SEC Bias

[ZooCougar]

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.

Our team is terrible. I really could not care less at the moment.

 

[RMoore1999]

Rutgers v. South Carolina, nuetral field, next week. Score?

 

[phillionaire]

if you think rutgers is better than south carolina you're delusional

 

[uconnfan68]

if you think rutgers is better than south carolina you're delusional

It wasn't that long ago they said the same about Uconn vs. South Carolina. How did that turn out?

 

[ZooCougar]

It wasn't that long ago they said the same about Uconn vs. South Carolina. How did that turn out?

Do you think this year's SC is the same as that year's SC?

 

[nelsonmuntz]

if you think rutgers is better than south carolina you're delusional

I think the SEC is grossly overrated. No other league is as imbalanced home/away and plays such a large percentage of their games against terrible competition. South Carolina has beaten no one. Mississippi State plays a non-conference road game and barely escapes Troy with a win. These are mediocre teams that get inflated rankings because they have a lot of fans in the stands.

 

[UC990411]

There are too many quotes in this thread that I could reply to with the same statement so here goes...

People who complain about SEC bias in football are just like those who complain about BE bias in hoops. The talent is better, the competition is better, the fan bases are better, the atmosphere is better, the overall product is better. There is no comparing to BE Football and SEC Football, just like there is no comparing BE Hoops and SEC Hoops. We are so far inferior to the SEC in football it is beyond crazy to me that people are questioning it. Take off your blinders. Yeah, Rutgers and Louisville are undefeated, it doesn't mean they are on par with South Carolina, Miss St, Florida or Bama. That's like saying, "Your BMW gets you from point A to point B? So does my Kia, my Kia is just as good as your BMW!" Its delusional and so far out of touch with reality its boarderline insane

 

[nelsonmuntz]

There are too many quotes in this thread that I could reply to with the same statement so here goes...

People who complain about SEC bias in football are just like those who complain about BE bias in hoops. The talent is better, the competition is better, the fan bases are better, the atmosphere is better, the overall product is better. There is no comparing to BE Football and SEC Football, just like there is no comparing BE Hoops and SEC Hoops. We are so far inferior to the SEC in football it is beyond crazy to me that people are questioning it. Take off your blinders. Yeah, Rutgers and Louisville are undefeated, it doesn't mean they are on par with South Carolina, Miss St, Florida or Bama. That's like saying, "Your BMW gets you from point A to point B? So does my Kia, my Kia is just as good as your BMW!" Its delusional and so far out of touch with reality its boarderline insane

There is no way to compare the two leagues because the SEC plays most of their OOC games against low majors at home. That is going to change with a playoff, and I think you will see a much more tightly bunched records and rankings.

The reason SEC hoops stink is because no one cares about it. And I mean NO ONE. Some of these schools draw 4k to conference games, and 1,500 of those are students with free tickets. UConn football getting 30k+ for a game against Buffalo in a lost season is very impressive by comparison.

 

[phillionaire]

I think the SEC is grossly overrated. No other league is as imbalanced home/away and plays such a large percentage of their games against terrible competition. South Carolina has beaten no one. Mississippi State plays a non-conference road game and barely escapes Troy with a win. These are mediocre teams that get inflated rankings because they have a lot of fans in the stands.

who has rutgers beaten? south carolina demolished georgia. rutgers best win is either temple or a severely depleted arkansas team.

 

[UC990411]

Guys,
Stop just stop. This is an article from 2010 but please read it before making another post on here.

Nelson, See below chart. The SEC has a 12-3 record in BCS bowls, the Big East is 6-4. That means we have 1 more loss than the SEC but 6 less wins. We're also just barely over .500 against BCS teams in Bowl games, but hey we're 12-1 against Non-BCS schools and 8-9 against teams that were ranked coming into Bowl Season! There is SEC bias for a reason, they play BIG BOY COLLEGE FOOTBALL, we are JV in comparison!

http://blog.philsteele.com/2010/07/10/conference-bowl-rankings-past-decade/

RankConfOverallvs BCSvs Non-BCSvs RankedBCS BowlsRec as Ranked
1 SEC 48-31 43-29 5-2 32-17 12-3 28-18
2 MWC 24-14 11-7 13-7 6-3 2-1 11-4
3 Pac-10 31-26 25-18 6-8 16-14 9-3 18-11
4 Big East 32-19 20-18 12-1 8-9 6-4 15-11

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Guys,
Stop just stop. This is an article from 2010 but please read it before making another post on here.

Nelson, See below chart. The SEC has a 12-3 record in BCS bowls, the Big East is 6-4. That means we have 1 more loss than the SEC but 6 less wins. We're also just barely over .500 against BCS teams in Bowl games, but hey we're 12-1 against Non-BCS schools and 8-9 against teams that were ranked coming into Bowl Season! There is SEC bias for a reason, they play BIG BOY COLLEGE FOOTBALL, we are JV in comparison!

http://blog.philsteele.com/2010/07/10/conference-bowl-rankings-past-decade/

RankConfOverallvs BCSvs Non-BCSvs RankedBCS BowlsRec as Ranked
1 SEC 48-31 43-29 5-2 32-17 12-3 28-18
2 MWC 24-14 11-7 13-7 6-3 2-1 11-4
3 Pac-10 31-26 25-18 6-8 16-14 9-3 18-11
4 Big East 32-19 20-18 12-1 8-9 6-4 15-11

So because Florida, Alabama and LSU play in the SEC, it is better than every other league combined. By that measure, the WAC played great football the last few years because it had Boise. And by your link, the Big 10 does not play Big Boy football since they are ranked below the Big East.

 

[UC990411]

If you think the Big 10 is overrated you have a point. The SEC though is not overrated. Just like the BE is not overrated when it comes to basketball

 

[Vowelguy]

This is the beauty of computers. They have no bias based on reputation. (They may have other biases, but none having do with name or conference.)

Looking at composite rankings from 100 formulas, So Car is #10, Rutgers #17.
http://masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm
My count might be slightly off but ~75 of the computers have SC higher, while ~25 have RU.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

The computers do not factor in home and away nearly to the extent they should. Home teams win about 60% of the time in conference games, so it is fair to assume that is the normal home field advantage. Conference schedules are a better measure than all games because the conference schedules have no inherent bias.

On the eyeball test, I think the SEC is the second best conference in college football after the Big 12, but I have no way to validate that because the SEC plays such a home heavy schedule against mostly weak opponents.

 

[Vowelguy]

The computers do not factor in home and away nearly to the extent they should.

There are 100 computer models. You've evaluated a large chunk of them to make such a conclusion?

 

[RMoore1999]

Rutgers v. South Carolina, nuetral field, next week. Score?

if you think rutgers is better than south carolina you're delusional

Delusion is certainly not in short supply on the BY. A vocal minority here actually seems to have convinced themselves that the NBE on nbcsports is ultimately a better home for UConn athletics than the ACC. Some feel PP deserves another year or two to coach up his own recruits.

South Carolina 31, Rutgers 13.

 

[HuskyHawk]

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

How about their losses? You think Rutgers leads LSU late and loses a very close game to a team that has lost (I think) one home game in 15 years? Rutgers loses that game by 20-30.

Yes SC got blasted on the road by Florida, without a top DL and RB. Sadly, they also gave up early, making the score much worse than it really should have been.

 

[ShakyTheMohel]

Let me save you all some time...I once tried discussing this with Nelson a few years ago when he was arguing that the SEC was the fifth best conference. He will point out that Vandy lost to some Sun Belt team to prove his argument. He will ignore who wins championships and who puts the most players in the NFL.

Feel free to continue to argue....maybe its a nice distraction from HCPP talk....but you are wasting your time.

 

[UC990411]

Let me save you all some time...I once tried discussing this with Nelson a few years ago when he was arguing that the SEC was the fifth best conference. He will point out that Vandy lost to some Sun Belt team to prove his argument. He will ignore who wins championships and who puts the most players in the NFL.

Feel free to continue to argue....maybe its a nice distraction from HCPP talk....but you are wasting your time.

I say we keep it going to get as many crazy responses as possible. I haven't heard the "SEC is the fifth best conference" comment yet. That's a classic.

 

[gioff23]

Um, I have no idea why I am jumping in to this argument, but let me say this, I was at the SC-FL game this w/e. If you think RU can hang with either of those teams you are nuts. And if you think SC got blasted, you read the score and did not watch the game. FL did not amasss 200 total yards! What I saw out there was nothing like I have ever seen at the Rent. The talent on that field, the sheer speed of the game, etc. is simply at another level.

I think what RU and Ville are doing is good for the BE, but that's the stuff that gets folks to reconsider whether the BE is the 5th or 6th best conference. When any BE team can run the gauntlet that is the SEC West, they can talk. You want to argue that Oregon is getting shafted by the SEC bias, fine, we can chat about that. Otherwise, please stop this idiocy.

 

[ctchamps]

There are too many quotes in this thread that I could reply to with the same statement so here goes...

People who complain about SEC bias in football are just like those who complain about BE bias in hoops. The talent is better, the competition is better, the fan bases are better, the atmosphere is better, the overall product is better. There is no comparing to BE Football and SEC Football, just like there is no comparing BE Hoops and SEC Hoops. We are so far inferior to the SEC in football it is beyond crazy to me that people are questioning it. Take off your blinders. Yeah, Rutgers and Louisville are undefeated, it doesn't mean they are on par with South Carolina, Miss St, Florida or Bama. That's like saying, "Your BMW gets you from point A to point B? So does my Kia, my Kia is just as good as your BMW!" Its delusional and so far out of touch with reality its boarderline insane

And some years the BE shows their prowess in the NCAA bb tournament and some years the big boys of the BE get bounced out pretty early. That happened two years ago (with one glorious exception) when the BE sent nine teams to the tournament. Pitt is the perennial poster child for going in with a great rep and going down early.

The SEC is the conference to beat in football as far as I'm concerned. But set up a format that allows for them to prove it in a tournament and not on perception alone. The travesty isn't tzznandrew's contention. The travesty is the corralling of the postseason in the manner that leaves fans arguing whose better without the opportunity to see things played out on the field. Run the postseason like the 1-AA tournament. The SEC should still be the best conference and fans will still find something to argue about, but at least things get measured on the football field and not in some person's head.

 

[tzznandrew]

The SEC is the conference to beat in football as far as I'm concerned. But set up a format that allows for them to prove it in a tournament and not on perception alone. The travesty isn't tzznandrew's contention. The travesty is the corralling of the postseason in the manner that leaves fans arguing whose better without the opportunity to see things played out on the field. Run the postseason like the 1-AA tournament. The SEC should still be the best conference and fans will still find something to argue about, but at least things get measured on the football field and not in some person's head.

This is my point, more or less. I've never argued that the SEC was not the best conference. I've argued that we don't really know. We can put money into computer systems and trust those all, but the fact is we discount those when we talk about basketball--and they have a larger sampling to be more accurate there--so I more or less do the same thing here.

Someone said the SEC bias was akin to the BE basketball bias. Here's why that's wrong. Go back to 2010-2011, when UConn won the title but was 9th in the BE. Look at the best OOC wins (by Sagarin, to keep it consistent)

Cincy (Dayton, 85)
Connecticut (Kentucky, 5)
DePaul (Central Michigan, 275)
Georgetown (Missouri, 40)
Louisville (Butler, 22)
Marquette (Bucknell, 93)
Notre Dame (Wisconsin, 12)
Pitt (Texas, 10)
Providence (Alabama, 48)
Rutgers (Miami-FL, 61)
Seton Hall (Alabama, 48)
South Florida (VCU, 37)
St. John's (Northwestern, 50)
Syracuse (Michigan, 32)
Villanova (UCLA, 46)
West Virginia (Purdue, 13)

Compare that what I posted earlier from the SEC. There's some heft here (remember, too, I only picked the best win), as opposed to in the SEC. Marquette has a poor best OOC--they lost to a bunch of good teams (Duke, Wisconsin, etc.)--and obviously DePaul as well, who was terrible. But everyone else beat good teams. You could call them the best conference because they proved it on the court. SEC is the best conference because people watch games and imagine they would win. Would they? Maybe. Probably? We can't really tell, and yet people go around acting like they can.

 

[ctchamps]

This is my point, more or less. I've never argued that the SEC was not the best conference. I've argued that we don't really know. We can put money into computer systems and trust those all, but the fact is we discount those when we talk about basketball--and they have a larger sampling to be more accurate there--so I more or less do the same thing here.

Someone said the SEC bias was akin to the BE basketball bias. Here's why that's wrong. Go back to 2010-2011, when UConn won the title but was 9th in the BE. Look at the best OOC wins (by Sagarin, to keep it consistent)

Cincy (Dayton, 85)
Connecticut (Kentucky, 5)
DePaul (Central Michigan, 275)
Georgetown (Missouri, 40)
Louisville (Butler, 22)
Marquette (Bucknell, 93)
Notre Dame (Wisconsin, 12)
Pitt (Texas, 10)
Providence (Alabama, 48)
Rutgers (Miami-FL, 61)
Seton Hall (Alabama, 48)
South Florida (VCU, 37)
St. John's (Northwestern, 50)
Syracuse (Michigan, 32)
Villanova (UCLA, 46)
West Virginia (Purdue, 13)

Compare that what I posted earlier from the SEC. There's some heft here (remember, too, I only picked the best win), as opposed to in the SEC. Marquette has a poor best OOC--they lost to a bunch of good teams (Duke, Wisconsin, etc.)--and obviously DePaul as well, who was terrible. But everyone else beat good teams. You could call them the best conference because they proved it on the court. SEC is the best conference because people watch games and imagine they would win. Would they? Maybe. Probably? We can't really tell, and yet people go around acting like they can.

And that's the problem. We don't know, we just assume. In basketball, there is at least a modicum of ability to examine relative conference strengths because of all the scheduled games that take place between the various conferences. That's not the case in football. There is limited ability to examine good wins or bad losses as long as conferences isolate the regular season within their own conference and play patsies to complete their schedules. The ratings are too predicated on the original assumptions made by people before the season begins and their is limited opportunity to question those assumptions.

WV was in the national championship hunt until the TT game. That game exposed them. What would happen if the best teams played other power conferences better teams? Would more of them get exposed? We just don't know and that is why this whole system in college football is a sham. They had to change 1-A to FBS because it is FULL of BULL .

 

[businesslawyer]

This is the beauty of computers. They have no bias based on reputation. (They may have other biases, but none having do with name or conference.)

Looking at composite rankings from 100 formulas, So Car is #10, Rutgers #17.
http://masseyratings.com/cf/compare.htm
My count might be slightly off but ~75 of the computers have SC higher, while ~25 have RU.

Which means that USCE has shown slightly more to date, but the two teams have not been separated by a wide margin on schedules with no common opponent and no one should be more than mildly surprised if Rutgers won that neutral field game.

 

[whaler11]

I didn't realize you were so unbiased. Sorry for challenging such a disinterested person.

In a 12 game season, if the result on the field doesn't matter, what does? There seems no way to tell who the best team is.

Also, that's a pretty weak response on your part. So Boise won a game on a Statue of Liberty play. The prognosis was that Oklahoma was going to kill them. Even if it is true that Oklahoma was better, people were wrong that Boise wasn't on the same playing field. Look at the others:

• Utah whipped Alabama 31-17. Seems Utah was better.
• Florida whipped Ohio State 41-14. If you didn't think Florida was better, not sure what to tell you. That was the year people thought the B10 deserved two teams in the title game.
• Texas proved itself at least as good as USC (better, in my books, for winning). These experts you were touting thought they were way better.

