bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

You're trying to downplay Ole Miss for getting whipped by 23 GA while propping up BU getting handled by 19 GA down a good 6-8 starters who opted out. Q19 GA wasn't near as good as last years squad either.
You know damm well I have zero hatred for BU. I'm not ****ting on anything! 2019 Bu was great! They still got whipped by a GA team playing a **** ton of back ups. That's a fact.

---

There is no world in which getting beat 26-14 is equal to losing 52-17 with your best team in history. A super talented Georgia team manhandled our offense. Our defense held up well the entire game against a bunch of future pros.

That you're trying to equate the two is ridiculous.

And the whole point of this thread is that you and a couple of others are trying to place Ole Miss in a strata they haven't even come close to reaching. Until they earn their way there, they deserve to be doubted.

---

You need to check your history books. Ole Miss has finished in the top 10 two out of the last 4 years. They are an absolute playoff contender this year even if they don't win the SEC.

---

You need to check yours. Ole Miss has one top-10 finish in that span and two since 1970. They finished ninth last year and 10th in 2015. Their best finish between those was No. 11 in 2021.

They've had a good, solid program since Orgeron. But there are four current Big 12 programs with similar highs over the past 15 years.

---

OK I stand corrected. Ole Miss finished 11th and 9th two out of the last four years. My point remains the same. They should be considered playoff worthy. They are currently in the top 10 this year. To suggest they may be better than any team in the current big 12 is not a stretch and is actually a very rational position to take. Your argument that they have not proven anything on the field to back up such an opinion seems mired in anti-SEC bias more than fact.

Don't LSU win 10 games last year? I mean…

IowaBear said:

---

Why? What makes their scheduling any worse than anyone else's ? They play easy OOC teams.. as does literally everyone else. They also yearly produce several of the best teams in CFB. Results tend to speak for themselves.
They tend to play much tougher conference games as a whole compared the ACC, B12, P12 (RIP)

---

SEC schedules tend to be about the same as everyone else but they are treated as exceptional even when they are not. Just look at the preseason rankings every year, and often for the first few weeks of the season. A&M is an excellent: always ranked high before that first game, often unranked or barely ranked by the end. It's that way for lots of their teams. Also, they play as many creampuffs as others or maybe more but not punished for it. The clincher is that Bama, Aggie, & others play one in November while Big 12 & others don't.

There are other scheduling quirks as well. Only one ooc P5 or P4 game and rarely a true road game. Bama often played those in Atlanta which is essentially a home game for them. And they didn't exactly play powerhouses in those games: WVU, Miami, etc. At least the Aggies played Clemson when they were still national contenders.

I think many people criticize SEC schedules (& everything else) out of jealousy or some other emotion. But the criticism does have some merits.

WV played Penn St so the B12 has that as well

IowaBear said:

---

WV played Penn St so the B12 has that as well

---

True I also missed Virginia Tech in the SEC. I was just going by matchups with at least one ranked team and may have missed some others.

jikespingleton said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

jikespingleton said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

The opinions I've shared DO have merit. The only things I've said is the SEC is head n shoulders better than the B12

---

Perhaps you don't remember your own words. You declared that you decide which opinions have merit.

IowaBear said:

Different opinions are fine. When they have merit. These don't.


You also said the following, which several posters have disagreed with.

IowaBear said:

The SEC is far an away the best conference in CFB.


You speak in absolutes, which is a fallacy in sports.

The SEC can have dominant programs such as Alabama and Georgia, but also have a patsie OOC schedule and not be the best top to bottom. These concepts are not mutually exclusive, but your absolutism makes them out to be.

---

Thats just not true though. The two best teams in our conference just joined the SEC that already had the best programs.

---

Yes it is true. The SEC plays 64 non conference games now, with 80-90% of those being patsies.

The SEC doesn't have (all of) the best programs.
There wasn't an SEC team in last years title game, was there?

---

Just wondering but I know Tarleton would be a patsy but is AF also a patsy? Were Colo St and UTSA a patsy that the horns played or are those semi patsys? Was app st a patsy when they beat the ags?

I decided to compare all B12 and SEC noncon schedules. Of course B12 plays one more conference game, so they each begin with a minimum of 9 P4 games, while SECSECSEC plays only 8. Also, B12 had 2 noncon games between conference members, so there are a total of only 44 B12 noncon opponents, which SEC has 64.


All 32 teams played at least one P4 noncon. Florida plays 3 (MIA, UCF, FlaSt), TCU plays 2 (Stanford, SMU) and WV played 2 (PennSt, Pitt). Those 3 are the only ones to play 11 P4 opponents.

I kept WashSt as a P4 equivalent for Tech since the Pac 12/6/12 is in limbo.

LSU and UGA are the only other SEC teams to play 2 P4 (USC/UCLA for LSU, Clemson/GT for UGA), so they have 10 P4 opponents, along with the 14 other Big12 programs. The other 13 SEC teams only play 9 P4 games.


I then divided the rest of the noncon opponents into "Upper G5" (Mountain West, MAC, the better teams in AAC like Tulane and USF), "Lower G5" (Sun Belt, C-USA, weaker AAC teams), and FCS (including ones like Tarleton/Abilene who recently moved up).

Everyone in the SEC plays at least one FCS level opponent except UT-Cow. Everyone in the Big12 played one except UH and ArizSt. UT's weak sister is ULM this Saturday; UH played Rice. So that's a push.

Using these criteria, everyone played no more than 2 FCS and Lower G5 except Arkansas (UA-Pine Bluff, LaTech, UAB) and Ole Miss (Furman, Ga Southern, Middle Tennessee). Given that Ole Miss's P4 was a relatively weak Wake Forest, you could easily make the argument their noncon schedule was the weakest of the 32 evaluated.

