How bad would adding TCU, Houston, and SMU hurt the others?

[WTSooner]

Now back to reality, the only thing you showed was just how ill-informed you were regarding the topic at hand. You were spouting off all this nonsense that OU's schedule is usually drastically worse than an SEC schedule, and used your presumed difference between Bama and OU as your example. So, I showed an SOS ranking from arguably the most respectable system that debunked your wack theory. I think that proves enough.

So basically, you pimped up the SOS until it didn't fit your argument, right? That's what it looked like to me. Sorry, but I'll take a system that is actually relevant, way over WTSooner's system. You've shown enough over the last few weeks that you are lost when it comes to the game of football.

Funny. I remember it playing out a little differently. I explained my point of view, and you disappeared, and never responded. Pretty sure I even asked you a question you never responded to. So I'll ask again. I'll try to type slowly.....maybe you'll actually respond this time.

If you were OU, would you rather play Schedule A or Schedule B? I'll shorten this to five games, b/c the point is still the same. Listed below is the end of season "ranking" of each opponent.

Schedule A
#3
#7
#18
#75
#90

Schedule B
#5
#20
#25
#40
#55

Pretty sure most OU fans would say Schedule B. Less top heavy. And to teams like OU, the danger comes from the higher rated teams. There is little to no difference for OU in going up against the #40 team and the #90 team. So you take the schedule that has fewer teams that would have legit shots at beating OU. But guess what, Schedule B is almost certainly going to rank higher in any traditional SOS calculation. So why would OU fans want to play the tougher SOS?

THAT is why traditional SOS doesn't make sense in this argument. You don't have to agree, but that was my point all along. The SEC has the higher ceiling teams. More legit NC contenders year in and year out. The Big 12 MIGHT be better in the middle. Both have some poor teams. IMO, the SEC is tougher b/c year in and year out, there are more teams that are legit top 10-15 teams. That is something that cannot be looked at until the season is over. It is my contention that outside of OU, the Big 12 probably won't have another top 10-12 team once the season is over. The SEC may have 3.

You don't have to agree. Doesn't matter. But don't spout off about me not having a point. I do. I presented it before. You ignored it.

OU might not be the best team in the country, but they are still an extremely legit squad this season, where their home games are arguably the toughest for an opponent to play in all of college football. The fact that Mizzou came in and actually gave OU fits hurts your flawed belief that Mizzou is some pathetic program. But again, it's not shocking to have reality contradict your opinions regarding football.

Where did I ever call Mizzou pathetic? Pretty sure I didn't. Feel free to prove me wrong on that if I'm mistaken. I simply said if you put Mizzou in the SEC, they will lose more games than they'll lose in the Big 12. In the Big 12, only OU and UT are clearly better year in and year out. In the SEC, I'd say there are certainly 3 teams that fit that criteria, and probably another 1-2 teams that fluctuate. Last year Auburn would be that team. Once Georgia fires their coach, I think they will be there. Tennessee can be that team. Mizzou is like Arkansas. The go to the SEC, they probably don't finish above 3rd in their division most years. In the Big 12, they have a good chance at being the 3rd or 4th best team in the league, and if we go back to divisions, they have a MUCH better chance at competing for that division title, then the SEC division title.

If someone that disagrees with your opinions because that someone actually does research and observes facts (it isn't hard, anyone can do it) is considered to be a "blow-hard know it all", then whatever. I guess that makes a ton of people belong in that category. But I won't lose any sleep over some sports jester that repeatedly gets clowned on by fellow posters on here. It totally makes sense why I've seen others engage in heated debates with you on this board now... You need a serious dose of reality.

But continue to "call" me out on my posting tendencies, whatever that means. I'll just sit here and laugh.

Funny. Because I did my research. Just b/c you want to take a flawed statistic to make it fit your argument, doesn't mean you win. I don't care if you think the Big 12 is tougher than the SEC. I really don't. I think that argument can be made. Unlike you, it doesn't have to be my way or the highway. But for you to refuse to acknowledge what most college football fans openly acknowledge, and that is the relative strength of the SEC compared to other conferences. And that may or may not be reflected in any traditional SOS calculation, for the reasons I mentioned above.

Go talk football with the blowhards at SF's or where the yahoos are posting these days.

