Started By
Message
re: The True Scheduling Disadvantage
Posted on 9/22/13 at 2:32 pm to Crimson Legend
Posted on 9/22/13 at 2:32 pm to Crimson Legend
The East is white hot garbage this year. I think it harder to play Vandy this year than Florida or Georgia based on trying to get the players excited for the game.
0
Posted on 9/22/13 at 2:35 pm to Crimson Legend
thanks for the insight
Posted on 9/22/13 at 2:36 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:
No they won't. They don't go by BCS rankings. The national media won't rate teams that don't win their divisions highly and the selection committee won't let them in either. Everyone is really naive if they think the SEC is going to get two teams in every year.
Spot on. A lot of people in the Southeast are fairly oblivious to the perception nationally. Yes, ESPN loves the SEC and everyone knows it's the best conference. But it was a Cold War showdown between Delaney and Slive on this selection committee. The Big Ten tried hard to force feed us a system where only the conference champs play for it all. It will take a lot to get a second team in there from the SEC any time soon.
Posted on 9/22/13 at 2:38 pm to johnzorback
quote:
thanks for the insight
That wasn't insight for you. I don't teach pigs to dance, it just gets me dirty and frustrates the pig.
Posted on 9/22/13 at 2:39 pm to Crimson Legend
Posted on 9/22/13 at 2:41 pm to Crimson Legend
quote:
Spot on. A lot of people in the Southeast are fairly oblivious to the perception nationally. Yes, ESPN loves the SEC and everyone knows it's the best conference. But it was a Cold War showdown between Delaney and Slive on this selection committee. The Big Ten tried hard to force feed us a system where only the conference champs play for it all. It will take a lot to get a second team in there from the SEC any time soon.
Go back and look at the national polls. the final week, If an SEC team in second play in their division has an equal number of losses(1) to a conference champ from a major conference... that conference champ will get the nod, even if they are 5 or 6 in the polls, every single time. And it is a self fulfilling prophecy. The polls most likely won't even rank an SEC team that high in favor of a champ because they know what is at stake.
Posted on 9/22/13 at 2:43 pm to Crimson Legend
Do you really think that if 4 teams are undefeated with an undefeated Pac 12, Big 12, Big 10 and SEC champ, that an 11-1 SEC school should get the nod over one of these, too?
We're not the ACC here, the SEC will be represented, and unless you have an undefeated team in a good conference, that doesn't compete for a national title, a la Auburn 2004, then you have no room to talk.
GFY, who gives a shite if the SEC doesn't get 2 invites.
You just sound like the douchebag that wants his son to play two positions even though other kids who don't play could.
We're not the ACC here, the SEC will be represented, and unless you have an undefeated team in a good conference, that doesn't compete for a national title, a la Auburn 2004, then you have no room to talk.
GFY, who gives a shite if the SEC doesn't get 2 invites.
You just sound like the douchebag that wants his son to play two positions even though other kids who don't play could.
This post was edited on 9/22/13 at 2:44 pm
Posted on 9/22/13 at 2:46 pm to scrooster
quote:
SCAR will take care of Clemson and Florida will do the same to FSU.
Does that cause you pause here your above theory is concerned?
You cannot depend on Clemson and Florida State to remain incompetent forever. Who will keep Oregon and Ohio State in check? When Texas and U.S.C. make the right coaching hires, who will keep them in check?
@LSU fans: Again, this thread is about how the SEC is at a disadvantage when compared to other powerhouses around the country.
You can discuss your opinions regarding Alabama and Texas A&M's schedules in one of the hundreds of threads regarding them on this website.
Please try and focus on Oregon, Stanford, Ohio State, Florida State's, etc. schedules this season and in the future. A 2-loss LSU could be be better than an undefeated Ohio State and Oregon but won't get the chance to prove it. Do you not see the real issue here? The SEC is getting too strong and the conferences aren't balanced.
I don't think the college playoff will be adjusted to reflect strength of conference.
1. SEC
2. PAC 12
3a. Big 10
3b. Big 12
5. ACC
6. AAC
Posted on 9/22/13 at 2:49 pm to Gardevoir
quote:
The SEC is getting too strong and the conferences aren't balanced.
