College Football - Bowl Games

[Guest]

Look at Vandy. At least they played 2 real OOC games though WF sucks. But they got to 9 wins despite losing to each of the 4 best (and only ranked) teams on their schedule. You're telling me you couldn't replace Presbyterian with a team that could actually win a game in the Big South and still get a W? It's not just the cupcakes, it's how fluffy these teams are. You're taking on the worst FCS schools out there. It's pathetic.

 

Well, Presbyterian won 3 Big South games last year, but this year didn't work out so well. In tiny conferences it's generally pretty tough to predict who's going to be the really terrible team v. just bad, so I have a hard time chastising schools for not scheduling the "right" gimme home games. Especially when they're often exercises in negotiation rather than hand-picking the best opponent.

 

As for the topic at hand, the SEC is an easy target because of the obnoxious narratives that they try to use to prop themselves up, but I'm not really seeing an alternative to those teams this year. I mean, it's not an illogical thing to say that Georgia or South Carolina didn't exactly win their way through a gauntlet, but then you look at who deserves to jump up in front of them and there's even more evidence against those teams being worthy. I'm open to alternatives(not to "SEC is the best conference in history Pawwwl", stop watching ESPN), but I don't see any great ones.

[Old Style]

The perception of the SEC being the best conference in college football, right or wrong, helps recruiting. We saw a big impact before the season even started. Now that we actually won 10 games (with the bowl game yet to be played) as a member of the SEC our recruiting has exploded. That is a good reason to want to see the rest of the conference win their OOC and bowl games.

[Tracer Bullet]

Well, not scheduling anyone in the FCS would be a start. Going to MAC territory should be low enough. But I do chastise a team for playing someone that didn't win a single game in their FCS conf. I guess that's a risk you run playing crappy schools. Those SEC teams are just going to have to find a way to muddle through despite my scorn.

 

OMC's post is exactly the sort of narrative I'm talking about. "We have to schedule fcs teams bc we can't compete in this conference." It's BS. They'd do no better if Bama, LSU, and UGA were replaced with Oregon, Stanford, and USC in any given year. Even if the top of the SEC is the best, the middle and bottom is no different than any other BCS conference where you have to show up and play 4 quarters of good football and maybe catch a break once in a while to win. Playing Tenn, Miss, and Mizzou is no harder than playing 6-win teams in any other conference.

[Guest]

The SEC is far from alone in having FCS teams on the schedule. It's a reality of the college game at this point. While they should certainly be held accountable for the strength of their schedule, I don't really see the point in forcing ADs to be predictors of lower conference standings, less they be laughed at. Have you seen even the MAC standings year to year? With like 2 exceptions they basically get flipped upside down.

 

As for OMC's point, it's not a very good one, but it accidentally has some truth this year. As I've said before, the strength of the SEC is not in having 12-14 teams that are better 1-14 than your conference of choice, it's that they have a better top-end/1-2 more top end teams. The latter held true this year with 6 teams in the BCS top 10, but conference expansion limits the impact as only a few teams really get such a gauntlet to face most of those teams in any one year(Lucky Mizzou was the only team to have to face more than 4).

[Tracer Bullet]

I forgot you're one of them now.

 

I think part of the point, TT, is those rankings are a touch biased bc the SEC teams get credit for playing tough schedules regardless of how tough they actually are. In a 14-team league with poor OOC scheduling, the SEC teams get to benefit from the reputation of the top 4 teams, even if they only play 2 of them. Winning 8 games in the SEC is supposed to be impressive. Then you look at MSU and say "those 8 wins came against all bad teams." But most people still give them credit for winning 8 games in that conference.

 

SEC teams are consistently ranked highest among teams with the same number of losses. They held #1 until Bama lost. Bama and Florida are the top 2 teams with 1 loss. Would Oregon get spanked by Louisville?

 

AP and coaches both have UGA as the highest 2-loss team - higher than a 1-loss team! Why is SC ahead of Ok? A&M beat Bama but who else? They lost to the only other ranked teams on the schedule, why are they in the top 10.

 

Etc etc. You can argue that the SEC is the best conference bc they have the most top 10 teams. Fine. I say the SEC has the most top 10 teams bc it's in ESPN's best interest that they do.

 

I wish I had that pre-season top 25 for next year handy. Wonder how those rankings look after we've seen the SEC play some other BCS teams.

[Guest]

I'm sure there's a slight anchoring effect at play, but there isn't a substantial difference between the human and computer polls at the top.

 

Trying to desconstruct with one-to-one comparisons is a great way to show why a team isn't that great, but doesn't account for who's better. If there's only 2-3 SEC top 10 teams while the rest are overrated, who's filling in the gaps? You reach the Oregon States, Nebraskas, and Northern Illinoiseses of the world awfully quickly.

[Tracer Bullet]

You don't need 10 non-SEC teams. But putting OK, FSU, maybe Clemson, Nebraska- other 10+ win teams from other conferences, in the discussion and suddenly it isn't so impressive. They likely have 3-4 top 10 teams and 6 top 15-ish teams. That's all well and good but the other half of the conference sucks out loud. Even MSU and Vandy have 8/9 wins but they've beaten nobody. 6 good to great teams and 8 meh to downright terrible teams does not a gauntlet make.

[Guest]

You don't need 10 non-SEC teams. But putting OK, FSU, maybe Clemson, Nebraska- other 10+ win teams from other conferences, in the discussion and suddenly it isn't so impressive. They likely have 3-4 top 10 teams and 6 top 15-ish teams. That's all well and good but the other half of the conference sucks out loud. Even MSU and Vandy have 8/9 wins but they've beaten nobody. 6 good to great teams and 8 meh to downright terrible teams does not a gauntlet make.

 

Okay, now put those teams through the treatment you just gave the other SEC teams.

 

Oklahoma beat 4 loss Texas as their only Top 25 win, and they have a H2H matchup with aTm on tap to settle the Top 10 worthiness of those 2 schools. They should be in the Top 10 at this point.

 

FSU and Clemson both lost home games to SEC East teams, and had one combined Top 25 win this year: their H2H matchup

 

Nebraska is a 3 loss team whose best accomplishment was either splitting a home/neutral matchup with 5 loss Wisconsin or beating 4 loss Michigan at home.

 

Add in Bowl results(Clemson edges LSU, Georgia beats Nebraska, South Carolina beats Michigan, FSU beats DeKalb U, Wiscy loses to Stanford) and there's not much material change either.

[Tracer Bullet]

Right. No one is arguing that teams from 8-15 don't have flaws. The question is why are the SEC teams always ranked highest among same-loss teams? Bias. It's what allows them to claim 6 top 10 teams.

 

BTW I love the line about FSU and Clemson. It doesn't matter what specific teams they lost at home to, only that they were SEC teams. Clemson, btw, now 2-1 against the SEC on the year. Maybe if SEC teams played more than 1 BCS team OOC every year, we would have a better gauge for how good they are.

[OleMissCub]

http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr02/2013/1/3/9/enhanced-buzz-wide-21059-1357222461-5.jpg

[KingCubsFan]

Right. No one is arguing that teams from 8-15 don't have flaws. The question is why are the SEC teams always ranked highest among same-loss teams? Bias. It's what allows them to claim 6 top 10 teams.

 

BTW I love the line about FSU and Clemson. It doesn't matter what specific teams they lost at home to, only that they were SEC teams. Clemson, btw, now 2-1 against the SEC on the year. Maybe if SEC teams played more than 1 BCS team OOC every year, we would have a better gauge for how good they are.

Hey, at least James Franklin ranked Oregon ahead of A&M:

 

1. Alabama

2. Georgia

3. Florida

4. Notre Dame

5. LSU

6. Oregon

7. Texas A&M

8. South Carolina

9. Kansas State

10. Florida State

[Guest]

Would you have preferred I said that they lost to Top 10 SEC East teams at home, the type of team you're trying to push them past?

 

At this point it gets to semantics that I don't really care about. In a 12-14 game season you can argue for 10 different teams to be ranked 10 different ways between 8-17 and not really be wrong. If the SEC being at the head of that pack is proof of bias to you, go for it. I'm sure that's a part of it as bias colors all things, but I'm not seeing the ESPN conspiracy when the objective polls aren't exactly singing a different tune Besides, take your proposed scenario where the SEC has 6 of the Top 15 teams. That's still as many as any two other conferences combined. Like I've said, stronger at the top, the same through the rest gets you to the best overall.