 

[stoops4pres]

Funny. I remember it playing out a little differently. I explained my point of view, and you disappeared, and never responded. Pretty sure I even asked you a question you never responded to. So I'll ask again. I'll try to type slowly.....maybe you'll actually respond this time.

If you were OU, would you rather play Schedule A or Schedule B? I'll shorten this to five games, b/c the point is still the same. Listed below is the end of season "ranking" of each opponent.

Schedule A
#3
#7
#18
#75
#90

Schedule B
#5
#20
#25
#40
#55

Pretty sure most OU fans would say Schedule B. Less top heavy. And to teams like OU, the danger comes from the higher rated teams. There is little to no difference for OU in going up against the #40 team and the #90 team. So you take the schedule that has fewer teams that would have legit shots at beating OU. But guess what, Schedule B is almost certainly going to rank higher in any traditional SOS calculation. So why would OU fans want to play the tougher SOS?

THAT is why traditional SOS doesn't make sense in this argument. You don't have to agree, but that was my point all along. The SEC has the higher ceiling teams. More legit NC contenders year in and year out. The Big 12 MIGHT be better in the middle. Both have some poor teams. IMO, the SEC is tougher b/c year in and year out, there are more teams that are legit top 10-15 teams. That is something that cannot be looked at until the season is over. It is my contention that outside of OU, the Big 12 probably won't have another top 10-12 team once the season is over. The SEC may have 3.

You don't have to agree. Doesn't matter. But don't spout off about me not having a point. I do. I presented it before. You ignored it.

Well, it's nice to know your revisionist history has yet to quit. I did respond to your spin cycle, actually. And I still am confused how you say a SOS is misleading, but then you say it can only be evaluated until "after the season". That dichotomy made me about as dizzy as trying to wrap my head around why your theory of a statistical, methodical SOS system is undoubtedly "flawed".

Speaking of which, you didn't do anything to show that OU and Bama did in fact play those "Team A and Team B" schedules; you were relying entirely on a presumption instead. All I know is that arguably the most relevant and highly regarded system (Sagarin) has put your decade-long theory that OU's SOS has been greatly weaker than the SEC's up for compromise, to say the least. And, conveniently, you didn't disagree with a SOS system until it contradicted your reasoning.

Oh, and I never said you don't have an opinion on the matter. You did have an opinion, it was just a laughable one. And I wasn't the only one that was scratching my head at it. Maybe this link will help you out, and perhaps prevent you from your revisionist history tendencies.

http://ouhoops.com/forum/showthread.php?p=313424#post313424

Where did I ever call Mizzou pathetic? Pretty sure I didn't. Feel free to prove me wrong on that if I'm mistaken.

You didn't explicitly say they were pathetic. I said you portrayed them to be this abhorrent/pathetic program, and I think your quotes in the past couple weeks would certainly validate this.

"Kiss your football program goodbye. You guys will get romped in that conference."

"No way they'd have finished above Bama or LSU, and probably behind at least one of Auburn/Arkansas in some of those years."

"Put Mizzou in the SEC, and they don't accomplish any of the things you listed above." (in reference to 5 straight bowls, two Top 20 finishes, and a Top 5 finish. Pretty off-base to be indubitably confident that Mizzou couldn't reach at least some of those pinnacles, as I previously argued)

"And then like you said, they'd get their butts spanked in football." (and that was in agreeing with bigabd that Mizzou would be "the Vanderbilt of the SEC-West")

So yeah, I think this certainly implies that you think Mizzou is some sad push-over program, when recent history (over the last 5 seasons) indicates that they certainly haven't been during that time frame.

I simply said if you put Mizzou in the SEC, they will lose more games than they'll lose in the Big 12.

Well, I think we all can agree you didn't simply state it like that. And I agreed the entire time that the SEC would normally be a tougher road for Mizzou, OU, any team in the Big 12. It just wouldn't be near as daunting of a schedule as you think, simply because the Big 12 has consistently been one of the best conferences in the country, and a couple of those years was arguably better than the SEC.

Funny. Because I did my research.

LOL. Okay.

Just b/c you want to take a flawed statistic to make it fit your argument, doesn't mean you win.

