The Small Schools vs. Big Schools BCS Debate

[Big Sexy]

If you want to go head to head stats then you will have to admit here and now that the SEC is weaker than the Pac-10. I personally don't believe that, but since head to head stats are more important to you than anything else, head to head stats indicate that the Pac-10 has edge over the SEC.

Historically the SEC is the best conference, but over the last 12 years the Pac-10 has owned the match-ups.

As far as present alignments

Pac-10: .528% winning percentage

SEC: .532% winning percentage



But the Pac-10 has an 12-9 advantage in head to head match-up, but I'm willing to bet you won't call the Pac-10 the superior conference even though we are basically even in winning percentage, but we own the head to head and the bowl match-ups. We are 9-8 against the SEC.

1. I now see that those numbers are over a 12 year period. I'm sorry but 12 years is a long fucking time. Like I said the elite conferences change every few years. Sometimes the SEC is at the top, sometimes it's the Pac 10, Big 12, or Big 10. I believe that over the last couple years the SEC has been the best conference but over the last 12 years it is a completely different story.

2. The Pac 10 is 12-9 vs the Big 12 meaning that they played 21 games against each other in 12 years. Adding in bowl games it's 38 which is about 3 games a year. the sample size has a lot to do with head to head as well. The reason it works so well with the ACC and Big East is because they play each other multiple time each year. They've already played each other 4 times this year, they played 7 times last year, 7 times the year before, 9 times in 2007, I don't have the 2006 numbers but they played again 9 times in 2005. The ACC and Big East have a much higher sample size in a much shorter period making it easier for the head to head stat to be relevant.

Haven't you also been preaching about the unproven talent within the ACC? Something that, as of date, has yet to develop into fruition at any point, realignment or not?

Not really. I try to stay on topic.

By which criteria? You've provided so many. Head to head, bowl wins, SOS, BCS match-ups.

I've had to use different criteria because you change topic so much. Just look at the teams in both conferences and their schedules. The ACC teams are playing tougher schedules, winning a higher percentage of games, and having a higher percentage of teams make it to bowl games.

I've got my own green reps.

Most likely from delusional people like yourself.

I can and have been narrowing down our discussions little by little.

Just keep it to ACC vs MWC and I'll be happy.

 

[ITurnGirlsGay]

1. I now see that those numbers are over a 12 year period. I'm sorry but 12 years is a long fucking time. Like I said the elite conferences change every few years. Sometimes the SEC is at the top, sometimes it's the Pac 10, Big 12, or Big 10. I believe that over the last couple years the SEC has been the best conference but over the last 12 years it is a completely different story.

Mmm, no, that's from the inception of the BCS until now. That means, since they've invented the current, subscribed to system, we are the best conference. (Again, not my personal opinion)

2. The Pac 10 is 12-9 vs the Big 12 meaning that they played 21 games against each other in 12 years. Adding in bowl games it's 38 which is about 3 games a year. the sample size has a lot to do with head to head as well. The reason it works so well with the ACC and Big East is because they play each other multiple time each year. They've already played each other 4 times this year, they played 7 times last year, 7 times the year before, 9 times in 2007, I don't have the 2006 numbers but they played again 9 times in 2005. The ACC and Big East have a much higher sample size in a much shorter period making it easier for the head to head stat to be relevant.

Ah, I also added headed to head and conference winning percentage, though. Don't add in sample size because you were so quick to dismiss it when comparing a 12 team ACC to an 8 team Big East and a 9 team MWC and WAC. Remember, the SEC is 2 larger than the Pac-10.

I've had to use different criteria because you change topic so much. Just look at the teams in both conferences and their schedules. The ACC teams are playing tougher schedules, winning a higher percentage of games, and having a higher percentage of teams make it to bowl games.

You act like the WAC and the MWC can control that they must play against 8 other opponents.. I'm sure that you're aware of the fact that most OOC games by big name schools are scheduled almost 10 years in advance. We (USC) booked our home and home with Ohio St. back in '99.

 

[Big Sexy]

Mmm, no, that's from the inception of the BCS until now. That means, since they've invented the current, subscribed to system, we are the best conference. (Again, not my personal opinion)

Exactly what I said, the last 12 years. The BCS system has been around for 12 seasons, this is number 13. The top conference in the country has changed numerous times over those 12 years.

Ah, I also added headed to head and conference winning percentage, though. Don't add in sample size because you were so quick to dismiss it when comparing a 12 team ACC to an 8 team Big East and a 9 team MWC and WAC. Remember, the SEC is 2 larger than the Pac-10.

Fantastic, what does head to head games between conferences have to do with the size of the conference? When I say sample size I mean number of games the two conferences have had against each other. Over the last 12 years the Pac 10 and SEC have averaged only about 3 meetings per year. The ACC vs Big East match ups average close to 8 meetings per year over the last 5 years. How many teams in each conference is irrelevant to the two conferences head to head games against each other.

You act like the WAC and the MWC can control that they must play against 8 other opponents.. I'm sure that you're aware of the fact that most OOC games by big name schools are scheduled almost 10 years in advance. We (USC) booked our home and home with Ohio St. back in '99.

I'm well aware of that but it doesn't change the fact that the MWC conference is winning a lower percentage of games against weaker competition compared to the ACC.

