SMU Coach Rhett Lashley on ACC and CFP

jeffgt14

We don't quite suck as much anymore.
Messages
5,897
Location
Mt Juliet, TN
The BCS was awful. The metrics were no better than the subjectiveness of a committee. LSU-Alabama playing a repeat of the SEC Championship Game - seriously - that was pure garbage and worse than anything the CFP has done!
The computers had an LSU-Oklahoma St championship game that year. It was the human polls utilized that put Bama in. With a 12 team playoff, the system would work. Maybe the seeding is off some but you'll still get a somewhat objective 12 teams in
 

Root4GT

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,366
The computers had an LSU-Oklahoma St championship game that year. It was the human polls utilized that put Bama in. With a 12 team playoff, the system would work. Maybe the seeding is off some but you'll still get a somewhat objective 12 teams in
The computers are biased and cannot judge 138 teams that play very few similar opponents. It’s no better than a committee that takes input from many models.

12 teams is better than 2 or 4. 16 or 24 would be better as is done in FCS.
 

jeffgt14

We don't quite suck as much anymore.
Messages
5,897
Location
Mt Juliet, TN
The computers are biased and cannot judge 138 teams that play very few similar opponents. It’s no better than a committee that takes input from many models.

12 teams is better than 2 or 4. 16 or 24 would be better as is done in FCS.
16 - 24 is too many. End of the day, conference champions get an autobid which also acts as a first round.
 

stingerman

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
130
As long as every conference champion gets an autobid, then every team has a chance to win a national championship on the field. Win every one of your games in the regular and postseason, and you are a real national champion.
 

Vespidae

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,346
Location
Auburn, AL
I’m old enough to remember when the SEC first starting doing this. They practiced fake it till you make it until brand became reality.

It was a different era. In the 1950's and 60's, the SEC was football and pretty much nothing else. When I was a kid, nobody cared about SEC basketball, baseball, etc. So they were painting their football message on a greenfield. The ACC can't do that. They have to actually change perception that "We were a great basketball conference, now we are a great football conference too." That's very hard to do in today's crowded message world.
 

LT 1967

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
544
Coach Lashley about to appear for interview on ESPN's CFP show if interested.

Regretfully, nothing was brought up concerning his earlier comments about the ACC Bias. All about SMU only.

Seems pretty obvious from these latest rankings that the ACC will receive only one bid. If SMU wins out including the ACC championship, I doubt a 2 loss Miami team would receive a bid. see Below.

 
Last edited:

forensicbuzz

21st Century Throwback Dad
Messages
9,089
Location
North Shore, Chicago
That’s one team per year! Clemson won the natty in 2018, yet the ACC was 7-13 against other conferences - the worst P5 of all. Winning a natty and strength of conference are two entirely different things.
ACC was 4-14 against P5 teams. Go look at those OOC matchups we lost. of those 14 loses, 9 were to Top15 ranked teams and 11 were to Top25 ranked teams. Tell me about another conference that played 11 ranked opponents in OCC games.

WF, VT, FSU, SYR lose to ND (ranked 8, 6, 3, 3)
GT loses to uga (ranked 5)
FSU loses to UF (ranked 13)
UL loses to UK (ranked 17)
Pitt loses to Penn St. (ranked 13)
Miami loses to LSU (25)
UL loses to Alabama (1)
UNC loses to Cal
Virginia loses to Indiana
BC loses to Purdue
 

stinger78

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,960
ACC was 4-14 against P5 teams. Go look at those OOC matchups we lost. of those 14 loses, 9 were to Top15 ranked teams and 11 were to Top25 ranked teams. Tell me about another conference that played 11 ranked opponents in OCC games.

WF, VT, FSU, SYR lose to ND (ranked 8, 6, 3, 3)
GT loses to uga (ranked 5)
FSU loses to UF (ranked 13)
UL loses to UK (ranked 17)
Pitt loses to Penn St. (ranked 13)
Miami loses to LSU (25)
UL loses to Alabama (1)
UNC loses to Cal
Virginia loses to Indiana
BC loses to Purdue
Sure, if you have time to look more granularly you will find these type things. I do assume they tend to even out over time, so only took a course grained look at it.

My general takeaway of what you are showing is that in really bad years your list of teams played is probably much tougher than average. I think that likely applies across the board as well.
 

CEB

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,810
ACC was 4-14 against P5 teams. Go look at those OOC matchups we lost. of those 14 loses, 9 were to Top15 ranked teams and 11 were to Top25 ranked teams. Tell me about another conference that played 11 ranked opponents in OCC games.

