The SEC Bias in Polls is Ridiculous

[LawDawg]

did a little research and Alabama dropped to just 4th after losing to #15 A&M. after beating powerhouse western Carolina the following week they moved up 2 spots to 2nd....SMH. had Alabama dropped to 10-12 range they wouldn't have been able to get back in championship game even with win vs georgia... sec bias lives

I agree there is a bias ... there always is and always will be. Typically it is for the traditional powerhouses. I can't tell you the times I would bitch when Notre Dame would start out 20th, win 2 games and be in the top 5 (just an example). Right now there is SEC bias. Winning 7 straight NCs, something that has never been done, tends to make that happen. Who knows, one day maybe it will be another conference.

As for Bama, you can complain about the drop of 2 spots ... as a Dawg, I know I did. If that had been no. 2 UGa losing to TAMU, we would have dropped to 6 or 7 (I'd have to look at the standings at that point to know exactly where they would drop). But there is no question that any team that wasn't UT, OU, USCw, ND, OSU, UM would have dropped further. That's the top all-time programs bias we all live with.

But, you are wrong on the move the following week. It has nothing to do with who they played, and everything to do with the fact that the two teams in front of them lost (that was the week K-State and Oregon lost, I believe).

 

[LawDawg]

As I stated before, the SEC gave UGA (what I thought was) the easiest possible schedule. I made no comments about your OOC. You are one of the few teams (this is NCAA wide not just the SEC) that schedules two decent or better OOC games. Also the SEC does not schedule who is in the SEC championship game. You are making a bold assumption that you would make it to the SECCG. So this year, you have USCe, LSU, and Florida as games scheduled for you by the SEC as your only tough games.

To be fair, for some reason, I did not realize that LSU was on your schedule this year, so it is not nearly as bad as I thought. I apologize for my false statement. I can't complain too much because Michigan State has been gifted the easiest possible schedule by the B1G because after this year, there is little chance for a LOOOOOONG time that we can win the B1G with Penn State, Michigan, and Ohio State all in our division.

We're good. I think you would have to look long and hard to find a team that plays more than 3 tough IC games in any conference.

I did include the SECCG because for any team to win the SEC and get considered to play the NC has to go through one of LSU, Bama, UGa, USCe, UF, UT and Auburn (I get that they are down, but I am looking at it more historically). That is a game scheduled by the SEC, which can work for or against you.

I also agree we got the good scheduling 2 years in a row. 2 years ago, it was just the way the cycle went, with the luck that Auburn and UT were down. Last year was a result of the 2 new teams. The SEC wasn't trying to give one team an easy go ... they were trying to figure out how to get those teams in and set up good TV games. We got @Missouri instead of @Bama. Luck of the draw.

But, all in all, we agree more than not.

 

[romeo212000]

We're good. I think you would have to look long and hard to find a team that plays more than 3 tough IC games in any conference.

I did include the SECCG because for any team to win the SEC and get considered to play the NC has to go through one of LSU, Bama, UGa, USCe, UF, UT and Auburn (I get that they are down, but I am looking at it more historically). That is a game scheduled by the SEC, which can work for or against you.

I also agree we got the good scheduling 2 years in a row. 2 years ago, it was just the way the cycle went, with the luck that Auburn and UT were down. Last year was a result of the 2 new teams. The SEC wasn't trying to give one team an easy go ... they were trying to figure out how to get those teams in and set up good TV games. We got @Missouri instead of @Bama. Luck of the draw.

But, all in all, we agree more than not.

2011 says you don't have to even play in the SEC championship game to play in the national title game.

 

[bamabear82]

2011 says you don't have to even play in the SEC championship game to play in the national title game.

 

[4down20]

2011 says you don't have to even play in the SEC championship game to play in the national title game.

It's just another game. But usually a game that is either a big boost to a team, or in some cases, really the National Championship game itself, or a playoff into it.

 

[Codaxx]

There is a bias, but it is understandable. SEC has won 7 straight titles. People are lazy, so they assume 8 will happen. SEC has been either 1 or 2 over the last 5 yrs. Predicting change is hard. Not to mention the largest media outlet in College Football has its biggest investment in the SEC.. If the SEC goes 2-6 in bowls this yr the effect will lessen. Just is what it is.

 

[4down20]

I wish I could get this bias out of my rankings, but for some reason I just can't.

 

[fordman84]

2011 says you don't have to even play in the SEC championship game to play in the national title game.

I can tell you I'm hoping that repeats itself this year

 

[4down20]

I can tell you I'm hoping that repeats itself this year

No thanks.

 

[trojanfight]

Please feel free to do some research for us and tell us the last team to drop 9 spots after one loss, especially a top 5 team in the country. I'm sure you will find one, go back as much as 25 years and do so today.

I had just used usc as an example. Last year #2 usc loses to #21 Stanford and drops to 13th.

 

[romeo212000]

I can tell you I'm hoping that repeats itself this year

I wouldn't count on it. A&M's porous defense will almost definitely keep them out of it.

