Gophers 38th in latest Sagarin ratings, TCU #1

Donate To GopherHole
The SEC is 1-11 against out of conference top 10 teams (AP or Coaches) in the past two seasons. 0-5 in bowl games.
 


Unregistered User said:
The SEC is 1-11 against out of conference top 10 teams (AP or Coaches) in the past two seasons. 0-5 in bowl games.
Click to expand...
SEC West non-conference against the top 50 (massey) this year
Wins over #35 West Virginia, #26 Boise State #43 Memphis #44 Texas #21 Kansas State #35 West Virgina #19 Wisconsin
Loss to #2 Ohio State #3 TCU #11 Georgia Tech #19 Wisconsin #33 Notre Dame

Hardly any bad losses among the whole division and the good wins were often of the convincing variety. This is why Arkansas, etc. is ranked highly, not because of some perceived bias.
 

This could be sliced many ways.
Against top 25 teams the SEC was 2-4
Also, the last time I checked South Carolina was in the SEC.
 

GopherSOB said:
This could be sliced many ways.
Against top 25 teams the SEC was 2-4
Also, the last time I checked South Carolina was in the SEC.
Click to expand...
or you can do it correctly and include all games. You don't get ahead with Sagarin or Massey by beating up on cupcakes. The SEC is still really good. Let's just be thankful they've released their stranglehold on the title for one year.
 


I really would not argue that the SEC is not good, they are, just over hyped by the media/ESPN. Let's be most thankful for the new college football playoff, if it were not in place a team who does not deserve to playing for the title (Alabama) would be playing for it. Makes one wonder about previous 7-8 crowned champions now doesn't it.
 


GopherSOB said:
I really would not argue that the SEC is not good, they are, just over hyped by the media/ESPN. Let's be most thankful for the new college football playoff, if it were not in place a team who does not deserve to playing for the title (Alabama) would be playing for it. Makes one wonder about previous 7-8 crowned champions now doesn't it.
Click to expand...

Kind like the SEC getting two teams in the championship game. Of course the SEC will win the National Championship.
 

AO54 said:
or you can do it correctly and include all games. You don't get ahead with Sagarin or Massey by beating up on cupcakes. The SEC is still really good. Let's just be thankful they've released their stranglehold on the title for one year.
Click to expand...

In large part because they finally had to earn their way into the title game for once and didn't have it handed to them on a silver platter.
 



afurry91 said:
In large part because they finally had to earn their way into the title game for once and didn't have it handed to them on a silver platter.
Click to expand...
#1 seeds don't win March Madness every year either, doesn't mean the #1 seed was gifted to them on a silver platter. With so few non-conference games in football it's hard to pick out the top 2 teams in the country. I think the SEC was worse this year but it doesn't mean that their previous titles are now somehow invalidated.

Over-hyped by ESPN, sure. Overrated? Not really.
 

AO54 said:
#1 seeds don't win March Madness every year either, doesn't mean the #1 seed was gifted to them on a silver platter. With so few non-conference games in football it's hard to pick out the top 2 teams in the country. I think the SEC was worse this year but it doesn't mean that their previous titles are now somehow invalidated.

Over-hyped by ESPN, sure. Overrated? Not really.
Click to expand...

Disagree, they are overrated. What justified Mississippi State or Ole Miss being ranked #1 at one point this year? How come Alabama was #1 ranked in the playoffs the last 4-5 weeks and everyone else was jumping around for rankings? We heard the debates in November, should there be two SEC teams in the playoffs? Outside of Alabama what team could possibly compete (yet alone beat) with the best teams in the country. They are over-hyped and overrated.

They won National Championship games so I can't take anything away from that, but it was always a guarantee if you won the SEC Championship game you automatically were in the game. Coincidence or not, the first time they actually had to play their way in, they are not in it. It is a lot easier to eat if you have a seat at the table, and a lot easier to win the game if you are guaranteed to be in it. The last decade or so the Big 12, Pac 10, Big 10, ACC, and the former Big East were all playing for one spot in the National Championship game because the other spot was going to the SEC.
 


MNfootballfan said:
Disagree, they are overrated. What justified Mississippi State or Ole Miss being ranked #1 at one point this year? How come Alabama was #1 ranked in the playoffs the last 4-5 weeks and everyone else was jumping around for rankings? We heard the debates in November, should there be two SEC teams in the playoffs? Outside of Alabama what team could possibly compete (yet alone beat) with the best teams in the country. They are over-hyped and overrated.

