(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.
Absolutely, because you ARE biased. As I stated originally, my analysis is at the conference level, not the team level. And I am 100% complete at that level - I do not exclude any P5 conferences from my analysis, to the contrary, i did the best I could to include every single P5 vs P5 game I could. And since it was at the conference level, of course I excluded "power teams" that are not members of the P5 conferences, as they have no place in this analysis. Including such teams would no longer make it an analysis of P5 vs P5, thus rendering me guilty of false advertising in the thread title.
You could only possibly have a point if I had somehow been misleading about what I was doing, but anyone can see that in my original post, i scrupulously described exactly what was being analyzed and therefore what conferences would be included.
Basically, you're upset because I chose to make a point other than a point that you want to have made. Sorry about that.
(06-27-2017 03:48 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote: [ -> ] (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: [ -> ]
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.
Is someone paying you to make false statements here? I said no such thing - I said the SEC is criticized for not playing enough games vs P5 opponents, not "power" opponents.
Good grief, in an effort to make your phantom point, you seem willing to stoop pretty low.
(06-27-2017 06:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2017 03:48 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote: [ -> ] (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: [ -> ]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.
Is someone paying you to make false statements here? I said no such thing - I said the SEC is criticized for not playing enough games vs P5 opponents, not "power" opponents.
Good grief, in an effort to make your phantom point, you seem willing to stoop pretty low.
If you want to talk about false statements then why say P5 vs P5 going back to 1998? There wasn't a P5 until 15 years after that.
There is no phantom point, just a lazy poster trying to pass off half assed analysis as some point.
(06-27-2017 06:26 PM)quo vadis 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.
Absolutely, because you ARE biased. As I stated originally, my analysis is at the conference level, not the team level. And I am 100% complete at that level - I do not exclude any P5 conferences from my analysis, to the contrary, i did the best I could to include every single P5 vs P5 game I could. And since it was at the conference level, of course I excluded "power teams" that are not members of the P5 conferences, as they have no place in this analysis. Including such teams would no longer make it an analysis of P5 vs P5, thus rendering me guilty of false advertising in the thread title.
You could only possibly have a point if I had somehow been misleading about what I was doing, but anyone can see that in my original post, i scrupulously described exactly what was being analyzed and therefore what conferences would be included.
Basically, you're upset because I chose to make a point other than a point that you want to have made. Sorry about that.
Once again, there was no P5 vs P5 in 1998.
(06-27-2017 06:16 PM)nzmorange Wrote: [ -> ]That directly refutes the OP's claim that the SEC doesn't duck power games...
I never said that. I referred to the SEC being criticized for not playing enough P5 games, not "power" games.
What's even sillier is that had the SEC (or ACC, B1G, PAC, or Big 12) scheduled a ton of games versus the Big East during 1998-2013, NOBODY would have smiled at them for doing so. To the contrary, justified or not, the Big East was looked DOWN upon by the other Power conferences, and other than playing Miami, scheduling Big East teams was not regarded as something to trumpet in terms of toughening your schedule. To the contrary, if the ACC or SEC scheduled a Big East team, fans of other conferences would regard that as patsy scheduling, and accuse them of dodging the "real" Big Boy conferences.
Amazing to see you and a Rutgers fan, who should know better, harumphing about the Big East as being regarded in the popular mindset as a Real Power Power Power league, such that it's this Great Big Crime to exclude them from an analysis of BCS-era power games.
(06-27-2017 06:26 PM)quo vadis 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.
Absolutely, because you ARE biased. As I stated originally, my analysis is at the conference level, not the team level. And I am 100% complete at that level - I do not exclude any P5 conferences from my analysis, to the contrary, i did the best I could to include every single P5 vs P5 game I could. And since it was at the conference level, of course I excluded "power teams" that are not members of the P5 conferences, as they have no place in this analysis. Including such teams would no longer make it an analysis of P5 vs P5, thus rendering me guilty of false advertising in the thread title.
You could only possibly have a point if I had somehow been misleading about what I was doing, but anyone can see that in my original post, i scrupulously described exactly what was being analyzed and therefore what conferences would be included.
