Myth of the SEC

[FaninAma]

While the Sooners played and beat 4 teams ranked in the top 12 of total offense Alabama played only 1 and lost.

[Mac94]

There's a flip side to the coin ... how many top defenses did OU play? That's one arguement in the Heisman thingg is top ten defenses faced ... A&M faced three ... KSU none.

Sitting on both side of this ... the SEC is a very good league. The number of players taken in the NFL draft from the SEC is proof of that. They have some of the best teams in the nation ... although there are some real dogs too. I'd take Weiss and Kansas over Kentucky easy. This is all cyclical though ... the SEC will always have good teams ... but this dominance stuff will end. Nebraska of the 90's became the Nebraska of the Callahan years. USC under Pete Carrol has become alot more vulnerable. The SEC has had a wonderful run ... and the 6 straight MNCs is hard to scoff at (and odds on Bama wins again this year). It'll end though ... there are some really good programs out there. Meyer is doing good things at Ohio St. ... Oregon is really really good ... and OU isn't going away.

[FaninAma]

I think defensive rankings are overblown. They are totally dependent on the offenses you play. I know you can say the reverse but the proof is on the field.

OU was ranked in the top 12 in defense until they hit the stretch that included TT, Baylor, OSU and West Virginia. I can guarantee you they would be ranked in the top 15 if they had played in the SEC.

The SEC's myth of superiority is based on the fact that they get a month or more to prepare for the opposition's offense. We'll see how it works out when a semi-realistic playoff starts in 2014.

[Mac94]

It's always dependent on who a team plays ... offense and defensive. Tech had the #1 defense in the nation at the end of September ... but played a crap schedule.

In the end, though, alot of it is subjective and there is very little in the way of cross conference games anymore. The SEC did very well this year against the ACC .. but there was little else to compare them to. The SEC has had a good run and while you make a valid point avout having a month to prepare ... that's a two way street. Other coaches have a month to prepare against the SEC teams as well.

[kevpks]

That SEC logjam in the top 10 was a bit ridiculous this year. Most played no one in the non-conf and knocked off each other. OU could have won every game after Notre Dame by 50 and wouldn't have passed the 2 loss SEC teams in front of them.

This year also once again shows that you had better be undefeated if you aren't in the SEC because with one loss you are likely not playing for a title. This may change a bit once the playoff format hits, but I would bet that most years there will be two or three SEC teams in the playoffs. Hopefully, there will be a rule to limit it to two but I'm not sure.

[FaninAma]

It's always dependent on who a team plays ... offense and defensive. Tech had the #1 defense in the nation at the end of September ... but played a crap schedule.

In the end, though, alot of it is subjective and there is very little in the way of cross conference games anymore. The SEC did very well this year against the ACC .. but there was little else to compare them to. The SEC has had a good run and while you make a valid point avout having a month to prepare ... that's a two way street. Other coaches have a month to prepare against the SEC
teams as well.

TAMU's defense was ranked 56th in the country yet take away a couple of critical mistakes by your freshman QB in early games against Florida and LSU they would have ran the table in conference play.

There's a reason Saban started whining about the hurry up offense after playing the aggies.

[Soonerjeepman]

hey Mac...you started chanting S E C yet at your games? lol...it's like you've been in the conf for years...

[Tear Down This Wall]

Really? So, because no one outside of the SEC can beat the SEC's top teams, it's a myth?

Crazy.

You've gotten too accustomed to watching bad defense in the Big 12 and confusing it with great offense. We've been over this with OU's and Texas' record breaking offenses being snuffed out in national title games by SEC schools.

Finally, if you want to talk about head starts in the polls, look at where the dip****s put Texas every preseason. Michigan, anyone? Michigan State? Oklahoma State? West Virginia? Early on, all of those clowns were ranked in the Top 10.

The difference is the SEC schools don't get beat by pansy asses like Arizona and so forth.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Also, I would have welcomed Alabama's opening game, Michigan, instead of ours, UTEP. We're going to schedule the likes of UTEP and Florida A&M, then start ripping someone else's scheduling?

[arcman46]

Really? So, because no one outside of the SEC can beat the SEC's top teams, it's a myth?

Crazy.

You've gotten too accustomed to watching bad defense in the Big 12 and confusing it with great offense. We've been over this with OU's and Texas' record breaking offenses being snuffed out in national title games by SEC schools.

Finally, if you want to talk about head starts in the polls, look at where the dip****s put Texas every preseason. Michigan, anyone? Michigan State? Oklahoma State? West Virginia? Early on, all of those clowns were ranked in the Top 10.

The difference is the SEC schools don't get beat by pansy asses like Arizona and so forth.

A) The defenses will always benefit more than the offenses when there is a month break between games.

B) No argument here.

C) The SEC rarely plays "pansies like Arizona". Florida hasn't had a non-conference game out of the state of Florida in Lord knows how long. Alabama played Michigan, a one dimensional team. After that no one else. Georgia played one team ranked in the top 25 until the championship game. If the SEC is the premier conference in college football, let's see them start to play some OOC games that mean something.

[Tear Down This Wall]

How many dimensions did Kansas State's offense have? Notre Dame's?

Come on. As long as no one can beat the top teams in the SEC except the top teams in the SEC, they will continue to win national titles.

Here's the list of those who have had a shot at proving the "SEC myth"

(1) Florida State, 1998 - Lost to Tennessee
(2) Oklahoma, 2003 - Lost to LSU
(3) Ohio State, 2006 - Lost to Florida
(4) Ohio State, 2007 - Lost to LSU
(5) Oklahoma, 2008 - Lost to Florida
(6) Texas, 2009 - Lost to Alabama
(7) Oregon, 2010 - Lost to Auburn

High-powered offenses: OU, Texas, Oregon. It meant nothing. Just a bunch of statistics piled up for the sake of piling them up in the regular season.

It's no myth. The SEC is dominant because of defense.

[Mac94]

Most played no one in the non-conf and knocked off each other.

Let's be real on this one ... the SEC OOC sched the same way the Big-12 generally has ... esp when the Big-12 was a 12 team league and had 8 conference games. this year the Big-12 OOC was weak ... outside of OU and Notre Dame there was little in terms of real games. Maybe the next best was Texas at Ole Miss? And I've seen next years games for the big-12 ... not all that impressive an OOC sched.

SEC OOC games this year included Michigan, Florida St., Clemson (twice), Louisville, Washington, Georgia Tech, Arizona St. ... The Big-12 had Notre Dame, Miami, Ole Miss, Arizona. Iowa, Maryland. Both conferences had decent games ... both had plenty of dog games.

[thecrimsoncrusader]

The SEC doesn't have a 6 game BCS title game winning streak. It's more like Alabama (Saban against Texas' backup QB and getting a rematch game against a team he lost to in the regular season) and Florida (Meyer) has been responsible for most of that. LSU was given the title with 2 losses, which was crap, and Auburn fielded ineligible players and got away with it. It's not the SEC, it's Alabama and Florida back when Florida still had Meyer.

Big 12 teams need to throw out honor and integrity and also quit backstabbing each other and start oversigning and paying players AND refs and whoever else it takes to get a victory. There is only honor in victory, not how one achieves victory! :D

[badger]

The SEC should never allow what happened to their schools to happen again --- a bunch of one-loss, two-loss teams that have NO SHOT at the BCS or the national title.

As long as we're talking playoffs nationally, why not start a playoff in the almighty SEC? Or at least have your big boy programs play each other at least once in a season?

If they won't do it, force them to: No more than one team in the national title playoff per conference. Conference champions only. NO at-large bids. Eff the at-larges.

[FaninAma]

TDTW, you miss the point entirely. I am not saying a top defense can't shut down a high powered offense on a given night especially given enough time to prepare.

