CSNbbs

(06-29-2017 11:03 AM)krux Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-29-2017 10:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-29-2017 08:46 AM)krux Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-29-2017 07:25 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-28-2017 08:48 PM)krux Wrote: [ -> ]I guess where I'm struggling is that 1998 was chosen specifically to include the BCS era but not all BCS teams/conferences are included in the data. If the BCS is the reason 1998 was chosen; why omit all teams encompassed by that term in that time? Otherwise, why is that the starting point?

If BCS is the timeline then BCS teams should be included.
If P5 is the team criteria then 2014-present should be the only data used.

It just leaves the data open to too much scrutiny.

I explained above why I chose the 1998 starting date: that's the first year FBS college football agreed to a "playoff system", as the BCS title game was a two-team playoff, and IMO that marked a fundamental shift in the nature of the college football post-season, in effect a new era of college football. It wasn't chosen because of the specific nature of the power/non-power configuration (i.e., which conferences were or were not power) that existed that year.

Second, I had, and still have, no idea why my use of the term "P5" was controversial. Even though that term did not exist before 2014, nobody could seriously doubt what conferences were being referred to even if didn't explain what i meant, and actually i went one better and in the original post explained in detail exactly who I was referring to. And crucially, when drawing any implications from the findings, which I didn't do much of, I was careful to use the term "P5" so as not to be guilty of making inferences that would properly require the inclusion of more data, such as games vs teams not in those 5 conferences. Yet a few others promptly accused me of making inferences that did just that, even though I didn't actually make them! They did, then criticized me for not including the data needed to make their points, LOL.

So to me, any 'confusion' on that point has to reflect the bias/ax to grind of the critic.

Sure but an explanation of what the BCS was intended to be (two team playoff) is not an explanation of why the power teams of that time frame were not accounted for. I understand your reasoning for it; it's just a weak argument at the end of the day. And that's no big deal. We all make them. If all your arguments were 100% iron clad and bullet proof I'd hope you'd be taking the Barr exam instead of wasting your time on a discussion board.

I've certainly posted my share of weak arguments around here, but IMO this just isn't one of them. Last post, you seemed to be asking why i chose 1998/start of BCS as the time frame, and I explained that.

Now you seem to be asking something else, why all the power teams of that time frame were not accounted for. I've explained that as well - since today's power configuration is "P5", to me it would be interesting to see how these five conferences have fared against each other over that time frame. If someone finds that kind of comparison uninteresting, they are free to ignore it, but I don't see any merit in denigrating that by noting that it doesn't include all games - power or not - that those conferences have played.

If you are interested in how the P5 have fared against all power teams during that time (e.g., the P5 plus Big East plus Notre Dame) or against all teams period (e.g., all power and G5 and FCS), then have at it. But that doesn't make what I was interested misleading, incomplete, or invalid.

I'd read my original post. I asked the same question then and you didn't address it. I also didn't say it was misleading, incomplete or invalid. I just said it's weak. Theres too many ways to tear it apart...as made evident by the other comments in this thread.

But ... I explained it in the last post, and since it is based on what I personally found interesting, I assume you no longer find it weak? That would be like you saying "I am interested in how Notre Dame has fared vs USC over the past 20 years", and me saying "well, since you don't include how they fared vs Michigan as well, that's weak". Silly, right? But that's what seems to be happening here: I say "I'm interested in how five conferences - ACC/SEC/PAC/B1G/Big 12, otherwise known as the P5, have fared vs each other since 1998", and someone retorts with "well, since you didn't include all power teams, such as Notre Dame and the Big East, that's weak". Ridiculous, eh?

I mean, it can't be "torn apart" at all, and no other comments in this thread have succeeded in doing so. Really, you'd have to have some kind of ax to grind, i.e., not be an objective observer, to think otherwise.

It can be "torn apart" because you took it away from a specific P5 v P5 record & used it to claim that the SEC played more P5 games & thus were undeserving of the reputation of not playing enough P5 teams. The win % isn't reflective on the number of games played. The "per capita" argument shows how you drew your conclusion prematurely & without complete data. The "per capita" argument then also brings in the other power teams that were left out for a more complete analysis. The data you presented only gives us the record of these 5 conferences against each other, drawing any additional conclusions from this would be premature.

(06-29-2017 11:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-29-2017 11:03 AM)krux Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-29-2017 10:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-29-2017 08:46 AM)krux Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-29-2017 07:25 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]I explained above why I chose the 1998 starting date: that's the first year FBS college football agreed to a "playoff system", as the BCS title game was a two-team playoff, and IMO that marked a fundamental shift in the nature of the college football post-season, in effect a new era of college football. It wasn't chosen because of the specific nature of the power/non-power configuration (i.e., which conferences were or were not power) that existed that year.

Second, I had, and still have, no idea why my use of the term "P5" was controversial. Even though that term did not exist before 2014, nobody could seriously doubt what conferences were being referred to even if didn't explain what i meant, and actually i went one better and in the original post explained in detail exactly who I was referring to. And crucially, when drawing any implications from the findings, which I didn't do much of, I was careful to use the term "P5" so as not to be guilty of making inferences that would properly require the inclusion of more data, such as games vs teams not in those 5 conferences. Yet a few others promptly accused me of making inferences that did just that, even though I didn't actually make them! They did, then criticized me for not including the data needed to make their points, LOL.

So to me, any 'confusion' on that point has to reflect the bias/ax to grind of the critic.

Sure but an explanation of what the BCS was intended to be (two team playoff) is not an explanation of why the power teams of that time frame were not accounted for. I understand your reasoning for it; it's just a weak argument at the end of the day. And that's no big deal. We all make them. If all your arguments were 100% iron clad and bullet proof I'd hope you'd be taking the Barr exam instead of wasting your time on a discussion board.

I've certainly posted my share of weak arguments around here, but IMO this just isn't one of them. Last post, you seemed to be asking why i chose 1998/start of BCS as the time frame, and I explained that.

Now you seem to be asking something else, why all the power teams of that time frame were not accounted for. I've explained that as well - since today's power configuration is "P5", to me it would be interesting to see how these five conferences have fared against each other over that time frame. If someone finds that kind of comparison uninteresting, they are free to ignore it, but I don't see any merit in denigrating that by noting that it doesn't include all games - power or not - that those conferences have played.

If you are interested in how the P5 have fared against all power teams during that time (e.g., the P5 plus Big East plus Notre Dame) or against all teams period (e.g., all power and G5 and FCS), then have at it. But that doesn't make what I was interested misleading, incomplete, or invalid.

I'd read my original post. I asked the same question then and you didn't address it. I also didn't say it was misleading, incomplete or invalid. I just said it's weak. Theres too many ways to tear it apart...as made evident by the other comments in this thread.

But ... I explained it in the last post, and since it is based on what I personally found interesting, I assume you no longer find it weak? That would be like you saying "I am interested in how Notre Dame has fared vs USC over the past 20 years", and me saying "well, since you don't include how they fared vs Michigan as well, that's weak". Silly, right? But that's what seems to be happening here: I say "I'm interested in how five conferences - ACC/SEC/PAC/B1G/Big 12, otherwise known as the P5, have fared vs each other since 1998", and someone retorts with "well, since you didn't include all power teams, such as Notre Dame and the Big East, that's weak". Ridiculous, eh?

I mean, it can't be "torn apart" at all, and no other comments in this thread have succeeded in doing so. Really, you'd have to have some kind of ax to grind, i.e., not be an objective observer, to think otherwise.

No, it's like saying you want to compare how Notre Dame fared vs USC over the past 20 years because that's when they started playing Michigan. Then not addressing Michigan.

While the data presented in the OP is not itself an argument, the claim made about the SEC is an argument and thus can be either confirmed or refuted. The data presented is incomplete in this regard and so cannot be used to substantiate the claim. I don't think the common assertion about the SEC is that they're ducking P5 teams specifically, but rather "power" teams generally. By most accounts, this would include the Big East/American up until 2013, as well as Notre Dame up to the present, even though the Irish are not in a conference. If you exclude these schools from the analysis, you'd be implicitly treating them "non-power" teams even though they were/are widely regarded as "power." Furthermore, looking at the absolute number of games is misleading, as they would have to be considered relative to all opportunities for OOC play. The number of opportunities varies depending upon the total number of games in the schedule, the number of games in the conference schedule, and the number of teams in the conference.

If you look at the full OOC data over that time period, you can see that the SEC's percentage of OOC games played against power teams vs non-power teams is the second lowest, nearly tied with the Big 12 for lowest. This is the same if you count either just regular season games or all games including the postseason.

I ventured earlier that the numbers alone don't explain why the SEC has a relatively low % of OOC games against power teams. It could be due at least in part to their ducking power teams, but it could also be due to other power teams ducking the SEC, or some combination thereof.

The reason why any "ducking" would take place may be due to SOS. However, SOS was not mentioned in the OP, so cannot be used post hoc to defend the original claim, which was based solely on the data presented.

In any case, I applaud Quo for doing some original research and putting numbers together. I enjoy doing that sort of thing and like it when others do it as well.

I'd like to see this actually broken down. I think the ACC is getting punished hard by Virginia having the balls to play anybody anywhere. And thus getting spanked by Top 15 programs from far away every year for like a good solid 8 year run.

(06-29-2017 01:45 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ]I'd like to see this actually broken down. I think the ACC is getting punished hard by Virginia having the balls to play anybody anywhere. And thus getting spanked by Top 15 programs from far away every year for like a good solid 8 year run.

I can do that. Broken down by school?

(06-29-2017 01:49 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-29-2017 01:45 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ]I'd like to see this actually broken down. I think the ACC is getting punished hard by Virginia having the balls to play anybody anywhere. And thus getting spanked by Top 15 programs from far away every year for like a good solid 8 year run.