So using the Sagarin Ratings as the source of my counterpoint is "flawed"? If you think me using a system which has been displayed by USA Today for over 20 years, and more importantly, is one of the primary factors that decides the BCS National Championship game each and every season is "flawed", then whatever. The fact that you think my stance was derived from some fraudulent system, while you think your response consisting of some presumed, inconclusive "SOS" that you yourself made up is not flawed, is too funny to me. Honestly, you're providing some great entertainment right now.

I don't care if you think the Big 12 is tougher than the SEC. I think that argument can be made.

I hope you don't care, because I never said the Big 12 is consistently better than the SEC. And I find it odd that you are now all of a sudden being somewhat objective (about time I suppose, since you weren't until now) saying "the argument can be made" (which was all that I was ever contending), when before you never even indicated that. Instead, you were making questionable statements like this:

"A LOT would have to change for OU to compete week in and week out in the SEC."

"Anybody that refuses to acknowledge that OU (and UT) has it pretty easy right now with the league we are in, isn't ignoring the facts."

Those two aforementioned quotes were the entire crux of my counter-argument: The thought that OU--consistently one of the best coached and most talented teams in the country--couldn't compete week in and week out in the SEC is questionable at the very least. Furthermore, the past decade has typically shown that the Big 12 hasn't been "easy", compared to any league in the country.

I Unlike you, it doesn't have to be my way or the highway.

Hypocrisy epitomized. Congrats on this accomplishment.

 

[WTSooner]

Those two aforementioned quotes were the entire crux of my counter-argument: The thought that OU--consistently one of the best coached and most talented teams in the country--couldn't compete week in and week out in the SEC is questionable at the very least. Furthermore, the past decade has typically shown that the Big 12 hasn't been "easy", compared to any league in the country.

And that is just it, if you are comparing the Big 12 vs the SEC for OU, my argument makes EVEN more sense. Because at that point, OU has UT to compete with in the Big 12. That is the only team on our level. In the SEC, it'd be 3-4 times that amount. At least with Mizzou they play both OU and UT. But for OU, the SEC would present a brutal change in schedule.

As for the Sagarin ratings.....I'd counter with this:

http://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/ranking/overall-power-ranking-by-conf

You have to go all the way back to the 2005 season to find a year where the Big 12 was rated higher than the SEC.

 

[WTSooner]

BTW.....I never said SOS calculation was flawed, in and of itself. I said it makes no sense in this argument. Conference power rankings is a better indicator. That, and some weighted average SOS calculation.

 

[stoops4pres]

And that is just it, if you are comparing the Big 12 vs the SEC for OU, my argument makes EVEN more sense. Because at that point, OU has UT to compete with in the Big 12. That is the only team on our level. In the SEC, it'd be 3-4 times that amount. At least with Mizzou they play both OU and UT. But for OU, the SEC would present a brutal change in schedule.

Which part of your argument that OU couldn't compete week-in and week-out makes even more sense now? Since the Stoops era OU has typically played a total SOS that has been splitting hairs with the majority of teams in the SEC. It certainly isn't a league that OU couldn't compete week-in and week-out.

As for playing 3 times the amount, I agree that OU would have Florida, Bama, and LSU (the only 3 teams that have consistently been on OU and UT's level). And it wouldn't be a foregone conclusion that OU would play Florida every season. So while OU would have a tougher schedule, the Stoops era has shown that it could thrive in any atmosphere. That, and the fact that the Big 12 isn't drastically easier than the SEC is all that I've been contending. But clearly we won't reach a compromise on that topic, so I'll just simply agree to disagree.

As for the Sagarin ratings.....I'd counter with this:

http://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/ranking/overall-power-ranking-by-conf

You have to go all the way back to the 2005 season to find a year where the Big 12 was rated higher than the SEC.

Now I'm confused... You previously denounced the SOS ratings system, but now you are using a system as a counter? Which one is it, exactly?

At least you are providing a concrete system rather than an inconclusive, presumed theory that you yourself made up. So while I would still prefer the Sagarin Ratings, another system is fair to counter.

And I've previously said dating back to the beginning of the Stoops era the Big 12 was arguably better in some years, using 2005, 2002, and even 2008. Going back to that time frame, it certainly hasn't been far inferior to the SEC. So while you are correct that this system used the Big 12 hasn't been better than the SEC since 2005, the Big 12 has still had some years going back to 2005-now where I find it hard to believe the SEC has been substantially tougher. And this year it looks like the Big 12 could very well be the toughest league in the country.

