Posted on: September 19, 2012 10:48 am

The SEC relative to the rest of FBS football

To "SEC fans", and those who feel the need to constantly assert that it is the best conference:

First, I would like to mention that the SEC has great football year in, year out. If I can't watch a B1G game, I am watching a SEC game, as it is simply great football. I respect the SEC as a conference and the quality of the top programs in the conference.

That being said, you super homers need to realize that while yes, the SEC is the "best" conference in college football in the last 5 years, it can change week to week, and month to month. In all honesty, the SEC gets an automatic berth into the National Title game because of the media coverage of the SEC. Auburn 2010, for example, had a ton of controversy surrounding the team and Cam Newton, yet they were allowed to compete for the National Title amidst several recruiting and benefit allegations. Alabama 2011 is another prime example of the Media influencing the outcome. Alabama may have been an amazing team, but they had already had the chance to prove it against LSU and showed they were not the better team. FBS football is all about winning every game, and when you lose to a top 3 team, you are not supposed to be given another chance, unless it is in a Conference Title game, which was not the case last season.
A hypothetical situation, should it arise (which it very well may), is that Michigan, who has already lost to Alabama, runs the table from here on out, and wins the B1G CCG. Alabama wins the SEC by means of beating LSU and going undefeated, including the SEC CCG. Every other team in the Nation has at least 1 loss, which means Michigan has the same amount or less losses than said teams.
Should Michigan get a rematch with Alabama for the National Title considering they lost a Week 1 game to them at a "neutral site" (which on another note is not neutral at all unless it's SEC vs Big12)?

I know that a majority of you will say that Michigan already had it's chance against Alabama and got manhandled, beaten soundly, etc. Or you will say that it shows the SEC dominance, whatever floats your boat.

This is why people say the SEC is overrated. Because the same situation described the 2011 season, except Alabama lost to LSU in the middle/ end of the season, and did not participate in the SEC championship game, meaning it had the same amount of wins as numerous other teams (OkSt, Stanford, ORE among many), yet still was granted a berth for the National Title game.

Also lost in the fray is the pure mediocrity of the remainder of the SEC. While Alabama and LSU are no doubt two of the best teams in college football, outside of Georgia, South Carolina, and Florida which are no more than very good bowl teams, the rest of the conference is absolutely atrocious. Auburn and Arkansas both got beat down (Auburn shouldn't have won) by ULM, adecent enough team in it's own right, but not a team that one, much less two teams from the "almighty SEC" should be even having a close game with. Throw in the perennial ineptitude of Vandy, Miss, MissSt, Kentucky, Auburn (2010 exempt), and yes, Tennessee, and then add two of the Big12's weakest programs in Missouri and TAMU, and the SEC looks very good in the top 3, but absolutey atrocious in the bottom half.

These reasons, along with some very ignorant statements and very elitist thinking by some SEC defenders on this site, and suddenly people who really do respect and like the SEC suddenly find themselves absolutely despising the SEC. This is not caused by the programs or the players, rather by the media who is absolutly blind to the rest of the Nation unless it is; USC, FSU, Texas, OU, OSU, or ND, and by the rabid fan base that buys the hype the media feeds them, then, because the results are favorable, defends the media and conference to the death.
Posted on: June 27, 2012 9:17 pm

Solution to CFB

Aside from the greed aspect, which won't go away until someone steps up and says no more excessive profits from postseason games, there is an easy way to fix ANY college football postseason.

Its all about rankings and Strength Of Schedule. If we can devise a way to have a objective ranking /SOS system, we get rid of all the controversy in postseason play. An easy way to do this is to create a ranking system in which the teams will be not only judged on their own record, but on the collective record of their conferences as well.

I have come up with a relatively simple fix, that while not perfect, will give a great idea as to who the True Number 1, 2, 3, and 4 teams in the Nation are based on ONLY record and conference record. The system punishes conferences for having FCS games and losses. It gives a thorough idea of which is the strongest conference top to bottom, and it is completely objective to conferences, although a large conference with a lot of bad teams could suffer, which encourages parity in the major conferences, and the "smaller" programs like Boise St., TCU, Utah, Etc to join a "major" conference. It also punishes those whom are independent, as these teams have no affiliation whatsoever.

So heres the idea:  (OWP=Overall Winning Percentage, OCWP= Overall Conference Winning Percentage, meaning the total win percentage [including non-Conference] of all teams in the conference combined)

Take the conference overall winning percentage, multiply by .75 for a 12 team conference or by .5 for a 16 team.
This is done because if you play 3/4 of a strong conference, you are playing more than one good team, etc. (you only play 8 games in conference, multiplication points figured by how many teams are in conference) If one really wishes to they could use the winning percentage of each Division within a "split conference.
 Let's Take the Non-Conference Schedule. If there is a FCS team then it counts for a loss in the OCWP (discourage cupcakes). Take the four Non conference games and combine their winning percentage. This make it important for conference commisioners to encourage at least FBS Non-conference schedules.
 So an example would be Team A plays 4 non-conference, one of which is FCS, then 8 conference games in a 16 game conference (location irrelevant in all cases, as the best teams need to win at home and on the road)
The 4 non-conference teams have a .33, .500, .89, and a .625 WP. This adds to 2.315.
Now lets say that the overall CWP is .785. divide that by half because they only played half the teams from the conference. That is .392. Add it to the 2.315 its 2.707. This is their Schedule Difficulty Rating.
Yes, I know that people would cry foul because " ALA played both Ark and LSU.. They should weigh more." The fact is those are 2 of 8 games. We could assume there would be a good deal of parity in the schedule because of conference scheduling, and the fact that MOST conferences have around an overall .500-.650 OCWP
. If the SDR were used as part of the criteria for the "FFF", is would create easily generated numbers, take away the question of WHO in the conference played, and would even solve the Ratings dilemma.
For rankings, Simply multiply the Individual team's winning percentage by SDR, and whoever has the highest is the top ranked and so on.
 It is objective, school size/ income has no influence, and it would show which conference is the strongest top to bottom. This system could create a very solid finals, but does have the chance to backfire because of a conference being very top-heavy or very good all around.
This could be rectified by using SDR as a seeding tool, and only a pure selection tool if "The number 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc are NOT conference champions, then the overall Ranking after WP*SDR needs to be X amount higher than the conference champion, in which case the conference champion will relinquish it's position in the 4 team playoff for the team with the Higher combine WP*SDR."

This creates a scenario in which the winner of a weak conference (in regards to WP) will NOT be selected because they have not won a conference with a significant amount of contenders. The easy way for any team to fix prevent this, however, would be to arrange a very strong Non-conference schedule, so the WP of the Non conference opponents will be higher.

Of course, Absolutely none of this ranking system means a thing if your own winning percentage is low, so the importance is still on the regular season. Lose a game to Idaho? You may see your chance at a NC slip away in the first four weeks of the season. Lose that late one to one of the best teams in the country in a conference showdown? It doesn't destroy your cause, although it does hinder it. Using this system gives a true idea as to who the best four teams in the country are, and it may need some tweaking, such as weighing the NCS a little different, or making sure there is parity between the conferencesm. However, overall, this seems as objective system as we've ever seem in ANY sport.
Category: NCAAF
The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com