Apparently a lot of people are bad at math (Pac-12 complaining about SEC schedule)

http://espn.go.com/college-football...-decision-maintain-8-game-conference-schedule

I'm not even sure where to start here. First, a lot of statements seem to be claiming that the SEC is gaming the system, or somehow dodging having a competitive schedule. What kind of asinine ridiculousness is that? The SEC has had basically the same schedule since 1992, and they were playing a conference championship well before the ACC, Big 10, and Pac-12. Where was all the talk of those teams gaming the system back then? The idea that not changing is somehow manipulating things is the height of stupidity.

Furthermore, these embeciles seem to be claiming that somehow this 8 game SEC slate will result in a weaker schedule. Are they stupid or just lying? At this point, only the Pac-12 has any sort of claim to coming remotely close to the SEC's level of competitiveness. Not only is the SEC not playing a weak schedule, they, year in, year out play one of is not the toughest schedules! Part of the problem with the current landscape though is that the rest of the conferences can just lie. They're the ones attempting to game the system, they're the ones trying to manipulate a playoff into favoring them over more deserving SEC teams. We know the SEC can get it done in the field, these other conferences are trying to get it done off the field.

Let me give these conferences a hint. Adding another game against a weak conference foe does not make your conference any better! Playing Wake Forest, or Northwestern, does nothing to prove you're better than an SEC program. To illustrate how ridiculous these claims are, here's the SEC's rank according to Sagarin over the years:

2013:
1 SEC-WEST (A) = 83.73 83.17 ( 1) 7 83.74 ( 1)
2 PAC-12(NORTH) (A) = 82.67 81.33 ( 2) 6 82.80 ( 2)
3 PAC-12(SOUTH) (A) = 82.28 81.28 ( 3) 6 82.05 ( 3)
4 SEC-EAST (A) = 78.14 77.89 ( 4) 7 78.12 ( 4)
5 BIG 12 (A) = 78.13 77.34 ( 6) 10 78.01 ( 5)
6 BIG TEN-LEGENDS (A) = 76.67 77.36 ( 5) 6 76.78 ( 6)
7 ACC-COASTAL (A) = 74.22 73.15 ( 8) 7 73.69 ( 7)
8 BIG TEN-LEADERS (A) = 73.25 72.64 ( 9) 6 73.21 ( 8)
9 ACC-ATLANTIC (A) = 72.57 74.56 ( 7) 7 71.95 ( 9)

2012:
1 SOUTHEASTERN (A) = 81.75 81.57 ( 1) 14 81.64 ( 1)
2 BIG 12 (A) = 79.99 79.38 ( 2) 10 79.54 ( 2)
3 PAC-12 (A) = 76.15 75.58 ( 3) 12 75.85 ( 3)
4 BIG TEN (A) = 75.87 75.05 ( 4) 12 75.24 ( 4)
5 I-A INDEPENDENTS (A) = 72.83 72.73 ( 5) 4 72.82 ( 5)
6 BIG EAST (A) = 72.16 71.87 ( 7) 8 71.91 ( 6)
7 ATLANTIC COAST (A) = 71.64 71.92 ( 6) 12 71.80 ( 7)

2011:
1 BIG 12 (A) = 83.61 82.83 ( 1) 10 83.08 ( 1)
2 SOUTHEASTERN (A) = 80.88 81.60 ( 2) 12 81.27 ( 2)
3 BIG TEN (A) = 75.55 75.30 ( 4) 12 75.49 ( 3)
4 PAC-12 (A) = 74.72 75.38 ( 3) 12 75.14 ( 4)
5 BIG EAST (A) = 72.41 72.86 ( 5) 8 72.82 ( 5)
6 I-A INDEPENDENTS (A) = 71.92 71.49 ( 6) 4 71.59 ( 6)
7 ATLANTIC COAST (A) = 71.23 71.03 ( 7) 12 71.06 ( 7)

2010:
1 PAC-10 (A) = 80.87 81.43 ( 1) 10 81.14 ( 1)
2 SOUTHEASTERN (A) = 79.84 79.56 ( 2) 12 79.72 ( 2)
3 BIG 12 (A) = 75.42 75.64 ( 3) 12 75.66 ( 3)
4 ATLANTIC COAST (A) = 74.32 74.18 ( 6) 12 74.20 ( 6)
5 BIG TEN (A) = 74.18 74.72 ( 4) 11 74.52 ( 4)

2009:
1 SOUTHEASTERN (A) = 80.48 81.07 ( 1) 12 80.87 ( 1)
2 BIG EAST (A) = 77.33 76.97 ( 2) 8 77.06 ( 2)
3 PAC-10 (A) = 76.23 75.45 ( 5) 10 75.77 ( 4)
4 ATLANTIC COAST (A) = 76.04 75.90 ( 3) 12 75.92 ( 3)
5 BIG 12 (A) = 74.61 75.54 ( 4) 12 75.32 ( 5)
6 BIG TEN (A) = 73.74 74.49 ( 6) 11 74.30 ( 6)

