2010 SEC and Big Ten OOC football schedules

[Gatorubet]

The fact is, Ohio State played ranked teams away from home in the OOC schedule--SEC teams avoid such challenges like the plague.

And I note that since I raised the issue of ranking, the focus has now changed from "OOC games" to "ranked OOC games". Which is fine. But you are going to have to come up with some reason why playing a highly ranked team in the South - whether home or away - is somehow less important than playing an OOC team out of the region (or even ranked OOC team out of region). I've explained why we'd rather earn home game revenue than not. Our AD would rather they ALL were home games, revenue wise. I mean, from a financial aspect, that is a no-brainer.

Ohio State playing ranked teams away from home in your OOC schedule has not seemed to help you in your post season contests with my conference.* So if the purpose of your doing so is to battle harden you so that you are really the better team than the chicken, ducking-out-of-OOC-game Gators (or fill in the SEC team), then your record against the SEC should reflect that battle hardened toughness in our head to head record. It does not. Which, it can be argued, sort of devalues the entire argument that playing ranked teams away from home in your OOC schedule leads to tougher teams being left out of the BCS and bowls, while pretender SEC teams are let in.

As I've said, if you let the ducking-the-tough-OOC-team SEC folks in, they should, like the ducking-the-tough-OOC-team ACC folks, suck so much that their lack of worthiness is displayed on the field, and that the SEC is finally exposed as the unworthy cowards they really are.

But what we find is that the SEC wins have a .737 winning percentage in BCS bowls. The Big-East is at .500. Big-12 at .438. The ACC has played 12 games, but won only TWO. The Big-10, which you point out as a laudable out of region OCC playing example, has won a little less than half.

Because what I keep hearing is how the SEC teams keep backing into bowl games we do not belong in due to our "ducking" the tough OOC games, and therefore getting in to BCS games due to our over inflated rankings. Good theory. Problem is, we kick everyone's asses in BCS games at a rate far greater than the other major conferences. So the argument that we do not deserve our unfairly high ranking is all well and good until you put on the pads, adjust the chin strap and take the field. At that point, it should make no difference how the SEC got in the back door, it is judgment day for the lazy, OOC game ducking pretenders, who should get theirs from the unfairly lower ranked and truly battle tested teams from the Big-10 and the Big-12. But a funny thing happens on the way to the pretender ass-whipping. It does not happen so much. In BCS National Championship games we are Perfect. 6 and 0. 1.000

So excuse me if I fail to see how the theory of unfair high ranking holds true when you look at how it plays out on the field.

Your point about final rankings suggests that you may not be hearing what posters here, and fans outside the SEC everywhere, are saying. By playing no ranked opponents away from home and out of their region, SEC teams end up with a higher than deserved ranking. This is because they gain 0.5 - 1.0 wins on average every year by avoiding quality OOC games away from home (assuming about a 50% chance of winning away from home, which seems typical in these games).

Of your 12 OOC wins you were ranked higher than the team you beat in all but two games. In your three OOC losses you were ranked lower than the team that beat you in two out of three. 50% chance of winning away from home my ass. The win or loss followed the simple factor of ranking in a rather obvious statistical manner.

I think I see where you may have been about to go with the final rankings argument, but that raises another point.

It's important to remember how the rankings process works. Voters look at the schedules of teams and use that in their initial rankings. Go back and look at sites where voters blog and read their comments, "Well, I don't think team A can get through away games against Y and Z without losing at least once, so I ranked them below B who has a much more favorable schedule for a run at the NC this year." So, avoiding ranked OOC foes away from home affects the initial rankings.

The initial rankings then affect the ongoing rankings, "I think that B is a better team than C, but you can't drop them when they just beat D by 9 points."

Also, teams that play Ohio State would end up ranked lower because they lost Ohio State. I think also that someone showed that teams that play Ohio State have a much greater chance of losing the game following the game against Ohio State, when compared to their record against other opponents. I suspect the same effect is observed for most other big name, typically ranked teams including Florida.

Well, again, the issue is playing OOC games against ranked opponents away from home. If SEC teams don't play the games, then the point you make is moot.

If when we get to the bowl games we win in a statistical manner that supports our allegedly inflated ranking, then the point you make is moot.

No doubt ranking has an effect because it represents a judgment about the relative power of each team but these differences often were small in the case of that list of OSU games and neither team knew what their rankings might be when the games were scheduled.

What the teams did know is that they were taking a higher risk of losing by playing quality opponent away from home. Playing out of your region means that you have to play without the same support in the stands. You must deal with climate and time differences, even cultural differences across some regions in the US. These all have an effect on your performance.

So, the point is that the avoidance of home and home series against ranked OOC teams inflates the rankings of SEC teams. This unfair ranking increases their likelihood of playing in better bowl games, including the NC game. We'd like to see the SEC stop ducking the issue and come play football.