I can do that. Broken down by school?

Yep.

(06-29-2017 01:52 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-29-2017 01:49 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-29-2017 01:45 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ]I'd like to see this actually broken down. I think the ACC is getting punished hard by Virginia having the balls to play anybody anywhere. And thus getting spanked by Top 15 programs from far away every year for like a good solid 8 year run.

I can do that. Broken down by school?

Yep.

OK. Will work on it tonight when I get home to my data. :)

(06-29-2017 12:16 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote: [ -> ]It can be "torn apart" because you took it away from a specific P5 v P5 record & used it to claim that the SEC played more P5 games & thus were undeserving of the reputation of not playing enough P5 teams. The win % isn't reflective on the number of games played. The "per capita" argument shows how you drew your conclusion prematurely & without complete data. The "per capita" argument then also brings in the other power teams that were left out for a more complete analysis. The data you presented only gives us the record of these 5 conferences against each other, drawing any additional conclusions from this would be premature.

Had I used the P5 vs P5 data to claim that the SEC was unfairly maligned for not playing enough power teams, you would have a point, because there have been power teams during the past 19 years that were not in the P5 - mainly Big East teams and Notre Dame.

But, since I limited my claim to the complaint about the SEC not playing enough P5 games, I'm not guilty of that, and my analysis was not premature or incomplete.

(06-29-2017 01:45 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ]I'd like to see this actually broken down. I think the ACC is getting punished hard by Virginia having the balls to play anybody anywhere. And thus getting spanked by Top 15 programs from far away every year for like a good solid 8 year run.

Virginia:
- 2015: UCLA, Boise State
- 2014: UCLA, BYU
- 2013: BYU, Oregon
- 2012: Penn State, TCU
- 2011: Indiana
- 2010: Southern Cal,
- 2009: TCU, Indiana
- 2008: Southern Cal
- 2007: @Wyoming

Pretty sure Cavman got steam rolled in nearly all these games. Oregon was #2 on the road in 2013. Southern Cal was #2 on the road in 2008.

(06-29-2017 12:52 PM)krux Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-29-2017 11:37 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-29-2017 11:03 AM)krux Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-29-2017 10:58 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-29-2017 08:46 AM)krux Wrote: [ -> ]Sure but an explanation of what the BCS was intended to be (two team playoff) is not an explanation of why the power teams of that time frame were not accounted for. I understand your reasoning for it; it's just a weak argument at the end of the day. And that's no big deal. We all make them. If all your arguments were 100% iron clad and bullet proof I'd hope you'd be taking the Barr exam instead of wasting your time on a discussion board.

I've certainly posted my share of weak arguments around here, but IMO this just isn't one of them. Last post, you seemed to be asking why i chose 1998/start of BCS as the time frame, and I explained that.

Now you seem to be asking something else, why all the power teams of that time frame were not accounted for. I've explained that as well - since today's power configuration is "P5", to me it would be interesting to see how these five conferences have fared against each other over that time frame. If someone finds that kind of comparison uninteresting, they are free to ignore it, but I don't see any merit in denigrating that by noting that it doesn't include all games - power or not - that those conferences have played.

If you are interested in how the P5 have fared against all power teams during that time (e.g., the P5 plus Big East plus Notre Dame) or against all teams period (e.g., all power and G5 and FCS), then have at it. But that doesn't make what I was interested misleading, incomplete, or invalid.

I'd read my original post. I asked the same question then and you didn't address it. I also didn't say it was misleading, incomplete or invalid. I just said it's weak. Theres too many ways to tear it apart...as made evident by the other comments in this thread.

But ... I explained it in the last post, and since it is based on what I personally found interesting, I assume you no longer find it weak? That would be like you saying "I am interested in how Notre Dame has fared vs USC over the past 20 years", and me saying "well, since you don't include how they fared vs Michigan as well, that's weak". Silly, right? But that's what seems to be happening here: I say "I'm interested in how five conferences - ACC/SEC/PAC/B1G/Big 12, otherwise known as the P5, have fared vs each other since 1998", and someone retorts with "well, since you didn't include all power teams, such as Notre Dame and the Big East, that's weak". Ridiculous, eh?

I mean, it can't be "torn apart" at all, and no other comments in this thread have succeeded in doing so. Really, you'd have to have some kind of ax to grind, i.e., not be an objective observer, to think otherwise.

No, it's like saying you want to compare how Notre Dame fared vs USC over the past 20 years because that's when they started playing Michigan. Then not addressing Michigan.

No, as I explained to you a post or two ago, I didn't choose 1998 because that's when an AQ/non-AQ (power/non-power) designation was created, i chose it because that's the year FBS first instituted a "playoff", irrespective of what conferences were regarded as "power" at that time.

(06-29-2017 01:00 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote: [ -> ]While the data presented in the OP is not itself an argument, the claim made about the SEC is an argument and thus can be either confirmed or refuted. The data presented is incomplete in this regard and so cannot be used to substantiate the claim. I don't think the common assertion about the SEC is that they're ducking P5 teams specifically, but rather "power" teams generally. By most accounts, this would include the Big East/American up until 2013, as well as Notre Dame up to the present, even though the Irish are not in a conference.