Of the P4 noncon games so far (excluding BU/Utah and AZ/KSt), SEC is 8-6 with 5 games remaining (UGA/GT, UK/Lville, SC/Clemson, Fla/FlaSt, Fla/UCF). B12 is 5-7 with 2 games remaining (TCU/SMU, UCF/Fla).

historian said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

Why? What makes their scheduling any worse than anyone else's ? They play easy OOC teams.. as does literally everyone else. They also yearly produce several of the best teams in CFB. Results tend to speak for themselves.
They tend to play much tougher conference games as a whole compared the ACC, B12, P12 (RIP)

---

SEC schedules tend to be about the same as everyone else but they are treated as exceptional even when they are not. Just look at the preseason rankings every year, and often for the first few weeks of the season. A&M is an excellent: always ranked high before that first game, often unranked or barely ranked by the end. It's that way for lots of their teams. Also, they play as many creampuffs as others or maybe more but not punished for it. The clincher is that Bama, Aggie, & others play one in November while Big 12 & others don't.

There are other scheduling quirks as well. Only one ooc P5 or P4 game and rarely a true road game. Bama often played those in Atlanta which is essentially a home game for them. And they didn't exactly play powerhouses in those games: WVU, Miami, etc. At least the Aggies played Clemson when they were still national contenders.

I think many people criticize SEC schedules (& everything else) out of jealousy or some other emotion. But the criticism does have some merits.

---

But why does that matter? The b12 treats that as a pre season game so they can work out their kinks. Clemson started with UGA and they probably wished they started with Wofford. Georgia then can play Wofford in Nov so they can heal up their guys for the CFP. That actually sounds like smarter scheduling to me.

Chuckroast said:

---

historian said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

Why? What makes their scheduling any worse than anyone else's ? They play easy OOC teams.. as does literally everyone else. They also yearly produce several of the best teams in CFB. Results tend to speak for themselves.
They tend to play much tougher conference games as a whole compared the ACC, B12, P12 (RIP)

---

SEC schedules tend to be about the same as everyone else but they are treated as exceptional even when they are not. Just look at the preseason rankings every year, and often for the first few weeks of the season. A&M is an excellent: always ranked high before that first game, often unranked or barely ranked by the end. It's that way for lots of their teams. Also, they play as many creampuffs as others or maybe more but not punished for it. The clincher is that Bama, Aggie, & others play one in November while Big 12 & others don't.

There are other scheduling quirks as well. Only one ooc P5 or P4 game and rarely a true road game. Bama often played those in Atlanta which is essentially a home game for them. And they didn't exactly play powerhouses in those games: WVU, Miami, etc. At least the Aggies played Clemson when they were still national contenders.

I think many people criticize SEC schedules (& everything else) out of jealousy or some other emotion. But the criticism does have some merits.

---

Disagree. They may have one less conference game, but look at the teams they have played so far this year out of conference:

Clemson
Miami FL
Note Dame
USC
Michigan
Wisconsin
Oklahoma St
Virginia Tech
NC State
Wake Forest
Boston College
Tulane
Houston

The Big 12 has played:

Iowa
Penn St
Arkansas
Illinois
Tulane

---

This essentially sums it up the fallacy of any counterarguments to the SEC's scheduling, as the SEC has earned its overall reputation over the years through out of conference wins - whether in the regular season or in the post season - and that's one of the places it has pulled away from the Big 12 (also recruiting, tv ratings, money, influence, etc.).

If we assume that Oklahoma State is a frontrunner for the Big 12, does anyone believe that the top 6 teams in the SEC would struggle with Arkansas? Similarly, if we assume Kansas State is a frontrunner for the Big 12, does anyone believe that the top 6 teams in the SEC would struggle with Tulane?

historian said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Jorkel said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

Zero idea why our posters dog on all the SEC teams schedules when our schedule looks like a High School JV schedule. The entire B12 is crap as a whole.

---

It's probably because the big 12 doesn't self proclaim to be the mightiest league or something. I still think the big 12 is just a bunch of "other teams" and quite frankly, boring to watch outside of Baylor, and i definitely wouldn't watch Baylor if I wasn't raised a fan. The big 12 might be the most "competitive" league within itself but I don't care to watch mid/bad football vs mid/bad football.

---

Anyone who could watch the UCF-TCU game and say it was boring isn't a college football fan. And the Big 12 has multiple games like that every week.

People can say whatever they want about the quality of the Big 12 compared to the SEC, and I'll generally agree with them. But I'll push back against anyone who questions the league's entertainment value compared the P2.

The SEC is one blowout after another and the Big Ten is boring as *****

---

I'm actually looking forward to the new B 12. No one is head and shoulders above anyone else. I love the automatic bid too - a handful of teams should have a chance at making the playoffs every year.

---

I'm not kidding when I say that I will watch the new PAC more than I will the SEC and Big Ten, and it's not some sort of statement. I'm not bitter about anything, I just don't find the P2 leagues interesting.

I watch college football the same way I do the NCAA basketball tournament -- Baylor first, Big 12 second, and then I prioritize upsets and competitive games in my channel surfing after that. The SEC doesn't have very many upsets and the fewest close games of any major league and the Big Ten is just horribly boring football.

I love the Big 12. And I expect to love the new PAC for the same reason. Peer leagues full of similarly resourced and committed programs produce a lot of entertaining football games.

---

Sometimes Big 10 games can be entertaining for how bad they can be.

---

I've had the same thought for the majority of the past 20 years.

historian said:

---

Will LSU be what it used to be? No one knows.

---

Not until they fix their defense. That unit has been awful the last two years.

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

You're trying to downplay Ole Miss for getting whipped by 23 GA while propping up BU getting handled by 19 GA down a good 6-8 starters who opted out. Q19 GA wasn't near as good as last years squad either.
You know damm well I have zero hatred for BU. I'm not ****ting on anything! 2019 Bu was great! They still got whipped by a GA team playing a **** ton of back ups. That's a fact.