 

[ITurnGirlsGay]

Exactly what I said, the last 12 years. The BCS system has been around for 12 seasons, this is number 13. The top conference in the country has changed numerous times over those 12 years.

Only when it works for your argument. I gave you numbers over THE complete span of 12 years. Illustrating that the Pac-10 was the best conference in college football. We also own the recent 5 year match-up. Matter of fact, most of those wins came within the last five.

Fantastic, what does head to head games between conferences have to do with the size of the conference? When I say sample size I mean number of games the two conferences have had against each other. Over the last 12 years the Pac 10 and SEC have averaged only about 3 meetings per year. The ACC vs Big East match ups average close to 8 meetings per year over the last 5 years. How many teams in each conference is irrelevant to the two conferences head to head games against each other.

OHHHHH, now head to head doesn't matter. When it works against what you've been preaching. There's always an addendum to "what you've been saying." You change the dynamics every single chance you get. Your logical reasoning is what's known as Circular Reasoning. Supporting your premise with a premise.

I wasn't aware that "number of meetings" between the two conferences was an addition to our criteria.

I'm well aware of that but it doesn't change the fact that the MWC conference is winning a lower percentage of games against weaker competition compared to the ACC.

Not the games that matter.

 

[Big Sexy]

Only when it works for your argument. I gave you numbers over THE complete span of 12 years. Illustrating that the Pac-10 was the best conference in college football. We also own the recent 5 year match-up. Matter of fact, most of those wins came within the last five.

My argument is that the ACC is better then the MWC. Not exactly sure why all of this other stuff keeps getting dragged in. Like I said the elite conferences change year in and year out. When the sample size is large enough then head to head is the best way to determine things. If the conferences are only playing a couple times a year it doesn't always work that way.

OHHHHH, now head to head doesn't matter. When it works against what you've been preaching. There's always an addendum to "what you've been saying." You change the dynamics every single chance you get. Your logical reasoning is what's known as Circular Reasoning. Supporting your premise with a premise.

I wasn't aware that "number of meetings" between the two conferences was an addition to our criteria.

When the fuck did I say head to head didn't matter? You have to use it in a logical way though. 2-3 head to head games every year between conferences isn't always going to tell the whole story but when two conferences are playing 7-9 games against each other every year it becomes the most important stat. You're twisting my words and philosophies around to help support your arguments but it's not going to work homie.

And for the last fucking time our debate is ACC vs MWC yet the majority of your posts have turned into everything but that. Probably because you know that you are fucking wrong.

Not the games that matter.

Because in the bowl games the ACC is taking on mostly power conference teams. The MWC is taking on mostly Conference USA and WAC teams.

 

[ITurnGirlsGay]

My argument is that the ACC is better then the MWC. Not exactly sure why all of this other stuff keeps getting dragged in. Like I said the elite conferences change year in and year out. When the sample size is large enough then head to head is the best way to determine things. If the conferences are only playing a couple times a year it doesn't always work that way.

A twelve year span of consistency is "changing?" I believe the sample size has been large enough over a twelve year span. That's what's called a logitudinal study. It's actually the most reliable study one can perform within the hard/social sciences. It gives you the most accurate data.

You, as a sports fan, rely on these statistics all the time.

When the fuck did I say head to head didn't matter? You have to use it in a logical way though. 2-3 head to head games every year between conferences isn't always going to tell the whole story but when two conferences are playing 7-9 games against each other every year it becomes the most important stat. You're twisting my words and philosophies around to help support your arguments but it's not going to work homie.

You've used those stats this season to prove the ACC's "dominance" over the MWC. Again, I gave you overall winning percentage between the SEC and Pac-10. Additionally, you were given head to head, bowl, match-ups, and BCS match-ups.

I'm not twisting anything. I'm using your logic and, again, I'm not your homie. I find it a bit disturbing that I've had to redirect you twice.

And for the last fucking time our debate is ACC vs MWC yet the majority of your posts have turned into everything but that. Probably because you know that you are fucking wrong.

You're right, it is. Which, if you've already noticed, I've said, you're not gonna change my mind. Remember that?

Because in the bowl games the ACC is taking on mostly power conference teams. The MWC is taking on mostly Conference USA and WAC teams.

As if they control the tie-ins? No, I'm pretty sure that the Bowl Coalition controls the tie-ins. The MWC can't demand a bowl game with a Big 12, Big 10, Big East, Pac-10, SEC, or ACC team. Your point is illogical.

You're basically saying that NFC West champs don't deserve the same amount of credit because they don't play the same schedule as the NFC East. Neither are within their control. They have to play a certain schedule. Matter of fact, it's worse, because the WAC and MWC schedule their games YEARS in advance. Before they know if someone is going to be ass or good.

 

[Big Sexy]

A twelve year span of consistency is "changing?" I believe the sample size has been large enough over a twelve year span. That's what's called a logitudinal study. It's actually the most reliable study one can perform within the hard/social sciences. It gives you the most accurate data.

Players graduate, coaches change, teams get better and get worse on a yearly basis. 3 games a year just isn't enough to say one conference is better then another in that particular year. The Tampa Bay Bucs are currently 2-1 after 3 games but in the next 5-6 weeks I guarantee their record will be worse. You wanna know why? Because three games can be misleading.

