Here's the update on this article 3 months later to show some post season statistical information for those who like to base their opinions and knowledge on cold hard facts, like myself. So, with the Heisman Trophy handed out now in the closest race for the huge statue ever. It went to a sophomore running back named Mark Ingram from Alabama. This makes the 3rd consecutive sophomore to receive the award and the very first Heisman to go to an Alabama player. Toby Gerhart was a very close runner-up from Stanford as a senior. First, I want to congratulate Mr. Ingram for his outstanding year. Just keeping his starting spot was amazing because the true freshman, Trent Richardson, is a superstar in the making, but Mark was able to prove each week that he deserved to be on the field (with exception to the Auburn game). Mark rushed for an SEC high 1542 yards in 13 games. Wow! I also want to give serious props to Toby Gerhart for his amazing achievements. Toby rushed for 1736 yards in just 12 games. Honestly, in terms of the Heisman, I picked him to win it because first, he's a senior (and Mark has at least two more years to prove himself), and second, he rushed for almost 200 more yards with one less game than Mark Ingram. Plus, I felt that the SEC had a down year and the Pac-10 had an above par year with a very solid conference with exception to only Washington State.
Next, the head-to-head match-ups between the two conferences will end at 1-2 with the Pac-10's only win being UCLA beating Tennessee. There will be no "redemption" or "prove it" games in the post season due to the SEC/Pac-10 not playing each other at all. So, this will give the Pac-10 an 11-9 lead since 1998 over the SEC. I must mention, however, that this season is skewed significantly in the favor of the SEC. Let me explain: The three SEC schools to play Pac-10 teams ended up being #2 in their particular divisions (LSU 2nd to #1 Alabama and Tennessee and Georgia tied for 2nd under Florida), meaning that they are all bowl eligible. Now their 3 opponents from the Pac-10 had much different outcomes throughout their seasons and made those two wins look pretty miserable for the SEC "powerhouses". Those three Pac-10 schools are all 6-6 or worse. UCLA who got the win over Tennessee is the only team bowl eligible of the 3 teams. Funny how UCLA was able to beat an SEC team and then struggled so much against opponents within their own conference. Are you thinking what I'm thinking? Maybe. Let me elaborate, in case you're lost right now. UCLA is #6 or #7 in the Pac-10 and yet played an away game in a very loud and hostile environment in the SEC and brought back a win. The team they beat is from "the best conference in the nation" (according to many major media writers and SEC homers) who ended up being #2 in their division, or #4 overall in the "mighty" conference of "dominating defenses" (like the LSU defense that couldn't keep a win less Washington team under 450 total yards by the #3 team in the SEC). Mathematically, this doesn't add up to "the SEC is a better conference" this year. This is why the numbers are skewed. Now if the #3, #4, or #5 team of the SEC would actually play the #3, #4, or #5 team of the Pac-10, this would give the 11-9 Pac-10 record against the SEC more accuracy and meaning - but it doesn't and it helps all those major media writers and SEC homers dreaming of their mansions in the sky next to Alabama, Florida, LSU, Tennessee, Auburn, Ole Miss, etc.
Ivan Maisel and his buddy, Mark, from ESPN posted their rankings of the conferences after the season ended. They both, shockingly, agreed that the best conferences were the Pac-10 and SEC, respectively. They actually put the Pac-10 at the top! What?! Have they been reading this blog or something? Very cool! Even though the whole SEC is bowl-bound (except Vandy and Miss State), doesn't equate to a more solid and competitive conference. I think Ivan and Mark both looked at the whole picture, including strength of schedule, the final BCS top 25, and overall competitiveness in the Pac-10 vs. the SEC, to determine who had the better conference. They went out on a limb (to many writers) and I believe they got it right!
So, maybe in the coming years, the most dominating teams in the SEC will actually play the upper half of the Pac-10 teams. Will the coaches read and accept my challenges to prove themselves on the field and not just on paper? We'll see.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
What Does the BCS Poll Really Mean?
