The Fraud That Is The Big XII Conference

Over the last week or so, yours truly  found himself in a back-and-forth with a proud Pitt fan over at mondesishouse.com.  The argument bounced from one tired topic to another, when finally it landed at whether or not Penn State, if they manage a win in the Rose Bowl, should be perceived as a National Elite.  I argued yes, based on the following:

Overall record:
PSU: 40-10
WVU: 41-9
UF: 43-9
USC: 45-6
OU: 42-11

Conference championships:
PSU: 2
WVU: 2
UF: 2
USC: 4
OU: 3

BCS Bowl Berths:
PSU: 2
WVU: 2
UF: 2
USC: 4
OU: 3


Bowl Record:
PSU: 3-0
WVU: 3-0
UF: 2-1
USC: 2-1
OU: 1-2

Proud Pitt fan responded with the following, and even took a shot at a previous fan post of mine near the end.  Now, don't make the mistake of looking at him as a Pitt fan, but rather the casual college football fan that draws his opinions on college football from the Mark Mays of the world.

I can say that PSU and WVU are not 'elite' because you don't factor the following into the equation:

* The strength of conference. The Big Ten and Big East are not as strong top to bottom as the Big 12 or SEC.

* Over the last four years, if you take the out of conference opponents of Penn State, you can come up with double digit wins against non BCS teams. These were the likes of Florida International, Youngstown State, Coastal Carolina, and that in state rival they have played and beaten the last THREE YEARS.....TEMPLE.

Add to that your yearly Big Ten bottom feeders, and that 40 wins isn't very impressive, let alone 'elite'. Those same four years USC played three non BSC teams (Idaho, Hawaii, and a ranked Fresno State).

Anyone can spout numbers, but when you are actually digging into them, they can easily be dissected.

* The one thing we do agree on is that Penn State playing Pitt has 'nothing to gain, everything to lose', but it's more of a product of college football than Penn State as a program.

Penn State fans are like Pirate fans. The last thing they care about is the actual game. The sheep can be herded in to smell the 'grill and manure', to 'rush in to see the drum major' you cite.

They pack the stadium knowing they will drill some tin can, and that's why athletic directors can keep scheduling them. The sheep will fill the gates, and it keeps their profile up for fans like you that spout numbers.

That provided me with the opportunity to pounce on the idea that the Big XII has suddenly become some mega-conference.  I responded via email with the following:

1. Up until the last two years, the Big 12 was perceived to be only Oklahoma and Texas.  However, that perception began to change last season when Kansas and Missouri rose to prominence, and continued this season with the emergence of Texas Tech and Oklahoma St.  However, when you look a little deeper, you'll see that little to nothing has actually changed in the league.  Kansas took advantage of a 2007 schedule that included neither of the big 2.  They got into the Orange Bowl last season only because Missouri, a team they lost to, had to play another game against Oklahoma for the Big 12 title.  Additionally, they did not have a very good year this year. Missouri has combined to go 0-4 against UT and Oklahoma the last two seasons..  Tech claims one win, this season, against the pair, while Oklahoma St. hasn't managed to beat either one.  The truth is, nothing has changed in the league.  Its still Oklahoma and Texas and thats it.  The reason for the other schools' rise to prominece leads me to #2...

2. While many accuse Penn St. and other Big 10 schools of keeping themselves aflot with cake non-conference schedules, the truth is, its really the perceived "stronger' conferences that do so.  Going into the  2008 season, ESPN.com Page 2's Thomas Neumann compiled two lists.  The first lists the top 10 teams that schedule "cupcake" competiton, based on lowest percentage of BCS confernce teams played in the non-conference schedule from 1998-2007.

The list is as follows:
1. Minnesota
2. Arkansas
3. Kansas
4. Ole Miss
5. Oklahoma St.
6. Oregon St.
7. Texas Tech
8. LSU
9. Mississippi St.
10. Alabama

The list includes 5 SEC schools.  It also includes 3 of the Big 12 teams most often cited in demonstrating the depth of the conference in Kansas, Oklahoma St., and Texas Tech.  The truth is, it was those three teams that rose from the scrap heap by the exact method that many accuse Penn State of.  The Big 12's depth is overstated.  The middle of the road teams APPEAR better than say, the Big 10's because THEY are the ones racking up wins against bad non-conference foes.

Furthur vindicating the Big 10, as well as the ACC and Pac-10, is Neumann's second list of teams that most often play tough competition.  The list was compiled using data from the same time period of 1998-2007.  The teams were ranked by highest percentage of non-conference games against BCS opponents.

1. Florida St.
2. USC
3. Georgia Tech
4. UCLA
5. North Carolina
6. Michigan St.
7. Iowa
8. Miami
9. Clemson, Duke, Penn State, Stanford, Syracuse, and Virginia
10 Notre Dame.

Not a single SEC or Big 12 team cracks the list, however, a whopping 7 make it from the ACC, as well as 3 each from the Big 10 and Pac-10.  While in this context, the lists make the ACC, Pac-10, and Big 10 look pretty good, however, the side effect of scheduling tough non-conference opponents is that you lose more games. While the teams on the first list were killing cupcakes, inflating their records, and making their conferences look good, the teams from the second list were losing more, therefore hurting the reputation's of their conferences.

So there you go.  While the SEC and Big 12 may LOOK deeper, they really aren't any more deep than the Big 10, Pac-10, or ACC.  They just rack up wins against bad teams making ther gooey centers look better.  They, my friend, are the ones, for lack of a better term, "putting lipstick on a pig".

Numbers dissected my friend, numbers dissected.

As damning as those numbers are, they never get to Proud Pitt Fan/Casual College Football Fan. They're glossed over for the following reasons.

1. Most Talking Heads Are Biased-Most of the guys you see on TV are former players.  This is dangerous because they didn't get their gigs by demonstrating objectivity, being able to research facts, or most importantly, put those facts into perspective.  They got their jobs because they have name recognition and can communicate effectively.  Unless of course you're Lou Holtz, in which case, its all the name recognition.  In any event, these folks are the ones most likely to be biased, because they've never been taught a shred of journalistic integrity.

2. Sportswriters Are Overworked-For as much abuse as print journalists draw, its really not completely fair to them that their columns are easily dissected by junkies like us.  For every  college football "expert" like Pat Forde or Evan Maisel that vote in the AP poll, there are 10 newspaper writers who cover multiple sports at one time.  In Pittsburgh, they're Joe Starkey, Ron Cook, or the recently retired Bob Smizik.  Wherever you live, you could probably come up with any number of guys in the same position.  These guys don't have their masters in college football.  They also have to cover pro football, hockey, or basketball in addition to college football.  Unfortunately, these overstretched writers who so often set the tone of the debate, can't be as informed as they should be.

Coaches Don' t See The Games-It has been discussed at length on this site what a load of crap the coaches poll is, so I'll spare you that diatribe.

Fortunately, in a couple of day, we'll have a game to talk about folks!