As promised, AG...Part 1

[WizardHawk]

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.

That may or may not be true and isn't relevant to whether or not checking bowl appearances per number of members is equal when talking about 9 conf game leagues and 8. They do not equal and has nothing to do with what teams do once there. Doesn't change things. You are still wrong.

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.

Once again, SoS does not have ANYTHING AT ALL to do with bowl eligibility in 8 vs 9 game leagues. Nothing at all. Period. More strawman bullshit because you can't face that it does give an advantage to middle tier teams if they choose to take that advantage.

There isn't a thing you've said to the contrary. At all.

SoS doesn't mean a thing toward bowl eligibility. That is entirely on win/loss. SoS doesn't change that all league games end in a .500 win/loss average no matter how good or bad the team/league is. That's simple math. So every game you can control outside of your league CHANGES THE OVERALL WIN/LOSS OF THE LEAGUE AS A WHOLE. When win/loss is the only deciding factor in going to a bowl (not talking about WHICH bowl, or who wins those as that wasn't in the OP) then having more opportunities outside of the always .500 league games is guaranteed better odds of producing .500+ teams.

Period.

 

[Gator]

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 is just that ... bs.

Get back to us when the PAC is something more than a glorified G5 conference!

That may or may not be true and isn't relevant to whether or not checking bowl appearances per number of members is equal when talking about 9 conf game leagues and 8. They do not equal and has nothing to do with what teams do once there. Doesn't change things. You are still wrong.


Once again, SoS does not have ANYTHING AT ALL to do with bowl eligibility in 8 vs 9 game leagues. Nothing at all. Period. More strawman bullshit because you can't face that it does give an advantage to middle tier teams if they choose to take that advantage.

There isn't a thing you've said to the contrary. At all.

SoS doesn't mean a thing toward bowl eligibility. That is entirely on win/loss. SoS doesn't change that all league games end in a .500 win/loss average no matter how good or bad the team/league is. That's simple math. So every game you can control outside of your league CHANGES THE OVERALL WIN/LOSS OF THE LEAGUE AS A WHOLE. When win/loss is the only deciding factor in going to a bowl (not talking about WHICH bowl, or who wins those as that wasn't in the OP) then having more opportunities outside of the always .500 league games is guaranteed better odds of producing .500+ teams.

Period.

Now you are talking bullshit. The OOC is NOT the only factor in winning 6 games, PERIOD. You lose. It is easier to win games in the PAC conference than in the SEC. There are more conference games than OOC games therefore it is HARDER to win 6 games in a SEC schedule than in a PAC schedule. Get over it.

 

[AlaskaGuy]

Get back to us when the PAC is something more than a glorified G5 conference!

Now you are talking bullshit. The OOC is NOT the only factor in winning 6 games, PERIOD. You lose. It is easier to win games in the PAC conference than in the SEC. There are more conference games than OOC games therefore it is HARDER to win 6 games in a SEC schedule than in a PAC schedule. Get over it.

You're too dumb to debate this topic.

 

[WizardHawk]

Get back to us when the PAC is something more than a glorified G5 conference!

Now you are talking bullshit. The OOC is NOT the only factor in winning 6 games, PERIOD. You lose. It is easier to win games in the PAC conference than in the SEC. There are more conference games than OOC games therefore it is HARDER to win 6 games in a SEC schedule than in a PAC schedule. Get over it.

You are being a bigger more dense tool than normal. I'm right and even SEC homers would agree.

Obviously you are leading to a different topic and this is just a stop on the way. I really don't care about your inevitable bigger point. My statement on the limited topic of the OP is 100% correct.

 

[4down20]

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.

The difference in bowl appearances due to conference games would be minimal. It's a potential difference of only 7 wins over the entire 168 games of the regular season for the SEC. That's only 4% difference and that is the MAX difference which would require the SEC to win all it's OOC games.

It can matter in specific cases, but overall the effect is minimal and I'd be it's the Pac12's OOC record that does more damage to their bowl cases than that max 4%.

Alabama has been bowl banned, and so have other SEC teams. Don't think that counts and well it's kind of our own fault that we were banned.

 

[WizardHawk]

The difference in bowl appearances due to conference games would be minimal. It's a potential difference of only 7 wins over the entire 168 games of the regular season for the SEC. That's only 4% difference and that is the MAX difference which would require the SEC to win all it's OOC games.

I wasn't attempting to quantify how much variance there is, only that it isn't the same for 8 v 9 league game teams. I also did further qualify it by saying it had no impact at all on the top and bottom of any league and was only a thing for bubble/middle tier teams.