I guess we just have to agree to disagree about the assertion, because I do believe the critique of the SEC has been about not playing enough P5 games, not "power" games generally.

As I replied to one of the Syracuse posters, I do agree that if one is interested in a complete "power" analysis, not just P5 vs P5, we would surely have to include Notre Dame. But still, I don't think I've ever heard anyone critique the SEC for not playing Notre Dame enough. Maybe they should be, but I haven't heard it. And I conceded that if we do include Notre Dame, then the B1G, not the SEC, takes the lead in terms of "most games" versus P5 (plus ND).

The Big East is actually different, because even when Notre Dame has had bad years, everyone has always regarded them as "power". If they have a bad year, it's just viewed as a case of a power program having a bad year, which happens to everyone sooner or later. But anyone who remembers the Big East years, particularly a fan of a Big East team like myself, must know that the Big East was often NOT accorded that kind of respect.

So again, I don't recall anyone ever saying "the SEC is a wimp scheduler because they don't schedule enough games vs the Big East", and the reason for that is because, despite the fact that the Big East was in formal fact an AQ/Power conference for its entire existence, it was simply looked down upon by the other AQ as being unworthy, an on-paper rather than "real" power conference, and , especially once Miami left, there were frequent calls in the media and by fans of other conferences to boot the Big East out of the Power group.

I mean, do you seriously think that, circa 2008, if the SEC had announced it was scheduling 10 more games with Big East teams, and trumpeted that as a significant boost in its OOC scheduling, that fans of ACC, B1G, PAC, and Big 12 schools would have nodded approvingly? No, to the contrary, the SEC would have received criticism and cat-calls for scheduling more vs the perceived "runt" of the AQ litter, the Big East.

Now, FWIW, I always thought that this down-the-nose view of the Big East was unfair, as IMO the Big East did hold its own on the field vs the other AQ leagues. But that view was largely spitting in to the wind, it was not widely shared except among fans of Big East schools themselves.

I also think we have to agree to disagree about the issue of the ratio of games played to opportunities. IMO, as I explained, that would be relevant if there was some external force that gave the SEC more opportunities and say the PAC less opportunities. But there isn't. The SEC has more opportunities to play P5 (or "power" more generally) OOC games and the PAC less because of choices each conference has made. The PAC could have the same opportunities as the SEC, but has decided not to. So to me, it is then unreasonable for the PAC, or some neutral third-party observer - to complain that that the SEC isn't availing itself of more chances when the PAC, by its own choices that limit its chances, has in effect done the same thing. To the contrary, since the PAC has structurally limited its chances, the onus is on it to play a higher % of possible OOC games vs P5 than does the SEC to catch up with the overall number of games the SEC is playing.

(06-29-2017 02:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-29-2017 01:00 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote: [ -> ]While the data presented in the OP is not itself an argument, the claim made about the SEC is an argument and thus can be either confirmed or refuted. The data presented is incomplete in this regard and so cannot be used to substantiate the claim. I don't think the common assertion about the SEC is that they're ducking P5 teams specifically, but rather "power" teams generally. By most accounts, this would include the Big East/American up until 2013, as well as Notre Dame up to the present, even though the Irish are not in a conference.

I guess we just have to agree to disagree about the assertion, because I do believe the critique of the SEC has been about not playing enough P5 games, not "power" games generally.

As I replied to one of the Syracuse posters, I do agree that if one is interested in a complete "power" analysis, not just P5 vs P5, we would surely have to include Notre Dame. But still, I don't think I've ever heard anyone critique the SEC for not playing Notre Dame enough. Maybe they should be, but I haven't heard it.

The Big East is actually different, because even when Notre Dame has had bad years, everyone has always regarded them as "power". If they have a bad year, it's just viewed as a case of a power program having a bad year, which happens to everyone sooner or later. But anyone who remembers the Big East years, particularly a fan of a Big East team like myself, must know that the Big East was often NOT accorded that kind of respect.

So again, I don't recall anyone ever saying "the SEC is a wimp scheduler because they don't schedule enough games vs the Big East", and the reason for that is because, despite the fact that the Big East was in formal fact an AQ/Power conference for its entire existence, it was simply looked down upon by the other AQ as being unworthy, an on-paper rather than "real" power conference, and , especially once Miami left, there were frequent calls in the media and by fans of other conferences to boot the Big East out of the Power group.

I mean, do you seriously think that, circa 2008, if the SEC had announced it was scheduling 10 more games with Big East teams, and trumpeted that as a significant boost in its OOC scheduling, that fans of ACC, B1G, PAC, and Big 12 schools would have nodded approvingly? No, to the contrary, the SEC would have received criticism and cat-calls for scheduling more vs the perceived "runt" of the AQ litter, the Big East.

