College Football - Goin' Bowlin'

[Naked Gents Rut]

In that the 9th place team in the ACC (Clemson, I believe, or Miami) could probably beat one of the 2nd tier Big XII teams.

Clemson most likely is going to beat a 2nd tier Big XII team. Gator Bowl, Jan. 1st.

[David Floyd]

I guess there are two ways of looking at it. One way is, no one in the ACC is absolutely awful (at least, judging by their records), and Clemson and Miami could possibly beat someone like Kansas, Kansas St, or Nebraska.

Another way of looking at it is to say that there are 2nd tier Big 12 teams - Oklahoma St and Mizzou come to mind - that could easily handle both Va Tech and BC.

I see the point both ways. The way I look at it, though, is that the ACC is full of mediocrity. To call a conference that is full of mediocrity the best - or even second best - conference in the nation based on that mediocrity seems counter-intuitive to what we generally look for in sports.

[David Floyd]

Nebraska played Texas Tech closer than it played VT. I suppose that means Virginia Tech is better than Texas Tech...

Well, they ARE the conference champion of the best conference in college football, whereas Texas Tech lost to the Big 12 conference champion, so obviously Va Tech is better

[Naked Gents Rut]

In other news, people who actually know what the **** they're talking about when it comes to college football agree with me about who's the best team in the country.

Last week, I contacted a couple sportsbooks in Las Vegas to see who they would pick to win the national championship if there was a playoff. In other words, was there a team that would be favored to beat any team in the country on a neutral field? I was surprised to find that USC was the unanimous choice.

That opinion, however, had to be different now that Oklahoma has rolled up a record 60 or more points in its last five games to win the Big 12 and Florida beat No. 1 Alabama by 11 on a neutral field to win the SEC.

Nope.

http://www.fannation.com/si_blogs/the_sweep/posts/30402-if-we-had-a-playoff-las-vegas-likes

[snoopy369]

No, they agree that the betting would cause USC to be favored. I wouldn't be surprised to find Notre Dame favored in its 'bowl' game also, but they won't win...

[Imran Siddiqui]

that there are 2nd tier Big 12 teams - Oklahoma St and Mizzou come to mind - that could easily handle both Va Tech and BC.

"easily" is quite a streach, considering that a team that didn't even make the ACC Championship Game, Georgia Tech, handled a top 15 team in Georgia.

[David Floyd]

a)That was a rivalry game.
b)Georgia started the season at #1, and fell consistently from there. They've been overrated all year, as GT proved.

[Naked Gents Rut]

No, they agree that the betting would cause USC to be favored.

No, they don't. That doesn't even make any sense.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by David Floyd
a)That was a rivalry game.
b)Georgia started the season at #1, and fell consistently from there. They've been overrated all year, as GT proved.

A) So what? You don't think teams play hard for other games?
B) And so why isn't Mizzou overrated all year? They lost to freaking Kansas! Say what you will about Georgia, at least they only lost to Alabama, Florida, and Georgia Tech: two teams going to BCS Bowl games and a 9-3 team.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut


No, they don't. That doesn't even make any sense.

Umm, you do know how betting lines work, right? They set the line such that the betting is roughly even (or whatever their target is)? It isn't "who will win" but "who people will bet will win"? There's a whole science towards it, and several very good books on the subject out there, plus a couple of crappy movies. Point is, betting line is not useful for suggesting who is most likely to win a game; it predicts the perceptions of the masses, instead.

[David Floyd]

A) So what? You don't think teams play hard for other games?
B) And so why isn't Mizzou overrated all year? They lost to freaking Kansas! Say what you will about Georgia, at least they only lost to Alabama, Florida, and Georgia Tech: two teams going to BCS Bowl games and a 9-3 team.

a)So you are saying that A&M was an equal or better team than UT because they won in 2006 and 2007? Come on Imran, you know that underdogs especially always play harder in rivalry games.
b)Georgia's overrated because they started as the #1 team favored to win the whole thing. They finished the year with 3 losses. Mizzou isn't overrated - they were never ranked #1, never the favorite to even win the Big 12 much less the national championship, and are currently ranked #21, which is appropriate considering the fact that three of their losses came to OU, Texas, and Texas Tech.

[Naked Gents Rut]

Umm, you do know how betting lines work, right?

I do. You don't appear to.

Point is, betting line is not useful for suggesting who is most likely to win a game; it predicts the perceptions of the masses, instead.

Yes, I'm sure the masses are perceiving a USC victory in a playoff.

Not that it matters in this case, anyway. If you'd actually read the linked article, you would've understood that professional oddsmakers were asked to provide their views on who would win a college playoff, not what they expected the line would be. Obviously they wouldn't be concerned with encouraging betting when analyzing a hypothetical situation that no one will ever be able to put money on.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut
Why would you judge a conference by the top four teams? Do you take the average of 12 numbers by looking at the first four and ignoring the rest?

Those two things aren't comparable, and you know it. I think the top 5 teams in the Big 12 are far and away better than any team in the ACC, and that's nearly half the conference... if the top team in the ACC would come in ranked at the middle of the Big 12 (6th), I don't see how you could argue they're 'on par' as a conference (or better).

[Naked Gents Rut]

I don't see how you could argue they're 'on par' as a conference (or better).

It's pretty simple. If the average team in the ACC is better than the average team in the Big 12, then the ACC is the stronger conference.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by David Floyd
a)So you are saying that A&M was an equal or better team than UT because they won in 2006 and 2007? Come on Imran, you know that underdogs especially always play harder in rivalry games.

Why would I do something as utterly stupid as judge how good a team is based on one head to head matchup?

This idea that teams "play harder" is a bit insulting. It assumes they aren't playing as hard as they can in other games.

b)Georgia's overrated because they started as the #1 team favored to win the whole thing. They finished the year with 3 losses. Mizzou isn't overrated - they were never ranked #1, never the favorite to even win the Big 12 much less the national championship, and are currently ranked #21, which is appropriate considering the fact that three of their losses came to OU, Texas, and Texas Tech.

Mizzou was Preseason #6 in the AP poll and #7 in the Coaches Poll, which was the the second highest ranking for a Big XII team (after Oklahoma at #4 in both polls). They are currently #25 in the AP and #23 in the Coaches Poll. Yeah, I think they were overrated. I don't think you have to be ranked #1 to be called overrated. That's just ridiculous. West Virginia was ranked #8 in preseason polls. Are they not overrated since they weren't ranked #1?