The History of Improved S.E.C. Out-of-Conference Scheduling

by T Kyle King on Jul 31, 2007 8:23 AM EDT in Football

The last thing in the world I need is to make more enemies. For crying out loud, I'm getting called out by Troy fans who take issue with my good-natured kidding around and my critique of ESPN has caused Cubs fans who don't know what the blogosphere is to refer to me as "they/he/she"! This is no time to stir the pot, particularly when I'm trying to make peace between the S.E.C. and the Pac-10.

It is, therefore, with the greatest trepidation that I make any effort at all to address Brian Morsony's analysis of conference schedules, which claims objectivity despite not including conference championship games because "the championship games are used to cover up the fact that the best teams often don't play each other during the regular season."

This, I believe, is a red herring; although the degree of difficulty varies from season to season, depending upon the luck of the draw, the fact is that the Pac-10 champion has to survive a nine-game conference schedule (during the regular-season round-robin) and the S.E.C. champion has to survive a nine-game conference schedule (during the regular-season eight-game league slate and the conference championship game).

In ranking the S.E.C. fourth, Morsony opines:

The SEC seems to be doing the minimum necessary to be respectable. Each team plays about one BCS team outside the conference, with a few playing two, so you can't say they played no one. The SEC teams seem content to claim they're the best conference without going too far out of their way to distinguish themselves. That isn't to say that the SEC teams play bad schedules. Five of the top 15 teams are in the SEC and some teams do have good non-conference math-ups [sic.], so even with an 8 game conference schedule each team plays 3 very good teams over the course of the season. But there are also a lot of bad teams in the SEC and on their non-conference schedules, so top to bottom the SEC schedules aren't any harder than the conferences ahead of them. It's more difficult to go undefeated in the SEC than anywhere else, but hard to go undefeated doesn't equal great schedule.

It goes without saying that Morsony's purportedly objective analysis is not objective in the same sense as, say, The Hoover Street Rag's examination of that selfsame subject. Furthermore, as a Georgia fan, I concede no ground to anyone when it comes to out-of-conference scheduling, either historically or in the 21st century, despite the 40 years of wandering in the desert that the 'Dawgs did while Vince Dooley was setting the schedule. Weak non-conference scheduling is not an S.E.C.-wide problem, it is a problem specific to particular schools and, on the whole, the league's scheduling is improving.

Still, since I recently have been in an historical frame of mind, I would like to give a degree of context to the quality of non-conference competition faced by current S.E.C. squads by quoting a pertinent passage from John F. Stegeman's The Ghosts of Herty Field: Early Days on a Southern Gridiron.

Dr. Stegeman was, of course, the son of Herman J. Stegeman, who had served the University of Georgia as its dean of male students, its athletic director, and the head coach of its baseball, basketball, football, and track teams. The younger Stegeman followed in his father's footsteps, playing end for the Bulldogs in the 1930s, serving as physician and counselor to Coach Dooley, and writing the definitive history of Georgia football from 1891 to 1916.

The following paragraphs from Dr. Stegeman's book concern the 1910 football season in the Classic City. "McWhorter," naturally, is Bob McWhorter, Georgia's first all-American and the namesake of the University's athletic dorm. "Sanford," equally obviously, is Dr. Steadman Vincent Sanford, the University of Georgia president and University System of Georgia chancellor whose support for athletics made him the namesake of Sanford Stadium.

Wrote Dr. Stegeman:

In Georgia's first game against Locust Grove, a preparatory school, McWhorter scored five touchdowns in the short time he played, the final score being 101 to 0. Then, against his old team-mates of Gordon [Institute], he scored seven times in a game that was cut to three quarters. One of the Gordon players was Howard McWhorter, Bob's brother, who was asked why it was so hard to drag the Georgia halfback down. "He was too shifty to tackle so we tried to grab him around the neck," said Howard. "The trouble was that he didn't have any neck."

For those who attempted to stop the Georgia back by diving for his powerful legs, the experience was a painful one, and the Gordon boys did not try as hard the next time around. Just chasing McWhorter proved to be a dangerous pastime, and almost was fatal for E. G. Cromartie, a Gordon end. McWhorter once ran the length of the field, followed by Cromartie, who made a dive for the Georgia back at the goal. When the Gordon player got to his feet, said the Journal, "he fell down from exhaustion." He was carried off the field in serious condition. It turned out that, just before the game, Cromartie had eaten "heartily of cabbage, ham, and ice cream," a diet not ordinarily recommended for athletes who had to race the likes of Bob McWhorter. The youngster recovered, but a worried Director Sanford pledged that Georgia would never again play football against a prep school team.

Let's give credit where credit is due here, folks. The next time you hear someone criticizing S.E.C. out-of-conference scheduling, feel free to remind them that, almost a century ago, Georgia took a bold stand against lining up games against high school teams. Surely that counts for something, right?

Go 'Dawgs!

0 recs | Comment 5 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

A view on that study...

I think it's reasonable to question the validity of the study without even raising the issue of the results (wherein I believe your trepidation would arise).

It may very well be true that the Pac-10 plays the toughest schedule in the country, but this "study" doesn't prove that one way or another.

The flaw is so central: the definition of a quality opponent. Yes, not including conference championship games is a flaw in the analysis, and the inclusion of 7 western-based non-BCS teams as "quality opponents" based on nothing more than personal sense (if there's an objective basis for the selection of non-BCS teams, he didn't say so) is also a flaw. But neither of those is the biggest flaw.