We'd like to see people get off our backs about unfair ranking unless and until they show up in the better bowl games (say - the BCS games) and kick our ass. But since we stand head and shoulders above every other BCS major conference in our conference winning record playing "in better bowl games", we'd like to see the Big-10 stop ignoring our record of wins on the field in those better games....oh wait. We don't win those because of our skill, we win those because they are held in the South. You know - the same regional advantage that is so much of a determinative factor in the ACC winning so many of their games in their own Southern back yard, and....oh.....yeah.....well, except for that.

Don't get me wrong. Playing away against good teams from OOC is harder than playing bad teams at home. Duh. But I think the real factor is the "good teams" part. Our theory is that our conference is strong enough that our conference is more than adequate to battle harden our teams in preparation for the upcoming off season, and that we are fairly ranked. Yours is that "avoidance of home and home series against ranked OOC teams inflates the rankings of SEC teams", so that the ducking of ranked OOC games caused an "unfair ranking increases their likelihood of playing in better bowl games, including the NC game."

Well, there is a simple way to verify the validity of that "unfairly ranked" issue in the better bowl games, including the NC game. Look at our BCS record. If you do that, your theory is, I respectfully submit, disproven by that record. We are 6 and 0 with BCS NC game appearances by four different teams. What the hell else do we have to do to prove that we are not adequately ranked besides win the game - shut everybody out?

(* Yes, it is a statistical anomaly that I do not throw in your faces at all, or hardly ever - but for this discussion it is something that can be raised as relevant to the discussion and not thrown in as smack - at least the record from 1990, which is the last twenty year period we are talking about. )

 

[jwinslow]

The BCS teams are not usually the biggest problem (though bama was last season). The 3rd-5th best SEC teams are where the inflation lies, and which teams routinely find themselves losing or in a dogfight against so-so (by our standards, not the media) big ten teams. You know, the same teams who ride UF or Bama's coattails as though they accomplished something.

That's where avoiding OOC challenges creates a bit of circular logic for SEC rankings and what happens when a higher ranked team loses.

Folks confuse the SEC's variety with depth. Because a number of programs could win it all, they make the mistake of assuming that those programs are as good as the variety could be, even when the results on the field show otherwise.

We'd like to see people get off our backs about unfair ranking unless and until they show up in the better bowl games (say - the BCS games) and kick our ass. But since we stand head and shoulders above every other BCS major conference in our conference winning record playing "in better bowl games", we'd like to see the Big-10 stop ignoring our record of wins on the field in those better games....oh wait. We don't win those because of our skill, we win those because they are held in the South. You know - the same regional advantage that is so much of a determinative factor in the ACC winning so many of their games in their own Southern back yard, and....oh.....yeah.....well, except for that.

A wonderfully mature response

At that point, it should make no difference how the SEC got in the back door, it is judgment day for the lazy, OOC game ducking pretenders, who should get theirs from the unfairly lower ranked and truly battle tested teams from the Big-10 and the Big-12. But a funny thing happens on the way to the pretender ass-whipping.

Is your goal to outpace the absurdity that you have to endure from other conferences? Is this supposed to be a persuasive approach?

 

[Gatorubet]

The BCS teams are not usually the biggest problem (though bama was last season). The 3rd-5th best SEC teams are where the inflation lies, and which teams routinely find themselves losing or in a dogfight against so-so (by our standards, not the media) big ten teams. You know, the same teams who ride UF or Bama's coattails as though they accomplished something.

I was addressing the exact theory Steve was propounding, the "unfairly ranked" "better games" theory (see my use of quoted language) in addressing the issue. Feel free to agree with me that, yes, in the better games the SEC has unquestionably not been unfairly over ranked. Then we can move on to the point you bring up. It's not so hard Jwins.

Ah yes. The "SEC" issue. Well, they are SEC teams. So they have accomplished something in my eyes. Please don't rehash that now. We feel differently about the conference affiliation, and our respective difference in that is one of the things that I love about college ball - the regional and conference traditions and outlooks different from our own. If we had no differences, then we would lose the enjoyment in arguing with friends about them.

That's where avoiding OOC challenges creates a bit of circular logic for SEC rankings and what happens when a higher ranked team loses.

Our ranking is unfairly high right now because we are on a good run of wins. As you have experienced, a run of bad losses (or perceived bad losses even if that is from overachieving) will earn you a lower ranking. Win, and the arguments from others that you are not that good are not that damn important. Lose, and the arguments about why you are not actually bad strike many as hollow or self serving justification.

The reality is, both high and low opinions are not as accurate as others think, and that winning takes care of most ills.