WF, VT, FSU, SYR lose to ND (ranked 8, 6, 3, 3)
GT loses to uga (ranked 5)
FSU loses to UF (ranked 13)
UL loses to UK (ranked 17)
Pitt loses to Penn St. (ranked 13)
Miami loses to LSU (25)
UL loses to Alabama (1)
UNC loses to Cal
Virginia loses to Indiana
BC loses to Purdue
Very good point… But we have to be careful with this. The central tenet of the thesis we have been developing here is that many of these rankings are inflated, if not outright bogus.;)
 

MWBATL

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,589
Two things can be true (and I believe both are true):
  1. The ACC has consistently been underrated as a conference by the national media (noticeably ESPN) and has tremendous depth even when they lack championship teams at the top;
  2. The SEC has been a better football conference but only marginally so if you wish to measure entire conference strength
Much of the SEC’s glamour comes from the sheer size of their stadiums, fan bases and programs….which makes it look like they are simply overwhelming. It is further true they have had more than their share of national champions. BUT they have always made a habit of playing weaker teams in other conferences (e.g.,, Alabama would schedule Duke, Auburn would schedule Wake Forest, etc) which inflates their overall records head-to-head. But in some seasons they have also won the top teams matchups as well.
 

Vespidae

Helluva Engineer
Messages
5,346
Location
Auburn, AL
Two things can be true (and I believe both are true):
  1. The ACC has consistently been underrated as a conference by the national media (noticeably ESPN) and has tremendous depth even when they lack championship teams at the top;
  2. The SEC has been a better football conference but only marginally so if you wish to measure entire conference strength
Much of the SEC’s glamour comes from the sheer size of their stadiums, fan bases and programs….which makes it look like they are simply overwhelming. It is further true they have had more than their share of national champions. BUT they have always made a habit of playing weaker teams in other conferences (e.g.,, Alabama would schedule Duke, Auburn would schedule Wake Forest, etc) which inflates their overall records head-to-head. But in some seasons they have also won the top teams matchups as well.
Seems like a way to rationalize a view that one wants to have.

I recall when Bryan Harsin was first hired at Auburn. When he was asked what his first impressions were, he remarked on the size and physicality of the SEC teams. "We don't face players like this" out west he said (or something like that). He proceeded to put an emphasis on strength and conditioning. (He was fired before it made a difference. Freeze has made it a priority even if he is struggling.) The size and athleticism of the lines is a trademark of SEC play and it's one reason why Sarkasian (coming from Bama) did better in the transition to Texas than Venable did at Oklahoma. Sark had a pretty good idea of what he was going to be facing every week, Venable did not (or didn't care).

Bill Belichick was asked why he selected players from the SEC who didn't see much playing time during their college years. He said something to the effect that they are practicing against the best talent in the country every week. That alone is a reason to give them a look. And he did. (Say what you want about Belichick but the guy grew up evaluating talent.) I know a few and they have said the SEC uses more NFL style evaluation to justify playing time than most any other conference. You can claim otherwise, but just an NFL coach who says the same about the ACC. I can't think of even one.

Brian Daboll, an NFL coordinator who became Bama's OC, was asked how Alabama specifically, but the SEC in general, compared to the NFL. "No difference", he said. "It's the same everything."

I could pull up the data but the SEC has for sometime, dominated the number of players who go on to play in the NFL. Because they do it consistently (year in and year out), it is a simple matter of reloading. And that's what you often heard (past tense) from analysts ... it's either returning production or reps/experience. And SEC teams have had that at least since 2007 when Saban made it a priority. (If you look at the Dodd years, he often went 3-7, 5-5, 7-3, 10-0 because he spent a lot of time on development, so results were on average good, but not as consistent.)

So I think there is a strong case to be made that the SEC is a very talented conference, perhaps the most talented (or not), but there's no debating the statistics. When I look at the SEC, I see a conference with the best facilities, the best (or among the best) talent, great coaches and a product that fans (and viewers) want to watch. And you can see that in viewership, money, swag, and almost everything else.

The ACC is historically a basketball conference (and it clearly was when Tech paid to join it) that is trying to catch up to that. The horse has left the barn folks. That's a LARGE reason why the former guys (TStan and He-Who-Cannot-Be-Named) focused on "path to the league" as their strategy.

I typically refrain from responding to the "who has a better conference" posts (and I probably won't respond to a reply to this one), because people's minds are made up and there is no way to change them.

Note: All of this changing. No more is talent allocated ONLY to the SEC because it is mobile now. I expect you will see the SEC drop in talent to the league as talent moves around and teams become more evenly matched. Over time, you will probably even see conferences go away (there's already talk of that), so it will be moot.
 

Root4GT

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,366
Seems like a way to rationalize a view that one wants to have.

I recall when Bryan Harsin was first hired at Auburn. When he was asked what his first impressions were, he remarked on the size and physicality of the SEC teams. "We don't face players like this" out west he said (or something like that). He proceeded to put an emphasis on strength and conditioning. (He was fired before it made a difference. Freeze has made it a priority even if he is struggling.) The size and athleticism of the lines is a trademark of SEC play and it's one reason why Sarkasian (coming from Bama) did better in the transition to Texas than Venable did at Oklahoma. Sark had a pretty good idea of what he was going to be facing every week, Venable did not (or didn't care).

