I have a question about the SEC and Big Ten

[SouthernIrish]

I eat lunch with the PE teachers (male). One is an Alabama grad and one is a Georgia grad. They have this on going discussion about how bad the Big Ten is and that the SEC is so great. they complain that the SEC beats up on each other and thats why they are not ranked. I asked if maybe the same thing happens with the Big Ten, beat up on each other. They laughed. They said that Ohio State has not played anyone and should not be so highly ranked. I asked who has their SEC teams played out of conference? Pretty easy teams it looks like since I have never even heard of Louisiana Monroe or Florida Atlantic etc

anyway, how do you prove that one conference is much stronger than another conference when they don't ever play each other during the season? I saw UGA play twice this year and Alabama once and they both stunk

 

[KAPLAN]

Amount of players in the NFL. The SEC is alot better than the Big 10. Ron Zook could not cut it in the SEC and is top 3 in the Big 10. The SEC has 3 Coaches that have won the national title, the big 10 has 1. It really is a different level, right now, in the SEC. The next best is the PAC 10. Big 10 is worse than the Big East.

 

[johnnd05]

We went through this ad nauseam last year. Weak OOC scheduling aside, the SEC is pretty damn good. The Big Tweleven flat-out BLOWS right now.

 

[SouthernIrish]

But isn't is about THIS year? If say all the SEC teams had games against the Big East and beat them for the most part then they could claim conference superiority and justify a one loss LSU jumping over USF for the NC title game. But since very few SEC teams have played a Big East team, (and Auburn lost to USF) how can they claim that?

 

[SoCalDomer]

Much like your friends, this discussion can go on forever without agreement.

The one issue I have with the general maxim that the SEC is the toughest conference is this:

People often say "the SEC is the toughest conference to play in," I would say that is only partially true. Much like the other conferences that have more than 10 teams, teams in the SEC do not play every other team in the SEC. Each team plays every team in its division, and two teams in the other division.

Since the SEC west is far weaker than the SEC east right now, those teams in the east have a tougher SEC schedule (not considering non-conference teams).

Take for example Auburn's schedule:
Sat, Sep 1 Kansas State
Sat, Sep 8 South Florida
Sat, Sep 15 Mississippi State
Sat, Sep 22 New Mexico State
Sat, Sep 29 at (4) Florida
Sat, Oct 6 Vanderbilt W 35-7
Sat, Oct 13 at Arkansas
Sat, Oct 20 at (5) LSU
Sat, Oct 27 Mississippi
Sat, Nov 3 Tennessee Tech
Sat, Nov 10 at (21) Georgia
Sat, Nov 24 Alabama 1:30 pm --

The only top teams on their schedule are South Florida, Florida, LSU and Georgia. Alabama is always a big rivalry game, but we'll see how tough of an oppenent they turn out to be by the end of the year, so we'll call them a mid-tier opponent for now, along with Arkansas. After that, it's all bottom feeders in Vanderbilt, Mississippi, Tenn Tech, N.Mex State, K State, Miss State. Every team schedules a few "push-over" games, but most teams don't schedule 6.

Now, compare that with Florida's schedule this year and you have two different scenarios. Almost every team in the east has a really tough schedule (with the exceptions of the non-conf games).

But then you factor in the non-conference games. SEC teams typically play 7-8 conference games and 4-5 non-conference games. For the whole SEC conf this year, 10 teams play Div-1AA opponents, 12 games are against Sun-Belt conf teams (the worst conf in the nation); thats 22 games against D-1AA or Sun Belt schools. 72% of the non-conf oppenents are non-BCS schools.

So, a better statement would be to say, "If you play in the SEC, you are likely to play some of the toughest teams in the nation." (rather than playing in the SEC is the toughest, because any given year, one team might have a cake-walk.)

My suggesstion for every conf, including the SEC is to reduce the number of teams down to 10, so that every conference team plays every other conference team eliminating the need of a championship game. The more teams that play the same teams, the easier it is to compare schedules, wins, and quality. I think this would make it easier to rank the teams for purposes of the National Championship.

