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 3:01 pm to jangalang
Posted on 12/9/24 at 3:01 pm to jangalang
quote:
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.
100%, and I think that helps the league more than adding a 9th game does at this point.
0
Posted on 12/9/24 at 3:21 pm to MOT
As a newbie, I can say the SEC has fattened their resume every year with little sisters of the poor teams as much as anyone just to get bowl eligible because their in conference was such a murderers row and now our in conference was too easy. Try and at least be consistent.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 3:34 pm to jangalang
Notice how Penn State is keeping everything "localized ".
This is probably the norm going forward after the committee's decision.
This is probably the norm going forward after the committee's decision.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 3:42 pm to koreandawg
quote:
scheduling tough OOC schedules if the committee is not gonna honor it.
Making the point of not scheduling "OOC" here is stupid.
Fine, don't schedule them then.
Byrne made a mistake here. OOC scheduling was not our issue this year but he is right to say consider not scheduling tough outs.
This is not a bad idea but the wrong thing to say by him in the context.
Koreandawg is still trying to troll on this tidbit. It was entertaining perhaps yesterday but the juice on it is starting to get stale.
You're somewhat talented on this subject, KD. Find something else to entertain us with. Trust me, your material isn't bad.
BTTMAH: Byrne should never have said this really.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 3:44 pm to theballguy
SEC teams face a tough question: why risk playing challenging non-conference schedules when the playoff committee often penalizes losses more than valuing quality wins? The SEC's rigorous conference schedule already exposes its teams to higher competition levels than most leagues, creating more opportunities for losses. Adding strong non-conference opponents increases that risk, potentially harming playoff chances.
When playoff selection emphasizes win-loss records over strength of schedule, SEC teams might see little reward for taking risks. Instead, easier non-conference games allow them to pad their records, aligning with the committee's apparent preferences. This strategy, however, undermines the spirit of competition and college football's broader appeal, as fewer marquee matchups occur outside the conference.
Advocates for challenging non-conference games argue that such matchups prepare teams for the playoffs and build stronger résumés, showcasing their strength against elite opponents. However, if the playoff system continues to emphasize total wins over a holistic evaluation, the incentive to maintain a tough non-conference schedule diminishes.
The solution may lie in encouraging the committee to give more weight to strength of schedule and quality wins, ensuring that teams aren't unfairly punished for challenging themselves. Without this shift, SEC teams may increasingly prioritize the safer path, avoiding risks and diminishing the excitement of college football's regular season.
When playoff selection emphasizes win-loss records over strength of schedule, SEC teams might see little reward for taking risks. Instead, easier non-conference games allow them to pad their records, aligning with the committee's apparent preferences. This strategy, however, undermines the spirit of competition and college football's broader appeal, as fewer marquee matchups occur outside the conference.
Advocates for challenging non-conference games argue that such matchups prepare teams for the playoffs and build stronger résumés, showcasing their strength against elite opponents. However, if the playoff system continues to emphasize total wins over a holistic evaluation, the incentive to maintain a tough non-conference schedule diminishes.
The solution may lie in encouraging the committee to give more weight to strength of schedule and quality wins, ensuring that teams aren't unfairly punished for challenging themselves. Without this shift, SEC teams may increasingly prioritize the safer path, avoiding risks and diminishing the excitement of college football's regular season.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 3:53 pm to RoyalAir
quote:The landmines are in the conference, not out.
The SEC is already hard enough. Adding landmines does you no favors.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 3:55 pm to koreandawg
I hope it was someone from UF. We played 3 P4 this year. Only UGA played 2, everyone else played 1. 
Posted on 12/9/24 at 4:23 pm to skrayper
Texas starts a home and home with Ohio State next year, and in 2027 Michigan comes to Austin. Then Texas plays a home and home with Notre Dame.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 4:27 pm to The Orange Bull
quote:
Texas starts a home and home with Ohio State next year, and in 2027 Michigan comes to Austin. Then Texas plays a home and home with Notre Dame.
Should all be great games. Glad there wasn't an issue keeping them on the books with the move to the SEC.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 4:33 pm to RoyalAir
quote:
there is no benefit to having a hard SOS
That's a lie, there is a benefit. Quality football.
Alabama freaking out about OOC schedules is just them trying to distract attention from the fact that they lost to Vanderbilt, as well as 2 other losses, all in conference.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 4:35 pm to koreandawg
quote:
Schedule 1: Mercer, W. Kentucky, S. Florida, Wiconsin (5-7 P4 team)
Schedule 2: TCU (8-4, P4) BYU (10-2, P4), Houston Christian, Nevada
SMU's OOC schedule was literally harder than Bama's, indisputable fact
Posted on 12/9/24 at 4:39 pm to Gen Patton
quote:
SMU's OOC schedule was literally harder than Bama's, indisputable fact
SMU's in conference will never measure up to an SEC conference schedule. SMU should be loading up and losing less.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 4:55 pm to ChatterBoxOfTheSEC
Ok, ChatGPT. Thank you for your input 
Posted on 12/9/24 at 4:57 pm to southpawcock
Yea they have made that rivalry not worth playing essentially. It's an unwarranted risk. Gonna be bigger log jams though if teams stop scheduling tough OOC.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 5:02 pm to TideTurf
quote:
Notice how Penn State is keeping everything "localized”
I bet that 2026 game @Temple will be played at Lincoln Financial Field in Philadelphia and the crowd will be 90% PSU fans.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 5:04 pm to jangalang
quote:
SMU's in conference will never measure up to an SEC conference schedule. SMU should be loading up and losing less.
Fair, but outside of the Tennessee loss, Bama lost to BAD SEC teams, if their other losses were to Georgia and LSU (or South Carolina, can mix and match), no one would bat an eye and they probably get in no question.
This post was edited on 12/9/24 at 5:05 pm
Posted on 12/9/24 at 5:19 pm to Gen Patton
It's pretty easy to justify Bama being out. I don't like that nonfootball factories have less to prove due to their schedule
Posted on 12/9/24 at 6:07 pm to Harry Boutte
quote:
That's a lie, there is a benefit. Quality football.
Don't have to sell me. I'd riot if we lost the Clemson game permanently. I also love opening the season with UNC, NC State, and next year, VA Tech.
Just saying I understand the rationale for moving away from these.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 6:09 pm to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
It's pretty simple - if the #1 discussion point for inclusion is # of losses, and you play in a league where there are guaranteed to be more losses in your regular season league schedule, why the hell would you add risk of more in the non conference when quality of wins is clearly less important than number of losses?
It’s also about HOW those “quality wins” vs “# of losses” looked. Bama barely won against their “quality opponents” but got dominated by two bad teams. You have no excuse for losing to those two teams. It’s not like you lost to somewhat decent team like LSU or Ole Miss this year who at least had talent on their teams. You lost to two teams that barely got bowl eligibility. The one loss to Oklahoma alone with how bad they beat you negates the Tennessee and Georgia wins. Then the loss to Vandy completely negates the win over SC and the last “somewhat decent team on your schedule” LSU. So what does that leave you with to make your argument? A win over Missouri is your next best win after that.
Posted on 12/9/24 at 6:12 pm to koreandawg
quote:
Get all of that, but my point is this is what Alabama people are screaming right now (we gotta stop playing tough OOC teams) as if they played a tough OOC schedule this year and that's what cost them.
Yes, we all see that you're saying something irrelevant to the discussion. You didn't have to repeat it.
Wisconsin finished in the top 25 the year Bama scheduled that game and played for the Big Ten championship against CFP runner-up Ohio State. We can't predict the future.
This post was edited on 12/9/24 at 6:13 pm
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News