Basically, you're upset because I chose to make a point other than a point that you want to have made. Sorry about that.
You said:
"[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."
And you based that conclusion off of a list of games that is incomplete. It doesn't include all the games against teams in current P5 conferences, and it doesn't include games against teams that were in power conferences when the game was played.
I don't see any reasonable way that your statement isn't misleading at best (and more likely, completely erroneous). The SEC only appears to not avoid P5 games vis-a-vis other P5 conferences because you selective ignored a number of those games.
You also selectively ignored the size difference between conferences. The SEC has had more teams in it in an average year in that time frame than any other conference. As such, X SEC games isn't the same as X Pac games when it comes to determining whether SEC teams are scheduling other P5 teams.
And lastly, this is a minor point, but you also selectively ignored conference schedule lengths. This last point is a little less black and white than the other 2, but playing 1 OOC P5 game w/ an 8 game conference schedule isn't the same as playing 1 OOC P5 game w/ a 9 game conference schedule.
(06-27-2017 06:28 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2017 06:16 PM)nzmorange Wrote: [ -> ] (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: [ -> ]
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.
![[Image: tumblr_inline_ml8qauYlMQ1qz4rgp.gif]](http://media.tumblr.com/b10e01ee7644547983b125ec9d9c2c20/tumblr_inline_ml8qauYlMQ1qz4rgp.gif)
What I take from this post is that you completely missed the point and purpose of the OP. It seems to me that if the OP had wanted to point out the rank order of
how many games each conference had played, he would have done so. But he didn't. He reported their
won-lost records and calculated their respective winning percentages.
Subsequently, another poster reported the W-L records including games against the former BE. You then chose to focus solely on the total number of games played, not their respective winning %. Nowhere did anybody try to rank these conferences by total games played, as you do in this post. Maybe you should work on that "ability to read what others write" as you so smugly claim.
(06-27-2017 06:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2017 06:16 PM)nzmorange Wrote: [ -> ]That directly refutes the OP's claim that the SEC doesn't duck power games...
I never said that. I referred to the SEC being criticized for not playing enough P5 games, not "power" games.
What's even sillier is that had the SEC (or ACC, B1G, PAC, or Big 12) scheduled a ton of games versus the Big East during 1998-2013, NOBODY would have smiled at them for doing so. To the contrary, justified or not, the Big East was looked DOWN upon by the other Power conferences, and other than playing Miami, scheduling Big East teams was not regarded as something to trumpet in terms of toughening your schedule. To the contrary, if the ACC or SEC scheduled a Big East team, fans of other conferences would regard that as patsy scheduling, and accuse them of dodging the "real" Big Boy conferences.
Amazing to see you and a Rutgers fan, who should know better, harumphing about the Big East as being regarded in the popular mindset as a Real Power Power Power league, such that it's this Great Big Crime to exclude them from an analysis of BCS-era power games.
1) What you wrote is false (nobody was looking down on Syracuse when SU beat defending champ, Michigan @ Michigan in '98 and almost beat eventual champ, Tennessee, and nobody was looking down at VT when they played for the national title in '99, and nobody was looking down at Miami when they played for a couple title games from '00 to '02, and nobody was looking down at WVU in the mid '00's when they had Rich Rod as coach, and nobody was looking down at Louisville when Petrino was the coach in the late '00's, etc.), and it isn't even internally consistent (I referred to the SEC being criticized for not playing enough P5 games, not "power" games- what do you think the "P" stands for?).
2) Additionally, I have no idea what your motive is to argue otherwise, but the BIG EAST was a "Power Conference," and the BE was ever since that term was invented all the way until 2013. That's not a matter of opinion.
(06-27-2017 06:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2017 06:16 PM)nzmorange Wrote: [ -> ]That directly refutes the OP's claim that the SEC doesn't duck power games...
I never said that. I referred to the SEC being criticized for not playing enough P5 games, not "power" games.