I'm not any expert at love, by any means, and I never claim to think that I have any pertinent advice to give anyone who is searching for love; however, there are certain things about finding a potential significant other that clearly needs to be defined. Each person has their own rating system or way to determine if someone is "hot or not" to find that immediate attraction that everyone desires in a relationship. The rating system I use, or suggest others to use, is the 5-D test. It used to be 3-D, but I've gotten wiser with years. Heck, maybe some of you would have a 9-D or more. Let me explain the 5-D's: each "D" represents something that would interfere with your judgement of beauty and the more "D's" you have in your situation, the more confident I am that you should stop what you are doing before you get morning regrets (unless you are out to have a "no pride night" but that's an entirely different article). So, obviously, the first "D" represents Drunkeness. When alcohol is consumed, impairment of judgement is increased and inhabitions are lost. The second "D" represents Darkness. The dimmer the lighting, the less features you see clearly on someone's face, which may hide a thing or two. The third "D" is Distance. The further away someone is from you, you lose proportions and clarity of features in their face (and body). The fourth "D" is Driving. Someone in a car can always look better because you can't see everything they are wearing (including the not-so-obvious pear-shape they may be sporting), they may have a tinted sun roof to make them look tan, and sunglasses hides whether their eyes are worth gazing into or not. The fifth "D" represents Desperation. If you are desperate to go out and gotta have someone tonight, then you tend to "settle" on whoever gives you a second glance and shows a little interest (this may lead into the saying where she is a "2 at 10 and a 10 at 2" - meaning, at 10pm you see her as a 2 on a scale of 1-10, but Desperation comes into full effect when it is 2am and still girl-less and you find that 2 again, but looking like a 10 now). These 5 "D's" are the premiere "D's" to look out for. As you mold your own system, you may want to add others like; Dating (if you are currently dating someone, others suddenly find you attractive), or Distractions (if you are at a carnival or huge gathering of people around you, the distractions may confuse you and make you lose focus on your ideals of beauty), or Disabilities (hopefully these come much later in life for you, but this does not mean you need to "settle"), or Drugs (depending on the drug, this could seriously impair judgement for beauty - and everything else for that matters), or for those more focused on things like hair - Dryness (sometimes you gotta get the hair wet to see how nice it really is without all the gels, sprays, and mousses). So, remember, the more "D's" you have in your situation, you really need to think about what you really want because most likely you will not find anything meaningful in a relationship when it is in 5-D. You must eliminate as many of those "D's" as possible to assure yourself better odds at making a love connection worth while.
I realize that this is a weird way to start out a college football blog, but in thought of what the BCS poll is trying to say to the nation makes me think of what is defined by the BCS poll and what we're suppose to get out of it - like love, how do you judge it and how do you define it. Like love, the BCS has different meanings to different people; so I'll quit talking about that crap and get into some football rants. This is the light I see in the BCS eyes: Pac-10 conference is clearly the best conference from top to bottom in the country and the BCS Poll put out before the bowl games begin December 19, 2009, is there to prove it in black and white. Now you have to realize that I see polls as lovers of the SEC, ACC, and the Big XII because they have lots of great teams, they each have 12 schools, and they have a championship game each season. The polls love them so much that the voters are willing to place as many of the schools represented by each of those 3 conferences in the preseason top 25 as possible. For example, in the preseason AP poll this year there were 5 SEC schools in the top 25 - I'm a little disappointed because I usually will see 6 SEC teams there. Same with the Big XII - at least 5 for good measure. The Big East, Big Ten, and Pac-10, on the other hand, will find much fewer schools amongst those elite powerhouses of the SEC and Big XII conferences (some slight sarcasm).
Now, I'm not going to get on my Pac-10 high horse just yet because there are other conferences out there that can complain as much and have legitimate arguements. I would like to speak to those Big East lovers. I feel for you. Looking at the preseason AP poll of 2009, I don't see a single Big East team in the top 25! In fact, the highest ranked team was Pitt at 28. Does the media want to hate the Big East or what?! Now let's look at the pre-bowl BCS top 25 standings. I see an undefeated Cincinnati playing in a BCS bowl playing against arguably the #2 team in the nation, Florida Gators. I also see two more teams from the Big East. There are only 8 teams in the Big East. (Time to get out your calculators.) I calculate that as about 37% of the conference. That's pretty dang good, if you ask me - especially, considering the top 3 power conferences with 12 teams each. The ACC, Big XII, and the SEC each have 3 teams finding their way in the BCS top 25 at the end of the regular season. Just as many as the Big East, but (calculators please) only a mere 25% of their conferences. Does that say that the SEC is the strongest from top to bottom? I don't see it that way. Another conference that has 3 teams in the BCS top 25 on December 6th is the