Anti-Big 12 Bias: A Brief Study

[HFCS]

I'm not going to discuss Big Ten and SEC because I think the quality at the top is such that most of those teams would be in the Big 12 CCG or maybe even with 0 or 1 losses. I'm more fascinated by the how both the AP and committee (their rankings are similar) seem to have a love affair with not only the ACC, but also the American and MWC over the Big 12.

I'll update this to the comittee when it comes out but here are the contenders from ACC/B12/AAC/MWC in latest AP poll:
8 - Miami (1 loss in conference)
9 - SMU (1 loss at home to #19 Big 12 team)
11- Boise St (1 loss to #1 team)
12 - Clemson (2 loss)
14 - ASU (beat Boise St common opponent by 40 points more)
17 - ISU (2 loss)
18 - Tulane (2 loss, one to Big 12)
19 - BYU (2 loss, road win over #9 ACC team)
21 - UNLV (2 loss)
23 - Colorado (3 loss)
25 - Army (1 loss)
26 - KSU (3 loss)
27 - Memphis (2 loss)
28 - Syracuse (3 loss)
29 - Louisville (4 loss)
31 - Duke (3 loss)
35 - GTech (4 loss)

Now here are where those teams rank in the Massey composite of dozens of computer models. The composite ranking itself is pretty great, the only huge flaw is it really loves Ohio State to the point you need to flip Ohio State and Oregon. It's conference objective, doesn't care who is in what league.

Green shows where AP/CFP is boosting someone, red shows where they are dragging them down

Massey Ratings - Rankings

computer rankings and polls, weekly composite

masseyratings.com

8 - Miami
9 - SMU
14 - Clemson 2 lower than AP/CFP
15 - ISU 2 higher than AP/CFP
16 - BYU 3 higher than AP/CFP
17 - Boise St 6 lower than AP/CFP
19 - KSU 7 higher than AP/CFP
20 - ASU 6 lower than AP/CFP
21 - Louisville 8 higher than AP/CFP
22 - Tulane 4 lower than AP/CFP
23 - Colorado
29 - UNLV 8 lower than AP/CFP
31 - Army 6 lower than AP/CFP
33 - Baylor (not even getting votes in AP but ahead of ACC schools that are)
35 - GTech
36 - Duke 5 lower than AP
37 - Kansas (not even getting votes in AP but ahead of an ACC schools that is)
38 - Syracuse 10 lower than AP

Net:
Big 12: -6, and two teams that aren't getting AP votes that are just as good as ACC teams that are, those two don't even count toward that number but could.

ACC: +9, the top three are ranked somewhat similar but "others with votes" is loaded with ACC teams that shouldn't be ranked. Louisville actually one of the most undervalued teams, no surprise they are headed to Big 12 soon.

MWC/AAC contenders: +24, across the board they're all overrated, some deserve top 25 but nearly all of them higher than they should be getting preference Big 12 is not getting.

Blast away at how unscientific this is but it's been getting worse as the season goes on.

 

[Cyclonepride]

Anything that is put to a vote will always be biased in some direction. That direction appears to be at the expense of the Big 12.

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

Just my two cents but the B1G shouldn't get a pass either. The conference is crazy top heavy and the gap between #4 and #5 is quite large.

 

[HFCS]

Anything that is put to a vote will always be biased in some direction. That direction appears to be at the expense of the Big 12.

I think when it comes to Big 12 vs ACC that bias is truckload of BS and the people voting know it completely, especially digging into the "others with votes" seeing how it's basically half the ACC. For the MWC/AAC schools I think it's actually well meaning voters/committee members but a lot of it is still clearly off with just a very consistent bias to have them higher than they should be while B12 isn't getting that except for possibly ASU slightly.

 

[ClubCy]

It’s perception. The big 12 took a huge hit perception wise over the past 15 years because so many team have left. ACC hasn’t had anyone leave. 1/4 of our conference is made up of former AAC teams+independent. Outside of Utah, the four corners have been really bad over the past decade plus. We don’t recruit on the high end like Miami, FSU, and Clemson.

It’s hard to get past perception.

 

[stateofmind]

Seems like Indiana is this year's Iowa. Undefeated going into a ranked game and then... I don't know how good our conference is, but 11/16 teams could make a bowl game. I'm guessing we will show well in those bowls. The loser of the CCG playing Ole Miss might be a challenge, but guessing most other games will favor us.

 

[clone37]

It’s perception. The big 12 took a huge hit perception wise over the past 15 years because so many team have left. ACC hasn’t had anyone leave. 1/4 of our conference is made up of former AAC teams+independent. Outside of Utah, the four corners have been really bad over the past decade plus. We don’t recruit on the high end like Miami, FSU, and Clemson.

It’s hard to get past perception.