What's even sillier is that had the SEC (or ACC, B1G, PAC, or Big 12) scheduled a ton of games versus the Big East during 1998-2013, NOBODY would have smiled at them for doing so. To the contrary, justified or not, the Big East was looked DOWN upon by the other Power conferences, and other than playing Miami, scheduling Big East teams was not regarded as something to trumpet in terms of toughening your schedule. To the contrary, if the ACC or SEC scheduled a Big East team, fans of other conferences would regard that as patsy scheduling, and accuse them of dodging the "real" Big Boy conferences.
Amazing to see you and a Rutgers fan, who should know better, harumphing about the Big East as being regarded in the popular mindset as a Real Power Power Power league, such that it's this Great Big Crime to exclude them from an analysis of BCS-era power games.
I know it's tough for a USF fan but the Big East was a power conference even if your Bulls struggled in that league. If you paid attention the BE had a very good BCS bowl record and held their own against the other power conferences in actual on the field success.
(06-27-2017 06:50 PM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2017 06:28 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2017 06:16 PM)nzmorange Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2017 05:33 PM)ken d Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2017 03:31 PM)nzmorange Wrote: [ -> ]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.
What I take from this post is that you completely missed the point and purpose of the OP. It seems to me that if the OP had wanted to point out the rank order of how many games each conference had played, he would have done so. But he didn't. He reported their won-lost records and calculated their respective winning percentages.
Subsequently, another poster reported the W-L records including games against the former BE. You then chose to focus solely on the total number of games played, not their respective winning %. Nowhere did anybody try to rank these conferences by total games played, as you do in this post. Maybe you should work on that "ability to read what others write" as you so smugly claim.
I'm going to try this again. The OP said that the common claim of the SEC dodging power games isn't justified. He made that claim by looking at the number of P5 games played by each conference. He may have made a bunch of other statements, but none of those interested me, which is why I didn't reply to them.
I, however, did reply to that one point by showing that his analysis that led him to that conclusion was flawed because it arbitrarily ignores a number of games. You then started arguing w/ me over that point, and are now trying to argue that the SEC is a great football conference, and that I should be interested in arguing whether or not they're good at football. I'm not interested in debating their competency. I'm really not. I am, however, interested in debating whether the OP's statement was logically sound, and I'm interested in carrying on that debate for the reason that I gave earlier.
Also, and this was clearly lost on you, but the OP posted the W/L record, and then REFERENCED the number of games played. That's where reading what people write comes into play.
Once again, lose the ad hominem attacks ("smugly"), and focus on reading and thinking critically.
Percentage of Out-of-Conference Games Played Against "Power" Teams, 1998-2016 (excludes postseason)
1. Notre Dame: 80.7% (180/223)
2. ACC: 42.6% (349/820)
3. Big East/American (1998-2013): 41.0% (245/598)
4. Pac-10/12: 38.4% (246/640)
5. Big Ten: 34.6% (284/820)
6. SEC: 27.2% (239/878)
7. Big 12: 27.0% (201/744)
[
attachment=8878]
(06-27-2017 06:32 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2017 06:29 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2017 03:48 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2017 01:13 PM)MWC Tex Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2017 11:29 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote: [ -> ]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.
Is someone paying you to make false statements here? I said no such thing - I said the SEC is criticized for not playing enough games vs P5 opponents, not "power" opponents.
Good grief, in an effort to make your phantom point, you seem willing to stoop pretty low.
If you want to talk about false statements then why say P5 vs P5 going back to 1998? There wasn't a P5 until 15 years after that.
That's a pedantic point, as nobody could possibly have had any doubt as to what I meant by "P5". "P5" obviously refers to the ACC, SEC, B1G, PAC, and Big 12, whether the year is 2016 or 2000. In contrast, your misrepresentation of what i said was very material, as there is a clear difference between "power teams" and "P5 teams", as the latter obviously does not include all of the former.
All we have here is a Rutgers boy with some kind of chip on his shoulder, babbling nonsense.
(06-27-2017 06:33 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2017 06:26 PM)quo vadis 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.
