SEC has 7 of the Top 15 spots in polls

[Jason White's Third Knee]

Why should I be surprised? The playoff is just scary rigged since preseason polls already proclaim greatness from the SEC. Blecch.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11525284/seven-sec-teams-ranked-top-15-associated-press-college-football-poll

http://espn.go.com/college-football/rankings/_/poll/1

[Eielson]

They go way up when they beat each other, and they don't go down when they lose. It's a joke. Meanwhile, OSU lost to the #1 team in the country by a measly 6 points, yet they couldn't even get into the top 25 until this week. WVU only lost to Alabama by 10, and they don't have a chance at top 25. South Carolina got throttled by A&M, yet they're #14. This is just a big circular load of crap. There better not be more than one SEC team in the playoffs.

[EatLeadCommie]

It is a load of crap, but let's not act like the Big XII is some kind of juggernaut this year or in most years recently. It is basically us, Baylor, and Okie State.

[Eielson]

It is a load of crap, but let's not act like the Big XII is some kind of juggernaut this year or in most years recently. It is basically us, Baylor, and Okie State.

I think we've been pretty good in recent years. Maybe not so much this year, but we'll see. It's not about Big XII vs. SEC, though. This poll makes it look like the SEC could take on every other conference combined.

[BoulderSooner79]

Of the 13 members of the selection committee, only 1 (Archie Manning) has obvious ties to the SEC. Big12 has Oliver Luck. Pac12 has Pat Haden and Condoleezza Rice. Perhaps it would be prudent to refrain from whining until the first committee rankings is released in late October. I suspect the politics in those meetings is going to be huge and I doubt they put a lot of weight into polls or ESPN commentary.

[rock on sooner]

It is a load of crap, but let's not act like the Big XII is some kind of juggernaut this year or in most years recently. It is basically us, Baylor, and Okie State.

K-State might slip up on some folks...(I know) ISU will hurt some
unsuspecting ones, too,,,since they beat the Fighting Ferentzes...

[PalmBeachSooner]

Well, the problem is someone has to take those spots. If not them then whom? I'm not sure I'd replace any of those teams with WVU or OSU at this point.

[dennis580]

Why should I be surprised? The playoff is just scary rigged since preseason polls already proclaim greatness from the SEC. Blecch.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/11525284/seven-sec-teams-ranked-top-15-associated-press-college-football-poll

http://espn.go.com/college-football/rankings/_/poll/1

AP, and Coaches Poll will have no influence on the Playoff Committee poll that comes out in late October

[Temujin]

It's a racket for sure, but as long as OU is #1 at the end of the season, I don't give a rat's @$$ where the SEC is currently ranked. Or the rest of the Big 12, for that matter.

[BoulderSooner79]

AP, and Coaches Poll will have no influence on the Playoff Committee poll that comes out in late October

No doubt they will be considering a similar set of teams as a lot of shaking out will have happened by then. But even if the AP was *the* ranking for the playoff today, only 'Bama would be in. If an SEC lands in the dreaded #5 slot at season's end, I will point and laugh.

[WA. Sooner]

No doubt they will be considering a similar set of teams as a lot of shaking out will have happened by then. But even if the AP was *the* ranking for the playoff today, only 'Bama would be in. If an SEC lands in the dreaded #5 slot at season's end, I will point and laugh.

When the S.E.C.ond GEts the dreaded #5 spot is when the playoff expand to 8team. then when they get the 9th spot we go to 16

[hornswaggled]

Yes, someone has to take those spots. As long as opinions are the basis of polls, the teams with the best records in the conference with the best record will rank highest. Imagine if Domers, who have not conference ties, go 12-0. With their schedule they will get a bid. Similarly, if OU goes 12-0 we will be in the playoffs even though our strength of schedule is not great. The playoffs will not be decided before December.

[MichiganSooner]

Think about something. SEC brags about their difficult out of conference schedule but, to SEC folks...every other conference sucks.

[Eielson]

When the S.E.C.ond GEts the dreaded #5 spot is when the playoff expand to 8team. then when they get the 9th spot we go to 16

I'm honestly expecting this exact scenario to unfold.

[SoonerForLife92]

This is such complete nonsense. Georgia and South Carolina and ESPECIALLY Ole Miss do not belong in the top 15. Ole Miss at 10? WOW.

The coaches poll has them slighty more accurate. Still overrated. However the coaches pole didn't make oregon jump us until they beat freakin wyoming... the weekend AFTER they beat a top 10 team? What the hell?

[BoulderSooner79]

When the S.E.C.ond GEts the dreaded #5 spot is when the playoff expand to 8team. then when they get the 9th spot we go to 16

I too believe it won't take long to get to 8 teams, but I'm not much into SEC conspiracy theories - it will be the money.

[Jason White's Third Knee]

The polls not having an influence is nonsense. They will have a huge influence. ESPN will have tons of sway as well. You end up with several 1 loss teams and the SEC will start getting multiple teams in. I am aware that the selection criteria is different, but the Bama LSU rematch was indicative of what we could see.

[BoulderSooner79]

The polls not having an influence is nonsense. They will have a huge influence. ESPN will have tons of sway as well. You end up with several 1 loss teams and the SEC will start getting multiple teams in. I am aware that the selection criteria is different, but the Bama LSU rematch was indicative of what we could see.

