Expansion Talk 2021

[bobongo]

I've got nothing to prove to you. Accept that someone has done the research or don't. I don't care. Statistics are not facts. Statistics are a way of analyzing and presenting data to support or refute a hypothesis. That's not fact.

Statitics: Georgia Tech has more SEC championships than more than half the SEC and we haven't competed in the SEC in 55 years. Georgia Tech has a winning record against the SEC. The only SEC teams (out of 14 teams) with a winning record against GT are Alabama, uga, Tennessee, and Auburn (we're 27-28 against auburn). That Vaunted 2nd tier with LSU and Florida, both losers against GT. We're -25 against uga and -11 against Alabama. Take those two teams away and we've curb-stomped the vaunted SEC.

So, what does that tell us about the strength of GT? I don't really think it does. Nice for chest-thumping, but not really relevant.

I'm not cherry-picking. I'm referring to overall head-to-head conference records, ones that remain consistent through the decades.
You can cherry-pick all you want and it means nothing. The fact is that the SEC wins almost twice as many as it loses against the ACC. It is a statistic, and it is also a fact.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I'm not cherry-picking. I'm referring to overall head-to-head conference records, ones that remain consistent through the decades.
You can cherry-pick all you want and it means nothing. The fact is that the SEC wins almost twice as many as it loses against the ACC. It is a statistic, and it is also a fact.

It's a statistic that leads to an erroneous conclusion, like what you're saying. Feel free to be wrong all you want. Again, the devil is in the details. If you want to paint with broad brushes, then the B1G has more national championships than the SEC. Obviously, the B1G is a better conference.

It's a fact that the B1G has more championships. But that doesn't mean it's a better conference. But, I guess by your statistical facts, the B1G is better.

See how stupid that sounds? You don't want to sound stupid, right?

 

[bobongo]

It's a statistic that leads to an erroneous conclusion, like what you're saying. Feel free to be wrong all you want. Again, the devil is in the details. If you want to paint with broad brushes, then the B1G has more national championships than the SEC. Obviously, the B1G is a better conference.

It's a fact that the B1G has more championships. But that doesn't mean it's a better conference. But, I guess by your statistical facts, the B1G is better.

See how stupid that sounds? You don't want to sound stupid, right?

No, championship comparisons only compare the top of the conference. It's more cherry-picking. Overall records compare the conferences top to bottom, and there are plenty enough games to make that comparison. The only fact I've referred to is the fact of the overall record.

YOU presented a straw man argument and then tried to project it onto me. I don't sound stupid because I never made the stupid argument in the first place. You did.

 

[forensicbuzz]

No, championships comparisons only compare the top of the conference. It's more cherry-picking. Overall records compare the conferences top to bottom, and there are plenty enough games to make that comparison.

YOU presented a straw man argument and then tried to project it onto me. I don't sound stupid because I never made the stupid argument in the first place. You did.

No strawman argument here. You're trying to paint with a broad brush to assess a conference as a whole and I said you have to look at who's playing who. You're the one who didn't want to look deeper. That's on you. I gave you an example of one of the "lower-tier teams" in the ACC (GT) compared to the SEC. Yeah, you're starting to not sound intelligent trying to make a stand on that hill.

 

[bobongo]

No strawman argument here. You're trying to paint with a broad brush to assess a conference as a whole and I said you have to look at who's playing who. You're the one who didn't want to look deeper. That's on you. I gave you an example of one of the "lower-tier teams" in the ACC (GT) compared to the SEC. Yeah, you're starting to not sound intelligent trying to make a stand on that hill.

A broad brush? That's exactly what is needed to deduce the relative strengths of the conferences, the whole overall record. And there you go cherry-picking again by referring to one series. "One example" indeed. There have been hundreds of games played between the two conferences. I could refer to the Clemson vs. South Carolina series (see how it balances out?), since we're picking cherries, but I won't because I'm referring to the OVERALL records. You've picked so many cherries you ought to start your own produce warehouse.

