Missouri finished 11-2 last year and returned a huge chunk of that team at least offensively. BC isn't a bad team at all. The fact that yall are acting like they're scrubs tells me you pay zero attention to football outside the JV league.
They're 15-2 since the start of last season… they deserve their ranking for now. Decent chance they lose in College Station next week and yall can quit *****ing

IowaBear said:

---

Missouri finished 11-2 last year and returned a huge chunk of that team at least offensively. BC isn't a bad team at all. The fact that yall are acting like they're scrubs tells me you pay zero attention to football outside the JV league.
They're 15-2 since the start of last season… they deserve their ranking for now. Decent chance they lose in College Station next week and yall can quit *****ing

---

Missouri's body of work this season, isn't deserving of their lofty 'rank'.

Boston College was 6-6 last year, finishing with 3 regular season losses in a row. I believe they won their bowl game but I'd have to check.

Are they as bad as Missouri's other 3 wins Buffalo, Murray State or Vanderbilt? Probably not.

Please explain to me, since I clearly don't know anything about football, how those 4 wins means Missouri should be ranked so high.

Pre season rankings are based heavily off last years results. They ended the year beating fricking Ohio St. They returned a huge chunk of their offense including arguably the best wideout in CFB. It's not hard to see why they began ranked so high. 4-0 is 4-0 last I checked a Win is a Win regardless of how it comes.
Yall are *****ing solely because they're in the SeC. Results speak for themselves 15-2 since the start of last year. But but that doesn't deserve a high ranking. I've said it before and I'll say it again. People like you Bear2 etc let your hatred for the SeC cloud reality. Missouri is a darn good team.
What's even more funny is you amongst others constantly ***** about the SEC playing cupcakes OOC yet Mizzou plays and beats a ranked BC team and now that BC team suddenly sucks. No winning when arguing with the SEC haters club

IowaBear said:

---

Pre season rankings are based heavily off last years results.

---

What does last year have to do with this year?

I think each season should start with a clean slate and be decided on the field, but it's never been that way, unfortunately.

Last year has EVERYTHING to do with pre season rankings. It's been that way since I don't forever…Mizzou is a good team. If you want to think they suck than by all means your welcome to that opinion. But they're going to win quite a few ball games… just like they did last season. And even if they started with a clean skate they're 4-0 and beat a ranked P4 non con team. Its not like they've beat strictly scrubs

If 2024 is like each of the past 10 seasons or so, most of the SEC teams will prove to be mediocre. Some ranked now probably won't be at the end. Some heavily hyped preseason will be embarrassing by the end and may struggle to get to a bowl game. This happens to the Aggies most years. The conference will probably do well in the bowl games but part of that will be because of terrible mismatches: teams that never should have been matched up in bowl games. The best example was several years ago when LSU, the best rush defense in the country, played Texas Tech with one of the worst rushing units. It was a lopsided blowout and about as entertaining as the typical SEC cream puff game in November. It might have been Mahomes's last year there.

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

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 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.

---

Those changes were not voluntary. The sec wrote the rules, took over the narrative and other conferences have been in the back seat ever since.

---

What rules did the SEC write? The south does not have the population or media presence of the East Coast, West Coast, or Big Ten country. The SEC had to earn every ounce of respect it now gets. I think the media grudgingly came around to anccepting and acknowledging that the SEC is top tier. And in the BCS era, success has bred success for the SEC to the point that they probably get the best players and coaches.

---

This isn't remotely true. ESPN has been carrying that league's water since the early oughts -- basically as soon as the first semi-exclusive TV contract between the two parties was inked.

The ESPN-pushed narrative that the SEC was the undisputed best conference in America existed a good half-decade before it was actually true.

I don't have any problem acknowledging the SEC's strength. But it's path to this point was, in many ways, a self-fulfilling prophecy. ESPN squeezed everyone else out of that space through exposure and opportunity.

---

I've been closely following the SEC for 40+ years. I'm not just talking about the ESPN era. ESPN jumped on board at an opportune time, but they didn't create the success of the SEC

---

They didn't creat the ascent. They cleared the runway for it.

The SEC was never what we know the SEC to be now until ESPN got involved. And it took several years of fluffing the league before reality matched perception.

We're seeing the exact same thing now with the Big Ten and FOX. The TV networks set the narrative and perception fuels the machine.

We've seen that nonsense in this thread. We have people who genuinely believe a Missouri team that just struggled in back-to-back home games against Boston College and Vanderbilt is elite. Why? Because of the conference patch on their jerseys.

---

I'll give you that teams in the SEC now get the benefit of the doubt just like teams in the Pac 12 and Big Ten always have (see Wisconsin, Michigan, State, and Iowa), but Missouri is still Missouri. No amount of media fluffing is gonna make them better than they are.

