by W. H.

I'm going to be honest here, there are upsetting things that may follow in this piece. Since the world of college football is segmented due to the regional nature of the conferences, the country as a whole can never truly decide who plays the toughest schedules or which conference is the best in any given year. We also use a polling system which sets the template for the championship before games are even played.

Because that polling system rewards dismantling wins against weak opponents more than quality loses against ranked opponents, we end up embracing Texas Tech's domination victories over Eastern Washington and U Mass while condemning Ohio State for traveling across the country to play USC. Needless to say things did not go well for Ohio State. However, unless teams take the initiative to play quality games outside their regular schedule we'll never know how dominant any of these schools, and therefore conferences, really are.

The SEC gets blamed for the cliche but every major BCS conference (with the notable exception of the Big East because they have no reason to) makes the same statement, “we beat each other up”. That's their excuse for padding their schedules with I-AA, Sun Belt, MAC, and Conference USA opponents. Until schools who wish to contend for titles man up and play each other during non-conference games, the polling system, BCS, bowl games, and even any future playoff system will be based on a faulty logic, “We're good, because we say we're good”. And whom of course says “they're good”? ...Experts.

These guys are good because they say they're good

Most of college football championship speculation is splattered across the airwaves by networks and radio stations who need to fill twenty-four hours worth of sports programming, or have a vested financial interest in the participants of the big prime time games. The judgments about the quality of teams mainly has to do with talent evaluation, previous season performance, and recruiting success.

Reaching outside that vacuum of speculation, the only way to effectively evaluate the caliber of any team as a whole is to discuss who they've played. However, as I mentioned before, most BCS conference teams load up on weaker opponents because the polls, that set the standard for the BCS and the post-season, focus on wins against anyone. This leads to the “we beat each other up” excuse which promotes the illusion that all major conferences as a whole are superior to one another, which of course is impossible. If A is greater than B and B is greater than C, then C cannot be greater than A. Unless of course C belonged to the SEC, it which case it would say it beats itself up.

"Hey, I see you waiting to beat me up!"

This season the Big-12 has gotten the majority of the media hype and for good reason. The top three teams are 11-1 and have only lost to each other. The two other nationally ranked teams are 9-3. During last years bowls the Big-12 went 5-3 against BCS conference opponents, second only to the SEC which went 5-2 (overall the SEC went 7-2 in bowl games). This season they will have the opportunity to play seven BCS conference opponents in bowls. Will the result be similar?

It's difficult to determine how conferences will fare in direct competition because no one evaluates statistics on that until after bowl season. But here's a rundown on how the four largest conferences fared against different levels of opponents this season:

- vs Division I-AA: The Big-12 is 10-0, Big 10 is 9-0, SEC is 9-0, ACC is 14-0
- vs unranked non-BCS conference teams: The Big-12 is 20-2, Big 10 is 16-5, SEC is 21-2, ACC is 9-3
- vs ranked non-BCS conference teams: The Big-12 is 1-0, Big 10 is 1-2, SEC is 1-0, ACC is 1-0
- vs BCS conference teams*: The Big-12 is 7-8, The Big 10 is 5-5, SEC is 6-9, ACC is 13-8

Overall the Big-12 is slightly better than the Big 10 or SEC. Those three conferences usually have the most significant vocal outpouring for their respective greatness. But what you may have noticed was the ACC's stellar record against BCS conference foes. Additionally the ACC, which has become the bastard-step-child of the college football press (not to be confused with the BCS's bastard-step-child the Big East) is a combined 10-5 against their foes in the Big 10, 12 and SEC. Not to mention that the ACC scheduled 6 more games against opposing BCS conferences than either the SEC or Big-12.

These guys may be better than you think

It could be argued by looking at the numbers blindly that this is an anomaly based on the quality of teams that the ACC is playing within each conference. However, that would be admitting that there are schools of lesser quality within each conference, therefore negating the excuse that those conferences use to not play quality non-conference opponents. Perhaps we should just examine how well the top teams in each conference fared against their non-conference opponents. Here's the same data, isolating the bowl eligible teams from each conference:

- vs Division I-AA: The Big-12 is 6-0, Big 10 is 6-0, SEC is 5-0, ACC is 12-0
- vs unranked non-BCS conference teams: The Big-12 is 14-0, Big 10 is 13-0, SEC is 16-0, ACC is 7-3
- vs ranked non-BCS conference teams: The Big-12 is 1-0, Big 10 is 1-0, ACC is 1-0
- vs BCS conference teams*: The Big-12 is 5-2, Big 10 is 5-3, SEC is 6-5, ACC is 12-5

The ACC has more bowl eligible teams than any other conference therefore playing more non-conference games as a whole. Ten ACC teams qualified for post-season play, while only seven each qualified for the Big 10 & 12, and eight for the SEC. Still the ACC's winning percentage is 70% against BCS conference foes, second only to the Big-12's 71%. So why has the ACC been forgotten by the press? Perhaps because (wait for it, wait for it) they beat each other up.

The ACC is like New York City without Cyrus

Four ACC teams are 5-3 in conference, six others are 4-4. No other Division I-A conference in college football has a race that tight. So the ACC played more games against tougher opponents in non-conference play. They played conference games against more bowl eligible teams than anyone else. Even the worst team in the conference, Duke, beat a bowl eligible team from the SEC on the road. So what does any of this prove, much like Heart of Darkness, nothing.

At this point any argument is irrelevant. If Alabama wins their next two games they deserve the national championship. It's indisputable. In fact, even if they lose, Oklahoma, Penn State, USC and Florida are more deserving contenders for the title than anyone from the ACC. Each one of those four teams played two BCS conference opponents outside of league play. Oklahoma deserved their leapfrog of Texas purely because of their schedule which pitted them against the Big East Champ Cincinnati, nationally ranked TCU, and gave them a west coast BCS conference road trip (even if it was to Washington). Penn State beat the team that took down powerhouse USC. And Pete Carrol's squad had previously toppled Penn State's biggest Big 10 competition, Ohio State. In fact Penn State throttled their biggest league competitor as well, which is something Oklahoma couldn't even do.

Hey Sooners, here's a guy who beat
his direct competition for conference title

What we can say for certain though is some conferences have been overvalued. The Big-12's top teams outshine everyone else. But it seems like the competition from top to bottom in each conference has been glorified. College football changes from season to season, and the bowl games generally determine which conference is the best. This year the wins and losses show that the ACC may be the toughest conference as a whole. They just beat each other up.

 

* Even though Notre Dame is part of the BCS system, I have included them in the “unranked non-BCS conference categories”. Because they are unaffiliated, their presence doesn't help evaluate the level of competition between conferences. Full disclosure: if I were to include them as a BCS conference foe, it would only benefit the ACC. Adding 2 wins and 0 losses to their total would bring the ACC's record to 15-8 (14-5 by bowl eligible teams). The Big 10 would be further damaged by adding 1 win and two losses, bringing their record to 6-7 (6-4 by bowl eligible teams). Furthermore it would create a valid argument that USC (provided they win at UCLA), who would have then played their entire schedule against BCS-conference teams, should jump all other teams for a shot at the title.  Who did they play?  Not Chattanooga.

 wh@sportymcbloggin.com