So there are examples where people were wrong. Do you need examples of when they were right? Of course sometimes experts and computers and gamblers are wrong.

And I disagree that one single result between USC and Texas proves who is better. Is NCSU better than Florida State?

Do you think the MLB structure awards the World Series to the best team too?

I am pretty unbiased. If I thought Rutgers was better than South Carolina I'd say so. Where Rutgers season is headed couldn't be clearer. They will finish 11-1 or 10-2 and get blown out when they step up in class in bowl season. Hopefully they get to play a credible opponent. Even they must be tired of Kent State and Army by December.

 

[baggerbob]

Computers are only as good as the info put into them, you still have humans creating the programs to compute the information put in. Look at the difference in where all the teams are ranked in the computers, and you can see its based upon different variables according to human being's, otherwise all computers would be ranked the same.

 

[UC990411]

Computers are only as good as the info put into them, you still have humans creating the programs to compute the information put in. Look at the difference in where all the teams are ranked in the computers, and you can see its based upon different variables according to human being's, otherwise all computers would be ranked the same.

So more SEC guys are doing the computer rankings than BE guys?

 

[Mr. Hand]

Computers are only as good as the info put into them, you still have humans creating the programs to compute the information put in. Look at the difference in where all the teams are ranked in the computers, and you can see its based upon different variables according to human being's, otherwise all computers would be ranked the same.

I can agree with this.

There is a myth that using computers for something somehow reduces human fallabilities and increases objectivity. I'm also sure it will remain a myth - only those who've pounded out a million lines of code for projects they know will fail ever see the truth of it.

 

[whaler11]

Computers are only as good as the info put into them, you still have humans creating the programs to compute the information put in. Look at the difference in where all the teams are ranked in the computers, and you can see its based upon different variables according to human being's, otherwise all computers would be ranked the same.

Right but if you take an average of 100 computer programs either they are all biased in the same direction or they give a pretty decent proxy for ranking
teams in an imperfect system.

I for one will always value the opinion of people who make their living determining the point spreads in these games because they take real positions backed by serious money.

I'm pretty sure everyone agrees Florida has a very good team. When the Gators open as only a 4 point favorite over Georgia that means Georgia is an awfully good football team. When your league has Alabama, Florida, LSU, Georgia, Texas A&M, South Carolina and Mississippi State at the top and your bad teams are Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt and Mississippi attempting to argue that another league is stronger is pointless. Rutgers would probably be the 6th best team in the SEC. They might only be the 8th best.

 

[tzznandrew]

So there are examples where people were wrong. Do you need examples of when they were right? Of course sometimes experts and computers and gamblers are wrong.

And I disagree that one single result between USC and Texas proves who is better. Is NCSU better than Florida State?

Do you think the MLB structure awards the World Series to the best team too?

I am pretty unbiased. If I thought Rutgers was better than South Carolina I'd say so. Where Rutgers season is headed couldn't be clearer. They will finish 11-1 or 10-2 and get blown out when they step up in class in bowl season. Hopefully they get to play a credible opponent. Even they must be tired of Kent State and Army by December.

In your own scenario, there's no point arguing with you. Results don't matter, so if Rutgers is 11-1 and plays South Carolina, and then wins--well, it was just one game. That means nothing.

I think there is a clear difference between a USC/Texas game and an NCSU/Florida State game. In the first, two undefeated teams play. Pundits assumed USC was better, but we couldn't tell, and in Southern Cal, Texas won. I'd say that I'd call them the better team. I'm not sure how you determine a better team if not by that.

As for NCSU/FSU--let's see where they are at the end of the year. It's a little early to make a judgment on this. I suspect we'd find FSU will go into bowl season with a loss or two, and NCSU with maybe four. In that case, I think we can say it was a fluke. But if NCSU finishes with the same record? I mean, in a 12 game season you got to go on something...