<p>^Can you just go back to the posts? You are just going circles. Pac-10 would ALWAYS be at a disadvantage as far as NUMBER OF TEAMS getting bowl eligibility goes. What do you mean be “even in terms of bowl eligiblity”. I am talking about # teams getting bowl eligible ONLY. I have already gave you the theoretical reasons in multiple ways. Empirical data back this up and show that year in and year out, Pac-10 has less teams going to bowl even in a good year (when was the last time Pac-10 has 7 teams that finish 6-6 or better?)! I can’t help you if you still can’t get it.</p>
<p>Whatever it is, the pac-10 isn’t playing the right scheduling game. It’s a lose-lose scenario - if you schedule tough nonconference games, you don’t gain much by winning but you lose a lot if you don’t.</p>
<p>Think Oregon would be 3-0 and in the top 10 right now if they didn’t schedule Boise? They just beat Utah and they hardly get any credit for that (Utah got more votes than Oregon in this weeks Coaches Poll!)</p>
<p>Might USC be 3-0 and ranked #3 if they played San Diego State instead of Ohio State? Barkley & Mays play 2 quarters and are fresh and healthy for in-conference play. Not making excuses, just doing a hypothetical.</p>
<p>Say what you will, Florida has it right this year (though I still predict they will drop a game)</p>
<p>you are the one who doesn’t get it after I gave multiple examples. It’s not ALWAYS at a disadvantage. I understand the explanation you posted. Let me re-explain my explanation where the round robin HELPS the pac-10. </p>
<p>If you take last year as an example. In a round robin format, EVERYBODY plays washington and washington state (or you can call team A, team B which happen to be really bad that year). So, if the other 7 pac-10 teams beat 3 OOC and washington and washington state, they will get 5 wins. All they need is another conference win to be bowl eligible. Whereas if the pac-10 doesn’t have a round-robin format, SOME teams will play only washington (or team A), and NOT washington st (team B). So their total # of wins will be 4 and they need 2 more conference wins. In this scenario, the round robin format helps the other 7 pac-10 teams to gain 1 more win. Agree or disagree?</p>
<p>I think one crux of the argument is that mathematically, the number of net wins - or more accurately, the expected value of the # of bowl teams - is not directly affected by the round robin format.</p>
<p>Formally, we could look at the one “extra game” per year and ask what’s the expected value of the overall record of all teams in that game given the round robin format, which is easy to compute: .500, because every win is matched with a loss.</p>
<p>I think chaoses is arguing that this is a “glass half full” because it guarantees the conference does no worse than EV = .500 in that game. Sam, on the other hand, seems to say that it’s “glass half empty” since the conference can do no better than EV = .500. </p>
<p>Given that pac-10 teams could easily schedule FCS or FBS bottom dwellers in that game (which would likely give EV > .500), I’m inclined to agree with Sam and say that the round robin hurts the Pac-10 under the assumption that the extra games all have net EV > .500 (i.e., they’re all “gimme” games)</p>
<p>(apologies to chaoses and Sam if I misrepresented your argument…)</p>
<p>Here are # of bowl games since 04-05/# of teams for each conference:
[2014</a>, Introducing The Pac 12 and The MWAC | Bleacher Report](<a href=“http://bleacherreport.com/articles/235867-2014-introducing-the-pac-12-and-the-mwac/show_full]2014”>http://bleacherreport.com/articles/235867-2014-introducing-the-pac-12-and-the-mwac/show_full)</p>
<p>ACC 3.33 (40/12)
Big East 3.12 (25/8)
Big Ten 3.18 (35/11)
Big 12 3.17 (38/12)
SEC 3.17 (38/12)</p>
<p>(big drop)</p>
<p>Pac 10 2.70 (27/10) </p>
<p>During the same period, Pac-10 had the best bowl records, suggesting Pac-10 was not the weakest conference. </p>
<p>Let me try this one more time: Pac-10 would definitely have more bowl eligible teams if they start playing their 9th game against OOC cupcakes from minor conferences/lower subdivisions (i.e. the fourth OOC game) instead of conference foes. </p>
<p>As for MD, that’s mostly just a sacastic response to your claim that UW is “automatic win”. “The examples of washington and washington state being bad last year” proves nothing. As I said earlier, even the worst major conference team is not as “automatic” as most teams from minor conferences/lower subdivisions. ***But that’s really not the point because the disadvantage refers to the fact that other conferences get (almost) 100% wins in that 4th OOC game while Pac-10 gets the default 50%, as long as other conferences keep having a 2 majors/2 cupcakes (on average) format for their OOC games while Pac-10 keeps having 2 majors/1 cupcake format (on average).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, Pac-10 would have 2 majors/2 cupcakes for the OOC games and they would be just like other major conferences.</p>
<p>jbusc gets it.</p>
<p>^yes, this really has nothing to do with round robin or not. one can think of all kinds of diffrent scenarios to suit his/her argument while ignoring other counter-scenarios but a fair comparison focuses one one or two things, while allowing all else equal.<br>
can be countered by “everybody plays USC or Cal”.
