Started By
Message
re: Everyone who thinks 2 SEC teams have a shot at getting to the playoff is wrong
Posted on 10/21/14 at 5:40 pm to BamaGradinTn
Posted on 10/21/14 at 5:40 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:
Four pages, and no one has mentioned it. Surprising that more people aren't aware that it happened.
You did not read this thread LINK
As that 2008 year dropped Alabama from what should have been 3rd place all the way to 6th. Further proof the voters will go out of their way to prevent a 2nd SEC team even if it means taking 2 from another conference. Keep in mind the Big 12 had a CCG back then while the PAC and B1G did not. Now the CCG has become the norm and not the exception.
2
Posted on 10/21/14 at 5:46 pm to BearBait09
quote:
I don't see how they could take the SECw team over Georgia, but I don't see how they could justify taking two SEC teams if one of them has two losses. You can't give preference to SEC over champs and then give preference to champ SEC over better resume other conference too, would be using opposing arguments.
Exactly. Suddenly the conference championship has been rendered meaningless, and the SECCG becomes a liability.
Is this what we want?
Posted on 10/21/14 at 6:04 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
I think it would be a mistake to send two teams from any conference with the current situation CFB is in.
I do not doubt that the SEC is very likely right in claiming it has more than one of the top four teams, but right now, it's just eye test.
the bowls are about matching up interconference competitions and always have been, crowning a national champion was an afterthought.
In my opinion CFB needs to require all conferences play 9 conference games, and require all the conferences to play 2 power nonconference opponents, as well as completely disregard any stats/results from games against the FCS.
There just aren't enough points of comparison right now to really know what to make of results within each conference. The PAC12 as a conference has taken a huge hit national credibility because conference games. Likewise, the Big12 has gone way up due to conference games. The SECw was considered impossibly deep for a couple weeks. Until we have more information being generated to actually compare teams that don't play each other, it's a mistake to not use the playoff. I would feel way better about an SEC national champ if they had to beat two unfamiliar opponents from other conferences instead of just one.
I do not doubt that the SEC is very likely right in claiming it has more than one of the top four teams, but right now, it's just eye test.
the bowls are about matching up interconference competitions and always have been, crowning a national champion was an afterthought.
In my opinion CFB needs to require all conferences play 9 conference games, and require all the conferences to play 2 power nonconference opponents, as well as completely disregard any stats/results from games against the FCS.
There just aren't enough points of comparison right now to really know what to make of results within each conference. The PAC12 as a conference has taken a huge hit national credibility because conference games. Likewise, the Big12 has gone way up due to conference games. The SECw was considered impossibly deep for a couple weeks. Until we have more information being generated to actually compare teams that don't play each other, it's a mistake to not use the playoff. I would feel way better about an SEC national champ if they had to beat two unfamiliar opponents from other conferences instead of just one.
Posted on 10/21/14 at 6:23 pm to BearBait09
quote:
In my opinion CFB needs to require all conferences play 9 conference games, and require all the conferences to play 2 power nonconference opponents, as well as completely disregard any stats/results from games against the FCS.
Starting with Baylor? The king of weak scheduling?
Seriously, ACC and SEC have so many cross conference games every year on their schedules. B12, B1G, and PAC do not. Unless you mandate annual cross rival games in these conferences then going to 9 across the board is pointless. Also, the bottom of some conferences are really much worse than others.
Posted on 10/21/14 at 6:27 pm to Cheese Grits
quote:
As that 2008 year dropped Alabama from what should have been 3rd place all the way to 6th. Further proof the voters will go out of their way to prevent a 2nd SEC team even if it means taking 2 from another conference.
All of that is just speculation. First of all, the Staples article goes through the mindset and the process behind what the media did in their mock...not the actual committee. My point, which still remains, is that the committee took a non-champion over a champion, debunking the myth that they will take only conference champions if they get in that situation. Sure, the Big 12 had a championship game, but Texas didn't play in it, so the Big 12 championship game was irrelevant as far as Texas being chosen. Texas defeated their conference's champion; Alabama lost to their conference's champion. This had nothing to do with an anti-SEC bias. It was all about strength of schedule and quality of wins.
Posted on 10/21/14 at 6:43 pm to BamaGradinTn
Also, your argument that USC shouldn't have jumped Alabama is biased and flawed. Hell, I would have wanted Bama in also, but the reality is that USC's quality wins were against higher ranked opponents. USC's two quality wins...Oregon and OSU...both finished higher than Bama's two...UGA and Ole Miss. You can disagree with their results, but to try to argue that it's evidence of some anti-SEC bias is laughable.
Posted on 10/21/14 at 7:05 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:
First of all, the Staples article goes through the mindset and the process behind what the media did in their mock...not the actual committee.
Actually, the real committee did the same and got the same results. Did you read the different media besides Staples?
quote:
Sure, the Big 12 had a championship game, but Texas didn't play in it, so the Big 12 championship game was irrelevant as far as Texas being chosen.
Correct, Texas can draw eyeballs like few teams can. it is why they are a brand and Baylor, TCU, and Texas Tech are not.
quote:
It was all about strength of schedule and quality of wins.
I see you already drank the Kool Aid
Alabama 2008
vs #9 Clemson (Chick-fil-A College Kickoff)
Tulane
WKU
@ Arkansas
@ #3 Georgia
Kentucky
Ole Miss
@ Tennessee (Third Saturday in October)
Arkansas State
@ #15 LSU
Mississippi State
Auburn (Iron Bowl)
Texas played 12 games but this was game #13 for Alabama
vs #2 Florida (SEC Championship Game)
Here was the Texas schedule (10 win teams in BOLD)
Florida Atlantic
@ UTEP
Rice
Arkansas (Bama played Hogs @ Fayettenam, Horns got Hogs at home)
@ Colorado
vs Oklahoma (Dallas RRR game)
Missouri
Oklahoma State
@ Texas Tech
Baylor
@ Kansas
Texas A&M
As for why Texas?
Top 10 most watched regular season games in 2008
#1 12/06/2008 #2 Florida vs #1 Alabama SEC Championship 15.0 Million
#2 11/01/2008 #1 Texas vs #7 Texas Tech ESPN on ABC 12.2 Million
#10 10/11/2008 #5 Texas vs #1 Oklahoma ESPN on ABC 7.7 Million
Posted on 10/21/14 at 7:09 pm to cokebottleag
Skip Bayless said there should be 4 SEC West teams in the playoff 
Posted on 10/21/14 at 7:11 pm to Cheese Grits
Kannel?
Posted on 10/21/14 at 7:19 pm to BamaGradinTn
Regular season
11-1 Southern Cal (lost @ Oregon State)
12-0 Alabama - Undefeated!
12-0 > 11-1
Tommy Trojan getting media love for beating Notre Dame and Cal is laughable. History has shown us how lame the Buckeyes are so beating them 35-3 in Los Angeles is a paper tiger game. We can agree to disagree that Southern Cal had the harder schedule, especially as they did not have to play the 13th game.
11-1 Southern Cal (lost @ Oregon State)
12-0 Alabama - Undefeated!
12-0 > 11-1
Tommy Trojan getting media love for beating Notre Dame and Cal is laughable. History has shown us how lame the Buckeyes are so beating them 35-3 in Los Angeles is a paper tiger game. We can agree to disagree that Southern Cal had the harder schedule, especially as they did not have to play the 13th game.
Posted on 10/21/14 at 7:19 pm to cokebottleag
Georgia wins the SEC Championship and qualifies while all the fine teams in the West can go pound sand.
We need eight teams in the draw for there to be any chance of fairness.
We need eight teams in the draw for there to be any chance of fairness.
Posted on 10/21/14 at 7:48 pm to Whiznot
When the four teams are chosen, I could see there perhaps being more belly-aching, bitching, and gnashing of teeth directed toward the individuals on the playoff committee than than there has ever been in the history of college football. By design, a 4 team 'playoff' format is built for it.
...at least 8 teams.
I know Archie's stating that he's backing out for 'health reasons' and I have no reason to doubt him, but I can't help but wonder if he also got a glimpse of the light from the oncoming train.
quote:
We need eight teams in the draw for there to be any chance of fairness.
...at least 8 teams.
I know Archie's stating that he's backing out for 'health reasons' and I have no reason to doubt him, but I can't help but wonder if he also got a glimpse of the light from the oncoming train.
