Not sure about that, but within the SEC they have played the fewest ranked opponents over the last three years...
http://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-football/sec-teams-vs-ranked-opponents-last-three-years-2014/
NCAA Football OffSeason 2014
- Thread starter The Insider
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 271
- Views 20K
http://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/sec-football/sec-teams-vs-ranked-opponents-last-three-years-2014/
So what are yalls thoughts on this selection committee for the playoff spots?
Good idea, or should we have stayed with the poll results, or a BCS type system to seed the slots?
IMO, the BCS rankings were sound enough, even if the idea of a single game with no "playoff" system attached to it was not.
I am not sold on the selection committee idea, especially some of the members of it.
Good idea, or should we have stayed with the poll results, or a BCS type system to seed the slots?
IMO, the BCS rankings were sound enough, even if the idea of a single game with no "playoff" system attached to it was not.
I am not sold on the selection committee idea, especially some of the members of it.
It may depend on how they figure if they were ranked teams or not. Ranked at the time of the game? Or final rankings? Makes a difference.
Works for Basketball, just need more than 4 teams.
Polls are far too subjective, and in some cases the voters are far too uninformed and/or biased.
Should be final rankings. As early rankings are worth anything, as many teams have shown us in the past.
I dont share the opinion that it works for basketball that well like some do.
The selection committee can be just as subjective, and Condy Rice I cant imagine being more informed than any poll voters that are currently voting in the polls.
The members themselves are different stories. But a committee as a whole is more accountable than polls that no accountability.
To use a coaches poll is even worse, as coaches can (and have) use their votes to impede other teams and raise their own.
That's why I think the ratings part of the bcs had it right.
The two polls and the computers helped offset most of the bias any one component alone would have had.
The two polls and the computers helped offset most of the bias any one component alone would have had.
Had this been true then maybe but it wasn't, the computers often times had teams higher than what the bias was obviously showing and screwed over team after team after team thru the years. (except the SEC teams...can't hurt them).
I like it... should be interesting to finally see some different teams at the top that were obviously better than what some computer thought.
Edit: I also think its time for a new thread - season has started IMO due to teams now practicing and getting ready for their first game.
The computer was only a third of the equation, and there were many of them to even come up with that third. Also, the highest and lowest rankings were thrown out, so that took care of the extreme end of it as far as the computers were concerned.
The BCS caught alot of flack, and much of it deserved, but they got the rankings right (IMO) most of the time. The main nit or argument was between the top 4 or five teams, and the playoff format itself would have solved that. Had they went to a plus one a few years ago instead of just adding another game and calling it the championship, the BCS may well have survived.
The BCS caught alot of flack, and much of it deserved, but they got the rankings right (IMO) most of the time. The main nit or argument was between the top 4 or five teams, and the playoff format itself would have solved that. Had they went to a plus one a few years ago instead of just adding another game and calling it the championship, the BCS may well have survived.
Historically the new thread isn't started until the week of the first game, otherwise we wind up with pages of pre-season stuff.
does msmith like the comment for pointing out that the SEC has been screwed by the BCS, or does he just like the fact that Aubarn got screwed...
Yes.
does msmith like the comment for pointing out that the SEC has been screwed by the BCS, or does he just like the fact that Aubarn got screwed...
Those stats were from rankings at the time of the game for the last 3 seasons.
According to ESPN, here’s a look at how all 14 teams fared in the last "5" seasons against top 25 teams in the final BCS standings:
Alabama: 16-6 (.727)
LSU: 14-11 (.560)
Auburn: 13-13 (.500)
South Carolina: 10-10 (.500)
Arkansas: 7-17 (.292)
Missouri: 5-14 (.263)
Georgia: 6-17 (.261)
Florida: 6-18 (.250)
Texas A&M: 5-17 (.227)
Ole Miss: 3-20 (.130)
Vanderbilt: 1-15 (.063)
Kentucky: 1-16 (.059)
Tennessee: 1-21 (.045)
Mississippi State 0-24 (.000)
Using this data the number of ranked teams each have faced over the past 5 years are:
Auburn: 26
LSU: 25
Miss St., Arkansas, Florida: 24
Georgia, Ole Miss: 23
Alabama, Tenn, A&M: 22
South Carolina: 20
Missouri: 19
Kentucky: 17
Vanderbilt: 16
I thought this was an interesting bit of data also...
http://espn.go.com/blog/sec/post/_/id/76370/sizing-up-the-sec-resumes
I guess it could be a true statement then. They could have more wins over top ten teams even with fewer total games against ranked opponents.
Either way, I like that winning percentage.
Either way, I like that winning percentage.
I would like to see how many of those top 25 teams these SEC teams faced were in fact SEC teams, but I'm getting lazy.
I would say the bulk of themI would like to see how many of those top 25 teams these SEC teams faced were in fact SEC teams, but I'm getting lazy.
Or how many remained in the top 25 by the end of the season. 1/3 of the early top 25 are usually no where around by the end of the season.I would like to see how many of those top 25 teams these SEC teams faced were in fact SEC teams, but I'm getting lazy.
