The committee finally annoyed the talking heads

[sufandu]

Who are these SEC homers and are they different from ACC homers or B1G homers?

Who are they? The people that live in my community (Knoxville). Are they different? Yeah, their heads are so stuck in the sand concerning their conference that they think recent SEC football dominance goes back decades (plural), as opposed to one decade, which is closer to the truth. They also think that because they have had recent football dominance, their other sports are dominant too. You should hear them talk about how disrespected they are during basketball season. Then again, maybe you do. Maybe you're one of them.

Everyone points to the national championships as reason why the SEC was the most dominant conference during the BCS era. That should certainly be considered, but one team does not make a conference. I agree that the SEC has been the best conference, but the numbers show that the degree to which they've been the best has been greatly exaggerated. Here's an interesting commentary on that. http://www.thepostgame.com/commenta...sto-southern-secession-chuck-thompson-sec-bcs

The truth is that teams don't play enough OOC matchups for us to ever get an accurate view of how conferences stack up. Regular season games are scheduled years in advance. At the time of scheduling they may look like like great matchups, but by the time the game comes around so many things change that often one team isn't on the same level as it was when the game was scheduled. Additionally, too many are scheduled within the first 2 weeks of the season. Teams can look completely different in week 8 or 10 than they do in week 1 or 2.

 

[TheCusian]

Who are they? The people that live in my community (Knoxville). Are they different? Yeah, their heads are so stuck in the sand concerning their conference that they think recent SEC football dominance goes back decades (plural), as opposed to one decade, which is closer to the truth. They also think that because they have had recent football dominance, their other sports are dominant too. You should hear them talk about how disrespected they are during basketball season. Then again, maybe you do. Maybe you're one of them.

Everyone points to the national championships as reason why the SEC was the most dominant conference during the BCS era. That should certainly be considered, but one team does not make a conference. I agree that the SEC has been the best conference, but the numbers show that the degree to which they've been the best has been greatly exaggerated. Here's an interesting commentary on that. http://www.thepostgame.com/commenta...sto-southern-secession-chuck-thompson-sec-bcs

The truth is that teams don't play enough OOC matchups for us to ever get an accurate view of how conferences stack up. Regular season games are scheduled years in advance. At the time of scheduling they may look like like great matchups, but by the time the game comes around so many things change that often one team isn't on the same level as it was when the game was scheduled. Additionally, too many are scheduled within the first 2 weeks of the season. Teams can look completely different in week 8 or 10 than they do in week 1 or 2.

That's a fantastic read. Good find.

This bit is really good:

When "good" SEC teams suffer losses in league play, this allegedly proves how tough the SEC is from top to bottom. If an SEC leader wins all of its league games, this allegedly proves how great that team is, given that it somehow managed to go undefeated against a monster SEC schedule -- ignored is the fact that SEC teams have pulled off this putative miracle for the last four straight seasons.

For God's sake, it's tougher to go undefeated in the Colonial Athletic Association than it is in the SEC.
If the same things happen in other conferences, however, the collective football media reverse the logic, claiming that if, say, a Mountain West Conference league leader loses to a lower-ranked Mountain West team, this merely proves how bad that losing team is, not how good the Mountain West is. In the same way, if a league leader goes undefeated in the Mountain West, the feat is said to merely demonstrate how weak the conference is, not accepted as proof of the strength of the unbeaten team.

 

[PoppyHart]

Has anyone not agreed that:

A. The SEC is still the best league, top to bottom, and
B. The league is in a down year and the gap is not as noticeable

Any arguments to the contrary are foolhardy at best.

 

[TheCusian]

Has anyone not agreed that:

A. The SEC is still the best league, top to bottom, and
B. The league is in a down year and the gap is not as noticeable

Any arguments to the contrary are foolhardy at best.

I don't know how good they are. They are really good at scheduling and playing each other.

 

[Alsacs]

Has anyone not agreed that:

A. The SEC is still the best league, top to bottom, and
B. The league is in a down year and the gap is not as noticeable

Any arguments to the contrary are foolhardy at best.

I think it can be debated SEC vs. Pac-12 this year. I don't think it would be crazy to say the top of the Pac-12 is better and that the SEC has a slightly better middle class. That debate is closer than I thought I put the side by side. SEC might be a razor better but its not definite.

 

[Madbiker]

If FSU and tOSU both win, I can easily see the committee giving the 4th spot to whichever team looked more impressive on Saturday.

