http://csnbbs.com/thread-766447-page-5.html
Whenever I see a thread like this, I am aware that on other forums there are similar threads by and about all the other P5 conferences. But we can't lose sight of one important, and immutable, fact. Top 25 rankings are a zero sum game. For any one conference to improve its average performance, another conference must get worse. I am certain that none of them see themselves in the "get worse" group.
Another reality is that there are a lot more schools that believe they either are, or should be, perennial Top 25 teams than there are places in the Top 25 to accommodate them. And as a practical matter for the P5, there will generally be non-P5 teams taking some spots (even if those spots are taken by schools that are only ranked thanks to political correctness combined with easier schedules (and thus fewer losses - the biggest factor in being ranked).
Historically, the P5s have commanded about 22 rankings per year, and all other schools have been ranked 3 times a year. By my count, there are probably 32-35 P5 schools that would be on most lists of "should be" perennial Top 25s. Something's got to give.
I have been tracking and analyzing rankings since the start of the BCS era. Prior to this season, I had compiled some data on the previous decade or so, and the results were anything but surprising. They do, however, speak directly to some of the points made in this thread.
When I looked at the average final BCS rank, the first thing I looked at was the average rank of each conference's highest ranked team over that time frame. This isn't the rank of any one team over that time. Rather, if Alabama is the highest ranked team one year and Auburn is the next, I just averaged their rank. The data is, again, no surprise:
SEC....1.4
B12....3.6
PAC....4.1
B1G....7.3
ACC....9.1
Next, I took the average rank of each league's second highest ranked team. Similar results.
SEC....4.6
B12....7.1
PAC....8.7
B1G..10.4
ACC..15.1
Then, I looked at not the average but the actual rank of each conference's second highest ranked team. There's a pattern here.
SEC....2
B12....3
PAC....4
B1G....6
ACC...11
That is to say, during the time of the study, the ACC never had a second team ranked in the Top 10 in any single year.
Finally, I looked at the lowest rank achieved by each league's best team over the whole period. Same story.
SEC....2
B12....6
PAC....7
B1G...12
ACC...14
The first three conferences never failed to have at least one team ranked in the Top 10. The B1G only failed once. The ACC had four seasons without a single Top 10 team.
So this past year, you would have to say we did pretty good, at least at the top. Where we are still lagging is the total number of top 25 teams. If we start getting five consistently, which conference is going to get weaker?
Another reality is that there are a lot more schools that believe they either are, or should be, perennial Top 25 teams than there are places in the Top 25 to accommodate them. And as a practical matter for the P5, there will generally be non-P5 teams taking some spots (even if those spots are taken by schools that are only ranked thanks to political correctness combined with easier schedules (and thus fewer losses - the biggest factor in being ranked).
Historically, the P5s have commanded about 22 rankings per year, and all other schools have been ranked 3 times a year. By my count, there are probably 32-35 P5 schools that would be on most lists of "should be" perennial Top 25s. Something's got to give.
I have been tracking and analyzing rankings since the start of the BCS era. Prior to this season, I had compiled some data on the previous decade or so, and the results were anything but surprising. They do, however, speak directly to some of the points made in this thread.
When I looked at the average final BCS rank, the first thing I looked at was the average rank of each conference's highest ranked team over that time frame. This isn't the rank of any one team over that time. Rather, if Alabama is the highest ranked team one year and Auburn is the next, I just averaged their rank. The data is, again, no surprise:
SEC....1.4
B12....3.6
PAC....4.1
B1G....7.3
ACC....9.1
Next, I took the average rank of each league's second highest ranked team. Similar results.
SEC....4.6
B12....7.1
PAC....8.7
B1G..10.4
ACC..15.1
Then, I looked at not the average but the actual rank of each conference's second highest ranked team. There's a pattern here.
SEC....2
B12....3
PAC....4
B1G....6
ACC...11
That is to say, during the time of the study, the ACC never had a second team ranked in the Top 10 in any single year.
Finally, I looked at the lowest rank achieved by each league's best team over the whole period. Same story.
SEC....2
B12....6
PAC....7
B1G...12
ACC...14
The first three conferences never failed to have at least one team ranked in the Top 10. The B1G only failed once. The ACC had four seasons without a single Top 10 team.
So this past year, you would have to say we did pretty good, at least at the top. Where we are still lagging is the total number of top 25 teams. If we start getting five consistently, which conference is going to get weaker?
No comments:
Post a Comment