And this perception ties in directly with the preseason top 25 poll, which plays a massive role in the rankings at the end of the season. The pollsters automatically assume half of the B10 and SEC are all top 25, then the transitive property takes hold over the season. Look at Texas. They really haven't beaten any great teams, but they beat Mich and OU who were vastly overrated in the preseason, then TX shoots up close to #1. Even take a look at the only ranked team we have played this year....Iowa. They are not a Top 25 team, but that win sent us on our way into the rankings.

 

[stewart092284]

I'm not going to discuss Big Ten and SEC because I think the quality at the top is such that most of those teams would be in the Big 12 CCG or maybe even with 0 or 1 losses.

Maybe in a given year, I might agree. But not this year. There are simply no great teams out there. So it is bias. But Alabama has 3 losses and could easily have 4-5. Ole Miss was always a fraud. Name me a good team Texas has played and beaten... the best win on their resume is... Vanderbilt?

Georgia? Sure, they crushed Clemson and Texas but have looked incredibly average in a wide number of games as well.
Similar to Ohio State, Penn State, etc.


Are there stronger teams at the top of the SEC and Big 10 than the Big 12?

Yes. Probably.

But this year, more than any other, there is not one conference or group clearly better than anyone else. Is that a blip or is this the new future? I have no idea. But the bias is certainly real, but none of the conferences get a pass because like I said, I don't see any great teams or conferences. Its just a whole lot of "meh" that on any given Saturday, they might boat race someone but the next weekend its an ugly 13-10 win over some 4-6 team

 

[ClonesFTW]

I've come to some peace of mind in just realizing at the base level this is a TV product and those in charge are always going to give the benefit to programs who will bring the TV ratings. Unfortunately when the 3mil population in Iowa is 25% of Ohio, Georgia, etc. we are never going to reap those benefits.

 

[MugNight]

Tinfoil hat:
- The ACC gets the benefit of having sexier teams that appear to be the next round of B1G/SEC expansion: UNC, FSU, Clemson, UVA, Miami. By nature, the league looks better.
- The ACC will eventually dip in perception if and when these teams leave
- Conventional wisdom says that the XII absorbs the best of the rest.
- For the B1G/SEC, the G5 schools are not a threat to pull influence or money from them. However, the XII is.
- G5 darlings like Boise St are fun Cinderella stories, but they also stand to eat a second CFP spot from the XII. B1G/SEC will always have at least 7 teams between them. Their slice will never shrink.
- 1 or 2 Loss ND may as well have an auto bid most years
- B1G/SEC apologists rave about how deep their conferences are. But the XII is punished for its parity

 

[jdoggivjc]

When it comes to ESPN I'm still convinced they're still hung up on us exposing their plan to send UT and OU to the SEC and then blow up the conference, sending the majority of the schools to the AAC so they could get UT and OU out without an exit fee AND pay the rest of us pennies on the dollar going forward. Sure, it's been years since since ESPN has respected anyone in the Big 12 outside of UT and OU, but it's been particularly bad since then, as ESPN only discusses the Big 12 to maintain "journalistic integrity" (LOL).

I mean, when you look at any statistical analysis that isn't owned by ESPN and realize that the Big 12 is as good or better at football than any other conference other than the SEC, and then ESPN wants to treat the Big 12 as if G5 conferences are better than us, it just reeks of a petulant child that didn't get its way.

And then there's the CFP committee, that just does what ESPN tells it to.

 

[HFCS]

It’s perception. The big 12 took a huge hit perception wise over the past 15 years because so many team have left. ACC hasn’t had anyone leave. 1/4 of our conference is made up of former AAC teams+independent. Outside of Utah, the four corners have been really bad over the past decade plus. We don’t recruit on the high end like Miami, FSU, and Clemson.

It’s hard to get past perception.

Because of this reality, college football needs what college basketball has a LOT of:
Kenpom, net ranking, bpi, etc

College football has practically none of that, or if it does it's not widely followed and popular the way it is in basketball. It's a little more difficult because of less games but it isn't impossible, especially toward the end of a season. Like basketball it wouldn't be a rigid ultimate guide, but it would be a helpful guideline. The trends I showed are consistent enough to be some valid evidence that certain groups are getting overvalued while others are being undervalued.

 

[HFCS]

And this perception ties in directly with the preseason top 25 poll, which plays a massive role in the rankings at the end of the season. The pollsters automatically assume half of the B10 and SEC are all top 25, then the transitive property takes hold over the season. Look at Texas. They really haven't beaten any great teams, but they beat Mich and OU who were vastly overrated in the preseason, then TX shoots up close to #1. Even take a look at the only ranked team we have played this year....Iowa. They are not a Top 25 team, but that win sent us on our way into the rankings.

I have less of a problem late in a year where teams are 0 or 1 loss, that takes a lot of good things regardless of schedule. I'll even through Boise St in there since the 1 loss was to Oregon.

What gets me is when Tulane has 2 losses and a bunch of Big 12 teams have 2 losses. The schedule is not comparable. A Big 12 schedule is closer (or in som cases the same) to the Big Ten and SEC than Tulane's conference schedule is to a Big 12 team's.