Sure let's just forget that OSU lost AT HOME to crappy Virginia Tech while FSU has not lost. Games played early in the year count the same. I love the selective amnesia that OSU lost to a bad team.

 

[Alsacs]

If FSU wins on Saturday they will move up to 3rd. That win would be better than any TCU win and would be on a neutral field. Ohio State is a pick'em in Vegas right now with Wisconsin. I don't think Ohio State will make the top 4 without FSU losing and them winning.

 

[TheCusian]

Has anyone not agreed that: A. The SEC is still the best league, top to bottom, and B. The league is in a down year and the gap is not as noticeable Any arguments to the contrary are foolhardy at best.

If you hadn't watched any football until last season and formulated your opinion based on OOC results and bowl games - I'm not sure you'd come to the conclusion that they are the best.

 

[PoppyHart]

If you hadn't watched any football until last season and formulated your opinion based on OOC results and bowl games - I'm not sure you'd come to the conclusion that they are the best.

Rank your top 5 conferences. Go.

 

[TheCusian]

Rank your top 5 conferences. Go.

Based on what? Actual games? Or the eye test and wins against teams in your own conference?

 

[PoppyHart]

Based on what? Actual games? Or the eye test and wins against teams in your own conference?

Who you think are the best conferences. Simple as that. Don't dance around it. Just go on the record with your top 5 conferences.

 

[Alsacs]

Top 5 teams/Bottom 5 teams each conference.
SEC
1. Alabama
2. Mississippi State
3. Ole Miss
4. Georgia
5. Missouri
10. Florida
11. South Carolina
12. Tennessee
13. Kentucky
14. Vanderbilt

Pac-12
1. Oregon
2. Arizona
3. UCLA
4.Arizona State
5. USC
8. Washington
9. California
10. Oregon State
11. Washington State
12. Colorado

Big XII.
1. TCU
2. Baylor
3. Kansas State
4. Oklahoma
5. Texas
6. West Virginia
7. Oklahoma State
8. Texas Tech
9. Kansas
10. Iowa State

ACC
1. Florida State
2. Georgia Tech
3. Clemson
4. Louisville
5. Duke
10. Miami
11. Virginia Tech
12. Virginia
13. Syracuse
14. Wake Forest

Big Ten
1. Ohio State
2. Michigan State
3. Wisconsin
4. Minnesota
5. Nebraska
10. Illinois
11. Penn State
12. Northwestern
13. Purdue
14. Indiana
Ranking is subjective I think by this criteria it would go 1. SEC 2. Pac-12 3. Big XII 4. ACC 5. Big Ten

 

[TheCusian]

Who you think are the best conferences. Simple as that. Don't dance around it. Just go on the record with your top 5 conferences.

Okay. My rules then.

Based on OOC wins:

BIG 12
PAC12
SEC
ACC
BIG 10

The SEC is 5-6 vs the other P5 teams (.467). That's the 3rd best percentage. (The ACC is 10-7, BTW. Notice who plays more OCC games vs p5).

 

[TheCusian]

Also: of those OOC SEC games, their best wins are vs WISCY (3rd best B1G team) and KState (3rd best BIG12 team).

 

[NKR1978]

I've heard one or two talking heads on Sirius comment that even if Alabama loses they expect them in the Final Four. Could you believe that? A 2 loss Alabama in ahead of a 1 loss Baylor. there would be quit the uproar.

No way. They would not be able to stay in if they lost to a team that lost to Indiana.

 

[bpo57]

How do we know that they are playing a schedule better than 90% of the country if there is nothing to compare it to.

The point is this: if the conference plays weak OOC as a whole - the committee is forced to ask "how can we tell how good they are?"

All arguments outside of "who did you play?" and "who did you beat?" are irrelevant.

As for us - we played a top ten team (ND) at a neutral site and another p5 school at home (Maryland). While not murders road, it's still something we can use as a relative measure. If we only played Villanova and CMU's and everyone else scheduled the same way? Same issue as the SEC.

You can say that for any conference. How do we know they are any good? That can be said about all of them. The SEC tends to receive the benefit of the doubt because of their pedigree. Winning NC after NC tends to do that. That might be right that might be wrong but it is somewhat understandable.

 

[bpo57]

Also: of those OOC SEC games, their best wins are vs WISCY (3rd best B1G team) and KState (3rd best BIG12 team).

We'll find out in about 3-4 weeks how good the SEC is. I agree they are not as dominant as in years past but I don't think I'd be betting against them in a big hurry either.

 

[TheCusian]

You can say that for any conference. How do we know they are any good? That can be said about all of them. The SEC tends to receive the benefit of the doubt because of their pedigree. Winning NC after NC tends to do that. That might be right that might be wrong but it is somewhat understandable.

We know because they play each other. The ACC played 17 games against p5 teams. They went 10-7. The SEC played 9 games and went 4-5.

 

[TheCusian]

We'll find out in about 3-4 weeks how good the SEC is. I agree they are not as dominant as in years past but I don't think I'd be betting against them in a big hurry either.

Maybe not. If Mizzou wins, the B1G might have a better shot at the 4th spot.

 

[bpo57]

The SEC West while a good division is not as great as you imply.

Bama is the real deal offensively and a legit top 4 team.

Mississippi State beat Auburn, LSU, Arkansas and nobody in the non-conference. This team is such a fraud we don't know if they are any good.

Auburn and Texas A&M suck monkey b@lls defensively and are nothing more than just decent teams.

LSU is a young team that lost a lot to the NFL and lost 4 games during conference play.

Ole Miss was probably the 2nd best team in the SEC until they lost two defenders and their stud WR, but they aren't great now and I would only call them a top 20 team.

Arkansas has a lot of talent but only went 6-6. They played UGA and Mizzou the only decent East teams and if they had an easier schedule would likely be better, but then one of the other West teams would have eaten those losses.

The Pac-12 South is a better division IMO.
Arizona, Arizona State, UCLA, USC, Utah could definitely win 3 of 5 matchups with Alabama, Mississippi State, Ole Miss, Auburn, LSU the top 5 SEC West teams in the standings.

The SEC West while a good division is not as great as you imply.

Bama is the real deal offensively and a legit top 4 team.

Mississippi State beat Auburn, LSU, Arkansas and nobody in the non-conference. This team is such a fraud we don't know if they are any good.

Auburn and Texas A&M suck monkey b@lls defensively and are nothing more than just decent teams.

LSU is a young team that lost a lot to the NFL and lost 4 games during conference play.

Ole Miss was probably the 2nd best team in the SEC until they lost two defenders and their stud WR, but they aren't great now and I would only call them a top 20 team.

Arkansas has a lot of talent but only went 6-6. They played UGA and Mizzou the only decent East teams and if they had an easier schedule would likely be better, but then one of the other West teams would have eaten those losses.

The Pac-12 South is a better division IMO.
Arizona, Arizona State, UCLA, USC, Utah could definitely win 3 of 5 matchups with Alabama, Mississippi State, Ole Miss, Auburn, LSU the top 5 SEC West teams in the standings.

DEFINITELY win 3 of 5? Not sure how you can say that. I agree the PAC-12 south is very solid although some of them are wildly erratic from week to week. That said, you are basing your negative opinion of the SEC on how they've performed against each other. That means nothing. Let's see how they do in the bowl games.

UK and Florida are not decent teams according to you. I agree and yet they damn near beat two of the top ACC teams last weekend on the road. Lot of parity in college football so I think it's not as absolute as you think.

 

[bpo57]

We know because they play each other. The ACC played 17 games against p5 teams. They went 10-7. The SEC played 9 games and went 4-5.

Maybe we can concoct a wager here. Since the SEC is so overrated you take their opponent in the bowl game and I will take the SEC. Straight up. Deal?

 

[bpo57]

We know because they play each other. The ACC played 17 games against p5 teams. They went 10-7. The SEC played 9 games and went 4-5.

Not that simple my friend. The SEC West went 28-0. You can say they didn't play anybody and that's fine. But nobody beat them either so how you can draw any firm conclusion from that eludes me. But if you think the ACC is better than the SEC then I think you're nuts. Gtech, Louisville and FSU are solid. The rest of them are very mediocre.

 

[TheCusian]

Not that simple my friend. The SEC West went 28-0. You can say they didn't play anybody and that's fine. But nobody beat them either so how you can draw any firm conclusion from that eludes me. But if you think the ACC is better than the SEC then I think you're nuts. Gtech, Louisville and FSU are solid. The rest of them are very mediocre.

I'm not saying the ACC is better. I'm saying that it's impossible to tell how good they are based on who they played.