---

There is no world in which getting beat 26-14 is equal to losing 52-17 with your best team in history. A super talented Georgia team manhandled our offense. Our defense held up well the entire game against a bunch of future pros.

That you're trying to equate the two is ridiculous.

And the whole point of this thread is that you and a couple of others are trying to place Ole Miss in a strata they haven't even come close to reaching. Until they earn their way there, they deserve to be doubted.

---

You need to check your history books. Ole Miss has finished in the top 10 two out of the last 4 years. They are an absolute playoff contender this year even if they don't win the SEC.

---

You need to check yours. Ole Miss has one top-10 finish in that span and two since 1970. They finished ninth last year and 10th in 2015. Their best finish between those was No. 11 in 2021.

They've had a good, solid program since Orgeron. But there are four current Big 12 programs with similar highs over the past 15 years.

---

OK I stand corrected. Ole Miss finished 11th and 9th two out of the last four years. My point remains the same. They should be considered playoff worthy. They are currently in the top 10 this year. To suggest they may be better than any team in the current big 12 is not a stretch and is actually a very rational position to take. Your argument that they have not proven anything on the field to back up such an opinion seems mired in anti-SEC bias more than fact.

---

I don't have a problem with anyone suggesting that Ole Miss and Missouri might be better than any Big 12 team this year. I have a problem with declaring definitively that those teams are head and shoulders above the Big 12's best teams this year based on extremely limited data.

IowaBear said:

---

Don't LSU win 10 games last year? I mean…

---

Seasons like last year's get you run out of town at LSU if you stack enough of them. Their fans are insane.

Chuckroast said:

---

historian said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

Why? What makes their scheduling any worse than anyone else's ? They play easy OOC teams.. as does literally everyone else. They also yearly produce several of the best teams in CFB. Results tend to speak for themselves.
They tend to play much tougher conference games as a whole compared the ACC, B12, P12 (RIP)

---

SEC schedules tend to be about the same as everyone else but they are treated as exceptional even when they are not. Just look at the preseason rankings every year, and often for the first few weeks of the season. A&M is an excellent: always ranked high before that first game, often unranked or barely ranked by the end. It's that way for lots of their teams. Also, they play as many creampuffs as others or maybe more but not punished for it. The clincher is that Bama, Aggie, & others play one in November while Big 12 & others don't.

There are other scheduling quirks as well. Only one ooc P5 or P4 game and rarely a true road game. Bama often played those in Atlanta which is essentially a home game for them. And they didn't exactly play powerhouses in those games: WVU, Miami, etc. At least the Aggies played Clemson when they were still national contenders.

I think many people criticize SEC schedules (& everything else) out of jealousy or some other emotion. But the criticism does have some merits.

---

Disagree. They may have one less conference game, but look at the teams they have played so far this year out of conference:

Clemson
Miami FL
Note Dame
USC
Michigan
Wisconsin
Oklahoma St
Virginia Tech
NC State
Wake Forest
Boston College
Tulane
Houston

The Big 12 has played:

Iowa
Penn St
Arkansas
Illinois
Tulane

---

This list is disingenuous without Kansas State and Utah included. Those were nonconference games against top-15 opponents for Baylor and Arizona. Those games still count.

muddybrazos said:

---

jikespingleton said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

jikespingleton said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

The opinions I've shared DO have merit. The only things I've said is the SEC is head n shoulders better than the B12

---

Perhaps you don't remember your own words. You declared that you decide which opinions have merit.

IowaBear said:

Different opinions are fine. When they have merit. These don't.


You also said the following, which several posters have disagreed with.

IowaBear said:

The SEC is far an away the best conference in CFB.


You speak in absolutes, which is a fallacy in sports.

The SEC can have dominant programs such as Alabama and Georgia, but also have a patsie OOC schedule and not be the best top to bottom. These concepts are not mutually exclusive, but your absolutism makes them out to be.

---

Thats just not true though. The two best teams in our conference just joined the SEC that already had the best programs.

---

Yes it is true. The SEC plays 64 non conference games now, with 80-90% of those being patsies.

The SEC doesn't have (all of) the best programs.
There wasn't an SEC team in last years title game, was there?

---

Just wondering but I know Tarleton would be a patsy but is AF also a patsy? Were Colo St and UTSA a patsy that the horns played or are those semi patsys? Was app st a patsy when they beat the ags?

---

Air Force is a good program and a good test most years. We just caught them in a down year. Our schedule is respectable this year. Any other year and it would be a really good nonconference schedule.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

historian said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

Why? What makes their scheduling any worse than anyone else's ? They play easy OOC teams.. as does literally everyone else. They also yearly produce several of the best teams in CFB. Results tend to speak for themselves.
They tend to play much tougher conference games as a whole compared the ACC, B12, P12 (RIP)

---

SEC schedules tend to be about the same as everyone else but they are treated as exceptional even when they are not. Just look at the preseason rankings every year, and often for the first few weeks of the season. A&M is an excellent: always ranked high before that first game, often unranked or barely ranked by the end. It's that way for lots of their teams. Also, they play as many creampuffs as others or maybe more but not punished for it. The clincher is that Bama, Aggie, & others play one in November while Big 12 & others don't.

There are other scheduling quirks as well. Only one ooc P5 or P4 game and rarely a true road game. Bama often played those in Atlanta which is essentially a home game for them. And they didn't exactly play powerhouses in those games: WVU, Miami, etc. At least the Aggies played Clemson when they were still national contenders.

I think many people criticize SEC schedules (& everything else) out of jealousy or some other emotion. But the criticism does have some merits.

---

Disagree. They may have one less conference game, but look at the teams they have played so far this year out of conference:

Clemson
Miami FL
Note Dame
USC
Michigan
Wisconsin
Oklahoma St
Virginia Tech
NC State
Wake Forest
Boston College
Tulane
Houston

The Big 12 has played:

Iowa
Penn St
Arkansas
Illinois
Tulane

---

This essentially sums it up the fallacy of any counterarguments to the SEC's scheduling, as the SEC has earned its overall reputation over the years through out of conference wins - whether in the regular season or in the post season - and that's one of the places it has pulled away from the Big 12 (also recruiting, tv ratings, money, influence, etc.).

