• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

SEC (It just means more.. even its losses are wins)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
muffler dragon said:
As I sit here in College Station, TX, I've had a thought arise and I figured I would post it here.

Bringing the big analytical guns into this question (but anyone is welcome):
@BB73 @Buckeyeskickbuttocks @DaddyBigBucks

BP members have noted consistently this season that TAMU just continues to be in the polls even when they lose consistently.
So, my question/thought is if anyone knows whether they're poll ratings were this biased when they were in the Big XII?

I don't know how to go back to get pre-season ratings as well as how things progress during the season.
But I'm presuming that when TAMU was in the Big XII, 1) they're preseason ratings were rarely as positive as they have been since going into the SEC and 2) that they maintain presence in the polls more "rigorously" due to being in the SEC.
Click to expand...
This is an interesting point. If we are right about SEC bias, both Mizzou and TAMU provide evidence of that.
 
Upvote 0
All that said, there seems to be an awful lot of wringing of hands over average teams appearing in the latter half of the top 25. While I do suspect that one conference gets more of the benefit of the doubt, I find that when you evaluate anything after 15 or 20, I have a hard time arguing that an average SEC (or B1G) team isn’t worthy. There really aren’t more than 12-15 good teams, so after that, yeah you have these average teams.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
muffler dragon said:
As I sit here in College Station, TX, I've had a thought arise and I figured I would post it here.

Bringing the big analytical guns into this question (but anyone is welcome):
@BB73 @Buckeyeskickbuttocks @DaddyBigBucks

BP members have noted consistently this season that TAMU just continues to be in the polls even when they lose consistently.
So, my question/thought is if anyone knows whether they're poll ratings were this biased when they were in the Big XII?

I don't know how to go back to get pre-season ratings as well as how things progress during the season.
But I'm presuming that when TAMU was in the Big XII, 1) they're preseason ratings were rarely as positive as they have been since going into the SEC and 2) that they maintain presence in the polls more "rigorously" due to being in the SEC.
Click to expand...

This doesnt remove built-in AP bias, but he's gone to the trouble of finding diff from Preseason to Final AP for 1968-2018. 68 is when AP started doing a post-Bowl ranking.
http://www.tiptop25.com/fixedpolls.html
 
Upvote 0
muffler dragon said:
As I sit here in College Station, TX, I've had a thought arise and I figured I would post it here.

Bringing the big analytical guns into this question (but anyone is welcome):
@BB73 @Buckeyeskickbuttocks @DaddyBigBucks

BP members have noted consistently this season that TAMU just continues to be in the polls even when they lose consistently.
So, my question/thought is if anyone knows whether they're poll ratings were this biased when they were in the Big XII?

I don't know how to go back to get pre-season ratings as well as how things progress during the season.
But I'm presuming that when TAMU was in the Big XII, 1) they're preseason ratings were rarely as positive as they have been since going into the SEC and 2) that they maintain presence in the polls more "rigorously" due to being in the SEC.
Click to expand...

Those are great points to investigate. I’ll happily wait for those other guys to check ‘em out.
 
Upvote 0
Nigel Tufnel said:
All that said, there seems to be an awful lot of ringing of hands over average teams appearing in the latter half of the top 25. While I do suspect that one conference gets more of the benefit of the doubt, I find that when you evaluate anything after 15 or 20, I have a hard time arguing that an average SEC (or B1G) team isn’t worthy. There really aren’t more than 12-15 good teams, so after that, yeah you have these average teams.
Click to expand...


That's why I like the argument to never allow the CFP to expand past 8-16 teams. I think anything past 12 and you are comparing a bunch of slightly better than average, 4 loss teams. I don't think a program should get rewarded for losing 25% of their regular season games. That's what makes CF special. Every game matters.
 
Upvote 0
muffler dragon said:
As I sit here in College Station, TX, I've had a thought arise and I figured I would post it here.

Bringing the big analytical guns into this question (but anyone is welcome):
@BB73 @Buckeyeskickbuttocks @DaddyBigBucks

BP members have noted consistently this season that TAMU just continues to be in the polls even when they lose consistently.
So, my question/thought is if anyone knows whether they're poll ratings were this biased when they were in the Big XII?