You've used those stats this season to prove the ACC's "dominance" over the MWC. Again, I gave you overall winning percentage between the SEC and Pac-10. Additionally, you were given head to head, bowl, match-ups, and BCS match-ups.

1. The Pac 10, Big East, SEC, and Big 12 really aren't even part of this discussion and I still have no clue why they continue to be brought up.

2. You're going over stats for a 12 year period for two conferences that have probably had close to equal better years over that time span. My ACC vs MWC stats are relevant to the actually debate at hand between us. Can you please just fucking stay on topic.

I'm not twisting anything. I'm using your logic and, again, I'm not your homie. I find it a bit disturbing that I've had to redirect you twice.

It's a word I use. I figured you'd like it better then bitch or dumbass.

You're right, it is. Which, if you've already noticed, I've said, you're not gonna change my mind. Remember that?

Then why the fuck do you keep responding to my posts if you're going to go completely off topic and debate about stuff that has zero relevancy to this thread?

As if they control the tie-ins? No, I'm pretty sure that the Bowl Coalition controls the tie-ins. The MWC can't demand a bowl game with a Big 12, Big 10, Big East, Pac-10, SEC, or ACC team. Your point is illogical.

That in no way makes my point illogical. just because they don't control tie ins doesn't mean that they aren't still facing inferior competition.

You're basically saying that NFC West champs don't deserve the same amount of credit because they don't play the same schedule as the NFC East. Neither are within their control. They have to play a certain schedule. Matter of fact, it's worse, because the WAC and MWC schedule their games YEARS in advance. Before they know if someone is going to be ass or good.

It may not be fair, but it's true. You should be happy the MWC has such an easy schedule. If they played an ACC schedule then you'd have no arguments at all.

 

[ITurnGirlsGay]

At the end of the day, you need to pick something. You're all over the place. Anyone who's had any sort of academic training would say the same.

Let me break it down for you;

1.) Longitudinal study: a study of something over time: Pac-10 vs. SEC over a 12 year span

2.) Cross sectional analysis: comparing one against another in a brief period; MWC vs. ACC over a short span

3.) Case study: study of a specific area; ACC as a conference

This is what is referred to as "methodology" You have to pick a method and stick with it.

You cannot say, in the same paper, that one methodological approach applies to the same subject matter, but another does not.

Define your parameters. You've not done this. Stick to your parameters across all methods; you've not done this.

Make sure that your criteria/parameters will hold water if held up to the same set of criteria; not done.

 

[Big Sexy]

At the end of the day, you need to pick something. You're all over the place. Anyone who's had any sort of academic training would say the same.

Let me break it down for you;

1.) Longitudinal study: a study of something over time: Pac-10 vs. SEC over a 12 year span

2.) Cross sectional analysis: comparing one against another in a brief period; MWC vs. ACC over a short span

3.) Case study: study of a specific area; ACC as a conference

This is what is referred to as "methodology" You have to pick a method and stick with it.

You cannot say, in any paper, that one methodology applies to the same subject matter, but another does not.

Define your parameters. You've not done this. Stick to your parameters across all methods; you've not done this.

Make sure that your criteria/parameters will hold water if held up to the same set of criteria; not done.

You're the one who needs to go over the definitions you have just posted because you haven't followed any of them. From the very beginning my stance was that the ACC was better then the MWC. I gave relevant figures and stats to support that argument. You have been all over the place, changing the subject of what is being debated, changing your criteria, and just not making any sense at all.

Right now the ACC is better then the MWC. In the past the ACC has been better then the MWC. In the future the ACC will most likely be better then the MWC.

When it comes to all of the power conferences as whole. Which conference is the best changes every year. I believe the SEC was the best the last couple years. This year I believe the Big Ten is the best. A few years ago it was the Big 12 and Pac 10 that were at the top. There's no one conference that stays dominant over a 12 year period. If you want to go make a separate thread asking which conference has been the best since the creation of the BCS then I may do some research and come up with an answer. For right now I couldn't give a fuck less because it is 100% irrelevant to the debate we were debating.

At different times throughout this debate you have changed the subject numerous times. It started as ACC vs MWC in the present, then you switched to the past, then back to the present, then you made it Big East vs ACC over the last 5 years, then it became Big 12 vs ACC right now, then it somehow became Pac 10 vs SEC over the last 12 years. Every time the subject has changed it has been because you changed it. Each debate had a different methodology and when relevant I used the same criteria every time. I debated by the definitions you stated above. YOU are the one who failed to do so.

 

[ITurnGirlsGay]

You're the one who needs to go over the definitions you have just posted because you haven't followed any of them. From the very beginning my stance was that the ACC was better then the MWC. I gave relevant figures and stats to support that argument. You have been all over the place, changing the subject of what is being debated, changing your criteria, and just not making any sense at all.

Right now the ACC is better then the MWC. In the past the ACC has been better then the MWC. In the future the ACC will most likely be better then the MWC.

When it comes to all of the power conferences as whole. Which conference is the best changes every year. I believe the SEC was the best the last couple years. This year I believe the Big Ten is the best. A few years ago it was the Big 12 and Pac 10 that were at the top. There's no one conference that stays dominant over a 12 year period. If you want to go make a separate thread asking which conference has been the best since the creation of the BCS then I may do some research and come up with an answer. For right now I couldn't give a fuck less because it is 100% irrelevant to the debate we were debating.

