College Football - Goin' Bowlin'

[David Floyd]

No, I meant that Georgia is probably a bit more overrated NOW than Mizzou is.

Also, while it may be insulting, teams DO tend to play harder in rivalry games. That's just the way it is. It might have something to do with the fact that tons of pressure gets placed on the coaches to beat their rivals.

snoopy,

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).

This is exactly my point. Well said

NGR,

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.

The problem is, every team in the ACC is average or worse.

[Naked Gents Rut]

The problem is, every team in the ACC is average or worse.

So what? The teams in the bottom of the Big 12 are far worse, which is why the ACC is stronger on average than the Big 12 despite the Big 12's superiority in top teams.

[David Floyd]

Well, calling the ACC the best conference when the ACC is full of utterly average teams (and some bad ones) doesn't seem very reasonable to me.

Also, if you put Baylor in the ACC instead of the Big 12 South, I bet they would flip their record from 4-8 to 8-4.

[Naked Gents Rut]

Well, calling the ACC the best conference when the ACC is full of utterly average teams (and some bad ones) doesn't seem very reasonable to me.

Comparing the ACC to the Big 12 on the basis of the average team in both conferences is the only reasonable way to determine the best conference.

[David Floyd]

Except that having 4 of the top teams in football in the Big 12 South (UT, Tech, OU, Oklahoma St), and forcing the rest of the Big 12 South to play most of their conference games against those teams, sorta skews the average.

I know this stat isn't tracked, but if we tracked SOS as it applies to conference play, I think you might see this differently.

[Naked Gents Rut]

Except that having 4 of the top teams in football in the Big 12 South (UT, Tech, OU, Oklahoma St), and forcing the rest of the Big 12 South to play most of their conference games against those teams, sorta skews the average.

How does it skew the average? That doesn't make any sense.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Naked Gents Rut


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.

Wrong. Absolutely, completely wrong.

First off, how do you compute average? Football team ability is not something you can make a number out of and add up and divide by 12. People who think they can (ie, computer rankings) are simply quantifying what they think is important (say, SoS); there is still a very large degree of subjective judgment involved.

Or, are you suggesting the median teams be compared? Obviously ludicrous, of course.

In my opinion, strength at the top matters. I'd rather have a conference with five or six really stellar teams and five or six lousy teams to twelve average teams. Certainly the latter one is 'top to bottom' as good or better, but the former is a better conference overall I think - more able to compete with other conferences. Since at the end of the day, winning the national championship is what matters, I think the ability to win a national championship has to factor highly - if not highest - in a conference's strength, and that is where the SEC comes in stronger than the ACC (while the BXII is stronger all around, frankly).

[Berzerker]

Big 12 kicked ass this year - 6 teams in the top 20 part or most of the way I think. Texas, Texas Tech, Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Mizzou and Kansas. SEC comes in 2nd with Bama and the Gators leading the way. Like Snoop said...

Anyone start a yahoo college bowl pick em yet?

[Ming]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Anyone start a yahoo college bowl pick em yet?

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=182140

[Naked Gents Rut]

In my opinion, strength at the top matters. I'd rather have a conference with five or six really stellar teams and five or six lousy teams to twelve average teams. Certainly the latter one is 'top to bottom' as good or better, but the former is a better conference overall I think - more able to compete with other conferences.

You're not comparing conferences if you only look at the top teams. You're just comparing teams.

The Big 12 has better individual teams than the ACC this year. The ACC is the better conference.

[David Floyd]

Yes, ACC teams do have better records. But again, ACC teams didn't have to play the game combo that was essentially a guaranteed 4 loss schedule - UT, OU, Tech, and Oklahoma St.

I just don't see how you can compare the conferences, given that fact.

[Naked Gents Rut]

Half the Big 12 didn't play that "guaranteed 4 loss schedule". It wouldn't even matter if they did, however, because their extra losses would net out with the extra wins of UT, OU, Tech and Oklahoma State. The strength of the hypothetical average Big 12 team remains unchanged.

[David Floyd]

Then, hypothetically, let's put Kansas, Nebraska, Baylor, and K-State in the ACC. Do you think those teams would have been competitive for the conference championship?

[Naked Gents Rut]

No. Nebraska lost to the ACC champ at home, but beat Kansas, Baylor and K-State.

[David Floyd]

Then allow me to rephrase - would they, in your opinion, had a better than 5-3 conference record in the ACC?