In the Bama/LSU rematch, the polls were part of the BCS formula. But I didn't think it was a travesty anyway. There is no such criteria for the selection committee at all. You think Pat Haden and Condi Rice will be swayed by ESPN to include more SEC teams? Haha, you've never been on a committee trying to hash out a decision with conflicting hidden agendas. My observation in the BCS era is that the human polls have been influenced by the BCS ranking more than the other way around. The polls would mostly fall inline with the BCS ranking once it was published in October. I would expect it to be more that way now that's there is no built-in feedback mechanism. It's going to be entertaining.

[hornswaggled]

The polls not having an influence is nonsense. They will have a huge influence. ESPN will have tons of sway as well. You end up with several 1 loss teams and the SEC will start getting multiple teams in. I am aware that the selection criteria is different, but the Bama LSU rematch was indicative of what we could see.

Then don't be a one loss team. Arguments about who is better can be settled on the field of play.

[picasso]

They are just way too fast for most pollsters. Gotta rank 'em high.

[ouflak]

Then don't be a one loss team. Arguments about who is better can be settled on the field of play.

Unless ofcourse each conference produces an undefeated team and perhaps even Notre Dame goes undefeated. Then the matter will not be decided on the field. It will be decided upon by polls, computers, and just what a few people think.

[Mac94]

It's early ... 5 of those SEC teams are in the west so we'll all beat each other up and it'll all balance itself out.

I also don't think there will be two SEC teams in the playoff unless the conference champions of two of the five power conferences are really down. I think the members of the selection group are going to look hard at the five conference champions and that there will be a lot of pressure to not over represent one conference. I do think the SEC champ is as close to a lock as there is ... along with the Pac-12 champ. If FSU wins the ACC they are pretty much a lock. The Big-12 had a very good weekend this past week in relation to the Big-10 so I think right now the Big-12 champ has a huge leg up on the Big-10. Right now the Big-10 is 1-10 against the other power 5 conferences in OOC play ... and that's a hard mountain to overcome perception wise.

[BlownGP]

Shouldn't be surprised. It was like this in the BCS era, won't change now..

Like stated they will all soon beat each other up soon. Still will probably be ranked high.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

All I know is we've beaten the last 2 johnny reb teams we've played and, if necessary, we'll make it 3 in a row in January.

[badger]

I don't think the polls matter in a playoff era. I agree that the burden is on teams to win more if they don't like SEC politicking.

If there is weeping and nashing come December/January, I would like to see auto bids given to the big 5 with 3 at-large bids to be dispersed to mid-majors, other big 5 non-champs and any other team that deserves it that just doesn't want to join a conference god bless 'em. This way, team's seasons don't "end" after one loss, especially a non-conference loss.

What team wouldn't like to be in that spot after some embarrassing losses this early in the season, to come back and somehow make the playoffs by winning the conference?

[SoonerorLater]

This seems very unfair. This is the SEC we're talking about. Shouldn't they have 14 of the top 15?

[BoulderSooner79]

This seems very unfair. This is the SEC we're talking about. Shouldn't they have 14 of the top 15?

The unfair part is that the selection committee is not made up of 13 SEC former players and athletic directors. How the heck did they let that happen?

[badger]

The unfair part is that the selection committee is not made up of 13 SEC former players and athletic directors. How the heck did they let that happen?

I think every team that wins a championship during the past decade should have a seat at the playoff committee table, just like previous Heisman winners get to vote for the next Heisman winner. In other words, a lot of SEC and a lot less college football riff raff (aka not-SEC)

[soonerhubs]

This comes down to financial incentives.

1) Aside from the set of hardcore fans, there is a critical mass of fans who jump off of any said team's bandwagon once said team loses multiple times. Once a fan quits following, obviously viewership drops along with ad revenue.

2) The Southeastern Conference has identified a subset of fans who will hitch their bandwagon to whichever conference team is winning, with the excuse of "conference loyalty." Thus, a watered-down fan can continue the chest-thumping while screaming "S-E-C." Watered-down conference fan also continues to watch television, buy gear, and increase revenues.

This is precisely why 60-minutes deifies Saban and why ESPiN continues to promote the Southeastern conference.

From a financial standpoint, it's a brilliant way to exploit some bandwagoners.

[SoonerPride]

I don't think the polls matter in a playoff era. I agree that the burden is on teams to win more if they don't like SEC politicking.

If there is weeping and nashing come December/January, I would like to see auto bids given to the big 5 with 3 at-large bids to be dispersed to mid-majors, other big 5 non-champs and any other team that deserves it that just doesn't want to join a conference god bless 'em. This way, team's seasons don't "end" after one loss, especially a non-conference loss.

What team wouldn't like to be in that spot after some embarrassing losses this early in the season, to come back and somehow make the playoffs by winning the conference?

And thus the only games that "really matter" are conference games bc that pesky non conference loss OSU had to FSU really doesn't hurt their chances bc all they'd have to do us win the Big 12 and they're automatically in the final four.

Tell me again how the continued expansion of the post season doesn't lessen the value of regular season games.