Alas, you're academically confused again. You've been provided stats from #1 which clearly indicate that that the Pac-10 is the best conference in football year-in-year-out from 1998.

You are postulating that the ACC *IS* better than the MWC when they have an equal number of teams ranked right now and you have ow definitive knowledge of the future.

No, they don't change. That's why they're referred to as *POWER CONFERENCES.* They've been the major players in D-1 football since its inception.

Pick a fucking method and stick with it. You can't say case study for this year, longitudinal for this year, and cross sectional for your ACC vs. MWC. Academic research doesn't work like that. No research works like that.

 

[Big Sexy]

Alas, you're academically confused again. You've been provided stats from #1 which clearly indicate that that the Pac-10 is the best conference in football year-in-year-out from 1998.

1. The Pac 10 and SEC are not the only two conferences.

2. Over the entire 12 year span they may be the best but that's not year in and year out because they aren't the best every single year.

You are postulating that the ACC *IS* better than the MWC when they have an equal number of teams ranked right now and you have ow definitive knowledge of the future.

We're back to this again? Number of ranked teams doesn't always make a conference better.

No, they don't change. That's why they're referred to as *POWER CONFERENCES.* They've been the major players in D-1 football since its inception.

Do you actually read what I say? There are 5 different power conferences. Which of those is the absolute best changes on a yearly basis. The SEC or Pac 10 or Big 12 are not the absolute number one conference every single year.

Pick a fucking method and stick with it. You can't say case study for this year, longitudinal for this year, and cross sectional for your ACC vs. MWC. Academic research doesn't work like that. No research works like that.

Fucking hilarious. You can't stick to one methodology when the person you are debating changes the topic with every post. YOU are the one who needs to stick to one fucking thing.

 

[ITurnGirlsGay]

1. The Pac 10 and SEC are not the only two conferences.

2. Over the entire 12 year span they may be the best but that's not year in and year out because they aren't the best every single year.

This is irrelevant. I've given you the numbers short and long term. Again, your methodology changes. You're debating that the ACC has been better than the MWC and the Big East in years past. I'm illustrating that the SEC has been inferior to the Pac-10 in recent years and over a longer span of time.

I'm slowly beginning to think that you probably haven't been formally educated on how to write a research paper, but if you took this thread to an actual academic at any university they would point out the same flaws that I'm pointing out to you.

We're back to this again? Number of ranked teams doesn't always make a conference better.

Now it's always, I thought it never mattered unless it was at the seasons' end

Do you actually read what I say? There are 5 different power conferences. Which of those is the absolute best changes on a yearly basis. The SEC or Pac 10 or Big 12 are not the absolute number one conference every single year.

One thing doesn't change. The ACC is/has been the worst of all.

Fucking hilarious. You can't stick to one methodology when the person you are debating changes the topic with every post. YOU are the one who needs to stick to one fucking thing.

As soon as you pick one, I will.

 

[Big Sexy]

This is irrelevant. I've given you the numbers short and long term. Again, your methodology changes. You're debating that the ACC has been better than the MWC and the Big East in years past. I'm illustrating that the SEC has been inferior to the Pac-10 in recent years and over a longer span of time.

I was only debating the ACC vs MWC now, you were the one bringing up the past and you were the one bringing up the Big East in comparison, and you were the one randomly bringing up the Pac 10 and SEC.

I'm slowly beginning to think that you probably haven't been formally educated on how to write a research paper, but if you took this thread to an actual academic at any university they would point out the same flaws that I'm pointing out to you.

I'm slowly beginning to think you have no clue what you are actually debating and are bringing in definitions of things that you haven't even followed just to make yourself look smarter.

Now it's always, I thought it never mattered unless it was at the seasons' end

Obviously if we're talking Big 10 and C-USA, the Big 10 is obviously better and obviously has more ranked teams. The more ranked teams isn't necessarily the thing that makes them better but it is a fact. In this particular case of MWC vs ACC right now, more ranked teams does not equal a better conference. You obviously have trouble comprehending what I'm typing and the points I'm making. I guess all of your "education" failed to help you with reading comprehension.

One thing doesn't change. The ACC is/has been the worst of all.

Even if they are, they're still better then the MWC.

As soon as you pick one, I will.

I picked one at the very beginning and have tried to stick to it. Your idiocy has made that impossible.

 

[ITurnGirlsGay]

I was only debating the ACC vs MWC now, you were the one bringing up the past and you were the one bringing up the Big East in comparison, and you were the one randomly bringing up the Pac 10 and SEC.

Yes, I did bring them up. To illustrate the flaws in your arguments regarding previous topics.

I'm slowly beginning to think you have no clue what you are actually debating and are bringing in definitions of things that you haven't even followed just to make yourself look smarter.

I don't NEED to look smarter. The internet is at your disposal. If I were talking out of my ass regarding certain topics you and EVERYONE else on this thread would only need to look up the definitions of that which I posted in order to debunk me.

It wouldn't be very wise of me to post theories/methodological approaches on something I knew nothing about, now would it?

