As promised, AG...Part 1

[Gator]

Ok, let’s see who screwed the pooch in bowl games.
Let’s look at the Bowl records from 1998 (when the PAC and B1G joined the Bowl Coalition to become the Bowl Championship) to 2017.

Number of Bowl Games played:
1) SEC 180 Bowl Games
2) ACC 161 Bowl Games
3) B1G 153 Bowl Games
4) B12 148 Bowl Games
5) PAC 129 Bowl Games

Number of P5 Bowl teams played:
1) SEC 165 P5 Teams
2) B1G 144 P5 Teams
3) ACC 134 P5 Teams
4) B12 132 P5 Teams
5) PAC 98 P5 Teams

Number of Top 10 teams played (for opponents ranking I used the Massey composite post season rankings):
1) SEC 46 T10 teams
2) B1G 40 T10 teams
3) B12 36 T10 teams
4) PAC 27 T10 teams
5) ACC 24 T10 teams (Tsk, tsk, tsk).

Yes, I know, the PAC plays fewer bowls, fewer P5 teams, and fewer Top 10 teams than the other conferences, because the PAC HAS fewer teams than the other conferences. Right?

The total number of teams fielded by each conference from 1999 - 2017:
1) SEC 252 Teams
2) B1G 235 Teams
3) ACC 231 Teams
4) B12 226 Teams
5) PAC 214 Teams.

Again, I know, I know, I know, it makes sense that the PAC should have played in fewer bowls, played fewer P5 teams and played fewer Top 10 teams than the other conferences, but, is that the explanation?
Let's see how many bowls games are played PER conference team?

1) SEC 180/252 = 0.7143 Games/Member
2) ACC 161/231 = 0.6970 Games/Member
3) B12 148/226 = 0.6549 Games/Member
4) B1G 153/235 = 0.6511 Games/Member
5) PAC 129/214 = 0.6028 Games/Member

So if the other conferences only played only 0.6028 Games/Member...
1) SEC 0.6028 Games/Member x 252 Members = 152 Games (not 180 Games).
2) B1G 0.6028 Games/Member x 235 Members = 142 Games (not 153 Games)
3) ACC 0.6028 Games/Member x 231 Members = 139 Games (not 161 Games)
4) B12 0.6028 Games/Member x 226 Members = 136 Games (not 148 Games)
5) PAC 0.6028 Games/Member x 214 Members = 129 Games (yes 129 Games)

No, the PAC plays fewer bowls for some other reason than the fact that there are fewer PAC teams. WHY???

This is your cue, AG...let's hear your conspiracy theories on this one.

 

[MarkOU]

Florida is 22-21 all time in bowl games.

 

[TROJAN-MAN]

Thread fail, SEC only 8 conference games

 

[MarkOU]

Alabama has 40 bowl wins.

Amazing

 

[Gator]

Florida is 22-21 all time in bowl games.

And.....?

 

[MarkOU]

USC sitting pretty with 34 bowl wins.
Oklahoma and Penn State with 29 each.

 

[MarkOU]

And.....?

I thought this was a bowl record thread? No? Just crunching numbers ya know.

 

[Gator]

Thread fail, SEC only 8 conference games

That all we need to figure out who the best teams are. Why does it take a lesser conference MORE games to figure it out?????

 

[MarkOU]

I just want to say Alabama with 40 bowl wins is impressive. Dominating.

 

[Gator]

Florida is 22-21 all time in bowl games.

Yes, but we are 1-0 vs OU and 1-0-1 vs USC.

 

[WizardHawk]

I have no idea what AG fishing trip caused this, but the table in the OP doesn't take into account that the SEC gets in more bowl games because they have more OOC games for their mid/lower tier teams to feast on to reach 6 games. You only have to win two league games to reach a bowl. That sets their bowl appearances and appearances per number of members in an entirely different category than the others.

Also, USC's bowl ban that lasted how many of those years? And not sure if their vacated bowls were subtracted, but those are both potentially huge because you know had they not gone through that they would have been a bowl team every one of those years.

Several programs were all down at the same time. That's what lead to Oregon feeling all like their run was legit when it was really just a lack of true challengers conveniently at a time when they were playing more decent ball. So for sure the bowl appearances were down while several of those typically expected bowl worthy programs were absent.

 

[Gator]

I have no idea what AG fishing trip caused this, but the table in the OP doesn't take into account that the SEC gets in more bowl games because they have more OOC games for their mid/lower tier teams to feast on to reach 6 games. You only have to win two league games to reach a bowl. That sets their bowl appearances and appearances per number of members in an entirely different category than the others.

I was waiting for AG to make this ridiculous claim, but, I will address this fallacy in Part 2.

Also, USC's bowl ban that lasted how many of those years? And not sure if their vacated bowls were subtracted, but those are both potentially huge because you know had they not gone through that they would have been a bowl team every one of those years.

No games were removed.

Several programs were all down at the same time. That's what lead to Oregon feeling all like their run was legit when it was really just a lack of true challengers conveniently at a time when they were playing more decent ball. So for sure the bowl appearances were down while several of those typically expected bowl worthy programs were absent.

It not just the NUMBER of Bowl games - it is also how poorly the PAC has performed in the Bowls over the past 20 seasons!

 

[WizardHawk]

There is no 'fallacy' in saying a data set that has one of its members not doing the same thing as the others yet comparing their results is flawed. Period. It doesn't take many 'bubble' teams to have that one extra win and reach 6 to give them an edge.

14 teams with 8 league games - 4 OOC games that are entirely controllable by each team and can make sure all of them are winnable.

