04 January 2008

ACC - Atlantic Coast Catastrophe

By: Andrew Katz

Let’s quickly look at some statistics concerning the bowl performance of three conferences over the past four years:

Conference 1: 14-16

Conference 2: 11-8

Conference 3: 11-5

Quick.

Associate the records with three conferences from the following pool: ACC, Big 10, Big East, MWC, Pac 10, SEC, WAC.

If you answered that Conference 1 was the ACC, Conference 2 was the Big East, and Conference 3 was the MWC, then congratulations, you probably aren’t an individual who falsely thinks the ACC is still a power conference!

One of my favorite arguments that proponents of the ACC (or any number of other conferences such as the Big 10 or Pac 10 certain years) make is that the Big East is awful, overrated, and does not deserve the automatic entry into a BCS bowl game. As we come to the close of another Bowl Season, it has become more abundantly clear than ever that this is nothing more than a myth. In fact, if any conference deserves to have its automatic entry revoked, it is the ACC.

When the ACC stole arguably the Big East’s three best teams four years ago, it was anticipated that the Atlantic Coast Conference would pass the SEC as the great conference Division I-A Football. Weirdly enough, the ACC has continued the trend that began before the ACC’s acquisition of Boston College, Miami, and Virginia Tech, of failing to not only win BCS games, but also earn that coveted at At-Large BCS spot as well. Over the past eight seasons (four before the merger and four after) the ACC is a combined 0-8 in BCS games. That is an almost unfathomable statistic. How can a conference that had so many ‘powerhouse programs’ playing in it fail to not only win a single game, but also fail to send a single at-large team to a BCS bowl over this time period? The answer many ACC lovers will give you is that the teams in this conference beat up on each other throughout the season, thus piling up the losses, making them appear less attractive to those who choose the At-Large teams. As history tells us, this is not the case. The SEC, the conference that has the undisputed best conference in the land for the 21st century, has long had the reputation as one that doesn’t allow its teams’ records to reflect exactly how good they are due to the strength of their schedule. However, this has not prevented the SEC from sending At-Large teams to BCS games three of the past eight years. To address the other half of the issue of the ACC failing to perform well, there really can be no reason for why the ACC is 0-8 in BCS games over the previously stated time span, other than that many of these once hailed programs have failed to progress at the same rate that the teams in other power conferences have. Even more appalling for the ACC should be the fact that over this tumultuous period, that overrated conference that is the Big East, is a mere 6-2 (including a record of 3-1 since 2004.)

Now, it would seem best to go deeper still, and break down the two conferences (ACC and Big East) and assess how they have performed since the monumental restricting of 2004 and how they can be reasonably expected to perform in the future.

ACC:

Boston College – The Eagles, who moved to the ACC in 2005, have been consistently decent over the past three seasons (losing three games each year, which sadly has become the mark a team needs to reach in order to finish the season atop the ACC) lose their starting QB and best RB and WR for next year. It would be unfeasible to expect more than 7-8 wins out of BC next season, however just because you finish the regular season with 8 wins, as Florida State proved in 2005, doesn’t mean you won’t be able to play in a BCS game.

Virginia Tech – No one can doubt that Frank Beamer is a hell of a coach, but Frank as recruiter is another issue. He has benefited enormously from the lack of quality teams in the ACC, which has allowed Virginia Tech to win the games that they should win en route usually achieving solid records year in and year out. It’s interesting to watch what happens though, when the Hokies face a quality non-conference foe (LSU and Kansas this year and Georgia the year before), the Va. Tech is simply over-matched talent-wise and it shows. There’s no reason think that won’t happen again in ’08.

Wake Forest – Jim Grobe’s offensive gameplan is tricky; trick enough in fact to confuse the ACC for a year and allow the Deacons to reach a BCS game. One year later, Wake still managed to win 9 games, but examining those wins, they were less than impressive considering that only 2 of them were against teams over .500. Expect teams to further adjust to Grobe’s offense next season, and with the departure of the man who broke Tory Holt’s ACC record for most catches in a season, Kenneth Moore, it’s tough to imagine this team winning more than 7 games.

Virginia – Umm…they lost to Wyoming this season. Wyoming was 5-7. Even though following that they reeled off a seven game win streak over above-average at best teams, there’s really nothing impressive here. The only way they win anywhere near 9 games next season is if they schedule Middle Tennesse State, Duke, Miami, NC State, and Wyoming again, and this time actually win all of those games.Frankly, the Cavaliers seem more likely to revert back to their play from the 2006 season when they went 5-7.