They won National Championship games so I can't take anything away from that, but it was always a guarantee if you won the SEC Championship game you automatically were in the game. Coincidence or not, the first time they actually had to play their way in, they are not in it. It is a lot easier to eat if you have a seat at the table, and a lot easier to win the game if you are guaranteed to be in it. The last decade or so the Big 12, Pac 10, Big 10, ACC, and the former Big East were all playing for one spot in the National Championship game because the other spot was going to the SEC.
Click to expand...
Put the Gophers in the Ole Miss or Miss State spot. If you were undefeated with multiple wins over very good teams wouldn't you be considered for the top spot? Ole Miss beat Boise State 35-13!

but I wasn't arguing about the mid-season AP or coaches poll. It doesn't matter who is ranked #1 during week 6. I'm talking about the complete season computer ranking. You can knock the SEC down a peg but they're still #1. You can't just compare Ohio State and Alabama. You have to consider the difference between Purdue/Illinois and Arkansas.
 



AO54 said:
Put the Gophers in the Ole Miss or Miss State spot. If you were undefeated with multiple wins over very good teams wouldn't you be considered for the top spot? Ole Miss beat Boise State 35-13!

but I wasn't arguing about the mid-season AP or coaches poll. It doesn't matter who is ranked #1 during week 6. I'm talking about the complete season computer ranking. You can knock the SEC down a peg but they're still #1. You can't just compare Ohio State and Alabama. You have to consider the difference between Purdue/Illinois and Arkansas.
Click to expand...

Okay, Indiana beat Mizzou.
 

AO54 said:
Put the Gophers in the Ole Miss or Miss State spot. If you were undefeated with multiple wins over very good teams wouldn't you be considered for the top spot? Ole Miss beat Boise State 35-13!

but I wasn't arguing about the mid-season AP or coaches poll. It doesn't matter who is ranked #1 during week 6. I'm talking about the complete season computer ranking. You can knock the SEC down a peg but they're still #1. You can't just compare Ohio State and Alabama. You have to consider the difference between Purdue/Illinois and Arkansas.
Click to expand...

Please tell me how they are still #1? Did they have one quality bowl win as a conference? Missouri over Minnesota?

I posted this earlier, "If the SEC is soooo good at football, explain this to me. Texas A&M's last three years in the Big 12 they were 22-17, first three years in the SEC they are 28-11 and Missouri's last three years in the Big 12 they were 28-13 and first three years in the SEC they have a nearly identical record of 28-12. It would seem that playing tougher competition would lead to more losses?"
 

MNfootballfan said:
Please tell me how they are still #1? Did they have one quality bowl win as a conference? Missouri over Minnesota?

I posted this earlier, "If the SEC is soooo good at football, explain this to me. Texas A&M's last three years in the Big 12 they were 22-17, first three years in the SEC they are 28-11 and Missouri's last three years in the Big 12 they were 28-13 and first three years in the SEC they have a nearly identical record of 28-12. It would seem that playing tougher competition would lead to more losses?"
Click to expand...
Their previously mentioned bundle of quality non-conference wins. Also very few poor losses. They don't have many Purdue losing to Central Michigan or Indiana losing to Bowling Green type losses.

fryguy22 said:
Okay, Indiana beat Mizzou.
Click to expand...
One of the biggest upsets of the year.
 

AO54 said:
Put the Gophers in the Ole Miss or Miss State spot. If you were undefeated with multiple wins over very good teams wouldn't you be considered for the top spot? Ole Miss beat Boise State 35-13!

but I wasn't arguing about the mid-season AP or coaches poll. It doesn't matter who is ranked #1 during week 6. I'm talking about the complete season computer ranking. You can knock the SEC down a peg but they're still #1. You can't just compare Ohio State and Alabama. You have to consider the difference between Purdue/Illinois and Arkansas.
Click to expand...

Just a note but that should probably read Purdue/Illinois vs. Vandy/Kentucky (not Arkansas that has historically had some good teams)
 

AO54 said:
The human polls with the SEC bias or hype have nothing to do with the Sagarin rankings.
Click to expand...
But the Sagarin strength of schedule rankings are flawed. Here they are for the SEC - all within the top 20! And we know that most SEC teams played a dog**** non-conference schedule, so these are based mainly on SEC games.