Why don't you ask jmt225 or Guy Compton if I don't know what I'm talking about. Perhaps Ferbian. I'm not some idiot that enters an internet forum claiming a level of education I don't possess. I don't NEED to pretend to be smart to you. I know that I'm smart, I've fucking worked for it.

Obviously if we're talking Big 10 and C-USA, the Big 10 is obviously better and obviously has more ranked teams. The more ranked teams isn't necessarily the thing that makes them better but it is a fact. In this particular case of MWC vs ACC right now, more ranked teams does not equal a better conference. You obviously have trouble comprehending what I'm typing and the points I'm making. I guess all of your "education" failed to help you with reading comprehension.

Right. The Big 12 with half their conference ranked isn't better. The Big 10, however, with 6 ranked teams is better.

By the way, why would you use C-USA as your example. Not only do they not have any ranked teams, but over half the Big 10 is ranked. Of course the Big 10 is the better conference, and yes, having 55% of your conference ranked DOES make you a better conference.

If having ranked teams didn't make you a better conference then why do they have power conferences? Do you think they just threw all 11 conferences and the independents in a hat and drew out seven names for BCS AQ bids? No, rankings and winning was what mattered.

I picked one at the very beginning and have tried to stick to it. Your idiocy has made that impossible.

You're the only one who thinks so.

 

[Big Sexy]

Yes, I did bring them up. To illustrate the flaws in your arguments regarding previous topics.

Finally he admits it. And it's hard to point out flaws that don't exist.

I don't NEED to look smarter. The internet is at your disposal. If I were talking out of my ass regarding certain topics you and EVERYONE else on this thread would only need to look up the definitions of that which I posted in order to debunk me.

Well then I'll call you out on saying the Pac 10 has been better then the SEC head to head in recent years. The SEC is actually 6-5 vs the Pac 10 in the last 5 years. Again 2 games a year really isn't enough of a sample size, just thought I'd point out another one of your fallacies.

It wouldn't be very wise of me to post theories/methodological approaches on something I knew nothing about, now would it?

Just because you know of them, doesn't mean you follow them.

Why don't you ask jmt225 or Guy Compton if I don't know what I'm talking about. Perhaps Ferbian. I'm not some idiot that enters an internet forum claiming a level of education I don't possess. I don't NEED to pretend to be smart to you. I know that I'm smart, I've fucking worked for it.

I'm sure you're a very smart guy. I've read your other sports posts and they are great, I've also read your MMA posts and they're fantastic. However, on this particular subject you are talking out of your ass and have been since our debate started.

By the way, why would you use C-USA as your example. Not only do they not have any ranked teams, but over half the Big 10 is ranked. Of course the Big 10 is the better conference, and yes, having 55% of your conference ranked DOES make you a better conference.

I used C-USA because I wanted an obvious example to explain why I put the word "always" in my statement.

If having ranked teams didn't make you a better conference then why do they have power conferences? Do you think they just threw all 11 conferences and the independents in a hat and drew out seven names for BCS AQ bids? No, rankings and winning was what mattered.

Yes but for the 1000'th time, rankings this early in the season are still more based on pre season predictions then anything else. The later in the season you go, the more relevant and more accurate the rankings become. This season is barely a third over.

You're the only one who thinks so.

When it comes to this thread I actually have multiple people on record that agree with me.

 

[ITurnGirlsGay]

Finally he admits it. And it's hard to point out flaws that don't exist.

I'm not sure what this means.

Well then I'll call you out on saying the Pac 10 has been better then the SEC head to head in recent years. The SEC is actually 6-5 vs the Pac 10 in the last 5 years. Again 2 games a year really isn't enough of a sample size, just thought I'd point out another one of your fallacies.

Did you include bowl games? UCLA has 2 wins over Tennessee, USC has wins over Arkansas, Oregon has a win over Tennessee, that's four right there.

Also, I said I didn't believe the Pac-10 was better. But, since we brought it up, here's some fun facts for this year.


The combined record of the non-conference opponents played by the Pac-10 is 39-22

The combined record of the non-conference opponents played by the SEC is 41-48

Out of the 31 non-conference games played by the Pac-10, seven of those will be ranked opponents (TCU, Boise State, Houston, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Iowa, Texas). Four of those seven games will come on the road (TCU, Boise State, Wisconsin, Texas)

The SEC, out of 47 non-conference games, will play just five ranked opponents, only two will be played on the road (North Carolina, Houston).

Of the 31 non-conference games played in the Pac-10, 18 of those are at home while the other 13 will be on the road

The SEC, however, will play 47 non-conference games and 38 of those will be at home to just nine on the road

'Bama nd Oregon will both play a 12-game schedule in 2010. Alabama will have seven of those 12 at home while Oregon will split six and six.

I'm just throwing numbers, again, I don't believe that the Pac-10 is better than the SEC.

Just because you know of them, doesn't mean you follow them.

yes, it does. I'm required to follow them. It's been drilled into my head.

I'm sure you're a very smart guy. I've read your other sports posts and they are great, I've also read your MMA posts and they're fantastic.

Thank you!

I used C-USA because I wanted an obvious example to explain why I put the word "always" in my statement.

Fair enough, but since C-USA doesn't anyone ranked and the Big-10 has 6 schools ranked it was a bad example. I see what you're trying to say, though.

