The ACC stinks, go SEC!

Rare Breed · Posted: Dec 07 2009 Post subject:

I think where I get confused is how fans of SEC teams have these discussions about the SEC and not about their team. Maybe I am just confused because I am from the second rate ACC.

allsmokenofire · Posted: Dec 07 2009 Post subject:

Rare Breed · Posted: Dec 07 2009 Post subject:

Well we get Tennessee, I guess UGA won't be able to beat up on us after all. I guess we should be lucky to even be in a bowl, and the PEACH at that. Embarassed

Poppa's PTL Club · Posted: Dec 08 2009 Post subject:

Poppa's PTL Club · Posted: Dec 08 2009 Post subject:

Rare Breed · Posted: Dec 08 2009 Post subject:

I started out by trying to have some fun with you and Dawg Phan but he never came back to play. Like I said one of my best friends is from La. and we go on like this all the time, his 12 year old son would kick all of our butts over LSU or the Saints. The ACC definately has issues, in my opinion with all teams, if VT was ever able to play consistent ball they would be up there contending but not hot and cold like they get at times, I mean losing to NC and a very good GT team is what kept them out of being right there, they were beating Alabama with 10 minutes to go, I never said it was pretty.

To answer your question, you are correct.

And one of you said earlier that SEC fans stick together because they are from the south, I may only be able to give one lesson here and that is that the South was born here in Va. Very Happy

Mike Lawry · Posted: Dec 08 2009 Post subject:

1.Alabama gonna woop Texas

2. GA. rolls over Texas A+M

3. Ole Miss finishes the sweep over OK ST.

SEC -3- Big 12 -0

Mike Lawrys predictions.

allsmokenofire · Posted: Dec 08 2009 Post subject:

Poppa's PTL Club · Posted: Dec 08 2009 Post subject:

BBQMAN · Posted: Dec 08 2009 Post subject:

Good read on a bad day, thanks fellas.
_________________
BBQMAN
"I Turned A Hobby Into A Business".
Providing "IMHO" Since 2005.

broncosmoker · BBQ Pro Joined: 04 Aug 2007 Posts: 717

I think the media bias towards the SEC is absolutely correct but maybe for some different reasons, not just for people believing it's the toughest, best conference out there, because that is a matter of opinion for all. I think the reason for the media bias is because of the fans. SEC is such a unique culture compared to many programs. I have been to 50+ different venues to watch other teams play, just not my own, and SEC fans are truly hardcore. I know in the Big 12 on gamedays has some rabid fans, but it is the days leading up to the game is where the SEC reigns. Been to Texas and Oklahoma a few times and went and saw Nebraska this year. On game days there a a lot of people there, but two days before the game people talk about it, but not as passionately, nor are the as well versed on their opponents. In SEC tailgating starts days before the game and people know things inside out. Compared to other conferences like the Big 10, Pac 10 and Big East, the SEC is an apples to oranges comparison. Because of that and the buzz that goes with it, of course the media is going to cover it more. It's all about money and the SEC sells, especially to the largest football watching market...the south. Do I care for all the coverage all the time? No. Do I think they are the best conference out there? Not all the time. I see times where they look as average as all conferences and still get the hype as the best which I don't agree on, but that's my opinion and I know I am not the only one that feels that way. Media bias comes down to thre things... money,money and money. It's all about what sell to the most people and that is where the SEC excels.

Poppa's PTL Club · Posted: Dec 09 2009 Post subject:

Bronco, I can see your point about excitement amongst the fan base and the media shooting for that rabid fan base for ratings, but it's not just in the south where the SEC wins the ratings battle. The CBS Saturday SEC matchups are consistent winners in the ratings battle over the other national and regional games (the Florida-LSU game apparently beat the Iowa-Michigan game in Iowa).

I think you're right about networks shooting for the biggest audience, but I don't think you are considering that most of the rest of the country recognizes the excellent football played within the conference and they also help give the SEC matchups such high ratings across the country.

The depth of very good teams within the SEC helps them out as well. You consistently have one to three SEC teams in the top 15 and maybe four to six or more in the top 25 over the course of a year. That leads to a lot of very interesting and important interconference games during the year. Many of the other conferences only have one or two interesting matchups that garner national attention. Those big interconference games draw a lot of attention, bring the GameDay crew to town, etc. In my opinion, they're just covering the news people want to see.

I kind of understand the reluctance to accept the SEC's success. I hate that Florida has been so much better than UGA for so long, but the records are just undeniable. I also understand why people don't like it, but I just can't understand how anyone can deny the SEC's recent stay atop the NCAA.

