- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
What is your criteria for determining a conferences' strength?
Posted on 6/10/14 at 11:52 am
Posted on 6/10/14 at 11:52 am
This comes up all the time. What, in your opinion makes one conference tougher or stronger than another?
Obviously the SEC in football is better than the Sun Belt, and you can point to a number of data points to prove it. But what makes it so?
IMO it's the difficulty for team X to win, and as such that basically means how top-heavy a given conference can be. It seems everyone has bottom feeders and your typical Vandys, or Wake Forests, or Washington States, or Indiana's really don't matter.
But, there are many ways to consider it. Look at baseball this year. Is the Big12>SEC with their postseason success? A league with 9 teams has 3 teams in the CWS, 4/16 in Super Regionals. Is that better than the SEC with 10/14 in the tourney but only 2/14 in Supers and CWS?
What about championships? Many argue the Big10 is the best basketball league but has not championship since 2000.
What about parity across the league? Should it be measured by the average, or the by its weakest link? If you look at ranking for the ACC football, they usually have a very high average--no great teams (typically) but also no awful teams either.
What do you think?
Obviously the SEC in football is better than the Sun Belt, and you can point to a number of data points to prove it. But what makes it so?
IMO it's the difficulty for team X to win, and as such that basically means how top-heavy a given conference can be. It seems everyone has bottom feeders and your typical Vandys, or Wake Forests, or Washington States, or Indiana's really don't matter.
But, there are many ways to consider it. Look at baseball this year. Is the Big12>SEC with their postseason success? A league with 9 teams has 3 teams in the CWS, 4/16 in Super Regionals. Is that better than the SEC with 10/14 in the tourney but only 2/14 in Supers and CWS?
What about championships? Many argue the Big10 is the best basketball league but has not championship since 2000.
What about parity across the league? Should it be measured by the average, or the by its weakest link? If you look at ranking for the ACC football, they usually have a very high average--no great teams (typically) but also no awful teams either.
What do you think?
This post was edited on 6/10/14 at 12:11 pm
9
Posted on 6/10/14 at 11:59 am to Ghostfacedistiller
#1 SEC vs. #1 PAC 12
#2 SEC vs. #2 PAC 12
Etc. down the line.
Doing it like that, it's obvious which conference is the best...
#2 SEC vs. #2 PAC 12
Etc. down the line.
Doing it like that, it's obvious which conference is the best...
Posted on 6/10/14 at 12:02 pm to Ghostfacedistiller
quote:
What is your criteria for determining a conferences' strenghth?
Academics
Posted on 6/10/14 at 12:07 pm to Ghostfacedistiller
How much you can pay athletes off
Posted on 6/10/14 at 12:10 pm to Ghostfacedistiller
Mathematically the only thing that you can judge strength on is non conference performance
Which is also why I support a larger college football playoff. 12 games and 3/4 non conference gaems is way too small of a sample size in a sub division of 128 teams to come up with the 4 best teams.
Which is also why I support a larger college football playoff. 12 games and 3/4 non conference gaems is way too small of a sample size in a sub division of 128 teams to come up with the 4 best teams.
Posted on 6/10/14 at 12:13 pm to Ghostfacedistiller
Having multiple teams/programs capable of winning a title and sustaining that period of success over a period of time.
In the BCS era the SEC had as many different NC winners as the rest of the county combined.
In the BCS era the SEC had as many different NC winners as the rest of the county combined.
Posted on 6/10/14 at 12:36 pm to Ghostfacedistiller
Recruiting
Posted on 6/10/14 at 1:14 pm to Ghostfacedistiller
1) performance out of conference against similar seeds from different conferences (e.g. how the SEC #3 does against the Big 10 #3 or Big 12 #2/3)
2) performance at the highest level - if the conference is thought to be elite then they should have more than one team winning national championships
2) performance at the highest level - if the conference is thought to be elite then they should have more than one team winning national championships
Posted on 6/10/14 at 1:27 pm to Ghostfacedistiller
Talent.
I think your question about the difference in the SEC vs the Sun Belt solicits that answer. It's simple... talent (i.e. recruiting).
So... in asking the question about the SEC vs "other Power 5," the answer should be the same.
I think the difficulty Team A faces in a conference is more proportionally related to the talent level of their opponents than to any other variable.
It's certainly better than the SEC's showing. That's a feather in their cap. But there are MANY more variables in post-season baseball - and baseball in general - than in football. There is more way randomness in the game of baseball, so I don't think losing two games at the wrong time is necessarily indicative of how good a team is.
Just look at the number of national seeds that got knocked out in baseball. It's not that those teams didn't deserve it... they had extremely talented rosters. It's just the nature of baseball.
I think your question about the difference in the SEC vs the Sun Belt solicits that answer. It's simple... talent (i.e. recruiting).
So... in asking the question about the SEC vs "other Power 5," the answer should be the same.
I think the difficulty Team A faces in a conference is more proportionally related to the talent level of their opponents than to any other variable.
quote:
Look at baseball this year. Is the Big12>SEC with their postseason success? A league with 9 teams has 3 teams in the CWS, 4/16 in Super Regionals. Is that better than the SEC with 10/14 in the tourney but only 2/14 in Supers and CWS?
It's certainly better than the SEC's showing. That's a feather in their cap. But there are MANY more variables in post-season baseball - and baseball in general - than in football. There is more way randomness in the game of baseball, so I don't think losing two games at the wrong time is necessarily indicative of how good a team is.
Just look at the number of national seeds that got knocked out in baseball. It's not that those teams didn't deserve it... they had extremely talented rosters. It's just the nature of baseball.
Posted on 6/10/14 at 3:47 pm to Ghostfacedistiller
It's all about dat chedda, and we got a lot of it
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News