BEANO ON UCLA/USC: UCLA 42, USC 35.
For those of you who don’t subscribe to ESPN Insider, Beano just called a 42-35 UCLA victory. We TOLD you he was mad.
For those of you who don’t subscribe to ESPN Insider, Beano just called a 42-35 UCLA victory. We TOLD you he was mad.
Orson Swindle and Stranko Montana are two men pushing thirty who should know better than to run a college football blog, but evidently don't. Both graduated from the University of Florida, and both agree that college football is far too important to be left to the professionals.
Comments? Questions? Long strings of profanities directed at something we said? Please send your comments to harumphharumph -a- yahoo -dot- com. Please direct all tailgating photos and stories to edsbsfans -a- gmail -dot- com.
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Oct | Dec » | |||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |||
©2008 EveryDayShouldBeSaturday.com - Privacy Policy
EDSBS is proudly powered by WordPress
The page was generated in 0.619 seconds with 29 queries.
Loading ...
33
Anybody bother to tell Beano that Gary Beban isn’t playing tomorrow?
Comment by Nate — December 3, 2005 @ 4:58 am
32
Okay, table formatting not quite working, one more try:
|||||||Big 10|SEC|Pac-10|ACC |Big-East| Big 12
Big 10| XXX |.511| .518|.637 | .679 |||.599
SEC||||.489 |XXX | .608|.541 | .623 |||.506
Pac-10|.482 |.392| XXX |.537 | .506 |||.437
ACC |||.363 |.459| .463| XXX | .580 |||.522
Big-Es|.321 |.377| .494|.420 | XXX |||.500
Big 12|.401 |.494| .563|.478 |.500 ||||XXX
Comment by RowdyRoddyPiper — December 2, 2005 @ 3:43 pm
31
Conference dominance can always be debated. O’Doyle Rules!! O’Doyle Rules!! O’Doyle Rules!! It’s not always going to be a fruitful debate but whatever.
If we go to the numbers and at this point, taking them for what they are, conference by conference in their current formations (ie. not adjusting pre 1993 PSU from the big 10, ignoring the fact that the big 12 was not in existance for much of history, turning a blind eye to the dust bowl style flight of good teams from the big east, etc.) and analyzing BCS conferences only, it becomes very difficult to say that any one conference dominates all others. To-Wit:
Big 10 SEC Pac-10 ACC Big-East Big 12
Big 10 XXX .511 .518 .637 .679 .599
SEC .489 XXX .608 .541 .623 .506
Pac-10 .482 .392 XXX .537 .506 .437
ACC .363 .459 .463 XXX .580 .522
Big-East .321 .377 .494 .420 XXX .500
Big 12 .401 .494 .563 .478 .500 XXX
I think it does become readily apparent that not all BCS conferences are created equal, and some people should be concerned…very concerned that the BCS won’t renew the automatic bid (agian Pitt fans, I’m looking at you). The SEC and Big Ten, historically are be better against other conferences than the others. The Big 10 has a slight edge in heads up, but it’s really too close to draw much of a conclusion.
Just to clarify, these are based on the records of the teams that make up the conference as of TODAY. I don’t really have the inclination to go out and sort this out by historical alignments and I’m not sure that this approach makes things any less valid. This also includes all teams from the conference, not just the best teams in a particular conference. It should be evident that the best teams in a particular conference should post winning records against all of their opponents, conference or non.
Comment by RowdyRoddyPiper — December 2, 2005 @ 3:36 pm
30
Yawn.
Comment by Plowhand — December 2, 2005 @ 1:13 pm
29
Of course you can debate it. That’s what we’re doing. Who are you to say what CANNOT be debated, especially when you trot unbelievably skewed stats to make your argument, as if the second-division teams in the SEC don’t exist? Have another donut, you’re not quite arrogant enough.
If you want to come up with some balanced and comprehensive statistics, be our guest.
Comment by Azher — December 2, 2005 @ 12:10 pm
28
Duly noted. But I clearly stated that I was pulling stats from only those 7 teams that fell into the all time Top 25 ranking. Thanks for double checking. But what you should consider diingenuous is the sensless assertion from the tools like Woogy, who just because they want something to be, they believe it is so. These statistics, both yours and mine dictate otherwise. The original conclusion CANNOT be debated, which I commend you for acknowleging: The Southeastern Conference, while hated by many for it’s success, historically has been dominant over all the other conferences.
Comment by Plowhand — December 2, 2005 @ 11:03 am
27
I went back and did a bit of math like your stats, only corrected a bit for accuracy: let’s see how the SEC’s top 7 fare against the Pac-10’s top 6 in those same rankings (Southern Cal, Washington, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Oregon):
Alabama: 12-5-1
Tennessee: 8-9-3
LSU: 4-3-0
UGA: 5-4-0
Auburn: 1-2-0
Florida: 6-4-1
Arkansas: 2-4-1
Total: 38-31-6
In other words, still better (which I have said before, that the SEC is indeed one of the country’s best conferences), but not by NEARLY the same margin. 20 of the SEC’s top 7’s victories against the Pac-10 came against the Pac’s worst 4 teams, and only 2 of their losses did. This is unsurprising, but proves my point: your statistics were flawed..
Comment by Underbruin — December 2, 2005 @ 1:32 am
26
While I believe the SEC has had success against other conferences, your statistics, too, are flawed Plowhand. There are 12 teams in the SEC, not 7 - you’re taking the conference head-to-head stats of the top half of the SEC, against the entirety of all the other major conferences. That’s awfully disingenuous, because without going through year-by-year and seeing who each of those wins and losses were to means much less.
An example: UCLA is 11-12-3 against the whole of the SEC, and out of those 26 games 25 were played against your top 7 teams there (they went 1-0 vs. Vandy, so they’re 10-12-3 against the rest of the ). Oregon State, a perennial doormat except for a handful of years in the 90s, though, is 0-11-1 against the SEC as a whole (with all of those games except a pair of losses coming against teams in your top 7 list as well). Your numbers are significantly inflated because you’re looking at how the SEC’s best teams do against both the best AND the worst of everybody else.
Comment by Underbruin — December 2, 2005 @ 1:20 am