Miami & Florida State – Two teams that have struggled recently for opposite reasons. The Seminoles have a great coach in Bobby Bowden, a true legend who up to this season simply hasn’t been recruiting the type of players necessary to compete at a BCS level. However, his traditionalist ways on the field may also have hurt them (seeing as they seemed to have failed to adapt to changing times) as much as the school’s liberal policy regarding academics. Miami on the other hand, always has one of the nation’s best recruiting classes, granted the majority of these athletes are future murderers, however since Butch Davis walked away, The U has had trouble finding a coach who has the ability to turn these players into a team. I find it hard to see either teams topping 8 wins until drastic changes are made within the programs.

Maryland – The Fridge has been a quality recruiter (Vernon Davis, Shawn Merriman, Shaun Hill) and proved himself to be an able head coach (guiding the Terps to the Orange Bowl in ’03) but hasn’t he been living off a singular BCS bid a little long? Three of the past four seasons for Maryland have ended in sub .500 seasons, including five losses this season by 8 points or less. Ralph’s got to shake something up here because even if he gets another NFL caliber recruit Maryland is probably still only a 7 win team at best.

Duke – 4-42 pretty much sums it up; the guaranteed win for the ACC for the last four seasons.

North Carolina – The one ACC team that actually shows that they improve as opposed worsen in the not so distant future! Butch Davis knows exactly what he’s doing here, and has UNC showing signs of life in ACC play for the first time since the Dre’ Bly era. In his first full year recruiting he’s already landed a five-star recruit and a top-50 recruiting class in the nation. Minimum: expect a bowl game next year, and with the odds you’ll get this team is worth dropping a little loot on to take the ACC.

Clemson – This team was vastly overrated throughout the entire season, failing to pick up a single quality win en route to somehow attaining a #15 ranking heading into their bowl game which, predictably, they lost to SEC foe Auburn. They always schedule at least one (and usually two) I-AA schools to enhance their record, and I’m not even including Duke. Their strength of schedule becomes evident during bowl season during which they are 1-2 over the last four seasons (great story behind why they’re not 1-3: the day following the infamous Pistons/Pacers brawl, Clemson and South Carolina did their best to top that affair, culminating in an announcement that neither team would partake in a bowl game that year.)

N.C. State – They were 5-7 this year, 3-9 in ’06, 7-5 in ’05, 5-6 in ’04. It would be very generous to give them 6 wins next season, so let’s give’em 4.

Georgia Tech – The consummate ACC team. Formula: Don’t suck too much + beat Duke + be bowl elgible + the inability to beat any team with actual talent – the ability to win the big game. Okay, so they’ll win 6-9 games next season, never beat anybody really good and probably lose their bowl game…wait a minute, which ACC team are we talking about?

Big East:

West Virginia – BCS wins 2 of the last 4 seasons, what more can you ask? Just imagine if Slaton stays (and if I were him, I would strongly consider it in order to shed any sort of injury prone label,) a back field of White, Slaton, and Devine…does it even matter who the receivers are? It really wasn’t fair what they did to Oklahoma, and if White stays healthy (as we’ve seen is so important) a national title is well within grasp.

Syracuse – Okay, so they’re pretty awful, but they did beat Louisville and don’t have anywhere near the history of losing that Duke has so there is potential for improvement considering they have a top 50 recruiting class on the way.

Pittsburgh – Since making a BCS appearance during the ’04 season, they’ve basically played .500 ball but things are looking up: two wins over top-25 foes (Cincinnati and West Virginia) and the #23 recruiting class in the nation, there is no reason to believe that Pitt can’t win 8-9 games next season.

Connecticut – Since joining the Big East, the Huskies have had their ups and downs but this season they put together a solid team that could have been 10-3 if not for having to play a Bowl Game in Wake Forest’s back yard. The core is back next season and so is Randy Edsell who basically took a team full of nobodies to a 9 win season. 10 wins? Why not.

Louisville – This team is in a transition phase right now, but seeing as we are assessing the last four seasons here...2007 Orange Bowl Champions! Seriously though, Bobby Petrino built an excellent program here before he took a vacation in Atlanta, so as long as Steve Kragthorpe isn’t too incompetent this program should be back in contention within a year or two…what’s that? They hired the Duke coach as an assistant? F_ck.

Rutgers – What a turnaround from 4-7 in ’04 to 11-2 in ’06! Granted they lost key non-skill position players this season, but there are high hopes for next season if Rice stays. The line, which consisted mainly of young, talented underclassmen, should be ready to block Rutgers to a 10 win season.

South Florida –Even if USF did falter as the season went on no one expected them to be THAT good anyway. Led by Sophomore Matt Grothe, this young team should only continue to improve and could potentially challenge for an At-Large BCS berth next season, amazing considering that they just joined the Big East in ’05.

Cincinnati – They steadily improved each of their three seasons in the Big East, ending in a 10 win season this year. They could take a step back next season after losing Ben Mauk, however Big East Coach of the Year Brian Kelly should be able to bleed 8 wins of them.

Well, those breakdowns were kind of pointless seeing as the statistics already backed up the fact that the ACC has simply become a substantially worse conference than it was in the ‘90s, but it was fun none the less.