I think the further you expand the post season you destroy the regular season.

[JLEW1818]

All I know is we've beaten the last 2 johnny reb teams we've played and, if necessary, we'll make it 3 in a row in January.

Heck, maybe 4 in a row. We beat a SEC team in the semis and finals

[badger]

I think the further you expand the post season you destroy the regular season.

Hell, I'd love to expand to 12 and play nothing but conference opponents all season, with a single non-conference tune up or marquee. Alas, when you let ADs barter with each other on home and homes, neutrals and the like, you get unequal scheduling on the non-conference side. While we're off challenging ourselves against Tennessee, teams like Texas A&M are wondering why their allegedly better defense can't stop worthless Rice :rcmad:

[Mac94]

Can't resist ... I'm predictable, lol


teams like Texas A&M are wondering why their allegedly better defense can't stop worthless Rice

Let's see ... in 2013 we gave up 31 points to Rice ... in 2014 we gave up 10. Better ... YES! That doesn't mean we're actually good, lol.

[badger]

Instead of staging a championship game, the SEC should stage a four-team playoff for its natio....errrrrrr, i mean, SEC championship. Then, the winner of the SEC championship gets an automatic bid to the nat'l title trophy. The end

[Mac94]

Instead of staging a championship game, the SEC should stage a four-team playoff for its natio....errrrrrr, i mean, SEC championship. Then, the winner of the SEC championship gets an automatic bid to the nat'l title trophy. The end

Oh ... I see you've seen Slive's future blueprints for SEC world dominance ... cool ;)

[Temujin]

I remember when TEAMS used to play each other, not CONFERENCES. None of this ever became an issue until the SEC started whining about their conference schedules keeping them out of the NC picture. That was the excuse anyway, because they were largely irrelevant for much of the 70s through the early 2000s. So when they finally started winning, they had to convince the rest of the world that they're better just because of where they're located. They turned football into a friggin' soap opera, and it makes the sport hard to watch anymore.

Remember when the Pac-10/Big 10 didn't win a championship because they felt they were more special than the rest of the country and refused to participate in the Bowl Alliance? I think we should do something similar with the SEC, and Texas, and Notre Dame. If they don't feel like they should have to play by the same standards as the rest of the country, then fine. The remaining power conferences restructure and kick out Texas and Notre Dame, and the SEC. Divide up into 4 12-team conferences separated by region (seriously, put WVU in the ACC already). And just for kicks, and to spite the SEC, get the little guys involved as well - let them form 4 conferences as well. Then run an 8-team playoff, conference winners only.

Apply a 3-tier TV contract model like what we have now, but without the conference ties. (Maybe a 4th tier for the non-power conferences) Each network bids per tier, not per conference. Then share the TV money equally, allowing each team to make their extra money on tickets and merchandise, similar to the NFL. Give the kids a monthly stipend from the TV money pool.

As for bowls, keep em, but re-arrange them. We can still have 40 of them if the CFB world wants it. Free up the win restrictions that keep the good teams playing the FCS teams. Let each bowl bid for school participation.

I'm all for the SEC being irrelevant again. Unfortunately it'll take drastic measures to make that happen. Oh well, one can dream.

[Sabanball]

I have a feeling that Arkansas is going to get in the mix too.

[Mac94]

because they were largely irrelevant for much of the 70s through the early 2000s

Incorrect ... the SEC was out of the picture for most of the 1980's but that's about it. The 80's was a decade of the independents (Miami, Penn St, ND) and OU.

But ... Bama won or shared titles in the two main polls (AP / UPI) in 73, 78, and 79 while Georgia won the title in 1980. Hardly irrelevant.

In the 90's the SEC had Bama in 1992, Florida in 1996, and Tennessee in 1998 ... again, hardly irrelevant.

[Mac94]

I have a feeling that Arkansas is going to get in the mix too.

Maybe ... still wait and see what the Hog rushing attack can do against real defenses ... and no ... two weeks from now won't count ... we'll have to outscore them. The west is gonna be a fun race though, whoever wins it will have earned it.

[Sabanball]

I remember when TEAMS used to play each other, not CONFERENCES. None of this ever became an issue until the SEC started whining about their conference schedules keeping them out of the NC picture. That was the excuse anyway, because they were largely irrelevant for much of the 70s through the early 2000s. So when they finally started winning, they had to convince the rest of the world that they're better just because of where they're located. They turned football into a friggin' soap opera, and it makes the sport hard to watch anymore.

Remember when the Pac-10/Big 10 didn't win a championship because they felt they were more special than the rest of the country and refused to participate in the Bowl Alliance? I think we should do something similar with the SEC, and Texas, and Notre Dame. If they don't feel like they should have to play by the same standards as the rest of the country, then fine. The remaining power conferences restructure and kick out Texas and Notre Dame, and the SEC. Divide up into 4 12-team conferences separated by region (seriously, put WVU in the ACC already). And just for kicks, and to spite the SEC, get the little guys involved as well - let them form 4 conferences as well. Then run an 8-team playoff, conference winners only.

Apply a 3-tier TV contract model like what we have now, but without the conference ties. (Maybe a 4th tier for the non-power conferences) Each network bids per tier, not per conference. Then share the TV money equally, allowing each team to make their extra money on tickets and merchandise, similar to the NFL. Give the kids a monthly stipend from the TV money pool.

As for bowls, keep em, but re-arrange them. We can still have 40 of them if the CFB world wants it. Free up the win restrictions that keep the good teams playing the FCS teams. Let each bowl bid for school participation.

I'm all for the SEC being irrelevant again. Unfortunately it'll take drastic measures to make that happen. Oh well, one can dream.

Alabama was 103-16-1 in the '70's with 2 AP NC's and should have been awarded it in 1977 as well. I don't think I would call that irrelevant.

[Jason White's Third Knee]

And thus the only games that "really matter" are conference games bc that pesky non conference loss OSU had to FSU really doesn't hurt their chances bc all they'd have to do us win the Big 12 and they're automatically in the final four.

Tell me again how the continued expansion of the post season doesn't lessen the value of regular season games.

I think the further you expand the post season you destroy the regular season.

The regular season was already meaningless when Bama and LSU got a rematch. Of course that was the BCS post season expansion, so I guess you are correct. I simply don't like the subjectivity of the preseason polls and the ambiguity of conference toughness. I can't imagine how the polls won't be a factor. The public outcry (emphasis on "cry") will be monumental if one of the traditional darlings are high in the polls and don't get it because the committee didn't see it the same way.

[Temujin]

Incorrect ... the SEC was out of the picture for most of the 1980's but that's about it. The 80's was a decade of the independents (Miami, Penn St, ND) and OU.

But ... Bama won or shared titles in the two main polls (AP / UPI) in 73, 78, and 79 while Georgia won the title in 1980. Hardly irrelevant.

In the 90's the SEC had Bama in 1992, Florida in 1996, and Tennessee in 1998 ... again, hardly irrelevant.

"they were largely irrelevant"

That was the quote. I didn't say there weren't good teams in the SEC, nor did I say that they didn't win championships. We're talking about the entire conference and their relevance in relation to the NC. Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and Tennessee did win titles...as undefeated teams. However, during most of that era (70s-2000s), the SEC's champion was a 2-3 loss team, making them irrelevant in the NC picture.

I don't have a problem with the SEC being in the national title picture. I don't have a problem saying they're the best conference in the country. I do have a problem that there is an assumption that every SEC team deserves a shot at the playoff or NC over teams from other conferences simply due to perception of a TV network that has a massive investment in seeing that the conference is promoted. I have a huge problem with Alabama getting into the NC over OSU - and I can't stand OSU. OSU might have, and probably would've, gotten stomped against LSU. But the BCS was created because of a perception of bias in the old system. And they dicked with the BCS formula until they put everything right back where it started - let's just pick who we like and give them the NC.

If the playoff is intended to root out those biases and determine the champ "on the field", then only conference winners should go. But I guarantee we'll see 2 SEC teams in the playoff...not because they deserve it, but because of a conflict of interest that allows it to happen. So if they're not willing to root out the bias in that way, then do it another way.

[Temujin]

Alabama was 103-16-1 in the '70's with 2 AP NC's and should have been awarded it in 1977 as well. I don't think I would call that irrelevant.

See above post. Never said Bama was irrelevant. Again, TEAMS vs. CONFERENCES is what I'm referring to here.

[badger]

Alabama was 103-16-1 in the '70's with 2 AP NC's and should have been awarded it in 1977 as well. I don't think I would call that irrelevant.

There ya go again, allowing your conference to piggyback off your state schools success. Why not just declare the nat'l titles you've won for the SEC and not Bammer. Maybe the conference will foot Saban's big coaching contract too

[Mac94]

"they were largely irrelevant"

That was the quote. I didn't say there weren't good teams in the SEC, nor did I say that they didn't win championships. We're talking about the entire conference and their relevance in relation to the NC. Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and Tennessee did win titles...as undefeated teams. However, during most of that era (70s-2000s), the SEC's champion was a 2-3 loss team, making them irrelevant in the NC picture.

The SEC was just as relevant as the Big-10, Big-8, Pac-10, etc in that day and age. They had power teams some years and sometimes not ... just like every other of the majors.


I don't have a problem with the SEC being in the national title picture. I don't have a problem saying they're the best conference in the country. I do have a problem that there is an assumption that every SEC team deserves a shot at the playoff or NC over teams from other conferences simply due to perception of a TV network that has a massive investment in seeing that the conference is promoted. I have a huge problem with Alabama getting into the NC over OSU - and I can't stand OSU. OSU might have, and probably would've, gotten stomped against LSU. But the BCS was created because of a perception of bias in the old system. And they dicked with the BCS formula until they put everything right back where it started - let's just pick who we like and give them the NC.

The SEC has gained its perception based on the streak on MNCs and NFL draft picks. I do agree on the Bama over oSu selection to play LSU ... hated that then and still do.


If the playoff is intended to root out those biases and determine the champ "on the field", then only conference winners should go. But I guarantee we'll see 2 SEC teams in the playoff...not because they deserve it, but because of a conflict of interest that allows it to happen. So if they're not willing to root out the bias in that way, then do it another way.

