Locked due to no posts in 60 days. Report 1st post if need unlocked Some thoughts on parity and conference structure

[Hemingway155]

Last night I got to thinking about the B1G's decision to go after Maryland and Rutgers in light of the structure of other major conferences, and that made me think about structural features that could fuel the current SEC dominance and lovefest (in addition to dirty recruiting tactics). That said, I am a college debate coach with experience structuring tournaments, and decided to look at it from that perspective. With debate tournaments, it is generally a bad sign for the quality of the tournament if it produces too many teams high in the brackets (with undefeated records or close to it). Part of this is a result of tournaments power-matching opponents rather than having set brackets, but it also assumes that the lower-quality teams influence on the tournament is felt as they transfer wins to higher quality teams. Thus, if you end up with more teams in the higher brackets it can be taken as a sign of a higher prevalence of easy teams as much as a dominant performance by the top teams. With that premise, I set out to look at how this year panned out, comparing the SEC to the B1G. Obviously, this would need a more longitudinal perspective to be meaningful, and probably expand to other conferences as well, but it does give me some initial thoughts.

Teams in the lower half of the SEC (7) netted a total of 12 conference wins this year, for a total of 21% of the available wins in the SEC. This includes Auburn and Kentucky each contributing 8 wins to the upper brackets.

Teams in the lower half of the B1G (6) also netted a total of 12 conference wins, representing 25% of the total available wins.

What does this mean? Basically, that the more bottom-heavy SEC statistically had more wins available to allocate to the top teams (0.3 of a win each, if it was evenly distributed) So here are my thoughts as inspired by this very basic analysis:

- Parity is bad for the national reputation of conferences. The more cannon fodder integrated into the conference (up to some limit, Big East), the more wins you de facto transfer to the most successful institutions that are the standard-bearers of a conference.

- Adding Rutgers and Maryland may make sense beyond simple economics. Assuming historical performance is predictive, they could bring additional wins to allocate to the top half of the conference, which might help the national perception of the flagship programs.

- None of this is to argue that the B1G is superior to the SEC, and there are certainly many metrics that support the opposite conclusion beyond the simple eyeball test, but it does raise some questions about how the distribution of power in a conference interacts with that conference's aggregate success.

- A key area of potential multicollinearity with this statistic could include the effect that playing bottom feeders has on a program's durability and ability to allocate more resources to higher-test games.


Ok, now discuss. If this becomes interesting enough upon discussion, I may spend more time on data entry and running more complex statistics with a bigger sample size.

GBR

Kris

 

[BGRed]

- A key area of potential multicollinearity with this statistic could include the effect that playing bottom feeders has on a program's durability and ability to allocate more resources to higher-test games.

Ok, now discuss. If this becomes interesting enough upon discussion, I may spend more time on data entry and running more complex statistics with a bigger sample size.

GBR

Kris

Holy Cow... you used "multicollinearity" in a sentence and then expect us to discuss? :bow:

 

[CombatTargeteer]

I have to have one of those next month.

 

[CombatTargeteer]

I have just read why the Big 8 was so successful. Thanks.

 

[Hustlin' Husker]

I suppose it makes a great deal of sense. I think Michigan State was a much better team than their record would indicate. Wisconsin was probably worse than their record indicates. But it's normally not looked at that way. It makes you thin of highly rated teams that don't really pass the eyeball test, like the Gators in my mind. Sure they beat LSU and Texas A&M, but it seems to me that the teams that those teams beat are drawn into question to some degree as well. This is not to say that the SEC is not a quality conference but that I think that the difference between them and other conferences is inflated by perception right now, everyone assumes it's hard to win out against an SEC schedule so when someone does, they are declared the greatest team in CFB.

 

[CTBugeater]

Interesting points. I think this theory does hold water and interestingly as I read I thought the same thing as Combat Targeteer noted, which is "sounds alot like NU and OU in the 70s and 80s" I think it only works when the league perception is generally high, which is built through big intersectional wins and MNCs. Since few big-time teams play a sizable sample of quality intersectional games anymore it's hard to get a really strong feel for that in any individual season, but it seems the SEC wins enough of those to keep the perception going...this past weekend being a prime example.

Ironically I think the biggest argument that the SEC's perception might be inflated came this year when a historically-middling B12 team came in and turned the conference upside down. Yeah, A&M added a Heisman QB sensation and a new HC but they lost a top 10 NFL draft pick QB. Besides, the prevailing 'wisdom' wasn't that they lacked playmakers but rather they lacked the physicality to compete in the SEC, which has turned out to be hogwash. Still, that hasn't seemed to hamper the media's SEC lovefest and if anything has just bumped up A&M's perceived value partly because of the company they keep.

IMHO the only thing that turns this tide is for the SEC to start losing MNCs and big intersectional games.

 

[ThotDoc]

Adding Maryland and Rutgers to the Leaders and with PennSt having to deal with its probationary period, sounds like they will just donate more wins to Ohio St and Wisconsin since they get to play them every year. Nebraska doesn't get to benefit as much from the new schools addition.

 

[CombatTargeteer]

Just what the B1G had in mind.

 

[ThotDoc]

Just what the B1G had in mind.

That's why they may swap Michigan and Wisconsin so that the Wolverines and Buckeyes can benefit the most.

 

[PaperIsDead]

Good post, Hemingway155. I agree with you completely, and think it no accident that these new additions were not the power-schools many would have expected. The Big Ten historically was OSU, UM and everybody else, just like the Big 8 was OU, NU and everybody else. Those top-10 all-time-wins our schools collected had to come from somewhere. Enter K-State, Kansas, Iowa, Indiana, etc.,.

I was considering looking at this same sort of thing: in a 12 or 14-team conference, how many of each caliber of team can be supported? What got me thinking about this was Purdue firing their coach because "Purdue hasn't moved up a tier in the conference." Well, how many teams in one conference can be great, middling or poor teams? Can the Big Ten support four super-powers in OSU, UM, NU and Penn State? Where does that leave Michigan State, Wisconsin, Northwestern and Iowa, who are all trying to make the jump to elite? And what about Purdue, Indiana, Illinois and Minnesota- all have hired or are in the process of hiring new coaches so that they can move up too.

It's interesting to ponder. One wonders if the addition of "weaker" schools will help the teams just slightly better- the middle-of-the-pack teams more than the upper-tier teams, who would be favored to beat just about any opponant. If we were to add Notre Dame and Florida State, for example, we would be adding fun matchups for sure, but probably signing the death certificates for our middle-tier schools, those schools most likely to collect new losses they otherwise wouldn't.

 

[PaperIsDead]

Interesting points. I think this theory does hold water and interestingly as I read I thought the same thing as Combat Targeteer noted, which is "sounds alot like NU and OU in the 70s and 80s" I think it only works when the league perception is generally high, which is built through big intersectional wins and MNCs. Since few big-time teams play a sizable sample of quality intersectional games anymore it's hard to get a really strong feel for that in any individual season, but it seems the SEC wins enough of those to keep the perception going...this past weekend being a prime example.

Ironically I think the biggest argument that the SEC's perception might be inflated came this year when a historically-middling B12 team came in and turned the conference upside down. Yeah, A&M added a Heisman QB sensation and a new HC but they lost a top 10 NFL draft pick QB. Besides, the prevailing 'wisdom' wasn't that they lacked playmakers but rather they lacked the physicality to compete in the SEC, which has turned out to be hogwash. Still, that hasn't seemed to hamper the media's SEC lovefest and if anything has just bumped up A&M's perceived value partly because of the company they keep.

IMHO the only thing that turns this tide is for the SEC to start losing MNCs and big intersectional games.

Good points and good post. Too bad the Big Ten has such sweetheart deals with the bowls. If we ever played "equal" teams in the SEC the records would be more respectable.