Absolutely, because you ARE biased. As I stated originally, my analysis is at the conference level, not the team level. And I am 100% complete at that level - I do not exclude any P5 conferences from my analysis, to the contrary, i did the best I could to include every single P5 vs P5 game I could. And since it was at the conference level, of course I excluded "power teams" that are not members of the P5 conferences, as they have no place in this analysis. Including such teams would no longer make it an analysis of P5 vs P5, thus rendering me guilty of false advertising in the thread title.
You could only possibly have a point if I had somehow been misleading about what I was doing, but anyone can see that in my original post, i scrupulously described exactly what was being analyzed and therefore what conferences would be included.
Basically, you're upset because I chose to make a point other than a point that you want to have made. Sorry about that.
Once again, there was no P5 vs P5 in 1998.
Once again, everyone knows what "P5" means, so it has been blitheringly obvious all along that if someone says they are comparing "P5 vs P5" in 1998, that they were comparing the SEC, ACC, B1G, Big 12, and PAC in that year - because those are the conferences that everyone knows the term "P5" applies to, even though the phrase didn't come into parlance until years later.
Sheesh, are you really this obtuse?
(06-27-2017 06:44 PM)nzmorange Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2017 06:26 PM)quo vadis 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.
Absolutely, because you ARE biased. As I stated originally, my analysis is at the conference level, not the team level. And I am 100% complete at that level - I do not exclude any P5 conferences from my analysis, to the contrary, i did the best I could to include every single P5 vs P5 game I could. And since it was at the conference level, of course I excluded "power teams" that are not members of the P5 conferences, as they have no place in this analysis. Including such teams would no longer make it an analysis of P5 vs P5, thus rendering me guilty of false advertising in the thread title.
You could only possibly have a point if I had somehow been misleading about what I was doing, but anyone can see that in my original post, i scrupulously described exactly what was being analyzed and therefore what conferences would be included.
Basically, you're upset because I chose to make a point other than a point that you want to have made. Sorry about that.
You said:
"[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."
And you based that conclusion off of a list of games that is incomplete. It doesn't include all the games against teams in current P5 conferences, and it doesn't include games against teams that were in power conferences when the game was played.
I don't see any reasonable way that your statement isn't misleading at best (and more likely, completely erroneous). The SEC only appears to not avoid P5 games vis-a-vis other P5 conferences because you selective ignored a number of those games.
At this point, it hard to avoid the conclusion that you simply lack the guts to admit you were wrong. Given the parameters I clearly stated, my list of games IS complete, unless by chance i accidentally overlooked a game, and nobody has shown i have. You complain that my list is incomplete because it doesn't include all the games against teams in current P5 conferences, and it doesn't include games against teams that were in power conferences when the game was played, when in fact I clearly explained in the original post that (a) only games in which both teams were in P5 conferences at the time the game was played would be included, and that (b) only games involving P5 teams would be analyzed. I even gave examples of such games (e.g., Alabama vs Louisville in 2000 would not be included, but Alabama vs Louisville in 2015 would be), so it is nuts to say I was misleading. I explained it all up front.
I was up front about both of those things, so there was nothing "misleading" about any of it, except to an incredibly biased poster with some kind of major ax to grind. You have been misleading by saying i made claims about all power teams when in fact I've been careful to limit myself to the P5.
You continue to be wrong, plain and simple.
(06-27-2017 06:51 PM)nzmorange Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2017 06:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2017 06:16 PM)nzmorange Wrote: [ -> ]That directly refutes the OP's claim that the SEC doesn't duck power games...
I never said that. I referred to the SEC being criticized for not playing enough P5 games, not "power" games.
What's even sillier is that had the SEC (or ACC, B1G, PAC, or Big 12) scheduled a ton of games versus the Big East during 1998-2013, NOBODY would have smiled at them for doing so. To the contrary, justified or not, the Big East was looked DOWN upon by the other Power conferences, and other than playing Miami, scheduling Big East teams was not regarded as something to trumpet in terms of toughening your schedule. To the contrary, if the ACC or SEC scheduled a Big East team, fans of other conferences would regard that as patsy scheduling, and accuse them of dodging the "real" Big Boy conferences.