When you are going to go all the way back to the start of the BCS, even smaller variances take away from the evenness of the data you are trying to represent.

I mean it's obvious that if his values are correct (and frankly I don't care either way) the rest of the conferences are more or less on some equal footing, outside of the fact I do not believe all of the others have also had 9 league games over that same long span dating back to the start of the BCS. Didn't the B1G only recently go to 9? I'd really have to spend more time than I care to to dive deeper into that and I just don't care enough to. I would say that the data is fair for comparing any conference that played the same number of league games over the span of the data set.

I'm sure he's heading toward some other conversation about winning percentage or whatnot and SoS might play more into those and be valid for those discussions. It simply isn't for bowl eligibility. A 6-6 WAC team is as bowl eligible as a 6-6 ACC team. And every conference ends at .500 in conference play, so variance in the number of out of league play can and does impact overall conference win/loss. It's a fact.

 

[WizardHawk]

So which of these facts do you consider a fallacy @Gator :
1) At the end of every conference season the conference as a whole is .500 win/loss
2) All P5's finish WELL above .500 as a conference in their OOC games
3) Therefor the more OOC games a conference has, the higher the CONFERENCE finishes above .500 on average

4) If none of those are false, then it is also true that more OOC games gives more chances for middle tier teams to reach 6-6 or higher.

Tell us where the fallacy is.

Can't wait for it.

 

[TROJAN-MAN]

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.

The SEC has enjoyed the luxury of have the most teams of any conference pre-season ranked for almost a couple of decades now.Subsequently, When one team beats another IC their SOS improves that much more as to say a Washington or SC beating an Oregan St. unranked.

 

[trojanfan12]

USC sitting pretty with 34 bowl wins.

The only bowl stat that matters.

Fuck a bunch of rah-rah "My conference is better than your conference" bullshit.

That shit is fer da gheys.

 

[Gator]

So which of these facts do you consider a fallacy @Gator :
1) At the end of every conference season the conference as a whole is .500 win/loss
2) All P5's finish WELL above .500 as a conference in their OOC games
3) Therefor the more OOC games a conference has, the higher the CONFERENCE finishes above .500 on average

4) If none of those are false, then it is also true that more OOC games gives more chances for middle tier teams to reach 6-6 or higher.

Tell us where the fallacy is.

Can't wait for it.

Suppose the PAC went to a 12 conference schedule with no OOC games. Further suppose that the teams are mediocre. Now like all conferences they end up 0.500 but now all teams are 6-6 and the entire conference goes to Bowls. I guess it does depend on how good the teams are IN conference. It would seem that the more "parity" or "mediocrity" a conference has the more Bowl teams it will have. You CAN'T make a blanket statement that 4 OOC games vs 3 means more Bowls you have to look at the actual conferences.

 

[Gator]

The SEC has enjoyed the luxury of have the most teams of any conference pre-season ranked for almost a couple of decades now.Subsequently, When one team beats another IC their SOS improves that much more as to say a Washington or SC beating an Oregan St. unranked.

This is such a BS argument. Why does EVERY computer ranking show the same pattern, more SEC at the top, when they only use the current years data? Why does the Coaches poll show it? Why does the CFP committee show it?

 

[NU_FTW]

OP is Gay.

 

[outofyourmind]

Yeah, lets not take into account that 2/3rds of all Bowls take place in the South.

 

[WizardHawk]

Suppose the PAC went to a 12 conference schedule with no OOC games. Further suppose that the teams are mediocre. Now like all conferences they end up 0.500 but now all teams are 6-6 and the entire conference goes to Bowls. I guess it does depend on how good the teams are IN conference. It would seem that the more "parity" or "mediocrity" a conference has the more Bowl teams it will have. You CAN'T make a blanket statement that 4 OOC games vs 3 means more Bowls you have to look at the actual conferences.

And you once again won't (and can't) answer the question without trying to change the topic.

There is no doubt at all that having more OOC games in one conference than another gives you more chances for teams being above .500. It's basic math that isn't refutable. There is no one coming to your aid which should speak volumes. You flat out are entirely wrong on that.

How much individual strength or weakness skews how many bowl eligible teams you have isn't the point that was being made. You made a clear and blanket statement that was wrong, got called out on it, and have gone to great lengths to avoid just saying yeah, maybe that point is right and moving on to whatever bigger point you want to make and keep seeming to drag your heels on.

I'm happy to keep putting you back in your place on that point if it's required.