Bill Belichick was asked why he selected players from the SEC who didn't see much playing time during their college years. He said something to the effect that they are practicing against the best talent in the country every week. That alone is a reason to give them a look. And he did. (Say what you want about Belichick but the guy grew up evaluating talent.) I know a few and they have said the SEC uses more NFL style evaluation to justify playing time than most any other conference. You can claim otherwise, but just an NFL coach who says the same about the ACC. I can't think of even one.

Brian Daboll, an NFL coordinator who became Bama's OC, was asked how Alabama specifically, but the SEC in general, compared to the NFL. "No difference", he said. "It's the same everything."

I could pull up the data but the SEC has for sometime, dominated the number of players who go on to play in the NFL. Because they do it consistently (year in and year out), it is a simple matter of reloading. And that's what you often heard (past tense) from analysts ... it's either returning production or reps/experience. And SEC teams have had that at least since 2007 when Saban made it a priority. (If you look at the Dodd years, he often went 3-7, 5-5, 7-3, 10-0 because he spent a lot of time on development, so results were on average good, but not as consistent.)

So I think there is a strong case to be made that the SEC is a very talented conference, perhaps the most talented (or not), but there's no debating the statistics. When I look at the SEC, I see a conference with the best facilities, the best (or among the best) talent, great coaches and a product that fans (and viewers) want to watch. And you can see that in viewership, money, swag, and almost everything else.

The ACC is historically a basketball conference (and it clearly was when Tech paid to join it) that is trying to catch up to that. The horse has left the barn folks. That's a LARGE reason why the former guys (TStan and He-Who-Cannot-Be-Named) focused on "path to the league" as their strategy.

I typically refrain from responding to the "who has a better conference" posts (and I probably won't respond to a reply to this one), because people's minds are made up and there is no way to change them.

Note: All of this changing. No more is talent allocated ONLY to the SEC because it is mobile now. I expect you will see the SEC drop in talent to the league as talent moves around and teams become more evenly matched. Over time, you will probably even see conferences go away (there's already talk of that), so it will be moot.
Good post!
 

cpf2001

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,388
Harsin coming from Boise would be impressed in comparison by the level of players in other power conferences.

Venables was 6-7 (3-6) in the Big 12 two years ago, that program has been up and down lately vs Texas which was on a clear upward trend. Cherry-picking. On the flip side, Mizzou hasn’t been embarrassed in the SEC in the way that Maryland has in the Big12. So that tells us what exactly?

The SEC has certainly consolidated in a top-heavy way, Mizzou excepted, and obviously player stats and NFL placement reflect all that. But like MWBATL said, that’s not the same question as “should a one or two loss ACC team get more respect?”

Sound bites vs discussion
 

forensicbuzz

21st Century Throwback Dad
Messages
9,089
Location
North Shore, Chicago
Very good point… But we have to be careful with this. The central tenet of the thesis we have been developing here is that many of these rankings are inflated, if not outright bogus.;)
I agree. What I didn't point out was that #25 LSU beat #8 Miami. That was early in the season before Miami reached their annual collapse point. Also, I think BC was ranked when they lost to an unranked Purdue. I was just making a point that not all OCC schedules are built the same. uga is notorious for not playing anyone but us OOC. LSU has always be been an OOC warrior.
 

CEB

Helluva Engineer
Messages
2,810
I agree. What I didn't point out was that #25 LSU beat #8 Miami. That was early in the season before Miami reached their annual collapse point. Also, I think BC was ranked when they lost to an unranked Purdue. I was just making a point that not all OCC schedules are built the same. uga is notorious for not playing anyone but us OOC. LSU has always be been an OOC warrior.
No doubt!

The SEC plays weak OOC and only plays 8 in conference. They have effectively insulated themselves from anyone disproving the notion that they are top of the heap. The only recourse is to start beating them in the post season… unfortunately for the ACC that means putting all our eggs in one basket.
 

stinger78

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,960
No doubt!

The SEC plays weak OOC and only plays 8 in conference. They have effectively insulated themselves from anyone disproving the notion that they are top of the heap. The only recourse is to start beating them in the post season… unfortunately for the ACC that means putting all our eggs in one basket.
IMPO, the postseason used to be the best way to gauge as the teams were relatively equal. However, with all the sitting out by the best players, that is diminished.

Now I think overall OOC vs. P4/5 teams is best. I think a lot of variables even out over time. Plus, one can always drill deep on anomaly years to get a better understanding.
 

wrmathis

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
972
Location
Bonaire GA
No doubt!

The SEC plays weak OOC and only plays 8 in conference. They have effectively insulated themselves from anyone disproving the notion that they are top of the heap. The only recourse is to start beating them in the post season… unfortunately for the ACC that means putting all our eggs in one basket.
Adding to the bold, they also rarely if ever go on the road for OOC and if they do, it’s to a neutral site or it’s local to where they can get their fans there. I think it was Florida who at one point hasn’t played a road game out of conference outside the south east in decades.

This obviously doesn’t count bowl games.
 
Top