If you have some comparison of the OVERALL records and a rationalization as to why they're inequitable, present it. If all you can offer is cherries, just keep them to yourself, please. I don't even like cherries.

And I'm getting tired of being referred to as unintelligent by the likes of you, sir, Good day.

 

[forensicbuzz]

A broad brush? That's exactly what is needed to deduce the relative strengths of the conferences, the whole overall record. And there you go cherry-picking again by referring to one series. "One example" indeed. There have been hundreds of games played between the two conferences. I could refer to the Clemson vs. South Carolina series (see how it balances out?), since we're picking cherries, but I won't because I'm referring to the OVERALL records. You've picked so many cherries you ought to start your own produce warehouse.

If you have some comparison of the OVERALL records and a rationalization as to why they're inequitable, present it. If all you can offer is cherries, just keep them to yourself, please. I don't even like cherries.

And I'm getting tired of being referred to as unintelligent by the likes of you, sir, Good day.

LOL! Cherry-picking? I picked the first team I could think of, Georgia Tech. I compared us to the whole SEC, not one series. You've been choosing some weird hills to die on recently. West Virginia? SEC? Sometimes I just don't understand our own fans.

No, broad brushes are not the way to assess the relative strength. If the top SEC teams are always playing the bottom ACC teams, then logic follows that the SEC would have a better record. Of course you have to look at the match-ups. Otherwise, it's skewed data and the statistics are not relevant to the discussion. That's the whole point.

Oh, and you don't know the likes of me, so who knows, maybe it's a compliment. (and I never called you unintelligent, I said you were starting to sound not intelligent. You should recognize that there's a big difference between the two.)

Just watching HBCU football and trying to understand why you bring up a point and then aren't interested in delving into the validity of said statement. Good night (it's not really "day" any more).

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Are you really trying to compare Florida, Auburn, and LSU to VT, UVA, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Nebraska. Florida, Auburn, and LSU have all won Natty’s in the past 12 years. Heck, LSU one a Natty in the year 2020. VT still has that trophy case waiting. UVA hasn’t been legit since 1990. Michigan is done - no recruiting in that area and the few crumbs go to Ohio St. Wisconsin and Iowa are like GT. Good every 7-8 years and every once in a while go on a 3 year run of decency. Nebraska much like Michigan is done.

As for the tiers it’s just my opinion. If you want to make your own and say UVA is the same as LSU then so be it.

No. Not saying any of that.

Here’s what I’m saying: A person points out that LSU was a truly abysmal team last year and some one else says, “ Yeah, but they recently won a national championship.”

I’m not disputing your tiers so much as I am wanting clarification on them. When does the statute of limitations run out on having won a national championship, for instance? Likewise, if teams hit a downward skid for a period do they lose their top tier status? It’s been a while since Auburn was elite, especially from the perspective of an 18 year old. If Clemson has a down year this year, which I’m predicting, does that negate being one of the top teams in the nation for the last five years?

I’m not entirely disagreeing with you; I’m just wondering how we make your examples less arbitrary. To my eyeball test there are teams in three other conferences that certain SEC teams would lose 2 out of 3 games to if they played head to head. But we don’t usually get to see those matchups. Also, if you take strength of schedule there have been past years where Alabama had the weakest schedule in the P5. That doesn’t make Alabama a bad team but it does mean we don’t often get a fair comparison of relative strength of conferences.

Oh, and for the record, if you think Michigan is going to be down forever you don’t know that culture. Even uga doesn’t hold a candle to the ferocity of fan support those people have.

 

[85Escape]

LOL. I think I'm out. You boys enjoy.

 

[Oldgoldandwhite]

This thread is done.

 

[FredJacket]

This thread is done.

That's a shame... my mind was thhhhhissssss close to being changed.

....back to hating every team (some more than others) except those beloved Jackets!

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

No. Not saying any of that.

Here’s what I’m saying: A person points out that LSU was a truly abysmal team last year and some one else says, “ Yeah, but they recently won a national championship.”

I’m not disputing your tiers so much as I am wanting clarification on them. When does the statute of limitations run out on having won a national championship, for instance? Likewise, if teams hit a downward skid for a period do they lose their top tier status? It’s been a while since Auburn was elite, especially from the perspective of an 18 year old. If Clemson has a down year this year, which I’m predicting, does that negate being one of the top teams in the nation for the last five years?

I’m not entirely disagreeing with you; I’m just wondering how we make your examples less arbitrary. To my eyeball test there are teams in three other conferences that certain SEC teams would lose 2 out of 3 games to if they played head to head. But we don’t usually get to see those matchups. Also, if you take strength of schedule there have been past years where Alabama had the weakest schedule in the P5. That doesn’t make Alabama a bad team but it does mean we don’t often get a fair comparison of relative strength of conferences.

Oh, and for the record, if you think Michigan is going to be down forever you don’t know that culture. Even uga doesn’t hold a candle to the ferocity of fan support those people have.

We don’t necessarily disagree overall. Take Auburn. Sure, they’ve been down. But their recruiting of morons means that when they get a special player aka Cam they can go from mediocre to Natty in a season or two. That can’t be said for GT, UVA or others you brought up. Take LSU. Yes, they had a bad season last year. That’s because half their team got drafted not because their system sucks. They’ll easily reload and be back in the top 10 because their system puts players in the NFL. Teams like GT, UVA and others you mentioned have to build for years just to get to where LSU normally is.

As for my statue of limitations, if a team has won a Natty that buys them years. Heck, I’m still giving GT credit for 1990! Lol. Just like I give UGA and VT crap for not winning one I give teams a long leash if they actually win one especially when it’s not a fluke. Auburn, LSU, Florida, Clemson, Ohio State all have systems (money, facilities, recruiting, highly paid coaches, fanatical fans that won’t settle) that lend themselves for future success when they get the right QB and solid defense. Southern Cal use to be like that but too many years have passed that its obvious their system is broken. No team in the ACC outside of Clemson have the ingredients although Mack is putting things in place.

As for Michigan, fans can’t create 5 stars within a 3 hour drive of Ann Arbor. I get they are rabid fans, but without the players they are what they are. In case you haven’t noticed recruits go south not north. The times have simply changed. No different than the days when GT dominated. Those days of GT hosting away games are over as well. Could it happen at Michigan? I guess. But I just don’t see high level players from Cali, Florida, and Georgia passing on the 25 high level southern teams to go to Michigan and play in a conference most consider inferior and for a team about as far north as Canada. This isn’t the old days where elite southern players go to Bama and elite northern players go to Michigan, ND, Ohio State, or Penn State. The field has expanded and like GT in the 70’s, Michigan has come out on the wrong side.

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

This thread is done.

Nope. Game doesn’t start until 7:30 next Saturday.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Okay. I couldn't sleep so I went through the exercise of looking at true matchups. For this, I used the SEC and the ACC. I ONLY went back to 2000, because before that, it's just not relevant. Even that far back is probably not relevant, but that's 20+ years and should satisfy most. With teams that have joined the ACC or SEC since 2000, I only used games that were played while they were in one conference or the other. Also, I did not include Maryland, as they're not relevant since they're not in the ACC anymore. MANY of these are bowl games, so I don't know how that really plays into it, but since they played, I included them.

Tier 1
Alabama (10-3) with losses to Clemson (2) and FSU. They beat Duke (3), Clemson (3), FSU (1), Louisville (1), and Va Tech (2)

Tier 2
Texas A&M (2-4) with losses to Clemson (2), Louisville (1), and Wake Forest (1). They beat UNC (1) and NCST (1)
LSU (10-1) with a loss to Clemson (1). Wins against Clemson (1), Georgia Tech (2), Louisville (1), Miami (2), UNC (1), Syracuse (2), and Va Tech (1)
uga (24-6 or 7-3 excluding Tech) with losses to BC (1), Clemson (1), Georgia Tech (3), and UVA (1). They beat Clemson (3), FSU (1), Georgia Tech (17), Louisville (1), UNC (1), Va Tech (1)
Florida (13-12) with losses to FSU (10) and Miami (2). They beat FSU (10), Miami (2), and UVA (1)