Yes but for the 1000'th time, rankings this early in the season are still more based on pre season predictions then anything else. The later in the season you go, the more relevant and more accurate the rankings become. This season is barely a third over.

This is college football. Rankings matter at all times. Especially if you lose. Again with the 'Bama, OSU, Boise argument. It doesn't matter what Boise does, they're not going to leap either of those schools unless one of them loses. Week 1, week 9, it doesn't matter. Boise St. is locked into that #3 team until one of those two teams loses.

You already said that Miami outplayed OSU (I don't agree, per se, but you said it, so let's go with it), but Boise lost first place votes that week.

When it comes to this thread I actually have multiple people on record that agree with me.

Correction WE have had multiple agree with us.

 

[Big Sexy]

Did you include bowl games? UCLA has 2 wins over Tennessee, USC has wins over Arkansas, Oregon has a win over Tennessee, that's four right there.

Yes it does. It doesn't include this year but if you give Oregon this years win then you just have to go back to 2004 and the SEC was 1-0 that year so they retake the lead.

yes, it does. I'm required to follow them. It's been drilled into my head.

Whatever you say.

Thank you!

No problem.

Fair enough, but since C-USA doesn't anyone ranked and the Big-10 has 6 schools ranked it was a bad example. I see what you're trying to say, though.

I realize it isn't a good example to prove my original point but it was a good example to prove what I was trying to say when you questioned my use of the word "always."

This is college football. Rankings matter at all times. Especially if you lose. Again with the 'Bama, OSU, Boise argument. It doesn't matter what Boise does, they're not going to leap either of those schools unless one of them loses. Week 1, week 9, it doesn't matter. Boise St. is locked into that #3 team until one of those two teams loses.

The importance of rankings gets higher and higher each week. For the teams at the top it has more importance at the start of the year but outside the top 5 maybe 10 it loses its luster this early. There were 11 teams ranked in the top 25 in week 4 last year that were not ranked at all by the end of the season.

You already said that Miami outplayed OSU (I don't agree, per se, but you said it, so let's go with it), but Boise lost first place votes that week.

If I remember correctly Boise had a bye that week which probably played into that. Va Tech losing to James Madison didn't help them either.

Correction WE have had multiple agree with us.

That's fine. All I wanted to get across in this thread was that the ACC was a better conference then the MWC and it's silly to think otherwise. I did that.

 

[ITurnGirlsGay]

Yes it does. It doesn't include this year but if you give Oregon this years win then you just have to go back to 2004 and the SEC was 1-0 that year so they retake the lead.

USC vs. Auburn

I realize it isn't a good example to prove my original point but it was a good example to prove what I was trying to say when you questioned my use of the word "always."

Understood, and I follow you.

The importance of rankings gets higher and higher each week. For the teams at the top it has more importance at the start of the year but outside the top 5 maybe 10 it loses its luster this early. There were 11 teams ranked in the top 25 in week 4 last year that were not ranked at all by the end of the season.

Yes, but that is all conferences. My point is that were it not for their AQ bid, I can't see the ACC having a team closer than 9 in the rankings at the end of most seasons in the five year span under their current alignment.

Also, I see where you're going with this, but to say that rankings don't matter right now is absurd. They ALWAYS matter. My point here is this; if every team that were ranked in the top 25 won out (which isn't possible, but follow me) you would see very little shift in that top 25.

It's a flaw in the system. Teams ranked very highly at the beginning of the season have to, literally, fuck up royally if they want to drop out on one loss (see Appalachian St. vs. Michigan). Other than that, they have to gradually lose their way out.

Most teams ranked in the top 25 to start the season can work their way back in over teams that, CLEARLY, should be ranked ahead of them. They get the nod, however, because they started the season ranked higher.

If I remember correctly Boise had a bye that week which probably played into that. Va Tech losing to James Madison didn't help them either.

You're right, they did (to my knowledge) but I can also think of other instances where teams with a bye jumped other teams due to poor performance.

That's fine. All I wanted to get across in this thread was that the ACC was a better conference then the MWC and it's silly to think otherwise. I did that.

You feel you did your job, I feel I did my job. We both have people who support our points of view.

 

[Big Sexy]

USC vs. Auburn

That was in 2003. I was doing 5 years 2005-2009. If you wanted to count Oregon's 1/3 of the season over win, then I was including The SEC's 2004 win.

Yes, but that is all conferences. My point is that were it not for their AQ bid, I can't see the ACC having a team closer than 9 in the rankings at the end of most seasons in the five year span under their current alignment.

And my point is not that the ACC is some great conference. Just better then the MWC.

Also, I see where you're going with this, but to say that rankings don't matter right now is absurd. They ALWAYS matter. My point here is this; if every team that were ranked in the top 25 won out (which isn't possible, but follow me) you would see very little shift in that top 25.

Something that's impossible isn't a good example. I understand where you're going and rankings do have some relevance now, I'm just saying that their relevance is fairly minuscule at this point outside of the top 5.

The main point I was making with the rankings this whole time was that just because the MWC and ACC both have two teams ranked it doesn't make them equal conferences especially at this point in the season. The MWC has 7 other teams and the ACC has 10 other teams. Those teams aren't just dismissed from the equation of how good a conference is just because they aren't ranked.