There is but one more topic to discuss, and that would be 'The Prestige Factor' aka the reason why those who are relatively neutral (or simply life-long ACC supporters) on this debate may feel the ACC to be better than conferences such as the Big East. To clarify, I throw out the names 'Virginia Tech, Miami, Florida State, Boston College.' Casual fans tend to associate these teams with rich histories filled with big games, championships, and NFL stars. However, if I mention the teams 'West Virginia, South Florida, Cincinnati, Rutgers' people will more likely than not, register these names simply as colleges that just happen to have football programs that play in a conference that has been recently thrown together. Essentially, unless one actually takes the time to analyze the numbers, than that person will more than likely assume that the past 'Prestige' associated with the football programs in the ACC translates to greatness in today's game. Clearly, this is not the case.

15 comments:

Rob said...

OK, now first of all, I'm not trying to argue that the ACC is a power conference by any means, but using bowl records to say that the Big East is better is absurd at best.

Let's look at each conference's bowl games for this year....

Papajohns.com
Big East #3: Cincinnati - 31
Conference USA #6: Southern Miss - 21

Champs Sports
ACC #2: Boston College - 24
Big 10 #9: Michigan State - 21

Humanitarian
ACC #7: Georgia Tech - 28
WAC #3: Fresno State - 40

Emerald
ACC #8: Maryland - 14
Pac 10 #3: Oregon State - 21

Sun
Pac 10 #4: Oregon - 56
Big East #4: South Florida - 21

Chick-fil-A
ACC #5: Clemson - 20
SEC #5: Auburn - 23

Meineke Car Care
ACC #4: Wake Forest - 24
Big East #2: UConn - 10

International
Big East #5: Rutgers - ?
MAC #3: Ball State - ?

Gator
Big 12 #5: Texas Tech - 31
ACC #3: Virginia - 28

Music City
ACC #6: Florida State - 28
SEC #9: Kentucky - 35

Orange
Big 12 #3: Kansas - 24
ACC #1: Virginia Tech - 21

Fiesta
Big East #1: West Virginia - 48
Big 12 #1: Oklahoma - 28

So the Big East goes 2-2 (likely 3-2 after Rutgers plays) with wins over Southern Miss and Oklahoma (which was a great win, I don't want to take anything away from WVU), a 35 point loss to a Dennis Dixon-less Oregon (who hadn't won since Dixon's injury), and a 14 point loss to Wake Forest.

The ACC, unfortunately, went 2-6. Their wins were over Michigan State and UConn (nothing to brag about, per se). However, their losses were the #7 team in the conference playing without their head coach, a 7 point loss by the ACC's #8 to the Pac-10's #3, a three point loss (in overtime) to Auburn, a 7 point loss to Kentucky, a 3 point loss to Texas Tech, and a 3 point loss to Kansas. Granted, a loss is still a loss, but with the exception of GT, all of these losses were against very good teams and were decided by a touchdown or less.

Apart from West Virginia, the Big East is incredibly overhyped and only does so well because they beat up on each other and play weak out of conference schedules.

Please stick to fantasy baseball analysis.

s6xstringslash said...

Head-to-Head (victories) this season*

ACC - 1

Big East - 4


- West Virginia 31, Maryland 14
- Connecticut 45, Duke 14 (does this game even count?)
- South Florida 37, North Carolina 10
- Maryland 34, Rutgers 24
- Louisville 29, N.C. State 10


by a combined score of (ACC) 82 - (Big East) 166, or an average of (ACC) 16.4 - (Big East) 33.2



*excluding bowl games

akats86 said...

1st, as we've seen from the West Virginia, not having your coach really doesn't matter (Georgia Tech) seeing as your team has had the entire season to learn the system and had a month to prepare for a single game. And let's be serious, they were laying the 3rd best team from the WAC (not even the 1st or 2nd best team from a conference that has had one BCS berth ever!)
2nd, I do not see what is special about losing by 3 to Auburn. It is noteworthy at all and is a game that Clemson simply did not win. It's not like 'Clemson, the huge underdogs' put up a great fight against 'Auburn, the heavily favored, far superior team.'
3rd (and possibly the most laughable,) you having the nerve to bring up the Florida State loss to Kentucky as a point for you. Kentucky was the 9th best team in the SEC (as in there were eight teams better than them.)Florida State is one of the storied programs in college football and even on a down year should be able to rip through the 9th best team in the SEC (please do not attempt to bring up the suspensions as a serious issue here considering that a) less than 1/2 of them were starters and b) those suspensions probably were the reason that Florida State played so hard.) This is just typical of the ACC. A team that has such a level of prestige and respect, who people feel to be so good, loses to Kentucky, a 5 loss club coming into the game and just happens to be the 9th best team in a conference.
4th (I'm starting to notice a pattern here of ACC teams who are higher ranked in their conference losing to teams from other conferences ranked lower in their respective conference) what is respectable about Virginia BLOWING a game to a Texas Tech squad who scored 10 points less than their season average and can't stop anyone one defense. It's pathetic.
5th, it's great how the ACC's best team lost to a the 3rd best team in the Big 12, whose best win up to this point was against a 7-6 Oklahoma State team. Let me make this clear. The best team in the ACC, ranked number 3 at the time, lost to the 3rd best team in the Big 12.