I also agree with only conference winners angle ... have said the same since Nebraska played Miami for the 2001 MNC. Whether we see two same conference teams in the playoffs in the near term is open to debate. I don't think we will unless two power 5 conference champs are fairly lowly ranked. This year I think the SEC has one spot, FSU will most likely win the ACC and take one spot, the Pac-10 will take one ... leaving one slot open. I think that will go to the Big-12 champ or Notre Dame (is they have only one loss). I think the Big-10 has played their way out.

[badger]

Mac and Satanball, can you please take KU? The SEC recently made mediocre and irrelevant football programs "legit" in 2 years or less and KU's really not bad people, just bad at football.

[Mac94]

We're talking about the entire conference and their relevance in relation to the NC. Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and Tennessee did win titles...as undefeated teams. However, during most of that era (70s-2000s), the SEC's champion was a 2-3 loss team, making them irrelevant in the NC picture.

Another way of looking at this is to look at the history of the AP/UPI/BCS champions. Looking from 1950 (first season of both polls) thru 2005 (the year before the SEC run began) an SEC team won the MNC 14 times. That ties the Big-8/12 over the same time period (although adding in Texas' SWC era titles gives the Big-12 17). Over the same time period the Pac-10/12 had nine (Colorado's 1990 is credited to the Big-8), the Big-10 had 8, and the ACC had 6 (thank you Florida St). For the record, Independents had 11 with six of those occurring in the 1980's. that's another thing ... talking about the SEC and the 80's .... no conference was really relevant in the 80's. Non power conference teams of the era won 7 of the 10 MNCs (BYU out of the WAC had the other).

Bottom line ... the SEC has been relevant for as long as anyone else. What's changed was the run of seven titles in a row and really the demise of the Big-10 from national relevance.

[Mac94]

Mac and Satanball, can you please take KU? The SEC recently made mediocre and irrelevant football programs "legit" in 2 years or less and KU's really not bad people, just bad at football.

We already have our token round ball school in Kentucky ... no thanks. ;-)

[badger]

We already have our token round ball school in Kentucky ... no thanks. ;-)

Pbbbth, you have a single measly vote among 14. Everyone else votes yes... holy cow! KU went from being a Big 12 doormat to the SEC West Champion! It's a miracle! It's unbelieveable! It's...

S-E-C. S-E-C

[Mac94]

KU went from being a Big 12 doormat to the SEC West Champion!

So yer saying they hired Mark Mangino back??? ;-)

[badger]

So yer saying they hired Mark Mangino back??? ;-)

Speaking of Mangino, you also have to accept Iowa State

[Mac94]

Speaking of Mangino, you also have to accept Iowa State

OHHHHHHHH NO! the Big-10 can have them! ;-)

[Mac94]

What are you trying to do ... reclaim the old Big-8 name? What happened to the glory of nine conference games? ;) Or are you taking in Tulsa and SMU to replace them?

[Jason White's Third Knee]

Another way of looking at this is to look at the history of the AP/UPI/BCS champions. Looking from 1950 (first season of both polls) thru 2005 (the year before the SEC run began) an SEC team won the MNC 14 times. That ties the Big-8/12 over the same time period (although adding in Texas' SWC era titles gives the Big-12 17). Over the same time period the Pac-10/12 had nine (Colorado's 1990 is credited to the Big-8), the Big-10 had 8, and the ACC had 6 (thank you Florida St). For the record, Independents had 11 with six of those occurring in the 1980's. that's another thing ... talking about the SEC and the 80's .... no conference was really relevant in the 80's. Non power conference teams of the era won 7 of the 10 MNCs (BYU out of the WAC had the other).

Bottom line ... the SEC has been relevant for as long as anyone else. What's changed was the run of seven titles in a row and really the demise of the Big-10 from national relevance.


They were awarded MNCs. They didn't win them. That's the point of the playoff. The preseason bias in conjunction with the polls makes this potentially ugly.

[Mac94]

They were awarded MNCs. They didn't win them. That's the point of the playoff. The preseason bias in conjunction with the polls makes this potentially ugly.

They were the national champions in the same way OU has claim to 7 ... won ... awarded ... whatever. An SEC team didn't win any of the 14 MNCs I cited any differently than any other program across the nation ... they operated under the same rules ... and I don't think the polls we overly SEC leaning in the 50's (SEC teams won 3), 60's (SEC teams won 3), or 70's (SEC teams won 3) and yet they were still relevant. The point it .. the SEC has been a relevant conference throughout the history of modern college football. No more ... no less.

[badger]

OHHHHHHHH NO! the Big-10 can have them! ;-)
Why don't we just give them the SMU death penalty while we're at it. We're trying to get them to WIN here, not lose to more FCS opponents!


What are you trying to do ... reclaim the old Big-8 name?
No, that's what we'll call the SEC, because your bottom half sucks at the expense of the top half... and after you add ISU and Kansas, you'll be at 16, so there you go. The new "Big 8!"*

*Featuring the bottom "sh!tty 8"

[Mac94]

No, that's what we'll call the SEC, because your bottom half sucks at the expense of the top half... and after you add ISU and Kansas, you'll be at 16,

See ... you fell right into the trap you already outlined. We'll take those 16 teams and form 4 divisions ... hence our own 4 team play off just like you already described!