Now, FWIW, I always thought that this down-the-nose view of the Big East was unfair, as IMO the Big East did hold its own on the field vs the other AQ leagues. But that view was largely spitting in to the wind, it was not widely shared except among fans of Big East schools themselves.

Whether or not either of us thinks the Big East was a power conference is irrelevant because you're defending against a claim based on the majority or prevailing opinion. The SEC is commonly considered to be ducking OOC power opponents, and the Big East/American up to 2013 was commonly considered a power conference like the other AQ ones (even if it may have been the "runt of the litter").

So you're either (1) including more data than is appropriate to defend against the claim, since the P5 has only existed since 2014, or (2) defending against a claim that no one really intends to make: that the SEC is criticized for having played too few games going back to 1998 against specifically the Pac, Big Ten, Big 12, and ACC, but not the Big East or Notre Dame. Critically though, in either case, you're not fully addressing the claim because you're only looking at the absolute number of games against OOC power opponents instead of the relative number of games against OOC power opponents compared to OOC non-power opponents.

Just to be clear, I have no favorites or non-favorites among the conferences or schools. So I have nothing against or in favor of the Big East, the SEC, etc. I'm actually far more interested in the stats and realignment than the sport itself.

(06-29-2017 02:31 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-29-2017 02:15 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-29-2017 01:00 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote: [ -> ]While the data presented in the OP is not itself an argument, the claim made about the SEC is an argument and thus can be either confirmed or refuted. The data presented is incomplete in this regard and so cannot be used to substantiate the claim. I don't think the common assertion about the SEC is that they're ducking P5 teams specifically, but rather "power" teams generally. By most accounts, this would include the Big East/American up until 2013, as well as Notre Dame up to the present, even though the Irish are not in a conference.

I guess we just have to agree to disagree about the assertion, because I do believe the critique of the SEC has been about not playing enough P5 games, not "power" games generally.

As I replied to one of the Syracuse posters, I do agree that if one is interested in a complete "power" analysis, not just P5 vs P5, we would surely have to include Notre Dame. But still, I don't think I've ever heard anyone critique the SEC for not playing Notre Dame enough. Maybe they should be, but I haven't heard it.

The Big East is actually different, because even when Notre Dame has had bad years, everyone has always regarded them as "power". If they have a bad year, it's just viewed as a case of a power program having a bad year, which happens to everyone sooner or later. But anyone who remembers the Big East years, particularly a fan of a Big East team like myself, must know that the Big East was often NOT accorded that kind of respect.

So again, I don't recall anyone ever saying "the SEC is a wimp scheduler because they don't schedule enough games vs the Big East", and the reason for that is because, despite the fact that the Big East was in formal fact an AQ/Power conference for its entire existence, it was simply looked down upon by the other AQ as being unworthy, an on-paper rather than "real" power conference, and , especially once Miami left, there were frequent calls in the media and by fans of other conferences to boot the Big East out of the Power group.

I mean, do you seriously think that, circa 2008, if the SEC had announced it was scheduling 10 more games with Big East teams, and trumpeted that as a significant boost in its OOC scheduling, that fans of ACC, B1G, PAC, and Big 12 schools would have nodded approvingly? No, to the contrary, the SEC would have received criticism and cat-calls for scheduling more vs the perceived "runt" of the AQ litter, the Big East.

Now, FWIW, I always thought that this down-the-nose view of the Big East was unfair, as IMO the Big East did hold its own on the field vs the other AQ leagues. But that view was largely spitting in to the wind, it was not widely shared except among fans of Big East schools themselves.

Whether or not either of us thinks the Big East was a power conference is irrelevant because you're defending against a claim based on the majority or prevailing opinion. The SEC is commonly considered to be ducking OOC power opponents, and the Big East/American up to 2013 was commonly considered a power conference like the other AQ ones (even if it may have been the "runt of the litter").

So you're either (1) including more data than is appropriate to defend against the claim, since the P5 has only existed since 2014, or (2) defending against a claim that no one really intends to make: that the SEC is criticized for having played too few games going back to 1998 against specifically the Pac, Big Ten, Big 12, and ACC, but not the Big East or Notre Dame. Critically though, in either case, you're not fully addressing the claim because you're only looking at the absolute number of games against OOC power opponents instead of the relative number of games against OOC power opponents compared to OOC non-power opponents.

I guess it bears noting that I never said i was defending against a claim that the SEC dodges "power" opponents in the broadest sense, just against the claim that they dodge P5 opponents. You and I disagree about what the actual, popular charge was against the SEC, I do think it is/was a charge related to playing the PAC/B1G/ACC?Big 12. That's because IMO the Big East was often looked down upon as not being a 'real' Power league, such that this probably means that when critics talked about the SEC not playing enough P5/Power teams OOC, they didn't have the Big East in mind. I could be wrong about that, and again, since I limited myself to P5 anyway, it doesn't matter, but FWIW, if we expanded the discussion that way, that's my belief about what critics actually meant, what they had in mind, when making that charge. Were they thinking of Notre Dame? Can't prove it, but IMO probably so. The Big East, especially post-Miami? Probably not.