 

[WTSooner]

Another btw, and I didn't go back to see what your argument was about Sagarin, but here is what I found. Just like my link above, you have to go all the way back to 2005 to find a season where the Big 12 finished higher than the SEC. And in a couple of those seasons between 2005 and now, the Big 12 finished 4th or 5th in terms of conference ratings.

How in the world does that support your argument over mine? Seriously. That is check and mate, no?

 

[WTSooner]

Now I'm confused... You previously denounced the SOS ratings system, but now you are using a system as a counter? Which one is it, exactly?

I'm not using a SOS system. The one I linked, and Sagarin, aren't SOS stats. SOS is a part of the ranking, but it isn't a pure SOS rating.

 

[stoops4pres]

BTW.....I never said SOS calculation was flawed, in and of itself. I said it makes no sense in this argument. Conference power rankings is a better indicator. That, and some weighted average SOS calculation.

You've indicated that OU usually has a far weaker schedule than SEC teams. So using OU's SOS to verify whether that contention is questionable doesn't make sense? Because to me, observing a team's SOS is one of the more relevant ways to form a reasonable opinion in this debate.

Again, I'll just agree to disagree.

 

[WTSooner]

And I've previously said dating back to the beginning of the Stoops era the Big 12 was arguably better in some years, using 2005, 2002, and even 2008. Going back to that time frame, it certainly hasn't been far inferior to the SEC. So while you are correct that this system used the Big 12 hasn't been better than the SEC since 2005, the Big 12 has still had some years going back to 2005-now where I find it hard to believe the SEC has been substantially tougher. And this year it looks like the Big 12 could very well be the toughest league in the country.

10-12 years ago is ancient history. And not reflective of today's Big 12 either. Looking back 5-7 years, the Big 12 is rarely ahead of the SEC, and in some cases isn't even close (2nd place). That was my entire point. That, coupled with how that shows that if OU jumped to the SEC, how our schedule would be THAT much more difficult since we'd be swapping UT for several better UT's. My "opinion" goes a lot deeper than that, but I'm not even getting into that. Sagarin, the link you wanted to use, proves exactly what I've been saying. I don't get your argument.

 

[WTSooner]

You've indicated that OU usually has a far weaker schedule than SEC teams. So using OU's SOS to verify whether that contention is questionable doesn't make sense? Because to me, observing a team's SOS is one of the more relevant ways to form a reasonable opinion in this debate.

Again, I'll just agree to disagree.

A couple of points:

1. See my example about how a truly tougher schedule can actually be rated lower in a traditional SOS schedule.

2. I'm talking about SEC vs Big 12. Any SOS formula you provide, I believe, includes OOC games. We all know OU schedules one really good OOC game usually, and typically, doesn't schedule the type of team that would drop our SOS. Nobody like Citadel, or Northeastern State. But really, is there any difference in pounding NE State, vs pounding Ball State, a team that won't kill our SOS as much? Not really, but one team (NE St.) can really damage a team's SOS. That is why I say it really isn't indicative.

 

[AdaSooner]

What do you think about adding Louisville ada? I was against it at first. But Louisville is just 300 some miles from Columbia and about the exact same distance from the south schools as Boulder was.

Louisville is a legit top 10 basketball program that would only get stronger when paired with Kansas. Their football program is on par with A&M and that's before they started getting more Texas recruits.

I don't want BYU and all their nonsense. Their products are fake. Louisville is a legit elite basketball program and equal to what we lose with A&M in football and geographically no worse than Colorado was.

And I don't want more than 10 teams. 10 teams with 2 in football and basketball that are consistent national championship caliber with 3 or so more on occasion is all you need IMO.

Boca, you made some good points about Louisville. U of L is in a large midwestern city with well over a million in the metro, plus they have been good in basketball and football for so long, I don't remember when they were not good. The Big 12 could definitely do worse, that's for sure.

 

[stoops4pres]

Another btw, and I didn't go back to see what your argument was about Sagarin, but here is what I found. Just like my link above, you have to go all the way back to 2005 to find a season where the Big 12 finished higher than the SEC. And in a couple of those seasons between 2005 and now, the Big 12 finished 4th or 5th in terms of conference ratings.

How in the world does that support your argument over mine? Seriously. That is check and mate, no?

You overlooked that I said since the Stoops era, the Big 12 hasn't cumulatively and consistently been drastically worse than the SEC. Even more so, OU's schedule strength hasn't been in a constant inferior rating than SEC teams.

If you said the SEC was typically tougher, than you would be right and we both would agree. It's just the extent and embellishment you've gone about it, when OU's SOS has more often than not been splitting hairs with SEC teams, and some years has been tougher than most. That's why when taking everything into account it'd be wishful thinking for your debate to be "check and mate". Especially when you keep oscillating between different contentions.

 

[sperry]

Am I the only person really hoping that somehow the Big 12 can raid the Big East for Louisville, West Va & Cincy? Expand the eastern influence and would make for some great hoops.

I definitely support this. I also think we have to get to 12 teams. I don't understand how we can expect not to be hurt when we're the only league not playing a championship game in early December. I have to think that it could bite us in a future three way tie situation when we're sitting on our duffs and the voters are watching Alabama/ Florida, Wisconsin/ Nebraska, and Oregon/ USC.

 

[stoops4pres]

BTW.....I never said SOS calculation was flawed, in and of itself. I said it makes no sense in this argument. Conference power rankings is a better indicator. That, and some weighted average SOS calculation.

Oh, and by the way... I don't see how in the world a conference power ranking is a better indicator than a team's specific SOS, when OU doesn't play every single team in the conference. That shouldn't be preferred when gauging an actual SOS schedule, because not every team in the conference was played by OU.

Sure, a conference schedule provides insight in how legit a schedule is (because OU does play 8-9 conference games), but it shouldn't be used first and foremost. Furthermore, evaluating who a team has actually played, rather than an association of teams in which OU does not play every single one of them, is a more reliable way when determining how legitimate a team's opponents were.

10-12 years ago is ancient history. And not reflective of today's Big 12 either.

Well, that's certainly not what you were contending when you were saying Stoops wouldn't come close to the same success throughout his time at OU as he has in the SEC. In fact, in one of your posts you used data dating back to 2000 (fitting in the 10-12 year range that you are now all of a sudden dismissing).

Looking back 5-7 years, the Big 12 is rarely ahead of the SEC, and in some cases isn't even close (2nd place). That was my entire point.

Maybe it was your entire point on another board, because I certainly saw many more points (some that have since been proven to at least been questionable) that you were making on here. Furthermore, I never saw you use a 5-7 year time frame like you just did. But since you are, here has been OU's SOS since 2005:

2010: 20th in the country (LSU's was 15th, Bama's was 14th, Auburn's was 13th... Not seeing a drastic difference).

2009: 22nd in the country (Florida, the 2nd best team in the league that season, was 15th. Again, not seeing a night-and-day difference).

2008: 7th in the country. Enough said.

2005: 1st in the country. Tougher schedule than any team in college football.

2004: 13th in the country. And they went ahead of Auburn to play in the National Title that season because they played a tougher schedule (Auburn's end of season SOS was 60th).

2006 and 2007 (32nd and 44th, respectively) were the only seasons within your preferred time frame that OU did not have a schedule basically on par with SEC teams. So again, I'm still struggling to grasp how OU's schedule has typically been weaker to the extent that you are making it.

Sagarin, the link you wanted to use, proves exactly what I've been saying. I don't get your argument.

According to the aforementioned information displayed by Sagarin, I disagree. I don't think it proves any statement you have made regarding this debate. I've been trying to grasp your points, so maybe I'm interpreting them wrong. I don't know what else to think at this point.

 

[stoops4pres]

I'm not using a SOS system. The one I linked, and Sagarin, aren't SOS stats. SOS is a part of the ranking, but it isn't a pure SOS rating.

What exactly is the difference?

A couple of points:

1. See my example about how a truly tougher schedule can actually be rated lower in a traditional SOS schedule.

2. I'm talking about SEC vs Big 12. Any SOS formula you provide, I believe, includes OOC games. We all know OU schedules one really good OOC game usually, and typically, doesn't schedule the type of team that would drop our SOS. Nobody like Citadel, or Northeastern State. But really, is there any difference in pounding NE State, vs pounding Ball State, a team that won't kill our SOS as much? Not really, but one team (NE St.) can really damage a team's SOS. That is why I say it really isn't indicative.