The SEC West's best team, Alabama - their best OOC win is WVU (barely). But they also played Southern Miss, Florida Atlantic, and the powerhouse team called Western Carolina.

Georgia played the toughest OOC in Clemson and Gtech (1-1 in those games).

Here are all 20 (28?) of those wins, p5 teams bolded:

• 08/30 – West Virginia (at Atlanta, GA)
• 09/06 – Florida Atlantic
• 09/13 – Southern Miss
• 11/22 – Western Carolina
• 08/30 – Southern Miss
• 09/06 – UAB
• 09/13 – at South Alabama
• 11/08 – UT Martin
• 08/28 – Boise State (at Atlanta, GA)
• 09/13 – UL Lafayette
• 09/27 – Memphis
• 11/08 – Presbyterian
• 09/06 – San Jose State
• 09/18 – at Kansas State
• 09/27 – Louisiana Tech
• 11/22 – Samford
• 08/30 – Wisconsin (at Houston, TX)
• 09/06 – Sam Houston State
• 09/13 – ULM
• 09/27 – New Mexico State

By my count, only 3 of those wins are worth anything at all. And not one SEC west team won more than one of those 3 games.

 

[bpo57]

I'm not saying the ACC is better. I'm saying that it's impossible to tell how good they are based on who they played.

The SEC West's best team, Alabama - their best OOC win is WVU (barely). But they also played Southern Miss, Florida Atlantic, and the powerhouse team called Western Carolina.

Georgia played the toughest OOC in Clemson and Gtech (1-1 in those games).

Here are all 20 (28?) of those wins, p5 teams bolded:

• 08/30 – West Virginia (at Atlanta, GA)
• 09/06 – Florida Atlantic
• 09/13 – Southern Miss
• 11/22 – Western Carolina
• 08/30 – Southern Miss
• 09/06 – UAB
• 09/13 – at South Alabama
• 11/08 – UT Martin
• 08/28 – Boise State (at Atlanta, GA)
• 09/13 – UL Lafayette
• 09/27 – Memphis
• 11/08 – Presbyterian
• 09/06 – San Jose State
• 09/18 – at Kansas State
• 09/27 – Louisiana Tech
• 11/22 – Samford
• 08/30 – Wisconsin (at Houston, TX)
• 09/06 – Sam Houston State
• 09/13 – ULM
• 09/27 – New Mexico State

By my count, only 3 of those wins are worth anything at all. And not one SEC west team won more than one of those 3 games.

There are seven SEC West teams and they all went 4-0. 7 x 4 = 28.

I will grant you that the SEC West teams played a very weak OOC schedule. I've used this analogy b4. This argument reminds me of when SU would play the sisters of the poor in hoops in December and get criticized for it and then play 12-15 solid opponents in the BE. Who cares about OOC games early in the year if you played a very tough schedule thereafter? If you're going to play 5-6 top 30 ranked teams in the SEC then why on earth would you want to add on to that by playing a few more powerhouses? That would be suicidal. The last thing you could say about SEC West teams is that they played a weak overall schedule.

The SEC has played a weak OOC schedule in the past and yet managed to win 71% of its bowl games over the last five years. Somehow that weak OOC didn't seem to matter come late December and January. Also didn't seem to stop four different SEC teams from winning NCs in the last decade. This OOC argument is goofy.

 

[baggerbob]

There are seven SEC West teams and they all went 4-0. 7 x 4 = 28.

I will grant you that the SEC West teams played a very weak OOC schedule. I've used this analogy b4. This argument reminds me of when SU would play the sisters of the poor in hoops in December and get criticized for it and then play 12-15 solid opponents in the BE. Who cares about OOC games early in the year if you played a very tough schedule thereafter? If you're going to play 5-6 top 30 ranked teams in the SEC then why on earth would you want to add on to that by playing a few more powerhouses? That would be suicidal. The last thing you could say about SEC West teams is that they played a weak overall schedule.

The SEC has played a weak OOC schedule in the past and yet managed to win 71% of its bowl games over the last five years. Somehow that weak OOC didn't seem to matter come late December and January. Also didn't seem to stop four different SEC teams from winning NCs in the last decade. This OOC argument is goofy.

We're not talking about last year, or any of the past years, just this year, and their record this year doesn't justify how the conference is ranked. So quit trying to use past years, for your reference points, people understand in past years the SEC has been better. But its this year, and giving credit to teams like Mississippi, and Mississippi St just because they are in the SEC is wrong.