You don't think ND hadn't been prepping for OU for several weeks? Then why did they turn around and look pathetic against a mediocre Pittsburg team right after that?

Put the top SEC defense into the Big 12 and make them play high powered offenses week after week after week and see what happens.

I am glad TAMU did well. It will finally force the SEC to update their offenses from the 1970's style they play now.

So beating Michigan, FSU and Clemson prove the SEC's out of conference dominance? OK.

The SEC has 2, count em, 2 teams in the top 20 in total offense and with the off year scheduling they probably only had to face 1.

[Mac94]

Or at least have your big boy programs play each other at least once in a season?

Hmmm ... Georgia vs Bama was kind of a play in game. And there was alot of playing between each other. The "big 6" are Bama, LSU, A&M, Georgia, Florida, S. Carolina ....

do remember A&M, LSU, and Bama all playing each other ... same with UGA, USC, and UofF ... also remember Florida playing A&M and LSU.

Or are you saying none of those games happened and we all just beat up on Auburn and Kentucky all season?

[Mac94]

So beating Michigan and Clemson prove the SEC's out of conference dominance? OK.

Nope ... just said that the SEC plays similar type OOCs that the Big-12 and everyone else does.

[PalmBeachSooner]

Also, I would have welcomed Alabama's opening game, Michigan, instead of ours, UTEP. We're going to schedule the likes of UTEP and Florida A&M, then start ripping someone else's scheduling?

For the eleventy-hundredth time, OU was supposed to open the season against TCU. When TCU joined the conference UTEP what they were left with. Having one FAMU on the schedule is cool with me, when the other non-conference game was Notre Dame. OU doesn't have to apologize for it's schedule, ever.

[Mac94]

OU doesn't have to apologize for it's schedule, ever.

Oklahoma has the most respectable OOC scheduling in the conference and is one of the best in the nation.

[FaninAma]

The current BCS system hasn't rewarded the entire SEC just 3 teams and rexently that has been reduced to 2 teams.....LSU and Alabama. Their style of play and out right cheating with the medical hardships and grey shirts/over-signing has been fine-tuned to take advantage of this system.

Isn't it funny how the balance of power shifted to the west division of the SEC once Saban and Miles got there and started their unethical player recruiting policies. It is no accident.


Beef up on defense knowing you play mediocre offenses. Win the title even with 1 or 2 losses and get an automatic BCS title invite and then have an entire month to prepare for the opposing offense.

There is no doubt that the SEC has better defensive talent because they stockpile defensive talent and if you can't cut it you have your scholarship pulled or you are told you get a medical hardship and your playing days at Bama and LSU are through.

[kevpks]

Let's be real on this one ... the SEC OOC sched the same way the Big-12 generally has ... esp when the Big-12 was a 12 team league and had 8 conference games. this year the Big-12 OOC was weak ... outside of OU and Notre Dame there was little in terms of real games. Maybe the next best was Texas at Ole Miss? And I've seen next years games for the big-12 ... not all that impressive an OOC sched.

SEC OOC games this year included Michigan, Florida St., Clemson (twice), Louisville, Washington, Georgia Tech, Arizona St. ... The Big-12 had Notre Dame, Miami, Ole Miss, Arizona. Iowa, Maryland. Both conferences had decent games ... both had plenty of dog games.

Florida has not played an OOC road game outside of the states since when? I don't see Florida signing up to go to Notre Dame, UCLA, etc. SEC scheduling is incestuous. Tramel had a good write up on this issue.

http://blog.newsok.com/berrytramel/2012/11/16/college-football-sec-top-10-domination-incestuous/

[MichiganSooner]

This season, the teams that should be playing in the national championship are both undefeated. Notre Dame should be playing Ohio State with the SEC out of the picture. A past team at Tattoo U is preventing this year's team of playing for a title.

[LRoss]

A vain, single-handed attempt at an internet voice of reason:

There is no "myth" of the SEC. It's the best conference in the country, and has been for a while.

There IS certainly something of an "exaggeration" of the SEC superiority. Which itself gets exaggerated by some into supposedly being a "myth."

[SoonerorLater]

A vain, single-handed attempt at an internet voice of reason:

There is no "myth" of the SEC. It's the best conference in the country, and has been for a while.

There IS certainly something of an "exaggeration" of the SEC superiority. Which itself gets exaggerated by some into supposedly being a "myth."

Are they really the best conference this year? Alabama may well be the best team in the country but is there any other team that is really that special? Georgia, SC, Florida, ATM and LSU are pretty good teams but not dominant. I think Georgia has 1 win over a DIV I team with a winning record. The bottom half of the SEC is less than average. So much for facing a quality opponent every week. This has always been the SEC argument that even the bottom rung teams are tough.

[jkjsooner]

We've been over this with OU's and Texas' record breaking offenses being snuffed out in national title games by SEC schools.

What SEC schools dominated our offenses? Seems you remember games that didn't happen.

I remember us moving the ball pretty well against Florida. They toughened up within the 10 yard line and they deserve credit for that but it's not like they shut us down.

I remember a nobody QB for Texas coming in and bringing their team back against Bama.

Did we put up 50 on them? Of course not. Rarely does a team put up 50 in a national title game. Did our offenses move the ball pretty effectively? Yep.

[Mac94]

Tramel had a good write up on this issue.

Most teams OOC scheduling is one good matchup and three buy games for home gates. The SEC has one tradeoff that makes theres a bit more pronounced in that it plays alot of conference game sin September. That means playing an OOC game or two late in the year. How many Big-12, B1G, Pac-12, ACC schools have open dates in November. Yes, it's a tradeoff but if gives the SEC highly visable TV games when most of the coutry is playing crap games (see Big-12 week one this year).

Still ... Almost every team plays one decent OOC opponent. And ... I wonder if Tramel was griping abouot OU's imposing OOC of UTEP, Arkansas St., and Rice in 2000 .... I know I wasn't.

[FaninAma]

With more and more teams and conferences going to 4 year scholarships I think you will see Bama's and LSU's days of dominance coming to an end.

[badger]

With more and more teams and conferences going to 4 year scholarships I think you will see Bama's and LSU's days of dominance coming to an end.

hopefully it won't result in more crying at signing days for those recruits who were injured their senior high school seasons :(

[Tear Down This Wall]

What SEC schools dominated our offenses? Seems you remember games that didn't happen.

I remember us moving the ball pretty well against Florida. They toughened up within the 10 yard line and they deserve credit for that but it's not like they shut us down.

I remember a nobody QB for Texas coming in and bringing their team back against Bama.

Did we put up 50 on them? Of course not. Rarely does a team put up 50 in a national title game. Did our offenses move the ball pretty effectively? Yep.

Against us, first number is what LSU and Florida held us to, second is what we were averaging for the season:

LSU
First Downs: 12 / 23.3 avg
Rushing Yards: 52 / 153.2 avg
Passing Yards: 102 / 308.2 avg
Sacks: 5 / 3 avg
Turnovers: 2 / 1.3 avg
3rd Down Conv.: 4-15, 26.6% / 43.8%
Points: 14 / 45.1 avg

Florida
First Downs: 25 / 27.7 avg
Rushing Yards: 107 / 205.5 avg
Passing Yards: 256 / 356.7
Sacks: 2 / 0.8
Turnovers: 2 / 0.8
3rd Down Conv.: 6-13, 46.2% / 51.6%
Points: 14 / 54 avg

They dominated us. Bama dominated Texas as well. I don't give enough of a crap about Texas to look it all up. I know that their quarterback finally took a big league hit from a defender and that finished him for the game. Once Bama had the game out of reach, they eased up.

Doesn't matter, they still held Texas way below what they did all year.

Why is this so hard to accept? Just admit that we got our asses kicked.