2008:
1 SOUTHEASTERN (A) = 78.31 79.08 ( 1) 12
2 BIG 12 (A) = 77.86 77.80 ( 2) 12
3 ATLANTIC COAST (A) = 77.70 77.67 ( 3) 12
4 PAC-10 (A) = 76.14 75.39 ( 4) 10
5 BIG EAST (A) = 75.23 74.11 ( 5) 8
6 BIG TEN (A) = 73.21 73.49 ( 6) 11

2007:
1 SOUTHEASTERN (A) = 81.99 81.83 ( 1) 12
2 PAC-10 (A) = 79.47 79.63 ( 2) 10
3 BIG 12 (A) = 78.62 78.35 ( 3) 12
4 BIG EAST (A) = 77.46 77.12 ( 4) 8
5 ATLANTIC COAST (A) = 75.21 74.98 ( 5) 12
6 BIG TEN (A) = 74.63 74.17 ( 6) 11

2006:
1 SOUTHEASTERN (A) = 81.60 81.23 ( 1) 12
2 BIG EAST (A) = 79.57 79.90 ( 2) 8
3 PAC-10 (A) = 78.78 79.15 ( 3) 10
4 ATLANTIC COAST (A) = 75.49 73.79 ( 6) 12
5 BIG TEN (A) = 74.89 75.62 ( 4) 11
6 BIG 12 (A) = 74.34 74.01 ( 5) 12

2005:
1 BIG TEN (A) = 80.72 80.55 ( 1) 11
2 ATLANTIC COAST (A) = 78.96 78.26 ( 4) 12
3 BIG 12 (A) = 78.96 80.02 ( 2) 12
4 PAC-10 (A) = 77.92 78.65 ( 3) 10
5 SOUTHEASTERN (A) = 75.28 74.92 ( 6) 12

With the exception of the split divisions rating Sagarin went to, which put the SEC East as fourth overall (ahead of 3 entire major conferences), I had go go all the way back to 2005 to find a year that the SEC was not in the top 2. As you can see, the SEC held the top spot every instance but 3. It's not even worth pointing out the low rankings by the Big Ten and ACC, because they were fairly bad on a regular basis, but even if I eliminate 2013 and 2005, we see the Pac-12 as third, fourth, third, fourth and third. The Big 12 (which of course no longer even has a championship game) was third, fifth, third, and sixth.

Clearly, the SEC is the conference that is playing the most difficult schedule year in, year out! For most conferences, it's not even close. Yet, we have these propagandists that want to ignore the math, and tell us that 9 games against weak competition is better than 8 games against tough competition.

tidefanbeezer said:

I admit that I am guilty of this on the opposite end of the scale. I think the 8 games (as opposed to 9) could hurt the SEC if the selection committee values a tougher conference slate over cream-puff OCC.

Click to expand...

That's the part that gets under my skin, because (not accusing you), it's just outright false. The SEC has the toughest conference slate, so how can that be turned into a basis for criticizing them?

CoachJeff said:

All things being equal two conferences that have an uneven number of conference games will lead to one playing a tougher schedule.

Click to expand...

That's just it though, it's not equal, the SEC faces a higher level of competition. So, when they talk about fairness, their idea of fair is for the SEC to play far and away the toughest schedule. To me that's all part of the reason they wanted a playoff in the first place, to try to create an advantage.

Even though I showed the numbers, I'll go ahead and show the math.

I'll include 2005, and combine the 2013 division numbers into one conference stat. I'll use Sagarins first numerical value and average it out from 2005-2013.

Here's the math that these pundits and coaches are ignoring:
SEC: 80.935 81.75 80.88 79.84 80.84 78.31 81.99 81.60 75.28=80.158
Pac-12: 82.475 76.15 74.72 80.87 76.23 76.14 79.47 78.78 77.92=78.083
Big 12: 78.13 79.99 83.61 75.42 74.61 77.86 78.62 74.43 78.96=77.958
Big 10 75.095 75.87 75.55 74.18 73.74 73.21 74.63 74.89 80.72=75.32
ACC 73.395 71.64 71.23 74.32 76.04 77.70 75.21 75.49 78.96=74.887

Conveniently, I chose a 9 year spread, so they break down into the totals from a 9 game conference schedule. This is what the other conferences would consider "fair":
SEC: 721.65
Pac-12: 702.747
Big 12: 701.63
Big 10: 677.885
ACC: 673.985

Before I get further into the numbers, I'll make a few observations. First, the Big 12 is only ten teams and doesn't have a conference championship game. This actually compounds upon itself when you talk about how truly difficult a schedule is. Not only does the SEC have a championship game, but the talent pool is larger, and more top heavy, creating far and away the most difficult title game. Secondly, I will point out that the Pac-12 and Big 10 were supposed to pair up for OOC games, then chose not to. This, was a deliberate act to make entry into a playoff easier for them.