Tier 3
Auburn (7-8) with losses to Clemson (4), FSU (1), Georgia Tech (2), and UNC (1). They beat Louisville (1), Miami (2), UVA (1), and Va Tech (1)
Missouri (0-0)

Tier 4
USC (15-17) with losses to Clemson (13), FSU (1), UNC (1), and UVA (2). They beat Clemson (7), Miami (1), UNC (3), NCST (3), UVA (1)
Kentucky (7-5) with losses to Clemson (1), Georgia Tech (1), and Louisville (3). They beat Clemson (1), FSU (1), Louisville (3), NCST (1), and Va Tech (1)
Tennessee (4-3) with losses to Clemson (1), UNC (1), and Va Tech (1). They beat Duke (1), Georgia Tech (1), NCST (1), and Va Tech (1).
Vanderbilt (10-9) with losses to Duke (1), Georgia Tech (4), NCST (1), and Wake Forest (3). They beat BC (1), Duke (3), NCST (1), and Wake Forest (5)
Ole Miss (1-3) with losses to FSU (1) and Wake Forest (2). They beat Georgia Tech (1).
Miss. St. (2-4) with losses to Georgia Tech (3), Louisville (1), and Wake Forest (1). They beat Louisville (1).

MY ANALYSIS
Alabama has 4 wins against Duke and Louisville, with 6 against higher ACC teams.
Texas A&M has not shown well.
LSU owns the ACC, but most of those are bowl or playoff games (whatever that means).
uga - no explanation necessary
Florida - Pretty even.
Auburn - Pretty even.
USC - Pretty even.
Kentucky - Pretty even.
Tennessee - Pretty even.
Mississippis - little under par.

From this I draw (1) GT has not been holding up our side of the bargain in these rivalries like our peers; (2) LSU owns the ACC, especially in the post-season, (3) Alabama is a really good team; and (4) the SEC isn't really better than the ACC when you look at the head-to-head matchups. Now, you guys can draw your own conclusions from the real data.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Okay. I couldn't sleep so I went through the exercise of looking at true matchups. For this, I used the SEC and the ACC. I ONLY went back to 2000, because before that, it's just not relevant. Even that far back is probably not relevant, but that's 20+ years and should satisfy most. With teams that have joined the ACC or SEC since 2000, I only used games that were played while they were in one conference or the other. Also, I did not include Maryland, as they're not relevant since they're not in the ACC anymore. MANY of these are bowl games, so I don't know how that really plays into it, but since they played, I included them.

Tier 1
Alabama (10-3) with losses to Clemson (2) and FSU. They beat Duke (3), Clemson (3), FSU (1), Louisville (1), and Va Tech (2)

Tier 2
Texas A&M (2-4) with losses to Clemson (2), Louisville (1), and Wake Forest (1). They beat UNC (1) and NCST (1)
LSU (10-1) with a loss to Clemson (1). Wins against Clemson (1), Georgia Tech (2), Louisville (1), Miami (2), UNC (1), Syracuse (2), and Va Tech (1)
uga (24-6 or 7-3 excluding Tech) with losses to BC (1), Clemson (1), Georgia Tech (3), and UVA (1). They beat Clemson (3), FSU (1), Georgia Tech (17), Louisville (1), UNC (1), Va Tech (1)
Florida (13-12) with losses to FSU (10) and Miami (2). They beat FSU (10), Miami (2), and UVA (1)

Tier 3
Auburn (7-8) with losses to Clemson (4), FSU (1), Georgia Tech (2), and UNC (1). They beat Louisville (1), Miami (2), UVA (1), and Va Tech (1)
Missouri (0-0)

Tier 4
USC (15-17) with losses to Clemson (13), FSU (1), UNC (1), and UVA (2). They beat Clemson (7), Miami (1), UNC (3), NCST (3), UVA (1)
Kentucky (7-5) with losses to Clemson (1), Georgia Tech (1), and Louisville (3). They beat Clemson (1), FSU (1), Louisville (3), NCST (1), and Va Tech (1)
Tennessee (4-3) with losses to Clemson (1), UNC (1), and Va Tech (1). They beat Duke (1), Georgia Tech (1), NCST (1), and Va Tech (1).
Vanderbilt (10-9) with losses to Duke (1), Georgia Tech (4), NCST (1), and Wake Forest (3). They beat BC (1), Duke (3), NCST (1), and Wake Forest (5)
Ole Miss (1-3) with losses to FSU (1) and Wake Forest (2). They beat Georgia Tech (1).
Miss. St. (2-4) with losses to Georgia Tech (3), Louisville (1), and Wake Forest (1). They beat Louisville (1).

MY ANALYSIS
Alabama has 4 wins against Duke and Louisville, with 6 against higher ACC teams.
Texas A&M has not shown well.
LSU owns the ACC, but most of those are bowl or playoff games (whatever that means).
uga - no explanation necessary
Florida - Pretty even.
Auburn - Pretty even.
USC - Pretty even.
Kentucky - Pretty even.
Tennessee - Pretty even.
Mississippis - little under par.

From this I draw (1) GT has not been holding up our side of the bargain in these rivalries like our peers; (2) LSU owns the ACC, especially in the post-season, (3) Alabama is a really good team; and (4) the SEC isn't really better than the ACC when you look at the head-to-head matchups. Now, you guys can draw your own conclusions from the real data.

That’s insightful. I suppose one could drill down even further if one wanted by also looking at whether the winner of a particular game and the loser of a particular game was having an up year or a down year.

Just one illustration would be Clemson vs Georgia. It seems (from memory) that Georgia has lucked out in this series by playing Clemson when Georgia is having a better season and Clemson is having a slightly down season. This year may be an example of that. Georgia would have probably lost to Clemson if they played them the last five years but this year they will catch Clemson in what for them is a down year. But I guarantee that when Georgia beats Clemson the ESPN SEC crowing machine will reinforce the SEC superiority narrative all the way into picking playoff teams.

 

[augustabuzz]

That’s insightful. I suppose one could drill down even further if one wanted by also looking at whether the winner of a particular game and the loser of a particular game was having an up year or a down year.

Just one illustration would be Clemson vs Georgia. It seems (from memory) that Georgia has lucked out in this series by playing Clemson when Georgia is having a better season and Clemson is having a slightly down season. This year may be an example of that. Georgia would have probably lost to Clemson if they played them the last five years but this year they will catch Clemson in what for them is a down year. But I guarantee that when Georgia beats Clemson the ESPN SEC crowing machine will reinforce the SEC superiority narrative all the way into picking playoff teams.

I don't think Clemson's defense will be down. I expect it to be much better than last year.

 

[cthenrys]

So I grew up watching the ACC before I even decided to go to Tech. Don’t really watch any SEC games unless they include GT or it’s a huge National game - and even then I don’t care that much.
My youngest daughter is a Soph at UF and this year is a member of the AA sponsored dance team. She went last week for her physical and was escorted through the UF medical facility by a team of 6 people, walking her through the whole exam. The whole process just oozes money.
Guys the SEC is the big leagues. Everyone else is AAA. IIWII.

 

[yeti92]

So I grew up watching the ACC before I even decided to go to Tech. Don’t really watch any SEC games unless they include GT or it’s a huge National game - and even then I don’t care that much.
My youngest daughter is a Soph at UF and this year is a member of the AA sponsored dance team. She went last week for her physical and was escorted through the UF medical facility by a team of 6 people, walking her through the whole exam. The whole process just oozes money.
Guys the SEC is the big leagues. Everyone else is AAA. IIWII.

So do you have a point of comparison for FSU/Clemson, or are you just awestruck and assuming the SEC is better? Because this reads like the latter.

