In partnership with CBSSports.com
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Loudmouth let's look at the end results then. This is finishing 2011, so we know the results of all the wins.
You can keep saying all the acc needs to do is this and that, but those are things they have not been able to do for 10 years plus. What makes you think they can start now?
BU, ISU, KU, and KSU are not "inconsistent." They are consistently bad with a good year or maybe two every decade. The Big 12 "had" good depth. I'll agree with you there, but then Nebraska, Texas A&M, Colorado, and Missouri left. Those were the teams that provided you that depth. In fact, Nebraska had been one of your better teams.
2011 is one year, the results of which are irrelevant to determining who will be the stronger conference this year. That was the point of my posts. The relative SOS will be determined by how the teams perform out of conference this year.
Can you guys who advocate the ACC kindly explain to me the following:
1. How can a conference that has been abysmal in BCS games, national title contenders, rankings, and universally recognized as being just barely above the Big East the last 10 years... suddenly have a "better outlook and chance" b/c we're going to a 4 team playoff that weighs things like RPI and SOS?
I'm just curious.
Ku was decent 5 out of the last 10.
KSU was decent 6 of the last ten.
ISU was decent five of the last ten.
BU has been decent the last two years after a long run of bad coaches.
ATM was on par with KsU and worse than tcu.
Mizzou was consistently good but so is the WVU team we added.
We have more depth. Average computer rankings in the polls used by the bcs over the past four years has the Big 12 almost twenty spots better on average than the Acc. In fact the average rank is slightly ahead of the sec.
It isn't whether the Acc has four to five good programs- its the lack of quality after that.
This post was edited by S11 2 years ago
After 2014, we won't have a decent OOC schedule ever again. USCe will be the only real team on our OOC schedule after the UGa series. Every year, we will play SoCon, MAC, USCe, FSU, GT, NCSU, Wake, BC, Syracuse and Maryland.
That is not going to win us any SOS battles. On years where we don't have VPI or Miami, we could have an extremely weak schedule.
I like Briles. Wonder how long he will be there.
Baylor is spending money on it's stadium and facilities, so he will stay there until he gets an offer from a big time program.
What do those average computer rankings look like when the new conference alignments are considered, i.e., the ACC with Pitt and Syracuse, and the Big 12 with TCU and WVU and without Neb, Missouri, A&M, and Colorado.
I would say that TCU and WVU would blow away 'Cuse and Pitt... Do you really want to go there?
Our SOS will go down because of the 9 game ACC schedule...
I agree, but what would the loss of Neb, Missouri, A&M, and Colorado would do to their strength of schedule?
Not as much damage as us keeping Wake, Duke, BC and swapping an SEC game for 'Cuse...
When you swap WV and TCU with Missouri and aTm we are really just talking about Nebraska and Colorado. I'd say that improved our SOS.
The numbers I gave factored in recent moves. TCU, WVU, Pitt, and Syracuse moving leagues was accounted for.
Big 12 was slightly better than they were in previous alignments as I did the calculations on that too. TCU and WVU did better than ATm and Mizzou. Nebraska's strength was negated by CU's poor rankings since 08 so it was a moot point. Pitt and Cuse hurt the Acc average if I remember correctly.
Regardless of which alignment you use for either league it is always 15-20 spots better for the Big 12 side. Simply better results. Even more the ACC average has UNC and Miami performing better than the average. Considering the impending sanctions it makes the Acc side look even worse as they won't keep that up.
I can post the individual school numbers later. Would you like me to?
When the Big 12 had a ccg, their team with ncg asperations found ways to lose that game.
Now that its gone, OSU could have made a solid case to jump ahead of one loss Alabama last year.
Again, Big 12 has found ways to play themselves out of bcs ncg.
The middle of the pack in the B1G is now the average of the fab5
The results are never irrelevant
Here are the numbers for those who care. Each of the BCS rankings for each of the computer polls dating back to 2008.
The only error is the 2008-2010 Wolfe polls were no longer fully available and I had to take the top 25 only. This offers slight variation from what it would be but with six polls it is pretty minimal.
The reason it only goes back to 2008 is this was something made to calculate a program's effect on BCS AQ points which is up for review in 4 year periods. 2008-2011 is one period. 2010-2013 is the next, etc.
Here are the league results in the past 4 years and past 2 years.
Big 12 with TCU & WVU - 35.83, 33.86
SEC14- 37.25, 36.05
Pac12- 47.52, 47.14
B1G TEN- 50.02, 47.42
ACC- 50.74, 56.47
Big East with 13 fb members- 61.71, 61.55
ACC Boston College 49.96 67.48
ACC Clemson 39.62 42.93
ACC Duke 88.78 98.77
ACC Florida State 27.21 25.42
ACC Georgia Tech 37.31 55.03
ACC Maryland 66.34 70.18
ACC Miami-Florida 43.49 51.78
ACC NC State 52.03 43.77
ACC North Carolina 41.15 43.50
ACC Pittsburgh 37.42 51.00
ACC Syracuse 78.29 67.18
ACC Virginia 66.95 69.90
ACC Virginia Tech 17.58 20.58
ACC Wake Forest 64.28 83.07
Big 12 Baylor 55.52 32.63
Big 12 Iowa State 70.48 50.17
Big 12 Kansas 66.29 86.98
Big 12 Kansas State 54.51 36.32
Big 12 Oklahoma 11.47 9.00
Big 12 Oklahoma State 16.04 10.00
Big 12 TCU 10.17 9.33
Big 12 Texas 21.24 38.57
Big 12 Texas Tech 28.55 38.97
Big 12 West Virginia 24.06 26.58
ACC with Miami and UNC scoring the 60 they'll be lucky to score once the NCAA is done with them?
The Big 12's lowest 8 teams each year?
ACC without Pitt & Cuse?
Big 12's original 12- 41.4, 37.42
Big 12 with ten teams including A&M and MU- 39.76 34.99
Texas A&M 48.49 25.08
Missouri 25.01 22.17
Colorado 75.34 77.38
Nebraska 23.87 21.75
Just in case you are curious-
South Carolina 27.08 17.50
Hope that helps.
"In fact, Nebraska had been one of your better teams."
Nebraska was great when the Big 12 started but the Big 12's rules against partial qualifiers stymied their program. They ceased to be nationally relevant. They played Texas 10 times as Big 12 members and they lost 9.
And yet they keep telling everyone that Texas drove them away.
Colorado was not good so it just leaves nebraska.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports