Rank The Conferences!

[outofyourmind]

Duh. Being top heavy brings up the average strength of the conference. Keep up.

That's what homers say that only have a few teams in the conference ranked.

 

[outofyourmind]

Not to kick the Big 12 while they are down, but basically, you could make an argument for any of the conferences, but the Big 12.

Except, you know, the AP poll that knows what they are talking about.
But yeah.

 

[outofyourmind]

You can have half your division ranked all you want but the facts are the Big 12 hasn't been relevant in years.

You mean like the opinion that the final AP poll had last year.
Ranked Oklahoma #5 and ranked a team that beat Oklahoma and went to the playoffs below them.

That kind of relevant.

 

[Yo Tee]

You mean like the opinion that the final AP poll had last year.
Ranked Oklahoma #5 and ranked a team that beat Oklahoma and went to the playoffs below them.

That kind of relevant.

You're right. That's KIND of relevant. Not as relevant as winning a playoff game or a National Championship in the last 10 years. All but the Big 12 have a playoff win or National Championship since 2006. Like I said, you can have as many ranked teams as you want but if you can't make the playoff and either win 1 game or the National Title, you're not as good as the other conferences who did. Now I did say that I would be willing to put the Big 12 over the Pac 12 so I'm working with you there, but putting them over the ACC, SEC or B1G just simply can't happen and I don't know anyone else aside from a Big 12 homer who would think that way. AP voters can vote half your conference to be ranked all they want but how many of them are voting for a Big 12 team to make the playoffs or even makes it to the National Title game? I've seen USC, Florida State, Alabama, Ohio State. Haven't heard anything about Oklahoma being a playoff favorite. Now, this also isn't saying that the Big 12 sucks. Not at all. But to say they are on the same level as the ACC, SEC and B1G throughout the last 5-10 years is a little overrating the Big 12 as a conference in my opinion.

 

[4down20]

the AP poll that knows what they are talking about.

First time in my life ever hearing these words together.

 

[NolePride]

You're right. That's KIND of relevant. Not as relevant as winning a playoff game or a National Championship in the last 10 years. All but the Big 12 have a playoff win or National Championship since 2006. Like I said, you can have as many ranked teams as you want but if you can't make the playoff and either win 1 game or the National Title, you're not as good as the other conferences who did. Now I did say that I would be willing to put the Big 12 over the Pac 12 so I'm working with you there, but putting them over the ACC, SEC or B1G just simply can't happen and I don't know anyone else aside from a Big 12 homer who would think that way. AP voters can vote half your conference to be ranked all they want but how many of them are voting for a Big 12 team to make the playoffs or even makes it to the National Title game? I've seen USC, Florida State, Alabama, Ohio State. Haven't heard anything about Oklahoma being a playoff favorite. Now, this also isn't saying that the Big 12 sucks. Not at all. But to say they are on the same level as the ACC, SEC and B1G throughout the last 5-10 years is a little overrating the Big 12 as a conference in my opinion.

Well in games played by Big12 teams vs the 3 listed leagues.

The last 5 years...

Big12 is 5-6 vs the ACC
Big12 is 9-7 vs the Big10
Big12 is 7-10 vs the SEC

The last 10 years...

Big12 is 17-15 vs the ACC
Big12 is 25-11 vs the Big10
Big12 is 15-27 vs the SEC

 

[TexasExes98]

You're right. That's KIND of relevant. Not as relevant as winning a playoff game or a National Championship in the last 10 years. All but the Big 12 have a playoff win or National Championship since 2006. Like I said, you can have as many ranked teams as you want but if you can't make the playoff and either win 1 game or the National Title, you're not as good as the other conferences who did. Now I did say that I would be willing to put the Big 12 over the Pac 12 so I'm working with you there, but putting them over the ACC, SEC or B1G just simply can't happen and I don't know anyone else aside from a Big 12 homer who would think that way. AP voters can vote half your conference to be ranked all they want but how many of them are voting for a Big 12 team to make the playoffs or even makes it to the National Title game? I've seen USC, Florida State, Alabama, Ohio State. Haven't heard anything about Oklahoma being a playoff favorite. Now, this also isn't saying that the Big 12 sucks. Not at all. But to say they are on the same level as the ACC, SEC and B1G throughout the last 5-10 years is a little overrating the Big 12 as a conference in my opinion.

You're going all team SEC homer logic on us. Without Clemson or FSU, the ACC is basically a mid major. Without Bama, the SEC does not have 1 legit title contender. Without tOSU, the B1G does not have 1 legit title contender. Teams win titles, not conferences. All conferences are pretty much on par with each other, IMO.

 

[TheRobotDevil]

You mean like the opinion that the final AP poll had last year.
Ranked Oklahoma #5 and ranked a team that beat Oklahoma and went to the playoffs below them.

That kind of relevant.

I'm really not a fan of the whole rank the conference thing. It seems a bit redundant. How does one arrive at a plausible gauge . When 3-5 P5 conferences use different formats? Even if we look at just the utilization of the polling systems they are primarily based on opinion and politics. Win loss records are also not a viable gauge. Due to the dynamics of the conferences. When one conference plays an 8 game conference schedule. And fills an extra slot late in the year on an FCS opponent. It doesn't just pad the win total. But it also effects the entire dynamic of the conference rankings,standings in the polls all the way down to bowl eligibility. As the extra conference game equals an extra conference loss as an automatic.Dont get me wrong it is a fun topic if you like that conference pride thing. But unless all 5 conferences are playing under the same formats. There's not going to be consistency or an adequate measure for comparison. Without a solid foundation to work from.It's basically a matter of opinion and nothing more. Unless we are maybe comparing H2H. Where there's times during bowl games.Where some teams don't want to be there. May as well just go full homer and call it a day imo

 

[Scapegoat]

Easy...rank the power 5 conferences in order of which conference is the best in all of College Football. Regular season, bowl games AND playoff play!

In my opinion....

1. ACC
2. SEC
3. Big Ten
4. Pac 12
5. Big 12

If you take the top 5 teams from the ACC and the SEC standings last year not including Clemson or Alabama:

From the ACC: Florida State, Louisville, Miami(FL), Virginia Tech and North Carolina
From the SEC: Florida, Tennessee, Auburn, LSU and Georgia

I think the ACC wins at least 4 of those games. For me, the Big Ten is a VERY close 3rd to the SEC. Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa are a force also. Once Oregon comes back from their slump, I believe the Pac 12 might challenge for the 3rd spot. Big 12 can barely get 5 teams to have a winning record. The Big Ten and Pac 12 each had 4 teams with double digit wins, ACC and Big 12 with 3 and SEC had 1. No other team aside from Alabama could get more than 9 wins.

Lots to factor in here but what do y'all think??

Discuss!

The Big 12 seems to be thought of as the weakest of the power 5. But once you get past Alabama the SEC isn't exactly a powerhouse conference.

 

[Yo Tee]

Well in games played by Big12 teams vs the 3 listed leagues.

The last 5 years...

Big12 is 5-6 vs the ACC
Big12 is 9-7 vs the Big10
Big12 is 7-10 vs the SEC

The last 10 years...

Big12 is 17-15 vs the ACC
Big12 is 25-11 vs the Big10
Big12 is 15-27 vs the SEC

That only helps their case against the B1G, but even then, playoff wins, national titles, some of the most watched games in a single season have a SEC, ACC or B1G team in them. The Big 12 has great teams in it. Oklahoma and Oklahoma State stand out. But the Big 12 isn't as popular or as relevant as the used to be. If this question was asked in 2007 or 2008, then the Big 12 would probably be 1 or 2. But the times have changed, my friends. The times have changed.

 

[kburjr]

That's what homers say that only have a few teams in the conference ranked.

Well, hell yes. Why else would I have said it? However, just do the math.

 

[Yo Tee]

You're going all team SEC homer logic on us. Without Clemson or FSU, the ACC is basically a mid major. Without Bama, the SEC does not have 1 legit title contender. Without tOSU, the B1G does not have 1 legit title contender. Teams win titles, not conferences. All conferences are pretty much on par with each other, IMO.

Get ready for a lot of stats ladies.

You're absolutely right. Without Bama, the SEC is dead last. Without Clemson and FSU, the ACC sucks. But also, without Oklahoma, the Big 12 is nothing. So you can't just cherry pick teams out of a conference that support your argument. Just as each conference as it's bottom dwellers, each conference has it's overachievers. The ACC has Clemson and Florida State, SEC has Bama, The Pac 12 have USC and Washington, B1G has Ohio State, Michigan and sometimes Penn State, while the Big 12 has Oklahoma and arguably Oklahoma State.

All stats are from last year:

Number of double digit win teams:

ACC - 3
SEC - 1
B1G - 4
Pac 12 - 4
Big 12 - 3

Bowl Game Winning %:

ACC - .750
SEC - .462
B1G - .300
Pac 12 - .500
Big 12 - .667

Number of teams in the Final AP Rankings (since the AP knows what they are doing, right?:

ACC - 5
SEC - 5
B1G - 4
Pac 12 - 5
Big 12 - 3

Not to mention since 2014:

Playoff wins:

ACC - 3
Big 12 - 0
SEC - 3
Pac 12 - 1
B1G - 2

Since 2006:

# of National Titles:

ACC - 2
SEC - 8 (with a run of 7 in a row)
Big 12 - 0
Pac 12 - 0
B1G - 1

Not to mention 10 analyst predictions for this upcoming season from CBS Sports, SB Nation and Sporting News (because I don't have all the time in the world to keep providing proof that the Big 12 is NOT the best conference and hasn't been in quite sometime)

Teams Included:

Alabama, Florida State, Ohio State, USC, Clemson, Penn State, Oklahoma and Washington.

For those keeping track at home:

SEC - 1
ACC - 2
Pac 12 - 2
B1G - 2
Big 12 - 1

Out of the 10 analyst predictions, only 1 had a big 12 team and still had them losing to USC. If the Big 12 had won a playoff game or won a National title in the last 10 years, the race for 3rd between B1G and Big 12 would be much closer, but when ranking the conference and who's the best amongst the power 5, I don't understand how you can argue for the Big 12 being anywhere but 4 or 5. The argument is null and voided out by the lack of playoff wins, national titles and top to bottom competition within the conference.

