Question: Is the ACC better than the BIG 10,11,12?

KrAzY3 said:

Here's the all time rankings: http://cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/rankings/all_time_team_rankings.php
I consider them a matter of importance because they demonstrate the underlying level of support a program has. Things might vary over time, and some distant records skew things somewhat (such as Yale or Princeton's dominance in another era), but the tendency is for a football power to trend that way over a long period of time, such as Alabama returning to dominant form. I used these standings to argue that Texas A&M was a strong football program when some argued against their inclusion to the SEC (arguing, ironically enough they weren't good enough). Of course, Oregon is an exception, with their offense and Phil Knight fueling current success. It does, however, remain to be seen if that is sustainable over a long period of time.

What you are alluding to is nothing but PR problem, which of course other conferences have incentive to focus on. It is interesting, since the Pac 12 appears to play the second most difficult conference schedule. But, the sheer physicality of SEC play demands some sort of a breather. If you have an offense that's more spread out, that is more pass heavy as west coast offenses tend to be, you have a less physically grueling opponent. This is magnified as the season progresses. It might not even mean more serious injuries, but it means more bumps and bruises, more pain, more soreness, longer recovery times, etc...

Anyway, as a whole this notion is driven by a silly idea that a power 5 conference game is created equal. As the rankings I showed demonstrate, that's absurd. I won't take the time to do the ratings, but look up some ACC schools for example. Duke, Wake Forest, are they not (usually) weak teams? Simply being in the ACC doesn't change that.

This then gets into another flawed aspect of SoS. SoS is an average, however, for a truly elite team, it only really matters when you're around the top 50. So, an SoS calculation will insist it matters more to play #70 than it does to play #100, but does it really? Not when it comes to determining a champion. What does matter most however, is playing #10, #5, that sort of thing because those are the games that matter.

Click to expand...

Good post. Though I'm still not buying the argument that the SEC deserves a breather. I noticed you left out Southern Cal. I can't stand them, but I'm sure they're ranked up there fairly high.

I rank 'em;

1 - SEC
2 - Pac 12
3 - big 12
4 - ACC
5 - Tie, big, cusa

And I have them that way for the last 4-5 years. They're wusses just like the commissioner, delaney.

If looking only at 2014, I would rank them:

1 - SEC
2 - Pac-12
3 - ACC/Big 12 (tie)
5 - Big 10

I think the ACC has gotten stronger in the last few years, while the Big 12 has dropped off a bit. The Big 10 is clearly the worst of the Power Five, but there is still a wide gap between the Big 10 and the best of the next tier (yesterday notwithstanding).

oregonbltzkrieg said:

You got me. Of course I want to pump them up (for obvious reasons). But I don't see FSU playing any SEC teams and when they played against the Barn (who I was rooting for because they had to battle through a much tougher schedule), they looked less than impressive.

Click to expand...

They do play Florida at the end of the year. The verdict is still out on Florida of course but they do look better than they did last year so far.

Only because they have FSU. That's all. If OSU had Braxton Miller it would be a tie for me.


Sent from my iPhone

Roll Tide! 15 Time National Champions, More BCS Championships than any school...

oregonbltzkrieg said:

Nice conference homer analysis. You're aware that Texas A & M pulverized USCe last week in their house right? A & M is built like a PAC team.

Click to expand...

Haha! You calling anyone a homer is pretty darned funny.

I understand the mods let you stay around because they feel you know a little football and bring some color along, but does that mean you have to behave like the belligerent south end of a north bound donkey? Does every single post you feel disparages the weak little Pac 12 warrant a rebuttal from you after the 800th time saying the same thing over and over and over?

You are right, though. I did get it wrong and it has bothered me ever since.

The ACC this year is much better than the Pac 12 I should have put the ACC 3rd and then the Pac 12. Not in retaliation against you for your relentless belligerence, but because it's true.

Good luck to anyone and everyone playing the Ducks and Roll Tide!

oregonbltzkrieg said:

Sure. And Oregon, Stanford and Southern Cal didn't? The 13-10 score down south in California was more SEC than the SEC. BTW. When is the SEC going to shave those late season cupcake gimme games and play real conference foes like we do in the PAC? That'll hurt the SEC with the playoff committee.

Click to expand...

Everyone plays cupcakes, don't pretend they don't. BTW who was it the ducks beat last week?

oregonbltzkrieg said:

Good post. Though I'm still not buying the argument that the SEC deserves a breather. I noticed you left out Southern Cal. I can't stand them, but I'm sure they're ranked up there fairly high.

Click to expand...

No offense, but SERIOUSLY??? Your schedule this year looks to have about four or five 'breather' games built in, yes, some late in the year. Let's be honest, Utah and Colorado (among others) are -almost always- only marginally better then the FAUs and and UABs of the college football world! Like KrAzY3 said, once you get above #50/60 or so they really aren't much of a matchup. I count -maybe- three tough games for Oregon this year and that is giving UCLA the benefit of the doubt which they surely haven't earned in their first two games...

