The Myth of "SEC Bias" in the AP Poll

[AustinsTruth]

Given the rise of the "SEC bias" sentiment based on the AP Poll's (terrible) rankings, I thought it would be a good exercise to see just how accurate this narrative was. I approached the poll like an academic study, including a methodology section (I am a JD not a PHD but figured it'd be an interesting experiment). For the study, I removed the ballots of every AP Poll voter who could be considered to have an SEC affiliation to see what the poll would look like without "SEC bias" having an impact. The only team from the SEC that moved down was Missouri, who went from ranked 25 to 27. Other SEC teams actually moved up in the rankings. I attached the study results and methodology as a word doc if anyone wants to share it. Feel free to use it however you'd like, but in the days of misinformation, I felt like facts could be beneficial. 

Analytical look at SEC Bias in the AP Poll.docx

[Buck Travis]

There were SEC bias charges associated with the BCS rankings also. Mathematically, those teams playing other ranked teams (higher in the first poll of the season) carried a weighting through the season. So ranked SEC teams playing each other supported all SEC teams being ranked higher. A comparison of SEC vs non-conference records across the 10 years prior to the BCS and into the BCS era shows that the SEC was basically 50-50 against non-conference competition for the 90's-2000's.

But SEC teams dominated BCS playoffs. However, the SEC didn't consistently dominate NC in any decades prior to the BCS.

The distribution of NCs across major conferences was pretty even from the 60's-90's. Was the 2000's dominance because SEC teams were all ranked higher together in early polls? Was is purely coincidence that the founding chairman of the BCS, Roy Kramer, was the former SEC commissioner? Then the gravitational pull of BCS performance started impacting recruiting? 

People always charged ND and Penn State bias from the eastern sports media during the bowl era. As a Texas fan in the 70's and 80's that was obviously true.

[AustinsTruth]

I tended to be of the belief that the SEC was overrated over the last couple of decades before conference realignment. They always had the best talent (high school rankings), but football games are not won on high school rankings and the SEC underperformed in bowl games (when those still mattered). It is hard to determine overall quality now that the post season are not legitimate games outside of the playoffs. I was born in 99 so I couldn't tell you anything about the 70s. This experiment was an attempt to do something completely neutral, with a focus on reducing any legitimate argument people could make that voters were propping up the SEC for TV purposes or anything else. I also have never believed Missouri was actually good, but I also wouldn't argue against someone saying Missouri would beat a team like Texas Tech this season. 

Edited 42 minutes ago by AustinsTruth