Amazing to see you and a Rutgers fan, who should know better, harumphing about the Big East as being regarded in the popular mindset as a Real Power Power Power league, such that it's this Great Big Crime to exclude them from an analysis of BCS-era power games.
1) What you wrote is false ....
My statement about how the Big East was viewed in the popular imagination can't be "false", as it is an opinion. Had I denied that the Big East was in fact a power conference you could say it was false, because the Big East was in fact one of the formally-designated AQ conferences, but I didn't do that.
Still, it is amazing that you are denying its veracity, as any Big East fan knows that Big East football was routinely denigrated and looked down upon by the other power conferences. We were regarded as the runt of the litter, and given short-shrift. In the post-Miami era, there was frequent talk in the media about how the Big East was "unworthy" of its AQ status, and we constantly had to defend ourselves on that front. IMO, that was unfair, as the facts show that on the field, the Big East was always competitive, even after Miami and VT left. But anyone with a brain knows that what I am saying about how the Big East was viewed by the other power leagues and fans in general is correct.
(06-27-2017 06:54 PM)RutgersGuy Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2017 06:36 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ] (06-27-2017 06:16 PM)nzmorange Wrote: [ -> ]That directly refutes the OP's claim that the SEC doesn't duck power games...
I never said that. I referred to the SEC being criticized for not playing enough P5 games, not "power" games.
What's even sillier is that had the SEC (or ACC, B1G, PAC, or Big 12) scheduled a ton of games versus the Big East during 1998-2013, NOBODY would have smiled at them for doing so. To the contrary, justified or not, the Big East was looked DOWN upon by the other Power conferences, and other than playing Miami, scheduling Big East teams was not regarded as something to trumpet in terms of toughening your schedule. To the contrary, if the ACC or SEC scheduled a Big East team, fans of other conferences would regard that as patsy scheduling, and accuse them of dodging the "real" Big Boy conferences.
Amazing to see you and a Rutgers fan, who should know better, harumphing about the Big East as being regarded in the popular mindset as a Real Power Power Power league, such that it's this Great Big Crime to exclude them from an analysis of BCS-era power games.
I know it's tough for a USF fan but the Big East was a power conference even if your Bulls struggled in that league. If you paid attention the BE had a very good BCS bowl record and held their own against the other power conferences in actual on the field success.
You've proven yourself inept at reading-comp in this thread, as i never said that the Big East wasn't in fact a power league, i said that in the view of other power leagues, the Big East was often regarded as a lesser league, unworthy of power status. Different things.
PS - how many Big East titles did Rutgers win?
(06-27-2017 07:00 PM)nzmorange Wrote: [ -> ]I'm going to try this again. The OP said that the common claim of the SEC dodging power games isn't justified. He made that claim by looking at the number of P5 games played by each conference.
Amazing ... even after i corrected you about this, you go ahead and reiterate that wrong-headed claim again. Shameless.
To drive the nail home one more time: I said that the common claim of the SEC dodging games vs other P5 conferences isn't justified, and I supported that claim by looking at the number of OOC P5 games played by each conference.
(06-27-2017 03:40 PM)gulfcoastgal Wrote: [ -> ]Meh, rename it ACC, B1G, BIG 12, SEC and PAC records against each other since...and call it a day.
There really shouldn't be any need to do that, as everyone in the universe knows that "P5" refers to those five conferences and only those five conferences, no matter what year we refer to. Even AAC fans who think the AAC should be regarded as a "power" league refer to a P6, not a P5, as that would mean the AAC should replace one of the existing P5 leagues, and I've never seen anyone do that.
This nonsense is all the result of really weird ax-grinding by a couple of posters.
Based on
these figures, the SEC is the power conference with the second lowest percentage of regular season OOC games played against power teams from 1998-2016, almost tied with the Big 12 for lowest. This doesn't necessarily mean they're ducking power teams though. Perhaps other power teams fear the SEC and avoid scheduling them. Hard to say.