Started By
Message
re: Just heard a pod from the 247 guy covering a certain team and he says the SEC should stop
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:25 pm to hoojy
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:25 pm to hoojy
quote:
Weren't all of Bama's losses in conference? Wouldn't their OOC help their cause?
A good one would. There's no one of note on this OOC schedule though.
I'm not saying Bama doesn't have an argument. It wouldn't have been an egregious pick if they were in. I'm just still hearing stuff that makes no sense when you actually look at facts in some cases.
Arguing wins over Georgia and S. Carolina are good arguments. But some of the stuff, it's pretty obvious that they simply assume SMU scheduled a bunch of powder puffs out of conference. Makes me wonder if they are thinking TCU and BYU are ACC teams or SMU is Big 12 or something. More than likely, they never bothered to look at it.
1
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:25 pm to koreandawg
All P4 schools should be forced to drop G5 games and play each other. Then those records used to rank the conferences and allocate spots at the end of the year. That would make all the games exciting because everyone would count toward the playoff and I’m sure the SEC would boat race the down the line teams of each conference and get the most spots each year.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:25 pm to koreandawg
I swear some of yall have such low IQs.
Its about the entirety of the schedule not just OOC. SEC teams have to play by far the hardest conference games every season. In this new NIL/free agency era, you can pretty much bank on 2 conference losses every season.
Why would you risk a loss by playing a nice helmet game when winning a big game doesnt offset a loss?
The committee has declared that SOS only really matters when comparing teams with same # of losses.
If you want to eliminate Bama for getting stomped by OU, fine...South Carolina and Ole Miss easily have more accomplished seasons than SMU.
Its about the entirety of the schedule not just OOC. SEC teams have to play by far the hardest conference games every season. In this new NIL/free agency era, you can pretty much bank on 2 conference losses every season.
Why would you risk a loss by playing a nice helmet game when winning a big game doesnt offset a loss?
The committee has declared that SOS only really matters when comparing teams with same # of losses.
If you want to eliminate Bama for getting stomped by OU, fine...South Carolina and Ole Miss easily have more accomplished seasons than SMU.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:27 pm to MOT
quote:
This is completely false.
Indiana doesn't have a victory over a ranked opponent. Neither does SMU. I don't think Notre Dame does, either, or Penn State.
You don't have to like it. But the truth of the matter is that SoS was never used to sort or rank the CFP. W-L is all that was looked at.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:29 pm to scottydoesntknow
Who you play won’t matter in the end if you can make it thru with 1 or 2 losses.
It would be absurd to schedule a hard team and risk that 3rd loss and push yourself out of the picture.
They proved this year a 2 loss team will get in over a 3 loss Alabama with a better overall record
It would be absurd to schedule a hard team and risk that 3rd loss and push yourself out of the picture.
They proved this year a 2 loss team will get in over a 3 loss Alabama with a better overall record
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:30 pm to scottydoesntknow
Auburn got penalized for their loss against Clemson in 2017.
I just dont like how narratives constantly change. OOC used to matter. The year Bama played a shite FSU team pundits cried about their schedule.
I just dont like how narratives constantly change. OOC used to matter. The year Bama played a shite FSU team pundits cried about their schedule.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:32 pm to RoyalAir
Notre Dame
Indiana
Boise
SMU
Arizona State
Miami
BYU
Army
All ranked behind multiple teams with more losses than they have or the same number of losses they have. How did that happen if SoS wasn’t used at all?
Indiana
Boise
SMU
Arizona State
Miami
BYU
Army
All ranked behind multiple teams with more losses than they have or the same number of losses they have. How did that happen if SoS wasn’t used at all?
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:33 pm to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
I don't like the idea of taking the ball and going on, because it's bad for the sport and bad for fans. It's also just a bad look.
I do like the idea of making it a requirement to play outside your conference against other P4 teams or face the consequences. The 9 game schedule was originally looked at as a way to add more competition, but it's done nothing but insolate league's like the B1G during the regular season and allowed large chunks of their league to play almost nobody outside of the conference who is a "power school", and certainly nobody outside of their region. Some years you will schedule someone and they will suck - is what it is. But you'll at least get way more data points on league vs league outside of just how they perform inside their conference.
Make teams schedule games. It's not that hard. It's not something that needs to be done 10 years in advance. The SEC/ACC/B1G/B12 should all have at least 7-8 games against eachother each year. Find a way to make it happen.
I think this a good idea. But SMU didn't get into the playoff over Alabama because they didn't schedule P4 teams. They played two in their OOC schedule. And again Alabama's was not some meat grinder OOC. Are we talking about Indiana's OOC here? If so, why is no one arguing Alabama over Indiana? I guess that's my point. The argument over SMU is the conference weakness, not playing weak OOC teams. No one would taken an in depth look at SMU and say "let's schedule an OOC filled with cupcakes" and no one is looking closely at Alabama's and saying "man, that OOC schedule really cost them". Yet this is what I'm hearing argued.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:37 pm to MOT
quote:
All ranked behind multiple teams with more losses than they have or the same number of losses they have. How did that happen if SoS wasn’t used at all?
It was absolutely used.
SVP on ESPN was right. The overwhelming focus by the media right now is to focus on good wins over bad losses.
Cubelic said on SECN that the committee didn't really go in depth on the resumes when you look at who Alabama beat vs. SMU. The problem is, OU is still part of the Bama resume. Both Ole Miss and Alabama had clear sailing and for whatever reason, didn't jump when trying to cross a very low last hurdle to end the season.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:40 pm to koreandawg
quote:
The overwhelming focus by the media right now is to focus on good wins over bad losses.
Wait, what? The only time I've heard about Alabama beating Georgia in the last 5 days is a secondary discussion of it after noting THEY LOST TO VANDY AND OKLAHOMA. Which is fine, Alabama shite the bed and deserves that, but the driver of the discussion has clearly been bad losses and number of losses. Because if it was "good wins", then half the playoff would have literally nothing to talk about.
Hell, ESPN changed the metric they showed on the team sheets Sunday morning from "Top 25 record" to "record vs teams .500 or better" after using Top 25 record for 5 straight weeks
Guess who that made look better/worse?This post was edited on 12/9/24 at 2:41 pm
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:40 pm to ukraine_rebel
quote:
All P4 schools should be forced to drop G5 games and play each other. Then those records used to rank the conferences and allocate spots at the end of the year. That would make all the games exciting because everyone would count toward the playoff and I’m sure the SEC would boat race the down the line teams of each conference and get the most spots each year.
You would still get arguments over what P4 schools you played. Indiana played in the second toughest conference and somehow missed all of the big boys save Ohio State.
Texas was similar with the exception of Georgia.
I'm still kind of bewildered how Indiana could play a nine game schedule in the B1G and it still be that bad. I don't think you could put together one that bad in the SEC if you were trying.
This post was edited on 12/9/24 at 2:42 pm
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:40 pm to koreandawg
quote:
Why does that matter? You play who you play, not who they were when they were scheduled.
Should anyone get a star for beating FSU this year?
Same person was complaining about Texas' schedule this year. Texas scheduled Michigan. Michigan won the title last year. Does that mean Texas should get a big hug for beating them at 7-5 this year?
I'm not saying someone gets a free pass for playing a "not so tough" OOC game, but intent should at least matter some.
Texas gets some credit for the INTENT of scheduling a good Michigan team, presuming it was scheduled while they were playing well. They didn't duck out and schedule someone they KNEW was going to suck arse regardless of when it was going to occur. Same goes for rivalry games (as far as I regard them) - Georgia doesn't get "punished", or at least shouldn't be, for the years that GT is crap.
It's the difference between scheduling Florida State right after a 10-win season, only for them to be at the bottom of the barrel 5 years later when you play them... and scheduling BYU as a 6-7 mid-major only for them to join a P4 conference and turn into an 11-win team.
It's the difference between standing up to the big dude only THEN to find out he can't fight worth a damn vs intentionally picking a fight with the short guy only to find out he's an MMA fighter.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:42 pm to skrayper
quote:
I'm not saying someone gets a free pass for playing a "not so tough" OOC game, but intent should at least matter some.
Texas gets some credit for the INTENT of scheduling a good Michigan team, presuming it was scheduled while they were playing well. They didn't duck out and schedule someone they KNEW was going to suck arse regardless of when it was going to occur. Same goes for rivalry games (as far as I regard them) - Georgia doesn't get "punished", or at least shouldn't be, for the years that GT is crap.
It's the difference between scheduling Florida State right after a 10-win season, only for them to be at the bottom of the barrel 5 years later when you play them... and scheduling BYU as a 6-7 mid-major only for them to join a P4 conference and turn into an 11-win team.
It's the difference between standing up to the big dude only THEN to find out he can't fight worth a damn vs intentionally picking a fight with the short guy only to find out he's an MMA fighter.
There is also just a consistency to playing them every year - because playing @ Michigan is more difficult than playing Colorado State at home, even when Michigan isn't great. Playing @ Wisconsin is more difficult than playing Ball State. Playing UCLA is more difficult than playing UTEP.
You can play badly and lose those games. You are 99% not going to play badly and lose the majority of the "buy" games. And that should be seen as a huge difference.
This post was edited on 12/9/24 at 2:43 pm
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:42 pm to Jeepin_Josh
quote:
It would be absurd to schedule a hard team and risk that 3rd loss and push yourself out of the picture.
Exactly this. A third loss even with multiple top 15 wins couldnt overcome a 2 loss team 0-2 against teams with a pulse
Avoiding third loss is everything because there will always be enough cupcake conference teams thats go 11-2, 11-1 etc to push out 3 loss teams from playoff.
Again, defending Bama is divisive, so just move to South Carolina and Ole Miss. These teams had great seasons with great wins. In a playoff with 12 damn teams, seasons like this should get you in
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:43 pm to koreandawg
SOS was used to keep SEC teams out, but not to add one in. They used whatever metrics fit the narrative they were pushing to get the results they wanted.
If OM,SC,AL, or Miz finished with only 2 losses our SOS would have got us in…but with one less loss it’ll never matter.
That’s why it’s dumb for lsu and Aggie’s to keep scheduling opening games they can’t win…because unless they can make it thru the SEC with only 1 other loss they are going to be on the outside looking in
If OM,SC,AL, or Miz finished with only 2 losses our SOS would have got us in…but with one less loss it’ll never matter.
That’s why it’s dumb for lsu and Aggie’s to keep scheduling opening games they can’t win…because unless they can make it thru the SEC with only 1 other loss they are going to be on the outside looking in
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:44 pm to skrayper
quote:
I'm not saying someone gets a free pass for playing a "not so tough" OOC game, but intent should at least matter some.
Texas gets some credit for the INTENT of scheduling a good Michigan team, presuming it was scheduled while they were playing well. They didn't duck out and schedule someone they KNEW was going to suck arse regardless of when it was going to occur. Same goes for rivalry games (as far as I regard them) - Georgia doesn't get "punished", or at least shouldn't be, for the years that GT is crap.
It's the difference between scheduling Florida State right after a 10-win season, only for them to be at the bottom of the barrel 5 years later when you play them... and scheduling BYU as a 6-7 mid-major only for them to join a P4 conference and turn into an 11-win team.
It's the difference between standing up to the big dude only THEN to find out he can't fight worth a damn vs intentionally picking a fight with the short guy only to find out he's an MMA fighter.
But TCU and BYU have been good programs too. No P4s are scheduling those two teams as OOC and treating it like a bye.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:47 pm to koreandawg
A better solution is for P4 teams to only play against other P4 teams.
Funnel the money down to the FBS/directional teams however is needed without having to pay them $1,000,000 to come and lose by 40.
Funnel the money down to the FBS/directional teams however is needed without having to pay them $1,000,000 to come and lose by 40.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:54 pm to koreandawg
quote:
But TCU and BYU have been good programs too. No P4s are scheduling those two teams as OOC and treating it like a bye.
Which is not the argument I was making.
There's not two tiers of OOC games - legit challenge and basically a bye. It's definitely more granular than that.
BYU and TCU are good programs; if someone picked up BYU at the end of 2019 (a 3 year stretch of 4-9, 7-6, 7-6) then is that them having the balls of scheduling a solid team or hoping to catch a semi-big name on the downward trend?
TCU's 11-win 2017 season and 13-win 2022 season had two losing seasons and two seasons with 1 win over .500. Did they get scheduled after 2017, or after 2021? Was this an AD and HC having some balls, or were they thinking TCU was dead in the water?
HOWEVER, all of that is irrelevant to the argument being made. Why schedule a team that MIGHT even pose a threat? If SOS is not relevant then who gives a shite?
So it depends if SOS really IS relevant or not. If it's only relevant if the two teams in question have identical records, when if the SEC's conference slate already assures your team will have a really strong SOS then why bother?
That's the question at the heart of the whole thing. Does the conference continue to schedule strong OOC opponents, or does it decide at some point that it's simply not worth the risk (regardless if this year it mattered one way or another)?
Posted on 12/9/24 at 2:55 pm to jangalang
If the SEC goes to 9 games that'll be what most teams OOC look like except, UGA, UF, SCe and UK... 
Posted on 12/9/24 at 3:00 pm to dallasga6
quote:
the SEC goes to 9 games that'll be what most teams OOC look like except, UGA, UF, SCe and UK...
I'd rather play a highly ranked fraud (2019 Oregon) than add another SEC team. We already cannibalize enough.
Penn State doesn't have to worry about that.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News