 

[Vespidae]

Okay. I couldn't sleep so I went through the exercise of looking at true matchups. For this, I used the SEC and the ACC. I ONLY went back to 2000, because before that, it's just not relevant. Even that far back is probably not relevant, but that's 20+ years and should satisfy most. With teams that have joined the ACC or SEC since 2000, I only used games that were played while they were in one conference or the other. Also, I did not include Maryland, as they're not relevant since they're not in the ACC anymore. MANY of these are bowl games, so I don't know how that really plays into it, but since they played, I included them.

Tier 1
Alabama (10-3) with losses to Clemson (2) and FSU. They beat Duke (3), Clemson (3), FSU (1), Louisville (1), and Va Tech (2)

Tier 2
Texas A&M (2-4) with losses to Clemson (2), Louisville (1), and Wake Forest (1). They beat UNC (1) and NCST (1)
LSU (10-1) with a loss to Clemson (1). Wins against Clemson (1), Georgia Tech (2), Louisville (1), Miami (2), UNC (1), Syracuse (2), and Va Tech (1)
uga (24-6 or 7-3 excluding Tech) with losses to BC (1), Clemson (1), Georgia Tech (3), and UVA (1). They beat Clemson (3), FSU (1), Georgia Tech (17), Louisville (1), UNC (1), Va Tech (1)
Florida (13-12) with losses to FSU (10) and Miami (2). They beat FSU (10), Miami (2), and UVA (1)

Tier 3
Auburn (7-8) with losses to Clemson (4), FSU (1), Georgia Tech (2), and UNC (1). They beat Louisville (1), Miami (2), UVA (1), and Va Tech (1)
Missouri (0-0)

Tier 4
USC (15-17) with losses to Clemson (13), FSU (1), UNC (1), and UVA (2). They beat Clemson (7), Miami (1), UNC (3), NCST (3), UVA (1)
Kentucky (7-5) with losses to Clemson (1), Georgia Tech (1), and Louisville (3). They beat Clemson (1), FSU (1), Louisville (3), NCST (1), and Va Tech (1)
Tennessee (4-3) with losses to Clemson (1), UNC (1), and Va Tech (1). They beat Duke (1), Georgia Tech (1), NCST (1), and Va Tech (1).
Vanderbilt (10-9) with losses to Duke (1), Georgia Tech (4), NCST (1), and Wake Forest (3). They beat BC (1), Duke (3), NCST (1), and Wake Forest (5)
Ole Miss (1-3) with losses to FSU (1) and Wake Forest (2). They beat Georgia Tech (1).
Miss. St. (2-4) with losses to Georgia Tech (3), Louisville (1), and Wake Forest (1). They beat Louisville (1).

MY ANALYSIS
Alabama has 4 wins against Duke and Louisville, with 6 against higher ACC teams.
Texas A&M has not shown well.
LSU owns the ACC, but most of those are bowl or playoff games (whatever that means).
uga - no explanation necessary
Florida - Pretty even.
Auburn - Pretty even.
USC - Pretty even.
Kentucky - Pretty even.
Tennessee - Pretty even.
Mississippis - little under par.

From this I draw (1) GT has not been holding up our side of the bargain in these rivalries like our peers; (2) LSU owns the ACC, especially in the post-season, (3) Alabama is a really good team; and (4) the SEC isn't really better than the ACC when you look at the head-to-head matchups. Now, you guys can draw your own conclusions from the real data.

Good analysis. I just looked at the SEC record against all other conferences. The SEC doesn't have an extensive history against some conferences, obviously ... and they rarely faced some outside of bowl games. As you said, draw your own conclusions.

 

[orientalnc]

Good analysis. I just looked at the SEC record against all other conferences. The SEC doesn't have an extensive history against some conferences, obviously ... and they rarely faced some outside of bowl games. As you said, draw your own conclusions.

View attachment 11049

You assumed all their opponents were in their current conference? That must be the case because you have no Big East games in the chart. Also, what is the time period included in your data?

 

[Vespidae]

You assumed all their opponents were in their current conference? That must be the case because you have no Big East games in the chart. Also, what is the time period included in your data?

Big East wasn't in the data set. To be fair, the Big East had a winning record against the SEC.