Tracer Bullet

On this forum? You're the only one I see who consistently brings it up. There were at least 8 people talking about the SEC being overrated (or a similar term) yesterday alone. I didn't bring it up and I didn't say it was a conspiracy. I'm not sure what your end goal is here, but I don't see a benefit to continuing the discussion when you're pretty blatantly ignoring reality.

Maybe Kansas Hot

It wasn't a swipe; I was legitimately asking why narratives bother you so much. I think everyone gets annoyed at the SEC, but at this point it's like complaining about the Yankees and Red Sox. I'm the only one annoyed by the SEC narrative? I'm totally lost on this.

Ooh, sick burn. So because I'm pointing out your ridiculous obsession about conspiracies that nobody else cares about you try and make it personal. Whatever helps you feel better, but your stance is completely indefensible and over-the-top in its whininess. I'm guessing you sense this, too. Personal? Your obsession with me is getting scary. I asked why you're in a thread when you don't actually get involved in the discussions, but only jump in to take your cute little swipes at me. It wasn't a burn. It was a legitimate question. you could ask that question to half of the people who post here. why single out Formerly Snayke? Single out? I responded to him.

Ooh, sick burn. So because I'm pointing out your ridiculous obsession about conspiracies that nobody else cares about you try and make it personal. Whatever helps you feel better, but your stance is completely indefensible and over-the-top in its whininess. I'm guessing you sense this, too. Personal? Your obsession with me is getting scary. I asked why you're in a thread when you don't actually get involved in the discussions, but only jump in to take your cute little swipes at me. It wasn't a burn. It was a legitimate question.

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. Why are you even here?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Grantland just needs to give up on cfb. "Both Alabama and the Irish went on the road and beat up on teams that had been hyped before the season but turned out to be weak — for Alabama that opponent was Arkansas, for Notre Dame it was Oklahoma."

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.

I dunno, it's pretty damn hard for a middle tier school like Ole Miss to get 8-9 wins when you have to play Bama, LSU, Auburn, Arkansas, and then someone the likes of Flordia, Georgia, or South Carolona every single year. SEC schools have to schedule cupcake OOC games because nobody would ever win more than 8 games unless they were just insanely dominant. I'd gladly play in any other conference. Auburn and Arkansas suck this year. Miss St was a cupcake 8-win team. You don't have to schedule FCS schools. If you can't get 8-9 wins against an all-FBS schedule, then you suck.

Alabama has to double Nix. No way Jones can handle him one-on-one, healthy or not. Maybe at 100% but I don't see how he can move Nix alone with a bum foot. And ND plays a mix of fronts, so I'd expect to see more 4-down with Shembo at end and Tuitt inside, similar to how they played Stanford (only 20% of snaps that game were in a 3-down look). Gonna be fun to watch unless Nix is driven 10 yards out of the play every snap.

The narrative is that the sec is dominant. I hear all the time that ND would lose to 8 SEC teams. It's not just whether the conference is the best but whether it's far superior to any other. The bowls have suggested that if the SEC is the best, it's not by a wide margin. After Bama, I'd take Stanford, Oregon, and maybe Ok over any other SEC team.

Jones says he's playing, though he's still in a boot. His matchup with Nix, and the latter's ability to draw a double and keep the Gs off Teo, will be a huge factor in stopping the run.

Yes. Clearly exceptions. My son loves to play "who do you want to win?" with a bunch of teams I hate. Always hurts a little to pick UM over Southern Cal but I do it every time. Also I'm not at all saying everyone in the MW feels this way. But a lot of people do and I think it's weird.

It's just an extension of Southern regionalism. I don't really feel that way for the most part. Other SEC teams losing could give my team a bump in a particular recruiting battle or something like that. Has nothing to do with the South. Might be prevalent there too but folks in the Midwest love the big ten. My older family are all Iowa fans but they pull for all big ten teams. Same with many of my friends and several posters here have expressed this sentiment.

Does that include losses to each other? no, other BCS teams. I'd expect the dominant conference to be a fair amount better than .500 against all other BCS teams.

SEC now 11-8 v BCS teams this year. er...11-9

And....scene. let's drop it folks

Tim Raines and Alan Trammell make me angry every year and this will be no different.

God no.