CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: nuwildcat on January 02, 2018, 05:33:16 PM
-
I'm not sure that can be said definitively
4 of our 7 wins were by 1 score so it's not like we necessarily dominated our respective opponents
Also, there is some validity to the thought that not getting one team (or two ;) ) in the playoff means everyone moved down a peg on the proverbial ladder to (theoretically) play a weaker team
That said, I'm guessing there should be 4 B1G squads in the Top 10 when the initial rankings come out and that this recent postseason showing should bolster our image ... at least temporarily
The SEC does seem to be top heavy of late so I'm not sure they can legitimately beat their chests as 'the best' either
In other words, I honestly don't know the answer ~???
-
yes
would have been a resounding yes, but Harbaugh let us down
-
The conference is pretty deep - probably deeper than most.
The West went 4-0.
The East went 3-1.
I'm thinking NU, which should have gotten that Outback bid, would have won that game.
Is it the best? Honestly I really don't care.
-
I will give the Big 10 their due as the best conference this year like the ACC last year. Congrats. It certainly was not the SEC either year.
Go Dawgs!
-
Ehh. I don't rank conferences by bowl results. I usually downplay it the years that the B1G does badly, so I'm not exactly going to beat my chest over our results this year.
There's too much noise and not enough signal for my taste. Too many people want to extrapolate out from minimal data sets to prove a point. Bowl results depend on matchup, luck, etc. Too often one team is just rusty after the long layoff while others are more emotionally invested.
As you point out, a few balls bounce the other way and we're 3-5 instead of 7-1. I know that Purdue, to regain the lead late in the 4th quarter against Arizona required:
- After a pair of incompletions, Sindelar has to dump a short pass on 3rd and 10, to DJ Knox who managed to scamper for 21 yards and keep the drive alive. He wasn't untouched. He had to break a tackle to make that gain, or it's 4th down.
- An Arizona DB dropping a sure interception on a Sindelar pass on 1st and 10.
- A 2nd-and-10 play where the shotgun snap was BADLY missed, and instead of falling on the ball like most QBs are taught to do, Sindelar--on a torn ACL, scoops it up, scrambles, gets a pass off and complete for no gain, making it 3rd and long instead of 3rd and completely ridiculous.
- On that 3rd-and-10 play, Sindelar throws a long ball to Anthony Mahoungou [who had dropped numerous passes all through the 3rd quarter], which is VERY well contested by the DB, which Mahoungou has to make a circus catch over him and then wrestle him 4 yards into the end zone. 8 times out of 10 the receiver doesn't catch that ball. Strangely it should have been defensive pass interference, but that *also* wasn't called.
- Then Arizona got the ball back, and after burning our safeties ALL game long, one came up with a critical interception on an overthrown pass to seal it.
As a fan I want to claim that this team just never stopped fighting, and they willed themselves to victory. That Purdue won because Purdue was the better team.
But I know better. These teams were very evenly matched. If either team was "better" than the other, it was by small margins. Purdue managed to escape with a win.
Are we really going to claim that just because 4 of 7 games decided by a score or less happened to go our way that we're the best conference?
Yes, we are going to claim that 7-1 makes us the best conference. Because sports fans do that sort of thing. But claiming it doesn't make it true.
-
No, the 8 bowl games did not prove anything. The 178 regular season games did.
The Big Ten was best - Michigan was the 6th or 7th-best team. That's strong.
The ACC was a 2-team show the whole way.
The SEC isnt going to be the best with Florida and Tennessee both sucking. South Carolina should be 4th in the East, not 4th in the conference.
The PAC isn't going to be the best with Oregon absent. With the big games ASU, Arizona, and UCLA had, all were only around .500 overall.
The XII isn't going to be the best until they learn what defense is. Seriously, it's stupid.
The Big Ten was best because OSU, PSU, and maybe Wisconsin could beat anyone. Because MSU came back to life and Northwestern mattered.
Yes, the B10 has 5 anchors that drag it down (including both newcomers). But it was still the best without Michigan or Nebraska mattering....and that's a big deal. There were enough quality teams without those helmets.
-
I don't need to add much, lots of luck involved but it sure was a fun week.
-
You could make an argument for the Big Ten, SEC or ACC. The bowl season was a nice notch in the Big Ten's belt, but it didn't "prove" anything. It's just nice that the conference is back to being in the discussion, wherever you rank it.
-
You could make an argument for the Big Ten, SEC or ACC. The bowl season was a nice notch in the Big Ten's belt, but it didn't "prove" anything. It's just nice that the conference is back to being in the discussion, wherever you rank it.
I disagree on some level, I do think these games matter in terms of perception and can help give a better idea of who's best. The regular season games also mattered, so they need to be looked at in total but the bowls give a chance to see each conferences best teams square off, and also allow us to see some mid tier teams square off, and those games don't happen enough during the regular season so we need these to judge teams and conferences.
I'm pretty sure everyone thought after the first couple of teams in the SEC that the SEC was not good, and that theory if you will played out on the field. The PAC 12 took it on the chin big time, that can't be dismissed. Do I think the PAC 12 is the worst conference? I dunno, but after seeing it go 1-8 I think it was I feel pretty confident in saying the ACC and BIG were better.
I'm tired of hearing things like "auburn didn't want to be there" Don't try and discredit UCF for playing a good game. Isn't coaching, motivating a team part of what makes a program? If Auburn can't get up to play in a new years day bowl game that's a program issue, and means the team and coaching staff is flawed in that regard.
-
No, the 8 bowl games did not prove anything. The 178 regular season games did.
The Big Ten was best - Michigan was the 6th or 7th-best team. That's strong.
The ACC was a 2-team show the whole way.
The SEC isnt going to be the best with Florida and Tennessee both sucking. South Carolina should be 4th in the East, not 4th in the conference.
The PAC isn't going to be the best with Oregon absent. With the big games ASU, Arizona, and UCLA had, all were only around .500 overall.
The XII isn't going to be the best until they learn what defense is. Seriously, it's stupid.
The Big Ten was best because OSU, PSU, and maybe Wisconsin could beat anyone. Because MSU came back to life and Northwestern mattered.
Yes, the B10 has 5 anchors that drag it down (including both newcomers). But it was still the best without Michigan or Nebraska mattering....and that's a big deal. There were enough quality teams without those helmets.
Very well said. HOwever, putting two teams in the national championship game certainly gives the SEC its bragging rights as well.
So to me it's about defintion - 'Best' meaning strongest top to bottom? Big Ten. 'Best' meaning best teams? I think that's gotta be the SEC (Auburn included).
-
1-3 in the Big Ten vs. 1-3 in the SEC would be really interesting games right now.
-
You could make an argument for the Big Ten, SEC or ACC. The bowl season was a nice notch in the Big Ten's belt, but it didn't "prove" anything. It's just nice that the conference is back to being in the discussion, wherever you rank it.
I disagree on some level, I do think these games matter in terms of perception and can help give a better idea of who's best. The regular season games also mattered, so they need to be looked at in total but the bowls give a chance to see each conferences best teams square off, and also allow us to see some mid tier teams square off, and those games don't happen enough during the regular season so we need these to judge teams and conferences.
I'm pretty sure everyone thought after the first couple of teams in the SEC that the SEC was not good, and that theory if you will played out on the field. The PAC 12 took it on the chin big time, that can't be dismissed. Do I think the PAC 12 is the worst conference? I dunno, but after seeing it go 1-8 I think it was I feel pretty confident in saying the ACC and BIG were better.
I'm tired of hearing things like "auburn didn't want to be there" Don't try and discredit UCF for playing a good game. Isn't coaching, motivating a team part of what makes a program? If Auburn can't get up to play in a new years day bowl game that's a program issue, and means the team and coaching staff is flawed in that regard.
I do agree it matters a lot for perception. It would have mattered even more if ESPN had showed the conference standings as frequently as they do when the SEC is rolling, but the story was still out there.
-
The flip side is the Big Ten also got a lower percentage of its teams to the postseason compared to the other conferences. Big Ten got of 8 of 14. The ACC and SEC got 9 of 14. The PAC 12 got 9 of 12 and the Big XII got 8 of 10.
I get the argument of the ACC and SEC only playing 8 conference games but that wouldn't fly with the PAC 12 and Big XII.
That being said, I wouldn't have a big problem if someone said the Big Ten was the best conference this year.
-
Maryland would have been #9 if not for being decimated at the QB position. They had some good things going to start the season, including the win in Austin.
-
IU and Minny would of had a very good chance at a bowl in a 8 conference schedule vs 9 game conference schedule.
-
Yes.
-
You could make an argument for the Big Ten, SEC or ACC. The bowl season was a nice notch in the Big Ten's belt, but it didn't "prove" anything. It's just nice that the conference is back to being in the discussion, wherever you rank it.
I disagree on some level, I do think these games matter in terms of perception and can help give a better idea of who's best. The regular season games also mattered, so they need to be looked at in total but the bowls give a chance to see each conferences best teams square off, and also allow us to see some mid tier teams square off, and those games don't happen enough during the regular season so we need these to judge teams and conferences.
I'm pretty sure everyone thought after the first couple of teams in the SEC that the SEC was not good, and that theory if you will played out on the field. The PAC 12 took it on the chin big time, that can't be dismissed. Do I think the PAC 12 is the worst conference? I dunno, but after seeing it go 1-8 I think it was I feel pretty confident in saying the ACC and BIG were better.
I'm tired of hearing things like "auburn didn't want to be there" Don't try and discredit UCF for playing a good game. Isn't coaching, motivating a team part of what makes a program? If Auburn can't get up to play in a new years day bowl game that's a program issue, and means the team and coaching staff is flawed in that regard.
This is all true.....but it's also true that 20 year olds are emotional. When your last game potentially puts you into the national championship playoff and you lose it, no, you're not highly motivated to win the Whatever Bowl against Central WhoCares. They should be 100% motivated no matter the circumstances, but they're not.
I'm just glad Auburn isn't trying to become the 2nd two-loss national champion right now....
-
Best Conference comes down to the 4-5 OOC games played, not the 8-9 in conference.
Those in conference games gives us the pecking order of the conference, not how strong it is relative to others.
Unfortunately, those OOC games there are typically only 2 against P5 competition. So, doing so well in the Bowls does make the conference look good, but there are not enough data points to say for sure.
-
This is all true.....but it's also true that 20 year olds are emotional. When your last game potentially puts you into the national championship playoff and you lose it, no, you're not highly motivated to win the Whatever Bowl against Central WhoCares. They should be 100% motivated no matter the circumstances, but they're not.
I'm just glad Auburn isn't trying to become the 2nd two-loss national champion right now....
I'm glad that was not the case for the boys that comprise my favorite team.
-
I'm on the fence when it comes to motivation in bowl games. I've seen enough weird results to believe there is something to it but it seems like a slap in the face to the winning team to simply dismiss it as the other team not caring.
The other thing that bugs me about the motivation argument is football is a physical sport. Yeah, maybe you don't come in as motivated and prepared as you should but as soon as someone starts imposing their will on you physically I think your motivation kicks in quickly. It doesn't take 3 quarters for that to kick in. It would take about 3 plays. You ever had someone give you a confrontational shove? Your motivation to give them a shove back goes from 0-100 in a hurry.
-
I'm on the fence when it comes to motivation in bowl games. I've seen enough weird results to believe there is something to it but it seems like a slap in the face to the winning team to simply dismiss it as the other team not caring.
The other thing that bugs me about the motivation argument is football is a physical sport. Yeah, maybe you don't come in as motivated and prepared as you should but as soon as someone starts imposing their will on you physically I think your motivation kicks in quickly. It doesn't take 3 quarters for that to kick in. It would take about 3 plays. You ever had someone give you a confrontational shove? Your motivation to give them a shove back goes from 0-100 in a hurry.
Yep, that's just fan-boy bulljive - a convenient excuse for when their favorite team loses. I've seen LSU fans use it, as if the LSU players weren't motivated to play Notre Dame on New Years Day. Yeah.. OK.
Players are motivated to play the game they love whether it's at Mercedes Benz or in the park by my house.
-
When Auburn scored back to back TD's in the 3rd quarter, they certainly appeared energized and excited on the sideline....
-
When Auburn scored back to back TD's in the 3rd quarter, they certainly appeared energized and excited on the sideline....
Yeah, ESPN has REEEEEAAALLLLY been pushing that narrative this year. Didn't hear it so much in years prior.
-
I remember the 1998 Alamo Bowl where Kansas State was basically all but guaranteed to win their CCG, so the #2 and #3 affiliated B12 bowls had already made their selections for the next teams down before the game was played. Then KSU lost, and the #4 team in the country got demoted to the 4th-place bowl affiliation to face upstart Purdue (who I think was just barely ranked, around #23 or so).
I believe that KSU team was more talented top-to-bottom than Purdue. I also believe they felt entitled to the win because they were the #4 team and Purdue didn't deserve to be on that field with them. I think they were not mentally ready for a Purdue team led by a gun-slinging Drew Brees and coached by Cowboy Joe that had a chip on their shoulder and something to prove.
Purdue got out to an early lead, and was up 27-13 at the end of the 3rd. In the 4th quarter, I think KSU's talent and depth started to wear, and they had a 21-point 4 quarter, taking the lead and requiring some Brees heroics for Purdue to steal the win.
I really honestly think KSU didn't "come to play" in that game and it took them getting punched in the mouth a few quarters to decide to show up.
-
In that scenario, maybe, but that's a whole lot different than getting "bumped" from an MNC game to a NYD game against another top team.
-
In that scenario, maybe, but that's a whole lot different than getting "bumped" from an MNC game to a NYD game against another top team.
I don't even hate the theory, so long as it's applied consistently. Bowl results are the ESPN be all and end all of conference strength ratings, until they disappeared from their broadcasts mostly this bowl season, other than to mention how unmotivated Auburn was...which they last trotted out when Alabama lost to Utah. I think the Group of 5 team is 3-1 in the NY6, so you want to go with that theory, fine. But I didn't hear them discuss Wisconsin overcoming it last year; or how it fell Arizona against Boise State.
-
In that scenario, maybe, but that's a whole lot different than getting "bumped" from an MNC game to a NYD game against another top team.
Regardless of its record or ranking, no 20 year old looks at the words "Central Florida" and thinks "top team".
-
I'm really tired of people pretending this isn't a thing.
It happens all the time - often in the regular season in conference games. The top 10 big-boy team has an unusually close win vs some sub-.500 squad. People shrug and go on to the next week where the strong team is refocused and does well.
But bowls are different - there is no game to move on to the next week. There is no shrugging, just comically resounding conclusions based on the one game.
Sometimes you have a less-talented team beat a strong team due to a letdown. Sometimes not. When the talent disparity is ample, it's safe to say motivation/focus/willpower was lacking. You have 85 kids from 18-23 years old and the team goes from 1 game away from the NC to the Blubonnet Bowl vs. North Central Tech (in reputation - ie non-sexy programs).
x% of the time, there's going to be a letdown. Now I'm not suggesting it's 100% of the time, and anyone suggesting it happens 0% of the time is wrong.
-
bowls are an evidence point... not the only evidence point...
-
In that scenario, maybe, but that's a whole lot different than getting "bumped" from an MNC game to a NYD game against another top team.
Indeed. There was non-stop grousing by KSU players following their sentence to the bowels of bowl-tierdom following that loss to A&M. KSU had been passed over by higher tier bowls in a couple other years as well (when nobody noticed)but usually ended up playing with a chip, and I think the '98 snub was too much to handle, particularly when you're one bounce/OT from being in the BCS title game.. Purdue was game for the opportunity.
-
x% of the time, there's going to be a letdown. Now I'm not suggesting it's 100% of the time, and anyone suggesting it happens 0% of the time is wrong.
Agreed here. Some of these results are our way to explain normal variance, but I guarantee that teams not being "up" for a lesser game is definitely a non-zero portion of the explanation of these results.
-
BTW while agreed with OAM above that these "let down" and "didn't really care about a lesser game" narratives are sometimes valid, I wanted to make a separate point about these narratives.
Humans are REALLY good at coming up with stories. We're phenomenal at it. I highly recommend the book Sapiens (https://www.amazon.com/Sapiens-Humankind-Yuval-Noah-Harari-ebook/dp/B00ICN066A/), which chronicles the break in history where homo sapien basically differentiated ourselves from the other early humans around ~150,000 years ago and took over. One of the key points is our ability to believe fiction. I.e. that money (little green scraps of paper) has value based purely on the myth that we've built up that it is valuable. This was something that the neanderthals and others didn't appear to have.
Only problem is that this talent causes us to create narratives where none exist. We desperately want to create a story that neatly explains what we see, when sometimes a story doesn't exist (or flat out contradicts the true reasons something happen).
Sometimes the ball bounces funny. Sometimes a team does the right things and ends up with the wrong result. Sometimes a team does the wrong things but through chance achieves the right result.
This is why I don't put stock in the "7-1 record proves the B1G is the best conference." It's us trying to create a narrative out of a bunch of results that could just as easily have been a product of randomness. As @nuwildcat (https://www.cfb51.com/index.php?action=profile;u=28) mentioned in the OP, 4 of the 7 wins were one-score games. A few different bounces [as I pointed out in the Purdue game] could have easily swung all 4 to the loss column by random chance, and we're getting blasted by ESPN for being 3-5 and hearing about how the B1G is down.
So yes, sometimes the narrative we create, i.e. that Auburn was let down because they thought they'd be in the CFP but instead they had to play Directional U in a lesser bowl, are correct. I don't know if it's true or not true in this case. It's one data point.
If you want to assign something to the narrative, you have to:
- Look at the history of bowl games perhaps over the last 25 years.
- Identify all bowl games over that span that fall into this category, where a team would be expected to have a letdown.
- Evaluate whether you've identified enough bowl games and set the selection criteria stringently enough to know whether your result is statistically significant.
- Evaluate based on the known relative strength of their team and the opponents what the expected results would be in these matchups (whether based on computer simulation, whether based on historical performance of schools of those relative strength, etc).
- Compare actual results to expected. Do they show a trend within statistically significant values?
If you get ALL that done, it still hasn't proven anything. It's suggested that within a certain confidence interval related to how statistically significant the result is, how likely it's a trend and how likely it's merely random chance. Because you can never really know.
Until then, we're all just talking out of our butts.
-
(https://www.cfb51.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fny-image1.etsy.com%2Fil_fullxfull.119925805.jpg&hash=d473984174a8f4f1cbcc8a7719d01245)
-
Very well said. HOwever, putting two teams in the national championship game certainly gives the SEC its bragging rights as well.
So to me it's about defintion - 'Best' meaning strongest top to bottom? Big Ten. 'Best' meaning best teams? I think that's gotta be the SEC (Auburn included).
i agree with oam.
the bowl results just add a little to what i already believed to be the case.
as for the top/best teams, sec obviously has a claim. but b1g could jsut as easily make similar claim. their top 3 (wisky, osu, psu, no order) are all at least comparable to the top 3 sec teams (bama, uga, au, no order) and i could see games between them going any number of ways.
-
LoL
-
heh
-
Ehh. I don't rank conferences by bowl results. I usually downplay it the years that the B1G does badly, so I'm not exactly going to beat my chest over our results this year.
These bowl games are limited data points, but I take a different view. So many P-5 schools play weak nonconference schedules. I believe the bowl schedule to be the most valid data points.
Until about 3-years ago I believe bowl results accurately showed the Big Ten to be what it was. Weak. It is now much stronger.
Here is a good article with the nonconference schedules of P-5 teams. The Big Ten had some great looking nonconference opponents scheduled such as Okla. at Ohio St., Notre Dame/MSU, and Michigan/Florida (which b4 the season started Fla looked like it might be better opponent for Michigan than Cincinnati). But, there were not a lot of what I would describe as great looking opponents scheduled.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/ranking-2017-college-football-nonconference-strength-of-schedule/
-
Bowl results never "prove" anything IMHO. As noted, they add some data. I would call the Big Ten the strongest conference this past season based on several things. But, there are so few real OOC games and the bowl games can be weird that this COULD be completely wrong.
UK hung in with NW after losing their best player. Does that mean anything? Beats me. UK has a half decent team. Maybe NW was not motivated enough. Did UM "let up" against USCe? Perhaps. USCe is also a half decent team. I had NW and UM winning both.
Your bowl opponent may be a very unfamiliar style team and the bowl environment can be "unusual". I think UCF had more speed than Auburn expected and they were stunned by it.
But the Big Ten had more solidly good teams IMHO than anyone else. The Big 12 had one, the ACC had one, the SEC had two, the Pac had perhaps none, and the Big Ten had 3-4.
-
If you want to assign something to the narrative, you have to:
- Look at the history of bowl games perhaps over the last 25 years.
- Identify all bowl games over that span that fall into this category, where a team would be expected to have a letdown.
- Evaluate whether you've identified enough bowl games and set the selection criteria stringently enough to know whether your result is statistically significant.
- Evaluate based on the known relative strength of their team and the opponents what the expected results would be in these matchups (whether based on computer simulation, whether based on historical performance of schools of those relative strength, etc).
- Compare actual results to expected. Do they show a trend within statistically significant values?
If you get ALL that done, it still hasn't proven anything. It's suggested that within a certain confidence interval related to how statistically significant the result is, how likely it's a trend and how likely it's merely random chance. Because you can never really know.
Until then, we're all just talking out of our butts.
Well, let's see....going back 25 years,
the first end-of-season letdown was in 1996. Nebraska lost the BigXII CG to underdog Texas. UNL was in line to play #1 FSU in the Sugar Bowl, for a chance at a NC.
Nebraska beat underdog VT by 20 points, so no letdown.
Then in 1998, we had a bunch of fun. #2 UCLA pooped the bed @ unranked Miami in its last regular season game. It lost its bowl to Wisconsin in the Rose.
Next team up, Kansas State, lost the XII CG in an upset, then lost the Alamo to unranked Purdue. Those are 2 biggies in the letdown camp. UCLA and KSU started the year a combined 21-0 and ended 0-4.
Skip ahead to 2001....we have another pair of bed-poopers, including my Gators. Due to 9/11, big games were rescheduled to early Dec. #2 Florida, in line to face Miami for the NC, lost to Tennessee while both were top-5. Florida misses the SECCG and plays Maryland in the Orange. Florida wins by 33 - no letdown.
The following week, the Vols suffer an upset loss in the SECCG to LSU. No NCG shot. They play Michigan in the Citrus and win by 28, but was favored big. No letdown.
2003 is an odd case. #1 Oklahoma loses the XII CG big to #13 KSU...yet still makes it into the NCG. They lose to LSU, but they got into the game anyway, so it doesn't register here. Just wanted to explain it out.
2006 - The Game....#2 Michigan loses to #1 OSU. They don't get a rematch in the NCG, but play #8 USC in the Rose. The favored Wolverines lose by 14. Letdown.
2007 - Whoa Nellie.....#2 Kansas (WTF?) loses its last game to #3 Mizzou - no XII CG, no NCG...just a date with underdog VT in the Orange Bowl. The Jayhawks win, no letdown.
New #1 Missouri loses to #9 OU in the XII CG. They drop to the Cotton Bowl to underdog Arkansas and win by 31. No letdown.
Subsequent #2 West Virginia poops all over, in, and on the bed, losing to unranked Pitt in the last game of the regular season. Plays strong OU in the Fiesta, wins by 20. No letdown.
2008 - SECCG pits #1 Bama vs #2 Florida, with the Gators winning. Bama settles for the Sugar Bowl vs undefeated, underdog Utah and loses by 14 points. Letdown.
2009 - virtual repeat of 2008, SECCG pits #1 Florida vs #2 Bama, with the Tide rolling. Florida settles for the Sugar Bowl vs #4 undefeated, underdog Cincinnati. However, Florida drills them by 27. No letdown.
***this is a hard one to quantify for me, as Cinci was top5, but had a major talent disparity with UF.
2011 - #3 Arkansas has dream matchup @ #1 LSU in last game of season. Razorbacks get pasted - no SECCG, no NCG. Play #11 in Cotton, win by 13. No letdown.
2012 - Oregon and KSU nearly qualify for this, but lose a week too early and win their final, pre-bowl games, so meh.
2013 - 12-0 Ohio State rolls into the B10CG vs #10 MSU and loses, knocking them out of the NCG picture. The Buckeyes wind up in the Orange vs underdog Clemson. OSU loses by 5 in a letdown.
#1 Alabama faces #4 Auburn in the Iron Bowl and loses, so no SECCG or NCG. Bama winds up in the Sugar Bowl vs underdog OU and loses by 14. Letdown.
2014 - I'm going to include TCU here - who dropped out of the top 4 playoff teams after winning big in their last game. So they get sent to the Peach Bowl vs #9 Ole Miss and destroy them. No, they didn't lose on the cusp of something big, but they had the grand prize yanked out of their grasp and still had to go out and play an "other" bowl game. No letdown.
2015 - Iowa. #4, aligned to be in the playoff, they lose the B10CG to Sparty, which knocks them out. They have to play #5 Stanford in the Rose Bowl where they're spanked by 29 points. If it was a close loss between similarly ranked teams, that'd be fine. But getting rocked = letdown.
#4 ND loses their last game vs Stanford, eliminating them from the playoff. They go on to play #7 OSU in the Fiesta and lose by 16. Letdown.
2016 - Michigan. #3 UM loses @ #2 OSU in the Game. Winds up in the Orange Bowl vs #10 FSU, losing by 1 point. I don't know if this qualifies as a letdown, but I do know UM was the favorite.
2017 - Wisconsin is 5th, but teams above them will lose, so the B10 is a playoff play-in game for them. The Badgers lose, then must play #11 Miami in the Orange Bowl. They beat the Canes by 10. No letdown.
Auburn, with 2 losses is still in line for the playoff. But they lose to UGA in the SECCG and are out. They end up in the Peach vs undefeated, underdog UCF. The Tigers lose by 7. Letdown.
I may have missed one here or there, but there's plenty here. If we include TCU in 2014 and not 2016 Michigan, we end up with 19 instances of a team in line for a potential conference/national championship at the end of the regular season lost that chance and still had to get motivated for a bowl game.
Out of those 19, I've considered 9 letdowns, based on bowl opponent, margin of win/loss, and favorite/underdog. So while it's not a certainty, these teams were most often the favorite and only went 10-9, which is probably worse than one would expect. I'm confident that more-talented teams lose games they shouldn't when it's directly following the elimination of their highest goals late in the season.
This data shows that it's obviously not going to automatically happen all the time, but it is a thing. It would be less of a thing if these were 30 year olds and not 20 year olds. I do wonder if it would more or less of a thing if the bowls were played the very next week instead of a month down the road.
-
Bowl results never "prove" anything IMHO. As noted, they add some data. I would call the Big Ten the strongest conference this past season based on several things. But, there are so few real OOC games and the bowl games can be weird that this COULD be completely wrong.
UK hung in with NW after losing their best player. Does that mean anything? Beats me. UK has a half decent team. Maybe NW was not motivated enough. Did UM "let up" against USCe? Perhaps. USCe is also a half decent team. I had NW and UM winning both.
Your bowl opponent may be a very unfamiliar style team and the bowl environment can be "unusual". I think UCF had more speed than Auburn expected and they were stunned by it.
But the Big Ten had more solidly good teams IMHO than anyone else. The Big 12 had one, the ACC had one, the SEC had two, the Pac had perhaps none, and the Big Ten had 3-4.
NU lost its best player too, FYI, in Q2.
Clayton Thorson. He's good. Really good. And he is the QB. And the correct Wildcats won.
-
UCF didn't hide their speed
if Auburn was stunned, that was their fault
-
UCF didn't hide their speed
if Auburn was stunned, that was their fault
Yep. One of the UCF players even came out and said Auburn wouldn't be ready for their speed. That should have been on the bulletin board.
-
UCF didn't hide their speed
if Auburn was stunned, that was their fault
Yes, it is. I don't think speed shows up well on tape in many cases. I think Auburn players may have thought "Yeah, well, we're fast too and more physical.". I didn't mean to make an excuse but to offer an explanation. Auburn was a strange team this season.
-
I think the "let down" excuse is ponied out any time there is a significant upset in a bowl game. "Team X lost because they were disappointed and didn't care.".
It's a facile excuse. It is intended to mean "They really were a lot better but apathetic."
It could be true on occasion with respect to game preparation, but that still is their fault.
-
Of course it's their fault, and the coach's fault. But it happens X% of the time. Why is this such a debate?!?
-
Out of those 19, I've considered 9 letdowns, based on bowl opponent, margin of win/loss, and favorite/underdog. So while it's not a certainty, these teams were most often the favorite and only went 10-9, which is probably worse than one would expect. I'm confident that more-talented teams lose games they shouldn't when it's directly following the elimination of their highest goals late in the season.
Well put together, OAM. I would agree that 10-9 in those games is probably a little lower than "expected", so the letdown theory at least passes the eye test.
Thanks.
-
I don't see regular season data points as being more important in determining relative strength of football conferences, than bowl games. Is there some statistical analysis claiming bowl results are less reliable than regular season results, or that there are more upsets in bowl games?
You can't readily compare P-5 conferences based on the regular season as there are few data points. Here is the Big Ten nonconference schedule 2018-20:
| | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 |
| | | | |
| Illinois | Ball State | Kent State | Akron |
| W. Kentucky | W. Illinois | @Uconn |
| @ USF | USF | E. Michigan |
| Indiana | @ Virginia | @ Florida Int'l | @Ball St (Indy) |
| Florida Int'l | Virginia | W. Kentucky |
| GA Southern | Ball State | Uconn |
| Iowa | Wyoming | N. Illinois | Miami (OH) |
| @ Iowa State | Iowa State | @ Iowa State |
| North Texas | Northern Iowa | Middle Tenn. |
| Maryland | @ Texas | Texas (FedEx) | Bowling Green |
| Towson | @Bowling Green | @Temple |
| UCF | Temple | Syracuse |
| Michigan | Florida (Dallas) | @Notre Dame | M. Tennessee |
| Cincinnati | W. Michigan | Army |
| Air Force | SMU | Notre Dame |
| Michigan State | Bowling Green | Utah State | Tulsa |
| W. Michigan | @Arizona St | W. Michigan |
| Notre Dame | C. Michigan | Arizona State |
| Minnesota | Buffalo | New Mexico St | South Dakota St |
| @Oregon State | Fresno State | @Fresno State |
| M. Tennessee | Miami (OH) | GA Southern |
| Nebraska | Arkansas St | Akron | S. Alabama |
| @Oregon | Colorado | @Colorado |
| N. Illinois | Troy | N. Illinois |
| Northwestern | Nevada | Duke | @Stanford |
| @Duke | Akron | Umass |
| Bowling Green | Notre Dame | |
| Ohio State | Oklahoma | Oregon State | Florida Atlantic |
| Army | TCU (Dallas) | Cincinnati |
| UNLV | Tulane | Miami (OH) |
| Penn State | Akron | Appalachian St | Idaho |
| Pitt | @Pitt | Buffalo |
| Georgia State | Kent State | Pitt |
| Purdue | L'ville (Indy) | E. Michigan | @Nevada |
| Ohio | Missouri | Vanderbilt |
| @Missouri | Boston College | TCU |
| Rutgers | Washington | Texas State | UMass |
| E. Michigan | @Kansas | Boston College |
| Morgan State | Buffalo | Liberty |
| Wisconsin | Utah State | W. Kentucky | @USF |
| Florida Atlantic | New Mexico | C. Michigan |
| @BYU | BYU | North Texas |
For 2018, I see just 12 Big Ten nonconference games scheduling other P-5 teams. Indiana and Wisconsin have scheduled no P-5 teams over the next three-years.
-
I don't see regular season data points as being more important in determining relative strength of football conferences, than bowl games. Is there some statistical analysis claiming bowl results are less reliable than regular season results, or that there are more upsets in bowl games?
bowl games are just as valid as regular(pre-season) games in my book
and there are more bowl games and of higher competition
I also consider pre-season games as valid
all are valid
-
For 2018, I see just 12 Big Ten nonconference games scheduling other P-5 teams. Indiana and Wisconsin have scheduled no P-5 teams over the next three-years.
The Big Ten counted BYU, ND and the service academies as "P5" scheduling when it made the mandate. BYU is 2018, None for 2019*, and ND is for 2020. 2021 has ND and Army.
* I've heard a "neutral" site game at FedEx Field or The Meadowlands could be in the cards to open 2019, but as of right now UW opens up at South Florida that year.
Also, I think you have IU mixed up with Illinois in your post.
-
I don't see regular season data points as being more important in determining relative strength of football conferences, than bowl games. Is there some statistical analysis claiming bowl results are less reliable than regular season results, or that there are more upsets in bowl games?
They're all data points. My only point is that there were only 8 bowl games for the B1G this year. 5 of the 8 were decided by 1 score (4 wins, 1 loss). That is a very small data set, and although the B1G went 7-1, it's not enough of a data set to really draw any conclusion.
I'm not saying bowls are unreliable. I'm saying 8 games isn't enough to say squat.
-
Again I think in determining Strength of Conference versus Other Conferences you only have 50~ish data points, and of those only 20~ish P5 data points. The B1G played 42 OOC games this year, 12 of those P5, and 8 bowl games. Bowl games are significant portion, but not shouldn't they over valued, or disregarded.
I would order the the significance of determining Strength of Conference something like this:
1) OOC P5 - 35% - you get the most data points from this, and most varied data points here.
2) Bowl Games - 30% - you get the 2nd most significant data points, supposedly the closest matched games.
3) Advanced Metrics - 20% - Advanced metrics, let the number crunches do what they do, this let's us know past Wins and Losses how strong certain results are. This year B1G had 5 bowl games determined by one score, ie really close games that could have gone a different way, don't get too big a head you played a competitive game.
4) Conference games - 10% - doesn't determine Strength of Conference vs Conference at all, but in conference pecking order to compare to other conferences pecking order. (IE we can see if a below average conference team beat an above average OOC team.)
5) OOC other - 5% - I think only significant when an upset occurs.
B1G East went 7-4 versus other P5, pretty impressive. They went 4-3 in OOC and 3-1 in bowls. IE bowls are significant, just not the biggest part.
OSU 3-1 (1-1 P5)
PSU 4-0 (2-0 P5)
MSU 3-1 (1-1 P5)
UM 3-1 (1-1 P5)
Rut 1-2 (0-1 P5)
Mary 2-1 (1-0 P5)
Ind 3-0 (1-0 P5)
B1G West went 6-3 versus other P5, impressive. They went 2-3 in OOC and 4-0 in Bowls. The bowl games took the B1G west from below average versus P5 too impressive.
Wis 4-0 (1-0 P5)
NW 3-1 (1-1 P5)
Pur 3-1 (1-1 P5)
Iowa 4-0 (2-0 P5)
Neb 1-2 (0-1 P5)
Minn 3-0 (1-0 P5)
Ill 2-1 (0-0 P5)
Caveat, I understand for scheduling purposes some non-P5 schools count as P5, but I only counted Notre Dame here. Those other teams are popular enough to warrant P5 money but schedule they are not. While as Notre Dame plays 5 ACC, 2 P12, and B1G every year (ie a P5 schedule.)
In the grand scheme of things 20 data points are not enough to determine which conference is better than another, and 8 bowl games is definitely not enough. But we can with a wide enough brush start to paint a picture of how a conference is by looking at all of this in the right lens.