The biggest flaw is that there's no distinction between a conference game against a good opponent and a conference game against a bad opponent. Playing Stanford is the same as playing USC. The author states how a Conference Championship game cloaks the failure to play a good team during the regular season - but playing less than a full round robin works the other way too. For example, Florida last year played 9 SEC games, but failed to play 2 in-conference opponents. Those 2 opponents were Mississippi and Mississippi State, the two worst teams in the conference by a decent clip. Had Florida played those two teams (in a full round-robin schedule), their schedule, bu any objective measure, would've been worse. The only way around that is to assume that all teams in a BCS conference are equal - but that gives undeserved credit to bottom feeder programs.

The second biggest flaw is that there's no distinction between BCS conferences - and this is a massive flaw as well. All BCS conference opponents are treated the same, regardless of how good the conference is. So when the Pac-10 plays 9 in-conference games, that counts in their favor, without regard to whether the conference is good or not. Assume this hypothetical: The Big East wants to expand, and in so doing, they add 4 teams to get to a 12 team conference. Further, because they appreciate the Pac-10's system, they impose a full, 11-game round robin regular season conference schedule. Immediately, the Big East would rise to the top of these rankings, because they'd be playing 11 BCS conference opponents in-conference. Now, assume for the sake of argument that the 4 teams the Big East added were Eastern Michigan, Buffalo, Temple and Florida International. Those 4 teams would become "BCS-conference opponents" and be treated the same as a game against LSU, Florida, Tennessee and Auburn? If no distinctions are drawn between the relative merits of conferences, then simply counting all games within that conference as "quality" provides no information. It's garbage in, garbage out.

One last thing: on the non-BCS conference teams he mentions, were a Big Ten blogger to repeat the same exact study, only include Miami (OH), Northern Illinois, Toledo, Bowling Green and Western Michigan as quality non-BCS opponents (and there's probably an argument for several of them), there'd be a significant change in the numbers. If an ACC blogger were to repeat the same exact study and include East Carolina, Central Florida, Marshall, and a couple of those MAC schools (and there's probably an argument for several of them), the study could tilt in their favor. That subjective selection of teams clearly affected the outcome. More garbage in, garbage out... or worse: outcome driven analysis.

by LD on Jul 31, 2007 9:56 AM EDT 0 recs

Wish you would look at this SEC-Big12 Challenge

We have been having a discussion over at
http://www.orangepower.com/showthread.php?p=327535&posted=1#post327535

concerning a Big12 vs SEC challenge. I know many fans would like to see something along these lines. What do you think?

by CarolinaDawg on Jul 31, 2007 12:21 PM EDT 0 recs

Great minds . . .

. . . think alike.

I just took a quick glance at the comment thread during my lunch break, but the 'Dawgs need to get a little more respect. Georgia has the S.E.C.'s highest winning percentage over the last five years and the S.E.C.'s highest winning percentage over the last 10 years. The Bulldogs are the only S.E.C. team to have won nine games in each of the last five seasons.

Three teams have combined to win six of the last seven S.E.C. titles: Florida (2000 and 2006), Georgia (2002 and 2005), and L.S.U. (2001 and 2003). (Auburn won the other one, in 2004.) In their respective national championship years of 2003 and 2006, the Bayou Bengals and the Gators each posted records (13-1) identical to that compiled by the Red and Black in 2002, when Georgia did not compete for a national title only because two B.C.S. conference teams went undefeated.

Right now, three teams stand shoulder-to-shoulder atop the Southeastern Conference: Florida, Georgia, and L.S.U. Historically, Georgia is one of the top three teams in the league in terms of conference championships.

In my opinion, anyone who considers Georgia the S.E.C.'s third-best program is underrating the 'Dawgs. As a matter of historical fact and present reality, anyone who considers Georgia the S.E.C.'s fourth-best program or worse simply doesn't know enough to offer an informed opinion.

by T Kyle King on Jul 31, 2007 1:54 PM EDT up 0 recs

What would you expect

...the fans there think that they are coming into Athens and gonna roll over Georgia and in the same breath are afraid of a loss at Troy. No, many of them are not well informed.

by CarolinaDawg on Jul 31, 2007 2:43 PM EDT up 0 recs

One of the many problems with

conference comparisons is what are the base lines, for what year, who was down, who was up, etc. It is not an easy comparison to make since not all leagues have the same amount of schools, not all schools have the name recognition that allows them to recruit star athletes, schools have different academic requirements. And most importantly all conferences fluctuate. There was a time when Stanford and Northwestern went to the Rose Bowl, Miss. State was playing for the SEC championship and going to the Peach Bowl. At one point the current bottom of each conference was the top or near the top. This might have been because of scheduling, the top schools having some down years, etc.

Even as a Pac-10 fan I would have to say that in the past three years the SEC has been the best conference, but not because of the top teams, but because each game is no longer a given. Miss. State beat Florida three years ago. Vanderbilt has played some really close ball games and beaten Tenn. and Georgia. Even in the ACC, Wake Forest was the ACC champion!?!

This conference comparison takes too much work and has a bad taste. My opinion is to sit back and enjoy the games.

Now comparing which was the best team of all time, and why, is more enjoyable. :)

By the way this is becoming one of my favorite sites to visit. I only hope that I can keep with the amount of material that is posted.

by monolake on Jul 31, 2007 2:28 PM EDT 0 recs