Tubs to Cincy...

[O.city]

Originally Posted by Prison Bitch

Sure. The Big 12 has one dog, the SEC has 3-4. Further, the SEC has 40 percent more teams so saying they have more top ten teams is lame. Shouldn't they have more good teams when they have several more teams to begin with?



Looking at records to determine quality is almost as dumb as looking at batting average to determine hitter quality. I thought math has disproven these things but it seems we have a ways to go to shirk old school, opinion based thinking

Then throw math out.


Look at just football. If you took the Big 12's best and put them in the SEC west, playing Georgia, and say South Carolina plus the other few east teams they would play, they'd be hard pressed to win 9 games.

Very hard pressed.

[Prison Bitch]

Originally Posted by O.city

Then throw math out.


Look at just football. If you took the Big 12's best and put them in the SEC west, playing Georgia, and say South Carolina plus the other few east teams they would play, they'd be hard pressed to win 9 games.

Very hard pressed.

Agreed. Now you are making an argument I agree with and is in fact supported by computer data. The SEC's best teams are better than the Big 12s best (although I reiterate they have 4 more teams to use here). They are better at the top.


Their bottom sucks balls tho and that's why they finished below the Big 12. I see no reason to think TCU, Tech, Baylor or WVU wouldn't have pulverized the SEC dogs

[O.city]

The Big 12 has about 7 of "good" teams. The SEC has about 4 "great" teams, 4 "good" teams then a big drop off.


Thats where the sagarin shit is coming from. The Big 12 has more parity and the lower teams won more games because the top was weaker.


But stick to "Sagarin says so".