Why would we fight so hard to believe what the SEC constantly produces isn't better when the numbers and head-to-head matches prove it? In three games where their best faced our best in title games, they smothered our offenses. That's the fact, Jack.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Texas/Alabama

Alabama - What Texas got vs Bama / what they averaged before the game
First Downs: 15 / 24.2 avg
Rushing Yards: 81 / 152.3 avg
Passing Yards: 195 / 279.7
Sacks: 1 / 2.3 avg
Turnovers: 5 / 1.7
3rd Down Conv.: 6-17, 35.3% / 46.1%
Points: 21 / 40.7 avg

Bama's defense dominated them the same way LSU and Florida dominated us.

[jkjsooner]

Against us, first number is what LSU and Florida held us to, second is what we were averaging for the season:

LSU
First Downs: 12 / 23.3 avg
Rushing Yards: 52 / 153.2 avg
Passing Yards: 102 / 308.2 avg
Sacks: 5 / 3 avg
Turnovers: 2 / 1.3 avg
3rd Down Conv.: 4-15, 26.6% / 43.8%
Points: 14 / 45.1 avg

Florida
First Downs: 25 / 27.7 avg
Rushing Yards: 107 / 205.5 avg
Passing Yards: 256 / 356.7
Sacks: 2 / 0.8
Turnovers: 2 / 0.8
3rd Down Conv.: 6-13, 46.2% / 51.6%
Points: 14 / 54 avg

They dominated us. Bama dominated Texas as well. I don't give enough of a crap about Texas to look it all up. I know that their quarterback finally took a big league hit from a defender and that finished him for the game. Once Bama had the game out of reach, they eased up.

Doesn't matter, they still held Texas way below what they did all year.

Why is this so hard to accept? Just admit that we got our asses kicked.

Why would we fight so hard to believe what the SEC constantly produces isn't better when the numbers and head-to-head matches prove it? In three games where their best faced our best in title games, they smothered our offenses. That's the fact, Jack.

Are you kidding me? Do you really expect anywhere near our average offensive output in a national title game? It almost never happens. It sure as hell didn't happen back in the '70s or '80s either. We didn't roll up offensive stats against Michigan or Penn State or Miami.

I'm not going to discuss the LSU game. We had a QB who could barely throw the ball that game.

In the Florida our offense was successful in moving the ball. We put ourselves in position to win that game and I think it's pretty clear that missing Murray was a key factor in our problems in the red zone. We played a hell of a lot better in that game than anyone expected us to.

[fwsooner22]

Did any of the bottom 6 of the SEC beat any of the top 6. I know going into the final week they hadn't. That says a lot doesn't it ? Especially if you run around chanting "SEC SEC".

[mainline13]

How many dimensions did Kansas State's offense have? Notre Dame's?

Come on. As long as no one can beat the top teams in the SEC except the top teams in the SEC, they will continue to win national titles.

Here's the list of those who have had a shot at proving the "SEC myth"

(1) Florida State, 1998 - Lost to Tennessee
(2) Oklahoma, 2003 - Lost to LSU
(3) Ohio State, 2006 - Lost to Florida
(4) Ohio State, 2007 - Lost to LSU
(5) Oklahoma, 2008 - Lost to Florida
(6) Texas, 2009 - Lost to Alabama
(7) Oregon, 2010 - Lost to Auburn

High-powered offenses: OU, Texas, Oregon. It meant nothing. Just a bunch of statistics piled up for the sake of piling them up in the regular season.

It's no myth. The SEC is dominant because of defense.

Most people will admit that the top teams in the SEC have, of late, been among the top teams in the nation. But does the dominance at the top of the conference justify over-ranking virtually every team in the middle of the conference?

[8timechamps]

It's foolish to knock OU's scheduling. Year in, and year out, Castiglione has scheduled at least one solid OOC game. And that isn't changing anytime soon.

It's also foolish to knock Alabama or LSU's scheduling, as they have done a similar job of scheduling.

It's too early to know how A&M will look in the SEC, but they're off to a good start.

This is what I'll say about the SEC; it IS overrated. I'm too lazy to look at the statistics, but the bottom half of the SEC is a joke. Top to bottom, there isn't a more competitive league than the Big XII. Will it always be that way? Who knows, but it is right now.

Conference success is cyclical.

[nutinbutdust]

Most teams OOC scheduling is one good matchup and three buy games for home gates. The SEC has one tradeoff that makes theres a bit more pronounced in that it plays alot of conference game sin September. That means playing an OOC game or two late in the year. How many Big-12, B1G, Pac-12, ACC schools have open dates in November. Yes, it's a tradeoff but if gives the SEC highly visable TV games when most of the coutry is playing crap games (see Big-12 week one this year).

Still ... Almost every team plays one decent OOC opponent. And ... I wonder if Tramel was griping abouot OU's imposing OOC of UTEP, Arkansas St., and Rice in 2000 .... I know I wasn't.

In the big twelve we play NINE conference games not EIGHT. Why dont you try that in the SEC.

[Sabanball]

Don't look now, but 6 SEC teams finished ranked in the top 10 of the final BCS poll. That should help prove your point(NOT).

[8timechamps]

Don't look now, but 6 SEC teams finished ranked in the top 10 of the final BCS poll. That should help prove your point(NOT).

Do you really believe LSU and South Carolina are legitimate top 10 teams? Heck, add Florida to that list. Take off the SEC blinders for a minute, and give me a truthful answer.

[Sabanball]

Do you really believe LSU and South Carolina are legitimate top 10 teams? Heck, add Florida to that list. Take off the SEC blinders for a minute, and give me a truthful answer.

Absolutely believe that LSU is, SC could make a case. Remember, SC finished 10-2 and clocked Georgia.

[nutinbutdust]

Do you really believe LSU and South Carolina are legitimate top 10 teams? Heck, add Florida to that list. Take off the SEC blinders for a minute, and give me a truthful answer.
Heck put Kentucky in there, they beat Kent State 47-14.

[Sabanball]

Actually, this has probably been one of the most dominant seasons ever for the SEC in the BCS era.....Take a look at this because odds are it will never happen again.

Even last year, when LSU and Bama played for the title, the SEC only had four teams in the BCS top ten. Which got me thinking, where does six teams in the final BCS standings compare to past seasons.

Since the BCS standings began in 1998 here are the number of SEC teams in the top ten at the end of the season. Alongside it is the parenthetical with the most top ten teams from any conference:

1998: two teams, Tennessee and Florida (2)

1999: three teams, Alabama, Tennessee, and Florida (3)

2000: one team, Florida (3)

2001: two teams, Florida, Tennessee (3)

2002: one team, Georgia (3)

2003: two teams, LSU, Tennessee (3)

2004: two teams, Auburn, Georgia (2)

2005: two teams, Georgia, Auburn (2)

2006: Florida, LSU, Auburn (3)

2007: LSU, Georgia (3)

2008: Florida, Alabama (3)

2009: Alabama, Florida (2)

2010: Auburn, Arkansas (3)

2011: LSU, Alabama, Arkansas, South Carolina (4)

2012: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, LSU, Texas A&M, South Carolina (6)

When you actually break down the BCS data, 2012 was the most dominant year in the history of any BCS conference by a substantial margin. Prior to the SEC having six teams this year, only the SEC had ever had four. And no other conference had ever had more than three.

So this year the SEC doubled the number of top teams that any conference had ever had in the BCS era.

In the past two years the SEC has had the same number of teams in the final BCS top ten as it did in the previous five years.

The data shows that the SEC's lead over the rest of college football is actually growing. In other words, the SEC is accelerating as its domination grows.

Having six teams in the final BCS top ten is simply amazing. If anything, this level of dominance is being underplayed nationally. Not saying it will last forever, but it's where we're at right now.

[nutinbutdust]

Absolutely believe that LSU is, SC could make a case. Remember, SC finished 10-2 and clocked Georgia.

Lets have a look at S. Carolinas Schedule....

30-Aug @Vanderbilt Won 17-13
8-Sep East Carolina Won 48-10
15-Sep UAB Won 49-6
22-Sep Missouri Won 31-10
29-Sep @Kentucky Won 38-17
6-Oct Georgia Won 35-7
13-Oct @LSU Lost 21-23
20-Oct @Florida Lost 11-44
27-Oct Tennessee Won 38-35
10-Nov Arkansas Won 38-20
17-Nov Wofford Won 24-7
24-Nov @Clemson Won 27-17

Meh they beat Georgia and clemson.... what a hard schedule.

[8timechamps]

Absolutely believe that LSU is, SC could make a case. Remember, SC finished 10-2 and clocked Georgia.

I just don't see it. LSU didn't do anything all season that makes me think they are a legit top 10 team. Nor did South Carolina. In order to believe they are that good, you have to subscribe to the theory that the SEC is that good. I don't.

I believe that Alabama is 'that' good, and will continue to believe that until proven otherwise. The rest, not so much. Florida is grossly overrated.

[8timechamps]

Lets have a look at S. Carolinas Schedule....

30-Aug @Vanderbilt Won 17-13
8-Sep East Carolina Won 48-10
15-Sep UAB Won 49-6
22-Sep Missouri Won 31-10
29-Sep @Kentucky Won 38-17
6-Oct Georgia Won 35-7
13-Oct @LSU Lost 21-23
20-Oct @Florida Lost 11-44
27-Oct Tennessee Won 38-35
10-Nov Arkansas Won 38-20
17-Nov Wofford Won 24-7
24-Nov @Clemson Won 27-17

Meh they beat Georgia and clemson.... what a hard schedule.

Exactly my point. Admittedly, I can't explain the Georgia game, but the rest kinda prove my point. Clemson isn't that stellar of a win.

[Sabanball]

I just don't see it. LSU didn't do anything all season that makes me think they are a legit top 10 team. Nor did South Carolina. In order to believe they are that good, you have to subscribe to the theory that the SEC is that good. I don't.

I believe that Alabama is 'that' good, and will continue to believe that until proven otherwise. The rest, not so much. Florida is grossly overrated.

LSU played 5 ranked teams in a row, the only team in the nation to do so--and only lost to the the no 2 and 3 teams in the country. They are one play away from playing Georgia for a spot in the BCSCG.

Florida is ranked no. 2 by the computers and finished 11-1. I'd be interested in knowing your rationale for them being 'overrated.' I'm guessing it's primarily because they are a run-oriented team and not flashy on O. If they're 'grossly overrated', then what does that make your team? I can see you guys with a case for a top 10 ranking, but how could you objectively put the gators behind your sooners?

[8timechamps]

Here's why I'm not buying the hype for Florida or LSU:

LSU (games of note)
Auburn w 12-10
Ole Miss w 41-35
Arkansas w 20-13

Florida (games of note)
Bowling Green w 27-14
LA-Lafayette w 27-20
Missouri w 14-7

Don't get me wrong, I think they are definitely top 20 teams, just not top 10.

[Mac94]

First ... yes the Big-12 plays nine conference games ... now. Thank only happened in the past two years ... it's not like the Big-12 has this incredible history of nine conference games per year.

Second ... someone posted S. Carolina's schedule ... they have two quality wins ... Georgia and Clemson. Two wins that top anything OU has done this season ... OU's best win is Texas and we all know the Horns are a shell of a team. After that ... what comes close to a quality win?

The Big-12 has alot of parity this year ... which on the one hand means competitive .. on the other means there is no real quality. 70% of the teams are 7-5 or worse ... and there are few quality OOC wins in the bunch. The Big-12 feasted on poor OOC opponents as much as any other league.

Only Oklahoma and Kansas St really are any good in this league.

[8timechamps]

First ... yes the Big-12 plays nine conference games ... now. Thank only happened in the past two years ... it's not like the Big-12 has this incredible history of nine conference games per year.

Second ... someone posted S. Carolina's schedule ... they have two quality wins ... Georgia and Clemson. Two wins that top anything OU has done this season ... OU's best win is Texas and we all know the Horns are a shell of a team. After that ... what comes close to a quality win?

The Big-12 has alot of parity this year ... which on the one hand means competitive .. on the other means there is no real quality. 70% of the teams are 7-5 or worse ... and there are few quality OOC wins in the bunch. The Big-12 feasted on poor OOC opponents as much as any other league.

Only Oklahoma and Kansas St really are any good in this league.

It's funny how the league got so bad after A&M left? :rolleyes:

Let's face it, A&M would not be 10-2 in this Big XII. You know it, and I know it.

Besides, I never said OU was a legit top 10 team, just that LSU/Florida/South Carolina wasn't/isn't.

I'm not trying to knock A&M, just calling it as I see it.

[nutinbutdust]

LSU played 5 ranked teams in a row, the only team in the nation to do so--and only lost to the the no 2 and 3 teams in the country. They are one play away from playing Georgia for a spot in the BCSCG.

Florida is ranked no. 2 by the computers and finished 11-1. I'd be interested in knowing your rationale for them being 'overrated.' I'm guessing it's primarily because they are a run-oriented team and not flashy on O. If they're 'grossly overrated', then what does that make your team? I can see you guys with a case for a top 10 ranking, but how could you objectively put the gators behind your sooners?

ummm which 5?

LSU
DATE OPPONENT TIME/RESULT
1-Sep North Texas Won 41-14
8-Sep Washington Won 41-3
15-Sep Idaho Won 63-14
22-Sep @Auburn Won 12-10
29-Sep Towson Won 38-22
6-Oct @Florida Lost 6-14
13-Oct South Carolina Won 23-21
20-Oct @Texas A&M Won 24-19
3-Nov Alabama Lost 17-21
10-Nov Mississippi St. Won 37-17
17-Nov Mississippi Won 41-35
23-Nov @Arkansas Won 20-13

I see 4, are you counting Mississippi St with a 7-4 record that had played no one until they played bama, texas a&m then lsu?

[Jason White's Third Knee]

How many dimensions did Kansas State's offense have? Notre Dame's?

Come on. As long as no one can beat the top teams in the SEC except the top teams in the SEC, they will continue to win national titles.

Here's the list of those who have had a shot at proving the "SEC myth"




(1) Florida State, 1998 - Lost to Tennessee
(2) Oklahoma, 2003 - Lost to LSU
(3) Ohio State, 2006 - Lost to Florida
(4) Ohio State, 2007 - Lost to LSU
(5) Oklahoma, 2008 - Lost to Florida
(6) Texas, 2009 - Lost to Alabama
(7) Oregon, 2010 - Lost to Auburn

High-powered offenses: OU, Texas, Oregon. It meant nothing. Just a bunch of statistics piled up for the sake of piling them up in the regular season.

It's no myth. The SEC is dominant because of defense.



Hey. In 2003 Jason White played in a wheelchair. And in 2008 Demarco Murray was shot in the dick just prior to the game. There is no question that SEC fans make sacrifices to the devil. If you people were better fans you would do that.

[tulsaoilerfan]

I'm wondering exactly what kind of scheduling the SEC does to make sure all these teams end up with 1 or 2 losses; Sat night was the first time Georgia had played Alabama since 2008; exactly how does that happen?

[Mac94]

It's funny how the league got so bad after A&M left?

No ... really nothig to do with A&M ... its more the overall loss of teams combined with Texas and W. Virginia being down (although we really didn;t know the quality of WV). Other than Kansas St what Big-12 team outperformed expectations? Oklahoma St took a step back (shocking), as did Baylor (again .. shocking), and Tech is back to the Tech of old where they're decent but nothing special. TCU ... down from expecations ... but given the losses they had thats to be expected. West Virginia took a huge hit and didn't live up to expectations. And Texas was, well, mediocre.