We can have the ... we're mostly Atlantic coast but don't you dare confuse us with the ACC division ... Georgia, Florida, S Carolina, Tennessee

The East of the Mississippi Dixie division ... Alabama, Auburn, Ole Miss, Miss St

The West of the Mississippi Red Neck Division ... LSU, Arkansas, Texas A&M, Missouri

And (given your generous additions ... the Football Short Bus (but we'll kick yer butt at basket ball) division ... Kansas, Kentucky, Iowa St, Vanderbilt

[BetterSoonerThanLater]

merge every FBS team into one of four conferences. each conference has a conf championship game. winner of each conference goes to playoff.....done


take the people and polls out of it. use W/L records. people will always have some sort of bias..whether it an opinion, or a flat out allegiance..either way, we need to minimize the people influence..

just my two cents

[Temujin]

Another way of looking at this is to look at the history of the AP/UPI/BCS champions. Looking from 1950 (first season of both polls) thru 2005 (the year before the SEC run began) an SEC team won the MNC 14 times. That ties the Big-8/12 over the same time period (although adding in Texas' SWC era titles gives the Big-12 17). Over the same time period the Pac-10/12 had nine (Colorado's 1990 is credited to the Big-8), the Big-10 had 8, and the ACC had 6 (thank you Florida St). For the record, Independents had 11 with six of those occurring in the 1980's. that's another thing ... talking about the SEC and the 80's .... no conference was really relevant in the 80's. Non power conference teams of the era won 7 of the 10 MNCs (BYU out of the WAC had the other).

Bottom line ... the SEC has been relevant for as long as anyone else. What's changed was the run of seven titles in a row and really the demise of the Big-10 from national relevance.

That's a different discussion altogether, and an illustration of my point, to an extent. Conference strength generally fluxes back and forth over time, so if you take a big enough sampling (which you SHOULD do), then the argument is correct. Absolutely the SEC has always been a strong power conference. But it's not always been the premier conference - such as during the late 70s through the early 2000s - it just is now. None of that is up for discussion, and I'm not trying to make it that way. The problem is that BCS rules (and now the playoffs) get bent toward perceptions, and those perceptions are being built around the here and now and not accounting for the history of CFB on the whole.

And don't take this the wrong way, but this started ramping up when the SEC started griping about their conference schedule after getting shut out of the NC in 2004. The rest of the CFB world (minus the SEC, Notre Dame, and Texas) has understood that it bounces back and forth, although you'd get the gripes now and then about who faced the tougher schedule on a case-by-case basis. Now you have THE sports media conglomerate pushing that exact agenda for one conference, and it screws everyone else, because there can be no real discussion about schedules. It's just assumed to be the SEC and then everyone else. So what naturally would've balanced itself out now cannot do so because of the built-in conflict of interest. Thus my argument to kick those elements out and start anew.

And I fully expect it to stay that way as long as ESECPN is calling the shots. It is what it is, and I'm not necessarily complaining. I'm just saying it sucks for CFB and it turns football into a "who has the better resume" soap opera that gets extremely old extremely quickly. I can tolerate an argument as to whether OU is better/worse than Alabama based on who they've played. I won't tolerate an argument that assumes OU has to prove itself as an elite contender by beating an SEC middling team by more than 24 points, just because ESPN says it should.

FWIW, I don't expect the Big 10 to stay dead. They're having a rough run right now, but someone has to fall when the others rise. And they've got the money and the market power to build it back up, so it won't stay down forever. Unfortunately, it's just going to be that way for a while because of the built-in ESPN resistance.

[badger]

merge every FBS team into one of four conferences. each conference has a conf championship game. winner of each conference goes to playoff.....done


take the people and polls out of it. use W/L records. people will always have some sort of bias..whether it an opinion, or a flat out allegiance..either way, we need to minimize the people influence..

just my two cents

They can also name it the NFL Junior: We play big boy football without paying the boys to play :P

[BoulderSooner79]

The BCS was very fair to OU and I have no reason to doubt the new system will be as well. There were 3 undefeateds in '04 from power conference, so of course there was going to be whining from the team that was left out. USC whined about the '03 season so loudly that the AP game them a consolation award. But that didn't start any Pac10/12 bias perception.

[Eielson]

Speaking of Mangino, you also have to accept Iowa State

What are you trying to do? We already torched the reputation of SEC defense by sending A&M and Mizzou. I can't imagine what would happen if they had to face anymore of our mighty conference.

[Temujin]

The BCS was very fair to OU and I have no reason to doubt the new system will be as well. There were 3 undefeateds in '04 from power conference, so of course there was going to be whining from the team that was left out. USC whined about the '03 season so loudly that the AP game them a consolation award. But that didn't start any Pac10/12 bias perception.

I'll agree with that, but notice I said it got ramped up with the SEC being left out of 2004. I didn't say it started there. I also believe OU's benefited from the BCS in a lot of ways. No argument there. But there's no doubt that the BCS was changed several times to fit "perception". Given that the perception now is that the SEC conquers all, propagated by THE media conglomerate, there's potential for a lot of stupidity in the new "system" - a lot of stupidity that could be ruled out by simply saying that you have to win your conference to get in, plain and simple. No conference should have more than 1 team in the playoff. It should be that simple, IMO.

My main issue right now is the retarded conversations that result from those perceptions. SEC v. Big 12 doesn't matter to me. OU v. Alabama does. And when you have a commentator questioning whether a top 4 team just won by enough to elevate themselves into the playoff picture...well anyway, the point is made.

[BoulderSooner79]

I guess I'll save my whining until the committee publishes rankings. I have no reason to believe they will have SEC bias or will be influenced by those that do. Most the members have direct or indirect ties to a school or conference and the SEC is not overly represented (just upon casual inspection). In fact, only the pac12 has 2 members currently on staff at P4 schools. It's going to be fun and I just hope OU has a big zero in the L column so we get to be in on the very heated debate.

[Temujin]

I guess I'll save my whining until the committee publishes rankings. I have no reason to believe they will have SEC bias or will be influenced by those that do. Most the members have direct or indirect ties to a school or conference and the SEC is not overly represented (just upon casual inspection). In fact, only the pac12 has 2 members currently on staff at P4 schools. It's going to be fun and I just hope OU has a big zero in the L column so we get to be in on the very heated debate.

Meh, you can call it whining if you want. I guess I don't see my statements as whining, so much as just pointing out the issues that cause the rankings to be what they are. The fact that the SEC has 7 of the top 15 doesn't bother me at all. I don't even watch enough football anymore to disagree with those rankings. Like I said earlier, as long as OU is #1 at the end, I couldn't care less what anyone else is ranked, whether it's the rest of the Big 12 or the SEC or whatever. If I'm whining about anything, it's about discussions like this one to be honest. Who needs all the drama of building resumes, which voters are in which conferences, and garbage like that? I preferred the days when teams just played each other and didn't have to worry about margin of victory and which conference is better. There's enough drama everywhere else in life...being forced to listen to it during a football game really ruins the experience, IMO. CFB used to be an escape from everyday drama. Just big fast dudes knocking heads. Now it's an extension if everyday drama - even in the NFL with all the Ray Rice/AD/Goodell crap. That's my only real "complaint".

[BlownGP]

The West of the Mississippi Red Neck Division ... LSU, Arkansas, Texas A&M, Missouri



If you want to get technical. Baton Rouge is East of the Mississippi ...lol


Like another poster said the problem I have with the SEC is how the fans think Vandy, Tennessee, Kentucky etc or better than any other conference's lower echelon of teams just becsaue there in the SEC..

All my LSU co-workers said, OU might lose against Tennessee. I asked why? Wasn't because of there QB or defense or receivers or running backs etc..
No their answer was because there in the SEC!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Really???

They didn't say much to be Monday morning, besides saying holy **** your defense is very fast and very good. :nevreness:

[BoulderSooner79]

I preferred the days when teams just played each other and didn't have to worry about margin of victory and which conference is better.

Honestly, I don't remember such days ever existing, but I've only been following since '71. Pre-BCS, it was very much a beauty contest of the AP and UPI polls. Conferences were locked into bowl alliances and the best teams rarely met on the field. So, the final poll might be who pounded on their underdog bowl opponent harder. There was certainly a complaint about east coast bias as that's where most the media lived and they were accused of going to bed before west coast teams played. And Bear Bryant was the master of power politics at arranging the bowls to work out nicely for 'Bama. There was no 24x7 ESPN or other cable outlet, but the material sure existed. Also, for most the 70's, the big8 was considered the badass conference because of OU and NU.

[Temujin]

Honestly, I don't remember such days ever existing, but I've only been following since '71. Pre-BCS, it was very much a beauty contest of the AP and UPI polls. Conferences were locked into bowl alliances and the best teams rarely met on the field. So, the final poll might be who pounded on their underdog bowl opponent harder. There was certainly a complaint about east coast bias as that's where most the media lived and they were accused of going to bed before west coast teams played. And Bear Bryant was the master of power politics at arranging the bowls to work out nicely for 'Bama. There was no 24x7 ESPN or other cable outlet, but the material sure existed. Also, for most the 70's, the big8 was considered the badass conference because of OU and NU.

Well, like I said, I'm not anti-playoff, nor am I anti-BCS. The end result is better than it used to be. I think I've reasonably made my points otherwise, so I'll just chalk up any conflict there to differing perceptions.

[Mac94]

Temujin -

There's a difference in saying "Absolutely the SEC has always been a strong power conference. But it's not always been the premier conference" and saying "they were largely irrelevant."


FWIW, I don't expect the Big 10 to stay dead. They're having a rough run right now, but someone has to fall when the others rise. And they've got the money and the market power to build it back up, so it won't stay down forever. Unfortunately, it's just going to be that way for a while because of the built-in ESPN resistance.

This will be interesting ... one thing I noticed in looking at the MNC history was a real fall off of the Big-10 starting in the 70's. In the 50's and 60's the Big-10 had a team claim an MNC 6 times. But since 1970 they have only had a team win it twice .. Michigan in 1997 and Ohio St in 2001 (Penn States and Nebraska's MNCs were all pre Big-10). Their fall off began well before the creation of ESPN and the BCS.