I love the part where you say 'all of these losses were against very good teams.'
Maybe by ACC terms Orgeon State, Kentucky, and Texas Tech are very good teams, but by any other system, when you are 5th or 9th best in your own conference, you cannot be classified as a "very good team." As for Oregon State, they would have had five lossed if Dixon had not been hurt for the season's finale and regardless any team with 4 losses is not a very good team.

Concerning weak out of conference schedules, let us look at the out of conference schedules of the top 4 teams from each league:
ACC:
Boston College: Army, Massachusetts, Bowling Green, Notre Dame (awful, decent team in a miserable conference, DII, awful regardless of when they scheduled them Notre Dame was awful this season and as we have seen in many instances, judging a team's non-conference schedule does not occur when they schedule them but rather during the season they are played)
Va. Tech: East Carolina, LSU, Ohio, William & Mary (mildly decent, legitimate, awful, DII CALIBER AWFUL)
Clemson: Louisiana Monroe, Furman, Central Michigan, South Carolina (Awful, DII, almost decent, decent at best)
Wake Forest: Nebraska, Army, Navy, Vanderbilt (awful, awful, solid at best, fairly awful)
Big East:
West Virginia: Western Michigan, Marshall, Maryland, Mississippi State (awful, awful, A GREAT ACC SCHOOL, solid)
Cincy: SE Missouri State, Oregon State, Miami OH, Marshall, SD State (DII, A Very Good Team, almost decent, awful, awful)
South Florida: Elon, Auburn, UNC, FAU, UCF (DII, Solid, pretty awful, almost decent, decent)

PLEASE find a way to tell that in comparison to the ACC, the Big East schedules a weak out of conference schedule. Don't worry, I'll find the statistics to back up my argument if necessary.

It's all fun to hear how the reason the 'Big East' does so well is because they best up on each other.' A) that doesn't really make sense and B) if an ACC team was any good this year than they should have had three ridiculously easy wins over Duke, UNC, and The U.

Don't worry though, I like being told that I should stick to fantasy baseball analysis when I'm the only one of the two one of us who actually uses statistical evidence to prove his point as opposed to simply biased opinion based claims that really no backing whatsoever.

Rob said...

Maybe I'm blind or maybe my reading comprehension isn't up to snuff, but I fail to see how using extremely skewed winning percentages qualifies as "statistics."

First, I'm bringing up the opponents and the margins of victory to contrast the quality of teams played by the ACC with those played by the Big East. Is Auburn a great team? No. But they're a hell of a lot better than Southern Miss and Ball State.

It's great that you think that it's some sort of testament of the ACC's futility that #1 ACC team lost to the #3 Big 12 team (who, by the way, still only has one loss on the year), but we're not comparing the Big 12 and ACC. The Big 12 is much, much better than the ACC, and any rational college football fan knows that. The issue at hand is the ACC vs. the Big East.

Also, you talk about the WAC like it's some retarded stepchild conference, when the two teams ahead of Fresno were (deservedly or not) ranked in the top 25 before the bowl games. It's not like they finished 4th behind Central Michigan, Bowling Green, and Miami (Ohio).

And god forbid anyone consider Kentucky, a team who beat LSU and has 3 (of their 5) losses against current top 20 teams, a good team (put UConn or Cincinnati against Kentucky's schedule and see how they fare). And you're acting like because "less half" of FSU suspended players were starters, that it's an insignificant loss. There were 36 players suspended, making half 18 players. Let's be conservative and assume only a quarter of those suspended were full-time starters, which would be nine. Considering that there are 22 starters, that would mean that FSU lost 40% of their starters, including their starting QB. I don't care if you're USC, that's a devastating loss. Why you think that's somehow unimportant is beyond me.

Also, using the Big East/ACC games during the season is ridiculous. A true test of a conferences strength lies in comparing the top to the top, the middle to the middle, and the bottom to the bottom. In the matchups you showed, you have the #1 BE team against the #8 ACC team, the #2 BE against dead last in the ACC, the #4 BE against the #10 ACC, and the #6 BE against the #9 ACC (and dead last in their division). I'll give you Louisville/NC State as a somewhat even matchup. Then we had #2 Big East vs. #4 ACC....ACC wins by 14 points. We also had #8 ACC against #5 Big East....ACC wins by 10 points. Not to mention, the Virginia (#3 ACC)/UConn (#2 BE) game was conveniently overlooked (UVA won 17-16...but UVA lost to Wyoming the first game of the year, so they must be awful. I guess UConn is just awful-er).