Since 2013, the Big 12 is 2-6 against the ACC, 6-6 against the B1G, 5-7 against the Pac 12 and 9-13 against the SEC. The Big 12 only has winning records against non power 5 conferences since 2013.

I'll be back in a hour to read all the replies.

 

[NolePride]

That only helps their case against the B1G, but even then, playoff wins, national titles, some of the most watched games in a single season have a SEC, ACC or B1G team in them. The Big 12 has great teams in it. Oklahoma and Oklahoma State stand out. But the Big 12 isn't as popular or as relevant as the used to be. If this question was asked in 2007 or 2008, then the Big 12 would probably be 1 or 2. But the times have changed, my friends. The times have changed.

I don't know.

Over the last 10 years...

2 Big10 teams have had winning records for all 10 seasons.
2 Big12 teams have had winning records for all 10 seasons.

1 Big10 team has had a winning record for 9 of those seasons.
1 Big12 team has had a winning record for 9 of those seasons.

3 Big10 teams have had winning records for 8 of those seasons.
1 Big12 team has had a winning record for 8 of those seasons.

1 Big10 team has had a winning record for 7 of those seasons.
2 Big12 teams have had winning records for 7 of those seasons.

2 Big10 teams have had winning records for 6 of those seasons.
2 Big12 teams have had winning records for 6 of those seasons.

5 Big10 teams have had more losing seasons than winning seasons in those seasons
2 Big12 teams have had more losing seasons than winning seasons in those seasons.

The summary would be...

64.3% of Big10 teams have had more winning seasons than losing seasons in the last 10 years.
80.0% of Big12 teams have had more winning seasons than losing seasons in the last 10 years.

Conclusion: It appears that the Big10 is more "bottom heavy" than "top heavy."

 

[Olyduck]

That's another big reason I have the Pac 12 so low in my rankings.

so because a non traditional team has a few good seasons and so that makes you perceive the conference as weak?
not sure I follow.

 

[belcherboy]

so because a non traditional team has a few good seasons and so that makes you perceive the conference as weak?
not sure I follow.

No, last year Washington St was 2nd in the Pac12 North. They lost to subdivision team last season...and were still #2 in the North. Combine that with UCLA and Oregon having horrendous seasons last year, I'm not sure why I would rank the conference higher. I'm all for convincing, so given what I've said above, why am I underestimating the Pac12 this year in conference strength compared to the other power 5 conferences?

 

[Tin Man]

Div II Football:
MIAA
Gulf South
NSIC
GLIAC
RMIC
...
Forget the rest.

 

[TrustMeIamRight]

I don't know.

Over the last 10 years...

2 Big10 teams have had winning records for all 10 seasons.
2 Big12 teams have had winning records for all 10 seasons.

1 Big10 team has had a winning record for 9 of those seasons.
1 Big12 team has had a winning record for 9 of those seasons.

3 Big10 teams have had winning records for 8 of those seasons.
1 Big12 team has had a winning record for 8 of those seasons.

1 Big10 team has had a winning record for 7 of those seasons.
2 Big12 teams have had winning records for 7 of those seasons.

2 Big10 teams have had winning records for 6 of those seasons.
2 Big12 teams have had winning records for 6 of those seasons.

5 Big10 teams have had more losing seasons than winning seasons in those seasons
2 Big12 teams have had more losing seasons than winning seasons in those seasons.

The summary would be...

64.3% of Big10 teams have had more winning seasons than losing seasons in the last 10 years.
80.0% of Big12 teams have had more winning seasons than losing seasons in the last 10 years.

Conclusion: It appears that the Big10 is more "bottom heavy" than "top heavy."

Isnt the discussion about right now? Or did I misread it and it is over the last decade?

 

[NolePride]

Isnt the discussion about right now? Or did I misread it and it is over the last decade?

I was quoting the other poster who brought up the 5 and 10-year time frames. I was simply responding
to that time frame(s).

I can respond to the time frame "right now"...if you so desire.

It's 0-0 right now. (Ain't nobody played today).

 

[TrustMeIamRight]

Except, you know, the AP poll that knows what they are talking about.
But yeah.

The AMERICAN ATHLETIC CONFERENCE had more players drafted than the Big 12 in the last draft.

The talent level in the Big 12 is WAY down. The ONLY conference who doesn't have a single team with a blue chip ratio of 50%+ is the Big 12.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.sbnation.com/a/cfb-preview-2017/blue-chip-ratio/amp

 

[TrustMeIamRight]

I was quoting the other poster who brought up the 5 and 10-year time frames. I was simply responding
to that time frame(s).

I can respond to the time frame "right now"...if you so desire.

It's 0-0 right now. (Ain't nobody played today).

I thought maybe I misread what they were asking. Bringing up 5 and 10 year frames for college is silly, as it is a coaching carousel for many teams. Hell, UM has had at least 3 and possibly 4 in the past 10 years, depending if you count this year or not.