With all that Ess-EEEE-SEEE Speed, You'd Think the SEC Would Have a Better Regular Season Record Against BCS Conference Schools

by Maize n Brew Dave on Jun 15, 2009 4:34 PM CDT in College Football Comment 5 comments

If I asked you to put together a pecking order for what conferences, including the Mountain West, were best and worst in their regular season BCS match ups over the last two years, would it look anything like this?

Regular Season Record vs. Other BCS Conferences/ND/Moutain West Conference, 2007-2008 Regular Seasons

ACC: 26-19 (.578)

Big Ten: 15-11 (.577)

Mtn West: 17-13 (.567)

Big East: 16-15 (.516)

Pac-10: 12-13 (.480)

Big 12: 12-14 (.462)

SEC: 13-16 (.448)

Stats and unrelated story courtesy of Dr. Saturday.

First, holy hell, the ACC was 26-19 against BCS Conferences/ND/MWC for the last two seasons!!!?? What's even more impressive is the fact the won more BSC match ups than the Pac-10 played over the last two years. That's an astounding 47 non-conference games against BCS opponents, which breaks down to just about two BCS level opponents each year for every team in the ACC. When you think about the fact that the ACC's win total is equal to the amount of games the Big XII and Big Ten played, and within 3 games of the totals of the SEC, it's surprising that the ACC has such a bad reputation come kick-off. The proof's in the pudding. The ACC's best might not be equal to USC, Florida, and maybe Oklahoma (just as examples, not in direct order); but the conference as a whole can stand toe-to-toe with anyone on the basis of the ever important "show me" stat.

Second, the SEC did not fair nearly as well as it's reputation would've suggested. Not that three games below .500 is "OMG teh wheels are falling off!!" But it's still surprising. Florida's got four of those wins in shellacking FSU and Miami twice a piece. You could interpret that to mean the rest of the SEC isn't holding up their end of the bargain, or you could interpet it to mean BCS schools are only scheduling the bottom half of the conference. Your choice on that one.

Third, the Big Ten placing second on the list is a nice "so what" stat. Winning four more games than they lost for a .577 winning percentage against BCS/MWC/ND opponents. When you consider that ND counted for at least four of those wins, you get a great big yawn. What you also get is a great big "yikes" if Notre Dame turns the corner this year as predicted.

So what can we infer from these numbers? Other than giving the ACC a little credit where credit is due, not a whole hell of a lot. What's obvious, and what everyone has been complaining about this off season, is that the conferences simply aren't scheduling one another. When they do, the scheduled games rarely determine anything in the grand conference scheme. What it looks like is the conferences, despite all the "my confurenz es da Suxors!" yodeling, are pretty even.

0 recs | Comment 5 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Case-by-case basis

It’s important to take these things on a case-by-case basis, because each conference has an entirely different set of teams playing different sets of opponents.

Taking the SEC as an example, how much credit do you give for 13-1 Florida beating 7-6 Miami? Or 9-4 Georgia Tech for beating 4-8 Miss State? When 12-2 LSU hammers 11-3 VT (as in 2007), it’s worth a lot more than 10-3 Georgia hammering 5-7 Arizona State (as in 2008).

It’s better to look at the matchups and find out how teams did relative to what you would expect them to do.

Team Speed Kills
SBNation's SEC Blog

by Year2 on Jun 15, 2009 7:06 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics

totally agree with you. I thought I’d left the above subject header in the post, but apparently I didn’t. The match ups, of course, are key, but I was really surprised by

a) the number of ACC non conf games against BCS opponents;
b) the ACC’s record in those games;
c) just how few intra BCS games there actually were; and,
d) how everyone stacked up.

The numbers were just surprising before you get into too much detail. Mayhaps I should admit having a little too much fun with the post title. ;)

Maize n Brew
Because Football is Better with Beer

by Maize n Brew Dave on Jun 15, 2009 7:26 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Nah

It’s ok, we joke about the ESS-EE-SEE speed down at our place too. The entire name is a wink and a nod to the way that’s been blown way out of proportion.

The ACC does do the most aggressive scheduling out of conference, at least in the way of other BCS conference teams. It’s part of the reason why its teams have a hard time separating themselves in their overall records. It does surprise me somewhat given that FSU and Clemson both played two I-AA teams last season, but overall, they all do a pretty good job at the out of conference scheduling.

And yeah, we think the SEC should (in an ideal world) step up the non-conference competition. Unfortunately, most of the athletic departments hide behind the money issue as a way of justifying it. Take Florida, for example. No non-conference games out of the state since Syracuse in ‘91. "Why travel when we’ve got FSU and Miami in state?" It misses (or more accurately, ignores) the point of going out of state for these kinds of games, but the athletic department has been crystal clear in its intention never to go far outside the conference for anything but bowl games.

Team Speed Kills
SBNation's SEC Blog

by Year2 on Jun 15, 2009 8:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Another note:

PAC10 has 10 fewer opportunities to play other BCS teams each season with their 9th conference game. Technically, they play 20 more BCS games, just conference games, which they naturally go .500.

I guess you could assume they’d play them at the same rate and multiply their current numbers by 1.25, but that also assumes teams wouldn’t just schedule patsies. USC, CAL, and Washington have shown that that’s not really the case for them, but I can’t say that about everyone.

by formerlyanonymous on Jun 15, 2009 10:56 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs