Strength of schedule from metrics like FEI, Sagarin, and SRS is not at all based on “rankings by polls and the like.” That’s not exactly one of those “agree to disagree on” kinds of things.
As for the circular nature of conference play, isn't that what makes doing well in your nonconference games so important? The SEC has only had 3 nonconference losses all year--Tennessee losing to Oklahoma, Vanderbilt losing to Temple, and Missouri losing to Indiana(!). To claim this is all just semantics seems overly dismissive in my opinion.
Hi mgoblog, longtime lurker but first time poster here. Looking forward to making a positive contribution on the blog.
Hopefully I don’t ruffle many feathers, but I wanted to rebut the OP’s contention that there is some sort of “shell game” between the SEC and the media that artificially inflates the SEC’s strength as a conference and is due to “just laziness and an inability to look beyond the numbers next to the logo.”
How do these metrics assess the SEC’s performance this year?
Sagarin Predictor: 4 of the top 6 teams are from the SEC
Alabama
Ole Miss
Georgia
Baylor
Oregon
Auburn
SRS: 5 of the top 6 teams are from the SEC
Alabama
Oregon
Ole Miss
Georgia
Auburn
Miss. State
By contrast, there are only 2 SEC teams in the AP Poll’s top 6 (Alabama and Miss. State at #2 and #4 respectively). If anything the media is underrating the SEC's strength compared to the metrics.
Now in no way am I saying the metrics are a be-all end-all, but if you want to go the non-“lazy” route and “look beyond the numbers,” you couldn’t be more wrong. Otherwise, all you’re really doing is replacing the “SEC bias” with your own.
Recent Comments
Strength of schedule from metrics like FEI, Sagarin, and SRS is not at all based on “rankings by polls and the like.” That’s not exactly one of those “agree to disagree on” kinds of things.
As for the circular nature of conference play, isn't that what makes doing well in your nonconference games so important? The SEC has only had 3 nonconference losses all year--Tennessee losing to Oklahoma, Vanderbilt losing to Temple, and Missouri losing to Indiana(!). To claim this is all just semantics seems overly dismissive in my opinion.
Hi mgoblog, longtime lurker but first time poster here. Looking forward to making a positive contribution on the blog.
Hopefully I don’t ruffle many feathers, but I wanted to rebut the OP’s contention that there is some sort of “shell game” between the SEC and the media that artificially inflates the SEC’s strength as a conference and is due to “just laziness and an inability to look beyond the numbers next to the logo.”
If you want to get away from ranking teams based on “hype,” “media bias,” or dare I add your own personal biases, I suggest using a metrics-based approach. Two really good metrics to use for college football are Jeff Sagarin’s Predictor (http://www.usatoday.com/sports/ncaaf/sagarin/) and Sports-Reference’s Simple Rating System (SRS) http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/years/2014-ratings.html
How do these metrics assess the SEC’s performance this year?
Sagarin Predictor: 4 of the top 6 teams are from the SEC
SRS: 5 of the top 6 teams are from the SEC
By contrast, there are only 2 SEC teams in the AP Poll’s top 6 (Alabama and Miss. State at #2 and #4 respectively). If anything the media is underrating the SEC's strength compared to the metrics.
Now in no way am I saying the metrics are a be-all end-all, but if you want to go the non-“lazy” route and “look beyond the numbers,” you couldn’t be more wrong. Otherwise, all you’re really doing is replacing the “SEC bias” with your own.