Second, as I've explained, I don't think that it is critical to look at ratios of games played/opportunities. To the contrary, it could cause us to draw misleading conclusions if we don't recognize why conferences differ in opportunities.

(06-29-2017 02:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]I guess it bears noting that I never said i was defending against a claim that the SEC dodges "power" opponents in the broadest sense, just against the claim that they dodge P5 opponents. You and I disagree about what the actual, popular charge was against the SEC, I do think it is/was a charge related to playing the PAC/B1G/ACC?Big 12. That's because IMO the Big East was often looked down upon as not being a 'real' Power league, such that this probably means that when critics talked about the SEC not playing enough P5/Power teams OOC, they didn't have the Big East in mind. I could be wrong about that, and again, since I limited myself to P5 anyway, it doesn't matter, but FWIW, if we expanded the discussion that way, that's my belief about what critics actually meant, what they had in mind, when making that charge. Were they thinking of Notre Dame? Can't prove it, but IMO probably so. The Big East, especially post-Miami? Probably not.

Second, as I've explained, I don't think that it is critical to look at ratios of games played/opportunities. To the contrary, it could cause us to draw misleading conclusions if we don't recognize why conferences differ in opportunities.

OK, agreeing to disagree sounds good to me.

(06-29-2017 01:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-29-2017 12:16 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote: [ -> ]It can be "torn apart" because you took it away from a specific P5 v P5 record & used it to claim that the SEC played more P5 games & thus were undeserving of the reputation of not playing enough P5 teams. The win % isn't reflective on the number of games played. The "per capita" argument shows how you drew your conclusion prematurely & without complete data. The "per capita" argument then also brings in the other power teams that were left out for a more complete analysis. The data you presented only gives us the record of these 5 conferences against each other, drawing any additional conclusions from this would be premature.

Had I used the P5 vs P5 data to claim that the SEC was unfairly maligned for not playing enough power teams, you would have a point, because there have been power teams during the past 19 years that were not in the P5 - mainly Big East teams and Notre Dame.

But, since I limited my claim to the complaint about the SEC not playing enough P5 games, I'm not guilty of that, and my analysis was not premature or incomplete.

I disagree. Furthermore, to determine if the SEC was deserving of the reputation in question one must also determine the teams played. For instance, Ohio State playing USC is given the same weight as Alabama playing WF. Your analysis not factoring in strength of opponents is another example as to how it is incomplete & premature for your conclusion.

Thank you for doing the research & posting the P5 v P5 record, that on itself is interesting. I think you should've just stopped your conclusions there. With Alabama starting the season with teams like FSU & Tennessee playing teams like VT I think that the SEC has already shed that image anyway.

(06-29-2017 02:47 PM)Nerdlinger Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-29-2017 02:44 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]I guess it bears noting that I never said i was defending against a claim that the SEC dodges "power" opponents in the broadest sense, just against the claim that they dodge P5 opponents. You and I disagree about what the actual, popular charge was against the SEC, I do think it is/was a charge related to playing the PAC/B1G/ACC?Big 12. That's because IMO the Big East was often looked down upon as not being a 'real' Power league, such that this probably means that when critics talked about the SEC not playing enough P5/Power teams OOC, they didn't have the Big East in mind. I could be wrong about that, and again, since I limited myself to P5 anyway, it doesn't matter, but FWIW, if we expanded the discussion that way, that's my belief about what critics actually meant, what they had in mind, when making that charge. Were they thinking of Notre Dame? Can't prove it, but IMO probably so. The Big East, especially post-Miami? Probably not.

Second, as I've explained, I don't think that it is critical to look at ratios of games played/opportunities. To the contrary, it could cause us to draw misleading conclusions if we don't recognize why conferences differ in opportunities.

OK, agreeing to disagree sounds good to me.

Cheers!

(06-29-2017 03:26 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-29-2017 01:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-29-2017 12:16 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote: [ -> ]It can be "torn apart" because you took it away from a specific P5 v P5 record & used it to claim that the SEC played more P5 games & thus were undeserving of the reputation of not playing enough P5 teams. The win % isn't reflective on the number of games played. The "per capita" argument shows how you drew your conclusion prematurely & without complete data. The "per capita" argument then also brings in the other power teams that were left out for a more complete analysis. The data you presented only gives us the record of these 5 conferences against each other, drawing any additional conclusions from this would be premature.

Had I used the P5 vs P5 data to claim that the SEC was unfairly maligned for not playing enough power teams, you would have a point, because there have been power teams during the past 19 years that were not in the P5 - mainly Big East teams and Notre Dame.

But, since I limited my claim to the complaint about the SEC not playing enough P5 games, I'm not guilty of that, and my analysis was not premature or incomplete.