-
It's largely judgment unless some conference has an outstanding year. The Big Ten was close to that I think (judgment).
I also tend to winnow out the OOC games between say Indiana and Kansas (not that they played, just an example).
If you latch onto MAJOR OOC games, you have even fewer to judge.
When LSU loses to Troy, it certainly has to count for something. If they beat Troy, not really much unless it's in OT or something and then it's a negative. Good teams routinely beat lesser teams by 30 points or more. If they win say 31-24, it's not a good sign, but it's a W.
Georgia last year (2016) barely beat some poor teams (and was 8-5). They weren't a good team at all. This year a sign early was how they were blowing out poor teams. That means a something.
If you think Conference X is best, it's fine with me unless it's a bizarre selection, and even then it's fine. Not many who post here are bizarre in their analyses.
-
Yeah, you need a multi-year set of data - and we may not be able to tell the best conference in 2017 until 2020 or sometime.
The SEC's former claim was a tsunami of various data points - best bowl record AND most draft picks AND the national champion AND the best recruiting, etc.
That multitude made it easy to say, "yeah, the SEC is #1", but it's usually not that cut-and-dry. Time will reveal, though.
-
I don't see regular season data points as being more important in determining relative strength of football conferences, than bowl games. Is there some statistical analysis claiming bowl results are less reliable than regular season results, or that there are more upsets in bowl games?
You can't readily compare P-5 conferences based on the regular season as there are few data points. Here is the Big Ten nonconference schedule 2018-20:
Hawkinole, you have Oklahoma listed in year 2019 (if I'm reading your table correctly)?
Yet, from what I know (soonerstats.com) our major OOC that year is UCLA. We don't play a B1G until Nebraska comes to town to renew the rivalry in 2021.
Unless you know something soonerstats doesn't know?
-
Since we didn't do a Post-Bowl Power Rankings, I'll put here the final composite computer rankings (97 computers - last week in parenthesis)
| 1. | | Alabama (4) |
| 2. | | Georgia (2) |
| 3. | | OHIO STATE (3) |
| 4. | | WISCONSIN (6) |
| 5. | | Clemson (1) |
| 6. | | PENN STATE (7) |
| 7. | | Oklahoma (5) |
| 8. | | Central Florida (9) |
| 9. | | Notre Dame (10) |
| 10. | | Auburn (8) |
| 11. | | TCU (14) |
| 12. | | Washington (11) |
| 13. | | Miami (13) |
| 14. | | USC (12) |
| 15. | | MICHIGAN STATE (18) |
| 16. | | Oklahoma State (17) |
| 17. | | NORTHWESTERN (19) |
| 18. | | IOWA (25) |
| 19. | | NC State (24) |
| 20. | | Mississippi State (-) |
| 21. | | Stanford (15) |
| 22. | | LSU (20) |
| 23. | | Virginia Tech (16) |
| 24. | | Memphis (21) |
| 25. | | Boise State (-) |
| - | |
| 26. | | Michigan (22) |
| 40. | | Purdue (41) |
| 61. | | Indiana (60) |
| 69. | | Minnesota (69) |
| 73. | | Maryland (74) |
| 77. | | Nebraska (75) |
| 95. | | Rutgers (95) |
| 111. | | Illinois (110) |
...and the final conference rankings
| 1. | | ACC |
| 2. | | Big Ten |
| 3. | | SEC |
| 4. | | Big XII |
| 5. | | Pac 12 |
| 6. | | AAC |
| 7. | | Mountain West |
| 8. | | MAC |
| 9. | | Conference USA |
| 10. | | Sun Belt |
| . | |
-
Had the B1G gone 1-7, folks would be talking about it a good bit.
-
Had the B1G gone 1-7, folks would be talking about it a good bit.
Hence my point. 5 of 8 games were decided by one score. 4 of those 5 were wins. Had there been slight bounces in either, we'd have gone 3-5.
Of course, we're sports fans, so we'd all be talking about how maybe the middle of the conference was weak, but did you see those OSU and Wisconsin bowl games? The top of the conference was fine!
As I said, we try to explain events that due to small sample sizes can hardly be described as anything but random with a narrative.
-
Heh, I was just watching something about the '99 NBA ECQF Game 5 between the #1 Heat and the #8 Knicks. How Allan Houston hit the game winner (and it was just best of 5 back then) with a fortunate bounce off the front of the rim, which sent the Knicks through (and they eventually made it all the way to the NBA Finals). That the Knicks were prepared to fire Van Gundy after that series and bring in Phil Jackson as coach, but they couldn't fire a guy coming off an NBA Finals appearance. So instead Jackson went to the Lakers, convinced Kobe and Shaq to give it a go together, when the Lakers were on the cusp of trading Shaq.
So basically the only reason the 2000s Lakers dynasty happens is because Allan Houston's shot off the front of the rim bounced forwards, instead of backwards, which meant Jeff Van Gundy was a good coach. Not that he drew up a play proving that he was a good coach, simply the direction the ball bounced determined how good of a coach he was. That's just how sports are.
-
Interesting NBA tale, and consistent with my thoughts. A lot of games could have gone either way. Someone wins.
Unless a conference really dominates OOC play, at least at the top, I don't see much difference beyond how the ball bounces.
A bunch of wins 24-21 are great, but as noted could have been 27-24 if this or that happened.
-
Am I correct that the "best conference" claims got started with the Internet and ESPN?
I vaguely recall comments by TV guys during games that "X" was the best conference in 1970, but I don't think it aroused much controversy, perhaps because people had no outlet for their thoughts. I know when teams from the Big 8 finished 1-2-3 it was sort of obvious, but I suspect in many years it really was not very clear.
And it of course requires some idea of how one decides it, e.g., a conference might have 2-3 GREAT teams and 10-11 bad teams versus another that has 1 great team, 5 good teams, 5 OK teams, and 3 bad teams etc.
One can't logically just tote up the OOC records because you can have a top team from A playing a crap team from B, AND because there are so few OOC games of any real note. Then you have UGA beating ND by a point in a game that could go either way. Should we presume UGA was really better than ND? Eh. NW beat UK in a game that could have gone either way, same with LSU and ND. UGA beat OU in another contest.