And then look at the region of the country ... the Midwest (this will include Pitts, Notre Dames and Penn States MNCs) has 8 since 1970 while the south (including Miami and Florida St's) has 23. If you expand that to include Texas and Oklahoma (more southerly states) then the number goes up to 29. That's a huge regional difference that spans time well before the rise of ESPN.

[Temujin]

Temujin -

There's a difference in saying "Absolutely the SEC has always been a strong power conference. But it's not always been the premier conference" and saying "they were largely irrelevant."



This will be interesting ... one thing I noticed in looking at the MNC history was a real fall off of the Big-10 starting in the 70's. In the 50's and 60's the Big-10 had a team claim an MNC 6 times. But since 1970 they have only had a team win it twice .. Michigan in 1997 and Ohio St in 2001 (Penn States and Nebraska's MNCs were all pre Big-10). Their fall off began well before the creation of ESPN and the BCS.

And then look at the region of the country ... the Midwest (this will include Pitts, Notre Dames and Penn States MNCs) has 8 since 1970 while the south (including Miami and Florida St's) has 23. If you expand that to include Texas and Oklahoma (more southerly states) then the number goes up to 29. That's a huge regional difference that spans time well before the rise of ESPN.

I'm not interested in clarifying any further. I provided the context for you to understand. If you want to understand what I'm saying then go back and read what I've already wrote. FWIW, it wasn't intended as an insult, just an example of how powerful conferences flux in strength from time to time. If you can't agree that the late 70s through the early 2000s was a relatively "down" period for the SEC as a whole, then there's really no point in continuing the discussion.

[Temujin]

Temujin -

There's a difference in saying "Absolutely the SEC has always been a strong power conference. But it's not always been the premier conference" and saying "they were largely irrelevant."



This will be interesting ... one thing I noticed in looking at the MNC history was a real fall off of the Big-10 starting in the 70's. In the 50's and 60's the Big-10 had a team claim an MNC 6 times. But since 1970 they have only had a team win it twice .. Michigan in 1997 and Ohio St in 2001 (Penn States and Nebraska's MNCs were all pre Big-10). Their fall off began well before the creation of ESPN and the BCS.

And then look at the region of the country ... the Midwest (this will include Pitts, Notre Dames and Penn States MNCs) has 8 since 1970 while the south (including Miami and Florida St's) has 23. If you expand that to include Texas and Oklahoma (more southerly states) then the number goes up to 29. That's a huge regional difference that spans time well before the rise of ESPN.

I didn't address the rest. I think what you discovered isn't a media trend as much as it is a population trend. Large recruiting centers in Michigan and Ohio have been struggling as the manufacturing industries have been tailing off. That's caused a migration of sorts to the southern states, and I think that's been going on for a while now. That population shift would also affect the shift in recruiting grounds, I imagine.

[Mac94]

If you can't agree that the late 70s through the early 2000s was a relatively "down" period for the SEC as a whole, then there's really no point in continuing the discussion.

Now you're saying late 70's ... moving the bar a bit, lol. In the 1980's they were down, as was everyone else not OU or an independent. In the 50's, 60's, 70's, and 90's the SEC had 3 titles each decade. In the 80's they only had one (Georgia in 1980). The 80's were for the Independents what the past 8 or so have been for the SEC ... utter domination. Miami, Penn St., and Notre Dame combined for 6 MNCs in the 80's ... Apart from OU (85) and Georgia (80), only the ACC had any claim (Clemson in 82). Heck ... even BYU won one. So the 80's was the major hurrah of the Independents.


I didn't address the rest. I think what you discovered isn't a media trend as much as it is a population trend. Large recruiting centers in Michigan and Ohio have been struggling as the manufacturing industries have been tailing off. That's caused a migration of sorts to the southern states, and I think that's been going on for a while now. That population shift would also affect the shift in recruiting grounds, I imagine.

Oh I agree ... demographics are a major story here ... and why the Big-10 may not make a great comeback anytime soon. They have money and power ... but on the field they have been lacking against southern schools for a long time. Population trends are definitely against them.

[Temujin]

Oh I agree ... demographics are a major story here ... and why the Big-10 may not make a great comeback anytime soon. They have money and power ... but on the field they have been lacking against southern schools for a long time. Population trends are definitely against them.

I personally don't count them out for the long term, but that's just me. The northeast is still a massive population center in the US. Things like poverty, etc. can move kids toward sports to get scholarships where they're not getting quality education opportunities. And there's a reason why they're called population shifts/trends - because they tend to go back/forth for various reasons. The oil booms made south more attractive, then the manufacturing bust did the opposite for the north. It's hard to determine what the next shift will be, and it might very well favor the north.

[badger]

Look, we gave TCU and West Virginia a season trial period, but I think it's pretty clear that the SEC needs them more than the Big 12 does.

Let's give them a new home. If Texas A&M can go from 6-6 to beating Bammer after turning SEC, and Mizzou can go from sh!tty mcsh!t to SEC championship game after two SEC seasons, then surely TCU and WVU will be playing for the national title after a month in the SEC. Don't even finish the Big 12 regular season guys, just go SEC now