Category: 
This is a phrase that is often used when talking about the superiority of the SEC as a conference. As in “year-in, year-out, the SEC is the strongest league in college football.”
You hear it a lot. Way too much, in fact.
Now, here’s the thing. The SEC is currently the top conference. It was amazingly good last year and will be amazingly good this year.
But it is not set in stone that the SEC is the default top conference every year, or at least it shouldn’t be. Yet, that seems to be the prevailing opinion among the college football media, year-in, year-out.
To refute this notion, I present to you… the data provided by the indispensable CollegeFootballDataWarehouse.
The CFBDW has a ranking of teams and conferences based on (1) Winning Percentage Points (2) Schedule Points (3) National Championship Points and (4) Big 4 Bowl Points.
For the period 2000-2007, the BCS conferences are ranked as follows (total points is the first bit of data, followed left to right by the previously mentioned totals):
|
1 |
Southeastern Conference |
941.69 |
286.64 |
350.05 |
150.00 |
155.00 |
|
2 |
Pacific-10 Conference |
923.11 |
277.43 |
405.67 |
100.00 |
140.00 |
|
3 |
Big 12 Conference |
860.65 |
285.30 |
330.35 |
100.00 |
145.00 |
|
4 |
Atlantic Coast Conference |
837.01 |
286.51 |
365.50 |
50.00 |
135.00 |
|
5 |
Big Ten Conference |
834.64 |
278.17 |
356.47 |
50.00 |
150.00 |
|
6 |
Big East Conference |
609.62 |
282.21 |
272.41 |
0.00 |
55.00 |
As you can see, the SEC is on top in this decade (941 total points), but it’s not a slam dunk. And, the real reason for the top ranking is due to the SEC having 12 teams to accumulate its points vs. 10 teams for the Pac-10. The Pac-10 (923 points) gets to No. 2 largely on the strength of its schedule, while the SEC is dragged down somewhat by playing the fourth-toughest schedule among the six major conferences. Averaging the total points per team per conference, the Pac-10 averages 92.3 and the SEC averages 78.4.
If you look at the top 25 programs for 2000-2007, another interesting piece of data is revealed:
In the ranking of the top 25 programs for this decade, only 5 SEC teams make the cut. However, the ACC puts 7 teams in there, while the Pac-10 contributes 6. Take this data for what you think it is worth. It certainly isn’t the be-all and end-all of conference rankings, but it is at least an objective method of measuring them. The conclusion I reach: The SEC is a great conference. Great most years. Sometimes, if not often, the best. Always the hands-down best? Nope. Year-in, year-out the best? Not really, not according to the data. So writers, adjust accordingly. |
Comments
This entry was posted on Thursday, August 7th, 2008 at 6:49 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Interesting way to look at it..ACC has 7 in the top 25 whereas the SEC only has 5, cute. How about the SEC has five in the top 15 whereas the ACC only has 3? It’s all in how you present the numbers. What really makes the SEC the best conference year in and year out is the quality and distribution of its top teams (11-4 in BCS games w/ 4 ncs by 3 different teams - not including 13-0 Auburn). Georgia could increase that nc count this year. Just for fun, lets say Georgia wins the nc this year, that would mean FIVE different SEC teams would have won ncs in the last 20 years - not including TWO undefeated Auburn teams! Ridiculous statistic, unmatched! I can see how SEC gloating would get a little annoying, but it sure is hard to disagree.
[...] does a little cherry picking with the SEC. If he’d have only gone one click [...]
Keep in mind that three of the seven teams the ACC put in the top 25 in your last chart weren’t even in the ACC from 2000 to 2004. And I’m sure the ACC wishes they had the Miami team from that period rather than the one they have now.
Ok, but that data is inherently flawed because the data come from total record. No conference has as many good teams spread out in their conference like the SEC. Win Percentage Points and National Championship points are skewed. When you’re Ohio State and you get to the big game every year it’s because you have a high win percentage because you play a lot of cupcake teams in your own conference. I’m not picking on OSU (its not their fault their conference is weak) but it’s the reality that the grind of a conference schedule is not as difficult for any conference like it is in the SEC. It’s that ‘grind’ that’s put the SEC as the best team to emerge from the game by beating the “#1″ team (OSU) and take the top spot for the past two years… so if an SEC team can get through the SEC schedule this year adn make it to the MNC, it will do the exact same thing to OSU this year.
How many PAC-10 teams have won a MNC other than USC?
To Rob, did you not notice that the SEC schedule points are only the 4th best in that group? So much for the tough SEC.
Tech and Miami shouldn’t fully count for the ACC, they were Big East members until 2004. The SEC is by far the strongest.
How can you say the SEC is ‘by far’ the strongest? According to this measurement, they are not ‘by far’ anything.
I agree that there are certainly a lot of ways to package the data. Is the SEC the best conference year in and year out? Well, if you went by how many teams from the conferences were ranked, you’d have to say yes.
But is that really an accurate gauge? It’s often hard for me to tell how good an SEC team is because they rarely play anyone of substance out of the conference. Georgia is going on the road to face a ranked team this year (ASU) for the first time in TWENTY ONE YEARS. Are you kidding me? Look at LSU’s non-conference schedule: Appalachian State, North Texas, Troy and Tulane. LOL – there’s not even a road game in there. That’s embarrassing.
And when SEC teams do go on the road against ranked teams out of conference, they generally don’t fare well. Tennessee got pasted by Cal last year, Arkansas and Auburn got thumped by USC, LSU barely beat an average ASU team (and in the process their vaunted D gave up 500+ yards), Bama lost to FSU, Vandy lost at Michigan (but at least they tried)…and the trend goes on.
Go to the worldwide leader site and look at the schedules of SEC teams. See how many ranked teams the SEC plays out of conference. Not very many.
All I’m saying is that while the SEC is probably the best conference, it’s hard to tell just how good they really are when they play a bunch of cupcakes out of conference and then just play each other for the rest of the year.
Interesting article on cbs sportsline by Eric Sorensen on August 6 which grades the OOC schedules of the top 25.
Not Good data. All conferences deserve credit for these matchups with the SEC that I can think of off the top of my head. Teams like Clemson (annually), Georgia Tech (annually), West Virginia, Oklahoma State, USC, Arizona State, South Florida, Florida State (annually), Texas (annually), Michigan, California, UCLA, and even Notre Dame. Don’t ever compare OOC schedules to determine strength of sched. or who is the most powerful. There are only 5 major conferences and none regularly seek prime matchups outside of the confernce regularly. Personally, I feel only 3 of those 5 are even worthy of consideration as the most powerful because they have a conference championship. If you regularly tasted the southern rivalries you would better understand, but you have no perspective. Your favorite team’s next victory over an SEC team means nothing. The truth is in the polls, victories, and championships.
Oh, you
Didn’t LSU absolutely destroy VT last year?
Steve says “There are only 5 major conferences and none regularly seek prime matchups outside of the conference regularly.”
The ACC has consistently played strong non-conference schedules, playing 23 of 48 games against BCS conference teams this year and routinely hitting double digits even in the nine team eleven game seasons.
Challenge: Name the last year the SEC played more non-conference games against BCS opponents than the ACC. You can even include the years the ACC only had nine teams.
The minimum respectable schedule in a twelve game season is nine games against BCS competition.
This season, the PAC 10 plays 10.5 games, the ACC plays 9.9, the SEC and Big 12 play 9.25, the Big 10 plays 9.18, and the Big East slips in at 9.0.
The SEC East has stepped up with 10 major conference games (9.67) but the West is wimpy with only 5 (8.83 - weaker than the Big East).
5 major conferences? Maybe I don’t know what you mean by “major,” and maybe you live on some planet besides Earth like the rest of us, but most people would probably say there are 6 major conferences because there are 6 BCS conferences. The top half of the 1-A (bowl subdivision) teams are BCS (”major”) conferences.
Perhaps you’re not counting the ACC because they’ve sucked this decade? 1-9 all-time in BCS games as well? Still, they’re a “major conference,” whatever that means. They’re a BCS conference, though one of the weaker ones.
And they have a conference championship game. Imagine that!
If any of the BCS conferences hasn’t been up to par lately, it’s the ACC, no doubt. Haven’t won a BCS game this century. Never sent 2 teams to the BCS in the same year. One or two pretty good teams, and a pile of mediocre teams. Year after year. Definitely the weakest BCS conference over the past handful of years. I don’t see much difference between the Big 10, Big East, and Pac-10. Only one great team from each league lately (USC, Ohio State, West Virginia) a couple of good teams, and then a bunch of more or less indistinguishable competition. Then you have the Big 12, which has been, in my opinion quite impressive, with a couple of national championships in the last few years, and routinely has at least 3 or 4 teams in the top 15. At the top sits the SEC, routinely having 4 or 5 teams in the top 15, winners of 3 national championships this century, and widely considered to be the strongest conference over the past few years.