can be countered by “some teams will avoid Texas or Oklahoma”. </p>
<p>There may be some year in which all things just line-up perfectly and Pac-10 finally has 7 or 8 bowl teams. But in the long run, Pac-10 would always (be expected to) have disproportionally less bowl teams as the data since 2004-05 show, as long as the scheduling doesn’t have any drastic change.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That shows you agree it’s not always at a disadvantage, right?</p>
<p>say if the pac-10’s 2 worst teams are as bad as the cupcakes in some given year, then would the round robin format helps the pac-10 to play 2 majors and 3 cupcakes? In that case, for that given year, the pac-10 is not at a disadvantage compare to other conference 2 majors and 2 cupcakes. That’s all I’m saying.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>well, they tend not to be on average. Last year was an abberation with the Washington schools that bad. </p>
<p>In fact over the past 10 years, all 10 teams have been ranked in the top 25 (not even counting washington’s latest entry)</p>
<p>Even if the pac-10’s 2 worst team are as bad as the cupcakes, it’s doesn’t necessarily mean Pac-10 isn’t still at a disadvantage. Last year, with the two cupcakes, Pac-10 sent only 5 teams. That doesn’t necessarily disprove/prove anything per se but I want to point this out first. You also have to assume other conferences don’t have cupcakes. That’s another condition that needs to be met even if your statement were true but it’s not really, at least not entirely. Here’s why: </p>
<p>The difference between being bowl eligible and not is between whether teams finish at 6-6 or 5-7. So we are talking about lower-middle teams here. These teams are expected to beat the 2 worst teams anyway, just like they are expected to lose to the top 2 or 3 teams. But the middle teams will be beating each other up. Last year, Stanford and Arizona State were both 5-7. Both were 1-2 in OOC games, losing the 2 against other majors while winning the cupcake game comfortably. Here is where the 50% vs ~100% makes a difference. AZU beat Stanford, so that’s a wash. But Stanford could definitely use a cupcake game to get that extra W instead of losing to Arizona State. So right here, Pac-10 could have one more bowl-eligible team (it’s not right to say 2 teams because one would be double-counting based on the fact that half the teams have wins in that 9th conference game). If you go back to the stats I showed you earlier, Pac-10 should have 32 bowl games since 04-05 to be even with other conferences; they got 27 instead and that means on average, 1 more bowl team each year would be expected if Pac-10 had followed other conferences. This is consistent with the example I just used.</p>
<p>You may be thinking what if Stanford’s cupcake game was simply replacing one of the conference win, making it a wash. But one can also make the opposite argument for Arizona State. But the expected # of extra wins are 5 for the whole conference. The fair way is to think about the expected value again and assume either Arizona State or Stanford (not both so that there’s no double-count in either direction) would have one more win.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If they scheduled 2 OOC cupcakes and 1 OOC major, then they would have been eligible with a 6-6 right? So it’s a problem with their OOC scheduling for not being eligible, not the round robin format. Everyone else schedules 4 OOC with 2 majors and 2 cupcakes, if the pac-10 do the same thing for their 3 OOC games with 1 major and 2 cupcakes, then that extra conference game would count as another OOC major and it would even out. Their expected win loss would be .5. That’s the same as the 4th game of another major conference with a major OOC game. It’s the OOC scheduling that gives them the problem, not the round robin format.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree it doesn’t happen often, but when it does, it will give them an advantage. So they are not always at a disadvantage.</p>
<p>I believe Ole Miss is the most overrated team in the nation (LSU is second) and I really want them to lose to South Carolina. I don’t think they will lose because South Carolina isn’t really that good, but they can still cause an upset.</p>
<p>^you are right!</p>
<p>i wouldn’t even call it an upset. i’ve been mystified by their high ranking. this isn’t LSU, USC, FL, OU…that got the most talents.</p>
<p>SC is gonna be ranked while this MI would still hang around in the top-25. so SEC still maintain the advantage by the preseason rankings after all. SEC may very well be the best conference. but is it so much better that 4 of them are in the top-10? i think that’s over the top.</p>
<p>i missed south carolina/ole miss because i don’t care about the sec</p>
<p>is it worth finding and watching?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Personally, I don’t believe SC should be ranked. Garcia looked lost for much of the fourth quarter and was unable to put much of any drive together. They nearly allowed Ole Miss to come back from a 13 point deficit when their offense stalled out. Ole Miss allowed SC to drive down the field several times and give them excellent opportunities to score. The score did not reflect the game IMO, and SC should have won by more. </p>
<p>Ole Miss and LSU did not deserve top 10 rankings although i believe LSU deserved top 15. Florida and Alabama deserve their rankings (I would argue for Bama to be #1 because they beat a quality opponent in Va. Tech but I’m very biased) and have proven to be very impressive teams.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The game was decent but sloppy, and you could probably find it on ESPN 360.</p>
<p>Ole Miss should fall out of the top 15. They lost to the only quality opponent they’ve played so far. </p>
<p>LSU has earned a top 10 ranking for now given that they’ve beaten a quality opponent in washington. They’ll be undefeated heading in to the matchup with florida, and frankly, I’d take LSU in that game.</p>
<p>I haven’t actually seen florida play, but still I can tell from all the way over here that the offense is sorely missing some Percy Harvin…</p>
<p>LSU looked very uninspiring against Vandy and Washington and you are forgeting that Washington is 2-15 in their last 17 games. Sure they beat USC but they have a habit of losing the easy game after winning the tough one. Florida’s defense has been great thus far in the season. I’m taking Florida.</p>
<p>^Well, ranking is by definition is relative. While LSU may not look as good by your standard, there are very few teams that have looked or done better. Even FLA isn’t as good as it’s hyped. They had trouble scoring against Tenn.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Tennessee has an underrated defense that featured the reigning SEC Defensive Player of the Year Eric Berry. The only thing I saw that would be troubling for Florida is they had some trouble stopping the run in that game. I will concede that Tebow did not have a very good game, but he has a tendency to always make the big play whenever Florida needs it.</p>