ACC??? oh yeah...the Almost Competitive Conference

BamaGene said:

No offense, but SERIOUSLY??? Your schedule this year looks to have about four or five 'breather' games built in, yes, some late in the year. Let's be honest, Utah and Colorado (among others) are -almost always- only marginally better then the FAUs and and UABs of the college football world! Like KrAzY3 said, once you get above #50/60 or so they really aren't much of a matchup. I count -maybe- three tough games for Oregon this year and that is giving UCLA the benefit of the doubt which they surely haven't earned in their first two games...

Click to expand...

You have a point. Usually teams like Washington St. and Colorado just plain stink. Maybe it would look better if the SEC schedules more cross conference games (SEC East - SEC West)? That way you could still get that late season breather game but it would look better from the outside because its still an SEC game.

oregonbltzkrieg said:

You have a point. Usually teams like Washington St. and Colorado just plain stink. Maybe it would look better if the SEC schedules more cross conference games (SEC East - SEC West)? That way you could still get that late season breather game but it would look better from the outside because its still an SEC game.

Click to expand...

That's when you get into the uneven nature of the schedule. Alabama permanently gets Tennessee, which has had a few bad years lately, but right up until Saban came along was still among the elite nationally and is traditionally a top 10 football program.

Would it hurt if for instance Alabama played Kentucky or Vanderbilt, instead of an OOC game? No, not really, but if for instance it's Georgia and Florida, suddenly Alabama is playing the #9, #10, #11, #12, #13, #20, #23 and #28 all time in one year. Sure, some of those will have down years, but some of those will be title contenders to. That's really a ridiculous proposition, but it's one that a 9 game SEC schedule could create. In 2009, Alabama played the second most difficult schedule in the nation. The only more difficult schedule? Miss State, who had to play Alabama (and is well below the other SEC West schools in terms of prowess). That was the most difficult undefeated championship of the BCS era, to put that into perspective, it was something like a billion to one odds for an average team, and several times more difficult than several other championship seasons. The SEC is capable of forcing an astoundingly difficult schedule on a team, and that's with a 8 game conference schedule.

The other aspect of that is that Alabama can't have any say in how the SEC schedule is drawn up. So, for instance it might give them a ridiculously tough string of games or create something especially problematic (for instance in 2010 they played something like 6 teams in a row coming off bye weeks, and finally lost towards the end of that run). In the SEC, it's entirely possible that Alabama be forced into doing something like playing 3 top ten teams in a row or something.

Last year, if Alabama had won the title, they would have had to beat 3 top 5 teams in a row (Auburn, Missouri in the SECCG and then FSU). That's not the type of thing FSU had to do for example (they played Duke in their championship game). So, some people are going to complain about the 8 games, and the SEC might even fall for that trick eventually, but it's just not something that's really being presented in a very accurate manner. Where was the outcry when the SEC was the only conference playing a championship game for instance? The Big 12 doesn't even have one anymore...

I don't know that the ACC is better than the B1G but that's not saying a lot. FSU, Va Tech and Clemson are probably the only decent teams in the ACC.

I'd say MSU, Nebraska, Iowa and Wisconsin are all probably better than Va Tech and Clemson.

TIDE-HSV said:

There are actually quite a few of us who like to do away with east/west, as has already been done in basketball, and simply let the teams with the two best records play the championship game. The main problem in football has been the rivalry games. Maybe it's time to do away with them. They're very diluted with the new teams anyway and one more expansion will make them impossible to maintain. Maybe this year will be different, but sometime along the way, the imbalance between the SEC West and the SEC East will have to be addressed. Every year, it's said that this year will be different, but adding MO to the east and the Aggies to the west ain't gonna make that happen...

Click to expand...

I think the NCAA requires divisions in order to have a championship game.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

oregonbltzkrieg said:

Nice conference homer analysis. You're aware that Texas A & M pulverized USCe last week in their house right? A & M is built like a PAC team.

Click to expand...

They are not built like a PAC 12 team at all. They may have a flashy offense, but they are built very much like an SEC team with a very talented, and big, OL. Big RBs. Tall, fast WRs. They just run a air raid offense with HUNH. Their defense leaves something to be desired but they are recruiting very well.

oregonbltzkrieg said:

What are all time rankings and where do you get those figures? No doubt the SEC usually plays a tough schedule, but it still looks bad if other conferences are playing teams in their own league late in the season while the SEC gives itself a week long break by scheduling weak teams during that week.

Click to expand...

I think you're looking at Alabama and assuming the rest of the SEC is scheduling late year cupcakes, which is generally not the case. Alabama usually schedules a cupcake before the Auburn game for basically two reasons; 1) it's the biggest rivalry game in college sports, 2) Auburn schedules a cupcake or has a bye before playing us and I don't blame them since they always play Georgia the prior week. It would be stupid of them to try playing their two biggest rivals and perennial powers back to back every year. It would also be stupid of us to schedule a tough game before playing Auburn every year.

All in all Oregon hasn't fared that well against outside PAC12 opponents in big games despite it's recent success overall. USC is the only PAC12 team your going to see receive real national respect. They've earned it over the long haul. Oregon is still a wannabe.

I think FSU would be favored and or beat any B1G team by at least 2 TD's.