I don't know how to go back to get pre-season ratings as well as how things progress during the season.
But I'm presuming that when TAMU was in the Big XII, 1) they're preseason ratings were rarely as positive as they have been since going into the SEC and 2) that they maintain presence in the polls more "rigorously" due to being in the SEC.
Click to expand...


A. why would you do that to yourself (be in College Station)?

B. in early 90s we played them every year and they were consistently ranked pretty high. that was at the end of the SWC days carrying into beginning of BigXII.
 
Upvote 0
Nigel Tufnel said:
All that said, there seems to be an awful lot of wringing of hands over average teams appearing in the latter half of the top 25. While I do suspect that one conference gets more of the benefit of the doubt, I find that when you evaluate anything after 15 or 20, I have a hard time arguing that an average SEC (or B1G) team isn’t worthy. There really aren’t more than 12-15 good teams, so after that, yeah you have these average teams.
Click to expand...

I am assuming the issue comes down to the alleged bump SEC teams get from beating a team in the Top 25. The resume builder games so if it came down to two teams this would possibly give the SEC team a leg up over a PAC 12, Big XII, or B1G team. I agree with you that after top 15-ish the teams are a coin flip most of the time.
 
Upvote 0
Nigel Tufnel said:
All that said, there seems to be an awful lot of wringing of hands over average teams appearing in the latter half of the top 25. While I do suspect that one conference gets more of the benefit of the doubt, I find that when you evaluate anything after 15 or 20, I have a hard time arguing that an average SEC (or B1G) team isn’t worthy. There really aren’t more than 12-15 good teams, so after that, yeah you have these average teams.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Problem is though, SEC teams tend to get extra kudos for beating those average-mediocre teams below the 12-15 mark.

"ANOTHER TOP 25 WIN FOR BAMA!"......When its Texas A&M who just keeps getting tossed back in when they "bounce back" from losing to any good teams they play by beating the scrubs on their schedule.
 
Upvote 0
buckeyemania11 said:
Agreed.

Problem is though, SEC teams tend to get extra kudos for beating those average-mediocre teams below the 12-15 mark.

"ANOTHER TOP 25 WIN FOR BAMA!"......When its Texas A&M who just keeps getting tossed back in when they "bounce back" from losing to any good teams they play by beating the scrubs on their schedule.
Click to expand...
Yes I suppose that’s true. I’m sure there is some sort of bump for that. I guess all I’m saying is that when you are trying to “rank” teams below 15 and ESPECIALLY below 20, I would tend to agree that a middling SEC (or B1G) team with multiple losses belongs there over 99% of mon power5 teams.
 
Upvote 0
muffler dragon said:
a) Here for business opportunity.
b) Very good to know. I just don’t remember TAMU being anything of note historically.
Click to expand...

tWvj1cY.jpg
 
Upvote 0
muffler dragon said:
As I sit here in College Station, TX, I've had a thought arise and I figured I would post it here.

Bringing the big analytical guns into this question (but anyone is welcome):
@BB73 @Buckeyeskickbuttocks @DaddyBigBucks

BP members have noted consistently this season that TAMU just continues to be in the polls even when they lose consistently.
So, my question/thought is if anyone knows whether they're poll ratings were this biased when they were in the Big XII?

I don't know how to go back to get pre-season ratings as well as how things progress during the season.
But I'm presuming that when TAMU was in the Big XII, 1) they're preseason ratings were rarely as positive as they have been since going into the SEC and 2) that they maintain presence in the polls more "rigorously" due to being in the SEC.
Click to expand...
I rank the top programs based on all-time performance every year. At the end of 2004, I had aTm at #23; at the end of last year they were still #23. They were passed by Clemson but had Ole Miss drop below them. So they haven't changed their profile one way or another in the last 15 years.

Here's a link that Stassen uses to track preseason vs final rankings to cumulatively track which teams are consistently overrated or underrated. Texas A&M shows up as slightly overrated (about the same as tOSU) over the last 30 years, and their tracking hasn't changed much at all since they joined the SEC. The most consistently overrated teams in the preseason are USC Trojans, Florida State, Texas, and TTUN.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top