Ok, I'm done.

 

[johnnd05]

Nice post, SoCalDomer. The same is true to some extent in at least the Big 10, though: you don't play every team every year, and so (like Wisconsin last year, e.g.) you can occasionally get away without playing any of the conference "big dogs". But the point is well taken.

 

[SoCalDomer]

Nice post, SoCalDomer. The same is true to some extent in at least the Big 10, though: you don't play every team every year, and so (like Wisconsin last year, e.g.) you can occasionally get away without playing any of the conference "big dogs". But the point is well taken.

Right. That's why I think every conference would benefit from reducing the number of teams down to 10; then everyone has 9 conf games and 3 non-conf. The SEC hurts itself every year because the loser of the SEC championship game is probably still a top team, somewhere in the top 5 or top 10. But that extra loss from playing 13 games (where most teams play 12) hurts their bowl berth.

If they aren't going to come up with a playoff system, I think this is the next best way to make sure the team who goes 12-0 is really a top team. If they don't play anyone in common with other top teams, comparing schedules becomes lunch room food fight starters.

Of course my suggestion raises another issue: could ND avoid joining a conference and remain in the mix for bowl games?

 

[SoCalDomer]

You know, it's easy for me to say all that here because none of us are born and bred SEC fans. I wouldn't say this to my brother in law who is a die-hard Bama fan and SEC apologist. My father in law my be receptive to it, though he might disagree.

It's kinda like telling NASCAR fans its not really a sport. Look out, fists will fly.

 

[GoshenGipper]

Each team plays every team in its division, and two teams in the other division.

Not to get too picky since it was a vrey good post, but teams in a 12 school conference play 3 teams from the other division. Although it's not always random, because some are locked in due to rivalry games such as Bama/Tenn, Miami/FSU, Aub./UGA, etc.

Another way to tell are the bowl game match-ups. Usually the SEC is the best conference or at lest in the top two or three, but their not nearly as far and away superior as they'd like to believe. I can remember many cases where teams like Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio State, and Penn State have gone down there in Jan, and beat some very highly ranked and thought of SEC teams like Auburn, LSU, Tennessee, and Florida.

A lot of that has to do with the type of football that is played in each region. The SEC usually has a more finess offense that often falls apart when you smack them in the mouth and play a more physical brand of football. It is also usually possible to neutralize the speed and athletisism of their defenses by running the ball straight at them, because most northern teams won't be able to match them athlete for athlete on the perimeter.

Now after saying all of that usually the SEC has the most athletic teams, and they are usuall followed by the PAC-10, and the ACC but that doesn't alway mean that you are the best team.

 

[SouthernIrish]

maybe these two are just crazy. They also have countless conspiracy theories. Like why Alabama v Tennessee is not playing at 3:30 and has to play the early game. The media hates Alabama for some reason and that is why. Not that Kentucky v Florida is a game with two ranked teams which can decide a lot in the SEC.

 

[kmoose]

Of course my suggestion raises another issue: could ND avoid joining a conference and remain in the mix for bowl games?

With the relative strength of our schedule every year, absolutely.

 

[SoCalDomer]

With the relative strength of our schedule every year, absolutely.

But if conferences followed what I am suggesting, that every conference cut down the number of members to 10, play each conference member and only 3 non-conf games. In order to accomodate some of the teams that have to leave current conferences, new conferences would have to be formed. I think some of our current match-ups would stop.

Of course, its all academic since neither the NCAA or conferences have bothered to call or write yet to get my written version of this wonderful plan.

 

[GoshenGipper]

It'll never happen. They like the money from the conference championship games to much, and you need 12 teams to get a championship game.

