SEC Bias: Why the Southeastern Conference Earns More Hype than Other Leagues

The complaining about the SEC has been cranked up to 11 in 2014. People cry they're over-hyped, they get too much respect, and that their conference has now become an echo chamber and self-perpetuating truth wholly immune to losing games to each other.

Link To Original Article

The SEC had a great run, but that last 3 National Champs were all from the Big 10. ESPN sucks.

hot take - they are probably still right. The team talent composite is still directionally correct and they still dominate that.

NDPhilly said:

hot take - they are probably still right. The team talent composite is still directionally correct and they still dominate that.

Click to expand...

Except when the actual game is played

That ranking is entirely set up so ESPN and the SEC can get as many teams in the CFP. So much collusion. Just like last year. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

I saw the writing on the wall last year. Looking at the scores, I was thinking the SEC kinda sucks this year. Nobody would listen. Then the playoff games came and proved it. And they got four scrub teams in over the Irish, who would have beat them all. The fifth, A&M, was actually pretty good, IMO.

Can you beleive it, five teams from thar scrub league and no ND. And the only one that made the semis is because they played each other. And here we go again. I would love an SEC/Big 10 challenge week 1. Or even SEC/ACC.

Pete said:

Click to expand...

A big problem with FPI is that it has traditionally (not sure if it still does) factored in recruiting rankings and some version of "team talent" into the projections. In the era of the transfer portal, that is completely meaningless. Same with blue chip ratio. These used to correlate really well with a team's upside / potential / depth but now anyone can pluck anyone from anywhere and a "2-star" proven G6 all-conference player is worth a lot more than a freshman "4-star" bust.

IrishLax said:

completely meaningless

Click to expand...

completely meaningless might be a bit much. How else to do pre-season power rating besides, don’t do one. Not a defense of FPI, but every power rating worth a cent, even the ones with IU as a Top 1 - 3 team by end of year start with recruiting rankings and phase out.

There is way more art than science now, but the science basically has only one large outlier still. The sample sizes is also so small that I’m sure power ratings in general, not speaking about FPI, will improve over time with production versus HS ratings versus portal ratings.

Every power rating is just taking high school ratings, maybe portal ratings, production, program history and tinkering with weightings of them with some adjustments for home field, coaches etc

What’s interesting is ESPN produces two power ratings, one somewhat public about how it’s calculated (SP+) and one not. FPI has some blurb about how it runs simulations of games blah blah blah. They bought Connelly/SP+ and put him behind a pay wall until recently for the views but SP+ is clearly not a “ESPN” product with secrecy and motives.

SP+ is most recent update is from the spring, but the most glaring differences are:

Utah -6 by FPI
Washington -5 by FPI
Auburn +4 by FPI
Texas +4 by FPI
Iowa +4 by FPI
Clemson +4 by FPI
SMU +4 by FPI

Indiana is still 6th pre-season, so you could say it’s overweight recruiting rankings now, but clearly it’s not a end all be all otherwise they would be outside the Top 25