[Guest]

Right. No one is arguing that teams from 8-15 don't have flaws. The question is why are the SEC teams always ranked highest among same-loss teams? Bias. It's what allows them to claim 6 top 10 teams.

 

BTW I love the line about FSU and Clemson. It doesn't matter what specific teams they lost at home to, only that they were SEC teams. Clemson, btw, now 2-1 against the SEC on the year. Maybe if SEC teams played more than 1 BCS team OOC every year, we would have a better gauge for how good they are.

 

Amusingly, one of those two SEC wins for Clemson was against a bad Auburn team (and Clemson only won by 7!), one of the bad SEC teams you and others have dinged the top tier of SEC teams for beating up on.

[Tracer Bullet]

Would you have preferred I said that they lost to Top 10 SEC East teams at home, the type of team you're trying to push them past?

 

At this point it gets to semantics that I don't really care about. In a 12-14 game season you can argue for 10 different teams to be ranked 10 different ways between 8-17 and not really be wrong. If the SEC being at the head of that pack is proof of bias to you, go for it. I'm sure that's a part of it as bias colors all things, but I'm not seeing the ESPN conspiracy when the objective polls aren't exactly singing a different tune Besides, take your proposed scenario where the SEC has 6 of the Top 15 teams. That's still as many as any two other conferences combined. Like I've said, stronger at the top, the same through the rest gets you to the best overall.

 

ESPN has a huge contract with the SEC and we all know espn pushes the teams that make it the most money. I'm a little surprised you don't see a conference whose members are consistently placed at the head of each same-loss group as anything but deserved recognition.

ETA-which polls are objective? Just bc they call them computer polls doesn't mean they're free of bias.

As for better at the top, same in the middle, that's not exactly what I said. The SEC has a split that's a mile wide. 6 at the top are quite good. 8 at the bottom that are meh or as bad or worse than any BCS team. I said beating a 6-win SEC team is no different than beating a 6-win team from another BCS conf. They're the biggest conference-they should have more good teams and more bad teams than any other conference-and they do. That's not proof of anything.

 

Bottom line-there is very little evidence that the SEC is some dominant conference, whereas the evidence suggests that it's overrated.

[Tracer Bullet]

Right. No one is arguing that teams from 8-15 don't have flaws. The question is why are the SEC teams always ranked highest among same-loss teams? Bias. It's what allows them to claim 6 top 10 teams.

 

BTW I love the line about FSU and Clemson. It doesn't matter what specific teams they lost at home to, only that they were SEC teams. Clemson, btw, now 2-1 against the SEC on the year. Maybe if SEC teams played more than 1 BCS team OOC every year, we would have a better gauge for how good they are.

 

Amusingly, one of those two SEC wins for Clemson was against a bad Auburn team (and Clemson only won by 7!), one of the bad SEC teams you and others have dinged the top tier of SEC teams for beating up on.

 

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make

[OleMissCub]

Ole Miss plays Pitt on Saturday. Anybody here know anything about Pitt this year?

[rawaction]

Ole Miss plays Pitt on Saturday. Anybody here know anything about Pitt this year?

Pesky ass team. Have a couple tiny RBs in Graham and Shell. Graham is the workhorse. Shell is a speedy freshman. They will probably run the combo 40 times. Qb took a decent step forward this year and isnt makin as many mistakes. Has a couple big Wrs, a couple fast ones. The OL is ok but young. Defensively I don't know much about. No nfl prospects that dide of the ball.

[Soul]

[expletive] you, K-State. I was looking forward to a good football game tonight.

[Formerly Snayke]

Would you have preferred I said that they lost to Top 10 SEC East teams at home, the type of team you're trying to push them past?

 

At this point it gets to semantics that I don't really care about. In a 12-14 game season you can argue for 10 different teams to be ranked 10 different ways between 8-17 and not really be wrong. If the SEC being at the head of that pack is proof of bias to you, go for it. I'm sure that's a part of it as bias colors all things, but I'm not seeing the ESPN conspiracy when the objective polls aren't exactly singing a different tune Besides, take your proposed scenario where the SEC has 6 of the Top 15 teams. That's still as many as any two other conferences combined. Like I've said, stronger at the top, the same through the rest gets you to the best overall.