To be honest, the "everyone beats up on each other" and weak OOC schedule probably aren't the best arguments against the Big East. But let's at least try and figure out why people use it. Case in point, the State University of New Jersey. For reasons unbeknownst to me, people think they are a great program all of a sudden, and, yes, they were even talking national championship this year after wins against Buffalo, Navy, and Norfolk State. However, during their monumental rise to the top, they beaten precisely two teams in the top 25...both of whom were in their own conference.

Finally, not every team in the ACC gets to beat up on Miami, UNC, and Duke every year. In fact, the way ACC scheduling works, it's very likely that, since those three teams are all in the Coastal Division, a team in the Atlantic Division will go through the year playing only 1 (or maybe even none) of those 3. For reference, BC only played Miami this year, Clemson only played Duke, and Maryland only played UNC. On the other hand, every Big East team played Syracuse and Pitt.

The fact is, if you dropped any Big East team outside of WVU into the ACC (particularly the Atlantic Division), the public perception of that team would be starkly different than what it is now. Is the Big East a bad conference? Of course not. But they absolutely don't deserve all of the adulation they receive.

Also, a quick note:

I don't know if you realized this, but you predicted national title contention for WVU (we'll assume 10-11 wins is needed for that), 8-9 wins for Pitt, 9-10 wins for UConn, 10 wins for Rutgers, at-large BCS contention for USF (let's assume 10 wins for that), and 8 wins for Cincinnati. You're looking at 3-4 10 win teams and six 8+ win teams in an 8 team conference. Unless you're the SEC (who managed 3 10+ win teams and eight 8+ win teams this year), that's pretty much impossible. I know you think the Big East is good, but that's a little ridiculous.

John Vilanova said...

So...Head to Head:
(I doubled the top 2 and bottom 2 from the Big East since its 12:8. It seems like a decent idea at 3:30 AM)

WVU v. BC---WVU Easily
No doubt.

WVU v. VTECH---WVU Closer but Easy
VTECH is better than BC, but WVU would still win easily. (If we want to make the conference argument again, WVU killed the Big XII's best team and VTech lost to the 3rd best in a close game in which they never led.)

Cincy v. Wake---Cincy
Cincy is a pretty good team. Wake is an ok team. Pretty good is better than ok.

Cincy v. UVA---Toss-up
Not sure here...tough to pick IMO.

UConn v. Clemson---Clemson
Clemson's better.

USF v. GTech---USF Easily
USF is much better.

(If the above two games were switched, I think USF would play Clemson closer than UConn, if not win altogether, and I think that UConn would beat GTech.)

Rutgers v. FSU---Rutgers Close
I really think FSU is terrible.

Louisville v. Maryland---TossUp
Shootout...I think UMD could keep up with the points UL puts up, so really unsure.

Pitt v. UNC---TossUp
UNC is growing, but Pitt has the weapons (McCoy) to beat anyone (as we saw the last week of the season v. WVU).

Pitt v. UMiami/NC State--Pitt
See above...Pitt's better than both of these teams.

Syracuse v. UMiami/NC State---UM/NC
Syracuse is atrocious...

Syracuse v. Duke---'Cuse
...But not as atrocious as Dook.

SO, head to head, the ACC projects a 2-7-3 record vs the Big East.

SO, top-to-top, middle-to-middle, and bottom-to-bottom, the ACC compares negatively to the Big East.

Rob said...

Since there are different ways to judge exactly what order the conference finished (I think you used overall record, I used conference record), it's probably better to compare tiers rather than individual teams. It's also better since even you admitted lower teams in the Big East would at times give better matchups than their more highly ranked counterparts.

So let's look at it this way:

BC/VTech/Wake/UVA vs. WVU/Cincy/UConn

Like I've said before, WVU is really in a class of their own and would more than likely beat all four ACC teams. UConn already got beat by Wake and UVA and would probably get rolled by BC and VTech. Cincy's kind of a wild card but would probably lose to BC and VTech and would at best 50/50 with Wake and UVA.

So I have the ACC coming out of here 6-4-2 (and taking WVU out of the picture would be 6-0-2 for the ACC).