WEST
------
Alabama - 2
Mississippi - 3
Mississippi State -17
Arkansas - 4
Auburn - 1
LSU - 5
Texas A&M - 6

EAST
------
Georgia - 8
Missouri - 10
Florida - 16
Tennessee - 9
South Carolina - 13
Kentucky - 11
Vanderbilt - 19
 

GoldenShower said:
But the Sagarin strength of schedule rankings are flawed. Here they are for the SEC - all within the top 20! And we know that most SEC teams played a dog**** non-conference schedule, so these are based mainly on SEC games.

WEST
------
Alabama - 2
Mississippi - 3
Mississippi State -17
Arkansas - 4
Auburn - 1
LSU - 5
Texas A&M - 6

EAST
------
Georgia - 8
Missouri - 10
Florida - 16
Tennessee - 9
South Carolina - 13
Kentucky - 11
Vanderbilt - 19
Click to expand...
No, we don't know that. You don't get a high strength of schedule by beating nothing but the bad teams. It's a computer not a columnist or coach. You could say that one of the problems in college football is that there aren't enough great non-conference games but the evidence doesn't support the "fact" that the SEC plays a worse non-con schedule than any other conference. They did better with the schedule they had.
 

AO54 said:
You don't get a high strength of schedule by beating nothing but the bad teams.
Click to expand...
That's my point. SEC teams are all getting credit for playing other SEC teams. 1 plays 4, 5 plays 10, 2 plays 8, etc.
 

A couple of years ago, during the middle of another SEC vs everyone else type of thread/debate someone on the GopherHole posted an article that outlined how the media and mainly ESPN have a huge vested financial concern in making sure the SEC is or at least is perceived to be the best. The article covered this "strength of schedule" myth or built in bias that all begins in the pre-season rankings and how the pre-season rankings essentially "rig" the rankings for the remainder of the year which allows the SEC/ESPN hype machine to guarantee that an SEC team plays for the national championship. Now that we have a four team playoff things are slightly different but rest assured the SEC/ESPN hype machine is still hard at work and would like to have two of the SEC teams in the four team playoff if they can have it their way in future years.
If someone who is better than I at digging up past information on this sight could re-post this article it would be a very appropriate article for this thread and a good reminder of how big time college football can lean toward and be engulfed by media corruption if we or the masses simply believe what ESPN is spewing.
 

GopherSOB said:
A couple of years ago, during the middle of another SEC vs everyone else type of thread/debate someone on the GopherHole posted an article that outlined how the media and mainly ESPN have a huge vested financial concern in making sure the SEC is or at least is perceived to be the best. The article covered this "strength of schedule" myth or built in bias that all begins in the pre-season rankings and how the pre-season rankings essentially "rig" the rankings for the remainder of the year which allows the SEC/ESPN hype machine to guarantee that an SEC team plays for the national championship. Now that we have a four team playoff things are slightly different but rest assured the SEC/ESPN hype machine is still hard at work and would like to have two of the SEC teams in the four team playoff if they can have it their way in future years.
If someone who is better than I at digging up past information on this sight could re-post this article it would be a very appropriate article for this thread and a good reminder of how big time college football can lean toward and be engulfed by media corruption if we or the masses simply believe what ESPN is spewing.
Click to expand...
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 

GoldenShower said:
That's my point. SEC teams are all getting credit for playing other SEC teams. 1 plays 4, 5 plays 10, 2 plays 8, etc.
Click to expand...
Shouldn't you get credit when you conference is tougher? If you're talking about the AP Poll, sure that can have an influence, but if you're just talking purely statistical objective strength of schedule rankings you should get credit for playing tough teams regardless of the circumstances of how they arrived on your schedule.
 

Believe me if the BIG or any other power 5 conference were dominating college football, legitimately or perceived the SEC and ESPN could not tolerate it. Go tell Chris Fowler I have some lake shore property in the Arizona desert I'd like to sell him.
 

GopherSOB said:
Believe me if the BIG or any other power 5 conference were dominating college football, legitimately or perceived the SEC and ESPN could not tolerate it. Go tell Chris Fowler I have some lake shore property in the Arizona desert I'd like to sell him.
Click to expand...
The B1G tv markets are bigger than the SEC markets and ESPN stands to profit enormously if the B1G got better. I must have missed the part where the B1G and all the bowls signed on with Fox or NBC.
 