 

[ITurnGirlsGay]

That was in 2003. I was doing 5 years 2005-2009. If you wanted to count Oregon's 1/3 of the season over win, then I was including The SEC's 2004 win.

Gotcha

And my point is not that the ACC is some great conference. Just better then the MWC.

I just disagree.

Something that's impossible isn't a good example. I understand where you're going and rankings do have some relevance now, I'm just saying that their relevance is fairly minuscule at this point outside of the top 5.

The main point I was making with the rankings this whole time was that just because the MWC and ACC both have two teams ranked it doesn't make them equal conferences especially at this point in the season. The MWC has 7 other teams and the ACC has 10 other teams. Those teams aren't just dismissed from the equation of how good a conference is just because they aren't ranked.

I know it was a bad example. I was just trying to illustrate that the rankings matter at all times.

I look at the upside for MWC and the fact that most ACC teams seem to have plateaued. The MWC is constantly getting stronger, whereas the ACC seems stagnate. Yes, we can agree that, by normal standards, the ACC plays a "tougher" conference schedule. I put tougher in quotes because it's really a statistical non-factor as this is something beyond your control, to quote Happy Gilmore you have to "play it where it lies."

However, with that "tougher" schedule, the ACC has gone nowhere. The WAC and the MWC keep proving themselves. I understand that 6 teams don't make two conferences, but the level of competition has increased and the MWC and the WAC are at least trying to play up to it. The rest of the conference will follow suit, is following suit.

There's going to be bottom feeders in every conference. Hell, until Harbaugh took over, Stanford was the joke of the Pac-10. Not too long ago Washington was a premiere team in the Pac-10 and USC was a joke. It's cyclical.

One thing that has remained constant, though, is that ANY team the ACC has put forth has been beaten by, even, marginal competition in bowls and the BCS.

They seem to be moving backwards, while the MWC and WAC have been moving forward. That's why I believe the MWC to be the better conference right now.

 

[Big Sexy]

They seem to be moving backwards, while the MWC and WAC have been moving forward. That's why I believe the MWC to be the better conference right now.

The thing you have been harping on the most is the notion of what is happening right now. Right now the ACC is better. The MWC as a whole conference hasn't really proven themselves. TCU, Utah, and BYU to an extent have, that's it. Just 3 teams out of nine. How much the conference is improving is debatable and either way it still doesn't make them better then the ACC currently. The ONLY stat that the MWC has over the ACC is bowl game record and I've already stated reasons for why that is true.

The ACC has them beat with overall win percentage, percentage of teams bowl eligible, and they do it all with a tougher schedule. That is why the ACC as a whole is better right now and why they have been better in the past.

 

[ITurnGirlsGay]

The thing you have been harping on the most is the notion of what is happening right now. Right now the ACC is better. The MWC as a whole conference hasn't really proven themselves. TCU, Utah, and BYU to an extent have, that's it. Just 3 teams out of nine. How much the conference is improving is debatable and either way it still doesn't make them better then the ACC currently. The ONLY stat that the MWC has over the ACC is bowl game record and I've already stated reasons for why that is true.

The ACC has them beat with overall win percentage, percentage of teams bowl eligible, and they do it all with a tougher schedule. That is why the ACC as a whole is better right now and why they have been better in the past.

I'm also looking at who seems to be playing teams tougher. The team that has "the fire" if you will. The MWC seems to be showing this fire while the ACC seems to be content where they are at. I'm sure that you can agree that the ACC hasn't moved forward in the slightest as a BCS conference. They're stagnant.

A "tougher" schedule isn't really something you can help. You know as well as anyone that teams have only recently wanted to start scheduling the MWC and the WAC. This is something that's beyond their control.

 

[Big Sexy]

I'm also looking at who seems to be playing teams tougher. The team that has "the fire" if you will. The MWC seems to be showing this fire while the ACC seems to be content where they are at. I'm sure that you can agree that the ACC hasn't moved forward in the slightest as a BCS conference. They're stagnant.

A "tougher" schedule isn't really something you can help. You know as well as anyone that teams have only recently wanted to start scheduling the MWC and the WAC. This is something that's beyond their control.

Yes they're definitely stagnant, but the stagnant ACC is still better then the MWC. They can play with as much fire as they want but the conference as a whole still doesn't compare to the ACC in terms of winning, stats, and just overall talent.

I understand it's beyond their control but the weak schedule is something that still exists and can't be dismissed. I'd say the weakness of their schedule comes just as much from the actual in conference play rather then out of conference play. Of the 9 teams in the conference 4 of them are just atrocious every year. Then you have maybe 2 average teams and 3 good teams. This year I don't even know of there will be those 3 good teams at the top because of how bad BYU has looked. Air Force may be able to take that spot but I'm not sure they're good enough. They may get 9 wins by default just because of how easy their schedule is.

 

[ITurnGirlsGay]

Yes they're definitely stagnant, but the stagnant ACC is still better then the MWC. They can play with as much fire as they want but the conference as a whole still doesn't compare to the ACC in terms of winning, stats, and just overall talent.