Clemson/FSU/Maryland/GTech vs. USF/Rutgers/Louisville

If you take out a 2 minute stretch at the end of the first half, Maryland dominated Rutgers, and even though Rutgers turned around and beat USF, for argument's sake I'll be willing to say that USF would beat the Terps (even though I'm still a little shocked that the University of Brady Leaf scored 56 on them). And if Maryland put up 34 on the Knights, there's no way they'd be able to stop Clemson who only has one loss to an unranked team (GTech) and and scored 40 points 5 times this year. Also, despite their bowl performance, GTech is not as bad as you probably think. Until the 4th quarter, they played Georgia (with the exception of like 3 minutes) within one score. Other than that, their two bad losses were to BC and VTech and had two close losses to UMD (they played Maryland a lot closer on the road than Rutgers played them at home) and UVA. I'd give GTech the edge over Rutgers, and, for no reason in particular other than to avoid being called a blind ACC homer, USF a slight edge over GTech. I don't really know why you think FSU is that bad, but I think they'd be able to take one of USF and Rutgers (probably Rutgers). I think Clemson would have the edge against Louisville, and I think Louisville would be at best a toss-up between UMD and GTech. I'll give the Cardinals the edge over FSU.

So the result here is a tie 5-5-2 (with Rutgers likely going 0-4 and me being extremely generous and giving USF 4-0)

UNC/Miami/Duke/NC State vs. Pitt/Syracuse

Syracuse wouldn't compete against UNC or Miami, but would probably beat Duke. I'll give Pitt and advantage over Duke and Miami, and I think it would be a tossup against UNC, who's a lot better than their record. NC State would also probably split both games.

So that's 4-3-1 for the Big East.

When all is said and done, the ACC comes out ahead (if only by a hair) 14-13-5, with the ACC having the clear advantage at the top, and toss-ups at best at the middle and bottom (and like I said, I was very generous to the Big East). We can argue all day about what would happen if these teams actually met, but the few times they did, however, the ACC went 3-0.

John Vilanova said...

Your system fails for a few reasons. You are working with a substantially larger sample size (12:8). By virtue of having 50% more teams to choose from, of course the ACC compares more favorably. Also, conference records are not completely indicative of overall performance. Why use them when you have more games by which to judge teams? You look to compare the top-to-top, middle-to-middle, and bottom-to-bottom (your words, not mine). Why then, compare the 4th best team in your conference (Wake, in my opinion) to WVU, the head-and-shoulders #1 team in both conferences? Why compare UConn, to VTech and BC?

Ranking by percentages, UConn is 3/8 (38%...38th percentile). The closest equivalent to this would be 4/12 (33rd percentile) or 5/12 (41st percentile). So, UConn would be facing off against Wake or Clemson, which my predictions are more indicative of.

To suggest that you’re being generous by suggesting that USF would have beaten Maryland just convinces me even more of your “homerism.” Your argument about GTech/Georgia fails, at least in part because it is a Rivalry game. (I know that Pitt/WVU was also a rivalry game, but that’s not the issue here.)

Again, you compare Rutgers and Clemson. This is 4/12 (Clemson, 33 again) (or 5/12—41) versus 5/8 (Rutgers-63). Your only justification for saying that USF would beat GTech is to prevent yourself from being a “homer,” regardless of the fact that USF is BETTER, and more than deserving of more than a “slight edge.” Giving Rutgers 0-4 is absurd, and USF 4-0 against 3 lesser teams and one comparable team (Clemson) is not “extremely generous.”

Moving on, you say that Syracuse would “probably” beat Duke. Duke has 4 wins in the last 4 seasons—The Citadel and a 6-5 Clemson team in 2004, VMI in 2005, and at Northwestern in 2007 (a good win…I’ll give them that). Over that time, Syracuse has 13 wins. They’re bad this year, but c’mon….Duke bad? Again, we know how I feel about Pitt, but it’s fair to call NC State a possible win. Again, 9/12 (75) vs 7/8 (88).

You were not at all generous to the Big East. I feel the complete opposite—that you were somewhat generous to the ACC and, at the same time, used the size advantage unfairly. I know that we’re talking about which conference is strictly “better,” but we need to at least set up a more reasonable means of comparison. Yours is not.

Rob said...

First, I used conference records because that's for the most part what bowls use when selecting teams. Why compare UConn to VTech and BC? One more win would have made UConn Big East Champs. It's not exactly like they're some also-ran in the conference. And by using only individual matchups, you can cherry pick games that benefit a particular conference. Comparing groups is the only fair way to do it. If you'd like to come up with more "fair" groupings, I'd encourage you to do so.

And unless I'm missing something, I wasn't the first one to post the ACC vs. Big East games this season (nearly all of which were extreme mismatches).

Next, it's patently false that the ACC having more teams gives them some inherent benefit. Yes, it gives them an opportunity to have more good teams, but there's just as much of a chance that the extra teams can hurt the ACC.

Please....at least I'm giving legitimate reasons where one team would be another other than "I really think FSU is terrible" and "USF is much better." I'll give you a break because you posted that at like 3:30 am, but still.