So, eh, I'm happy for anyone to claim X is the best conference based on Y. Fine with me. I'm happy my Dawgs won the SEC which for me is the one real claim to a something in CFB. Win your conference first.
-
It's 8 AM CST, 35 degrees F, sunny, and the Big Ten went 7-1 in bowl games.
-
warm here in Iowa and the Hawkeyes won the pinstripe bowl over an ACC team
-
Another thing FOR SURE is if the SEC went 7-1 in bowl games, someone would be posting about it.
SEC.
-
The SEC went 9-2 in bowls a couple of years ago, I don't recall much of anything about it.
The last time the B10 was more than a game over .500 in bowls was 2002, so 2017 seems noteworthy.
-
Another thing FOR SURE is if the SEC went 7-1 in bowl games, someone would be posting about it.
SEC.
No question.
What we need is more SEC posters though. Or we just get rid of conference boards and everyone posts on one.
Hmm. Have to think about that.
-
I favor having one main site to talk about college football. This conference thing is too limiting.
-
No question.
What we need is more SEC posters though. Or we just get rid of conference boards and everyone posts on one.
Hmm. Have to think about that.
The SEC board only has 3-4 people going. I'll never be able to wrap my head around why people enjoyed having a mental midget as the main draw there. The guy was demented, but when he was finally gone, so went his audience.
-
I think the change overs killed the audience. Most didn't follow. I've been on other boards where this happened as well for obvious reasons.
If we had one active board here, it would gradually attract others.
-
Did the ACC board ever have much traffic? All I ever saw was one oddball posting long, obscure things on it. A VT fan I think?
-
The SEC went 9-2 in bowls a couple of years ago, I don't recall much of anything about it.
your recall is worse than this old man's ;)
-
I saw a LOT of traffic about the SEC's bowl record when it was impressive, even though many of the wins were by a single score also. Face it, a "dominant" conference is going to beat most OOC opponents of similar ilk by 2-3 scores most of the time, 31-14 kinds of scores, and consistently. Otherwise, we're really talking about perhaps having an "edge" maybe based on bowl games and a very few significant OOC games.
I see the words "dominant" and "dominate" often mixed up on message boards for some reason. :57:
-
I've been working behind the scenes as I've had time to pour over the Scout/247 team boards looking for old mates. I've been only slightly successful, but we've gained a few here and there.
I'm going to continue that effort, but it's a little hard and obviously I need to be VERY discreet since I'm still a premium member, for now.
-
appreciate the effort
good luck
perhaps I will send out another email invite to old friends
I did lure in a purple Wildcat to the Big 12 board a few weeks back
-
Thank you. Any help is appreciated.
We are working on getting content (writers) to help with traffic too.
Right now, the place is kinda like a little clubhouse. We want it to be more than that, of course, and content is the way to do that.
Maybe I can get Ol' Pete to write some bulljive for us.
-
A little Fiu goes a long way.
-
The biggest problem with him is that he did not like or care about his message boards, which is why he just turned it over to a few of us to manage. He got tired of the complaints and such so he made Sparky the admin, and Sparky had what he called the "secret seven" posters to help him out. It was me, Grillrat and some others for a while. Maybe Gator and El Tigre? I can't remember who was all in on that.
Then Sparky got a new gig and turned it over to me, and well, here we are.
I doubt Fiu would have any interest in us, to be very honest, but I've got some feelers out there - mostly to old Scout guys who didn't make the transition. We shall see. They are not free...
-
I saw a LOT of traffic about the SEC's bowl record when it was impressive, even though many of the wins were by a single score also. Face it, a "dominant" conference is going to beat most OOC opponents of similar ilk by 2-3 scores most of the time, 31-14 kinds of scores, and consistently. Otherwise, we're really talking about perhaps having an "edge" maybe based on bowl games and a very few significant OOC games.
I see the words "dominant" and "dominate" often mixed up on message boards for some reason. :57:
I use "dominate!"--in bold italics--on purpose to make fun of that very phenomenon. ;)
-
Anyone who's been around team sports much knows that good teams lose to worse teams when they have off days (among other reasons). One of the ways that happens is teams come out flat because they aren't motivated for the game (flat, overconfident--pretty much the same thing: they both normally manifest as lazy); every bit as common (probably more so) is an over-matched team that comes out flat because it expects to get dominated, which only makes things worse. No question these things happen. When the worse team gets and early lead (or even just feels it has an opportunity), it will gain momentum as the players realize they actually have a chance to win, which makes the comeback harder for the "down" side. This is why leadership and team chemistry matter.
But the winners, regardless of whether they were actually a better all-around team, will always have and cherish that win. Such is the world of sport.
-
Fairly often, those bigger upsets are coupled with an imbalance in turnover margin. Ole Miss beat Bama a few years back with a 5-0 advantage in that metric. And yes, if the lesser team gets a lead they do gain confidence, though the other side gains "seriousness". But, if the better team starts pressing, they can make mistakes obviously.
http://www.bettingtalk.com/win-probability-percentage-point-spread-nfl-nba/
-
like when the Philly Eagles received a couple gifts from Case Keenum?
:16:
-
The biggest problem with him is that he did not like or care about his message boards, which is why he just turned it over to a few of us to manage. He got tired of the complaints and such so he made Sparky the admin, and Sparky had what he called the "secret seven" posters to help him out. It was me, Grillrat and some others for a while. Maybe Gator and El Tigre? I can't remember who was all in on that.
Then Sparky got a new gig and turned it over to me, and well, here we are.
I doubt Fiu would have any interest in us, to be very honest, but I've got some feelers out there - mostly to old Scout guys who didn't make the transition. We shall see. They are not free..
Fui turns out interesting stuff, but his fact checking sucks.
-
Unfortunately, that is true of what seems like 90 percent of the "journalists" out there.
Fiu is a little different in that he's an entertainer, so to speak. He's pretty serious when he gets on the radio around here though, but his site, well that's different.