How did you team do recruiting? - Page 2

rudel.dietrich · 02-06-2009, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skipaway

Number of SEC teams in the final BCS top 8:

2008: 2 ( Big 12 has 3)
2007: 2 ( Big 12 has 3)
2006: 2 ( Big 10 has 3)
2005: 1 ( Pac 10 and Big 10 have 2 each)
2004: 2 ( Pac 10 and Big 12 have 2 each)
2003: 2 ( Big 12 and Big 10 have 2 each)
2002: 1 ( Big 12, Pac 10, and Big 10 have 2 each)
2001: 2 ( Big 12 has 3)
2000: 1 ( ACC, Pac 10, and Big 12 have 2 each)
1999: 2 ( ACC, Big 10, and Big 12 have 2 each)
1998: 2 ( Big 12, Pac 10 have 2 each)

I think Big 12 has the advantage here. No time in BCS history does SEC have more than 2 teams, and no time in BCS history does SEC the team leads the number of teams by itself.

That is before the bowls are played

Jonzard · 02-06-2009, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bababui

You cant trust ESPN. UCLA signed a 5 star WR late in the day and ESPN stopped rating classes early in the afternoon.

Well you said Scouts INC, not scouts.com. I cannot trust you or ESPN. I'm pretty disillusioned right now.

Skipaway · 02-07-2009, 12:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fallschirmjager

That is before the bowls are played

And that's the time when playoff teams would be determined. You were talking about "probably any given year half of the playoff teams would be SEC teams". That can't be further from truth.

bababui · 02-07-2009, 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonzard

Well you said Scouts INC, not scouts.com. I cannot trust you or ESPN. I'm pretty disillusioned right now.

Ill do better next time.

Jonzard · 02-07-2009, 04:07 AM

That's what Skip Bayless told me!!11

dsvitak · 02-07-2009, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skipaway

Number of SEC teams in the final BCS top 8:

2008: 2 ( Big 12 has 3)
2007: 2 ( Big 12 has 3)
2006: 2 ( Big 10 has 3)
2005: 1 ( Pac 10 and Big 10 have 2 each)
2004: 2 ( Pac 10 and Big 12 have 2 each)
2003: 2 ( Big 12 and Big 10 have 2 each)
2002: 1 ( Big 12, Pac 10, and Big 10 have 2 each)
2001: 2 ( Big 12 has 3)
2000: 1 ( ACC, Pac 10, and Big 12 have 2 each)
1999: 2 ( ACC, Big 10, and Big 12 have 2 each)
1998: 2 ( Big 12, Pac 10 have 2 each)

I think Big 12 has the advantage here. No time in BCS history does SEC have more than 2 teams, and no time in BCS history does SEC the team leads the number of teams by itself.

Thanks Skipaway. I knew this, intuitively, but I wasn't up to doing the research.

Big 12: 21
SEC: 19

By this criteria, in a straight up numbers match up between the two conferences, the Big 12 wins, with 21 out of 40.

rwd59 · 02-07-2009, 11:26 AM

I believe this season was a perfect example of the overrating of Big 12 teams. Offense looks good and sells tickets, defense wins games.

Jestor · 02-07-2009, 10:29 PM

Top 20 class, which would normally be awesome...

...but we're in the SEC.

Go Hogs anyway!

Reader012 · 02-08-2009, 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsvitak

Thanks Skipaway. I knew this, intuitively, but I wasn't up to doing the research.

Big 12: 21
SEC: 19

By this criteria, in a straight up numbers match up between the two conferences, the Big 12 wins, with 21 out of 40.

First thing, 21 to 19 is hardly a decisive and the argument can be made that it isn't even statistically significant when we start talking about how the BCS isn't actually objective and even if it were, an objective thing isn't even necessarily 100% correct.

Second, how many times does the Big 12 play the SEC in the regular season, which those BCS rankings quoted are based on?

It amazes me that any side of the best conference argument can look at numbers like this and just go, well there you have it, we know now! Even if you compare bowl records, those things are skewed by factors such as it rarely being best team from one conference being against best team from the other. Not to mention whether you want to rate a team based on one game, etc.

Jonzard · 02-08-2009, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reader012

First thing, 21 to 19 is hardly a decisive and the argument can be made that it isn't even statistically significant when we start talking about how the BCS isn't actually objective and even if it were, an objective thing isn't even necessarily 100% correct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reader012

It amazes me that any side of the best conference argument can look at numbers like this and just go, well there you have it, we know now!

"By this criteria" isn't saying it is decisive. You are making a straw man here claiming things were said that were not. The data was presented to refute the fact that it is settled in the opposite direction, not to confirm it is settled for the Big 12.

Skipaway · 02-08-2009, 03:33 AM

Yeah, it wasn't about how great Big 12 is. It's simply about how SEC isn't as great as some people said.

02-07-2009, 04:07 AM	#25 (permalink)
Jonzard Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Minnesota Posts: 3,646 Thanks: 1 Thanked 15x in 9 posts	That's what Skip Bayless told me!!11 __________________ For a scientist must indeed be freely imaginative and yet skeptical, creative and yet a critic. There is a sense in which he must be free, but another in which his thought must be very precisely regimented; there is poetry in science, but also a lot of bookkeeping. — Sir Peter B. Medawar FTB

02-07-2009, 11:26 AM	#27 (permalink)
rwd59 All Star Reserve Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: LA (Lower Alabama) Posts: 710 Thanks: 6 Thanked 3x in 3 posts	I believe this season was a perfect example of the overrating of Big 12 teams. Offense looks good and sells tickets, defense wins games. Last edited by rwd59; 02-07-2009 at 11:29 AM.

02-08-2009, 03:33 AM	#31 (permalink)
Skipaway Hall Of Famer Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Where you live Posts: 10,453 Thanks: 2 Thanked 49x in 40 posts	Yeah, it wasn't about how great Big 12 is. It's simply about how SEC isn't as great as some people said. __________________ Jonathan Haidt: Moral reasoning is really just a servant masquerading as a high priest.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode