Question re: Conference Evaluation

Terry in Crapchester · Tue Jan 02, 2007 4:20 pm

I'm a little confused as to how most in here evaluate conferences. Either that, or I'm listening to the more vocal minorities in every case.

Alluding to Mace's Big Ten thread, many in here have opined that the Big Ten, other than Ohio State and Michigan, was down this year. Many have also said the same thing about the SEC, even though that conference had four teams in the final Top 12 and five in the final Top 17. Others have said that the Big 12 was down this year (I tend to agree with this), and that the Pac-10 was down. And most of the comments on the two big Thursday night Big East games (West Virginia-Louisville and Louisville-Rutgers) were overwhelmingly negative as to all teams involved, even though those teams were clearly the cream of the Big East crop this year.

About the only conference I saw escaping this criticism from the board this year was the ACC, and to me the ACC was the most obviously down of the six BCS conferences. Perhaps it was fear of posting the Marcus Allen-esque, or a dislike of pile-ons, that prevented this criticism. I certainly hope I'm not the only one in here who saw the ACC as the weakest of the BCS conferences this season.

It seems to me that not every conference could have had a down season this year. I'm just looking for some input as to which conferences, in your opinion, did not have a down year.

buckeye_in_sc · Post by **buckeye_in_sc** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 4:32 pm

Terry good post...

I think people put too much stock in all the bowls...me I look at "money" bowls....New Years day and BCS...those are usually the top 1-3 teams in said conferences going at it...plus potentially ND...

Big 10 was 2-1 with 2 wins over the MIGHTY SEC and Michigan lost to USC
Pac 10 was 1-0
Big 12 0-2
SEC 1-2
WAC 1-0
Big East 1-0
ACC 0-1

so we still have 3 more games with the ACC vs Big East, SEC vs Independent and SEC vs Big 10, I think if tOSU beats FLA then you would have to rate the Big 10 as being one of the better conferences again just taking into account Money Bowls...of course if Louisville wins the Big East would be 2-0 and if the SEC happens to win both they would be 2-2 and 2 of those wins coming against great teams...the Pac 10 has the 1 marquee win so who knows...

pretty even if you ask me...

Shoalzie · Post by **Shoalzie** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 4:35 pm

With these games, I think it's as much about which conference has the better-prepared coaches than which conference has better teams. Is Boise State better man-for-man than Oklahoma? Maybe not...but the playcalling and creativity of Peterson won them that game. You see USC out scheme Michigan and shut down an elite running back and torch them through the air. During this time of the season, I see more coaches being held to the fire than any player. I'll say it until I'm blue in the face...these are exhibition games or consolation games...whatever you want to call them. Teams prepare differently for them. Some will treat it like it's the biggest game of the year or some will just scheme to beat their opponent or they'll just go into the game with the mentality that they're just happy to be there.

I never got into the conference arguments because I don't root for other Big Ten teams at any point in the year. I can give two craps about how the rest of the conference does and I've made it clear that I don't worry about Michigan's success in their game either. The only Big Ten team playing an important game is Ohio State. What Michigan, Iowa, Penn State or any of the other teams do in their games don't mean squat to what the Buckeyes do against Florida next Monday. The conference vs. conference stuff is nothing more than water cooler conversation.

EDIT--I had break this into two paragraphs or else no one would read it. (Sup, Ken and Frisco)

Terry in Crapchester · Tue Jan 02, 2007 4:43 pm

Since we're talking about the bowl games, let me add this . . .

One of the things I like about the bowl games is the interesting OOC matchups. I'm not looking at these games as indicators of which conference is stronger, if only because of the fact that all bowl games except one are glorified exhibition games. However, what the bowl games provide, at least potentially, are exciting matchups between teams that don't play each other all the time.

I guess that's the reason why I advocate for a 16-team playoff. With that system, you retain a lot of the intriguing OOC matchups, only in that system the games actually mean something. And even a 16-team field requires enough regular season success to qualify that the regular season still carries a lot of meaning. What could be better?

the_ouskull · Post by **the_ouskull** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 4:57 pm

I have a quick conference evaluation. We all suck. That is all. Thank you.

the_ouskull

SoCalTrjn · Post by **SoCalTrjn** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 5:14 pm

I agree about the OOC point in bowl games. For MOST BCS conferences schools the bowl game is the ONLY time that year where they have had to play a legit non conference team away from their own state. You can not tell how good a team is when their only quality win was in conference vs a team that also had its only quality win be in conference.

Shoalzie · Post by **Shoalzie** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 5:16 pm

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Since we're talking about the bowl games, let me add this . . .

One of the things I like about the bowl games is the interesting OOC matchups. I'm not looking at these games as indicators of which conference is stronger, if only because of the fact that all bowl games except one are glorified exhibition games. However, what the bowl games provide, at least potentially, are exciting matchups between teams that don't play each other all the time.

I guess that's the reason why I advocate for a 16-team playoff. With that system, you retain a lot of the intriguing OOC matchups, only in that system the games actually mean something. And even a 16-team field requires enough regular season success to qualify that the regular season still carries a lot of meaning. What could be better?

I'm with in lock-step. Just watch the last weekend of the NFL season and watching the battles for playoff spots. Imagine each conference having battles for berths into the playoffs plus jockeying of position among the at-large teams. The regular season can still be great if there was a playoff. Allowing teams with 1 or 2 losses to keep play meaningful games throughout the season shouldn't be a crime. We had 8 loss teams make the NFL playoffs but the best part of this past weekend was the drama with the Broncos losing to the 49ers allowing the Chiefs to get in. If the NFL had a similar system as the BCmesS...the Super Bowl would Chargers-Bears and the other 10 playoff teams would play in some silly little pattycake exhibition games. In all sports, the best part of the season is the postseason...in college football, I'd say otherwise.

indyfrisco · Post by **indyfrisco** » Tue Jan 02, 2007 5:17 pm

This seems like a thread for Shaz to make his comeback on...

Speaking of Shaz, anyone think he'll pull his ass outa the gutter and post here again? Maybe Fantasy Baseball will get him out here.