SEC Bias

[tzznandrew]

Why should a 2 loss South Carolina team (one that just got killed, by the way), be ranked ahead of an undefeated team like Rutgers? South Carolina and one impressive win (Georgia)?

There is so much SEC hype that they usually schedule terrible OOC schedule, beat up on the bottom teams (Vandy, Kentucky, Ole Miss, Miss St [usually], Tennessee, Auburn, Missouri [this year]), and then when one of them comes out by beating one or two necessary good teams they need to play, they're suddenly in the BCS title game.

 

[SubbaBub]

Shhhhhh. No one is supposed to know that.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

 

[whaler11]

You think that Rutgers has a better team than South Carolina? It can't
be on resume because Rutgers has gotten to 7-0 by beating literally no one.

 

[tzznandrew]

Take a look at who they have beaten. South Carolina has one impressive win: Georgia. And then you look at Georgia's wins....

South Carolina has beaten:

• @Vanderbilt
• East Carolina
• UAB
• Missouri
• @ Kentucky
• #5 Georgia

Georgia has beaten:

• Buffalo
• @ Missouri
• Florida Atlantic
• Vanderbilt
• Tennessee
• @ Kentucky

 

[whaler11]

Who has Rutgers beaten? Their best win is Syracuse at home.

 

[tzznandrew]

Who has Rutgers beaten? Their best win is Syracuse at home.

In a sport where there are over 124 teams, and you play only 11 regular season games... what do you go by? None of those teams have good wins. They are all marginal at best. But one of them is undefeated. If Rutgers had the same schedule, but was in the SEC, I fail to see how they wouldn't be where Mississippi State is (i.e. ahead of all 2-loss teams). Take a look at their schedule...

 

[emshorts]

cbssports has south carolina raked 10th
http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/rankings/124

 

[whaler11]

In a sport where there are over 124 teams, and you play only 11 regular season games... what do you go by? None of those teams have good wins. They are all marginal at best. But one of them is undefeated. If Rutgers had the same schedule, but was in the SEC, I fail to see how they wouldn't be where Mississippi State is (i.e. ahead of all 2-loss teams). Take a look at their schedule...

If you don't think Georgia is a good win I don't know what to tell you.

Rutgers couldn't have the same schedule and be in the SEC. I'm pretty sure you can't play 6 OOC games against teams in the bottom 50 of FBS and Howard.

 

[geordi]

YOU GUYS ARE MISSING THE POINT> SPURRIER IS A GOLDEN BOY> IF HE IS THE COACH OF SLIPPERY ROCK THEY WILL BE RANKED IN HE TOP TEN

 

[whaler11]

Massey computer rankings of Rutgers opponents:

115, FCS, 79, 56, 94, 67, 76.

Rutgers: 18

South Carolina's Schedule

64, 75, 106, 55, 92, 19, 7, 2

South Carolina: 10

South Carolina lost by 2 at the #7 team in the country - who has maybe the biggest HFA in football. They got buried by #2 on the road when they came in beat up with a ton of injuries.

Georgia, @LSU, @Florida is probably the toughest stretch you can play in a conference without Alabama involved.

Rutgers has held serve against the dregs of college football. The gambling world is salivating to play Kent State this week for a reason.

 

[whaler11]

At least Mississippi State will be tested. While Rutgers is playing Kent State and Army...

MSU has @Alabama, Texas A&M, @ LSU the next three weeks.

The best team Rutgers plays is 29th. The best team they play on the road is 35th and just lost to Toledo.

 

[tzznandrew]

If you don't think Georgia is a good win I don't know what to tell you.

Rutgers couldn't have the same schedule and be in the SEC. I'm pretty sure you can't play 6 OOC games against teams in the bottom 50 of FBS and Howard.

There's a level of "who can tell" with such a small sample size. Georgia has 1 loss, which is against South Carolina. That's the only team they've played that seems any good. Sorry. Not impressed.

