Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The "Power" Conferences

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The "Power" Conferences

    No, I didn't do the mid-air quotation marks when I typed "Power".

    But seriously, where do these conferences fall in line as far as rankings go? This thread wasn't laboriously designed to put down these other conferences- simply to put them in realistic rankings, if that's even possible.

    So here are my rankings:

    1. I guess I would just start by saying that the SEC is a pretty good conference...but just to make sure, I looked up the conference champion's schedule and the runner up's schedule. We all know what those revealed. Even then, I thought Bama and Florida looked pretty good, despite some cupcakes on their schedules.

    2. The Big 12? Outside of Texas, and maybe Nebraska with that awesome defense, I really was far from impressed with their collective performance. I think Oklahoma may have been shamelessly ranked when Texas played them, but I'm reluctant to call that a "win against a ranked team" for UT. So, all in all, how many ranked teams did UT play? 2 1/2. I almost want to say they're tied for 2 with the Pac.

    3. Pac-10 I considered this conference one of the deepest and most consistent, but since their latest Bowl woes in Cal and OSU, I've begun to think that they're not as good as I thought they were (I know HFN won't like that). I still say Oregon beats the Big 10.

    4./5. The ACC? Nothing to talk about here, and in that same breath, since this conference is equally impressive, I'll just mention the Big East. There you go, mentioned.

    6. Big-10 was 1-6 in bowl games last year, and I expect similar results this year. I'm just amazed how the Big 10 makes such a great sport look so boring (except for Jim Tressel's sweater vests).

    So after doing some homework, what I really found was a few draws.

    Bring on the flames, and the rankings, if you're so obliged (throw in the MWC if you want).
    "75-10 the last two games? Is my math right? It's enough to make me reconsider my embrace of science over Christianity."--SU

    "Gentlemen, it is better to have died a small boy than to have fumbled this football."
    -John Heisman

  • #2
    Where do you put the MWC?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Portland Ute View Post
      Where do you put the MWC?
      Tough to say. Probably 3rd?
      "75-10 the last two games? Is my math right? It's enough to make me reconsider my embrace of science over Christianity."--SU

      "Gentlemen, it is better to have died a small boy than to have fumbled this football."
      -John Heisman

      Comment


      • #4
        I have no problem with saying that the conferences have up and down years. I don't judge everything by bowl games determine everything. Utah shows up for their bowl every year and that is to be commended, however many schools and many conferences don't. Many view it as a vacation, or don't like the opponent, or were a win away from being somewhere more prestigious so they don't show up.

        This is my biggest problem with the bowl bloat. If there were only 20 or so bowls Cal wouldn't have even been invited to one, or as most here clamor for a playoff if there was a 26, 24 or 32 team playoff Cal wouldn't have been invited. So I don't think beating them proves anything about conferences, nor do I think that Cal beating Utah would have meants something the other way.

        Was the Pac 10 down this year? Would the top 3 in the MWC contend for the P10 title this year? Yeah, it would have come down to home team and schedule. Would I take CSU, SDSU, New Mexico and AFA against Cal, ASU Washington and UCLA? No. That is why people talk about conference depth. The P10 got 1 week off a year against WSU, the MWC got 4-5 weeks off.

        As for me I don't care if the league was down or not, just like Utah fans didn't seem to care that the MWC sucked in 2003 and 2004.
        Get confident, stupid
        -landpoke

        Comment


        • #5
          Look at the teams top-to-bottom and I agree with Sagarin.

          SEC
          PAC-10
          ACC
          BIG EAST
          BIG 12
          BIG TEN
          MWC
          WAC
          C-USA

          Before people start whining about the ACC and Big East being so much higher than the MWC, consider that 55% of the MWC (numbers 5-9) have lower Sagarin ratings than every single team in the ACC and Big East except for Maryland.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Coastal Ute View Post
            2. The Big 12? Outside of Texas, and maybe Nebraska with that awesome defense, I really was far from impressed with their collective performance. I think Oklahoma may have been shamelessly ranked when Texas played them, but I'm reluctant to call that a "win against a ranked team" for UT. So, all in all, how many ranked teams did UT play? 2 1/2. I almost want to say they're tied for 2 with the Pac.
            There's no doubting that it was a very weak year for the Big 12, and an almost staggering decline from last year's teams.

            Comment


            • #7
              One of the fundamental flaws in rating conferences is that reputation weighs heavy in the evaluation. Because of the success of Florida, LSU and Alabama, the SEC begets a good reputation. Same with Oklahoma and Texas in the Big 12, USC and Oregon in the PAC 10. But the bottom dwellers of these leagues are pretty abysmal, in matter of fact. But if you are a non-AQ conference, the whole league is deemed sub-par, when in fact the Big 3 of the MWC would do well in any conference. But we are weighted down with the reputations of the lesser schools in the conference whereas other conferences don't suffer that same fate. That is what is frustrating about the BCS; because it treats AQ conferences with admittedly lousy teams much better than our conference, even though in head to head competition we generally hold our own (even conference wide).
              Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.
              Albert Einstein

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by John McClain View Post
                One of the fundamental flaws in rating conferences is that reputation weighs heavy in the evaluation. Because of the success of Florida, LSU and Alabama, the SEC begets a good reputation. Same with Oklahoma and Texas in the Big 12, USC and Oregon in the PAC 10. But the bottom dwellers of these leagues are pretty abysmal, in matter of fact. But if you are a non-AQ conference, the whole league is deemed sub-par, when in fact the Big 3 of the MWC would do well in any conference. But we are weighted down with the reputations of the lesser schools in the conference whereas other conferences don't suffer that same fate. That is what is frustrating about the BCS; because it treats AQ conferences with admittedly lousy teams much better than our conference, even though in head to head competition we generally hold our own (even conference wide).
                Wyoming going into Tennessee and winning was an example of that. Wyoming goes on the road and wins, but ends with a lower ranking.

                I'ts all a lot of self-fulfilling gobblety-gook when it comes to the BCS, SOS rankings and Sagarin rankings. It's ALL based on the presumption that some conferences are "just better" than others when reality is you have the ACC bottom dwellers dropping games AT HOME to DIAA schools. Yet, those ACC teams end up with better SOS and Sagarin rankings because they play in more "prestigious" leagues.

                It's a no-win situation for the MWC.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Portland Ute View Post
                  Wyoming going into Tennessee and winning was an example of that. Wyoming goes on the road and wins, but ends with a lower ranking.

                  I'ts all a lot of self-fulfilling gobblety-gook when it comes to the BCS, SOS rankings and Sagarin rankings. It's ALL based on the presumption that some conferences are "just better" than others when reality is you have the ACC bottom dwellers dropping games AT HOME to DIAA schools. Yet, those ACC teams end up with better SOS and Sagarin rankings because they play in more "prestigious" leagues.

                  It's a no-win situation for the MWC.
                  Sagarin doesn't give a crap about what conference the team plays in. That's silly.
                  At least the Big Ten went after a big-time addition in Nebraska; the Pac-10 wanted a game so badly, it added Utah
                  -Berry Trammel, 12/3/10

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by ERCougar View Post
                    Sagarin doesn't give a crap about what conference the team plays in. That's silly.
                    I'd still like to see the parameters for Sagarin's computer program. It is unlikely that every team in the program is rated equally at the beginning of the year, so there has to be some built in bias. That doesn't make it less accurate, but I am still willing to bet that Florida's status in the program at the beginning of the year is going to be given a higher number than North Texas State.
                    Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.
                    Albert Einstein

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by John McClain View Post
                      I'd still like to see the parameters for Sagarin's computer program. It is unlikely that every team in the program is rated equally at the beginning of the year, so there has to be some built in bias. That doesn't make it less accurate, but I am still willing to bet that Florida's status in the program at the beginning of the year is going to be given a higher number than North Texas State.
                      There is a bias built in to the first few weeks, and it's clearly noted at the beginning of the rankings for those weeks. After that, all teams are treated equally.

                      I assume that bias is based on last year's rankings or something of that nature.
                      At least the Big Ten went after a big-time addition in Nebraska; the Pac-10 wanted a game so badly, it added Utah
                      -Berry Trammel, 12/3/10

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by ERCougar View Post
                        Sagarin doesn't give a crap about what conference the team plays in. That's silly.
                        The Sagarin ratings are horrible. USC with four losses is ranked #14.
                        Last edited by BlueHair; 12-26-2009, 02:08 PM.
                        Just try it once. One beer or one cigarette or one porno movie won't hurt. - Dallin H. Oaks

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by ERCougar View Post
                          There is a bias built in to the first few weeks, and it's clearly noted at the beginning of the rankings for those weeks. After that, all teams are treated equally.

                          I assume that bias is based on last year's rankings or something of that nature.
                          If the bias is based on last year's rankings or something of that nature, i.e. reputation, then it merely confirms what I stated above.
                          Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.
                          Albert Einstein

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by BlueHair View Post
                            The Sagarin ratings are horrible. USC with four losses is ranked #14.
                            No, the Sagarin is the bible of college sports. USC really is the 14th best team in the country.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Portland Ute View Post
                              No, the Sagarin is the bible of college sports. USC really is the 14th best team in the country.
                              I like to go by what I see on the field. Maybe Sagarin has found a way to quantify "didn't want to be there", but I doubt it. The PAC 10 champion got thoroughly dominated by Boise St. Who cares about the 8th place teams? They are irrelevant to the argument. The only teams that matter are the best teams. The depth argument is really, really dumb.
                              Just try it once. One beer or one cigarette or one porno movie won't hurt. - Dallin H. Oaks

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X