I disagree. Furthermore, to determine if the SEC was deserving of the reputation in question one must also determine the teams played. For instance, Ohio State playing USC is given the same weight as Alabama playing WF. Your analysis not factoring in strength of opponents is another example as to how it is incomplete & premature for your conclusion.

You make a good point about the strength of the P5 teams played. Obviously, e.g., if we're looking at the strength of the ACC's OOC P5 schedule, it's one thing for an ACC team to play Vanderbilt or Kentucky, another to play Alabama or LSU, and yet my approach does simplistically lumps all P5 teams together.

In my defense, I'd say that IMO I'm only using the same simplistic metric that the critics use. That is, I don't think I've ever heard an anti-SEC critic focus on the quality of the P5 opponents the SEC plays, like "SEC teams always seem to schedule ACC patsies like Virginia and Wake Forest, never the good teams like Clemson and FSU". As I've understood it, it's always been a "volume" argument, as in "SEC teams dodge playing P5 teams OOC", without distinguishing the quality of the teams played. So in that sense, my data is valid, because it is pitched at the same level as the criticism, though you and I know that we really do need to distinguish on quality as well.

(06-29-2017 06:11 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-29-2017 03:26 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-29-2017 01:59 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-29-2017 12:16 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote: [ -> ]It can be "torn apart" because you took it away from a specific P5 v P5 record & used it to claim that the SEC played more P5 games & thus were undeserving of the reputation of not playing enough P5 teams. The win % isn't reflective on the number of games played. The "per capita" argument shows how you drew your conclusion prematurely & without complete data. The "per capita" argument then also brings in the other power teams that were left out for a more complete analysis. The data you presented only gives us the record of these 5 conferences against each other, drawing any additional conclusions from this would be premature.

Had I used the P5 vs P5 data to claim that the SEC was unfairly maligned for not playing enough power teams, you would have a point, because there have been power teams during the past 19 years that were not in the P5 - mainly Big East teams and Notre Dame.

But, since I limited my claim to the complaint about the SEC not playing enough P5 games, I'm not guilty of that, and my analysis was not premature or incomplete.

I disagree. Furthermore, to determine if the SEC was deserving of the reputation in question one must also determine the teams played. For instance, Ohio State playing USC is given the same weight as Alabama playing WF. Your analysis not factoring in strength of opponents is another example as to how it is incomplete & premature for your conclusion.

You make a good point about the strength of the P5 teams played. Obviously, e.g., if we're looking at the strength of the ACC's OOC P5 schedule, it's one thing for an ACC team to play Vanderbilt or Kentucky, another to play Alabama or LSU, and yet my approach does simplistically lumps all P5 teams together.

In my defense, I'd say that IMO I'm only using the same simplistic metric that the critics use. That is, I don't think I've ever heard an anti-SEC critic focus on the quality of the P5 opponents the SEC plays, like "SEC teams always seem to schedule ACC patsies like Virginia and Wake Forest, never the good teams like Clemson and FSU". As I've understood it, it's always been a "volume" argument, as in "SEC teams dodge playing P5 teams OOC", without distinguishing the quality of the teams played. So in that sense, my data is valid, because it is pitched at the same level as the criticism, though you and I know that we really do need to distinguish on quality as well.

The way that I view the criticism of the SEC is them playing 1 quality OOC opponent and then 3 cupcakes. If they would have also played a mid to upper level "G5" type of team then I don't think that that perception would have taken hold. I understand the logic behind the SEC scheduling since throughout most of this time period they played the toughest conference SOS but college football is based on perception & not necessarily on reality.

(06-28-2017 06:41 PM)OrangeDude Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-28-2017 05:37 PM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-28-2017 04:43 PM)OrangeDude Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-26-2017 10:32 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ]Here are the overall records for each P5 conference vs the rest of the P5 since 1998, the dawn of the BCS era, regular season and bowl games included.

Note that this includes games played only when teams were in a P5 conference. So, e.g., if in 2000 Alabama played Louisville while Louisville was in C-USA, that game would not appear in this total, but a game between Alabama and Louisville in 2015, while Louisville was in the ACC, would. Also, among the P5, conference affiliation is as of the time the game was played. So e.g. a 2001 game between Maryland and LSU would count as ACC vs SEC, but a 2016 game between the same teams would be B1G vs SEC:

ACC: .......... 136 - 172 ... 44%
Big 12: ....... 142 - 142 .... 50%
B1G: .......... 143 - 175 .... 45%
PAC ............ 140 - 120 .... 54%
SEC ............ 191 - 143 .... 57%

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.

Hail quo!

Interesting, but I do have some concerns about the conclusion you draw from the data.

First, can a bowl game truly be considered a "scheduled' game?

Second, while the SEC total number of games above is greater than many might have thought - is it possible the conclusion you draw from those raw numbers (played more overall games) influenced by the number of opportunities? For example, during the regular seasons between 1998-2016, SEC teams had a total of 904 opportunities to schedule out of conference, whereas the ACC had 832, the B1G had 822, the B12 had 756, and the PAC had 700? And this is without consideration of the SEC simply having access to more bowl games post regular season than the Lesser 3 of the P5 as well as bowl games being played against other P5 conferences than those leagues as well.