I did see it, and I acknowledged that an inconclusive and presumed theory like the one you gave doesn't actually provide any validation for your argument, unless you can actually prove that OU and Bama did indeed play those "Team A, Team B schedules". What exactly is a "traditional SOS schedule", anyways? To me, it seems like it is evaluated by subjective presumption more than researched data and on-field performance (i.e. Sagarin). Regardless, I don't see how it is a different/more indicative method than a SOS that evaluates teams by thoroughly compiles statistics and on-field performance, rather than the traditional stature of the name on the front of the jerseys.

2. I'm talking about SEC vs Big 12. Any SOS formula you provide, I believe, includes OOC games. We all know OU schedules one really good OOC game usually, and typically, doesn't schedule the type of team that would drop our SOS. Nobody like Citadel, or Northeastern State. But really, is there any difference in pounding NE State, vs pounding Ball State, a team that won't kill our SOS as much? Not really, but one team (NE St.) can really damage a team's SOS. That is why I say it really isn't indicative

Regarding how the ratings can be manipulated, I don't see a great difference in scheduling a FCS team that might not be accounted for in some ratings, as opposed to a pathetic FBS team that is accounted for. OU's 2008 schedule for example: Chattanooga wasn't accounted for in some ratings, but I don't see a difference had OU played a lowly FBS team instead. OU would have in 99% probability crushed any putrid FBS program.

I see your point, but even any one game, hypothetical glitch in that example doesn't drastically change a team's SOS. Point being, OU normally has played a SOS that is comparable to any team in the SEC, and that wouldn't have been different regardless of inserting a lowly FBS team instead of an FCS team (especially when the majority of SEC teams have employed the same method). In fact, you could argue that this glitch actually helps SEC teams more, because they typically schedule FCS teams more than OU has done.

Nevertheless, the OOC aspect goes back to what I've originally stated: Gauging all teams on OU's schedule(including OOC) is a more decisive way to evaluate a schedule and therefore evaluate the quality of the program in review, because it actually accounts for the teams OU played. Not teams in the conference that OU may not have faced.

 

[tycat947]

What do you think about adding Louisville ada? I was against it at first. But Louisville is just 300 some miles from Columbia and about the exact same distance from the south schools as Boulder was.

Louisville is a legit top 10 basketball program that would only get stronger when paired with Kansas. Their football program is on par with A&M and that's before they started getting more Texas recruits.

I don't want BYU and all their nonsense. Their products are fake. Louisville is a legit elite basketball program and equal to what we lose with A&M in football and geographically no worse than Colorado was.

And I don't want more than 10 teams. 10 teams with 2 in football and basketball that are consistent national championship caliber with 3 or so more on occasion is all you need IMO.

I pretty much think at this point that UL would be the best possible choice. I also agree with the 10 team league and sounds like what the other Big 12 schools want. ND is really the only available school the Big 12 could add that would increase the television revenues enough for member schools to see an increase. All these other schools would dilute the amount OU and the other Big 12 schools would receive. If we add SMU, Houston, TCU, etc to up to 12 teams, we'd have the same amount of revenues to be split 12 ways instead of 10 and our distribution would decrease. We don't need that! For example, if TV revenues were $120M a year, a 12 team league would receive $10M each but a 10 team league would receive $12M each. A $2M decrease! We can't afford. Only ND could increase that $120M enough to maintain or receive an increase.

 

[NickZepp]

Looks like Missouri is indeed gonna split.

 

[WTSooner]

Looks like Missouri is indeed gonna split.

Link?

Because right now on the front page of ESPN there are two articles. One saying the Big 12 is committed to staying together, and adding teams at some point. The other saying the SEC expects to play next season with 13 teams, and that aTm is the only team that has applied for membership.

 

[Sawyer]

No one from Missouri's made that commitment yet, despite what ESPN's been saying.

The SEC's comments now aren't all that different than what they were saying before A&M left the Big 12.

ESPN's misrepresented the SEC expansion story from the beginning.

 

[thebigabd]

I would be all for adding Louisville. I think they should be option #1.