(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.