And as far as my being generous by picking USF over Maryland, I ask this: What makes you so sure that Maryland would fare so badly, and conversely, USF would do so well? Was it the game against BC where UMD put up 42? Or the game against Rutgers where they only scored 34? Or was it USF's dominating performance against Oregon who hadn't won since Dixon went down? Or their loss to Rutgers? They're both good teams, but you can't tell me that USF would unquestionably, consistently beat Maryland. USF is a very good team, no doubt, but like I've said, they've done nothing to show that a game against Maryland would be anything more than a toss-up....and I gave them the win. How is that not generous? And just saying "Well, USF is just sooooo much better than Maryland...THEY WERE RANKED #2 AT ONE TIME DURING THE SEASON!!" won't exactly fly. And what gives you the power to decide that the GTech/Georgia game doesn't mean anything, but Pitt beating WVU is somehow significant?

And why is it absurd to give Rutgers 0-4? They had one game against someone from the group I gave them (arguably the worst team in that group). The game was at Rutgers, and they got dominated. It's just as likely that Rutgers goes 0-4 as it is that USF goes 4-0.

As far as you're argument over my comparison system, I'm comparing the top 33% to the top 37.5%, the middle 33% to the middle 37.5%, and the bottom 33% to the bottom 25%. Of course when you're dealing with eighths and twelfths, you'll have issues with the percentages. Moving down just one team in the Big East is a difference of 12.5%. That's just the way it is.

You can analyze my use of "probably" and "generous" all you want, but the bottom line is that I could have easily left them as tossups or given them to the ACC in an effort to skew the numbers in my favor. But I gave almost all of the close matchups to the Big East and the ACC still came out ahead. Like I said before, we can speculate what would happen if these teams met. But when they have, the ACC is still 3-0, despite all of your contentions.

And if you do accuse me of being biased towards the ACC, just remember this: If Rutgers was not in the Big East, I doubt we'd even be having this conversation.

Rob said...

"Please....at least I'm giving legitimate reasons where one team would be another other than "I really think FSU is terrible" and "USF is much better." I'll give you a break because you posted that at like 3:30 am, but still."

Obviously a few typos in that paragraph....it should read like this:


Please....at least I'm giving legitimate reasons where one team would beat another than "I really think FSU is terrible" and "USF is much better." I'll give you a break because you posted that at like 3:30 am, but still.

John Vilanova said...

We can argue all day about what would happen if these teams actually met, but the few times they did, however, the ACC went 3-0.

Like I said before, we can speculate what would happen if these teams met. But when they have, the ACC is still 3-0, despite all of your contentions.

What are you talking about?

The Big East is 4-2 vs the ACC this year (including Bowl Games).

I know a lot of the games were mismatches, but what are you talking about?

Rob said...

I listed a bunch of potential matchups in my comment....top tier/middle tier/lower tier....

Three of the games I talked about actually happened...

Rutgers/Maryland
UConn/Wake
UConn/UVA

The ACC is 3-0 in those games.

John Vilanova said...

Having more teams gives the ACC a huge boost in terms of match-ups and in general. The larger sample size, the larger number of teams from which to pool from, and, therefore, the larger chance that any of the extra 4 teams will be good enough to beat their comparable ACC team.

Removing the middle 4 teams from the ACC (including the suddenly (gasp!) juggernaut Terps) would probably mean a 6-1-1 head-to-head record for the Big East.

WVU over VTech (already discussed)

BC over UConn

Cincy/UVA---Pick 'em

USF over Wake
USF's defense is better than Wake's; this game wouldn't be close enough for Swank to win it or for Delbert to lose it.

Rutgers over UNC
Rutgers won easily last year, and Ray Rice showed today and all season that he is a fantastic back.

Louisville over NC State
Happened already this season.

Pitt over The U
We've discussed Pitt already...McCoy is the real deal. Their defense would be able hold the decent Miami offense, but McCoy would win the game for Pitt.

Syracuse over Duke
Obviously.

I hope that the justification for these picks was more to your liking.


But I gave almost all of the close matchups to the Big East and the ACC still came out ahead.

Let's see about this.

Cincy's kind of a wild card but would probably lose to BC and VTech and would at best 50/50 with Wake and UVA.

Close matchups with a team you admit to knowing little about. SO, of course, they go 1-3.

Louisville would be at best a toss-up between UMD and GTech.

Again, two closer games, so it's 0-0-2.


After reading your post for the far-too-manyeth-time, I again come to the conclusion that I disagree with your reasoning in comparing 12 teams to 8. Arguing that having 50% more teams does not help the ACC makes no sense. Obviously, you could have 4 Dukes or 4 VTechs, but you do not. By adding more decent middle-of-the-road teams, you simply have more teams that you can give reasons why they will beat the limited number of opponents the Big East affords them.

Also, this argument has little to do with Rutgers. I obviously like them, and obviously hold them in a much higher regard than you do. However, my first set of possible predictions said that RU was better than FSU, and this set has RU as better than UNC. Neither is an unreasonable claim, unlike your ultimate one. The ACC, as a whole, is distinctly worse than the Big East.