AO54 said:
Shouldn't you get credit when you conference is tougher? If you're talking about the AP Poll, sure that can have an influence, but if you're just talking purely statistical objective strength of schedule rankings you should get credit for playing tough teams regardless of the circumstances of how they arrived on your schedule.
Click to expand...

How do we know the SEC is tougher than any other conference? It isn't their record against other ranked teams outside the conference or their bowl record. Is it because they are highly ranked during the regular season. Is the conference tougher because three different teams were ranked #1 in the country this year... despite each of them losing bowl games by a cumulative 61 points?

Both Texas A&M and Missouri have higher winning percentages in their first three years in the SEC compared to their last three years in the Big 12. 15 years in the Big 12, Missouri makes the championship game twice. 3 years in the SEC Missouri makes the championship game twice. 15 years in the Big 12, A&M makes championship game twice (97 & 98), first year in SEC they roll to a 11-2 record and are in the title game. Why was it so much "easier" to make the title game in the SEC vs. Big 12?
 

MNfootballfan said:
How do we know the SEC is tougher than any other conference? It isn't their record against other ranked teams outside the conference or their bowl record. Is it because they are highly ranked during the regular season. Is the conference tougher because three different teams were ranked #1 in the country this year... despite each of them losing bowl games by a cumulative 61 points?

Both Texas A&M and Missouri have higher winning percentages in their first three years in the SEC compared to their last three years in the Big 12. 15 years in the Big 12, Missouri makes the championship game twice. 3 years in the SEC Missouri makes the championship game twice. 15 years in the Big 12, A&M makes championship game twice (97 & 98), first year in SEC they roll to a 11-2 record and are in the title game. Why was it so much "easier" to make the title game in the SEC vs. Big 12?
Click to expand...

This type of argument means nothing as teams are not the same every year. You have an A&M with a talent like Manziel and some very good Mizzou teams with great collections of talent as well. Coaching staffs change. Where games are played change. It's facing a new opponent, often times for the first time for many schools so gameplans are not really shored up at that point. That's an apples and oranges comparison and I greatly dislike the SEC and feel that the media believes they are better regardless of what is seen on the field. Just saying this argument means nothing to how good these teams are THIS YEAR.
 

MNfootballfan said:
How do we know the SEC is tougher than any other conference? It isn't their record against other ranked teams outside the conference or their bowl record. Is it because they are highly ranked during the regular season. Is the conference tougher because three different teams were ranked #1 in the country this year... despite each of them losing bowl games by a cumulative 61 points?

Both Texas A&M and Missouri have higher winning percentages in their first three years in the SEC compared to their last three years in the Big 12. 15 years in the Big 12, Missouri makes the championship game twice. 3 years in the SEC Missouri makes the championship game twice. 15 years in the Big 12, A&M makes championship game twice (97 & 98), first year in SEC they roll to a 11-2 record and are in the title game. Why was it so much "easier" to make the title game in the SEC vs. Big 12?
Click to expand...

Good questions and I should really defer to TXAggie on this one but here are some possible explanations:

Mizzou winning the SEC West two of three years: their timing was good in that this division slumped at the right time for Mizzou. Credit Mizzou for taking advantage of the opportunity.

A&M winning the SEC East: having a Heisman Trophy winner in Johnny Manziel, say no more.

As far as the SEC bowl record, it could be a one-year fluke but I doubt it. Like most things in life, it’s probably a bit more complicated. My over-simplified explanation is that for many of those teams especially the ones in the east division, their bowl game was a letdown compared to winning the SEC championship. For example, Ole Miss may have checked out after being ranked #1 and losing the possibility to win their division and a conference title. Assuming Ole Miss had checked-out, a beat down was probably in order especially by a damn good team like TCU. I also think some of these SEC teams (notwithstanding Vandy, A&M and Mizzou) do not have the brightest players and therefore do not understand and appreciate the significance of what it means to the conference to win those bowl games especially as it relates to TV ratings and revenues. This is not to take anything away from the teams that beat SEC schools (believe me, I loved most of these losses and in particular Bama’s) but it isn’t like the conference got bad overnight.

Let’s see what happens next year before we make any decisions based on a one-year trend.
 

The crux of this whole debate can be most clearly illustrated by one simple outcome from this past season.
Mississippi State was not ranked in the top 25 on September 20th, won three games and had a bye and then amazingly became the number one ranked team in the country after the weekend of October 11th. You really can't make this stuff up!!
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom