Started By
Message
re: Some of yall fit right in to an Orwell novel
Posted on 12/27/13 at 8:39 am to Mootsman
Posted on 12/27/13 at 8:39 am to Mootsman
quote:
I live in an area with an influx of ACC folks. I can assure you up here it means a lot when the SEC does well.
That's what I have trouble with, shouldn't USC be the only thing that matters?
Say the SEC goes 0-fer in bowls except SC. If all the ACC people say, which is stupid btw, "lol the SEC sucks look at all the bowl games!" you could easily say "Ummm..Carolina won didn't they?" Why should you put SEC pride over SC pride?
And take the inverse. If SC lost and they were poking fun, does it really make you feel better to say "yeah, well...at least UGA, AU, and bama won!!"
1
Posted on 12/27/13 at 10:05 am to WG_Dawg
Frick it. I'll bite. This will be long.
I'll go along with SC because that's who you used. You shouldn't have SEC pride over SC pride but how the conference performs in bowls does matter. A lot.
In a sport where 2/3's of your season is played IN conference, a huge amount of a team's strength is gauged on how they did in those SEC games. Now, I understand that the transitive property doesn't work on the field in football, but it often is applied in the perception of how good/bad a team is.
If SC had 8 wins against those SEC teams and they lost all 8 bowl games, people will perceive SC to be a lesser team because they have victories over a bunch of teams that were obviously overrated. Same goes with wins/losses of SEC teams in big non-conference matchups to begin/end the regular season. It's not always fair, but that's the effect of winning/losing out of conference games.
Georgia - Boise St in 2011. That loss out of conference hurt the perception of Georgia throughout that season as well as every team that Georgia beat later that year (which was quite a few). The pollsters/media see every team that georgia beats (fair or not) as a team that Boise st would beat as well. South Carolina's win over Georgia a week after Boise was totally lessened in its national attention because Boise had the same result a week earlier. It DOES matter what the rest of the conference does. It's all about perception.
There's always exceptions. Most people really didn't think of Utah in 2008 as being better than the rest of the SEC because they beat Alabama. But passes like that are rare and how a conference is judged is based overwhelmingly on how those teams perform out of conference. There's a reason the ACC is viewed so pitifully as it is. Go look at its BCS bowl record and tell me it doesn't matter.
quote:
Say the SEC goes 0-fer in bowls except SC. If all the ACC people say, which is stupid btw, "lol the SEC sucks look at all the bowl games!" you could easily say "Ummm..Carolina won didn't they?" Why should you put SEC pride over SC pride?
I'll go along with SC because that's who you used. You shouldn't have SEC pride over SC pride but how the conference performs in bowls does matter. A lot.
In a sport where 2/3's of your season is played IN conference, a huge amount of a team's strength is gauged on how they did in those SEC games. Now, I understand that the transitive property doesn't work on the field in football, but it often is applied in the perception of how good/bad a team is.
If SC had 8 wins against those SEC teams and they lost all 8 bowl games, people will perceive SC to be a lesser team because they have victories over a bunch of teams that were obviously overrated. Same goes with wins/losses of SEC teams in big non-conference matchups to begin/end the regular season. It's not always fair, but that's the effect of winning/losing out of conference games.
Georgia - Boise St in 2011. That loss out of conference hurt the perception of Georgia throughout that season as well as every team that Georgia beat later that year (which was quite a few). The pollsters/media see every team that georgia beats (fair or not) as a team that Boise st would beat as well. South Carolina's win over Georgia a week after Boise was totally lessened in its national attention because Boise had the same result a week earlier. It DOES matter what the rest of the conference does. It's all about perception.
There's always exceptions. Most people really didn't think of Utah in 2008 as being better than the rest of the SEC because they beat Alabama. But passes like that are rare and how a conference is judged is based overwhelmingly on how those teams perform out of conference. There's a reason the ACC is viewed so pitifully as it is. Go look at its BCS bowl record and tell me it doesn't matter.
This post was edited on 12/27/13 at 10:07 am
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News