If we assume that Oklahoma State is a frontrunner for the Big 12, does anyone believe that the top 6 teams in the SEC would struggle with Arkansas? Similarly, if we assume Kansas State is a frontrunner for the Big 12, does anyone believe that the top 6 teams in the SEC would struggle with Tulane?

---

The transitive property is a terrible way to evaluate college football teams, especially three weeks into a season. Other than maybe Texas and Alabama, we don't know how good or bad anyone is yet. Almost no one has played anybody of note.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

historian said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

Why? What makes their scheduling any worse than anyone else's ? They play easy OOC teams.. as does literally everyone else. They also yearly produce several of the best teams in CFB. Results tend to speak for themselves.
They tend to play much tougher conference games as a whole compared the ACC, B12, P12 (RIP)

---

SEC schedules tend to be about the same as everyone else but they are treated as exceptional even when they are not. Just look at the preseason rankings every year, and often for the first few weeks of the season. A&M is an excellent: always ranked high before that first game, often unranked or barely ranked by the end. It's that way for lots of their teams. Also, they play as many creampuffs as others or maybe more but not punished for it. The clincher is that Bama, Aggie, & others play one in November while Big 12 & others don't.

There are other scheduling quirks as well. Only one ooc P5 or P4 game and rarely a true road game. Bama often played those in Atlanta which is essentially a home game for them. And they didn't exactly play powerhouses in those games: WVU, Miami, etc. At least the Aggies played Clemson when they were still national contenders.

I think many people criticize SEC schedules (& everything else) out of jealousy or some other emotion. But the criticism does have some merits.

---

Disagree. They may have one less conference game, but look at the teams they have played so far this year out of conference:

Clemson
Miami FL
Note Dame
USC
Michigan
Wisconsin
Oklahoma St
Virginia Tech
NC State
Wake Forest
Boston College
Tulane
Houston

The Big 12 has played:

Iowa
Penn St
Arkansas
Illinois
Tulane

---

This essentially sums it up the fallacy of any counterarguments to the SEC's scheduling, as the SEC has earned its overall reputation over the years through out of conference wins

---

You are making erroneous conclusions based on a tiny subset of data. The SEC is superior now, but that was not the case for 95% of CFB's history. The sec wasn't anything special from 1900 up until after the BCS started. I've been watching football since 1990 and the SEC didn't dominate anything until about 2010.

They were always know for playing a ton of pansies and a lot of folks complained about it. It wasn't until Saban went on his run that the myth of superiority began to turn into reality. But it wasn't just that, it was a planned and concerted effort long before Sabans run for the SEC to game the system, which has brought us to where we are today.

A big part of that gaming was uneven scheduling. Lots of pansies and a cupcake in November. Less conference losses = more bowl invites = more prestige. Then manipulating the BCS (SEC commissioner ran the darn thing) guaranteeing a spot almost every year. 4 team playoff? SEC gets 2 spots. 12 team playoff? 5-6 spots guaranteed. How can they not succeed? Everything is tilted in their favor. It's why UT and OU finally bolted, they realized there was no fighting against it.

"SEC wasn't anything special until 2017" as they won the natty from 06 through 12 and several thereafter. You clearly didn't watch that much football. You're demonstrating clear bias and that post proves that

You might want to include aggy since they apparently found their QB. Their schedule is so soft. OSU was the Big 12 team that usually held their own with aggy. They get Mizzou and LSU at home and the rest of their games are winable. UT should plow them under but who knows?

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

historian said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

Why? What makes their scheduling any worse than anyone else's ? They play easy OOC teams.. as does literally everyone else. They also yearly produce several of the best teams in CFB. Results tend to speak for themselves.
They tend to play much tougher conference games as a whole compared the ACC, B12, P12 (RIP)

---

SEC schedules tend to be about the same as everyone else but they are treated as exceptional even when they are not. Just look at the preseason rankings every year, and often for the first few weeks of the season. A&M is an excellent: always ranked high before that first game, often unranked or barely ranked by the end. It's that way for lots of their teams. Also, they play as many creampuffs as others or maybe more but not punished for it. The clincher is that Bama, Aggie, & others play one in November while Big 12 & others don't.

There are other scheduling quirks as well. Only one ooc P5 or P4 game and rarely a true road game. Bama often played those in Atlanta which is essentially a home game for them. And they didn't exactly play powerhouses in those games: WVU, Miami, etc. At least the Aggies played Clemson when they were still national contenders.

I think many people criticize SEC schedules (& everything else) out of jealousy or some other emotion. But the criticism does have some merits.

---

Disagree. They may have one less conference game, but look at the teams they have played so far this year out of conference:

Clemson
Miami FL
Note Dame
USC
Michigan
Wisconsin
Oklahoma St
Virginia Tech
NC State
Wake Forest
Boston College
Tulane
Houston

The Big 12 has played:

Iowa
Penn St
Arkansas
Illinois
Tulane

---

This essentially sums it up the fallacy of any counterarguments to the SEC's scheduling, as the SEC has earned its overall reputation over the years through out of conference wins - whether in the regular season or in the post season - and that's one of the places it has pulled away from the Big 12 (also recruiting, tv ratings, money, influence, etc.).

If we assume that Oklahoma State is a frontrunner for the Big 12, does anyone believe that the top 6 teams in the SEC would struggle with Arkansas? Similarly, if we assume Kansas State is a frontrunner for the Big 12, does anyone believe that the top 6 teams in the SEC would struggle with Tulane?

---

The transitive property is a terrible way to evaluate college football teams, especially three weeks into a season. Other than maybe Texas and Alabama, we don't know how good or bad anyone is yet. Almost no one has played anybody of note.

---

Who from the below list do you believe would struggle with Arkansas, Oklahoma State, Kansas State or Tulane?

Texas
Georgia
Alabama
(Gap)
Ole Miss
Tennessee
Missouri
(Smaller Gap)
Oklahoma
LSU
South Carolina

Take your time.

---

Texas struggled with K-State last year.

LSU, A&M, Ole Miss and Alabama struggled with a worse Arkansas team last year.

Oklahoma struggled with Tulane last week.

This is why this is such a stupid exercise.

Facts and past precedent literally don't matter to people who have already made up their minds based on perception.

IowaBear said:

---

"SEC wasn't anything special until 2017" as they won the natty from 06 through 12 and several thereafter. You clearly didn't watch that much football. You're demonstrating clear bias and that post proves that

---

I agree that specific comment didn't make sense and I had to fix some typos and grammar in the post.

The SEC wasn't anything special for 95% of CFB's history. That's a fact and the results cannot be disputed.

It's no coincidence that the SEC didn't start to take over the sport until after the BCS was created.

So your opinion is that the SEC started to dominate when they (SEC) took over control of who made the playoffs? Seems rather far fetched and conspiracy based. Even if there was a smidge of truth to that how do you explain the SEC dominating on the field? Are the games rigged too?

IowaBear said:

---

So your opinion is that the SEC started to dominate when they (SEC) took over control of who made the playoffs? Seems rather far fetched and conspiracy based. Even if there was a smidge of truth to that how do you explain the SEC dominating on the field? Are the games rigged too?

---

He's not that far off. In the early days of the Big 12, it was a much stronger conference top to bottom than the SEC. The SEC slowly started to take over college football in the early aughts with the help of ESPN.

SEC football was a lot like Big 12 basketball in there was a "fake it 'til you make it" element to its national takeover. The national perception that it was the undisputed best in college football existed before it actually was. I think the same could be argued of Big 12 basketball.

But once the quality of play started to match the perception, it was all over from there because competition took over and success bred success.

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

historian said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

Why? What makes their scheduling any worse than anyone else's ? They play easy OOC teams.. as does literally everyone else. They also yearly produce several of the best teams in CFB. Results tend to speak for themselves.
They tend to play much tougher conference games as a whole compared the ACC, B12, P12 (RIP)

---

SEC schedules tend to be about the same as everyone else but they are treated as exceptional even when they are not. Just look at the preseason rankings every year, and often for the first few weeks of the season. A&M is an excellent: always ranked high before that first game, often unranked or barely ranked by the end. It's that way for lots of their teams. Also, they play as many creampuffs as others or maybe more but not punished for it. The clincher is that Bama, Aggie, & others play one in November while Big 12 & others don't.

There are other scheduling quirks as well. Only one ooc P5 or P4 game and rarely a true road game. Bama often played those in Atlanta which is essentially a home game for them. And they didn't exactly play powerhouses in those games: WVU, Miami, etc. At least the Aggies played Clemson when they were still national contenders.

I think many people criticize SEC schedules (& everything else) out of jealousy or some other emotion. But the criticism does have some merits.

---

Disagree. They may have one less conference game, but look at the teams they have played so far this year out of conference:

Clemson
Miami FL
Note Dame
USC
Michigan
Wisconsin
Oklahoma St
Virginia Tech
NC State
Wake Forest
Boston College
Tulane
Houston

The Big 12 has played:

Iowa
Penn St
Arkansas
Illinois
Tulane

---

This essentially sums it up the fallacy of any counterarguments to the SEC's scheduling, as the SEC has earned its overall reputation over the years through out of conference wins - whether in the regular season or in the post season - and that's one of the places it has pulled away from the Big 12 (also recruiting, tv ratings, money, influence, etc.).

If we assume that Oklahoma State is a frontrunner for the Big 12, does anyone believe that the top 6 teams in the SEC would struggle with Arkansas? Similarly, if we assume Kansas State is a frontrunner for the Big 12, does anyone believe that the top 6 teams in the SEC would struggle with Tulane?

---

The transitive property is a terrible way to evaluate college football teams, especially three weeks into a season. Other than maybe Texas and Alabama, we don't know how good or bad anyone is yet. Almost no one has played anybody of note.

---

Who from the below list do you believe would struggle with Arkansas, Oklahoma State, Kansas State or Tulane?

Texas
Georgia
Alabama
(Gap)
Ole Miss
Tennessee
Missouri
(Smaller Gap)
Oklahoma
LSU
South Carolina

Take your time.

---

Texas struggled with K-State last year.

LSU, A&M, Ole Miss and Alabama struggled with a worse Arkansas team last year.

Oklahoma struggled with Tulane last week.

This is why this is such a stupid exercise.

Facts and past precedent literally don't matter to people who have already made up their minds based on perception.

---

Tulane lost to OU by 15, right? Beating a team by 14+ isn't a struggle under any reasonable definition of the word.

Separately, we are talking about this season. If you would like to go back and talk about different seasons, we can but the list would be different. On that note, which of those teams went to OT with Arkansas last year?

I'm not saying he was off. I would have no idea what the SEC was like way back in the day as he's clearly much older than I am.
But I'm not sure how that's relevant to present day. The SEC may not have dominated back than. I have no problem taking his word for it. But they dominate today and have for pretty much the last 2 decades

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

historian said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

Why? What makes their scheduling any worse than anyone else's ? They play easy OOC teams.. as does literally everyone else. They also yearly produce several of the best teams in CFB. Results tend to speak for themselves.
They tend to play much tougher conference games as a whole compared the ACC, B12, P12 (RIP)

---

SEC schedules tend to be about the same as everyone else but they are treated as exceptional even when they are not. Just look at the preseason rankings every year, and often for the first few weeks of the season. A&M is an excellent: always ranked high before that first game, often unranked or barely ranked by the end. It's that way for lots of their teams. Also, they play as many creampuffs as others or maybe more but not punished for it. The clincher is that Bama, Aggie, & others play one in November while Big 12 & others don't.