That's the bottom line.
Quite plausible scenario: LSU beats Alabama, A&M, UGA, and Florida in their regular season schedule, and loses the same way UGA did last year in the SECC. That would be 4 wins over teams markedly better than anyone Ohio State played, but if they go 1-1 against the only two teams that are even decent (Michigan and Northwestern), you don't put in tOSU just because they have a conference title. That's ludicrous.
Posted on 9/22/13 at 2:50 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:
No they won't. They don't go by BCS rankings. The national media won't rate teams that don't win their divisions highly and the selection committee won't let them in either. Everyone is really naive if they think the SEC is going to get two teams in every year.
The BCS will cease to exist, and I agree with the poster that says the selection committee should not look at any rankings until midseason. I actually believe the selection committee shouldn't convene until midseason.
I don't think the SEC will have two teams in every season, but I realize how unjust it is that the SEC could reasonably be shut out of the playoff because our conference is several times tougher to win than the others.
Posted on 9/22/13 at 2:54 pm to Gardevoir
quote:
Please try and focus on Oregon, Stanford, Ohio State, Florida State's, etc. schedules this season and in the future. A 2-loss LSU could be be better than an undefeated Ohio State and Oregon but won't get the chance to prove it. Do you not see the real issue here? The SEC is getting too strong and the conferences aren't balanced.
Too strong? Only one team can win the natty no matter what... so it is moot unless an SEC gets completely shutout... which will not happen. There is too much money. If there is EVER a scenario where a deserving SEC Champ is left out, you'll see the playoff go to 8 teams immediately with autobids for conference champs.
Posted on 9/22/13 at 2:54 pm to johnzorback
quote:
Do you really think that if 4 teams are undefeated with an undefeated Pac 12, Big 12, Big 10 and SEC champ, that an 11-1 SEC school should get the nod over one of these, too?
We're not the ACC here, the SEC will be represented, and unless you have an undefeated team in a good conference, that doesn't compete for a national title, a la Auburn 2004, then you have no room to talk.
GFY, who gives a shite if the SEC doesn't get 2 invites.
You just sound like the douchebag that wants his son to play two positions even though other kids who don't play could.
Did you mean to quote Crimson Legend?
I'm not worried about anything.
LSU fans are focusing too much on Alabama when they should be paying attention to the bigger picture. Would a one-loss LSU jump an undefeated Ohio State and Oregon for the BCS National championship this season? LSU plays the tougher schedule by far, and Ohio State and Oregon's recent history should indicate that they don't fare well versus great SEC teams. However, I could still see LSU being left out due to the 1 loss in a much tougher conference with a much tougher schedule.
Posted on 9/22/13 at 2:59 pm to TeLeFaWx
quote:
Too strong? Only one team can win the natty no matter what... so it is moot unless an SEC gets completely shutout... which will not happen. There is too much money. If there is EVER a scenario where a deserving SEC Champ is left out, you'll see the playoff go to 8 teams immediately with autobids for conference champs.
See, that's where I'm divided. Is 8 too high?
When you include 8 teams, you allow teams that didn't win their division or conference to get rematches versus the team that beat them in the playoff. Furthermore, wouldn't adding more games increase the chances of someone getting injured? Team nowadays are fortunate to stay relatively healthy and compete through 13 or 14 games. Imagine that number increasing to 15 or 16.
If the college football playoff expands to 8 teams, should the regular season be shortened by a game or two or will the season just be dragged out? Teams need time to rest and prepare and shouldn't have too many games back to back.
Posted on 9/22/13 at 3:00 pm to Gardevoir
I did
no
We're not going to have a 15-team playoff where every 1 loss team gets a shot.
If anything it would be unfair to teams outside the SEC, since they would prepare with substandard competition.
no
We're not going to have a 15-team playoff where every 1 loss team gets a shot.
If anything it would be unfair to teams outside the SEC, since they would prepare with substandard competition.
Posted on 9/22/13 at 3:04 pm to Gardevoir
WTF just stop
Your whole point is that teams that deserve a chance to play should play. The only way to determine that is........to play.
Again, what is your point? What is the determination of which teams should play, and shouldn't the determination be teams that haven't lost?
