I know the AP isn't in the BCS, but his is pretty unbelievable. Because he had OU at #24, a Sooner fan e-mailed him just wondering what his justification was on the deal. This is his response:

"Oops, my bad. I got the idea in my head late Saturday night that Oklahoma had lost. Sunday morning I didn't see the score in the paper. I'll correct it next week.

Auburn too.

jk


Jim Kleinpeter
Sports writer
New Orleans Times Picayune "

Turns out he had Auburn #8 too, because he thought they won. If he put OU where he had them last week at #15, OU would be ahead of Auburn in the AP poll. And we wonder why we put computer polls in the BCS......

http://mb22.scout.com/fouinsiderfrm1.showMessage?topicID=146846.topic

Wow.

And if this can happen in the AP, I'm sure it happens in the coaches poll (and those votes are anonymous, correct?)

What do they still call these polls in or mail them? WTF? You'd think they could just go online and report their vote and that they'd actually look online to do it. But then, some of those old AP Dinosaurs probably still don't use computers to file stories.

And this is why the BCS was created - to make the best two teams play against each other for the championship while diminishing (to a point) favoritism and error (via polling).

I think that the biggest problem with human polling is the custom of moving winning and losing teams in lockstep (i.e. preventing one winning team from leapfrogging another winning team). This allows preseason perceptions to remain in the polls until the end of the season. If I have Team A ranked #20 in my preseason poll and Team B ranked #21, and they both go undefeated, chances are I will keep Team B ranked 1 spot below Team A--even as they both rise through the rankings.

As a fan of computer polls and as someone who thinks that human polls are good for barstool discussion and nothing else, I wish that they had given them different names.

By calling them "computer polls," you caused a whole group of people to discredit them unfairly--"What do computers know about football? My computer doesn't even own a TV, let alone watch it."

Instead, we should have called them "objective polls" and "subjective polls." That would have allowed people to better see them for what they are and made decisions about them accordingly.

I'm agree with the gentleman from the great state of Nawth Calina.

I know the AP isn't in the BCS, but his is pretty unbelievable. Because he had OU at #24, a Sooner fan e-mailed him just wondering what his justification was on the deal. This is his response:

"Oops, my bad. I got the idea in my head late Saturday night that Oklahoma had lost. Sunday morning I didn't see the score in the paper. I'll correct it next week.

Auburn too.

jk


Jim Kleinpeter
Sports writer
New Orleans Times Picayune "

Turns out he had Auburn #8 too, because he thought they won. If he put OU where he had them last week at #15, OU would be ahead of Auburn in the AP poll. And we wonder why we put computer polls in the BCS......

http://mb22.scout.com/fouinsiderfrm1.showMessage?topicID=146846.topic

And Rutgers is ranked ahead of Ohio State in the computer polls...so while i get human polls are screwy, so are the computers....the whole system is screwed

And Rutgers is ranked ahead of Ohio State in the computer polls...so while i get human polls are screwy, so are the computers....the whole system is screwed

Why shouldn't they be? Because OSU was preseason #1 and Rutgers was preseason #nothing?

If there's something fundamentally wrong with the weightings that were originally put into the statistically-driven rankings, then I'm certainly open to making an adjustment if need be. If their calculation of strength-of-schedule or margin-of-victory or something like that is flawed, then let's change it.

But just declaring that the statistically-driven rankings are screwed up because we saw one team a couple of times and in the highlight reels on the teevee they looked really good (the traditional argument used here) doesn't really persuade me that there's a problem.

... doesn't really persuade me that there's a problem.

If Rutgers being currently ranked ahead of Ohio State doesn't invalidate the computer polls for you, then I really don't believe anything could.

Meanwhile, seeing that this week probably as much to discredit the computers to me (which I used to marginally favor) than anything in their history. To the degree that it has started me re-thinking my support for the BCS, moving me back toward favoring the previous bowl system & putting the computers back on the sidelines entirely.

If Rutgers being currently ranked ahead of Ohio State doesn't invalidate the computer polls for you, then I really don't believe anything could.

Ohio State:
Passing Offense: #37 (221.8 ypg)
Rushing Offense: #20 (179.5 ypg)
Scoring Offense: #8 (35.8 ppg)
Passing Defense: #23 (171.6 ypg)
Rushing Defense: #11 (90.2 ypg)
Scoring Defense: #1 (7.8 ppg)
Best Win: #13 Texas

Rutgers:
Passing Offense: #113 (134.9 ypg)
Rushing Offense: #15 (187.8 ypg)
Scoring Offense: #28 (29.1 ypg)
Passing Defense: #2 (138.3 ypg)
Rushing Defense: #15 (93.3 ypg)
Scoring Defense: #4 (10.9 ppg)
Best Win: #10 Louisville


Not to argue that Rutgers should be higher, because I don't know the formulae - but these teams are closer statistically than one might think. Especially defensively - Rutgers has the edge in total defense (although not scoring).

The best team is always subjective.

The best season is MUCH easier to get at, and should be the FIRST judge of who should play in the championship. The problem is, humans are flawed and confuse best team with best season.

If the multiple formulas with a variety of weights and measures take everything into account, and Rutgers is higher than everyone else, then for God's sakes put them into the national championship.

If they had a better season thus far than everyone else, who is to say what will happen? Sure, even my money would be on them getting walloped, but if teams like Rutgers have proved anything this year, its that humans aren't always a good judge of who can and will win on the field.

But then again, even independent of my biases, I thought the BCS did a good job in 2003 in putting the two best teams, in terms of best seasons, on the field. But it sure was fashionable to bash the computers and BCS then. So what do I know?

Oh, and FWIW...

Ohio State combined record of opponents: 54-64 (.457)
Ohio State opponents with winning records: 3 (Texas 8-3, Penn State 7-4, Iowa 6-5)
Ohio State score against Illinois: 17-10

Rutgers combined record of opponents: 42-37 (.531) [not counting Howard]
Rutgers opponents with winning records: 5 (Ohio 7-3, S. Florida 7-3, Navy 7-3, Pitt 6-4, Louisville 8-1)
Rutgers score against Illinois: 33-0

Is it so hard to believe that at this point in the season, a blind statistical comparison puts Rutgers with a slight lead?

... but these teams are closer statistically than one might think. Especially defensively - Rutgers has the edge in total defense (although not scoring).

So far, Rutgers has proven to me that they're at least a pretty good team ... and that Louisville wasn't nearly as good as people started to think after they beat WVU. But there's nothing there to convince me that they're better than OSU, who I've seen no reason to discount as being the best team in the country.

a blind statistical comparison puts Rutgers with a slight lead?

And "blind" is a very good word for that sort of ranking.

Hell, I don't even like the @#$%@ Big 10, and I find the whole "THE OSU" thing pretentious as Hell ... but let's get a grip here. We're actually talking about Rutgers from the Big Least being ranked ahead of the leader of the Big 10 ... and that's just fucking absurd, even on Bizarro world.

Two words...

playoffs

okay...maybe that's one word.

We're actually talking about Rutgers from the Big Least being ranked ahead of the leader of the Big 10 ... and that's just fucking absurd, even on Bizarro world.

And this sums up the preexisting bias towards certain universities and certain conferences. Essentially the human polls are are taking into account strength of schedules, etc. of past years, which really doesn't seem fair if you're looking at one isolated year.

Hell, I don't even like the @#$%@ Big 10, and I find the whole "THE OSU" thing pretentious as Hell ... but let's get a grip here. We're actually talking about Rutgers from the Big Least being ranked ahead of the leader of the Big 10 ... and that's just fucking absurd, even on Bizarro world.

This particular leader of the Big Ten doesn't seem to have played anybody better than who Rutgers has played. In general, yes, the Big Ten is a better league, top to bottom. But they haven't played Michigan yet. They don't play Wisconsin. Penn State looked good at the time, but has four losses now. Iowa looked good at the time but has five.

Big Ten v. Big East H2H
-----------------------------------
Ohio State over Cincinnati
Connecticut over Indiana
Michigan State over Pittsburgh
Rutgers over Illinois
Iowa over Syracuse
Syracuse over Illinois

All tied up 3-3. Again, is it so hard to believe? Is there a viable, statistical argument for putting OSU in front of Rutgers in the computer rankings?

Is there a viable, statistical argument for putting OSU in front of Rutgers in the computer rankings?

Which takes me to what I said earlier -- it may be time to throw the blind statisical component completely out of the equation.

And, since a dola seems unwarranted ...
cuervo -- re: existing bias -- I guess I'm reaching the point where that's becoming a "so what" to me. It isn't unprecedented for this to exist (see: Selection Sunday's) and it doesn't seem to have hurt the product a bit.

Ultimately, this (college football) is a source of entertainment. I'd rather see a re-match of, say, OSU-Michigan (neither of whom I give a damn about personally) than something like Rutgers vs Boise State ... and so would the majority of the rest of the country. It's simply more interesting, in part because of the legacy of the teams.

Look at last year's ratings for March Madness, down nearly 10% from the previous year, a drop readily attributable to the rash of upsets & the low profile Final Four. The occasional upset is fun & cute & all, but the truth is that more people enjoy it when there's teams who have some history behind them.

While that's a bit of honesty that is going to doubtless drive some people here absolutely s.f.n., it doesn't mean it isn't a real & worthwhile factor. What's the old saying, about how The Golden Rule is that "he who has the gold makes the rules". Well, it's those ratings that justify the enormous expenditure by networks on sports. And it's those dollars that mean we can watch a game nearly every day/night of the week, and at least a dozen games on Saturday

Now, if in the interest of blind statisical purity, you're willing to kill that golden goose and cut the volume of games available down over time, then more power to you, I'm cool with that, you're certainly entitled to that opinion. But at least know ahead of time what you're doing.

The bottom line is that it's all about the Benjamins. And a pair of 12-0 teams like Rutgers & Boise (et al) can't draw the dollars that even 10-2 OSU's, USC's, FSU's, etc could draw. For people who just like having games on a lot, something for some entertainment, a Rutgers-type Cinderella going to the big ball is one of the worst things that could happen in the long run.

Thredjack: I thought the George Mason Final Four game had really good ratings? Is it just magnified in my mind because George Mason is in our conference and it was such a huge story for us?

Everyone loves the computers until the computers disagree with their preconceived notions. Then, instead of questioning whether their preconceived notions are wrong, they assume that there's something missing from the equations and the computers must be wrong (as Jon is doing).

Anything objective that's worth using to rank a team is capable of being included in the computer rankings, although in the particular case of the BCS, tossing margin of victory leaves a lot of useful information out of it.

FWIW, Rutgers is still only 16th in Sagarin's pure points ranking. Purely on who they've beaten, they rank well, but they don't have the style points of anOSU. I'm not sure how much I trust his pure points, though... I'd like to see some alternative MOV formulations for comparison.

Thredjack: I thought the George Mason Final Four game had really good ratings? Is it just magnified in my mind because George Mason is in our conference and it was such a huge story for us?

I haven't been able to find the specific ratings, but some general articles about the tournament made reference to the positive impact of GMU & Wichita State on last year's tourney. Thing was, that the deeper they went into the tournament, the less positive impact they had on the ratings, ultimately contributing to the overall decline from '05.

That ties right back into what I said, basically that it's fun for a while but when it gets down to the end, people prefer to watch the traditional teams. From a ratings standpoint it becomes a two-edged sword: they need the upsets early but not late.

Penn State looked good at the time, but has four losses now. Iowa looked good at the time but has five.

... Is there a viable, statistical argument for putting OSU in front of Rutgers in the computer rankings?

