I personally am getting turned off by College Football because the SEC is getting rammed down everyone's throat. It doesn't matter who wins or loses NONE of their teams fall out of the top 10.
If you are in any other conference, and your bottom feeder teams throws together a good season, your conference is down, but in the SEC it just shows the depth.
Just sick of it.
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
Link doesn't work.
AGREE THOUGH!
Try this: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/the-worldwide-cheerleader-espn-and-the-college-football-playoff-20141028
And while it was a great and very informative read, I wouldn't exactly say it was an unbiased view, as the author is a FSU alum.
I fixed the link... sorry about that.
The SEC has been the best conference in college football for the last 5 years or so, and its not even close. Honestly, I enjoy both the level of competition and the tradition/ gameday experience. Far more interesting than B1G, Big 12, etc. Who would you rather see more news coverage of?
The SEC has been a top heavy conference bolstered up to look better than they are based on the overhype of a network that has a vested interest in doing so, which also happens to be the network that controls the agenda in the sports world. I don't buy for a second that they are the leaps and bounds better than anyone else that the mothership is trying to brainwash everyone into believing. They get by with their best teams winning OOC games against middling power 5 programs, and then beating each other up over the course of a season to see which one comes out on top in the guaranteed spot in the national title game where they have a 50/50 shot at winning it all. Heck, one time they were so hyped they had a 100% chance of winning it all.
edited to use a permalink, since the image stopped showing
Didn't downvote this (barely).
Yeah, it's a funny pic. But it's needlessly insulting towards people making cogent arguments. If you disagree with them and feel you must weigh in, you ought to say why you disagree instead of dismissing them as conspiracy theorists.
ETA: Nice! I get downvoted for NOT downvoting a post, and instead disagreeing with that post with reasoning that the OP agrees with. Some people really get this whole system we have here. I bet that you are just a blast at parties, Mr. Downvoter.
I was going for a funny pic, but it does look pretty dismissive. Obviously SEC bias theories are a lot less crazy than 9/11 truther theories, but the way the post was worded seemed a bit over-the-top conspiratorial to me. My reaction was to make a joke.
As for why I didn't put any reasons, I had just posted some thoughts on another thread a few days ago, and I thought this would be funnier as a stand-alone image.
In full disclosure, I think ESPN has some bias against the NHL because they don't carry any of the games. So I'm chucking rocks while standing next to a big ol' glass house.
Oh there's a complete bias in ESPN when it comes to the NHL. The second that contract ended, they treated the sport like it didn't exist and artificially inflated everything else (read: NBA). And when the NHL came back stronger than ever, they kept trying to push (and still do) the agenda that nobody cares about the sport (despite ever increasing ratings on networks people only watch for the NHL). And even then, they only push certain teams (Pittsburgh and to a lesser extent the Caps cause of Ovi).
This is the same blueprint they used, just in reverse, for the SEC. They doubled down on the conference, even during times where it probably (like, this year) wasn't warranted. Yes, the SEC has had a good run, but I don't buy for a second that they've been the leaps and bounds better than everyone else that ESPN would have you believe.
I think we're pretty close here. I think part of the continued hype, even after going 0-2 in the BCS last year, is a result of the overall success during the BCS era. They finished with the most BCS wins, even though the B1G actually had the most appearances. ESPN, as a general rule, values championships over all else. And the SEC just had a crazy run of them until FSU broke the steak. All in all, I think the respect/reference is pretty deserved, even though they had a dip last year.
FSU broke the steak and introduced crab legs, apparently.
Hahaha not gonna change it now
Completely disagree with the point ESPN "artificially inflated" the NBA. ESPN didn't just randomly decide to hype up the NBA; they signed a long term deal with them for a reason because the ratings and topics of discussion of the sport went up. Hence why NHL discussions went down. Their coverage of LeBron's every sneeze is obnoxious, I'll give you that. But long-term it was a smarter decision than to keep a partnership with NASCAR for example. But to say the NBA is artificially inflated is just silly.
Jesus, listen to yourself. Aren't we supposed to be a "community"? Can't someone make a joke without tip-toeing around other people's apparently eggshell feelings anymore? The constant strive for overly civil discussion is not necessary, have some fun.
down votes?? wow lol... I thought it was funny, and only funny, turkey leg for you good sir
Wow, folks - herd mentality much? -5, really? I'm as much a proponent of civil discourse and such around here, but this is just funny.
Coupled with tinfoil hats, that's just funny right there. Good grief. Someone took it the wrong way and several others piled on. Reconsider, people. Humor like this is par for the course around here.
Seeing that pic, I'm left to wonder why Johnny Cash is doing a commercial for Hershey Kisses at Halloween.
I don't know about you, but I didn't see two teams better than Bama and LSU that year. Also the top-billed game every week is on CBS. ABC isn't even allowed to show an SEC match-up in the Saturday night game.
Here's the main issue with the LSU-Alabama national championship game that I have, other than it being a rematch. IIRC, CBS pulled some strings to be able to get the first LSU-Alabama game that year. With the TV contracts and all, for them to get that game on that weekend in primetime, they ended up making a deal with ESPN.
Well, ESPN saw that matchup of 1 vs. 2, and wanted to replicate it for themselves, and the only place they could have done that was in the national championship. Many of their analysts starting pouring it on thick on the Alabama at that point.
At least, that's what it appeared to be, from the outside.
I boycotted that national championship game simply because I had been bored stiff by the first matchup, and didn't like how the second one occurred.
ESPN is all about the MONEY .
I would rather see more news coverage of college football as a whole. Look, I get it. ESPN is a media company, they need to cover the most popular things. Therefore they talk about nothing but Yankees/Red Sox/LeBron/Cowboys/Lakers/SEC/Notre Dame. I get it...they need to make money, so they need ratings.
But I stopped watching "College Game Day" a few years ago. They stopped talking about "College Football" and started talking about the SEC for the vast majority of the time. It just stopped being interesting or informative to me.
Overall, FoxSports1 has started producing a much more interesting/entertaining College Football Pre-Show for me personally.
In the last 3 years, the SEC is 1-3 in BCS games that it doesn't play against itself. (2-4 if you include the Bama/LSU game NCG)
Most people are definetely not aware of that, but if that had been the ACC or B1G, you would have heard all about it.
They were 1-3 because their hearts were not in those games. They were supposed to be in the title game, but since it wasn't the big one, the players didn't care enough to play.
-ESPN
I seem to remember hearing something similar to this after the Alabama bowl game last year.
To be fair, thats also what we told ourselves after the OB loss to Kansas
It's one things for fans to make irrational conclusions to comfort themselves. It's another for a "news" network to do the same to justify their opinion on something when proven wrong.
Although playing KU in a random year that they were decent is a little different than playing OU who is always up in the top 10 for the most part and is a national power. Everyone in the world thought we should have crushed Kansas. Plus I'm pretty sure that was the last year that Beamer treated the bowl game as a "reward" for the players instead of treating it like an actual game that has meaning to it.
ESPN doesn't do the AP rankings.
Does anyone else remember when Florida got to the national championship with Leak and put it on Ohio State? Everyone at ESPN talked about how they did't deserve to be there and didn't stand a chance against OSU. Since then the players and teams in the SEC have just been better collectively than anywhere else.
Before that, they were all over USC...because they were really good. The problem isn't ESPN so much as there are a lot of good players and teams in the south.
Heck, Oregon was unstoppable a few years back until they faced an Auburn defense that was getting torched in the SEC, and the Ducks could only manage 19 points.
I hate the SEC as much as anybody, but I don't think anyone can argue they aren't the best right now. Sports are cyclical though and eventually ESPN will spend time talking about other teams, assuming other teams start winning titles.
No, but they hold a lot of power over them.
A large majority of the folks contributing to that poll either work for ESPN or get a lot of information from ESPN. So it might not be a blatant bias or agenda, but ESPN has a hell of a lot more influence over the college football landscape than they even care to admit.
They talk about about the SEC because they are the most relevant. People care about LSU beating Ole Miss, nobody wants to hear about Clemson struggling to beat Syracuse. You can make all the bitter arguments you want but nobody is going to care about another conference more until some other conference starts to win like they do, or be as exciting to watch.
Also the top heavy argument is stupid when obviously Alabama, Georgia, LSU, and Auburn can carry the flag, but throughout their run other teams in the SEC have had really good or great teams like Ole Miss, Florida, Miss St, Arkansas, South Carolina, and more recently a&m and mizzou. Also some of their struggling teams right now like Florida and Tennessee still recruit like top tier programs so they have the talent. The same cannot be said for the likes of duke, nc state, Syracuse, Pitt, bc, wake forest, gt. They recruit like scrubs and rely on a few gems here and there. It's embarrassing honestly that we could ever have a bad season in the ACC.
Here's the problem.
"Hey isn't the SEC Great?"
"Yes!"
"Every Team is Great!"
"I know!"
Makes for a boring infotainment program. I'd rather hear about Clemson struggling against BC, or some Pac 12 Team that is doing something interesting than "Man, MissSt is Great!" "Yup!"
Being good, to me, is not inherently interesting. Watching on the field? Sure. But as far as productions like College Gameday or SportsTalkingHeadShowv2, it gets old and boring. We get it, the SEC is awesome. Now what?
That's what Bums me out the most. College Gameday used to be an interesting program that discussed the landscape of college football. Now it's the SEC Pre-Game show. I get *why*, I just don't like it because it doesn't cater to my interests as a semi-informed college football fan.
That's what Bums me out the most. College Gameday used to be an interesting program that discussed the landscape of college football. Now it's the SEC Pre-Game show. I get *why*, I just don't like it because it doesn't cater to my interests as a semi-informed college football fan.
I feel the same way. I can't watch it. It used to be my favorite sports show. It started going downhill during the end of the Tebow years. They need to go back to focusing on games that have conference championship significance and not just national championship/sec championship significance. It's not that hard to find good stories outside of the SEC. They're just not even trying anymore.
Ouch, definite misuse of downvoting here.
It's happening so much these days, and on almost every thread.
I think we have a rogue Hoo in these parts.
They are 1-3 lately in BCS games in which they didn't play each other, 2-4 if you include Bama/LSU title game. As for being exciting to watch, one could argue the Big 12 and their spread offenses are much better to watch than a 9-6 Bama/LSU game for example
I hate the $EC just as much, if not more, than the next guy. I can't stand the media getting on their knees week in and week out for Bama, Auburn, etc.
But like it or not, the SEC has been the best conference in college football for the past decade. There's a reason they won 6 or 7 BCS titles in a row. I think there is a media bias, but the SEC does deserve 5 teams in the top 10 this season.
But I still hate it.
I agree completely and you basically took the words right out of my mouth. the fact is, at the end of the season the only thing that matters is who won the national championship. Once conferences outside of the sec start regularly winning the national championship, they'll have no choice to stop the "yeah but something something sec" b.s. If the playoff comes down to 3 sec + 1 other, you can damn well bet I'll be rooting for "other" as if they were the Hokies.
Its not going to be easy to do if all their teams are in the college playoffs every year.
The issue being that conferences outside of the SEC might have been able to start winning national championships with some regularity int he last decade if they didn't have to deal with not only the on field hurdles, but the off field hurdle of the ESPN/Media favor of the SEC.
The Bama/LSU national championship game is a great example. A team that does not win its own division, let alone its conference, should not be playing for a national championship in a 1 game scenario. I have no problem when you end up with a World Series of 2 wild card teams, because those teams had to prove their worth over a best of 5 and best of 7 series, but in a purely subjective sport, subjectively a non division winner should never compete for the games top prize in a one off.
I feel even with the playoff that should be the case. And I am very happy to see that the committee has Ole Miss a couple of spots over Bama due to the head to head result.
The hole Ole Miss thing frustrates me. Yes its great that they Beat Bama and are ranked ahead of them, but if they were in any other conference they would have dropped to somewhere in the teens, yet there they are at 4.
^this.
What I don't get is, going back to the example of the LSU/Bama national championship, didn't that game prove college football fans overall are tired of the SEC? I believe that the game had one of the lowest viewer ratings ever. I could be remembering incorrectly, but when 4/5th's of college football fans feel alienated, I don't see how that can be good for ESPN long term.
^^Exactly, I've been waiting for this all day. Bama is a great win no doubt, but you give me Ole Miss against TCU, Oregon, or Baylor on neutral field with no spread, and I think I would bet against Ole Miss. I just don't put a lot of value on that A&M win.
I don't agree with the logic that this "will work itself out" as the season progresses given so many teams play each other. That is essentially admitting the current rankings are incorrect. We added a human element with the committee for a reason.
On a side note, I had someone argue to me today that even if FSU wins out, they should not be in the playoff. This was said with a straight face. I don't believe they are as good as last year, but not in the playoff after going undefeated...c'mon, wait, not giving them a shout out on this thread.
aren't all rankings incorrect until the final one?
that's like saying team x beat team y when they were ranked #5 in week, never mind they finished the season unranked with 4 losses or whatever.
Couldn't agree more, they are all incorrect until the final one. I just don't think arguments for or against Ole Miss at #4 should be disregarded simply because it is going to work itself out.
The week to week rankings should matter a little bit in certain instances. Just an example off the top of my head, BYU wins their first four games, moves up to #18. Stud QB breaks his leg in the second quarter game 5, backup QB throws three picks, and they lose (granted, I believe they were down by a TD when it happened). Were they deserving of #18 at that time? Maybe / maybe not, but the first four teams still played a lot tougher opponent than would be indicated by end of session rankings. And yes, it is literally a dagger to my heart writing this.
I guess I like the healthy debate in hopes of learning new perspectives from others.
I an unashamedly #teamsecwest
argue the underachieving acc, no talent b1g and no d b12 or pac12 all you want ... you'd have to be pretty jaded to say they compare well.
I'm with you as well.
I don't mind when Gameday goes to the SEC schools because they have a rich tradition in the game day experience of fans. Other schools have it too, but the SEC is seen as the destination of game day atmospheres. Sure, there is a huge SEC bias on ESPN, but it comes with the territory of sending teams to top tier bowls and national championships on a regular basis.
Yeah, no argument from me that the SEC is by far the best conference in College football. Look at their BCS bowl record, number of people drafted, and not to mention National championships.
Fowler actually mentioned ESPN is not biased on game day last week. I mean, I know he's not going to say "sure, we're biased, we love the SEC and everybody else sucks" but what he said made sense about it's better for all of college football and the media folks if there is good teams from all across the country, not just one region.
It's not an issue about "loving" anyone more than anyone else. Like everything in life it's about incentives.
ESPN has a significant financial investment in the SEC. It's in their absolute best interest that as many people watch the SEC as humanly possible. More eyeballs mean higher ratings, which means more advertising revenue. It is this advertising revenue that they are counting on to pay off, and then pay return on their significant investment in the conference.
It's not a loony conspiracy theory, it's simple common sense. If I was the guy in charge of ESPN I would garun-damn-tee that my network was focused on making sure that my most significant investment was also my most profitable one. It's business 101.
And thats why its really not a conspiracy theory. ESPN stands to make a significant financial gain by having the SEC propped up, so they prop them up, and hyper-inflate all the good that goes well for the conference, and downplay all the bad, because that gets more people interested, which means more people tune in, which means more viewers tuning in to the SEC Network, which means more advertisers are willing to shell out big money for spots on the network.
And who owns that network? ESPN.
If this wasn't about sports, and it wasn't about teams getting a chance to play for a title, this is the kind of business maneuvering that would get the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) involved in a potential monopolistic venture. Its the kind of situation that got Microsoft in trouble around the turn of the century.
Can we get the rest of the clip where Fowler mentions that ESPN (that crew specifically) does not have a stake in the rankings? They themselves (may not) but their employer does. Anyone who works directly for a broadcasting organization should NOT have a vote in any poll, there should be NO rankings before the season starts, and the playoff should be between at least 8 teams, with NO BYES. Think of March Madness? It's all about matchups and with the way the system works today, the best teams can be determined under the influence of those who stand to make more or less money depending on the attractiveness of the "show" they're broadcasting.
So what if ESPN is SEC biased? They are pound for pound the best conference in college football, with arguably the largest collective fan base.
~From Leonard's List of Life's Unassailable Truths
I don't have a problem with saying the SEC is the best conference in college football right now. I do have a problem with the claim that every team in that league should get the benefit of the doubt and that their top teams are almost by default put ahead of the top teams in other leagues (Florida State, Oregon, TCU, etc.
How does Miss St deserve to jump the defending national champs when they play an out of conference slate of UAB, Southern Miss, South Alabama and UT Martin? Because their big win is against Auburn... who lost the national title game last year?
Miss St - wins against two ranked teams and a cream puff OOC slate
Fl State - defending national champs with wins over two ranked teams and an OOC slate against OK State in Dallas (basically a road game), ND, and Florida #sec
This exactly.
Miss St. certainly deserves a Top 2 ranking right now by virtue of being undefeated, but that should be closer to the 2 than the 1. So what they beat a Texas AM team that was very overrated and is now considering reopening their QB compeition? A 2 loss LSU team (that admittedly is playing better). Auburn? Who FSU also beat for all the marbles this calender year?
And that difference between 1 and 2 means a lot more this year with the playoff than under the BCS format.
This is very similar to my feelings. The SEC teams are definitely good, but are they really 4 of the top 5 teams in the nation good? We don't really know because they're really only being judged by SEC standards. They're rankings are based almost solely off of how they perform against other SEC schools. Miss. State is a prime example of this. They didn't play a single power 5 team during their OOC schedule, and got pushed all the way to number 1 based solely off of SEC results. We really don't know if all of these SEC teams are better than FSU, ND, Oklahoma, Oregon, TCU etc. because they never play top OOC schools except in BCS games, which in the last few years they're 1-3. But, if an SEC team has the same record as one of those other schools, the SEC team will always be ranked higher, thus putting them in a playoff situation where they really may not be one of the 4 best teams in the country, and the only justification for this is that they play in the SEC.
Okay, I hate that three of the top four are SEC teams right now. And I hate how everyone seems to go gaga over the SEC.
However, I looked a little deeper than just the W's on the schedules for Miss St and FSU. (And I did put some of this in another thread, sorry for those who are reading a repeat.)
Over 7 games for both teams, Mississippi State has scored more points per game, and had a higher average margin of victory. Both teams have the exact same average of points scored against them.
Miss St has only trailed for one drive this season, and that was because aTm got the ball first in that game and scored a touchdown. FSU has had 4 games where they didn't lead, including a game where NC State was up 24-7 on them.
So, yeah, I gotta agree with Miss St jumping over FSU in the polls.
Full comparison here: http://cfarena.blogspot.com/2014/10/tale-of-tape-1-vs-2-updated.html
Those numbers can be misleading though, especially judging them based off of points scored and margin of victory. Miss. State's OOC schedule was a joke. Also, FSU played without Winston against Clemson which certainly hindered their offense and kept that game close.
A fair chunk of FSUs conference schedule is a joke. Syracuse, WF, and NC State - the last of which gave them a fit.
And i would say that the lack of Winston is key in the Clemson game. He wasn't hurt, he was benched for being an asshat, which is a problem Miss St doesn't have.
The point is that it's misleading/pointless to compare teams head to head and say one is better based off overall stats when there's a number of factors (schedule, missing players for discipline, etc.) that go in to it that don't really show you how good a team is.
Let's look at the other undefeated team: Marshall
They've scored more points, given up less points, and have a bigger margin of victory than both FSU and Miss St. So by the previous logic they're the best team, right? I don't think anyone's gonna argue for that.
I'm not necessarily trying to say that Miss St. isn't better than FSU, but deciding that on the basis of overall stats isn't the way to determine that.
We have to compare something, since there's not 120 games on the schedule.
And all I'm comparing are those two specific schools, because I've seen several comments where people were baffled as to why FSU got jumped.
Since I'm not one of those BCS computer guys, I can only be so thorough.
Ok, let's say for sake of argument that SEC is better than every other team.
Year after year no one compares.
ESPN Gameday has essentially become the pregame SEC Gameday broadcast.
In the past things were cyclic, Notre Dame, Penn State, Big East, USC, Gamecocks, different conference, different conference, wash, rinse, repeat.
How does ESPN, which really has come to control the message of most sports, especially amateur sports, help in maintaining a balanced ground from which other teams can maintain par in recruiting players and coaches?