So it has nothing to do with the loss of A&M ... it's just the change that's occured over time. The Big-12 was a tough conference and the south was the toughest division in football ... and that was because of the power of Texas, oSu, OU, and Tech ... A&M and Baylor were bleah. But Texas has fallen ... as has Tech. And oSu was only 7-5 also. The conference is down because what made it strong has fallen into mediocrity.

[Mac94]

ummm which 5?

LSU
DATE OPPONENT TIME/RESULT
1-Sep North Texas Won 41-14
8-Sep Washington Won 41-3
15-Sep Idaho Won 63-14
22-Sep @Auburn Won 12-10
29-Sep Towson Won 38-22
6-Oct @Florida Lost 6-14
13-Oct South Carolina Won 23-21
20-Oct @Texas A&M Won 24-19
3-Nov Alabama Lost 17-21
10-Nov Mississippi St. Won 37-17
17-Nov Mississippi Won 41-35
23-Nov @Arkansas Won 20-13

This stretch:

6-Oct @Florida Lost 6-14
13-Oct South Carolina Won 23-21
20-Oct @Texas A&M Won 24-19
3-Nov Alabama Lost 17-21
10-Nov Mississippi St. Won 37-17

[nutinbutdust]

I'm wondering exactly what kind of scheduling the SEC does to make sure all these teams end up with 1 or 2 losses; Sat night was the first time Georgia had played Alabama since 2008; exactly how does that happen?

That is a very good point. if you look at the mighty alabama's conference wins, the in conference teams they beat had a 66-66 combined record. Drop their loss and the conf championship game and it is even more dismal...

DATE OPPONENT TIME/RESULT
1-Sep Michigan Won 41-14 8 4
8-Sep W. Kentucky Won 35-0 7 5
15-Sep @Arkansas Won 52-0 4 8
22-Sep FAU Won 40-7 3 9
29-Sep Mississippi Won 33-14 6 6
13-Oct @Missouri Won 42-10 5 7
20-Oct @Tennessee Won 44-13 5 7
27-Oct Mississippi St. Won 38-7 8 4
3-Nov @LSU Won 21-17 10 2
10-Nov Texas A&M Lost 24-29 10 2
17-Nov Western Carolina Won 49-0 1 10
24-Nov Auburn Won 49-0 3 9
1-Dec @Georgia Won 32-28 11 2
66 66

[tulsaoilerfan]

The top SEC teams pad their records by feeding on the bottom of the league every season, then the top teams somehow manage to avoid playing each other on a regular basis; hell Florida didn't play Bama, Georgia didn't play Bama till the championship game, Georgia also didn't play LSU or the Aggies and South Carolina didn't play Alabama either; really it's a damn joke

[tulsaoilerfan]

And don't even get me started on the OOC schedule of the teams; when was the last time a top SEC team had a true OOC road test?

[OU_Sooners75]

That SEC logjam in the top 10 was a bit ridiculous this year. Most played no one in the non-conf and knocked off each other. OU could have won every game after Notre Dame by 50 and wouldn't have passed the 2 loss SEC teams in front of them.

This year also once again shows that you had better be undefeated if you aren't in the SEC because with one loss you are likely not playing for a title. This may change a bit once the playoff format hits, but I would bet that most years there will be two or three SEC teams in the playoffs. Hopefully, there will be a rule to limit it to two but I'm not sure.

I think the playoff needs to be conference champions only!

Leave the rankings and everyything else out of it. If a team isn't good enough to win their own conference, they shouldn't be allowed to have a chance to win a national title! Period!

[Mac94]

Leave the rankings and everyything else out of it. If a team isn't good enough to win their own conference, they shouldn't be allowed to have a chance to win a national title! Period!

Do agree with this ... have since the Nebraska mess in 2001 or so

[Mac94]

tulsaoiler -

Does going to Tallahasee count? Or Clemson? Or is it not a real road game if its in the region?

As for scheduling ... While teams dont all play one another cross division ... it was that way in the 12 team Big-12 and no one griped about it (excpet the loss of the Nebraska series). At 12 or 14 teams it isnt possible to play one another ... and the SEC has some cross division games they do every yr ... Alabama vs Tennessee .... LSU vs Florida ... its part of their history and tradition. Something the Big-12 should have done to protect OU Nebraska.

[Mac94]

[quote]the in conference teams they beat had a 40-38 combined record.[quote]

DO the same for OU and see how it works ... then add in Georgia since that was a 9th conference game for an apples and apples comparision.

[Mac94]

Bama is 51-45 when adding in the 9th game.

OU is at 50-45 ... not a big difference ... so if you all are going to dog Bama you have to do the same to OU.

Bama will have beaten more quality in LSU and Georgia but also beat more bad teams in Auburn and Arkansas. In total though it is basically the same record.

So if you're going to dog Bama you have to dog OU as well.

[8timechamps]

No ... really nothig to do with A&M ... its more the overall loss of teams combined with Texas and W. Virginia being down (although we really didn;t know the quality of WV). Other than Kansas St what Big-12 team outperformed expectations? Oklahoma St took a step back (shocking), as did Baylor (again .. shocking), and Tech is back to the Tech of old where they're decent but nothing special. TCU ... down from expecations ... but given the losses they had thats to be expected. West Virginia took a huge hit and didn't live up to expectations. And Texas was, well, mediocre.

So it has nothing to do with the loss of A&M ... it's just the change that's occured over time. The Big-12 was a tough conference and the south was the toughest division in football ... and that was because of the power of Texas, oSu, OU, and Tech ... A&M and Baylor were bleah. But Texas has fallen ... as has Tech. And oSu was only 7-5 also. The conference is down because what made it strong has fallen into mediocrity.

I think where we differ is in our opinions of teams being good or mediocre. For instance, to say LSU played all these ranked teams doesn't mean anything to me, because I think most of the ranked teams they played were overrated. To you, not so much. In the end, that's all a matter of opinion.

The Cotton Bowl will be interesting, because I don't think of A&M as an SEC team (yet). You guys have a team that was built for the Big XII, but has succeeded in the SEC. Ultimately, I think football is changing. Defense is still king, but maybe not as important as it once was.

[Mac94]

Yeah ... we were built for the Big-12 ... esp on the defensive side which going into the season scared the crap out of alot of us figuring our smaller line and lack of depth would get pounded by SEC rushing attacks. Our offense though negated that concern as we were able to jump out to big leads and take our opponents our of their comfort zone.

I really wish Oregon would have won out because I think an SEC vs Chip Kelly's version of the spread would have been really interesting.

[nutinbutdust]

[quote]the in conference teams they beat had a 40-38 combined record.[quote]

DO the same for OU and see how it works ... then add in Georgia since that was a 9th conference game for an apples and apples comparision.

The really interesting thing is that a&m played a much harder schedule in conference, if you guys would have take care of fl or lsu, you would be playing instead of bama.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Actually, this has probably been one of the most dominant seasons ever for the SEC in the BCS era.....Take a look at this because odds are it will never happen again.

Even last year, when LSU and Bama played for the title, the SEC only had four teams in the BCS top ten. Which got me thinking, where does six teams in the final BCS standings compare to past seasons.

Since the BCS standings began in 1998 here are the number of SEC teams in the top ten at the end of the season. Alongside it is the parenthetical with the most top ten teams from any conference:

1998: two teams, Tennessee and Florida (2)

1999: three teams, Alabama, Tennessee, and Florida (3)

2000: one team, Florida (3)

2001: two teams, Florida, Tennessee (3)

2002: one team, Georgia (3)

2003: two teams, LSU, Tennessee (3)

2004: two teams, Auburn, Georgia (2)

2005: two teams, Georgia, Auburn (2)

2006: Florida, LSU, Auburn (3)

2007: LSU, Georgia (3)

2008: Florida, Alabama (3)

2009: Alabama, Florida (2)

2010: Auburn, Arkansas (3)

2011: LSU, Alabama, Arkansas, South Carolina (4)

2012: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, LSU, Texas A&M, South Carolina (6)

When you actually break down the BCS data, 2012 was the most dominant year in the history of any BCS conference by a substantial margin. Prior to the SEC having six teams this year, only the SEC had ever had four. And no other conference had ever had more than three.

So this year the SEC doubled the number of top teams that any conference had ever had in the BCS era.

In the past two years the SEC has had the same number of teams in the final BCS top ten as it did in the previous five years.

The data shows that the SEC's lead over the rest of college football is actually growing. In other words, the SEC is accelerating as its domination grows.

Having six teams in the final BCS top ten is simply amazing. If anything, this level of dominance is being underplayed nationally. Not saying it will last forever, but it's where we're at right now.

Yes. The problem is you are dealing with a fanbase that has had its brain deteriorated by spread offense overkill in the past decade.

It's embarrassing that Oklahoma fans used to crave tough defenses, but now clamor after 51-49 game scores.

NEWSFLASH - If your defense doesn't allow 49, you don't have to get into a "shootout" to win. It isn't exciting football; it's pisspoor football. It's laziness by the coaching staff.

Stoops knows he can get away with it because the Big 12 is full of garbagey teams. The only other contending team is Texas, and they perpetually underachieve.

That's where the bar is set. We went through this earlier in the season. Our fanbase's sense of reality has become so skewed that they believe beating Texas means something, and that Texas Tech and Oklahoma State are big games.

Sadly, many believe Oklahoma State is now a power to be reckoned with.

NEWSFLASH II - Oklahoma State isn't a power to be reckoned with...we have just fallen to their level because we won't emphasize defense any longer.

A lot of people are whining because we didn't get a spot in a BCS bowl. The truth is, if we could play a little run defense, our fate would be in our own hands, not that of some "bowl system" that our school's administration heartily accepts.

[redkid]

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w118/vangyjo/albuma/chik.gif

[Bourbon St Sooner]

If a Sooner fan on a Sooner board says the sec is overrated than it is overrated! If you don't like it then you can go back to the wake up the ghosts of Robert E Lee, Nascar, tobaccy spittin' circle jerk boards!

[FaninAma]

Blah, blah,blah , blah, the SEC kicks ***, blah, blah, blah blah.

Saban is a cheater. His over-recruiting days are coming to an end. We'll see how he does after that.

[FaninAma]

TDTW, in 2000 OU was able to do the same thing the SEC did. Stoops had 4+ weeks to prepare for FSU's offense. Do you think OU would have beaten FSU with only one week to prepare for them?

I will give the SEC credit for understanding the way the BCS works and taking advantage of that craptastic system.

[Mac94]

btw ... the time between the regular season and the bowl games isnt some conspiracy of the SEC or BCS ... it's been like that forever. For example ... when OU won the title in 1975 they played their last reg season game on 11/22 ... and played Michigan in the Orange on 1/1 ... 5 or so weeks later.

[jkjsooner]

Actually, this has probably been one of the most dominant seasons ever for the SEC in the BCS era.....Take a look at this because odds are it will never happen again.

You may be right that this is one of the most dominant seasons ever but it is very hard to tell by rankings alone.

These rankings tell me three things:

1. Because of perceived strength, a 2 loss SEC school is given a lot more credit by the pollsters than a non-SEC team. This may or may not be justified but this is not a purely objective criteria.

2. Because the SEC has grown so large, it is now possible for many of the top teams to avoid playing many of the other top teams. You can only have so many one or two loss teams if the conference scheduling allows it to happen. It also helps if none of the teams are undefeated. Had Bama taken care of A&M, A&M would not have been in the top 10.

3. The lower tier SEC schools did not challenge the upper tier schools.

Point #3 is ironic because this was for so long the criticism the SEC had for other conferences.

A smaller conference could literally have the top 5 teams in the country but they would have no chance to have all five finish in the top 10. They would beat each other up. I could add a conference with 12 NFL teams and using the criteria that we use to rank them, we'd be lucky to have one in the top 10 (assuming the pollsters didn't know these were NFL players). Sure the teams would go undefeated in OOC play but they would beat each other up too much.

For years we heard how this was the case in the SEC. They beat each other up. Now the SEC has grown to 14 teams and (at least this year) the lower tier barely posed a threat to the upper tier. Now we're told that the SEC is so good not because of how tough it is day in an day out but good tough the top teams are. When the Big 8 routinely finished with 3 teams in the top 10 (back in the day usually one of OSU or Colorado or Missouri would often round out the top 10) we were criticized for having our lower tier teams lose consistently to the upper tier teams.

I'm not saying the Big 12 is better than the SEC top to bottom. I'm simply saying your argument about having so many top 10 teams really says a lot more about conference scheduling, strength of lower tier schools, and perceived strength of conference than anything else.

Conference scheduling is the key point. What happened this year could not happen unless the schedules aligned in such a way that allowed it.

[PrideMom]

Why the love fest for the SEC? Doesn't anyone remember in the early 2000's Big XII was in the National Championship games with OU, Nebraska, and Texas? I guess we wore out our welcome.

[thecrimsoncrusader]

LSU played 5 ranked teams in a row, the only team in the nation to do so--and only lost to the the no 2 and 3 teams in the country. They are one play away from playing Georgia for a spot in the BCSCG.

Florida is ranked no. 2 by the computers and finished 11-1. I'd be interested in knowing your rationale for them being 'overrated.' I'm guessing it's primarily because they are a run-oriented team and not flashy on O. If they're 'grossly overrated', then what does that make your team? I can see you guys with a case for a top 10 ranking, but how could you objectively put the gators behind your sooners?

Because they're coached by Will Musclecramp.

[kevpks]

There are plenty of places where fans (particularly fans of SEC schools) can go to hear about how great the SEC is. I, for one, am glad our board is typically not one of the them. The SEC is the best conference. We get it. That doesn't mean that an SEC school should always get the nod over a team from another conference in the title game.

The Pac 12 and Big 12 have no margin for error. Look at how far K-State and Oregon dropped when they lost. There should have been a legitimate debate about Oregon in the title game this year. Personally, I have not seen a better team this season. Their one loss is on par with Bama's and the Ducks have been as dominant all season. And don't give me any crap about not winning their conference. It didn't seem to matter for Bama last season.

[tulsaoilerfan]

tulsaoiler -

Does going to Tallahasee count? Or Clemson? Or is it not a real road game if its in the region?

As for scheduling ... While teams dont all play one another cross division ... it was that way in the 12 team Big-12 and no one griped about it (excpet the loss of the Nebraska series). At 12 or 14 teams it isnt possible to play one another ... and the SEC has some cross division games they do every yr ... Alabama vs Tennessee .... LSU vs Florida ... its part of their history and tradition. Something the Big-12 should have done to protect OU Nebraska.

I understand they can't all play each other; my question that has yet to be answered is how exactly do they draw up their schedule? Georgia had not played Bama since 2008 till last Saturday; how does that happen? And as for comparing to the Big 12, the South division was infinitely harder than the North for the last decade plus of the conference so i don't think anyone in the South caught much of a break

[tulsaoilerfan]

Florida State and Clemson are tough road games? LMAO; why doesn't Alabama nut up and go play a home and home with someone decent? Or LSU, Florida, and Georgia for that matter; i remember Georgia getting that *** waxed when they went to Stoolwater a few years ago; OU has series with Notre Dame, LSU, Ohio State, and Nebraska coming up over the next decade; when was the last time an SEC team took on teams like that?

[8timechamps]

I understand they can't all play each other; my question that has yet to be answered is how exactly do they draw up their schedule? Georgia had not played Bama since 2008 till last Saturday; how does that happen? And as for comparing to the Big 12, the South division was infinitely harder than the North for the last decade plus of the conference so i don't think anyone in the South caught much of a break

Obviously, it's different than how the Big XII did it before the conference went to 10 teams. For one, they made a point to keep historical rivals playing annually (regardless of division). That's one thing the SEC did that the Big XII should have done. So, when teams play an opponent from another division annually, it's going to screw up the process somehow. That's part of the reason some teams don't play each other for more than a couple of years.

[jkjsooner]

Obviously, it's different than how the Big XII did it before the conference went to 10 teams. For one, they made a point to keep historical rivals playing annually (regardless of division). That's one thing the SEC did that the Big XII should have done. So, when teams play an opponent from another division annually, it's going to screw up the process somehow. That's part of the reason some teams don't play each other for more than a couple of years.

I understand why it is the way it is but it has allowed teams to avoid playing each other for long periods of time. I remember when Alabama and Florida were king of the hill they almost never played unless they met up in SEC title game.

But the main point is that the only way to get so many one or two loss teams in a conference is if the conference scheduling allows it to happen and if the lower teams never beat the upper teams. Neither of these are evidence by themselves that a conference is great.

[nutinbutdust]

I understand why it is the way it is but it has allowed teams to avoid playing each other for long periods of time. I remember when Alabama and Florida were king of the hill they almost never played unless they met up in SEC title game.

But the main point is that the only way to get so many one or two loss teams in a conference is if the conference scheduling allows it to happen and if the lower teams never beat the upper teams. Neither of these are evidence by themselves that a conference is great.
Who thinks a team with 3 conference wins deserves a bowl? Evidently the BBVA compass bowl and Ole Miss, now there is some conference power in the SEC. They beat auburn, arkie and missisipi state. I believe Last year there were two teams from the SEC that went bowling with only 2 conference wins.

[Okie35]

I think defensive rankings are overblown. They are totally dependent on the offenses you play. I know you can say the reverse but the proof is on the field.

OU was ranked in the top 12 in defense until they hit the stretch that included TT, Baylor, OSU and West Virginia. I can guarantee you they would be ranked in the top 15 if they had played in the SEC.

The SEC's myth of superiority is based on the fact that they get a month or more to prepare for the opposition's offense. We'll see how it works out when a semi-realistic playoff starts in 2014.

Definitely... remember WVU against LSU's stout defense in 2011? Geno Smith threw for a record against them. Its just that LSU made key stops. Now imagine if LSU went against those offenses all season their defense wouldn't stay in the top 25.

[Mac94]

Florida State and Clemson are tough road games? LMAO; why doesn't Alabama nut up and go play a home and home with someone decent? Or LSU, Florida, and Georgia for that matter; i remember Georgia getting that *** waxed when they went to Stoolwater a few years ago; OU has series with Notre Dame, LSU, Ohio State, and Nebraska coming up over the next decade; when was the last time an SEC team took on teams like that?

In the past decade LSU has played Virginia Tech, Arizona, Arizona St., W. Virginia, Oregon, and Washington ... and yes, some we true road games.

Florida has the series with Florida St. and that's usually all they do except they did have a series with Miami recently as well.

Georgia has the annual battle with Georgia Tech but as noted they did face Oklahoma St. as well as some games against Clemson, Boise St., and Colorado.

Notice you take a shot at the SEC for playing no bodies but then mention LSU has an upcoming series with OU ... you want to rephrase that? Lol

Bama has had hit and miss OOCs in the past decade by has had OU, Virginia Tech, Michigan, Florida St., Clemson, and Penn St.

[Mac94]

Future schedules for Bama include W. Virginia, Virginia Tech, Michigan St., and Georgia Tech

Future for LSU includes TCU, N.C. St., OU, and Arizona St.

Florida has Florida St. (of course) and Miami

Georgia has Georgia Tech and a series with Clemson

As for my Aggies we still have contracts (haven't heard anything different yet) with Oregon and USC

Tennessee, for the record has OU, USC, Oregon, and Nebraska

[fadada1]

I think the playoff needs to be conference champions only!

Leave the rankings and everyything else out of it. If a team isn't good enough to win their own conference, they shouldn't be allowed to have a chance to win a national title! Period!
so you think louisville deserves a shot at the title? or northern illinois? or any team from the ACC other than fsu? or any big10 team over a 1 loss sec/big12 team? or a 1 loss florida over louisville? a 2 loss OU (to 2 top 5 teams) over wisconsin?

BULLSHIIIIIITTTTTT!!!!!

"they" are so focused on BCS rankings... i say leave it alone. leave the computers, leave the human polls, leave SOS, leave "style points", leave margin of victory, leave opponent's record in the equation....

top 8 teams in the BCS go to the playoff. PERIOD. NO WAY louisville and/or n. illinois are one of the 8 best teams in the country. NO WAY!!!! you don't finish in the top 8, you don't deserve a shot at it.

[8timechamps]

so you think louisville deserves a shot at the title? or northern illinois? or any team from the ACC other than fsu? or any big10 team over a 1 loss sec/big12 team? or a 1 loss florida over louisville? a 2 loss OU (to 2 top 5 teams) over wisconsin?

BULLSHIIIIIITTTTTT!!!!!

"they" are so focused on BCS rankings... i say leave it alone. leave the computers, leave the human polls, leave SOS, leave "style points", leave margin of victory, leave opponent's record in the equation....

top 8 teams in the BCS go to the playoff. PERIOD. NO WAY louisville and/or n. illinois are one of the 8 best teams in the country. NO WAY!!!! you don't finish in the top 8, you don't deserve a shot at it.

The problem is, they don't include any of those things anymore (the one's I highlighted above). Also, the computer polls are still a mystery. NOBODY has ever published the formula for any of them. For all we know, it could be a dude in his basement on a Commadore 64 and a list of teams on a dart board.

Why doesn't Louisville deserve a shot at a playoff? They won their conference. I know it's weak, but they still won. It's not their fault the conference is a joke. Like I said earlier in this thread, have a 12 team playoff, include all conference champions and still have room for some at large teams. It would give the "little guys" a shot, while keeping the rankings in play.

[tulsaoilerfan]

Future schedules for Bama include W. Virginia, Virginia Tech, Michigan St., and Georgia Tech

Future for LSU includes TCU, N.C. St., OU, and Arizona St.

Florida has Florida St. (of course) and Miami

Georgia has Georgia Tech and a series with Clemson

As for my Aggies we still have contracts (haven't heard anything different yet) with Oregon and USC

Tennessee, for the record has OU, USC, Oregon, and Nebraska

Well it's about damn time they started playing teams that might actually beat them

[tulsaoilerfan]

Future schedules for Bama include W. Virginia, Virginia Tech, Michigan St., and Georgia Tech

Future for LSU includes TCU, N.C. St., OU, and Arizona St.

Florida has Florida St. (of course) and Miami

Georgia has Georgia Tech and a series with Clemson

As for my Aggies we still have contracts (haven't heard anything different yet) with Oregon and USC

Tennessee, for the record has OU, USC, Oregon, and Nebraska

of course i'm wondering if any of these are true home and homes and not neutral site games

[Mac94]

tulsaoilerfan -

Both ... some are those Chick-fil-a season openers and some are home and home series.

[nutinbutdust]

Future schedules for Bama include W. Virginia, Virginia Tech, Michigan St., and Georgia Tech

Future for LSU includes TCU, N.C. St., OU, and Arizona St.

Florida has Florida St. (of course) and Miami

Georgia has Georgia Tech and a series with Clemson

As for my Aggies we still have contracts (haven't heard anything different yet) with Oregon and USC

Tennessee, for the record has OU, USC, Oregon, and Nebraska


Oh yes, I see A&M has a really difficult OOC schedule next year. Rice Owls, Sam Houston State Bearkats , SMU Mustangs and the New Mexico Lobos ALL AT HOME. How much do you have to pay those schools to come play you at college station?

[Bourbon St Sooner]

And don't forget, aTm has their annual rivalry with La Tech and Rice.

[fadada1]

Why doesn't Louisville deserve a shot at a playoff? They won their conference. I know it's weak, but they still won. It's not their fault the conference is a joke. Like I said earlier in this thread, have a 12 team playoff, include all conference champions and still have room for some at large teams. It would give the "little guys" a shot, while keeping the rankings in play.

I wouldn't even consider Louisville a "little guy". Their schedule was embarrassing at best. Their AD should be ashamed of himself.

Kentucky (nice try, but worst team in SEC); Missouri State (1AA); UNC (worst team in ACC - won by 5); FL International (won by 7 - they still have a team??); won by 4 over S. Miss (didn't know they still had a team); beat Pitt by 10; beat south FLA by 2; beat Cinci by 3 in OT; lost to Syracuse by 19; lost to UConn (Really?!?!?!); beat Rutgers by 3.

This teams deserves to be in a playoff????

If you're going to be in a ****ty conference, you better win all the games.

Just sayin'

[jkjsooner]

The problem is, they don't include any of those things anymore (the one's I highlighted above). Also, the computer polls are still a mystery. NOBODY has ever published the formula for any of them. For all we know, it could be a dude in his basement on a Commadore 64 and a list of teams on a dart board.

Why doesn't Louisville deserve a shot at a playoff? They won their conference. I know it's weak, but they still won. It's not their fault the conference is a joke. Like I said earlier in this thread, have a 12 team playoff, include all conference champions and still have room for some at large teams. It would give the "little guys" a shot, while keeping the rankings in play.

How do you deal with independents? Are they going to have to meet the at large criteria - automically putting them at a disadvantage compared to teams who have two different ways to get in (at large and winning conference)?

I've said it before and I'll repeat it again. Conference affiliation is a partnership between member schools mainly to facilitate revenue generation and scheduling. It is not an NCAA institution and
has no business being discussed when discussing a playoff.

It's one thing to have automatical qualifiers in a 68 (or whatever the NCAA basketball tournament is now) team tournament in basketball. It's another to take this into consideration when choosing a handful of schools.

How would you deal with out of conference scheduling? Are you saying OOC results are only meaningful if you don't win your conference? What about a conference champion who lost all 3 or 4 OOC games? Do they deserve to be in a playoff?

How would you deal with three way conference ties or ties like the old Big 10 could have where neither team played each other?

What about the now widely varying conference sizes? Is it fair to only allow one automatic qualifier from a 16 team conference but also allow one automatic qualifer from a 10 team conference?

Leave conferences out of it. If you want something like it then have the NCAA assign teams to conferences and control scheduling like the NFL and many high schools do. Short of doing that, voluntary conference affliation should have absolutely no impact on tournament qualification.


I say use a completely objective criteria - a formula based on wins and losses, strength of schedule, etc. You can tweak the formula to give a result that most would be satisfied with. You can tweak it to make undefeated teams from any conference have a darn good shot at making the playoff if you so choose.

It would be completely transparent. Everyone would know what is required to make the playoff. Only negative is that you can't fully control your strength of schedule as a team who was a power when you scheduled them might be down by the time you play them...

[Salt City Sooner]

I wouldn't even consider Louisville a "little guy". Their schedule was embarrassing at best. Their AD should be ashamed of himself.

Kentucky (nice try, but worst team in SEC); Missouri State (1AA); UNC (worst team in ACC - won by 5); FL International (won by 7 - they still have a team??); won by 4 over S. Miss (didn't know they still had a team); beat Pitt by 10; beat south FLA by 2; beat Cinci by 3 in OT; lost to Syracuse by 19; lost to UConn (Really?!?!?!); beat Rutgers by 3.

This teams deserves to be in a playoff????

If you're going to be in a ****ty conference, you better win all the games.

Just sayin'
Don't know who you're thinking of w/ that one but it's not UNC. They won the Coastal Division of the ACC, & 8 games overall. They're not going bowling only due to all the Davis/Blake stuff.

[Sabanball]

of course i'm wondering if any of these are true home and homes and not neutral site games


For us, the Ga Tech and Mich State series are h/h's, the other two are neutral site/one game opponents. We are currently in negotiations with Wisconsin on a neutral site game for 2015, but it is far from concluded and any agreement yet.

H/H's are gradually going away for the elite programs. Schools don't make any $ on them after all the bills are paid while the neutral site games garner big payouts from promoters and the networks(Ex. Bama and Michigan got $10mil/ each to play in the jerry dome back in sept). They are also being used as recruiting tools in the large metro areas where they are played. Since we started playing in the Chick fila classic about 4 yrs ago, we've built a recruiting pipeline all the way through Atlanta that has paid off big-time.

[8timechamps]

How do you deal with independents? Are they going to have to meet the at large criteria - automically putting them at a disadvantage compared to teams who have two different ways to get in (at large and winning conference)?

I've said it before and I'll repeat it again. Conference affiliation is a partnership between member schools mainly to facilitate revenue generation and scheduling. It is not an NCAA institution and
has no business being discussed when discussing a playoff.

It's one thing to have automatical qualifiers in a 68 (or whatever the NCAA basketball tournament is now) team tournament in basketball. It's another to take this into consideration when choosing a handful of schools.

How would you deal with out of conference scheduling? Are you saying OOC results are only meaningful if you don't win your conference? What about a conference champion who lost all 3 or 4 OOC games? Do they deserve to be in a playoff?

How would you deal with three way conference ties or ties like the old Big 10 could have where neither team played each other?

What about the now widely varying conference sizes? Is it fair to only allow one automatic qualifier from a 16 team conference but also allow one automatic qualifer from a 10 team conference?

Leave conferences out of it. If you want something like it then have the NCAA assign teams to conferences and control scheduling like the NFL and many high schools do. Short of doing that, voluntary conference affliation should have absolutely no impact on tournament qualification.


I say use a completely objective criteria - a formula based on wins and losses, strength of schedule, etc. You can tweak the formula to give a result that most would be satisfied with. You can tweak it to make undefeated teams from any conference have a darn good shot at making the playoff if you so choose.

It would be completely transparent. Everyone would know what is required to make the playoff. Only negative is that you can't fully control your strength of schedule as a team who was a power when you scheduled them might be down by the time you play them...


I really haven't thought it out that much jk, But, I like your idea of using completely objective data. That would certainly level the playing field.

As for the conference thing, I understand that conferences aren't an NCAA thing, but let's be realistic, most (if not all) of what's driving the realignment is driven by the obscene TV contracts, which is driven by football. So, in reality, it stands to reason that the conferences are a big part of the playoff (or will be in 2014).

[8timechamps]

I wouldn't even consider Louisville a "little guy". Their schedule was embarrassing at best. Their AD should be ashamed of himself.

Kentucky (nice try, but worst team in SEC); Missouri State (1AA); UNC (worst team in ACC - won by 5); FL International (won by 7 - they still have a team??); won by 4 over S. Miss (didn't know they still had a team); beat Pitt by 10; beat south FLA by 2; beat Cinci by 3 in OT; lost to Syracuse by 19; lost to UConn (Really?!?!?!); beat Rutgers by 3.

This teams deserves to be in a playoff????

If you're going to be in a ****ty conference, you better win all the games.

Just sayin'

Remember, I'm only arguing that they should be in a playoff if there were a much bigger field. If it was following the FCS model, then sure, include the Cards.

A 4 yeam playoff though, hell no!