To take you up on what you said: Sagarin has rankings of 246 teams (FBS and FCS)
Georgia's wins:
Buffalo (163--behind numerous FCS teams)
Missouri (49--barely top 50%)
Florida Atlantic (157--see Buffalo)
Vanderbilt (62--not top 50%)
Tennessee (46--see Missouri)
Kentucky (93--see Buffalo)

Rutgers' wins
Tulane (173)
Howard (211)
USF (67)
Arkansas (52)
UConn (97)
Syracuse (63)
Temple (70)

Non-conference games: Buffalo (163), Florida Atlantic (157), Tulane (173), Howard (211), Arkansas (52). Only Rutgers played a top-100 team OOC. But, okay, whatever. On average, Georgia's wins have been more difficult (95) than Rutgers (104.7), but not so much that I think it's significant.

Mississippi State is ranked higher than Rutgers. They are undefeated. Their wins:
Jacksonville State (153)
Auburn (72)
Troy State (88)
South Alabama (168)
Kentucky (93)
Tennessee (46)
Middle Tennessee State (116)

Their non-conference is worse than Rutgers (on average they are statistically the same, but Arkansas is higher ranked than anyone MSU played--the others being more or less equally likely victories). Statistically, MSU's overall schedule is weaker than Rutgers (105 for MSU v. 104 for Rutgers). And yet they were ranked sooner, and are ranked higher than Rutgers.

Just for keeping coherent, here is South Carolina's wins.
Vanderbilt (62)
East Carolina (78)
UAB (122)
Missouri (49)
Kentucky (93)
Georgia (21)

I've said wins on purpose. While it does deflate Georgia and South Carolina's numbers, Rutgers could also get killed by the teams that killed them. You you get beat by doesn't necessarily say much about your team. The best win on the board is Georgia. But Georgia did not beat anyone better than a 3-4 Tennessee team. Not impressive.

You said Rutgers couldn't have the same schedule and be in the SEC. Looking at who they beat, Rutgers could easily have the same record as Georgia or South Carolina with the SEC's schedule. And they could have the same "Rutgers" schedule or better and be in it as well--as MSU shows. Sorry, but your argument doesn't hold water.

 

[whaler11]

There's a level of "who can tell" with such a small sample size. Georgia has 1 loss, which is against South Carolina. That's the only team they've played that seems any good. Sorry. Not impressed.

To take you up on what you said: Sagarin has rankings of 246 teams (FBS and FCS)
Georgia's wins:
Buffalo (163--behind numerous FCS teams)
Missouri (49--barely top 50%)
Florida Atlantic (157--see Buffalo)
Vanderbilt (62--not top 50%)
Tennessee (46--see Missouri)
Kentucky (93--see Buffalo)

Rutgers' wins
Tulane (173)
Howard (211)
USF (67)
Arkansas (52)
UConn (97)
Syracuse (63)
Temple (70)

Non-conference games: Buffalo (163), Florida Atlantic (157), Tulane (173), Howard (211), Arkansas (52). Only Rutgers played a top-100 team OOC. But, okay, whatever. On average, Georgia's wins have been more difficult (95) than Rutgers (104.7), but not so much that I think it's significant.

Mississippi State is ranked higher than Rutgers. They are undefeated. Their wins:
Jacksonville State (153)
Auburn (72)
Troy State (88)
South Alabama (168)
Kentucky (93)
Tennessee (46)
Middle Tennessee State (116)

Their non-conference is worse than Rutgers (on average they are statistically the same, but Arkansas is higher ranked than anyone MSU played--the others being more or less equally likely victories). Statistically, MSU's overall schedule is weaker than Rutgers (105 for MSU v. 104 for Rutgers). And yet they were ranked sooner, and are ranked higher than Rutgers.

Just for keeping coherent, here is South Carolina's wins.
Vanderbilt (62)
East Carolina (78)
UAB (122)
Missouri (49)
Kentucky (93)
Georgia (21)

I've said wins on purpose. While it does deflate Georgia and South Carolina's numbers, Rutgers could also get killed by the teams that killed them. You you get beat by doesn't necessarily say much about your team. The best win on the board is Georgia. But Georgia did not beat anyone better than a 3-4 Tennessee team. Not impressive.

You said Rutgers couldn't have the same schedule and be in the SEC. Looking at who they beat, Rutgers could easily have the same record as Georgia or South Carolina with the SEC's schedule. And they could have the same "Rutgers" schedule or better and be in it as well--as MSU shows. Sorry, but your argument doesn't hold water.

If you don't think Georgia is any good Florida opened up -4 against them this week - certainly if they suck that is easy money right?

And take a quick note of MSU's next three weeks. Rutgers hasn't played those three games in their 150 history. Miss State does it over 21 days.

 

[tzznandrew]

If you don't think Georgia is any good Florida opened up -4 against them this week - certainly if they suck that is easy money right?

And take a quick note of MSU's next three weeks. Rutgers hasn't played those three games in their 150 history. Miss State does it over 21 days.

Look. Do I think Georgia is a good team? I think it is likely. Have they done anything to prove it? Not particularly. They started off ranked highly, beat a bunch of nobodies, and then moved really high up. The SEC runs a racket. People think they're good, therefore, they're good.

Best SEC non-SEC wins:
Florida (Bowling Green, 87)
Georgia (Buffalo, 163)
South Carolina (East Carolina, 78)
Vanderbilt (Presbyterian, 241--FCS)
Missouri (Central Florida, 58)
Tennessee (NC State, 48)
Kentucky (Kent State, 81)
Alabama (Michigan, 18)
Mississippi State (Troy, 88)
LSU (Washington, 56)
T A&M (La. Tech, 41)
Arkansas (Jacksonville State, 153)
Ole Miss (Central Arkansas, 127)
Auburn (Louisiana-Monroe, 50)

Best Big East non-Big East wins:
Rutgers (Arkansas, 52)
Louisville (UNC, 27)
Cincinnati (Virginia Tech, 51)
Temple (Villanova, 109)
Syracuse (Stony Brook, 106)
Pitt (Virginia Tech, 51)
UConn (Maryland, 76)
USF (Nevada, 64)

Average Top Non-Conference Win: BE: 67; SEC: 92. If you look at who they played non-conference--and the best opponent they beat non conference, and that only, you'd think the BE is better. Alabama has an impressive win against Michigan. No one else.

This is the problem...start ranked highly, play a bunch of opponents, beat up on the bad teams in your division--especially when there are only a few good ones--and you are suddenly the best conference and grandfathered into the BCS title game--and maybe two teams in the BCS.

 

[Fishy]

Tired of hearing about how bad Rutgers is - they're undefeated and ranked in the top 15.

They can point to the scoreboard and slide a glass of STFU juice to anyone here who wants to run 'em down. They're the '85 Bears compared to the s*** show in Storrs.

 

[whaler11]

Look. Do I think Georgia is a good team? I think it is likely. Have they done anything to prove it? Not particularly. They started off ranked highly, beat a bunch of nobodies, and then moved really high up. The SEC runs a racket. People think they're good, therefore, they're good.

Best SEC non-SEC wins:
Florida (Bowling Green, 87)
Georgia (Buffalo, 163)
South Carolina (East Carolina, 78)
Vanderbilt (Presbyterian, 241--FCS)
Missouri (Central Florida, 58)
Tennessee (NC State, 48)
Kentucky (Kent State, 81)
Alabama (Michigan, 18)
Mississippi State (Troy, 88)
LSU (Washington, 56)
T A&M (La. Tech, 41)
Arkansas (Jacksonville State, 153)
Ole Miss (Central Arkansas, 127)
Auburn (Louisiana-Monroe, 50)

Best Big East non-Big East wins:
Rutgers (Arkansas, 52)
Louisville (UNC, 27)
Cincinnati (Virginia Tech, 51)
Temple (Villanova, 109)
Syracuse (Stony Brook, 106)
Pitt (Virginia Tech, 51)
UConn (Maryland, 76)
USF (Nevada, 64)

Average Top Non-Conference Win: BE: 67; SEC: 92. If you look at who they played non-conference--and the best opponent they beat non conference, and that only, you'd think the BE is better. Alabama has an impressive win against Michigan. No one else.

This is the problem...start ranked highly, play a bunch of ****ty opponents, beat up on the bad teams in your division--especially when there are only a few good ones--and you are suddenly the best conference and grandfathered into the BCS title game--and maybe two teams in the BCS.

You do realize you are also arguing against the average of 40 computer rankings - it's not like it's just human bias. Unless all the programmers are biased in the same way.

I am not arguing that Rutgers isn't good. They have taken care of business to date and they got screwed because Arkansas melted down. I am just saying they haven't done enough to be ranked ahead of South Carolina. They also don't get a chance to prove their worth like Mississippi State can.

 

[tzznandrew]

Tired of hearing about how bad Rutgers is - they're undefeated and ranked in the top 15.

They can point to the scoreboard and slide a glass of STFU juice to anyone here who wants to run 'em down. They're the '85 Bears compared to the s*** show in Storrs.

But besides Rutgers being better than us, there is no on-field result that suggests South Carolina or Georgia is better than Rutgers. And that's what frustrates me. You can denigrate these teams all you want, but until they play on the field, you never know...especially when they don't play anyone outside of the conference.

 

[whaler11]

But besides Rutgers being better than us, there is no on-field result that suggests South Carolina or Georgia is better than Rutgers. And that's what frustrates me. You can denigrate these teams all you want, but until they play on the field, you never know...especially when they don't play anyone outside of the conference.

There is clear evidence that South Carolina is better than Rutgers. It's a sense called 'vision' through a contraption known as television.

There are people who rank these teams for a living. They will tell you with no hesitation that Georgia and South Carolina are better than Rutgers. They have a clear bias towards one thing - making money they don't give a damn about the SEC versus other conferences.

 

[tzznandrew]

You do realize you are also arguing against the average of 40 computer rankings - it's not like it's just human bias. Unless all the programmers are biased in the same way.

I am not arguing that Rutgers isn't good. They have taken care of business to date and they got screwed because Arkansas melted down. I am just saying they haven't done enough to be ranked ahead of South Carolina. They also don't get a chance to prove their worth like Mississippi State can.

Alright. We're not going to agree. I'm not terribly impressed with computer rankings. I think they can tell us all sorts of things, but they're in no way definitive. They way they can be juked is the same way the RPI can: under a certain ranking, all wins are roughly equally difficult, but they're ranked very different. In basketball, anyone ranked under 150 is an easy win for a good team--roughly the same difficulty. And yet 150 is weighted as significantly more difficult as 250, or 200 to 300.

Regardless...look at the wins. South Carolina beat Georgia. That seems impressive. It is impressive from what I can tell. Look at the wins:

52
63
67
70
97
Sub-100
Sub-150

46
49
62
93
Sub-150
Sub-150

I'm not terribly impressed with either team. And neither team has played a beaten more difficult schedule, so far as I can tell.

Look, I'm not impressed by getting beaten badly by Florida. Hell, Bowling Green stayed in the game longer, and lost by less, than South Carolina did. I'm not impressed by losses against good teams. You need to beat somebody.

 

[tzznandrew]

There is clear evidence that South Carolina is better than Rutgers. It's a sense called 'vision' through a contraption known as television.

There are people who rank these teams for a living. They will tell you with no hesitation that Georgia and South Carolina are better than Rutgers. They have a clear bias towards one thing - making money they don't give a damn about the SEC versus other conferences.

Those same people said that Oklahoma was better than Boise and Alabama was better than Utah and Ohio State was better than Florida and USC was better than Texas and....

 

[whaler11]

Those same people said that Oklahoma was better than Boise and Alabama was better than Utah and Ohio State was better than Florida and USC was better than Texas and....

You do realize that every game isn't won by the better team right?

Listen go on in your belief that Rutgers is better than South Carolina and the world is biased. Just try to realize that your opinion is biased and the unbiased disagree with you.

 

[Srqhusky]

These are exactly the arguments we are going to hear in a few years arguing between number four and five. Also having undefeateds not in the national championship picture. Its going to give us lots of blog material!!

 

[whaler11]

Alright. We're not going to agree. I'm not terribly impressed with computer rankings. I think they can tell us all sorts of things, but they're in no way definitive. They way they can be juked is the same way the RPI can: under a certain ranking, all wins are roughly equally difficult, but they're ranked very different. In basketball, anyone ranked under 150 is an easy win for a good team--roughly the same difficulty. And yet 150 is weighted as significantly more difficult as 250, or 200 to 300.

Regardless...look at the wins. South Carolina beat Georgia. That seems impressive. It is impressive from what I can tell. Look at the wins:

52
63
67
70
97
Sub-100
Sub-150

46
49
62
93
Sub-150
Sub-150

I'm not terribly impressed with either team. And neither team has played a beaten more difficult schedule, so far as I can tell.

Look, I'm not impressed by getting beaten badly by Florida. Hell, Bowling Green stayed in the game longer, and lost by less, than South Carolina did. I'm not impressed by losses against good teams. You need to beat somebody.

For the love of God - South Carolina came off Georgia and @ LSU. I understand that you want to look at the Florida result in a vaccum, but you can't. They lost by 2 at LSU at night. LSU has the biggest home field advantage in the country. Not in college football Not in the NFL. They have the biggest home field advantage in organized sports played in the US. They have a HFA similar to Mexico playing soccer at Azteca.

South Carolina has played 3 teams in 21 days that are better than Rutgers has played in 150 years. But get hung
up on the Florida score because someone toyed with Bowling Green.

Please tell me what Rutgers would do
@ LSU at night. Then tell me if it was off Georgia with a trip to Florida the next week. What would the total score be? 75-7? 90-20?

 

[tzznandrew]

Let's move away Rutgers v. South Carolina. Let's look at a couple of top teams.

Best Wins from undefeated teams:

Team A:
15
24
38
56
101
103
sub-150
Top 25: 2; Top 50: 3; Top 100: 4; sub-100: 3

Team B
3
32
36
61
98
115
sub-150
Top 25: 1; Top 50: 3; Top 100: 5; sub-100: 2

Team C
7
8
11
46
62
87
93
Top 25: 3; Top 50: 4; Top 100: 7

Team D
17
37
46
49
52
68
Sub-150
Top 25: 1; Top 50: 4; Top 100: 6; sub-100: 1

Team E
14
17
30
40
53
61
92
Top-25: 2; Top 50: 4; Top 100: 7

When you look at who beat whom, without names, I go

C
E
B (on account of best win)
D
A

Needless to say that this isn't the ranking...and the SEC doesn't hold 1-2.

 

[tzznandrew]

For the love of God - South Carolina came off Georgia and @ LSU. I understand that you want to look at the Florida result in a vaccum, but you can't. They lost by 2 at LSU at night. LSU has the biggest home field advantage in the country. Not in college football Not in the NFL. They have the biggest home field advantage in organized sports played in the US. They have a HFA similar to Mexico playing soccer at Azteca.

South Carolina has played 3 teams in 21 days that are better than Rutgers has played in 150 years. But get hung
up on the Florida score because someone toyed with Bowling Green.

Please tell me what Rutgers would do
@ LSU at night. Then tell me if it was off Georgia with a trip to Florida the next week. What would the total score be? 75-7? 90-20?

Well, we won't know. And you don't either. Considering LSU beat a 3-4 Towson 38-22 at home, I'd wager that wouldn't be it.

LSU has impressive blowouts against North Texas, and Idaho. Washington isn't great, but they did kill them. They also won by 2 at 1-6 Auburn. Do you want to extoll the virtues of them?

Look, you get to denigrate Rutgers for their schedule, but then pretend the SEC doesn't have similarly schedules. Is South Carolina better than Rutgers? Who knows? You don't, although you'd like to pretend you do. I don't. But something tells me that if they played in a bowl, and Rutgers won (a la West Virginia v. Georgia), you'd still be claiming South Carolina was better.