The constant -essentially unpaid advertizing- for the SEC which occurs for 4 hours every Saturday and every time SportCenter is aired, puts a foot on the scale. The addition of the SEC network more so with the extra dollars.
The south doesn't have better athletes, certainly just on virtue of genetics or culture. But recruiting can certainly be tilted and development programs tilted by virtue of the dollars spent. Gotta get the dollars to spend them.
Compare recruiting dollars spent by the top SEC teams against those of the rest of the College Football Teams. Not blaming the SEC teams because they can spend more, geez no, I applaud the efforts.
But here's a taste of the disparity from USA Today .
whole Database
Ten biggest spenders 2010-11 school year.
School -Operating exp. (millions)
Texas -$133.7
Ohio State -$122.3
Michigan -$111.8
Florida -$107.2
Alabama -$105.1
Penn State -$101.3
Auburn -$100.5
Tennessee -$97.6
Wisconsin -$95.6
Oklahoma -$94.4
Sources: Individual schools, compiled by USA TODAY in conjunction with Indiana University's National Sports Journalism Center.
With Texas' 450,000 alumni, how many potential boosters is that?
But for ESPN to think others do not care about their teams because they don't win as much or that other conferences don't want to see what's happening in games relevant to their conference is wrong.
I think ESPN is looking too short term, they should be working to extend the game to all and help keep things balanced out.
Does anyone here think that K. Fuller's 6ft aerial deny at the GT game should have at least been a top 10 play of the day on Sportscenter? I recorded that series because I wanted to see it. It was not there but there certainly was some relatively routine stuff from the SEC. Some guys ran some long rushing TDs that were not all that interesting in comparison.
Who does the SEC play OOC? Clempson? They schedule patsies and the voters reward them for beating up on each other. I bet you there will be a 3 loss SEC team well in the top 10 this year. It is ridiculous
The SEC rarely plays OOC games against power 5 Conferences on the road.
Only the traditional rivalry games like USC-e vs. Klempson and U of FL vs. FlState.
This. Especially UF. The Gators have not left their home state of Florida for a regular season OOC game since they lost to Syracuse in 1991. It really is kind of amazing to me. NOT ONCE SINCE 1991! And on top of that, they have only played a total of 13 OOC road games (all in Florida) in that same 23 year period.
so far ...
uga beat clemson
bama beat wvu
auburn beat kstate on a thurs night in manhattan
sakerlina beat ecu
tn lost to ou
lsu beat wiskey
ole miss best boise st
to go
sakerlina at clemson
uga vs gt
ky at ul
fla at fsu
From a practical standpoint, here's how that works out.
Rank SEC teams 1-15 and spinkle in a few that might be deserving like the previous year's national champs.
Have SEC teams play creampuffs (mostly) for OOC games and win out.
Then, when they lost to an inconference team, it's a loss to a top 15 team and therefore a quality loss to a good opponent.
Not saying they are good teams but some years, it really seems stacked to allow guys like Miss. St to go to #1 over an unbeaten FSU takes someone do do some lobbying.
I think ESPN, whether they intend to or not, are the lobbying body here by virtue of their programming.
Yeah. Miss state is a good team, just watch them on the field but, I don't understand the logic of it.
Miss State beat Auburn and so jumped from #3 to #1. Auburn is good too but, see how that works?
Another data point. 1 loss Alabama beats Arkansas by 1 pt and so they jump to #1 over an unbeaten FSU in USA today poll in week 6! ?
I work with a Bama guy and he defended Bama moving up after beating a team that hasn't won a conference game in 2 years by saying "Yeah but this is an SEC team that is real hungry for that first conference win so they are going to play tougher than you would expect". I told him he is delusional and walked away. This is the same gump that cheered for Auburn in the NCG because "team SEC supersedes rivalries"
Duke laughs at your co-workers comment.
And that is the problem. When Duke jumped up the rest of the coastal was made to feel ashamed of it. "It's Duke" and all.
When Miss St jumps up, the SEC says, "but its the SEC".
BINGO.
Ole Miss and Miss St are 2 of the perennial worst teams in football's history, and the fact they're having decent years this year somehow validates that the SEC is the greatest conference of all time.
Yet, when Boston College, Wake Forest, or Duke makes it to the ACC Championship Game, it validates the fact that the ACC is a joke conference that doesn't deserve mention in important discussions.
Duke choking away the Chick-Fil A bowl last year to Texas A&M set the conference back. That win would have been huge. You could see that Duke was the better team.
And yet, somehow Auburn and Alabama losing on the big stage in the BCS games (TRUE tests OOC) is largely forgotten.
Alabama did not look good in that game and they had not yet played a ranked team but, you know their only loss came to an SEC Ole Miss and a bare win against any other SEC team is as good as beating a #1.
#gosec all the way.
instead of talking down the sec, talk up other conferences ... not cherry picking teams like fsu or oregon ... give me your argument for other conferences.
I'd love to hear it.
So you eliminated the ACC and the Pac-12's best teams? I would rather be ESPN and talk up the SEC while talking down the other conferences.
In all seriousness though, the fact that Miss St is ranked higher is my overall SEC issue.
Fl state is the champ and the best team in the nation until proven otherwise. And that proof is not created by talking heads and media rankings. Its on the field. They have not lost a game in almost 2 seasons and they are only #2 based on strength of schedule. Miss St is number 1 based on strength of schedule, Which, of course, is loaded with by-God SEC teams.
What story do you hear more about, FSU off the field transgressions or the fact they haven't lost a game in almost 2 years?
you can include them sure, then go down the conference card. how do the teams 2 thru 6 compare vs the sec's?
I don't think the discussion is "there is a better conference than the SEC." I think everyone agrees with that.
I think the issue people take, I'm certain the issue I take, is that there's 120 teams that play D1 football. Of those 100 or so teams, there are more than enough who are playing football at a high enough quality or who are having something interesting occuring that's worthy of coverage.
Yet, ESPN and college game day eschews coverage of these teams in favor of SEC teams.
We get it, is the point. We all get it. The SEC is great. We understand that. We have eyes and can watch the games. College Game Day is, what, 3 hours long? "The SEC is Great!" isn't rich enough of a subject ot merit three hours of coverage every Saturday morning in the fall.
But who is going to tune in to listen to talk about Marshall and how they are undefeated? Who is going to care about any of the lesser teams that are just making it by to bowl season other than the fans of their team? Meanwhile, if they can share some hot takes on teams at the top, suddenly more people are interested.
Well, if anyone is paying attention, there's three pretty good football being played out west. Big time games in the PAC 12 this weekend. Oregon-Standford. UCLA-Arizona. Utah-Arizona State. That's just one conference. There's plenty of non-sec material to talk about. Focus on your game of the week, Auburn and that team that lost last weekend, and then move on to other areas of the country.
Btw, If any of those 6 PAC 12 teams played the Mississippis at a neutral site, how confident would you be that the SEC would come out on top?
But, yes they should do a profile on Marshall. Spend some time behind the scenes with that team. Who's the coach. Who are their top play-makers. Why are they blowing everyone out - is it recruiting, play execution, etc. Not just, oh yah Marshall is one of the few unbeatens left. They don't stand a chance to make the playoffs because they don't have a quality team like friggin Arkansas on the schedule.
There was a time when Gameday used to enlighten their audience.
self promotion ... I paid attn, see the six pick ... I was called out for having 3 pac12 games.
Rakeem Cato has a pretty darn interesting story (oh and he also holds the NCAA record for most consecutive games with a TD pass).
I am sure I could find a few minutes while taking care of my Honey Dos to watch that, as opposed to hearing how the SEC West is gods gift to humanity a couple more times.
Believe me, I know Cato is interesting. I'm glad he'll be getting some airtime as the Gameday crew is in Morgantown this weekend. What I'm saying though is that the majority of the fans won't care. Few will know who Rakeem Cato even is. We only know him because we played him last year.
that's fair and they have the sec network and gameday is 3 hours, but it's about viewership, if they talk too much acc, b10 etc and lose viewers, they lose money.
people care about the sec, even if it's hate. even if they weren't partners, they'd do a lot of sec coverage, if it meant more viewers. they just double down on it when they bought a stake of the sec.
Sure, and I've stated multiple times in this thread that I understand why they're doing it, I've even stated I would do it myself if I ran the network. It just doesn't cater to me, personally, so I don't like it.
College Gameday is a show that's designed for the Mom who has an Alabama sweatshirt or 4, an Alabama car flag, has named her two dogs "Roll" and "Tide," but doesn't know that Lane Kiffen is their OC. It's a show she can put on in the background while doing 10 other things around the house Saturday morning, making breakfast, and getting various children ready for various sports practices. Not being the target demographic any longer for College Gameday Bums me out, it's a show I really used to like.
But it's exactly what happened to terrestrial radio, at some point it became a rush to get the "housewife background noise" market. Since it no longer appeals to me, I listen to podcasts.
Just because I know why ESPN has American-Idoled their product doesn't mean I have to like it.
FSU squeaked past both ND and Clemson, both games they really could have and likely should have lost. They have plenty of flaws that will keep them from winning a national title this year. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if Louisville gave them a run for their money tomorrow night. Meanwhile there's Miss St. They've beaten 3 top 10 teams. Their closest game was to, at the time, #8 LSU in Death Valley. They've beaten every other SEC team they've played by at least 2 touchdowns. They have played much better all around than FSU has against stiffer competition.
There in lies the problem. You can't combat facts with subjective items. FSU has gone undefeated in 1.5 seasons.
The subjective counter argument... Well they "Should've" or they "could've"... But the FACT remains they have been undefeated for 1.5 seasons. Thats it. Every other pro - SEC (Miss St) argument includes phrases like "At the time" or "this ranking" or "that ranking"... which are also subjective.
As far as I am concerned, both teams are undefeated, but FSU gets the #1 slot because they are the champs and Miss St is not.
Fair enough, fact is FSU hasn't looked impressive in wins. If just being undefeated meant something, why isn't Marshall in the top 10? And with regards to "at the time" or "this ranking" and "that ranking," you then can't use evidence from last season to prove the quality of a team this season. As far as this season goes, FSU is nothing more than an undefeated team. They haven't won any championship this year.
Is FSU not the championship belt holder?
Additionally, the SEC uses how long they have been great argument for years in regards to their "quality". And it is that perception which allows them to be "Preseason" ranked high before any games are played. Weren't 7 or 8 SEC teams ranked in the top 25 preseason.
I can not wrap my head around the notion that FSU as the reigning NC is the #2 team in the nation because their wins aren't "Pretty" enough. There are no pretty wins, only ugly losses.
Marshall is not in the top ten because of human perception. Humans do not like who they have beaten. That has zero bearing on how good the team is inside the white lines. Ask ECU.
No in fact, they are not.
Using your argument, humans like who Mississippi State has beaten more than who Florida State has beaten. There's no bonus points given for winning the national championship. Rankings are based upon the eye test and not a mathematical formula. If you slip a little one week, squeaking out a win with a last second field goal while the person behind you handily beats a team ranked higher than your opponent, they are going to gain some ground on you if they don't pass you entirely. Jameis is the reigning Heisman winner on an undefeated team but he should be nowhere near the top of the Heisman candidate list based upon how he has played. It goes the same way.
I mean "belt" as a metaphor, not literally.
As to the rest of your post, I understand how the system works, but since it is based on rankings, it is up to people to determine what's what.
Example: The NFL power rankings. They are for fun and give fodder for ESPN, but they mean nothing when it comes time for the playoffs. In CFB, the rankings matter, so in essence where the NFL has taken the subjective nature out of it, CFB has added it back in.
Have a leg for the awesome back and forth.
Not an SEC apologist but it really doesn't matter if FSU won the championship last year. They lost plenty of players to the NFL and are not playing at the same level as last year (recall their closest game was a 14 point victory over BC). You have to base this year's rankings on... well... this year.
"You have to base this year's rankings on... well... this year."
We agree. Perhaps the SEC should go first.
Texas AM was ranked SIXTH based off what exactly? Blowing out a 3 loss South Carolina team? But Miss. St gets to keep using that win like its something.
Alabama is 4th and until WVU clawed back in, they had played (and lost) to 1 ranked team the entire season. Our battered bruised Hokie squad has a better win this year than almost everyone in the SEC not named Auburn.
You seem to be saying that previous performance doesn't matter, unless we are talking about the SEC.
Rankings before December are talking points for media members and TV ratings. We all know this. Today's top 10 will not look the same after Championship Weekend. It's just fodder for everyone to cheer or moan over.
Marshall isn't top 10 because 95% of the country has not seen them play. Just from our game last year, it's so obvious that Rakeem Cato, and Shuler, and Hoskins, and a lot of their players can compete with any P5 team, no questions about it. Statistically, last year our defense was one of the best in the entire BCS era, and they moved the ball at will on us. They completed 3rd and 17s consistently. No one has seen them play though. Rankings are usualyl 50% eye test and 50% who have they played. Well right now, 50% of the equation is missing for Marshall, and the fact that no one has watched them play means that the lone 50% they had left is now also going unnoticed.
Last year our defense averaged giving up 4.4 yards per play to our opponents.
Marshall gained 361 yards in 87 plays for an average of 4.1 yards per play.
Our offense actually out gained them by 20 yards in the same number of plays.
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ncaadef2013
We were 3rd in the country in S&P rankings last year. And that is including all the games that Antone and Kyle missed. Before Kyle went down we were #1 in the country, and Kyle happened to be playing against Marshall.
Nothing you posted disagrees with anything I posted. I know we had an elite defense last year.
That defense actually held Marshall to *below* our average Yards per play. I was disagreeing with your notion that they "moved the ball at will" against us. Not only did we hold them below our allowed YPP, we held them to a full 1/3rd below their average YPP last year.
I give FSU a pass against Clemson since they played without their Heisman-winning QB. Notre Dame is an anomaly because they played their best game against FSU while letting UNC hang close in a prior week.
But the rest of your argument goes right back to the "the SEC is better because they're the SEC" issue.
win over a good wvu team and an even better kstate team on the road, is more than beating each other up.
michigan st and ohio st can't say that.
Auburn and Bama both lost to ACC teams. Duke went head to head and should have beat the Johnny Football led A&M team.
Mizzou and A&M came into a superior conference and practically dominated both divisions. How does that show depth?
no one is unbeatable, but as a hole tell me who is better?
duke, conf 3rd team lost to the sec's 7th team, hardly dominating. and let's not pretend manziel didn't have the same effect vick had for vt. before and after is their true spot.
the east is crappy, I argue sec west.
You seem to be missing the entire point of this thread. In fact I would suggest you are making it for the person that started it.
People believe the SEC is the best because ESPN keeps telling us the ESPN is the best to the detriment of all others.
or maybe I watch games and see other conferences lacking?
is that espn's point?
What's with the combative attitude in these comments today? Not really seeing much respect being paid to any opinions that differ from your own.
the only one I'm sharp with was the last one. that inferred me and others only know what we're told by espn and not what we see or read elsewhere.
I am arguing pretty much alone, it would seem if I'm not respecting others opinions, neither are they?
I never said that that is why you have your particular opinions. But if you think that the "average" (no information) college football fan doesn't fall into step with what ESPN focuses on, you are kidding yourself.
I really don't understand your commitment to another conference myself, but whatever. I don't see anyone disrespecting your opinion, unless questioning it is the same as disrespect?
I don't think BCO has a commitment to another conference. He's just acknowledging and defending his opinion that the SEC is a better conference than any other one at the present time. It won't be that way always, but right now it is. And as such, of course ESPN is going to milk their cash cow. You don't hear of ACC, PAC-12, or B1G fans like Phylis from Mulga crying out PAWWWLLLL. Those are SEC fans. The audience is there and thus so is the money.
correct.
does sec cover some aspects of the sec with kid gloves, sure. fox does that for the pac12 too.
I'm hear to be entertained. they entertain me.
I don't think anyone is disrespecting my opinion and I'm not there's. we can disagree. the comment was poorly worded, but if he felt I was disrespecting others, by not agreeing, then wasn't that being done to me.
I like good football, played at a high level, both in talent, & execution and that's balanced (not too o or d heavy) with passionate fans. I'll carry the water for any conference who gives me that.
I'll use the PAC 12 as an example, as I obviously get mostly those games in primetime out here in Scottsdale.
People keep talking about Oregon, but the Pac 12 has some VERY good teams playing right now. But because the games are on late, ESPN and the east coast in general are not watching/talking about them unless its Oregon or USC.
Oregon is getting hurt because they lost to an unranked (at the time) Arizona team. Arizona is pretty darn good. Arizona State could probably win the SEC East handily. Even a team like Utah would be competitive in pretty much any conference out there. Even the "medicore" teams like Stanford and UCLA would more than likely smoke half of the SEC. But these teams get little to no pub because they don't drive ESPN ratings, which is the entire point of this thread.
Teams like Miss State and Ole Miss, which are HISTORICALLY not very good football teams, are getting blown by ESPN because they are Team SEC, which I think is the whole point of this thread. It doesn't even enter the groupthink of ESPN viewers that maybe, just maybe, Miss St and Ole MIss are at the top of the SEC this year because the SEC is another flawed conference like everybody else. But do we really know how good they are? What, because the SEC was good before, that means this year the Miss teams must be great by virtue of playing in the SEC West, even though they have played exactly nobody in OOC play.
I don't know if it will even matter, because by years end it is certainly more likely than not that Ole Miss, Alabama (or Auburn) will have at least 2 losses, and seems likely that Miss. St. will probably get at least one.
pac12 is clearly no. 2, my issue is the eyeball test, says defense is lacking as whole. better than b12 defense, but it's an issue.
as good as they are, deep, competitive, well coached, there's a physical difference.
Is that because they have, you know.... good quarterback play? Just take a look at the SEC defense argument last year, when you had Johnny, AJ in his 4th year, Mettenberger, Murray, Shaw, and even Franklin. SEC defenses had their worst overall defensive performance of the BCS era. Why? Because Qbs were actually capable of throwing a forward pass. In the Pac12 you've got Mariota, Hundley, Kelly, Manion. Guy's that can throw the football. What QB in the SEC this year really strikes fear into opposing defenses? Maybe Nick Marshall? But he can't even pass. Bo Wallace? Even Ole Miss fans are concerned about his turnovers. Dak Prescott? Won't even come close to playing at the next level.
The argument about defense really is brutal when the SEC has very few guys that will be playing at the next level on the offensive side of the ball that aren't in the trenches, or getting 30+ carries a game.
that's fair too, but how many qbs a yr do play at the next level?
prescott and marshall aren't pro style qbs, that's not fair.
wasn't clear, you think pac12 plays as good or better defense?
I would say that they aren't comparable. The offenses out west are completely different than those in the SEC. Even though A&M and Missouri and to some extent, Auburn run a "spread" doesn't mean that it's comparable to what Oregon, Arizona, and ASU may be running. I think that you can't argue that one defense is better than another, because it's all about matchups. VT's defense is a great example of this. We are a great defense now when playing against more spread oriented teams, but if a team like Pitt or Miami lines up against us, we're at a disadvantage. That's why Stanford is capable of having success in the Pac12. They're the only team that's going to give 7OL looks in the conference. SEC defenses would struggle initially playing many spread up tempo teams just like Pac12 defenses would struggle with playing run heavy teams like LSU and Alabama.
How many Qbs play at the next level? Well, as of last year, there had been a grand total of 14 SEC Qbs selected in the first round of the NFL draft since 1970(!!!!) The Pac12, on the other hand, has had 10 Qbs drafted in the first round since 1998. Obviously first round draft picks is a tough comparison to make, and it may not be entirely accurate, but in most cases, you have to do at least pretty well in college in order to be selected in the first round. Therefore I think it's a valid stat to bring up when comparing quarterback play.
Marcus Mariota isn't a prototypical pro-style QB, neither was Colin Kapernick( I do realize he was not a Pac12 QB, but the argument is being made about the success of non-prostyle Qbs at the next level). I don't really see how that argument relates. That doesn't mean they can't make a forward pass. Marshall is currently 77th in completion percentage. Dak is ranked at 61. If opposing teams don't have to worry about passing as much, its much easier to take away the advantage that these teams may have running the QB.
SEC defense has been a reputation, a legacy, and yet a myth for a few years now.
The best teams have largely played good defense against OOC opponents but not against each other.
So if they can't defend against each other, but their "best-in-the-land" reputation is based on them beating each other... you see how the snake is swallowing itself?
huh?
in general defense is slipping everywhere, hunh, spread, so many different types of offenses, etc.
if your eyes think the b12 or pac12 play the same level, I don't know what to tell you.
b10 & acc don't really stop the sec that much either.
My point is that it's so disparate that you can't even rate their defense on one level. Because you have #1 MSSt with the 92nd-ranked D in the land (last in the conference), and on the other hand you have Florida whose defense is 12th nationally but whose coach is guaranteed to be job hunting come Decenber.
B1G doesn't play SEC enough to draw that much of a conclusion.
ACC doesn't stop SEC, SEC doesn't really stop ACC either.
To add to this, the ACC has the most pro quarterbacks starting in the NFL at the current moment 3 of which played at NC State!
I think a part of the story that some on this thread might be missing is that what E$ecPN is doing is creating a "self-eating watermelon". They are doing this to the benefit of E$ecPN (duh! - lots of reality there) and also the SEC.
By generating year after year of this constant media blather about the SEC, they are creating an environment where the SEC gets the best coaches, the best recruits, more media time, etc. and it feeds on itself and continues/progresses. So, we can all say that the other conferences need to win against them and prove they are better - I agree that has to happen. I am just saying that the college football continuum across all these aspects of its existence is tilted by a dominant media company doing this. Can the tilt be leveled? I'm not sure, but I hope so.
We all complain about recruits getting targeted by SEC schools right after VT offers them and then we see them go to the SEC schools, time and time again. To me, this is one part of a lot of evidence that the tilt is present and obvious.
I don't really think where NCAA Div 1 football is going is a product I'm interested in if this trend continues. VT will suffer (is suffering!) from this continuing model.
best coaches and players have been going there before the espn bias. they spend more money, have more fans going and care about winning and losing. culture as a conference is a real thing for all sports.
Be that as it may, that does not change the fact that ESPN's has a vested financial interest in expediting that dynamic.
Nobody said life was about being fair, but if you give half a hoot about the product of NCAA football in the future, it becomes problematic.
Best coaches and players go there because they can get away with allot more there. Please see the article. ESPN reports all the bullshit in other conferences, and then brushes all the SEC things under the rug.
Like Auburn's QB Marshall. He got in a ton of trouble and got kicked off of UGA because of it, but you didn't hear a peep about that during the national championship did you?
If FSU makes it back, you know dam well that they will talk about all the Winston shit during the entire game.
but does it affect the playoff selection committee?
Sure. They have their preliminary rankings which they base their playoff rankings off. See how there are like 5 teams from the SEC West that are ranked in the top 10 right now. It is not that much different from the week before, and on-top of that Ole Miss is 4 and they got beat by a not so hot LSU team and barely dropped in rankings.
I'm not sure, but
they will beat each other up, most will lose a few and move down.
the polls don't mean anything, especially the coaches poll.
I don't know what the committee's determining factors are
does any ranking mean anything at this point or even up to dec 6th?
I had 2 posts basically explaining this.
Don't know if anyone already posted this. Great article by rollingstone on SEC bias.
Edit: I'm an idiot
That was posted in the second comment in this thread :-P
Lol. My fault.
Its also the link in the OP, and the reason for the existence of the thread
lol
Well, there's that, but I figured it was a bit more obvious that the exact same link text appears right up there.
Also love how it's funny that people post on threads without reading anything...
one that cracked me up the other day was when someone posted a mic drop gif in the first reply to french's thread... and then like 20 comments later, someone else used the exact same gif in another comment.
I was all like
Something something...Zoolander Center....something something...kids who can't read good...
My reaction to every post that starts with something like "I haven't read the thread, but..."
I figured it out guys!!!
I don't hate the SEC. I love to watch their games. If there is a bias, its because of the following the conference has which generates money. We have even received similar treatment as recent as the Michigan Sugar Bowl for our passion (Danny caught that ball). But with all that said I have a strong personal belief that you should have to win your conference to be in the playoff...unless the playoff is expanded to allow for wildcards. I thought Bama and LSU were the two best that year, but who was the best? They split in 2 games.
The playoff system will be as big a joke as the BCS. Someone will always be left out and have a gripe!
It's great for ratings for espn and alike.
http://regressing.deadspin.com/the-sec-really-does-benefit-from-media-bi...
Not to beat a dead horse, but check out the link above.
The analysis concluded that the SEC has benefited the most from the AP poll compared to a metric called the F/+ since 2005. I guess one could argue the legitimacy of that metric as well. So who knows what this really means.
Just read that too. It doesn't confirm any overarching conspiracy, but does show a slight, consistent "bias" in the AP poll. I put bias in quotes just because F/+ isn't infallible either. I kind of filed it under humans not being perfect, combined with some things we already knew: wins are more paramount than anything, and that perceived tougher schedules are rewarded over #fancystats.
I actuary found the individual school biases the most interesting. VT was ranked <1 spot below our F/+ rank, while Utah got a 5 point spot bonus (both on average)
This is a pretty damning article against the bias out there towards the SEC and especially against the ACC.
On average, an ACC team is ranked about 2.6 spots lower in the polls than they should be at any given time. In retrospect, the SEC is ranked, on average .35 spots higher than they should be at any given time. Then you break it down into the teams themselves.
FSU is underranked by nearly 4 spots at any given time
Miami is underranked by nearly 3 spots at any given time
Clemson is underranked by nearly 3 spots at any given time
Virginia Tech is underranked by nearly 1 spot at any given time
Florida is overranked by 7 tenths of a spot at any given time
South Carolina is overranked by 1.75 spots at any given time
Georgia is overranked by 1.5 spots at any given time
LSU is overranked by nearly 2 spots at any given time
Auburn is overranked by over 2.5 spots at any given time
The bias is there, and not only is it actively helping the SEC, its actively punishing the ACC. We're getting screwed while our neighbors are getting propped up. You want to know why the ACC is looked down upon as much as they are? Well, there ya have it
Except it's not "at any given time." It's an average, meaning (unless I missed something in the article) that it can be influenced by outliers. Also, the article compares final AP poll results only, not mid-season. It's interesting and valid, but I don't think it's a big a deal as you say. How exactly are we getting screwed? When was the last time an acc team should've been in a championship game over another team? The rankings didn't matter within a few spots, unless you're at the very top (or bottom, I guess) during the bcs era. And these were just the AP poll results, not even the BCS rankings! I wish he would have used those, since they actually mattered.
Excellent link.
This passage perfectly illustrates what people are referring to as "SEC Bias" provided no less by the author who is trying to prove the opposite:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question:
If youre in the SEC, what's stopping you from an all-FCS non-conference schedule? No downside perceptible. Notre Dame had the #1 toughest schedule going into the fall, lost on a 50-50 call and now the Irish are toast. Why do victories over one-loss teams count more in the SEC? Two-loss SEC teams better drop like a rock.