I think the stat that best shows the SEC's dominance in recent years is the BCS Championships and championship game records by conference:

SEC 5-0 Tennessee, LSU (2), Florida (2)
Big 12 2-4 Oklahoma, Texas
ACC 1-2 Florida State
Big East 1-2 Miami
Big Ten 1-2 Ohio State
Pac-10 1-1 USC

Not only has the SEC won more BCS titles than any other conference, they are also the only conference to have repeat winners (LSU and Florida).

If Alabama wins this year (not guaranteed by a long shot), the SEC will have:

My guess is that you are correct about the SEC fan base being more rabid, but I think you're wrong if it's just the southerners that are supporting those ratings. They're driven by success (the networks could hype the games all day, but if they're no good, people won't watch).

The SEC also has a bit of an unfair advantage right now which is that the other conference's TV contracts are coming up at the worst possible time, so there will be less money for them vs the SEC's big contract signed before the collapse of the economy.
_________________
I likes to eat 'da pig!
Acts 11:5-9

broncosmoker · BBQ Pro Joined: 04 Aug 2007 Posts: 717

I know in our area we are alomost forced to watch SEC football if you want to watch it on general tv and not buy a big football package. CBS only shows SEC football and that is nationaly. NBC shows Notre Dame which is almost as bad as watching sunbelt conference football. ABC usually has a decent night game, but could care less about most of the day games. So I like many in thecountry watch SEC. They do have many of the best players in the game playing there (IMO that does not necc, translate to the best teams, but that's a personal thing). Their BCS record is impressive, but is a run the table and when you start off at the top you will not move down. Personally I would love to see that polls do not even start until after week 4 and let teams be evaluated then. Some of these teams that are high ranked are there because they started there and have not played to bad once they are there or lose but do not drop out when they shouldn't even be there. There are also some teams that get into pols just because of the conference that should not be there either. But that is the choice of voters, and controversy sells many things.

The BCS has been around sincethe start of the 1998 season and here are the stats.

Conference Wins Losses
Big Ten 8 11
Big Twelve 7 9
SEC 12 5
Pac-10 9 4
Big East 6 5
ACC 2 9
Notre Dame 0 3
Mid Majors 3 1

The SEC has done very well overall while other conferences have struggled.

I just enjoy football, but like many, get tired of hearing how great the SEC is when they do not play many decent teams outside their conference to prove it except in bowl games. Not every team in that conference is that way, but many are. Every conference has it weaklings as well (Trust me know this very well, my team is in the WAC) that nobody ever seems to talk about, but that seems to get overlooked in the SEC(Come on, Vandy, Kentucky? Really?). so the conference does have many strengths but has some issues as every conference.

Again I do enjoy watching SEC football as well as other conferences, but like I said tired of some of the press hype.

Poppa's PTL Club · Posted: Dec 09 2009 Post subject:

allsmokenofire · Posted: Dec 09 2009 Post subject:

Poppa's PTL Club · Posted: Dec 09 2009 Post subject:

Rare Breed · Posted: Dec 09 2009 Post subject:

I can understand how the ESS-EEE-SEE generates so much $$$, the fans buy merchandise and apparel of all the teams. Rolling Eyes

DawgPhan · BBQ Super Pro Joined: 12 May 2005 Posts: 3444

Poppa's PTL Club · Posted: Dec 09 2009 Post subject:

For those of you watching me pummel this poor guy, allow me to explain some of the methods I�ve used and the mistakes he�s made (many of which are classic debating mistakes, so this might be helpful).

Opinions have a specific definition:
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

So, what you cannot do is to keep claiming opinion in the face of a withering assault on your underlying assumptions (grounds). If you claim that it is your opinion that the sky is usually a dark green, that is disprovable. When faced with evidence to the contrary, you need to either defend the grounds on which you continue to believe that the sky is dark green or you abandon your opinion. Continuing to restate your opinion in the face of evidence to believe otherwise will not win you an argument. In fact, it will almost always lose it for you.

Be aware of the words you use and the context in which you use them. I believe that most of the evidences of childishness cited are actually bon mots, defined as �a clever saying; a witticism�. If you believe that the jabs I�ve taken are childish on the level of calling someone names ("Auntie Poppa" or "Auntie Clown"), then perhaps I should dig up Dorothy Parker and yell at her corpse that she dresses like a man and claim that we are on equal rhetorical footing. I haven't felt a lot of need to defend this charge because, well, res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself).