This post was edited on 10/21/14 at 8:11 pm
Posted on 10/21/14 at 8:05 pm to cokebottleag
The SEC has dominated the BCS bc we're the best conference, so they want to put a stop to that?
Posted on 10/21/14 at 8:13 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:
Everyone who says that the committee will not take a one loss non-champion over a one loss champion is either completely ignoring, or is simply ignorant of, the mock selection the committee did two months ago, when, using the 2008 season as a model, they took Florida, Oklahoma, Texas, and USC. They all had one loss. They took a one loss non-champion in Texas and left out a one loss B1G champion Penn State...whom they ranked #5. And they left out a 12-0 Utah.
Four pages, and no one has mentioned it. Surprising that more people aren't aware that it happened.
So the committee has pretty much already answered the question...unless you choose to believe that they went to the time and expense to get together and go through that whole process for no good reason. You can talk about politics, TV ratings, Jim Delaney, etc., etc., etc. Or you can just believe what they've already told you.
So yeah, if it comes down to a one loss non-champion Auburn or a one loss champion Kansas State, Auburn's in.
People love to talk about the politics that will come into play.
They are just being naive.
Anyone who thinks there is no chance that the SEC, or any conference, will ever get 2 teams in the playoff is really just plain stupid.
Posted on 10/21/14 at 8:25 pm to BayouBengals03
quote:
or any conference, will ever get 2 teams in the playoff is really just plain stupid.
I never said another conference might not squeak another one in.
Again, you quoted the mock 2008, which bumped Bama from 3rd to 6th and out of the playoff. They were replaced by Texas who had a worse regular season record and did not play in the Big 12 CCG. What they did have was 2 of the Top 10 ratings for games played that season (not including bowls) which just affirms eyeballs will matter.
Posted on 10/21/14 at 8:38 pm to Cheese Grits
quote:
What they did have was 2 of the Top 10 ratings for games played that season (not including bowls) which just affirms eyeballs will matter.
So they bump off the team that played in the highest rated game?
Texas isn't exactly way more marketable than Bama. I'd say they're both about equal in national recognition.
Posted on 10/21/14 at 8:58 pm to ChiTownBammer
quote:
So they bump off the team that played in the highest rated game?
#1 was Florida vs Alabama so they got a bump from both teams. #2 was Texas vs Texas Tech so they probably got the majority of that bump from Texas. As for actual football Alabama > Texas but it is reversed when it comes to marketing.
Texas has been #1 in marketing for the last decade or so. Tide was #2 but they have been hot lately, while Texas has been in the dump for the past several years. As for BCs ratings LINK
2005 Texas vs Southern Cal drew 21.7 rating (highest in BCS history)
2009 Texas vs Alabama drew 17.2
Texas probably has more bandwagon folks than Alabama across the country. Seems like I see Texas gear more on the west coast than I see Bama gear.
Posted on 10/21/14 at 9:04 pm to Cheese Grits
At what part do you clowns not get its a national champion not the 4 best teams.
Win your conference is going to be 1st criteria.
Now with that said what makes the SEC cannibalization any different than the PAC, B1G, or Big XII
Notre Dame wins out they're in and deservedly so.
Win your conference is going to be 1st criteria.
Now with that said what makes the SEC cannibalization any different than the PAC, B1G, or Big XII
Notre Dame wins out they're in and deservedly so.
Posted on 10/21/14 at 9:13 pm to cokebottleag
A ND will not have a conference championship either nor will they be playing the last weekend of the season. ND will not see the playoff over a 1 loss SEC team like an AU, Ole Miss, MSU, or UA if they finish 11-1 but do not play in Atlanta or does not win there
Posted on 10/21/14 at 9:30 pm to BayouBengals03
quote:
People love to talk about the politics that will come into play.
They are just being naive.
Everything is about politics. Those who think politics doesn't always come in to play at some level are equally naive. If politics didn't come into play, why bother getting people from schools across the nation, why not just grab 13 sports writers from Cleveland? Oh, what, they would be biased tho? No wai....
There isn't going to be 2 teams from the same conference this year. There aren't going to be 2 teams from the same conference for a while, and when it does happen, it likely won't be SEC teams.
The whole point of this was to ensure the other conferences get to the NC.
Page 5 of 6
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News