEC plays, you would see that. Any way you look at this, the SEC has the best record against the top conferences, whether that includes the BE or not, and the rank order of those conferences isn't significantly affected by including them.

And yes, we most certainly do have different definitions of "logical error". I have no idea where yours comes from.

(06-27-2017 05:33 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 03:31 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 10:32 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 10:19 AM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 10:14 AM)ken d Wrote:  "To create the illusion of parity w/ the SEC"? Where do you come up with such nonsense?. Somebody else thinks the purpose of the OP is to disparage the ACC. Also nonsense. If you aren't interested in what you consider a "flawed analysis" because it doesn't confirm some bias you have (and I have no idea what that might be), then why don't you just ignore it and post on some other thread?

1. I come up w/ that "nonsense" by reading what he wrote. He said "[n]ote that the SEC often gets critiqued for avoiding P5 games in favor of rent-a-wins, but this chart shows that SEC teams have actually played more overall games vs other P5 than any other conference." Now, where do you come up w/ the nonsensical belief that the above quote means anything other than what he said?

That has nothing to do with "the illusion of parity"

2. Bad math and logical errors bother me. What's your excuse?

I see no math or logical errors in the OP. It is what it is, and what the OP said it was. Nothing more, nothing less. If you think you can do better,
why don't you do so?

1. So you think that whether or not the SEC played power teams as frequently as other power conferences has nothing to do w/ whether or not they played teams from a power conference? Riddle me that.

2. What do you want me to do? I did do better. I explained that his bizarre results and suggested a better way to analyze the issue. Someone else followed up w/ that analysis, and the results conformed w expectations.

The OP's statement/implication that the SEC is unduely criticized for not playing enough power teams is not supported by adaquate proof due to poor methodology, and it's disproven by a later poster who pulled in more data. If you don't call that a logical error, then we have different definitions of "logical error."

I give up. You must be on crack. Your No. 1 makes no sense whatever. As for No. 2, that follow up analysis conformed with the OP. It didn't "disprove" it. Maybe if you would stop obsessing with a throwaway aside about how many good teams the SEC plays, you would see that. Any way you look at this, the SEC has the best record against the top conferences, whether that includes the BE or not, and the rank order of those conferences isn't significantly affected by including them.

And yes, we most certainly do have different definitions of "logical error". I have no idea where yours comes from.

"And yes, we most certainly do have different definitions of "logical error". I have no idea where yours comes from."

This is very clear, and very true. Mine comes from an ability to read what others write, and to critically evaluate the likelihood of them being right. I'll take a high road and avoid speculating what you do.

But to help you understand what's going on, I'll recap the situation for you. The OP listed a number of records and concluded that the SEC's reputation for playing non-Power schedules isn't deserved. Specifically, the OP said that the following conferences played the following number of power OOC games:
ACC - 308 games (rank 3)
Big 12 - 284 games (rank 4)
B1G - 318 games (rank 2)
Pac - 260 games (rank 5)
SEC - 334 games (rank 1)

"[T]he SEC often gets critiqued for avoiding P5 games in favor of rent-a-wins, but this chart shows that SEC teams have actually played more overall games vs other P5 than any other conference."

That's the exact quote. I pointed out that the OP randomly excluded a large number of power games which would paint a different picture.

A later poster recalculated the number of games played and got this:
ACC - 472 (rank 1)
Big 12 - 329 (rank 5)
B1G - 419 (rank 2)
Pac - 335 (rank 4)
SEC - 393 (rank 3)

Now adjust for the fact that the SEC has more teams in an average year during that time frame than any other conference, and they drop further. Then adjust for a longer OOC than most of the teams included, and the SEC drops even further.

That directly refutes the OP's claim that the SEC doesn't duck power games, which you're randomly and arbitrarily referring to as a "throw away aside claim." It's also worth noting that all of my posts have been about this one specific point. I'm not interested in discussing anything else, which is why I haven't (see your comment about me "obsessing about it"). If you didn't want to discuss this point, then you probably shouldn't have replied to my post about this point.

"Any way you look at this, the SEC has the best record against the top conferences, whether that includes the BE or not..."

Yes, the SEC dominated the BCS era, but that has absolutely no bearing on anything that I've claimed. Notice how all my posts are about whether or not the SEC's reputation for soft OOC schedules is deserved. Notice how I didn't make any value judgment about whether the SEC should have played harder schedules, or could have successfully played harder schedules.

"...the rank order of those conferences isn't significantly affected by including them."

The SEC drops from #1 to #3, and that's before taking the conference size difference into account, or the OOC size, which is relevant because conferences w/ 9 games play an extra power opponent - just not an OOC one, so the OOC schedule expectations are often higher for 8 game schedules.

"Your No. 1 makes no sense whatever."

I agree, but that's been the logic of your past posts. Notice how my posts don't agree w/ yours. Don't expect me to defend your position.

And lastly, instead of ad hominem attacks (i.e. "you must be on crack"), try to focus on reading what the other person wrote, understanding their words in the context of the overall discussion, and then thinking critically in an emotionally attached way about whether they're right or not.