John Vilanova said...

I need to edit; for some reason I went by Anthony's post as fact.

The conferences are 4-4 this year head to head.

Rob said...

Jesus Christ, get over yourself, John. I never came anywhere near saying that the Terps are a juggernaut. In fact I said repeatedly that the Terps were at the bottom of the 2nd tier in the ACC. Like you always do, you've come after me as knowing far less than I actually do, and assuming that because I say something positive about Maryland and its players (or someone with a "funny" name) that it has no logical reasoning behind it. (FYI....D'Qwell Jackson was 15th in the AFC in tackles, even after missing 2-3 games, but according to you, he sucks). But what do I know, right?

Also, I never said that I didn't know anything about Cincinnati, I just said that they were a wildcard, meaning that they were probably the most likely to get mixed results.

And if you want proof that having more teams isn't necessarily a blessing for the ACC, look no further than your own comment. By magically removing the entire middle of the conference (which has absolutely no logical basis), you're matching up a middle of the pack Big East team (Rutgers) with a bottom of the pack ACC team (UNC). Would Rutgers win? Yes. I'm not disputing that. But is that indicative of the Big East's strength? Absolutely not. You can't just remove a third of a conference to make the number of teams even. Why not remove the bottom third or the top third? Should we take away West Virginia just because they're so much better than everyone else? You can't just subjectively take away teams that you feel should go. The fact that the four additional teams in the ACC are teams that would beat their comparable Big East counterparts only strengthens the idea that ACC is better.

Like I said before, if you don't like the way I set up the groupings before, feel free to tell me how the groups should look, but you can't just start taking teams completely out of the equation.

And come on, I can't accuse you of being biased towards Rutgers, but you can crack jokes about me being biased towards Maryland? I didn't bring up Rutgers because you unfairly picked them over another team. I brought it up because Rutgers becoming "good" thrust the Big East into "elite" status, particularly in NY and NJ. Ever since that, people have been trying to validate the Big East as better than they actually are, because should, god forbid, the Big East not be a top conference, that makes Rutgers' accomplishments somewhat less significant.

I also like how you used me giving Cincy losses to BC and VTech and tossups with Wake and UVA and Louisville being in a tossup against UMD and GTech as not giving the Big East the advantage that I said I did. I personally believe that Louisville would lose to both of those teams, but it would be pretty close. I gave them the benefit of the doubt and put them as a tossup. On the other hand, I really think that if Cincy played Wake and UVA 100 times each, it would come pretty close to 50-50. Again, I put them as a tossup. I didn't give them any benefit there, because I'm more confident with that prediction than I was with Maryland/Louisville.

However, you overlooked the fact that I gave USF unconditional wins against GTech, Maryland, FSU, and Clemson, despite the fact that they would more than likely lose at least one of them. I also gave NC State the loss against Pitt in a game that should have been a tossup (despite how good LeSean McCoy is).

Also, if you go back and read what I wrote in previous comments, you'd find, with the exception of USF vs. Wake (which I didn't cover), that I picked every game the same as you did in your last comment. My issue isn't with who would win these games, it's with whether or not I think that the games adequately represent the strength of the conferences.

John Vilanova said...

Personal attacks aside, you make a lot of valid points outside of the first paragraph, which was obnoxious and completely unnecessary.

My reasoning behind removing the middle of the conference was simple: rather than assuming that the 4 extra teams are good or bad, I took the average and removed them. I considered removing the top 2 and bottom 2 but didn't get to it. I did not subjectively remove teams, but rather sought to even the comparative playing field.

The fact that the four additional teams in the ACC are teams that would beat their comparable Big East counterparts only strengthens the idea that ACC is better.

This is pretty laughable. As we've seen, there is not a legitimate way to have counterparts. Think of it this way. If you have 4 teams in the middle tier of the ACC and 2-3 teams in the middle tier of the Big East, there is a higher likelihood that you will think that one of the 4 will have the chance to be better. I know I'm not articulating this perfectly, but, again, I cannot comprehend how you ignore sample size.

I am not trying to validate the Big East as a major conference. I believe that the SEC is head and shoulders above the rest, followed by the PAC-10 and BIG-12 (not sure of the order...I love the BIG-12), next the Big Ten, followed by the Big East, then ACC, then WAC, etc. I think that the ACC and Big East are the lowest tier of BCS conferences. Calling the Big East a lower tier does not diminish Rutgers' accomplishments, nor should it.

Head-to-head is probably the only way to assess the relative strength of these conferences. However, even if they were playing it out (a la Big 10/ACC Challenge), we would still run into the same scheduling problems we seem to be having, and the losing side would obviously have a great out and blame the scheduling process.

I think that I have proven that, in general and pound for pound, the Big East is superior to the the ACC.