-- David Shearon, location unknown
Answer:
So youd like to see Notre Dame given more credit for beating teams like Michigan and North Carolina because they looked tough coming into the year and maybe downgrade the SEC for beating teams like Kansas State and West Virginia that have turned out to be much better than we expected. Got it.
-- Stewart Mandel, location unknown
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was Alabama that beat West Virginia, not the entire SEC. Same goes with the Kansas State game; again, it was Auburn that survived Kansas State, not the entire SEC. Do you guys even notice it anymore? The fact that the a victory by any SEC team is suddenly and magically spread to the entire SEC conference while teams that go on to have great individual wins are only applied to those specific teams when they are from non-SEC conferences? I will be more than ready to admit that the SEC has some great teams, its just that not every team in the SEC is great.
For those who would argue that even if there was an SEC Bias on ESPN, the effects would be minimal, my question is:
"Why do companies pour money into product advertisement? Why do political campaigns spend millions of dollars on advertisement?"
Just who is being affected by the bias? Every consumer of the media who follows college football. Including the members of the selection committee. Is it any coincidence that the bias is so obvious and ever present this year due to the fact that it is the first year of the college football playoffs. Once the SEC dominance has been programmed anew this year, and assuming that an SEC team wins, then it will be easier the following year to keep up the drum beat of SEC.
There's a really easy way to eliminate the "SEC bias" though...beat the SEC and beat them consistently. Yay, we beat the SEC in the National Championship last year, but we failed to do it during the regular season. Clemson lost to South Carolina (again). Georgia beat GT (again). We had a losing regular season record to the SEC (3-5) and a losing overall record including bowl games (4-7). Against major conferences (Power-5 plus Big East) since 2010, the SEC is 61-34. You know who has a winning record against the SEC? The Big East at 8-7. The SEC IS dominant. It's not an opinion drummed into our brains with no factual support. It's evident based upon the results on the field.
Play this mind experiment friend:
Team A plays an OOC and has the following results:
beats Lamar, Rice, and SMU
Team A plays two in conference games and loses both.
Where do you rank them?
Don't be like that, jae. You know there's no real conclusion to be found, you're just trying to bait someone into a response that you can use to further your point
Stop trying to argue rankings. It's a human eye test that, believe it or not, isn't perfect. One person's opinion is different from another. Neither person is wrong. If you can't understand that rankings are opinions and not science, I can't help you. All I'm trying to say is the results on the field show SEC > The Field.
Yea I get that, but you don't think rankings matter? The preseason polls plays a part towards the rankings in the later years. The poll positions matter. Especially if one conference dominates in that initial preseason poll. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
BTW, SEC is not a monolithic entity. Have you noticed that you refer to the SEC as if it is a single team that has dominated everyone it has played? Its not. There are great teams within the SEC, but not every team is that dominant. But listen to the portrayal in the media of the SEC and you think that it is. The SEC is not just Alabama, Auburn, LSU, and Georgia.
I'm not saying that every team in the SEC is better than every other team in the nation and I've never once even suggested it. I said that AS A WHOLE the conference is better than any other conference. Tell me, do you think the worst team in the SEC (Vanderbilt) isn't better than the worst team in every other conference in the nation? The record shows that the SEC isn't perfect, but their teams beat the other teams from other conferences almost twice as often as they lose.
Well, we could have found out if Vandy didn't decide they weren't rivals with Wake Forest anymore.
But I'm going to say Vandy is the worst Power 5 team this year. They only beat an FCS team by 1. Wake at least beat their FCS team by 16.
Iowa State has a good case for being the worst, but they at least beat Iowa.
Overall with the SEC, I'm with Danny Kanell. The SEC is the best conference right now, but they're not that far ahead of #2 (which is probably the Pac-12 at this point).
I dunno man, I think they're just haters. You can't win unless someone says you're good first, it's science
Fair enough, but I think the clamoring of the SEC Bias would sub-side if there were no preseason polls put-out by anyone. Just let the selection committee put out the official poll.
No, that would not eliminate the bias and, we're not saying the SEC is not better, right now.
But it is a revolving door where the SEC plays paddycake OOC and only plays themselves so every ranked team they play is one of their own. So a loss doesn't hurt but a win is against a ranked team and self promoting.
So, they get more airtime, more dollars and more recruitment opportunities.
Can't beat the SEC when the top SEC teams won't schedule you.. Yeah UGA & South Carolina played a decent P5 team, but UGA and South Carolina are not the top feeders of SEC.
No way Auburn, Bama, Ole Miss, LSU, any West team will schedule any p5 team unless its a week 1 matchup. What's worse is their reasoning behind it, well our SEC schedule is tough enough.. AND that is where the problem is. They know they don't need to schedule any other schools in p5 because they're all ranked in top 25 and if they beat e/o up it won't matter because ohh the SEC is soo tough.
So power 5 matchups in week one don't matter? Everyone schedules their big ooc games early the year. And a decent number of SEC East teams play an ACC rival late in the season. Shocker: the ACC loses most of those games. As for the west, bama played wvu, ole miss played Boise, auburn played kansas st, LSU played Wisconsin. Your argument just doesn't hold water. And vt has had plenty of easy ooc schedules in the past, not just an SEC thing
Plus the SEC has the Sun Belt, so they can have another cupcake that's not FCS.
But outside of UGA/Clemson, have there been any true home and home OOC games for the SEC against power 5 outside of Thanksgiving in revent years?
LSU has another game against Wisconsin scheduled for 2016, up north again
Alabama plays Wisonsin in 2015, then USC in 2016
Auburn plays Louisville in 2015, then Clemson in 2016
Mississippi St plays no one
Ole Miss plays no one
Georgia might play someone in 2016, don't know
Florida plays ECU (lol) in 2015
Tennessee plays Oklahoma in 2015, and VT (Bristol) in 2016
Texas A&M plays Arizona State in 2015, and UCLA in 2016
I got tired of looking up SEC schedules, but to answer your question, no, it doesn't seem they schedule home and homes very often at all. Sure are a lot of good OOC games though, even though a lot were in neutral site locations
I get your point SEC East is let's say the ACC Atlantic not great but just good enough to stay relevant.
Arkansas hasn't won a game in SEC for years but hey Bama's 1 point win was impressive.
As per VT I wasn't arguing anything there, we play ECU for the next 40 years and then a MAC team that will give us fits until late. My argument was if in fact the SEC teams are much better than any other conference why don't they schedule other conferences more? Answer they don't need good OOC games because come SEC schedule they will have the chance to play4 top 10 schools every year. Why risk the chance of playing a P5 school and go unranked/out of title talk.
Look at what ECU did to us this year?Why would SEC teams want that to happen? It's a Lose Lose option.
I know things are cyclical, but couldn't one of them try to schedule with a lower Power 5 team and try to bluff appearances a bit?
Granted, that could backfire, as a team could have agreed to a series against Duke back in 2008 to play the next two years, when Duke's not quite the gimme.
But good grief, the SEC OOC schedules look horrible. The names on those lists look like a schedule for Div II or III.