There are other scheduling quirks as well. Only one ooc P5 or P4 game and rarely a true road game. Bama often played those in Atlanta which is essentially a home game for them. And they didn't exactly play powerhouses in those games: WVU, Miami, etc. At least the Aggies played Clemson when they were still national contenders.

I think many people criticize SEC schedules (& everything else) out of jealousy or some other emotion. But the criticism does have some merits.

---

Disagree. They may have one less conference game, but look at the teams they have played so far this year out of conference:

Clemson
Miami FL
Note Dame
USC
Michigan
Wisconsin
Oklahoma St
Virginia Tech
NC State
Wake Forest
Boston College
Tulane
Houston

The Big 12 has played:

Iowa
Penn St
Arkansas
Illinois
Tulane

---

This essentially sums it up the fallacy of any counterarguments to the SEC's scheduling, as the SEC has earned its overall reputation over the years through out of conference wins - whether in the regular season or in the post season - and that's one of the places it has pulled away from the Big 12 (also recruiting, tv ratings, money, influence, etc.).

If we assume that Oklahoma State is a frontrunner for the Big 12, does anyone believe that the top 6 teams in the SEC would struggle with Arkansas? Similarly, if we assume Kansas State is a frontrunner for the Big 12, does anyone believe that the top 6 teams in the SEC would struggle with Tulane?

---

The transitive property is a terrible way to evaluate college football teams, especially three weeks into a season. Other than maybe Texas and Alabama, we don't know how good or bad anyone is yet. Almost no one has played anybody of note.

---

Who from the below list do you believe would struggle with Arkansas, Oklahoma State, Kansas State or Tulane?

Texas
Georgia
Alabama
(Gap)
Ole Miss
Tennessee
Missouri
(Smaller Gap)
Oklahoma
LSU
South Carolina

Take your time.

---

Texas struggled with K-State last year.

LSU, A&M, Ole Miss and Alabama struggled with a worse Arkansas team last year.

Oklahoma struggled with Tulane last week.

This is why this is such a stupid exercise.

Facts and past precedent literally don't matter to people who have already made up their minds based on perception.

---

Tulane lost to OU by 15, right? Beating a team by 14+ isn't a struggle under any reasonable definition of the word.

Separately, we are talking about this season. If you would like to go back and talk about different seasons, we can but the list would be different.

---

You obviously didn't watch the game. Tulane had two fourth-quarter possessions down five with a chance to take the lead. Oklahoma's last TD came on a 43-yard field following a fourth-down interception, and their final field goal came on a possession that started from Tulane 27 following a turnover on downs.

And there have been three games played this season, most of those against dog**** opponents. I don't have any desire or interest to debate the strength or lack thereof of teams based on such small -- and frankly, insignificant -- data samples.

And let's be honest, you would have said the exact same thing about those teams last year, and would have been wrong then, too.

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

historian said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

Why? What makes their scheduling any worse than anyone else's ? They play easy OOC teams.. as does literally everyone else. They also yearly produce several of the best teams in CFB. Results tend to speak for themselves.
They tend to play much tougher conference games as a whole compared the ACC, B12, P12 (RIP)

---

SEC schedules tend to be about the same as everyone else but they are treated as exceptional even when they are not. Just look at the preseason rankings every year, and often for the first few weeks of the season. A&M is an excellent: always ranked high before that first game, often unranked or barely ranked by the end. It's that way for lots of their teams. Also, they play as many creampuffs as others or maybe more but not punished for it. The clincher is that Bama, Aggie, & others play one in November while Big 12 & others don't.

There are other scheduling quirks as well. Only one ooc P5 or P4 game and rarely a true road game. Bama often played those in Atlanta which is essentially a home game for them. And they didn't exactly play powerhouses in those games: WVU, Miami, etc. At least the Aggies played Clemson when they were still national contenders.

I think many people criticize SEC schedules (& everything else) out of jealousy or some other emotion. But the criticism does have some merits.

---

Disagree. They may have one less conference game, but look at the teams they have played so far this year out of conference:

Clemson
Miami FL
Note Dame
USC
Michigan
Wisconsin
Oklahoma St
Virginia Tech
NC State
Wake Forest
Boston College
Tulane
Houston

The Big 12 has played:

Iowa
Penn St
Arkansas
Illinois
Tulane

---

This essentially sums it up the fallacy of any counterarguments to the SEC's scheduling, as the SEC has earned its overall reputation over the years through out of conference wins

---

You are making erroneous conclusions based on a tiny subset of data. The SEC is superior now, but that was not the case for 95% of CFB's history. The sec wasn't anything special from 1900 up until after the BCS started. I've been watching football since 1990 and the SEC didn't dominate anything until about 2010.

They were always know for playing a ton of pansies and a lot of folks complained about it. It wasn't until Saban went on his run that the myth of superiority began to turn into reality. But it wasn't just that, it was a planned and concerted effort long before Sabans run for the SEC to game the system, which has brought us to where we are today.

A big part of that gaming was uneven scheduling. Lots of pansies and a cupcake in November. Less conference losses = more bowl invites = more prestige. Then manipulating the BCS (SEC commissioner ran the darn thing) guaranteeing a spot almost every year. 4 team playoff? SEC gets 2 spots. 12 team playoff? 5-6 spots guaranteed. How can they not succeed? Everything is tilted in their favor. It's why UT and OU finally bolted, they realized there was no fighting against it.

---

The point of all of this is unclear, as the Big 12 could have chosen to only play 8 conference games but it opted to not do so. Essentially, Big 12 fans cannot argue that the SEC has advantages that the Big 12 didn't have in terms of scheduling because the Big 12 voluntarily opted out of those advantages.