Penn St should still be viewed as a good, but not great, team. Their losses were at Notre Dame, at Ohio St, vs Michigan, and at Wisconsin, all teams that are in the top 9 of the BCS. I won't argue for Iowa. ;)

Out of the five computer rankings that make their SOS ratings available, OSU has a tougher SOS than Rutgers in three of them, including the two that OSU leads Rutgers overall in. Rutgers leads in both where they have the tougher SOS. A simple argument may also include the fact that OSU has 11 wins, and Rutgers only 9 at this point. Finally, two of the rankings show what they would be if "margin of victory" was allowed. In Massey's BCS rating, OSU is #6 and Rutgers is #2 ... in his MOV rating, OSU is #1 and Rutgers is #6. In Sagarin's ELO-CHESS (BCS) rating, Rutgers is #2 and OSU is #3 ... in his overall rating, OSU is #1 and Rutgers is #8.

JiMG - if that's your viewpoint - that more folks want to see matchups rather than deserving (but untraditional) teams - then yes, I can see your point. And in that case you might as well drop the pretense of the entire BCS and just go back to the old way, like you suggested above.

I guess I approach college football a little differently than others - I really have no rooting interest for much of *any* team. Yeah, I'll still root for Penn State some (growing up outside Philly, there really weren't any other options, unless you're a masochist and want to root for Temple...and I went to a college where football was a non-factor; I'm very casual in my following of the NCAA), and maybe Maryland some. Typically I very much dislike the "powerhouses" in the NCAA - Ohio State, Michigan, Florida, Notre Dame (especially Notre Dame), USC, the Nebraska of old - couldn't stand a damned one of them. I'd personally love to see more upstart teams get their cracks at the "old guard" and take a couple of them down. But I can see where I would be in the minority.

Is there a viable, statistical argument for putting OSU in front of Rutgers in the computer rankings?

Yes. That's why every single computer rating that uses margin of victory has Ohio State ahead of Rutgers.

The computer polls don't make sense to many people compared to what they see on the field because the computers aren't allowed to use all available information. Essentially the computers are forced to have 1-0 final scores input for every game. There is only a winner and a loser.

Garbage in, garbage out.

When the human polls rank one team #6 (for example) and another team #12, and when the #12 team plays at the #6 team, the #12 team is favored, then, welll, the humans doing the polls just aren't trying very hard.

And in that case you might as well drop the pretense of the entire BCS and just go back to the old way, like you suggested above.

Except that look at the discussion it's generating. In that way, it's working.
And in that way at least, working better than the old system did.

This isn't unique to NCAAF by any means. Look at NASCAR's Chase. Look at the PGA adopting a similar situation. Hell, look at MLB's introduction of the wild card.

All of them are constructs of one sort or another, not designed soley to determine who the best/most worthy competitor is, but simply to increase interest and therefore increase revenue. They don't always work as designed, but that's their reason for being.

In each of the instances where we've got examples (since the PGA hasn't started theirs yet), I prefer the pre-marketing version of determining champions ... but I wasn't a casual fan of either, I followed them long before those changes were introduced. My interest in college football wasn't as strong, but was almost certainly above the national average, so it makes sense that I prefer the previous method there too I guess. But I'm not the target for the changes that any of them have made.

Yes. That's why every single computer rating that uses margin of victory has Ohio State ahead of Rutgers.

The computer polls don't make sense to many people compared to what they see on the field because the computers aren't allowed to use all available information. Essentially the computers are forced to have 1-0 final scores input for every game. There is only a winner and a loser.

Garbage in, garbage out.

And you know what, if we were talking about putting the two best/most talented teams on the field one would certainly want the open minded range of humans.

But for the best season? The type of thing that SHOULD be able to be broken down into bits of pieces? There is no reason a computer system can't figure that out better than humans can.

Unless you want the two best/most talented teams in the national championship game. If so, USC and Texas should just be penciled in every year.

The point of our current system is that the playoff is the regular season. The moment we accept that human polls are better because they see the better team, when we should be looking at who had the better season, is the moment we should absolutely go to a playoff.

...should absolutely go to a playoff.

Actually, you have a playoff now. It just happens to be one with two teams.

Yes. That's why every single computer rating that uses margin of victory has Ohio State ahead of Rutgers.

Well, yeah. :) I'd agree if MOV was allowed to be considered as well.

I'm not arguing by any stretch that Rutgers /should/ be in front of OSU. I'm arguing that the fact that some computer polls do is a reasonable occurance.

I think neither Ohio State nor Rutgers has played anyone other than Louisville or Texas. Ohio State got to avoid the other decent team in a very top-heavy Big Ten and Rutgers avoided anybody by playing in the extremely top-heavy Big East.

Honestly, I don't think there's a great team in college football this year and any team this year would lose to any National Championship team this decade, and maybe every runner up too except '01 Nebraska.

Dola- Margin of Victory should be in the BCS, and ever since they decided to dumb down the BCS it has gotten to be a worse system. You took out rewards for playing a tough OOC schedule by redicuing Margin of Victory and taking out quality wins. Great teams with great seasons win big games, and they took that part out.

Last season, Houston Nutt completely forgot 10-1 West Virginia in the final coaches poll used in determining the BCS teams (and before someone says they didn't deserve to be there, he came out afterwards and said that it was a mistake and that "we" must have missed them when moving some teams up and down).

Hell, I don't even like the @#$%@ Big 10, and I find the whole "THE OSU" thing pretentious as Hell ... but let's get a grip here. We're actually talking about Rutgers from the Big Least being ranked ahead of the leader of the Big 10 ... and that's just fucking absurd, even on Bizarro world.

Well, according to the computers, Rutgers isn't ranked ahead of the leader of the Big 10, seeing as how the computers have ranked Michigan as the leader of the conference.

I think it's time for them to just stop keeping score and it's only fair for there to be no winners or losers. Just like when the little kids play ball. Because all that will happen with scores and winners and losers is someones feelings are going to get hurt.

I think the reason tOSU should be ranked ahead of Rutgers all around is this:

The three winning record teams Ohio State played are ALL better than ALL of the winning record teams that Rutgers played. The only game I'd call even would be Iowa taking on lousiville, though I'd still go with Iowa.

Strength of schedule is the key that is no longer included in the computer rankings. This is the real difference here. The raw stats look similar that is true, but comparing the quality of opponent talent-wise and program wise makes a HUGE difference.

I think it's time for them to just stop keeping score and it's only fair for there to be no winners or losers. Just like when the little kids play ball. Because all that will happen with scores and winners and losers is someones feelings are going to get hurt.


Please stop causing problems.

I cannot fathom anyone wanting to exclude Rutgers from the title game if they go undefeated. If Rutgers beat OSU for the title, it would be the greatest sports story of my lifetime (or at least since a certain hockey game.) Who doesn't want to see that??? We can get a combo of USC/OSU/Mich/ND/etc. every other year, but this situation doesn't come along often. College fans should be excited about something like this.

**I am not a Rutgers fan**

The only game I'd call even would be Iowa taking on lousiville, though I'd still go with Iowa.

That's just absurd. And I'm a Big 10 fan.

I cannot fathom anyone wanting to exclude Rutgers from the title game if they go undefeated. If Rutgers beat OSU for the title, it would be the greatest sports story of my lifetime (or at least since a certain hockey game.) Who doesn't want to see that??? We can get a combo of USC/OSU/Mich/ND/etc. every other year, but this situation doesn't come along often. College fans should be excited about something like this.

**I am not a Rutgers fan**I never thought of it that way, but you bring up an excellent point. When are we EVER going to see Rutgers in this position again? The odds say 130 years, give or take a few, so why the hell not Rutgers? I'm down.

Oh, and FWIW...

Ohio State combined record of opponents: 54-64 (.457)
Ohio State opponents with winning records: 3 (Texas 8-3, Penn State 7-4, Iowa 6-5)
Ohio State score against Illinois: 17-10

Rutgers combined record of opponents: 42-37 (.531) [not counting Howard]
Rutgers opponents with winning records: 5 (Ohio 7-3, S. Florida 7-3, Navy 7-3, Pitt 6-4, Louisville 8-1)
Rutgers score against Illinois: 33-0

Is it so hard to believe that at this point in the season, a blind statistical comparison puts Rutgers with a slight lead?