12 teams with 9 league games - 3 OOC games that are controllable.

Neither impacts that truly shitty or really good teams in terms of making a bowl. The first both likely has more bubble teams because it has more teams AND gives them an advantage in scheduling to artificially make '6'.

Even if it only helps one team every other year or so more than the latter, it's still an advantage in terms of trying to compare results for both.

It's not the same field.

 

[Gator]

I thought this was a bowl record thread? No? Just crunching numbers ya know.

Yes, it IS about records but I was building up to that!

 

[AlaskaGuy]

Thread fail, SEC only 8 conference games

 

[Gator]

I have no idea what AG fishing trip caused this, but the table in the OP doesn't take into account that the SEC gets in more bowl games because they have more OOC games for their mid/lower tier teams to feast on to reach 6 games. You only have to win two league games to reach a bowl. That sets their bowl appearances and appearances per number of members in an entirely different category than the others....

And

There is no 'fallacy' in saying a data set that has one of its members not doing the same thing as the others yet comparing their results is flawed. Period. It doesn't take many 'bubble' teams to have that one extra win and reach 6 to give them an edge.

14 teams with 8 league games - 4 OOC games that are entirely controllable by each team and can make sure all of them are winnable.

12 teams with 9 league games - 3 OOC games that are controllable.

Neither impacts that truly shitty or really good teams in terms of making a bowl. The first both likely has more bubble teams because it has more teams AND gives them an advantage in scheduling to artificially make '6'.

Even if it only helps one team every other year or so more than the latter, it's still an advantage in terms of trying to compare results for both.

It's not the same field.

It is a fallacy. Your description implies that the SEC gets "lesser" quality teams in to the bowls because they play 4 OOC games that "they control" meaning they play FCS and lesser G5 teams. It ignores the conference schedule. You want to say that all P5 conference are on par in quality. They ARE NOT!!!! IF the SEC really was sneaking crappy teams into the bowls then the "good" teams from the other conferences should BEAT the crappy SEC teams. Guess what, THEY AREN'T!!!!

 

[TROJAN-MAN]

That all we need to figure out who the best teams are. Why does it take a lesser conference MORE games to figure it out?????

 

[WizardHawk]

And



It is a fallacy. Your description implies that the SEC gets "lesser" quality teams in to the bowls because they play 4 OOC games that "they control" meaning they play FCS and lesser G5 teams. It ignores the conference schedule. You want to say that all P5 conference are on par in quality. They ARE NOT!!!! IF the SEC really was sneaking crappy teams into the bowls then the "good" teams from the other conferences should BEAT the crappy SEC teams. Guess what, THEY AREN'T!!!!

Man, I was waiting for something of substance, not hyperbole. You disappoint me.

It's simple man: Every single 'league week' in the SEC gives you exactly 7 winners and 7 losers. It doesn't matter AT ALL how good/bad they individually are. You get a .500 record for all league games. So does every league.

The real question (that I really don't care to research) is what is the overall winning percentage of each league OOC. Because that's the ONLY variance outside of the overall .500 league record. Many SEC teams do play at least one risky OOC game, but I'd bet many of those teams hanging around the middle aren't as apt to do so and that probably happens in many of the leagues.

If your team has no chance at all of being in a title hunt then your OOC SoS doesn't really mean anything to you, but winning those extra games and reaching a bowl does. It's not hard math or hard ideas to understand.

 

[Gator]

Man, I was waiting for something of substance, not hyperbole. You disappoint me.

It's simple man: Every single 'league week' in the SEC gives you exactly 7 winners and 7 losers. It doesn't matter AT ALL how good/bad they individually are. You get a .500 record for all league games. So does every league.

The real question (that I really don't care to research) is what is the overall winning percentage of each league OOC. Because that's the ONLY variance outside of the overall .500 league record. Many SEC teams do play at least one risky OOC game, but I'd bet many of those teams hanging around the middle aren't as apt to do so and that probably happens in many of the leagues.

If your team has no chance at all of being in a title hunt then your OOC SoS doesn't really mean anything to you, but winning those extra games and reaching a bowl does. It's not hard math or hard ideas to understand.

Yes, and history tells us that 6-6 SEC teams are better on average than 6-6 PAC teams even though the SEC teams play fewer P5 opponents and more G5 + FCS teams than the PAC.

This season, the PAC played MORE P5 and fewer G5+FCS teams than the SEC which should mean that the OOC SOS for the PAC is higher than the OOC SOS for the SEC. BUT, you find ANY SOS calculation that shows that the TOTAL SOS for the PAC conference was higher than the TOTAL SOS for the SEC. Go ahead, you can't find one because the IN CONFERENCE SOS for the SEC is rated higher than the PAC and the IN CONFERENCE games make up the majority of the schedule for any conference team.

 

[AlaskaGuy]

Yes, and history tells us that 6-6 SEC teams are better on average than 6-6 PAC teams even though the SEC teams play fewer P5 opponents and more G5 + FCS teams than the PAC.

This season, the PAC played MORE P5 and fewer G5+FCS teams than the SEC which should mean that the OOC SOS for the PAC is higher than the OOC SOS for the SEC. BUT, you find ANY SOS calculation that shows that the TOTAL SOS for the PAC conference was higher than the TOTAL SOS for the SEC. Go ahead, you can't find one because the IN CONFERENCE SOS for the SEC is rated higher than the PAC and the IN CONFERENCE games make up the majority of the schedule for any conference team.

Get back to us when the SEC and ACC grow a set and move to a 9 game conference schedule. Until then all this bs you posted means nothing.