Regardless, the Big 12 hasn't earned it on the field as its champions have consistently come up short since 2005, and with the changes to the playoff and transfer systems, the chances of a Big 12 team winning a national title are nil as long as the P2 exist in the same league. Let's not forget, the list of teams that have won a title since a decade ago (beginning with 2014 season) are Alabama, LSU, Georgia, Michigan, Ohio State, and Clemson - and the Big 12 has only played for 1 title during that time (national title game appearance).

IowaBear said:

---

I'm not saying he was off. I would have no idea what the SEC was like way back in the day as he's clearly much older than I am.
But I'm not sure how that's relevant to present day. The SEC may not have dominated back than. I have no problem taking his word for it. But they dominate today and have for pretty much the last 2 decades

---

But that history provides context that helps us understand how the SEC took over, particularly when looking at the more manipulative measures they took to help stack the deck in their favor. Measures that are still helping them today, frankly.

Slive and Sankey were both much smarter than their counterparts from other power conferences, and both gamed the system through scheduling and PR in a way that almost ensured that national perception would keep that league on top. The eight-game conference schedule ensured that almost everyone earned bowl eligibility and many of their best teams would miss each other. And once they got everyone to buy into the "meat grinder" narrative, it was all over but the crying because they could take losses without taking any hit for them.

That helped them build a reputation that they eventually lived up to. But their teams are still benefiting from that today. We excuse every loss or close win they have and consistently overrate the second- and third-tier teams in that league, which consistently go around .500 against other P5 leagues.

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

historian said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

Why? What makes their scheduling any worse than anyone else's ? They play easy OOC teams.. as does literally everyone else. They also yearly produce several of the best teams in CFB. Results tend to speak for themselves.
They tend to play much tougher conference games as a whole compared the ACC, B12, P12 (RIP)

---

SEC schedules tend to be about the same as everyone else but they are treated as exceptional even when they are not. Just look at the preseason rankings every year, and often for the first few weeks of the season. A&M is an excellent: always ranked high before that first game, often unranked or barely ranked by the end. It's that way for lots of their teams. Also, they play as many creampuffs as others or maybe more but not punished for it. The clincher is that Bama, Aggie, & others play one in November while Big 12 & others don't.

There are other scheduling quirks as well. Only one ooc P5 or P4 game and rarely a true road game. Bama often played those in Atlanta which is essentially a home game for them. And they didn't exactly play powerhouses in those games: WVU, Miami, etc. At least the Aggies played Clemson when they were still national contenders.

I think many people criticize SEC schedules (& everything else) out of jealousy or some other emotion. But the criticism does have some merits.

---

Disagree. They may have one less conference game, but look at the teams they have played so far this year out of conference:

Clemson
Miami FL
Note Dame
USC
Michigan
Wisconsin
Oklahoma St
Virginia Tech
NC State
Wake Forest
Boston College
Tulane
Houston

The Big 12 has played:

Iowa
Penn St
Arkansas
Illinois
Tulane

---

This essentially sums it up the fallacy of any counterarguments to the SEC's scheduling, as the SEC has earned its overall reputation over the years through out of conference wins - whether in the regular season or in the post season - and that's one of the places it has pulled away from the Big 12 (also recruiting, tv ratings, money, influence, etc.).

If we assume that Oklahoma State is a frontrunner for the Big 12, does anyone believe that the top 6 teams in the SEC would struggle with Arkansas? Similarly, if we assume Kansas State is a frontrunner for the Big 12, does anyone believe that the top 6 teams in the SEC would struggle with Tulane?

---

The transitive property is a terrible way to evaluate college football teams, especially three weeks into a season. Other than maybe Texas and Alabama, we don't know how good or bad anyone is yet. Almost no one has played anybody of note.

---

Who from the below list do you believe would struggle with Arkansas, Oklahoma State, Kansas State or Tulane?

Texas
Georgia
Alabama
(Gap)
Ole Miss
Tennessee
Missouri
(Smaller Gap)
Oklahoma
LSU
South Carolina

Take your time.

---

Texas struggled with K-State last year.

LSU, A&M, Ole Miss and Alabama struggled with a worse Arkansas team last year.

Oklahoma struggled with Tulane last week.

This is why this is such a stupid exercise.

Facts and past precedent literally don't matter to people who have already made up their minds based on perception.

---

Tulane lost to OU by 15, right? Beating a team by 14+ isn't a struggle under any reasonable definition of the word.

Separately, we are talking about this season. If you would like to go back and talk about different seasons, we can but the list would be different.

---

You obviously didn't watch the game. Tulane had two fourth-quarter possessions down five with a chance to take the lead. Oklahoma's last TD came on a 43-yard field following a fourth-down interception, and their final field goal came on a possession that started from Tulane 27 following a turnover on downs.

And there have been three games played this season, most of those against dog**** opponents. I don't have any desire or interest to debate the strength or lack thereof of teams based on such small -- and frankly, insignificant -- data samples.

And let's be honest, you would have said the exact same thing about those teams last year, and would have been wrong then, too.

---

Let's stop with the hyperbole. Would you bet on KSU or Oklahoma State to beat Ole Miss straight up? If not, it's clear where you stand on this.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

historian said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

Why? What makes their scheduling any worse than anyone else's ? They play easy OOC teams.. as does literally everyone else. They also yearly produce several of the best teams in CFB. Results tend to speak for themselves.
They tend to play much tougher conference games as a whole compared the ACC, B12, P12 (RIP)

---

SEC schedules tend to be about the same as everyone else but they are treated as exceptional even when they are not. Just look at the preseason rankings every year, and often for the first few weeks of the season. A&M is an excellent: always ranked high before that first game, often unranked or barely ranked by the end. It's that way for lots of their teams. Also, they play as many creampuffs as others or maybe more but not punished for it. The clincher is that Bama, Aggie, & others play one in November while Big 12 & others don't.