Mountain West Conference. Wow! Shocker, I know! Just because not everyone in the nation is versed with MWC statistics, there is one that I DO know - it is a conference made up of 9 teams. That's 3 less than the SEC. My calculator tells me that 33% of the MWC is in the BCS top 25. Last I checked, 33% is better than 25%, right? So, if a conference is going to go on and boldly claim its superiority to the nation, then why doesn't it show up in the polls that generally favor them to begin with? Does this mean that the MWC is equal to or better than the SEC? No, of course not. That's not what I'm saying at all. However, the MWC has at least 3 really good teams this year - the same amount as the SEC and Big XII who are representing this year's national title game in the BCS National Championship game in Pasadena - and yet, the MWC remains to be a conference without an automatic bid into a BCS bowl game. Essentially, to get the big bucks from the big bowls, the MWC teams need to go undefeated the whole year (which they've had a team do 3 of the last 6 years). Now, you know I have to do this; the Pac-10, obviously with 10 teams that make up the conference, have a whopping 5 teams ranked in the BCS top 25! Can you believe that!? Hopefully you're smart enough to know what percentage 5 of 10 is and I don't have to spell it out to you. I will anyway - 50% of the Pac-10 is in the top 25 of the BCS poll before going into the 2009 bowl season? Are you kidding me? This is the same conference that had only 3 teams in the AP preseason poll top 25 in August! Incredible! Are they all over rated or does the conference just have a lot of depth? Just to feed the fire a little, the two Pac-10 teams that played and lost close ones to SEC teams are not even bowl eligible; and the team that traveled to the east and beat an SEC team is merely 6-6 (which should not be bowl eligible in my eyes - .500 record does not mean a successful season that needs to be rewarded with post season play). All those SEC schools that played the Pac-10? They are all eligible for bowl games. How could the SEC use this same information as a bragging point? They can't because it would just mean that they do, in fact, play some of the weakest schedules in the country - especially their 4 non-conference match-ups. In fact, all but two teams (Vanderbilt and Mississippi State) are not bowl eligible. Does this say something about their scheduling? If you say you are the best, then it wouldn't be asking much to go out seeking the best of other parts of the country to play them, right?
Enough of that. I want to rant a little more about the bowls and their affiliations. I can't stand having the second best team from the Pac-10 conference playing on December 30th each year! Is that really an award? I think there are too many bowls these days, to begin with. I feel, also, that the best bowls that mean the most should be played on January 1st and after. Everything else before that is just an appetizer. Of the six major conferences, only one is treated as well as the C-USA and MAC conferences by allowing only one team to play in the month of January: that's the Pac-10. Lucky for them, they get an automatic BCS bowl bid, or else... who knows? The ACC gets two of their 3 BCS ranked teams in the new year, but the Pac-10 gets only 1 of their 5 BCS ranked teams playing in the first month of 2010. Wow! Now the SEC takes its 25% and plays that and then some into January to play in a bowl game. Actually, the tally is 7 teams from the SEC will play after the beginning of the year this season. Well, the Big Ten gets 5 teams into January! Now this is where the Big East gets its love back by having 4, or half their conference, into the lights of January bowls. Crazy! Where is the new Pac-10 commissioner on this? This is an outrage and must change immediately! Why do all the January bowls affiliate with the SEC? Why can't one or two of them go to the Pac-10? They've won a championship or two in the last decade, right? Who makes these decisions? So, the conference that puts in 50% of its teams into the top 25 BCS poll will reward only one team?! Where is the logic in that? Am I the only one who seriously thinks this is an issue with regretable terms of why the Pacific 10 conference is looked upon with eyes of inferiority? I think the Pac-10 needs to shed some of these "5-D's" so it can be seen for what it really is - the conference of champions.
I realize that this is a weird way to start out a college football blog, but in thought of what the BCS poll is trying to say to the nation makes me think of what is defined by the BCS poll and what we're suppose to get out of it - like love, how do you judge it and how do you define it. Like love, the BCS has different meanings to different people; so I'll quit talking about that crap and get into some football rants. This is the light I see in the BCS eyes: Pac-10 conference is clearly the best conference from top to bottom in the country and the BCS Poll put out before the bowl games begin December 19, 2009, is there to prove it in black and white. Now you have to realize that I see polls as lovers of the SEC, ACC, and the Big XII because they have lots of great teams, they each have 12 schools, and they have a championship game each season. The polls love them so much that the voters are willing to place as many of the schools represented by each of those 3 conferences in the preseason top 25 as possible. For example, in the preseason AP poll this year there were 5 SEC schools in the top 25 - I'm a little disappointed because I usually will see 6 SEC teams there. Same with the Big XII - at least 5 for good measure. The Big East, Big Ten, and Pac-10, on the other hand, will find much fewer schools amongst those elite powerhouses of the SEC and Big XII conferences (some slight sarcasm).
Now, I'm not going to get on my Pac-10 high horse just yet because there are other conferences out there that can complain as much and have legitimate arguements. I would like to speak to those Big East lovers. I feel for you. Looking at the preseason AP poll of 2009, I don't see a single Big East team in the top 25! In fact, the highest ranked team was Pitt at 28. Does the media want to hate the Big East or what?! Now let's look at the pre-bowl BCS top 25 standings. I see an undefeated Cincinnati playing in a BCS bowl playing against arguably the #2 team in the nation, Florida Gators. I also see two more teams from the Big East. There are only 8 teams in the Big East. (Time to get out your calculators.) I calculate that as about 37% of the conference. That's pretty dang good, if you ask me - especially, considering the top 3 power conferences with 12 teams each. The ACC, Big XII, and the SEC each have 3 teams finding their way in the BCS top 25 at the end of the regular season. Just as many as the Big East, but (calculators please) only a mere 25% of their conferences. Does that say that the SEC is the strongest from top to bottom? I don't see it that way. Another conference that has 3 teams in the BCS top 25 on December 6th is the Mountain West Conference. Wow! Shocker, I know! Just because not everyone in the nation is versed with MWC statistics, there is one that I DO know - it is a conference made up of 9 teams. That's 3 less than the SEC. My calculator tells me that 33% of the MWC is in the BCS top 25. Last I checked, 33% is better than 25%, right? So, if a conference is going to go on and boldly claim its superiority to the nation, then why doesn't it show up in the polls that generally favor them to begin with? Does this mean that the MWC is equal to or better than the SEC? No, of course not. That's not what I'm saying at all. However, the MWC has at least 3 really good teams this year - the same amount as the SEC and Big XII who are representing this year's national title game in the BCS National Championship game in Pasadena - and yet, the MWC remains to be a conference without an automatic bid into a BCS bowl game. Essentially, to get the big bucks from the big bowls, the MWC teams need to go undefeated the whole year (which they've had a team do 3 of the last 6 years). Now, you know I have to do this; the Pac-10, obviously with 10 teams that make up the conference, have a whopping 5 teams ranked in the BCS top 25! Can you believe that!? Hopefully you're smart enough to know what percentage 5 of 10 is and I don't have to spell it out to you. I will anyway - 50% of the Pac-10 is in the top 25 of the BCS poll before going into the 2009 bowl season? Are you kidding me? This is the same conference that had only 3 teams in the AP preseason poll top 25 in August! Incredible! Are they all over rated or does the conference just have a lot of depth? Just to feed the fire a little, the two Pac-10 teams that played and lost close ones to SEC teams are not even bowl eligible; and the team that traveled to the east and beat an SEC team is merely 6-6 (which should not be bowl eligible in my eyes - .500 record does not mean a successful season that needs to be rewarded with post season play). All those SEC schools that played the Pac-10? They are all eligible for bowl games. How could the SEC use this same information as a bragging point? They can't because it would just mean that they do, in fact, play some of the weakest schedules in the country - especially their 4 non-conference match-ups. In fact, all but two teams (Vanderbilt and Mississippi State) are not bowl eligible. Does this say something about their scheduling? If you say you are the best, then it wouldn't be asking much to go out seeking the best of other parts of the country to play them, right?
Enough of that. I want to rant a little more about the bowls and their affiliations. I can't stand having the second best team from the Pac-10 conference playing on December 30th each year! Is that really an award? I think there are too many bowls these days, to begin with. I feel, also, that the best bowls that mean the most should be played on January 1st and after. Everything else before that is just an appetizer. Of the six major conferences, only one is treated as well as the C-USA and MAC conferences by allowing only one team to play in the month of January: that's the Pac-10. Lucky for them, they get an automatic BCS bowl bid, or else... who knows? The ACC gets two of their 3 BCS ranked teams in the new year, but the Pac-10 gets only 1 of their 5 BCS ranked teams playing in the first month of 2010. Wow! Now the SEC takes its 25% and plays that and then some into January to play in a bowl game. Actually, the tally is 7 teams from the SEC will play after the beginning of the year this season. Well, the Big Ten gets 5 teams into January! Now this is where the Big East gets its love back by having 4, or half their conference, into the lights of January bowls. Crazy! Where is the new Pac-10 commissioner on this? This is an outrage and must change immediately! Why do all the January bowls affiliate with the SEC? Why can't one or two of them go to the Pac-10? They've won a championship or two in the last decade, right? Who makes these decisions? So, the conference that puts in 50% of its teams into the top 25 BCS poll will reward only one team?! Where is the logic in that? Am I the only one who seriously thinks this is an issue with regretable terms of why the Pacific 10 conference is looked upon with eyes of inferiority? I think the Pac-10 needs to shed some of these "5-D's" so it can be seen for what it really is - the conference of champions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