Folks confuse the SEC's variety with depth. Because a number of programs could win it all, they make the mistake of assuming that those programs are as good as the variety could be, even when the results on the field show otherwise.

If a number of programs in a conference can win a BCSNC within a short number of years, that IS depth. Really, that lack of respect for our accomplishments is what leads me to mention topics that you see as....

A wonderfully mature response

If by mature, you mean that my having to read them gets a little old, then I agree.

 

[buckeyesin07]

If a number of programs in a conference can win a BCSNC within a short number of years, that IS depth. Really, that lack of respect for our accomplishments

 

[jwinslow]

I was addressing the exact theory Steve was propounding, the "unfairly ranked" "better games" theory (see my use of quoted language) in addressing the issue. Feel free to agree with me that, yes, in the better games the SEC has unquestionably not been unfairly over ranked. Then we can move on to the point you bring up. It's not so hard Jwins.

Has the SEC been the best team in the league the last 4 years? Sure. I have a very different opinion on the SEC #2, given the caliber of opponent they've enjoyed. Beating up on a lineup of mid-majors, Notre Dame (including OSU), Cinci is not very challenging.

Shall we move on to my point now about #3-5?

Ah yes. The "SEC" issue. Well, they are SEC teams. So they have accomplished something in my eyes. Please don't rehash that now. We feel differently about the confereence affiliation, and our respective difference in that is one of the things that I love about college ball - the regional and conference traditions and outlooks different from our own. If had no differences, than we would lose the enjoyment in arguing with friends about them.

No, they didn't. They can take pride in what someone else is doing, but they aren't achieving squat. They are simply near greatness. It's like Dallas celebrating after New York won the super bowl.

Rooting for your SEC brethren and having conference pride is fine. We think it's silly when it trumps your own achievements, but I get the mentality. Pretending like they achieved something is completely disingenuous.

Our ranking is unfairly high right now because we are on a good run of wins. As you have experienced, a run of bad loses (or perceoved bad losses even if that is from overacheiving) will earn you lower a ranking.

This hyperbole predated the last 3 NC games. However, a certain conference did turn down ESPN before the SEC hype went through the roof (in 07), who began talks with another mega conference

If a number of programs in a conference can win a BCSNC within a short number of years, that IS depth. Really, that lack of respect for our accomplishments is what leads me to mention topics that you see as....

No it's history. LSU is inflated in the rankings because of what the SEC has done lately, when in reality, they just aren't that good, and were quite bad for most of 08. Ole Miss is given a top-5 ranking because of what programs besides them have accomplished, and so surely they must be another NC contender.

If by mature, you mean that my having to read them gets a little old, then I agree.

So you thought you'd prove your supremacy by outpacing us with nonsense?

 

[BigWoof31]

Trying to sneak a jab in here - but it should be noted that SEC teams HAVE been punished in the past for playing a weak sister schedule.

Auburn lost out on a chance to play for a BCS title in 2004 due to a very weak opening slate of games and they were undefeated.

 

[jwinslow]

Trying to sneak a jab in here - but it should be noted that SEC teams HAVE been punished in the past for playing a weak sister schedule.

Auburn lost out on a chance to play for a BCS title in 2004 due to a very weak opening slate of games and they were undefeated.

Was it unfair that Auburn never had a chance because the NC teams were pre-destined before the season began?

 

[BigWoof31]

Was it unfair that Auburn never had a chance because the NC teams were pre-destined before the season began?

If you talk to Auburn fans (and I try damn hard not to), they might say yes!

After taking a second look at the argument - I think Auburn's problem stemmed from the fact they were ranked in the high teens and low 20's in preseason poll and not being punished for playing two 1-AA teams.

But that's an argument in favor for a playoff and if such a system were in place than nobody would really give a damn about OOC schedules since it would be settled on the field.

 

[jwinslow]

If you talk to Auburn fans (and I try damn hard not to), they might say yes!

The Auburn example came up in a lot of SEC circles in December 06. Of course, they've now distanced themselves from that necessity and can go back to ignoring the tigers

 

[Nutriaitch]

OK you got me I wasn't going to include those because in an earlier post you said you wouldn't count those because LSU actually had Tulane out numbered and the superdome isn't LSU's home stadium, but...c'mon man.

like i said, to me it shouldn't count.
but there ain't a whole ot of difference btween our Tulane and y'all Toledo.

we own this state, and will outnumber our opponents, no matter what stadium in Louisiana hosts the game.

as gator pointed out, there was LSU music and chants at a Saint Super Bowl parade.

don't know for sure, but i'm confident the same can be said for OSU in the state of Ohio.

LSU is 4-1 (2 vs ranked opponents 1-1) in there last five OOC road games so recent sucsess is duly noted.(OSU has gone 3-2 in their last five OOC road games) The real point is, again, these "marque" regular season matchups are definitely lacking. Aside from Texas A&M '91-'95 well...thats my point.