It would be more likely that you'll see the PAC-10 poach 2 teams from either the MWC, or WAC. Plus there's already been talk that the Big Ten wants to expand to 12, and they'd probably take one from the Big East, or Big 12, then they would in turn take one from a non BCS conference, and at this point I wouldn't even be suprised if the MWC went into the WAC and took three more teams to get 12 and possibly push for a BSC bid if they could secure teams like Boise St., Fresno St., and Hawaii.

 

[pani_nasz]

SCD - - -

Love your argument, I think it makes absolute sense that everyone in a conference plays each other. Otherwise, how else can you claim your conference champion is legitimate? Question: who do you kick out of the Big 10 to whittle it down to ten teams?

 

[Sureal]

SCD - - -

Love your argument, I think it makes absolute sense that everyone in a conference plays each other. Otherwise, how else can you claim your conference champion is legitimate? Question: who do you kick out of the Big 10 to whittle it down to ten teams?

Penn State belongs in the Big East.

 

[SouthieND04]

Penn State belongs in the Big East.

I disagree. Stylistically, PSU is a Big Ten team, through and through. Linebacker U, right?

Though they all seem to fit in the conference, the one school that comes close to not belonging in my opinion is Northwestern.

 

[pani_nasz]

Penn State belongs in the Big East.

On what basis - - - geography, tradition, or last to join Big 10?

 

[Sureal]

Last to join. No real rivalries in the Big Ten. I say the best one they have is against Ohio State and they don't even play every year. I guess you can count Michigan State as a rivalry...

In the Big East they got Pitt as well as West Virginia. It just would make sense to me. They can renew the Syracuse series (I think they had one). They will also go against Rutgers. To me like I said it would just make more sense.

 

[SoCalDomer]

SCD - - -
Love your argument, I think it makes absolute sense that everyone in a conference plays each other. Otherwise, how else can you claim your conference champion is legitimate? Question: who do you kick out of the Big 10 to whittle it down to ten teams?

I haven't had to deal with that since no one at the NCAA or the conference offices returns my calls or e-mails about my plan. grin:

Ideally you would have teams voluntarily go to other conferences or new conferences to balance them out. If I were a team that really doesn't stand a chance to win my current conference and had the option of going to a weaker conference where i could potentially dominate, I would certainly consider it. The only way to do that though would be to entice those teams by promises that the winner of each conference gets a berth in a good and substantial bowl (remember, money motivates in college football).

Great care would have to be taken to even out the conferences too, so that you don't end up with 8 powerhouses in the SEC.

Ideally, there would be a few top-tier conferences: SEC, Pac-10, Big-10, Big-12, ACC and Big-East. (don't go chewing my ear off that some of these don't belong together. After my changes, they would). The teams for the national championship would be chosen from the winners of two of those conferences.

Then there would be the mid-tiers: Mountain West and WAC. When you shuffle teams around to even each conference out, chances are some of the lower conf's might also qualify for mid-tier status.

Then the lower tier: Sunbelt, ConfUSA and Mid-American.

After moving teams around, we would probably have to create new conferences. Right now, there are 119 teams in D-1. We would probably have to add one to make it 120 and have 12 conferences. This is why I said earlier that I don't know if my system allows room for independents like ND; which is one reason why I still need to work out the kinks. Obviously one option would be to increase the number of independents to 12, such that the independents would be the 12th "conference." (But they wouldn't necessarily have to play each other.)

I would also give the best teams in mid-tier and lower conferences the opportunity to move up, and those teams that annually don't compete to move down. I think teams like Boise, Hawaii and Utah shouldn't have to go undefeated to get a shot at a good bowl game. Moving teams down would give them a chance to compete with other schools too, it wouldn't necessarily be a "demotion". Duke, Stanford, Vanderbilt, Minnesota and others would have a chance to win if they played mid-tier or lower schools. Teams in D-1AA could also have the opportunity to move up to D-1A.

One of the big problems (aside from no one cares what I think) would be breaking up major rivalry games. To keep the SEC from being too tough, you would have to ship some of the strong teams elsewhere, which would mean long, traditional rivalry games would have to be one of the 3-non-conf games or would not be played.