Your argument that more games is bad completely invalidates your original argument.
Your whole point is that teams that deserve a chance to play should play. The only way to determine that is........to play.
Again, what is your point? What is the determination of which teams should play, and shouldn't the determination be teams that haven't lost?
Your argument that more games is bad completely invalidates your original argument.
Posted on 9/22/13 at 3:10 pm to TeLeFaWx
FWIW, Oregon, Stanford, and Washington will all probably be "legitimate top 15 teams" in the PAC-12 North by the time they get around to playing each other.
Washington has the offense to possibly get into a shoot-out with Oregon but I doubt they hang with them this year.
Washington has the offense to possibly get into a shoot-out with Oregon but I doubt they hang with them this year.
Posted on 9/22/13 at 3:17 pm to johnzorback
quote:
Your argument that more games is bad completely invalidates your original argument.
Huh? I'm not against more games, rather I'm not convinced that more games would offer do more good than bad.
quote:
Again, what is your point? What is the determination of which teams should play, and shouldn't the determination be teams that haven't lost?
Alright, let's say LSU loses to Georgia by 9 this weekend and finishes the regular season 12-1. Meanwhile, Oregon and Ohio State have gone 13-0 and have won all games by 21+ points. LSU at the end of the year could very well be better than both Oregon and Ohio State but would the pollsters see it? How could you justify leaving out an undefeated team with a superficially impressive season?
When it comes to the 4-team playoff, the SEC champion could have 2 losses. The worst case scenario would be 5 undefeated, AQ teams. Those 5 teams haven't faced the same challenges as the SEC team but will get the nod due to their record. Another MNC is the result. Ultimately, I suppose it will come down to the SEC teams having incredible luck and playing their best every game, like they should be doing anyways, because they're at an inherent disadvantage for playing in a conference that features anywhere from 4-8 Top 25 teams annually.
Posted on 9/22/13 at 3:24 pm to Gardevoir
quote:
I'm not convinced that more games would offer do more good than bad.
If the SEC is so much better, wouldn't allowing a 30 team playoff, with the top 4 SEC teams competing almost always result in a fair and just SEC dominance? Saying that the SEC might get cut out do to lack of games(3 instead of 1), and then saying lack of games would hurt the SEC's chances (0 out of 8?) is wrong.
quote:
because they're at an inherent disadvantage for playing in a conference that features anywhere from 4-8 Top 25 teams annually.
So wouldn't every team outside the SEC face the inverted disadvantage of not playing standard completion, and losing due to a weak SOS?
ETA inverted, losing due to a weak SOS
This post was edited on 9/22/13 at 3:26 pm
Posted on 9/22/13 at 3:38 pm to johnzorback
Hmm, I get your point.
The SEC will need special privileges or some clear standards will need to be set before 2014 that will even things out. I understand that a team can be hurt from playing weaker competition all year, but all the nation is going to remember is who won the national championship or entered the playoff. Next year promises to be very exciting and controversial of course. I'm not sold on the 4-team playoff; it might just be worse than the BCS. We'll see.
The SEC will need special privileges or some clear standards will need to be set before 2014 that will even things out. I understand that a team can be hurt from playing weaker competition all year, but all the nation is going to remember is who won the national championship or entered the playoff. Next year promises to be very exciting and controversial of course. I'm not sold on the 4-team playoff; it might just be worse than the BCS. We'll see.
Posted on 9/22/13 at 3:50 pm to Gardevoir
Seriously I'm sick of hearing how good Oregon's offense is every year when they play nobody and when they play a good D like Stanford they get stuffed.
Also pollsters should punish teams like Ohio State and Oregon for playing such shitty teams.
Beating Nicholls Stae by 60 = Beating Colorado State by 25 when yout coach doesn't want to run up the score on his buddy who knows your defense like the back of his hand.
The media jerks off to big scores without considering who they are coming against a lot of the time.
Also pollsters should punish teams like Ohio State and Oregon for playing such shitty teams.
Beating Nicholls Stae by 60 = Beating Colorado State by 25 when yout coach doesn't want to run up the score on his buddy who knows your defense like the back of his hand.
The media jerks off to big scores without considering who they are coming against a lot of the time.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News