You spelling isn't that bad.

and my only point is that the gap in scheduling is not as big as some are saying (at least when talking about LSU and OSU).

y'all averaged half a road OOC game per year more than LSU did over the last 2 decades.

 

[BigWoof31]

Curious on the feedback on this particular situation:


In 2005 season, UGA had Boise State on the schedule and they came to Athens to open the season. At the time, the Dawgs were applauded for inviting them to play "The Big Boys" and giving them a chance to take down a big team. Well, we beat the the hell out of them en route to an SEC championship.

Now - would this have qualified as a quality OOC game? It was home and appeared to be against an up and coming program.*


*Admittedly, this was before Boise State was Boise State and had gained the confidence of a BCS win.

 

[Gatorubet]

Has the SEC been the best team in the league the last 4 years? Sure. I have a very different opinion on the SEC #2, given the caliber of opponent they've enjoyed. Beating up on a lineup of mid-majors, Notre Dame (including OSU), Cinci is not very challenging.

This is what I'm talking about. We all have a long history of playing in BCS games. Big-10 has been in 21 of 'em, and the SEC in 19. Yeah, some games have been less than competitive, but after more than a decade of games, the mismatches work themselves out through out the various match ups and the multiple teams representing the respective conferences.

I don't give a damn about one game Jwins. I'm talking about 19 of them over a period of time. You can't bring yourself to acknowledge the SEC's demonstrated BCS superiority even when the thing is non-arguable. The best you can do is talk about "best in the league the last four years" , and then get in a slap at the ass-kicking the Gators put on the #3 ranked team in the country. Yeah, they were pretenders. But since the late 1990s, we (SEC) have owned the BCS. You just have no good reason to dispute that, so you continually down play the record.

 

[jwinslow]

Yeah, some games have been less than competitive, but after more than a decade of games, the mismatches work themselves out through out the various match ups and the multiple teams representing the respective conferences.

The SEC's dominance does not predate 2006. Their success does, but the Glendale upset was the beginning of your dominance as a conference. Before that you were very good.

I don't give a damn about one game Jwins. I'm talking about 19 of them over a period of time.

Some games? 1 game? Try the bulk of this decade.

Which of the SEC #2 opponents were equally matched? There wasn't 1 comparable opponent in the last 7 years. You have to go all the way back to Maryland in 01.

You can't bring yourself to acknowledge the SEC's demonstrated BCS superiority even when the thing is non-arguable. The best you can do is talk about "best in the league the last four years"

Were you the best in the league 5 years ago? How about 6?

For someone who trumpets the 4 straight thing constantly, it's rather ironic to be calling me out for listing that streak.

and then get in a slap at the ass-kicking the Gators put on the #3 ranked team in the country. Yeah, they were pretenders.

That's not a very good rebuttal.

But since the late 1990s, we (SEC) have owned the BCS.

You just have no good reason to dispute that, so you continually down play the record.

No, I'm trying to analyze the teams involved in the SEC hypefest. I think there's a lot of inconsistency in the prestige & rankings of those not achieving things themselves.

Of the two of us, I'm willing to discuss your topics. When it comes to mine, apparently you are only interested in SEC=awesomerrss1!!!1!! and tossing our jabs about how bitter we are by resorting to weather, 1 game sample sizes and other coping mechanisms.

I guess we're not going to move on to the other subject after all.

 

[jwinslow]

Before 06, the SEC wasn't even putting two teams into the BCS.

09 - Cinci
08 - Utah
07 - Hawaii
06 - Ntre ame
05 - no #2
04 - no #2
03 - no #2
02 - no #2
01 - Maryland
00 - no #2

It's not a 1 game criticism. The caliber of opponent for the SEC #2 BCS team has been sub-par. It's tough to put much stock in those wins proving how good the SEC is. Georgia might have been a top squad, or they may have been a good one who whipped an unworthy opponent. It's not a very good measuring stick, nor was OSU beating up on Notre Dame in 05. Any time you drop 600 yds on someone, it raises red flags on whether that opponent deserved that bowl game.

 

[jwinslow]

Curious on the feedback on this particular situation:


In 2005 season, UGA had Boise State on the schedule and they came to Athens to open the season. At the time, the Dawgs were applauded for inviting them to play "The Big Boys" and giving them a chance to take down a big team. Well, we beat the the hell out of them en route to an SEC championship.

Now - would this have qualified as a quality OOC game? It was home and appeared to be against an up and coming program.*


*Admittedly, this was before Boise State was Boise State and had gained the confidence of a BCS win.

At the time, not really... it's like OSU inviting in Texas Tech in 02. It's a decent win, but not one that will earn bonus points, imo.