Now let's compare under the assumption that the SEC is the only conference without a ninth conference game:
Pac-12: 702.747
Big 12: 701.63
Big 10: 677.885
ACC: 673.985
SEC: 641.264

That's a pretty big gap, right? Not really, the SEC is top heavy to begin with, so it's easy to make the argument that the SEC has the toughest path to a playoff game regardless (the calculations also don't take into account the fact that the SEC has 14 teams). By playing only 8 games, the SEC is actually closer to the difficulty that the Big 10 and ACC face than if they played a 9th game! This means that the SEC playing 8 games and having a bye, and the rest playing 9 conference games could be considered more fair!

Sure if the SEC only played 8 games and everyone else played 9, that would be an issue (although once again it wasn't an issue when they didn't play conference championship games). But... let's give the SEC the worst FBS conference according to 2012's less convoluted standings. That would be the 13th ranked Mountain West Conference. They were even below one FCS conference, so scheduling them certainly meets the criteria of playing a cupcake. Their rating that year was 60.97. So, what does that look like?

Pac-12: 702.747
SEC: 702.234
Big 12: 701.63
Big 10: 677.885
ACC: 673.985

As you can see there, even if the SEC schedules one of the weakest opponents possible, across the entire conference, they are still well ahead of the Big 10 and ACC, and behind the Pac-12 by such a small amount that it's not worth nothing.

Let's be clear on what is happening here. The other conferences are upset because the SEC isn't playing a much more difficult schedule than they are. They want to "level" the playing field and for them that means they think the SEC should have a more difficult path to a playoff. Given the numbers, there's no other way I see to interpret their reaction.

We should all call this ridiculousness out for what it is. What kind of half-baked logic is it that says somehow playing more in-conference games equates to proving more? If your conference sucks, it doesn't matter if you play 40, what are you proving? Furthermore, it's a joke to say that the SEC had to play itself in order for it to mean something, when the truth is we need conferences to play each other to actually learn about which is better! They want to almost exclusively play each other because by doing that they are able to close the door on other conferences and argue via the safety of the isolation they created that they are as good as anyone else. Finally, what kind of sense does it make to ultimately present an argument that says for the Big 10, playing Big 10 teams matters most, and for the SEC, playing SEC teams matters most, but if the SEC plays another conference that doesn't matter? The argument ultimately seems to disparage conferences other than the SEC.

JBama_in_PCOLA said:

I agree with them on this and so does CNS.

Click to expand...

I've seen nothing from CNS to indicate he agreed with the sentiment I saw expressed in that article. He's never made any statement to indicate that the SEC is ducking competition or that it's unfair to other conferences that the SEC plays 8 games, etc... to say he agrees seems like a misrepresentation of what he's said and I hope a misrepresentation of how you feel as well.

They both want the SEC to play 9 conference games, but for very different reasons. This all also begs the question of why what the SEC does is so important to them. It's certainly understandable why it would be so important to you, or I, or Nick Saban, but to the Pac-12?

B1GTide said:

So, when you look at it at this level without getting into a detailed team by team schedule analysis, the argument makes sense. Does that mean that I agree with it? No. But I get it and I think that ridiculing it is beyond pointless.

Click to expand...

The SEC can play a cupcake for a 9th game and still have as difficult a schedule as 9 Pac-12 games, which is what all that math was about, heh. My main point of contention here is that other conferences are complaining about the SEC's schedule, when it's the SEC schedule that's been the hardest all along.

To me, it's kind of like three contenders in boxing standing there, and one points to the other two and goes, "If you had any guts you'd fight each other". It's hypocritical on their part, and they're the ones pointing fingers right now. When in fact they're the ones that have had it easier, year in year out, for a very long time.

I'd have empathy if I could find the logical basis for the argument that the SEC has it easier, but if anything I find the inverse. It's like the smart kid in school, who gets in trouble for only making a 99 on a test when everyone else got Bs. They're just so accustomed to the SEC being the ones that beats themselves up, that the prospect that this might not happen at a highly disproportionate rate seems to really bother them.

JBama_in_PCOLA said:

He's been saying all along the SEC should play nine games. He's been trying to preserve the rivalries and have enough games where everything at school got to play the other schools at least once.

Click to expand...

To be clear, I'm not trying to argue pro or con on the 9 game SEC schedule right now. I was just showing that the SEC, even with only 8 conference games would still play as tough, or tougher a 9 game slate as any conference in the country.