 

ESPN has a huge contract with the SEC and we all know espn pushes the teams that make it the most money. I'm a little surprised you don't see a conference whose members are consistently placed at the head of each same-loss group as anything but deserved recognition.

ETA-which polls are objective? Just bc they call them computer polls doesn't mean they're free of bias.

As for better at the top, same in the middle, that's not exactly what I said. The SEC has a split that's a mile wide. 6 at the top are quite good. 8 at the bottom that are meh or as bad or worse than any BCS team. I said beating a 6-win SEC team is no different than beating a 6-win team from another BCS conf. They're the biggest conference-they should have more good teams and more bad teams than any other conference-and they do. That's not proof of anything.

 

Bottom line-there is very little evidence that the SEC is some dominant conference, whereas the evidence suggests that it's overrated.

 

Is there anyone who cares about perception bias, the SEC and ESPN narratives as much as you? Probably time to give it a rest.

[OleMissCub]

Ole Miss plays Pitt on Saturday. Anybody here know anything about Pitt this year?

Pesky ass team. Have a couple tiny RBs in Graham and Shell. Graham is the workhorse. Shell is a speedy freshman. They will probably run the combo 40 times. Qb took a decent step forward this year and isnt makin as many mistakes. Has a couple big Wrs, a couple fast ones. The OL is ok but young. Defensively I don't know much about. No nfl prospects that dide of the ball.

 

I think it's going to be a good matchup. Both teams, at least to me, appear to be a touch better than their records suggest. Pitt lost by one point to Syracuse, lost in 3OT to ND, and played a damn good game against Louisville it looks like. Whereas Ole Miss lost by 3 to A&M, 6 to LSU, and 1 to Vandy. Ole Miss was within 10 points of being 9-3 and Pitt was within 14 of doing the same.

 

Our big weapon is WR Donte Moncrief. In his last 2 games against LSU and Miss St. he put up 334 yds and 5 TD's.

 

I think it's pretty much going to be a home game for the Rebels though, as the bowl has already sold 54,000 tix and I doubt many of those are Pitt fans.

[abuck1220]

kansas state's qb sneak based offense is almost as unwatchable as frank martin's "tackle defenders so we can rebound and put back our own bricked jump shots" offense.

[rawaction]

Ole Miss plays Pitt on Saturday. Anybody here know anything about Pitt this year?

Pesky ass team. Have a couple tiny RBs in Graham and Shell. Graham is the workhorse. Shell is a speedy freshman. They will probably run the combo 40 times. Qb took a decent step forward this year and isnt makin as many mistakes. Has a couple big Wrs, a couple fast ones. The OL is ok but young. Defensively I don't know much about. No nfl prospects that dide of the ball.

 

I think it's going to be a good matchup. Both teams, at least to me, appear to be a touch better than their records suggest. Pitt lost by one point to Syracuse, lost in 3OT to ND, and played a damn good game against Louisville it looks like. Whereas Ole Miss lost by 3 to A&M, 6 to LSU, and 1 to Vandy. Ole Miss was within 10 points of being 9-3 and Pitt was within 14 of doing the same.

 

Our big weapon is WR Donte Moncrief. In his last 2 games against LSU and Miss St. he put up 334 yds and 5 TD's.

 

I think it's pretty much going to be a home game for the Rebels though, as the bowl has already sold 54,000 tix and I doubt many of those are Pitt fans.

 

Pitt travels pretty well, but yeah, I doubt they will travel very well for a 6-6 team. I think if Chryst had another year with this exact same team, he'd have them as a 9 win team. Not that they are losing a ton, but they do lose their top QB, RB, WR, OL on offense. The defense is pretty young and was decent this year.

[OleMissCub]

I would say going to the same bowl THREE years in a row is what is really going to kill their attendance.

[shnsajax]

kansas state's qb sneak based offense is almost as unwatchable as frank martin's "tackle defenders so we can rebound and put back our own bricked jump shots" offense.

 

Almost as bad as Klein's throwing motion.

[shnsajax]

ESPN needs to focus more time on the Oregon cheerleaders.