Lastly, by excluding ND (which I base upon something you said in a later post), doesn't that significantly reduce the number of contests included for the likes of the B1G (55), PAC (52), and lately the ACC (32) in comparison say to the SEC (8) and the B12 (11)?

I wonder when you take the second and third concerns under consideration if the conclusion you reached would be as accurate? I think it still might be, but the method does at least bring it into question.

Your thoughts?

Cheers,
Neil

Hail Neil!

Good questions, here are my responses:

1) I didn't say that the games were 'scheduled', just 'played'. But concerning that point, one of the big changes that has occurred the last 20 or so years is the rigid contracting of lower-tier bowls. When I was growing up, the only rigid bowls were the Big Four, such as the Rose Bowl pitting PAC vs Big 10. But the other bowls were pretty much all crapshoots, just about anyone could appear in any of them. Sure, there were tendencies, but not rigid contract.

But during the BCS era, almost all bowl games are contracted for, so at the conference level we can regard them pretty much as "scheduled". For example, the Outback Bowl has a contract matching a B1G and SEC team, so from a conference POV, that is pretty much a "scheduled" OOC game vs another P5 for each of them, though there is some chance (e.g., a conference can't fulfill its bowl slots) that the game won't come off.

So I do think that if we are judging how "chicken" a conference has been, it would also make sense to look at bowl scheduling, i.e., is a P5 conference signing contracts to play other P5 in bowl games, or is it "wimping out" by contracting to face G5 opponents? I didn't look at that.

2) I'm not convinced by the "per capita" argument, which to me your "opportunities" argument is a variation of. IMO, that conflates units of analysis. To me, the relevant number isn't 10 (the number of current Big 12 teams) or 12 (the number of current PAC teams) or 14 (the number of current SEC, B1G, and ACC teams), it's ..... 1. Because each conference is itself the molar unit, no matter how many teams it has. That's what it means to compare a conference to a conference. Bottom line is that regardless of chances, the SEC has in fact played 330+ games vs P5 during this time frame while the PAC has played fewer. Maybe it's not the PAC's fault it has played fewer, but it's hard to say the SEC should have played more, when more just means a harder chance of maintaining a high winning %.

Now sure, you can look at it per-capita if you want, and blame the SEC for not taking more advantage of extra opportunities, and maybe there is value in that. But to me it's just another way of looking at it.

Also, and crucially, my main point was about winning %, not "games played", that's why i posted the records and winning %. And for that purpose, "per-capita" has no meaning at all, only gross games played does: because of regression to the mean, it would be unfair to the SEC if it played OOC games vs other P5 at the same rate (per team/capita) as a smaller conference.

Lastly, the criticism I was countering was the notion that the SEC doesn't play enough P5 opponents. Not power opponents (which would have to include Notre Dame, as per your third point above), but P5 opponents. Which to me, is the criticism I most frequently hear leveled. I've never heard anyone say "the SEC is at an advantage because they don't play Notre Dame very much but the B1G does". Maybe people should be saying that, as your numbers indicate that clearly the B1G does play a lot more games vs Notre Dame. And IMO that's a good point: If we are talking about "games vs Power opponents", not just "P5", then yes, the B1G clearly moves past the SEC on that metric.

But believe it or not, my point here wasn't to make a strong claim that the SEC is #1 in terms of even playing P5 opponents, it really was, as one poster said, a kind of "aside" point to dampen the extra criticism it seems to get about that. The popular view is that the SEC is way out of line in playing non-P5.

Good reply.

We will have to agree to disagree on the "per capita" argument, since if one has more opportunities then isn't it more likely the result will be numerically having played more P5 games?

Yes it is, but ... why is that somehow a bad thing? It still adds up to a conference playing more OOC/P5 games during a given time, which they should get credit for doing.

IMO, we also have to ask about the source of those differing opportunities. It would be one thing if, e.g., the PAC wanted as many opportunities to play other P5 as the SEC, but some arbitrary entity, such as the NCAA, stopped it from doing so. In that case, because the system was rigged to give the SEC more chances but preventing a PAC that also wanted more chance from having them, it might make sense to look at per-capita in order to hold the SEC accountable for taking advantage of those extra chances. At the very least, we couldn't blame the PAC for not playing as many such games, because they weren't allowed to play them.

But in fact, that's not the case, the reasons that the SEC has had more chances than the PAC to schedule OOC/P5 are entirely under each conference's control and therefore reflect decisions each conference has made. The PAC could have had the same # of chances as the SEC - it could add more members, or sign more bowl deals vs P5, or reduce the # of conference games. But it has chosen not to do those things. So to me, it would e.g. be disingenuous for the PAC, which for reasons of its own choosing has limited its chances to play OOC/P5 games than the SEC, which for reasons of its own choosing has more chances, to criticize the SEC for not taking more advantage of its more chances.