Saturday, July 11, 2009

Which conference is the best?

This stretch of the offseason is pretty rough on us. It is pretty much the worst part of the year, aside from dentist appointments. The only thing college football fans really have left to do are to play video games simulating the sport and argue about it. I have done both. As a result, I find myself catching some guff from my friends (and even my girlfriend!) over some of my opinions. Hopefully we will have the opportunity to explore some of those unpopular opinions here, some of the other crazy opinions of the other bloggers, and some of the commenters’.


The one that gets me in trouble, particularly here in Augusta, is that I do not immediately buy in to the fact that the SEC is the de facto king of the hill because they are the best conference, top to bottom, in the NCAA. They are the best conference at the top, and have been for a few years running. However, I am hesitant to acquiesce to that fact that they are so good that they deserve this pass that the media has bestowed on them.


Before we get into dissecting the conferences, I also want to point out that the out of conference games are not particularly impressive. Auburn missed its change in 2004 because its OOC schedule was so poor. The counter is, of course, the weekly slog in conference is so tough that they don’t need to augment their schedule. I don’t think it is that tough, though; at least, the SEC schedule from any given team’s perspective is no harder than a single team’s perspective in any other power conference. Except maybe the Big Ten.


For the purposes of my argument, I will do some hand waving here and say that the depth in the conferences Big Ten, Big East and Pac 10 is questionable compared to the 12 conference teams without a good deal of support other than there are fewer teams. Each of them has strong teams at the top, of course, but drops off quickly. That’s not really the point right now, and maybe we can discuss this further later. The other two, though, the ACC and the Big XII, can make valid comparisons. In the interest of full disclosure, I am a Clemson alum, but I will do my best not to color the conclusion.


If we take a look at these three conferences and divide them into four team thirds based on where they finished in conference, I think we can see some things shake out.


ACC

SEC

Big XII

VT

GT

FSU

BC

UF

Bama

UGa

Ole Miss

Oklahoma

Texas

Texas Tech

Mizzou

UNC

Miami

Maryland

Wake

LSU

Vandy

Arkansas

So Car

Ok St

Nebraska

Kansas

Colorado

Clemson

NCSU

UVa

Duke

Tennessee

Kentucky

Auburn

MSU

KSt

Iowa St

Baylor

TAMU


The thirds are not exactly ranked within each bracket; the only division is that the top group is the best four teams, the middle the next four, and so on. The SEC’s upper third is arguably the best, as it has 2 head to head wins against the Big XII’s top third (UF over OU and Ole Miss over Texas Tech) and splits 1-1 with the ACC’s (UF over FSU and GT over UGa). However, it is worth noting that 2 middle third SEC teams have wins over ACC upper third teams (LSU over GT and Vandy over BC) and the ACC has one middle third win over an upper third SEC team (Wake over Ole Miss). In the middle, the ACC has a win over the SEC (Wake over Vandy) and the ACC has two bottom third wins over middle third SEC teams (Clemson over So Car and Duke over Vandy). There are a few other matchups where teams in higher ranked thirds beat teams from lower ranked thirds (for instance, Bama over Clemson and So Car over NCSU), but that is less notable; that is the expectation. There is less play against the Big XII from either of these conferences (the only ones I see are Miami over TAMU and Nebraska over Clemson, which really fall in line the way they were supposed to).


For intraconference competition, look at the top thirds. The SEC has three teams (UF, Bama and UGa) whose conferences losses only came from within their own top third. The same is true for the Big XII. Both BCS records were 1-1, while the Big XII’s loss came to the SEC. I think I am prepared to concede that the SEC’s top third is better than the other conferences’ top thirds.


The middle third, though, is where the SEC defenders’ main argument gets tested. Only the ACC had four bowl eligible teams in this group, while the other two had three. Each conference had two wins, the ACC had two losses and the other two had one. The ACC had three teams in the middle third that beat teams in its own upper third (and Wake beat Ole Miss in the SEC’s upper third), while the SEC only had two (So Car and Vandy both beat Ole Miss). Only Oklahoma St beat Missouri in the Big XII in this grouping. I think this shows that the ACC’s middle third is the strongest across conferences.


The ACC also wins the bottom third, pretty clearly, in fact. There are two bowl eligible teams here, where none of the other conferences have any. Duke has a win over Vanderbilt, Clemson has a win over South Carolina, and a reasonable showing intraconference. The bottom thirds in the SEC and Big XII were abysmal.


Let’s break this up in another way. Showing the thirds does a better job in conference than out. If we assign every team in each conference one of six categories -- Elite, Very Good, Above Average, Average, Below Average, Very Poor – we can discuss a little bit of the weekly slog.



ACC

SEC

Big XII

Elite


UF

Alabama

Oklahoma
Texas

Very Good

VT

GT

UGa

Ole Miss

Texas Tech

Above Average

FSU

BC

UNC

Maryland

Wake Forest

LSU

Mizzou

Nebraska

Oklahoma St

Kansas

Average

Clemson

Miami

Vandy

So Car


Below Average

Duke

UVa

Arkansas

Tennessee

Auburn

Kentucky

Colorado

Kansas St

Baylor

Texas A&M

Very Poor


Mississippi St

Iowa St


The thing to point out is that the SEC has the fewest teams in the Above Average category or higher. The argument that you can never take a week off in the SEC is disingenuous, and was definitely so last year, particularly if you are Florida or Alabama. The disparity in team performance was dramatic, and because Florida is so much better than the rest of the conference they can “take games off.” In the SEC’s defense, last year was had anomalously bad years out of Auburn and Tennessee, but even if they were above average per usual, that doesn’t take away from the rest of the bottom of the conference.


The other thing is that this is only a one year snapshot. But by and large, there is fluidity in college football and it is a zero sum game (you cannot have five 10-2 teams in a single conference), and it is rare that you have a division like the Big XII South year in and year out. The SEC East, for instance, will have the best team in the country this year, an above average team, and four teams that are only of local interest.


The “weekly slog” fits more inline with the ACC or the Big XII South, looking at this chart. At the end of the day, though, if you are UGa, there are teams on your schedule you expect to beat, there are teams on your schedule you expect to lose (well, a reasonably observer looking at an UGa schedule), and there are some that are tossups. The number of tossups really determines how competitive the conference is, and how much the conference members “just beat up on each other.” Oklahoma and Texas are expected to win every game in conference except the one against each other. Florida is expected to win every game on its schedule. There is no ACC team for whom that is an appropriate statement.


Sure, Vanderbilt is not the pushover it traditionally has been, and that is good for both the SEC and college football in general. But you cannot say that and not take not of Wake Forest, North Carolina, Missouri, and Kansas. The SEC two or three of the fifteen best teams in the country, but after that, they’re everybody else. The question at the top of this post does not really make any sense.

5 comments:

  1. Left out NC state. Who lost to USC (not to mention ecu).

    ReplyDelete
  2. Not to sound like a dick, but

    There are a few other matchups where teams in higher ranked thirds beat teams from lower ranked thirds (for instance, Bama over Clemson and So Car over NCSU)

    I'm pretty sure I didn't.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What a dick!

    Haha...I tend to agree with this though. I was unimpressed with the SEC last year and felt that the upper tier SEC teams stacked up wins against sub par teams that were given credit as being 'tough' opponents simply due to their conference.

    I don't mean to imply their schedules were cakewalk, but I do believe there is a fair amount of bias because the SEC has been the strongest conference this decade (and for some reason the media considers that enough reason to proclaim them the best going forward). As was stated at the end of this post, college football is fluid, as is each conference, and the performance of a previous year has absolutely no bearing on the next year's performance. The SEC in 2008 was not nearly the dominant conference it was in previous years, I don't think anyone can argue that.

    ReplyDelete
  4. In your "Elite/Very Good/Above Average..." table, you DID in fact leave out NCState, which is what I meant. And the fact is, you explicitly say that this table is more telling for inter-conference comparison than your "thirds" table. So your argument of greatest emphasis dismisses out of hand a 34-0 shellacking at the hands of an "Average" SEC team.

    Beyond that point, however, your second table's delineation of "elite, above average...etc." is subjective, based on perception. And I thought perception is what this column is meant to refute!

    I agree with your ultimate thesis, which is that the SEC in 2008 was given an undeserved benefit of the doubt. But I'm not sure that it is effectively supported by the argument put forth.

    Personally, I would exclude in-conference games completely and argue from there, the basis being that a certain level of stratification is common to any conference, just like there will always be puzzling losses by elites against inferior teams. In addition, such an argument would eliminate those tricky unbalanced league schedules from consideration, which favor some (like Kansas two years ago, which avoided Texas, Oklahoma and Texas Tech, or WF last year, which missed VT, GT and UNC), and screw others (like LSU last year, who played both UF and UGa from the other div.).

    The argument could then look like this:

    The ACC's record against BCS conference teams plus Notre Dame for 2008 was 17-14. The SEC's record against BCS conference teams was 10-10. The Big 12's record against BCS conference teams was 11-12, with 3 of those wins coming against Washington and Washington State, who only barely qualified as "competition" (TIC).

    In addition, the ACC had a winning record (6-4) against the SEC last year. Also, the ACC had a winning record (4-1) against the Big XII last year. Any legitimate tiebreaker in sports history will evaluate head-to-head competition first.

    So, the ACC collectively challenged itself more often than the SEC or BigXII by playing other high-level teams. AND the ACC had a higher rate of success in those games than either of those two conferences. AND the ACC had winning records in head-to-head matchups against both of those conferences.

    Does that mean I think the ACC was the best conference top-to-bottom among those three? Maybe. But these numbers are irrefutable, and an excellent basis for dismantling the assumed superiority of the SEC (or Big 12, for that matter).

    ReplyDelete
  5. True enough, you're right about the chart. I would put NCSU in average as well. There is, of course, some subjectivity involved, but the initial distribution was based on season record. A bowl eligible team was categorized as no worse than average, which might be misleading given the number of bowl eligible teams.

    The purpose of it was to demonstrate in a visible way that there is more to the story than just the numbers, though. UF is supposed to beat FSU. Alabama is supposed to beat Clemson, even if I didn't think so at the time. Wake Forest is not supposed to beat Ole Miss or Duke, "lowly" Duke isn't supposed to beat any SEC team, even if it is Vanderbilt.

    The NCSU/SoCar game kind of fits in the same category as the Clemson/SoCar game, where teams near the middles of their conferences matched up and you could expect it to really go either way (unless you talk to a Clemson fan).

    The purpose was to show that you expect UF, Bama, OU and Texas to be favored against basically any team they face. Towards the bottom, though, SoCar was the lowest ranking team to beat a BCS opponent out of conference, while that was not true in the ACC. Similarly, the Big XII had a poor showing in their below average teams.

    ReplyDelete