Yeah, because you didn't include margin of victory or second level schedule corrections for starters.

I never thought of it that way, but you bring up an excellent point. When are we EVER going to see Rutgers in this position again? The odds say 130 years, give or take a few, so why the hell not Rutgers? I'm down.

Agreed.

Strength of schedule is the key that is no longer included in the computer rankings.

Strength of schedule is included in every computer ranking used by the BCS. Did you mean to say that SOS is no longer a direct component of the BCS formula?

The only game I'd call even would be Iowa taking on lousiville, though I'd still go with Iowa.

Is this a serious comment?

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaaf/news?slug=ap-pollvoterremoved&prov=ap&type=lgns

College football poll voter removed
By JEFF LATZKE, AP Sports Writer
November 15, 2006

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) -- A voter for The Associated Press college football poll was removed from the poll board Wednesday because he mistakenly thought Oklahoma had lost to Texas Tech and voted the Sooners lower in this week's rankings.

Jim Kleinpeter of The Times-Picayune of New Orleans said he tried to find the score of the Oklahoma game, but was unable to do so.

He said he was in the press box at the Alabama-LSU game "and I was asking about different teams, thinking about the poll the next day. ... I thought somebody told me that Oklahoma was losing to Texas Tech at some point. And I asked after the LSU game was over, `Did Oklahoma win?' Somebody said Oklahoma lost," Kleinpeter said.

The Sooners rallied from a 14-point deficit to beat Texas Tech 34-24.

Because he believed the Sooners (8-2, 5-1) had lost, Kleinpeter said he dropped Oklahoma from 15th to 24th on his ballot.

The Sooners actually moved up one spot, from No. 17 to No. 16, in the current poll.

"It was my fault. I probably had other avenues I could have gone to get the score, but I usually rely on the morning paper here in Baton Rouge. And for some reason, they didn't have the score. I looked all through it," he said.

"It's as simple as that. It was a mistake," he said. "I usually never have a problem with accuracy. It's the most important thing for me."

AP sports editor Terry Taylor said: "We understand mistakes can happen, but we thought this one could have been prevented. The heart of the matter here is the credibility of the poll."

So far, Rutgers has proven to me that they're at least a pretty good team ... and that Louisville wasn't nearly as good as people started to think after they beat WVU. But there's nothing there to convince me that they're better than OSU, who I've seen no reason to discount as being the best team in the country.



And "blind" is a very good word for that sort of ranking.

Hell, I don't even like the @#$%@ Big 10, and I find the whole "THE OSU" thing pretentious as Hell ... but let's get a grip here. We're actually talking about Rutgers from the Big Least being ranked ahead of the leader of the Big 10 ... and that's just fucking absurd, even on Bizarro world.


The BIG LEAST's best team, beat the Overated SEC's best team last year.

The Big Least still has an undefeated team in it.

The OHIO state victory over Texas doesn't look so impressive now does it? Texas was starting a freshman QB. Texas Defense has gotten torched over the last few weeks.

If you've watched Rutgers play this year would know they have probably the best HB, FB combination in Football.

They have one of the most dominate defenses in college football. Their QB and WR play are their weakspots but they have one of the BEST DEFENSIVE COLLEGE COACHES IN FOOTBALL.

Rutgers is good, real good.

If you've watched Rutgers play this year would know they have probably the best HB, FB combination in Football.

They are in the discussion at the very least. Brian Leonard is like a 2nd round draft pick, I'm certain he's the first FB off the board next year, and Ray Rice is on pace for a Heisman invite.


They have one of the most dominate defenses in college football.

Yes, my favorite typo ever! woot!

The Big Least still has an undefeated team in it.

Playing in the BL, that's not a feat that I find overwhelmingly impressive.

