ACC vs SEC East

KrAzY3 said:

Just what the SEC needs, another play out game. At what point is it too much? I'd say it was too much somewhere around the 14th or 15th game.

They won't though, they never really balanced the divisions, they just went with states and created a major imbalanced by putting Vanderbilt in the East and Auburn in the West (both in terms of balance and geography). The SEC East was built to be top heavy, and I guess people don't tend to notice the imbalance as long as the top teams are performing, but that doesn't change the reality. The additions of Missouri and Texas A&M just made the imbalance worse, since they should have sent Auburn over and added Missouri to the West (things still wouldn't have been balanced, but it wouldn't have been as bad).

Here's the all time rankings so you can see how clearly off things are:
1: Alabama
7: LSU
13: Auburn
20: Texas A&M
23: Arkansas
28: Mississippi
43: Miss. State
AVG: 19

10: Tennessee
11: Georgia
12: Florida
35: Missouri
40: Vanderbilt
47: Kentucky
61: South Carolina
AVG: 30

The top two teams are in the SEC West, the bottom two teams are in the SEC East. This will not sort itself out over time...

Click to expand...

What are the all time rankings based on?

Difference between east and west won't be as big next year.
Ms State and OM take a step back to reality next year. TN will be better. SC and FL should be better. GA will be GA.

russtang said:

Difference between east and west won't be as big next year.
Ms State and OM take a step back to reality next year. TN will be better. SC and FL should be better. GA will be GA.

Click to expand...

Next year the favorites IMO:
West
1.Bama
2.Arkansas
3.LSU/Auburn

East
1.Mizzou
2. UGA
3.Tenn

I just think UF and USCe are a year away from going for a title. UT is a maybe because tennessee draws Bama and Arkansas. UGA is way too unpredictable but their west slate is BAMA and Auburn so that could be two losses as well as their annual choking job against the OBC. Mizzou draws MSU and Arkie they should win atlest 1 and that might be enough with UF,USCe,and Tenn coming to the Zou. Arkansas is the most dangerous threat to our west championship IMO because they are only getting better.

One my friends is a UofL alum. He was gloating on Facebook about the ACC's 4-0 record versus the SEC this weekend. My response: "You are quite correct. Congrats on UofL's 4 point, last-minutes-come-from-behind home win over a 14 point dog SEC doormat."

tidefanbeezer said:

What are the all time rankings based on?

Click to expand...

Simply put, performance on the field, that's why Alabama is #1.
There's a lot that goes into that of course, but it's a pretty good indicator. Those rankings formed the basis of why I said Texas A&M was indeed capable of competing in football in the SEC, for instance. They're not perfect (http://cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/rankings/all_time_team_rankings.php), but they provide an easy way to see beyond the short term. The main takeaway is that the SEC East is really weak at the bottom (relative to the SEC West) and that's just not going to change in the foreseeable future.

To repeat others, SECE is just bad. USC was not a good team this year (yes, overrated), but still should have beaten UT, Mizzou, & KY and did beat UGA. Just a bad division of football this season.

Its the SEC East. The usual suspects over there are down. Florida isn't Florida. Tennessee is in perpetual rebuilding mode. South Carolina had a down year and the Ole Ball Coach seems to be burned out. UGA is UGA. They always lose a head scratcher or three per season.

KrAzY3 said:

Simply put, performance on the field, that's why Alabama is #1.
There's a lot that goes into that of course, but it's a pretty good indicator. Those rankings formed the basis of why I said Texas A&M was indeed capable of competing in football in the SEC, for instance. They're not perfect (http://cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/rankings/all_time_team_rankings.php), but they provide an easy way to see beyond the short term. The main takeaway is that the SEC East is really weak at the bottom (relative to the SEC West) and that's just not going to change in the foreseeable future.

Click to expand...

First, I LOVE that site. Use it all the time.

Second, that site looks at all time; divisions have only been around since 1991. So you'd really need to look at a more current version. I'd imagine you'd see that in version that looks at performance since '91, things would be a bit more equitable. Florida and UT would certainly be better, given performance since '91. Missouri and SC may also fare a little better.

I think it would be closer based on a more current view. But I'll admit that based on what you presented in the context "all-time", the conference is less balanced than I would have thought.

I certainly do no like what happened but as people have pointed out it would not have gone down like that against the west. So the ACC can think whatever they wish anyone with any kind of football knowledge knows better.

tidefanbeezer said:

Second, that site looks at all time; divisions have only been around since 1991. So you'd really need to look at a more current version. I'd imagine you'd see that in version that looks at performance since '91, things would be a bit more equitable. Florida and UT would certainly be better, given performance since '91. Missouri and SC may also fare a little better.

I think it would be closer based on a more current view. But I'll admit that based on what you presented in the context "all-time", the conference is less balanced than I would have thought.

Click to expand...

The site has flaws, obviously, for instance Princeton isn't exactly a football power anymore. South Carolina is one program which, if you look at other indicators (like attendance) is more powerful than that ranking indicates.

Having said that, I prefer the long view vs. the short view. The short view might tell us that Boise State is a football power for example, but they're not, they've just had a few good years against cupcake competition. On the other hand, TCU was a football power decades ago, and they kept enough infrastructure in place to be able to join the Big 12 and not suffer competitively. The 32 ranking all time is pretty informative in my mind. I believe as long as someone is around to keep things up at all, a program has the capacity to return to prominence after even decades of mediocrity.

I do agree though that if shrunk the perspective, things would be more balanced certainly, but I love the tradition of college football and the fan bases go back for generations. We saw how Texas A&M did financially once they had something to get excited about, but really Arkansas, Ole Miss, these are programs which won't settle for being happy they got in a bowl game. There's always going to be a lot of pressure in the SEC West and a demand for results, and I don't want to go in depth on that here, but it certainly appeared as though Ole Miss decided to buy their way out of being mediocre. I don't think Kentucky, Vanderbilt, or even South Carolina has that sort of pressure, and I suppose that's one of the more telling aspects of the all time ranks. It indicates the roots a program has.