Big Ten Football

Sagarin wrote:

That Mallett kid is solid though if he has a line.

He has one heck of a live arm. It appears he has the potential to be a great pro if he lands with a team willing to make a committment to a good O line.

I suppose my use of the word "little" might be a bit strong, but beating Arkansas is not the same as if they just beat the champion of the SEC. It would have been very bad had the Buckeyes lost, but if next year or the year after OSU is in another BCS game against the champ of the SEC and they lose, no amount of recalling the victory against Arkansas will mean a hill of beans to people who think the Big Ten is weak and that Ohio State is always overrated.

Flagpole wrote:

I suppose my use of the word "little" might be a bit strong, but beating Arkansas is not the same as if they just beat the champion of the SEC. It would have been very bad had the Buckeyes lost, but if next year or the year after OSU is in another BCS game against the champ of the SEC and they lose, no amount of recalling the victory against Arkansas will mean a hill of beans to people who think the Big Ten is weak and that Ohio State is always overrated.

I guess we'll always have the "Well, they weren't playing Auburn," or "Let's see them beat 'Bama!" or "Well, that team isn't even a top SEC" comments from the diehard SEC good ole boys, who would scream SEC dominance regardless of contrary evidence... but I'm referrring to the seemingly endless number of fans across the country who've jumped on the "OSU and the BIG 10 are God awful" bashing bandwagon, driven by our good friends in the South. Maybe this victory will help push some of those folks back into rational, objective thought processes, at least as it pertains to Ohio State and its reputation as a national power in CF. We'll see.

Well, obviously I love Ohio State and do believe there is decent competition in the Big Ten (I mean, it's not the WAC or the MAC or something), but the Big Ten didn't do itself many favors this Bowl season losing all 5 games on Jan. 1 and then two other close victories, one by a team (OSU) that was No. 1 at one point in the season.There's no argument right now that the SEC is the best football conference, and some other conference has to step up and start winning some BCS championships for that image, that reality, to wane a bit.I think all this really got going when OSU met Forida for the national title. OSU was No. 1 all season and beat two other No. 2 teams (Texas and Michigan), Florida got in the game by the skin of their teeth with already one loss, and they throttled The Buckeyes. With all the hype surrounding that Buckeye team (Heisman Trophy winner, best linebacker, stellar defensive play all season), and then Florida whacked them like that, man, I can see why the SEC fans went ballistic...and now the SEC continues to win the big game. I actually don't dislike Auburn or Oregon, so I don't have a favorite, but it might be good for college football if Oregon won...the best high school football players ought to consider schools other than the SEC.

I think the location of these bowl games is a factor:

OhST v. Ark-New Orleans, Penn St v. Florida-Tampa, Northwestern v. Tx Tech-Dallas, Mich St v. Miss St-Jacksonville. That schedule is an improvement on site neutrality from years past. What if these games were similarly spread through the midwest/northern states i.e. Soldier Field, Lambeau, Heinz Field? The locations favor the opposing teams style and certainly result in one sided crowds.

This time of year in the NFL is so interesting in part because of the weather: Not so much in the FBS.

Well said. No other conference can match the SEC. Big 12, Pac 10, and Big 10 are (at least as they stand right now) clearly 2nd tier, fairly equal year-to-year, with other conferences lumped together at 3rd tier, though in the past few years you could argue that TCU, Boise, & Utah, et al, have made WAC & Mountain West part of the tier 2 group.

But to think the Big 10 is tier 3 or 4, like some were spouting on Jan 1? Ridiculous.

Interesting... I believe the SEC is generally #1, but Sagarin has the Pac 10 higher, at least before the bowls. You can check out the archives.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc10.htm

Sagarin wrote:

Interesting... I believe the SEC is generally #1, but Sagarin has the Pac 10 higher, at least before the bowls. You can check out the archives.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc10.htm

That's because no extra weighting is given to the top of the conference, and because the Pac-10 generally has a stronger OOC SOS which (rightfully) helps in the computer rankings.

SEC is so good because of their top 3-4 teams each year. Not because their #6-9 teams are so dominant (compared to the Pac-10 et al). And those top teams are what people generally look at when deciding how strong a conference is (with some credit also given to how close the other teams can stay). Also, it helps that the Pac-10 only has 10 teams and the SEC has 12 ... that means the top of the conference is going to play a bigger role in the Pac-10's average and 'central mean' ratings, and also means that the median (WIN 50%) rating is based off of the average of Pac-10's #5-6 teams versus the SEC's #6-7 teams (which is the only fair way to do it IMO).

Take a look at the ratings side-by-side...

SEC - Pac-10

94.47

90.59 - 96.68

89.76 - 94.51

88.07 - 81.65

85.03 - 81.54

80.43 - 80.95

79.82 - 79.12

77.03 - 78.14

73.07 - 75.70

70.23 - 71.63

66.49 - 66.53

59.23

SEC has a clear advantage in that group between the very top of the conference and the middle of the conference, while Pac-10 is just as strong or stronger from the middle of the conference on down (and, this year, at the very top, though that's not usually the case). It turns even more in the SEC's favor, though, when you don't start to factor in the difference in membership count. That won't be an issue starting next year, though, with Utah and Colorado joining the new-look Pac-12.

Agreed.

Ohio Rulz wrote:

Well said. No other conference can match the SEC. Big 12, Pac 10, and Big 10 are (at least as they stand right now) clearly 2nd tier, fairly equal year-to-year, with other conferences lumped together at 3rd tier, though in the past few years you could argue that TCU, Boise, & Utah, et al, have made WAC & Mountain West part of the tier 2 group.

But to think the Big 10 is tier 3 or 4, like some were spouting on Jan 1? Ridiculous.

Those are great points watchout, and I think what I am getting at is there is no completely precise way of comparing conferences that lack parity in terms of number of teams, out-of-conference schedules, and conference championships, which severely hampers the BCS ratings as I've always said (which is why I favor a playoff or plus-one at a minimum). But, I think the Sagarin ratings are about the most objective way to do it. I listed five years there, because the SEC hasn't always dominated; sometimes it's been the Big 12, and, yes, even the lowly Big Ten some six years ago.

Sagarin wrote:

Those are great points watchout, and I think what I am getting at is there is no completely precise way of comparing conferences that lack parity in terms of number of teams, out-of-conference schedules, and conference championships, which severely hampers the BCS ratings as I've always said (which is why I favor a playoff or plus-one at a minimum). But, I think the Sagarin ratings are about the most objective way to do it. I listed five years there, because the SEC hasn't always dominated; sometimes it's been the Big 12, and, yes, even the lowly Big Ten some six years ago.

Yeah, I pretty much agree.