From Jeff Sagarin's NCAA football rankings on usatoday.com - an explanation at the top of the page (highlighted for emphasis by moi):

In ELO-CHESS, only winning and losing matters; the score margin is of no consequence, which makes it very "politically correct". However it is less accurate in its predictions for upcoming games than is the PURE POINTS, in which the score margin is the only thing that matters. PURE POINTS is also known as PREDICTOR, BALLANTINE, RHEINGOLD, WHITE OWL and is the best single PREDICTOR of future games. The ELO-CHESS will be utilized by the Bowl Championship Series(BCS).

BCS doesn't use margin of victory. SOS is still there.

Dola - I see this is a thread about the human polls, so pardon me.

FRRRRRRRRRankis!

Playing in the BL, that's not a feat that I find overwhelmingly impressive.

Really even though as a whole the conference has a better record then the SEC? Hmm even though they have 3 top 10 teams?

I figured it out, if you can't use reason or logic -- have few teeth and like inbreeding the SEC is for you!

I figured it out, if you can't use reason or logic -- have few teeth and like inbreeding the SEC is for you!

I really hate to break this to you, but ... I'm not "an SEC guy", my primary loyalty is elsewhere. I'm just calling it like I see it, same as I give the Big 10 credit even though I don't really like anybody in the whole conference.

So, troll away at the SEC if it floats your little boat, but it's really not going to have nearly the impact you seem to be hoping for.

Right now, IMO the SEC is living off of past glory. It basically has no resume this season, unless I'm missing something. The major nonconference games that I can recall are: SC pwning Arkansas (without McFadden), Tennessee pwning Cal. Why the automatic assumption that these teams are better than the Big East teams?

Right now, IMO the SEC is living off of past glory. It basically has no resume this season, unless I'm missing something. The major nonconference games that I can recall are: SC pwning Arkansas (without McFadden), Tennessee pwning Cal. Why the automatic assumption that these teams are better than the Big East teams?

Partly you're right, because of tradition; the other part is due to the Big East not having any marquee games (which is more than the two you give the SEC).

Rutgers played Navy, Howard, Ohio, Illinois, North Carolina
Louisville played Kentucky, Temple, Miami, Kansas State, and Middle Tennesse State
West Virginia played Marshall, Eastern Washington, Maryland, East Carolina, and Mississippi State

The best team of those 15 is probably Kansas State or Navy. It's hard to increase your reputation of being a strong conference when your member institutions don't play anyone good. You can credit Louisville for playing Miami, but Miami isn't very good this year.

Florida played Southern Miss and UCF and has Florida State and Western Carolina on its schedule.

Arkansas played USC (and got thumped), Utah State, Southeast Missouri State and Louisiana-Monroe

Auburn played Washington State, Buffalo, Tulane and Arkansas State

LSU played Louisiana-Lafayette, Arizona, Tulane, and FResno State

now.. tell me again how the top 4 teams by overall record in the SEC played a challenging schedule (except for Arkansas and USC)

Partly you're right, because of tradition; the other part is due to the Big East not having any marquee games (which is more than the two you give the SEC).

Rutgers played Navy, Howard, Ohio, Illinois, North Carolina
Louisville played Kentucky, Temple, Miami, Kansas State, and Middle Tennesse State
West Virginia played Marshall, Eastern Washington, Maryland, East Carolina, and Mississippi State

The best team of those 15 is probably Kansas State or Navy. It's hard to increase your reputation of being a strong conference when your member institutions don't play anyone good. You can credit Louisville for playing Miami, but Miami isn't very good this year.

Maryland is 8-2 and is in position to make it to the ACC Championship. West Virginia beat them by 28-points. That win is significantly better than any of the top 4 SEC teams' OOC wins.

now.. tell me again how the top 4 teams by overall record in the SEC played a challenging schedule (except for Arkansas and USC)

For starters, they have to play each other in many cases, as well the rest of the teams in the conference. That takes us right back to the issue of depth of a conference & the role it plays in assessing the strength/weakness of teams.