Be careful that you do not give your opponent a weapon with which to ridicule you. If you claim that someone's reading comprehension is poor with no support, you had better make sure that yours is without question. I believe the popular saying is:
Don't bring a knife to a gun fight

You must identify someone�s underlying assumptions to attack their argument. I looked and found an assumption that the bias was undue or unfair. If the claim was that the SEC gets more airtime, well that�s just a fact. Why claim it if it isn�t a part and parcel of a larger argument that to enjoy the SEC as a whole and to be proud of my team�s particiapation in it is unfounded or irrational? If that�s not the case, then what was the use in claiming it? It was a nice attempt at sleight of hand, but to claim after the fact that it wasn�t a part of the argument is akin to those folks who claim that the 2nd amendment is the only part of the Bill of Rights which protects the rights of government and not individuals; it just doesn�t stand up to the slightest scrutiny.

Finally, there�s an old axiom among lawyers which goes something like this:

When the facts are on your side, pound the facts
When the law is on your side, pound the law
When neither is on your side, pound the table

What this means is that you work from your advantage. The weakest position is to have to pound the table (it�s kind a Hail Mary hoping that it will land in the right person�s hands but with little chance of success). I would add a corollary to that axiom, which is that if neither the facts nor the law are on your side, it�s probably not wise to enter the argument in the first place or, when you do realize that neither are on your side, you should gracefully exit the argument as quickly as you can. I suppose you have to be able to recognize that situation first to avoid further embarrassment.
_________________
I likes to eat 'da pig!
Acts 11:5-9

Poppa's PTL Club · Posted: Dec 10 2009 Post subject:

So, resuming the real discussion, let�s look at a concept called the Law of Large Numbers:
the average results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value and will tend to become closer as more trials are performed.

Basically, the more you repeat something, the truer the results are. So far we�ve had 11 seasons with BCS games pitting (ostensibly), the best each conference has to offer. Let�s put these numbers into perspective and look at what it reveals (the first # is the number of appearances and the second if the winning %):

04.....75.00%.....Mid Majors
17.....70.59%.....SEC
13.....69.23%.....Pac-10
11.....54.55%.....Big East
16.....43.75%.....Big Twelve
19.....42.11%.....Big Ten 8
11.....18.18%.....ACC
03......0.00%.....Notre Dame

Among the things that jump out is that the Big East looks much better than you would expect. That is until you look at the internals and realize that it includes Miami�s run from 2001 to 2004 before jumping to the ACC for the �04-05 season. Take out their 3-1 record during that time frame and the Big East is a dismal 3-4 or 42.86%. It proves my assertion that the Big East stinks and answers another question which is:
Do you have to suck to be in the ACC or does being in the ACC make you suck? (kind of a chicken or the egg thing)
Seeing as how Miami has not returned to a BCS game since they joined the ACC, I�ll let you decide.

It also tells me that the mid-majors do better than most expect when given the chance (you could argue that Utah at 2-0 is not nearly recognized enough for their accomplishments). I believe I�ve already argued for more inclusion for the mid-majors and that the BCS is conspiring against them on behalf of the BCS conferences. To be fair though, you do have to recognize that two of the teams they�ve beaten were from the sorry Big 10 and Oklahoma (more on that later). The SEC is the only conference playing a mid-major in a BCS game with a victory.

OK, to buttress my main argument, The SEC has made 17 appearances and has a winning % of 70.59% while the ACC has made 11 appearances and has a winning % of 18.18%. The ACC only has those many appearances because they are a BCS conference and join the Big East as the only BCS conference without a representative in a BCS game other than their conference champion.

Let's go back to my original point: THE ACC STINKS! Their record proves they don�t belong among the NCAA elite conferences and I think we're getting to the point where the numbers are pretty reliable.

Can anyone take the title and intent of my thread and find a way to disprove it yet? (PS I won�t count the intellectual equivalent of �nyah nyah nyah nyah boo boo�)

Now, for one of the fun side projects to which I was challenged (being a fan of the team, although I still don�t see where I ever implied that I wasn�t a huge UGA fan). UGA has played in 3 BCS games and has a winning % of 66.67%. Oklahoma has played in 7 and their winning % is 28.57%. I know we still have to rely on the law of large numbers here, but unless you assume that UGA is about to go on 4 game losing streak, I�ll take the success of my Dawgs in the time period. They do pretty well when they get outside of their conference bubble.

On the other hand, maybe it�s time that Oklahoma joins the ACC?
_________________
I likes to eat 'da pig!
Acts 11:5-9