Comments on: BEANO ON UCLA/USC: UCLA 42, USC 35.

By: Nate

Nate — Sat, 03 Dec 2005 08:58:49 +0000

Anybody bother to tell Beano that Gary Beban isn’t playing tomorrow?

By: RowdyRoddyPiper

RowdyRoddyPiper — Fri, 02 Dec 2005 19:43:05 +0000

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

By: RowdyRoddyPiper

RowdyRoddyPiper — Fri, 02 Dec 2005 19:36:48 +0000

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.

By: Plowhand

Plowhand — Fri, 02 Dec 2005 17:13:01 +0000

Yawn.

By: Azher

Azher — Fri, 02 Dec 2005 16:10:46 +0000

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.

By: Plowhand

Plowhand — Fri, 02 Dec 2005 15:03:44 +0000

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.

By: Underbruin

Underbruin — Fri, 02 Dec 2005 05:32:40 +0000

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..

By: Underbruin

Underbruin — Fri, 02 Dec 2005 05:20:21 +0000

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.

By: Plowhand

Plowhand — Fri, 02 Dec 2005 00:04:22 +0000

“SEC guys are so clannish. What ever on earth you base your assertions of fabled greatness in your conference is beyond not only me, but anyone who knows how to track down stat sheets. PAC-10, Big 10 and Big 12 repreatedly role SEC teams head to head. The only teams SEC members beat on a regular basis are other SEC members and Div II schools.”

Woogy… logic dictates that your entire post is absurd, and you should be kill-boxed in the beanbag for writing it. The SEC’s greatness can be be based on stats and facts. Hater.

Per the College Football Data Warehouse ranking of the top 25 all time teams, the PAC-10 has one school ranked. The Big East has one school ranked. Your mighty ACC has two schools ranked. The Big 12 has four schools ranked. The Big 10 has five schools ranked in the top 25. And the SEC has seven(7) schools from it’s conference ranked. Based on their method of rankings, which is more than anything you have seemed to base your post on, it can be determined that the SEC has had more traditional success than any other conference.

http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/rankings/all_time_team_rankings.php

Now, asserting that the PAC-10, Big 10 and Big 12 repeatedly handle the SEC is also horseshit. Looking at the 7 SEC teams who make up the preceding ranking and their records against aforementioned conference opponents (and for good measure the ‘thunder stealing’ ACC), the all time records break down like this:

SEC team – PAC 10 – Big 10 – Big 12 – ACC

Alabama: 13-5 13-9 12-15 75-33

Tennessee: 13-10 9-4 9-8 100-60

LSU: 10-3 6-4 52-40 29-28

Georgia: 8-4 7-2 12-7 148-91

Auburn: 4-3 6-2 9-15 118-74

Florida: 6-4 7-4 5-6 105-93

Arkansas: 4-4 1-4 161-151 1-7

SEC: 58-33 49-29 260-242 576-386

943-690 or .732% (FYI – That’s good!)

Since you are an ACC lackey you can recant by explaining to me just what exactly is going on with Frank Beamer’s wattle neck. Seriously.

By: Stranko Montana

Stranko Montana — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 22:26:19 +0000

Rick… by pointing out Alabama and Oklahoma I didn’t intend to suggest that USC wouldn’t be in the conversation of all time programs, because they would. As would Michigan… but not in the top two because they just don’t have enough championships.

By: tommy

tommy — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 21:12:31 +0000

Suspect to me. Oklahoma should be higher, I freely admit despite my homerism they have been more consistent than SC. And considering Ivy league schools except for SOS purposes kind of taints the enterprise.

By: Ray F.

Ray F. — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 20:59:04 +0000

On Rick’s assertion that USC is one of the two most storied programs in the history of the sport, take a look at the Collage Football Data Warehouse all time team rankings
http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/rankings/all_time_team_rankings.php Based on their methodolgy USC is no. 3 behind ND and Alabama.

By: Woogy

Woogy — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 20:25:27 +0000

SEC guys are so clannish. What ever on earth you base your assertions of fabled greatness in your conference is beyond not only me, but anyone who knows how to track down stat sheets. PAC-10, Big 10 and Big 12 repreatedly role SEC teams head to head. The only teams SEC members beat on a regular basis are other SEC members and Div II schools. (and a crap Oklahoma team that didn’t belong anywhere near a title gam).

The ACC has stolen your thunder- your days of moaning are only beginning. And boy do you guys ever moan a lot!

By: Tom Mac

Tom Mac — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 19:29:28 +0000

“Just ask USC if they want to play in the SEC and I think we all know the answer to that question” ~ I do remember USC rolling an Arkansas team earlier this year that almost beat the probable SEC champ last week, LSU. I hate USC but it’s as if the SEC is full of great teams, traditionally yes, this year not even close. USC might, repeat, might, lose 1 game this year if they played the SEC schedule. You can’t say LSU is better than USC this year and they lost at home to f*cking Tenn. Where would the losses come from?? Admit it, this is a down year for the SEC, not even close to prior years…it happens in cycles. There are only a handful of solid teams in the country, and outside of LSU and possibly Georgia (with Shockley), none of them come from the deep south.

By: Rick

Rick — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 17:59:53 +0000

Isn�t there another school that leads in All-Time NCAA wins being omitted here?

Holy crap. When you have the combination of Heisman’s and NC’s to enter into a conversation with ND or SC, we can talk. When you’ve spent decades winning conference chapionships by beating one team and then getting your asses kicked in bowl games, decade in and decade out and canceled series with ND twice after crushing defeats, let’s not talk.