I understand it's beyond their control but the weak schedule is something that still exists and can't be dismissed. I'd say the weakness of their schedule comes just as much from the actual in conference play rather then out of conference play. Of the 9 teams in the conference 4 of them are just atrocious every year. Then you have maybe 2 average teams and 3 good teams. This year I don't even know of there will be those 3 good teams at the top because of how bad BYU has looked. Air Force may be able to take that spot but I'm not sure they're good enough. They may get 9 wins by default just because of how easy their schedule is.

BYU is having a down year. No doubt. They lost a lot, though. It's similar to USC. We're 4-0 RIGHT NOW, but we won't end up with a spectacular record. When I went to our home opener, we couldn't believe how bad we were playing in all phases of the game. Air Force actually has been a team in that conference that produces a winning record.

I say this, though, all conferences have at LEAST 4-5 bad teams that produce horrible/losing records. Even if you hit up ESPN and look at the Big 12, Big 10, Pac-10, ACC, SEC, you'll find, on average, at least four teams with a losing record.

The problem, however, is magnified because the MWC is a 9 conference team. Statistically, though, they aren't any worse with losing records than any of the power conferences. It just appears that they are worse due to the limited number of teams.

That's why the Big East appears to be the laughing stock of the BCS when, in fact, it's the ACC.

The Big East only has 8 schools. If four have a losing record, that's half your conference right there. If we were talking about the SEC, Big 10, or Big 12, we dismiss it, due to the size of the conference.

The average joe looks at it and says "Oh, only four/five out of 12 teams have losing records, that's BOUND to happen in a conference of 11/12 teams.

Such is not the case when you examine a smaller conference like the MWC. You see 4 teams with a losing record out of 9 possible teams and people think "wow, they are a really shitty conferece." When, in fact, there's a lot of promise and teams are TRYING, at least, to schedule tougher games and get the attention which will draw recruits.

The ACC already has that attention. Florida, as you well know, is a fucking BREEDING ground for football players. People that aren't able to sign with Miami, FSU, and Va. Tech, pick schools like BC, North Carolina, NC State, etc...They get top notch talent. At least talent better than that which signs their letter of intent to somewhere like Utah, TCU, New Mexico and San Diego St.

One factor that WE haven't talked about is that there are two schools in the MWC that aren't normal schools.

Air Force: I don't think we need to discuss why this isn't a normal school with a large recruiting base.

BYU: EXTREMELY hard to get into. Having lived down the street from BYU in Provo, UT, I can tell you that this isn't your normal, run of the mill school. The majority of their student population are strict Mormons and the others are elite academics who've probably got no idea how the game of football is played. I kid you not, you have to have a license to have a fucking beard at BYU. A sign card from a dermatologist stating that it's going to physically hurt your skin to shave.


The MWC is behind in all facets of recruiting that do not hinder the schools in the ACC. If you remove the specialized recruiting schools from the MWC, you have 7 teams.

What's astonishing to me is that those two teams are actually winning programs. One has a national title (BYU).

That also factors in to why I think that the MWC is better.

I feel as though we've toned down this argument quite a bit. Which I am thankful for. I"m just trying to give my line of reasoning for why I think that the MWC is better. I'm not suggesting that you're going to agree.

Matter of fact, at this point, I think we can both say that neither of us are going to budge on our opinions. At the end of the day, that's all it is.

 

[Big Sexy]

I say this, though, all conferences have at LEAST 4-5 bad teams that produce horrible/losing records. Even if you hit up ESPN and look at the Big 12, Big 10, Pac-10, ACC, SEC, you'll find, on average, at least four teams with a losing record.

All conferences have bad teams but some of those bad teams can at least be competitive and pull off an upset at times. The bottom of the MWC just gets blown out week in and week out unless they're playing another MWC bottom feeder.

That's why the Big East appears to be the laughing stock of the BCS when, in fact, it's the ACC.

The Big East only has 8 schools. If four have a losing record, that's half your conference right there. If we were talking about the SEC, Big 10, or Big 12, we dismiss it, due to the size of the conference.

The Big East is the laughing stock currently because they're horrible. The ACC surpassed them in 2008 when Va Tech took out Cinci in the Orange Bowl. Yes the conference is small but even the teams at the top aren't that good. Pitt was supposed to be the class of the Big East this year. They are 1-3 and just got blown out by Miami from the ACC.

Such is not the case when you examine a smaller conference like the MWC. You see 4 teams with a losing record out of 9 possible teams and people think "wow, they are a really shitty conferece." When, in fact, there's a lot of promise and teams are TRYING, at least, to schedule tougher games and get the attention which will draw recruits.

With the exception of the three at the top (TCU, Utah, and BYU usually) and now maybe Air Force, the other 5 teams have no consistency. Every year you get 1 of those teams that steps up and gets bowl eligible, then the next year they're back with the bottom feeders. The bottom teams just fluctuate every year from barely bowl eligible to complete shit.

I feel as though we've toned down this argument quite a bit. Which I am thankful for. I"m just trying to give my line of reasoning for why I think that the MWC is better. I'm not suggesting that you're going to agree.

Matter of fact, at this point, I think we can both say that neither of us are going to budge on our opinions. At the end of the day, that's all it is.

I agree as well that neither of us is going to budge and we have both given are reasoning as to why we think are right. I still believe I'm 100% right but obviously your opinion isn't going to change. We're just going around in circles at this point.