SEC has 7 of the Top 15 spots in polls

[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