There are other scheduling quirks as well. Only one ooc P5 or P4 game and rarely a true road game. Bama often played those in Atlanta which is essentially a home game for them. And they didn't exactly play powerhouses in those games: WVU, Miami, etc. At least the Aggies played Clemson when they were still national contenders.

I think many people criticize SEC schedules (& everything else) out of jealousy or some other emotion. But the criticism does have some merits.

---

Disagree. They may have one less conference game, but look at the teams they have played so far this year out of conference:

Clemson
Miami FL
Note Dame
USC
Michigan
Wisconsin
Oklahoma St
Virginia Tech
NC State
Wake Forest
Boston College
Tulane
Houston

The Big 12 has played:

Iowa
Penn St
Arkansas
Illinois
Tulane

---

This essentially sums it up the fallacy of any counterarguments to the SEC's scheduling, as the SEC has earned its overall reputation over the years through out of conference wins - whether in the regular season or in the post season - and that's one of the places it has pulled away from the Big 12 (also recruiting, tv ratings, money, influence, etc.).

If we assume that Oklahoma State is a frontrunner for the Big 12, does anyone believe that the top 6 teams in the SEC would struggle with Arkansas? Similarly, if we assume Kansas State is a frontrunner for the Big 12, does anyone believe that the top 6 teams in the SEC would struggle with Tulane?

---

The transitive property is a terrible way to evaluate college football teams, especially three weeks into a season. Other than maybe Texas and Alabama, we don't know how good or bad anyone is yet. Almost no one has played anybody of note.

---

Who from the below list do you believe would struggle with Arkansas, Oklahoma State, Kansas State or Tulane?

Texas
Georgia
Alabama
(Gap)
Ole Miss
Tennessee
Missouri
(Smaller Gap)
Oklahoma
LSU
South Carolina

Take your time.

---

Texas struggled with K-State last year.

LSU, A&M, Ole Miss and Alabama struggled with a worse Arkansas team last year.

Oklahoma struggled with Tulane last week.

This is why this is such a stupid exercise.

Facts and past precedent literally don't matter to people who have already made up their minds based on perception.

---

Tulane lost to OU by 15, right? Beating a team by 14+ isn't a struggle under any reasonable definition of the word.

Separately, we are talking about this season. If you would like to go back and talk about different seasons, we can but the list would be different.

---

You obviously didn't watch the game. Tulane had two fourth-quarter possessions down five with a chance to take the lead. Oklahoma's last TD came on a 43-yard field following a fourth-down interception, and their final field goal came on a possession that started from Tulane 27 following a turnover on downs.

And there have been three games played this season, most of those against dog**** opponents. I don't have any desire or interest to debate the strength or lack thereof of teams based on such small -- and frankly, insignificant -- data samples.

And let's be honest, you would have said the exact same thing about those teams last year, and would have been wrong then, too.

---

Let's stop with the hyperbole. Would you bet on KSU or Oklahoma State to beat Ole Miss straight up? If not, it's clear where you stand on this.

---

Ask me five weeks from now, and I'll answer you. I don't give a **** right now to be honest. It's just idiotic to declare a team great based on wins over Furman, Middle Tennessee State and Wake Forest.

But this thread is proving what I suspected from the start. You don't watch or particularly care about the games. Perception is reality for you.

Where did he declare Ole Miss great? You keep putting words in his mouth he ask you a very simple question. Would you pick either of those teams to beat Ole Miss right now. It wasn't a trick question

IowaBear said:

---

Where did he declare Ole Miss great? You keep putting words in his mouth he ask you a very simple question. Would you pick either of those teams to beat Ole Miss right now. It was a trick question

---

They're not playing, so who gives a ****? I don't know how to make it any clearer that I don't give a **** who is or is not better in Week 4. All I'm saying is we don't have nearly enough data yet to form an educated opinion one way or the other. And people make these same bull**** arguments about teams every year around this time that prove to be 100 percent wrong.

It is a stupid exercise.

IowaBear said:

---

So your opinion is that the SEC started to dominate when they (SEC) took over control of who made the playoffs? Seems rather far fetched and conspiracy based. Even if there was a smidge of truth to that how do you explain the SEC dominating on the field? Are the games rigged too?

---

No. It's more complicated than that. From 1900-2005, each major conference took turns winning MNC's and marquee bowl games. There was a cycle of sorts.

That cycle was interrupted after the BCS was created. We can perhaps point to the 2007 season as the interruption year, depending on how many MNC's one wants to count for a particular conference the year could shift. My opinion is that the change from relative parity to the sec being dominant was not an organic process, but only made possible by a concerted effort from SEC power brokers.

Think about it this way: from 1998 (start of BCS) to 2013, the SEC has won 8 or 9 MNC's.
From 1982-1997 they won two. That is not a coincidence.

So what happened, then? I think it was a combination of things. SEC power brokers wanting to succeed, pride and a concerted effort to win at any cost. Players were rampantly getting paid* (not all players and not all schools), schedule manipulation, bowl game manipulation and a concerted effort to change the narrative and perception. The SEC constantly chirped and *****ed they were the toughest and that paid off with them getting more invites to BCS Title games. We also have to take into account that the BCS was run by the sec's former commissioner.

As far as bias in favor of the SEC, it was early and often. Machines and the people have consistently rewarded the SEC for being, top to bottom, the most difficult league in the game (perception). USC was likely the best team in 2003, but they didn't get invited to the MNC because of a 3 OT loss to rival, Cal. That same year they trashed #6 Auburn 23-0 to open the season. Getting snubbed was completely bogus. LSU ended up winning the MNC that year.

USC was also snubbed in 2007 because of a road loss to #5 Oregon. LSU won that MNC as well.

*I'm fully aware that the sec wasn't the only conference with teams paying players. The difference is to the degree that it was happening was far greater than any other conference.