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

Tinfoil hat:
- The ACC gets the benefit of having sexier teams that appear to be the next round of B1G/SEC expansion: UNC, FSU, Clemson, UVA, Miami. By nature, the league looks better.
- The ACC will eventually dip in perception if and when these teams leave
- Conventional wisdom says that the XII absorbs the best of the rest.
- For the B1G/SEC, the G5 schools are not a threat to pull influence or money from them. However, the XII is.
- G5 darlings like Boise St are fun Cinderella stories, but they also stand to eat a second CFP spot from the XII. B1G/SEC will always have at least 7 teams between them. Their slice will never shrink.
- 1 or 2 Loss ND may as well have an auto bid most years
- B1G/SEC apologists rave about how deep their conferences are. But the XII is punished for its parity

Indiana is going to make the playoffs and they have only played 1 top 25 team and their best conference win is against 6-5 Nebby or Michigan. I don't want to hear about how great these mega conferences are.

 

[ClubCy]

Indiana is going to make the playoffs and they have only played 1 top 25 team and their best conference win is against 6-5 Nebby or Michigan. I don't want to hear about how great these mega conferences are.

The season will end with Iowa State having a better Big 10 win than Indiana.

 

[HFCS]

Tinfoil hat:
- The ACC gets the benefit of having sexier teams that appear to be the next round of B1G/SEC expansion: UNC, FSU, Clemson, UVA, Miami. By nature, the league looks better.
- The ACC will eventually dip in perception if and when these teams leave
- Conventional wisdom says that the XII absorbs the best of the rest.
- For the B1G/SEC, the G5 schools are not a threat to pull influence or money from them. However, the XII is.
- G5 darlings like Boise St are fun Cinderella stories, but they also stand to eat a second CFP spot from the XII. B1G/SEC will always have at least 7 teams between them. Their slice will never shrink.
- 1 or 2 Loss ND may as well have an auto bid most years
- B1G/SEC apologists rave about how deep their conferences are. But the XII is punished for its parity

This is all true, but in reality the ACC is already not any better than the Big 12 on the football field, top to bottom it's probably objectively worse.

Somewhat different subject:
Committee needs to clear up their wild hypocrisy on if a team needs a CCG to prove its worth and if a team should slip in the rankings for losing a CCG. If a CCG loss does cause a ranking slip...they need to slide down ND and any other teams who didn't even play one to match in all cases. We're hearing a lot of talk about "better off missing SEC title game"...that should not exist. Notre Dame, Penn State, 3rd/4th/5th SEC team...they all "LOST" their effective CCG if a CCG loss is at all viewed as a negative thing.

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

I have less of a problem late in a year where teams are 0 or 1 loss, that takes a lot of good things regardless of schedule. I'll even through Boise St in there since the 1 loss was to Oregon.

What gets me is when Tulane has 2 losses and a bunch of Big 12 teams have 2 losses. The schedule is not comparable. A Big 12 schedule is closer (or in som cases the same) to the Big Ten and SEC than Tulane's conference schedule is to a Big 12 team's.

None of it will matter until the committee and the media talking heads (ESPN) quit using Strength of Schedule as a metric and focus on strength of wins/strength of record. A team shouldn't benefit for getting stomped by tOSU, Georgia, Bama, etc. The Big 12 would get a lot more love with a SOR metric as the parity in the league is stupid good. There aren't nights off that the top B1G and and ACC teams are enjoying.

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

This is all true, but in reality the ACC is already not any better than the Big 12 on the football field, top to bottom it's probably objectively worse.

Somewhat different subject:
Committee needs to clear up their wild hypocrisy on if a team needs a CCG to prove its worth and if a team should slip in the rankings for losing a CCG. If a CCG loss does cause a ranking slip...they need to slide down ND and any other teams who didn't even play one to match in all cases. We're hearing a lot of talk about "better off missing SEC title game"...that should not exist. Notre Dame, Penn State, 3rd/4th/5th SEC team...they all "LOST" their effective CCG if a CCG loss is at all viewed as a negative thing.

They were tabbed as a two bid league from the get go though.

 

[BillBrasky4Cy]

Fun Fact: ND will play 3 true road games all season. Their games against Army, Navy, and Georgia Tech were all at neutral sites.

 

[HFCS]

None of it will matter until the committee and the media talking heads (ESPN) quit using Strength of Schedule as a metric and focus on strength of wins/strength of record. A team shouldn't benefit for getting stomped by tOSU, Georgia, Bama, etc. The Big 12 would get a lot more love with a SOR metric as the parity in the league is stupid good. There aren't nights off that the top B1G and and ACC teams are enjoying.

The vast majority of computer rankings from that massey composite are effectively that...it shows the top of the ACC just barely above Big 12 or basically identical like Clemson/ISU/BYU. Middle and bottom of Big 12 actually quite a bit stronger than ACC...and all of the G5 teams kind of wildly overrated by AP/CFP (hate saying that because I root for them unless it's punishing the Big 12).