 

[4down20]

I had just used usc as an example. Last year #2 usc loses to #21 Stanford and drops to 13th.

USC dropped to 13th because their loss to Stanford made voters think they would also lose to Oregon. So while it was 1 physical loss, the loss itself signaled future losses, and those future losses mean more drops. Which was a MORE than accurate read on the team.

When Alabama lost to A&M, it did not signal any future losses. As such, the drop was minimal.

 

[4down20]

Oh and nice avatar fordman.

 

[Codaxx]

I wish I could get this bias out of my rankings, but for some reason I just can't.

-
Let look.. F+ rankings vs Coaches poll

Bama, A&M, Florida, Georgia, LSU, and Vandy.. SEC as a whole was ranked 34 spots higher

3 Big 12 teams were 6 spots lower. Not including #12 OSU in F+ that went unranked.

Pac 10: 2 ranked teams 9 spots over ranked, but Wisconsin and Michigan were top 20 in F+ and unranked. Adding those in (assuming #26) than the Big 10 is under ranked.

that is a quick look between a computer system and the poll

 

[4down20]

-
Let look.. F+ rankings vs Coaches poll

Bama, A&M, Florida, Georgia, LSU, and Vandy.. SEC as a whole was ranked 34 spots higher

3 Big 12 teams were 6 spots lower. Not including #12 OSU in F+ that went unranked.

Pac 10: 2 ranked teams 9 spots over ranked, but Wisconsin and Michigan were top 20 in F+ and unranked. Adding those in (assuming #26) than the Big 10 is under ranked.

that is a quick look between a computer system and the poll

What?

 

[Codaxx]

What?

-
simple. If you add up the combined rankings in the coaches poll of SEC teams and subtract it from the F+ rankings of those teams the difference is 34 spots. Example: SoCar was 7 in the coaches and 13 in F+, so 6 goes to the ledger. A&M was #5 coaches and #3 in F+, so -2.

 

[4down20]

-
simple. If you add up the combined rankings in the coaches poll of SEC teams and subtract it from the F+ rankings of those teams the difference is 34 spots. Example: SoCar was 7 in the coaches and 13 in F+, so 6 goes to the ledger. A&M was #5 coaches and #3 in F+, so -2.

I just look at number of teams in the top25 personally. I don't see #5 and #3, or #7 and #13 as being a significant difference.

 

[Codaxx]

I just look at number of teams in the top25 personally. I don't see #5 and #3, or #7 and #13 as being a significant difference.

-
To be fair Vandy is a massive outlier. Damn, I missed Florida. They make it 28, not 34. Big outliers (overrated) were Vandy, Clemson, Louisville, Northwestern, and Tulsa. Vandy was the most "over-rated" team. Oklahoma State and Wisconsin were big outliers the other way.

 

[trojanfight]

USC dropped to 13th because their loss to Stanford made voters think they would also lose to Oregon. So while it was 1 physical loss, the loss itself signaled future losses, and those future losses mean more drops. Which was a MORE than accurate read on the team.

When Alabama lost to A&M, it did not signal any future losses. As such, the drop was minimal.

seems to be your just making stuff up as you go... there isn't a whole lot of difference between a #21 team and a # 15 team...why didn't voters also think Alabama would lose to Georgia? afterall Georgia was ranked much higher. that seems to be the Alabama default excuse is oh well usc sucked so who cares if they dropped so much...a lot of things factored....matt barkley getting injured was atleast 2 of the losses..im sure I can find other teams who lost and dropped out of top 10 if I dig enough.

this year maybe the 42 points Alabama gave up to a&m is a signal of horrible defense rest of year. but of course weak at the qb postion teams like Colorado state, auburn, ole miss, Tennessee, wont be enough to exploit the weak D

 

[4down20]

seems to be your just making stuff up as you go... there isn't a whole lot of difference between a #21 team and a # 15 team...why didn't voters also think Alabama would lose to Georgia? afterall Georgia was ranked much higher. that seems to be the Alabama default excuse is oh well usc sucked so who cares if they dropped so much...a lot of things factored....matt barkley getting injured was atleast 2 of the losses..im sure I can find other teams who lost and dropped out of top 10 if I dig enough.

this year maybe the 42 points Alabama gave up to a&m is a signal of horrible defense rest of year. but of course weak at the qb postion teams like Colorado state, auburn, ole miss, Tennessee, wont be enough to exploit the weak D

Yeah, I know nothing about how rankings work so I just need to make things up.

If you don't want to accept the truth about how these things work, then there is nothing I can do. USC had Stanford and Oregon in conference, and although Oregon lost to Stanford, at the time Oregon was considered the better team. Losing to Stanford meant people expected them to lose to Oregon, which explains the slide. They would have dropped even more if people had faith in Notre Dame at that point, but they didn't.

When A&M beat Alabama last year, Georgia was not on the schedule because it was the SEC Championship game. But it was somewhat figured at that point. Alabama was still favored in that game even when it was announced, USC was not favored against Oregon, who didn't lose to Stanford until after the USC game.