As a kid, such debates were much less discussed. At that time, there was a “Bowl” system, followed by the Polls. Now we have computer rankings and the BCS system.
So what are we really talking about with this conference strength discussion? What we are trying to do is self serving. We are basically trying to say:
“A loss is more forgivable for us. We play in the strongest conference. If you played in our conference you would not have as good a record as you now do, because your conference is weaker. Therefore, we deserve to be ranked higher in the BCS system. Hence we are more deserving to be selected for BCS games, including the national championship game.”
Too, bad really. This is one reason I have been a traditionalist and I don’t support a playoff (I know, a whole different issue). Case in point: LSU 2007 season. This was the first two-loss team to make the BSC championship. I’m not really picking on them, they had a hell of a team, and they demoralized Ohio State in the natty. But I think the perception among voters was that they play in the SEC, therefore, they must have had the strongest schedule. (I did think it was a little whimpy how Les Miles tried to downplay the Arkansas loss, pointing to overtime rules. He should have simply given recognition and congratulations to the tenacity and courage of the Razorback players.)
So my props to the SEC: an truely awesome conference on the field. It should be pointed out that money and politics are involved in cultivating a great program. So then I ask, what’s going on behind the scenes? Can someone give us some figures comparing football budgets to victories. Maybe that’s the best way to judge conference performance.
Personally, I’d like to see some SEC teams play some real out of conference competition. Maybe throw in some AWAY games with that. Check out a team like Fresno State: those guys will play anyone. Okay maybe they’re not the smartest, but you can’t say they’re not putting their ass on the line. Or check out USC (Trojans not Gamecocks). Their out of conferece schedule is Virginia, Ohio State, and Notre Dame (yeah ND is down, but “it’s a rivalry game”). If the SEC would do something like this, and be over .500, then the claim that the SEC is the best conference would be more clearly substantiated.
First things first, the methodology employed by the CFBDW seems to be a little comical, and should probably not be taken too seriously. Florida, better than Texas since 2000? No, not by any measure. Well, except theirs.
Chris: since 1992, when it became a 12-team conference, the SEC is 38-39-1 in regular season road games against the other BCS conferences (+ ND). In neutral site games against other BCS conferences (+ ND), including bowls, the SEC is 60-43-0. In other words, away from home against BCS teams since 1992, the SEC’s record is 98-82-1, and their winning percentage is .544.
No other conference has even been close to being as successful away from home. The closest is the much-maligned ACC, with a record of 103-113-1 and a winning percentage of .477 (the Big 10 is at .441, the Big 12 is at .418, the Pac 10 is at .410, and the Big East is at .384).
If what the SEC is doing on the road is not impressive I would like to know what might satisfy you.
(It is also worth mentioning that this is arguably the weakest period in the SEC’s history, given that SCar and Ark are not exactly world-beaters, and, historically, are probably the 7th and 9th best teams in the conference.)
I think HP’s problem here might be more semantic than anything. When people say “year-in, year-out” I don’t think they mean what he thinks it means. If they meant “the best conference every year” they would say “the SEC is the best conference every year.” Of course, very few people say this, and those that do are die-hard partisans, which every conference has.
Instead, I think when people say “the SEC is the best conference year-in, year-out” they mean that in any given year it is more likely that the SEC is the best conference, and over extended periods of time the SEC is best conference.
For the record, the same thing happens with “Top-to-Bottom.” SEC fans say all the time that their conference is the best from “top to bottom,” when what they are really saying is that there are 6 or 7 great teams that have to battle for a conference title any given year.
I am not sure how “best conference top-to-bottom” would be defined, but I’d assume it would be measured by things like lower-division teams upsetting upper-division teams, which is, relatively speaking, rare in the SEC. And, quite honestly, it is probably a good indication that your top teams are not really national title contenders, and therefore not really a source of too much pride.
In any event, this phenomenon is much more common now in the ACC or the Big East–but no one is going to argue for the superiority of those conferences by saying they are the strongest “top to bottom.” They may have parity, but this isn’t impressive in and of itself if their best teams can’t cobble together great seasons because they are losing to lower division teams year after year.
Solon, good to see you again. Stick around.