---

I'll give you that teams in the SEC now get the benefit of the doubt
Now? The SEC has been getting the benefit of the doubt since arguably 2003 - and they didn't deserve it.

just like teams in the Pac 12 and Big Ten always have

That couldn't be further from the truth. The P10 didn't get the benefit of the doubt , which is how USC was left out of BCS title games in 2003, 2007 and 2008 and how Oregon was left out in 2012.

The SEC pushed the narrative they were the best and how their CCG made them more deserving.That's how they took over during the BCS era. Well that and having the former SEC commissioner run the BCS probably didn't hurt.

Missouri is still Missouri. No amount of media fluffing is gonna make them better than they are.
Missouri is a prime example of the bias and fluff in favor of the SEC. Rankings are a sham, but that's what we historically used in the FBS because it was never settled on the field with a real playoff.

Missouri is 4-0 and ranked #11. They have played Murray State, Buffalo, Boston College and Vanderbilt. If you know anything about those teams, it cannot be claimed Missouri is #11. However, here we are...

---

In 2003 and 2004 USC absolutely got the benefit of the doubt. Teams were selected by a combination of polls and BCS standings. The SEC certainly couldn't dictate anything. The national media still had a strong voice which worked against southern markets in those days. In 2003 LSU was declared national champion by the unbiased BCS computers while USC was awarded champion by the AP. In 2004 an undefeated Auburn team was snubbed from the championship game while USC was selected.

I believe ESPN bought the rights to televise the SEC from CBS in 2008 when the SEC was well on its way to winning its 3rd consecutive championship and 3rd of 7 consecutive championships by 4 different teams. The SEC's success was also not created by ESPN as some on here suggest. ESPN saw a great league and simply pounced at an opportune time.

IowaBear said:

---

Missouri finished 11-2 last year and returned a huge chunk of that team at least offensively. BC isn't a bad team at all. The fact that yall are acting like they're scrubs tells me you pay zero attention to football outside the JV league.
They're 15-2 since the start of last season… they deserve their ranking for now. Decent chance they lose in College Station next week and yall can quit *****ing

---

BC isn't a bad team. But they're an average, maybe slightly above average team.

No elite team is squeaking by them and Vanderbilt at home.

IowaBear said:

---

Last year has EVERYTHING to do with pre season rankings. It's been that way since I don't forever…Mizzou is a good team. If you want to think they suck than by all means your welcome to that opinion. But they're going to win quite a few ball games… just like they did last season. And even if they started with a clean skate they're 4-0 and beat a ranked P4 non con team. Its not like they've beat strictly scrubs

---

Which is why preseason rankings are stupid. They set perceptions and narratives that fuel biased opinions the rest of the season.

An early-season win over a five- or six- loss team that happened to be ranked highly at the time can lead to an inflated view of strength that earns certain teams and leagues bumps they really don't deserve.

We shouldn't rank anyone before the sixth week of a season at the earliest. We don't know what most of these teams are until then.

historian said:

---

If 2024 is like each of the past 10 seasons or so, most of the SEC teams will prove to be mediocre. Some ranked now probably won't be at the end. Some heavily hyped preseason will be embarrassing by the end and may struggle to get to a bowl game. This happens to the Aggies most years. The conference will probably do well in the bowl games but part of that will be because of terrible mismatches: teams that never should have been matched up in bowl games. The best example was several years ago when LSU, the best rush defense in the country, played Texas Tech with one of the worst rushing units. It was a lopsided blowout and about as entertaining as the typical SEC cream puff game in November. It might have been Mahomes's last year there.

---

Is this the game you are referring to?

https://www.espn.com/college-football/game/_/gameId/400852726

LSU 56 TT 27

21 BU is considered by most on this board to have been elite that year. They squeaked out SEVERAL wins. Why are certain teams expected to blow everyone out. (Mainly SEC teams I may add) A W is a W. And no has said Mizzou is elite. That's something you made up for the purpose of arguing. They're a damm good team. We're last and will be again this year

IowaBear said:

---

21 BU is considered by most on this board to have been elite that year. They squeaked out SEVERAL wins. Why are certain teams expected to blow everyone out. (Mainly SEC teams I may add) A W is a W. And no has said Mizzou is elite. That's something you made up for the purpose of arguing. They're a damm good team. We're last and will be again this year

---

Close games don't mean anything in the big 12 because we are THE MOST competitive league of mediocre to bad football teams.

Yes. I had the facts wrong: LSU had one of the top rushing offenses in the country (Fournette) and Tech had one of the worst rushing defenses. Regardless, the outcome was predetermined & Tech had almost no chance. It was a joke and the game was boring except for Mahomes and the receivers doing their thing.

historian said:

---

If 2024 is like each of the past 10 seasons or so, most of the SEC teams will prove to be mediocre. Some ranked now probably won't be at the end. Some heavily hyped preseason will be embarrassing by the end and may struggle to get to a bowl game. This happens to the Aggies most years. The conference will probably do well in the bowl games but part of that will be because of terrible mismatches: teams that never should have been matched up in bowl games. The best example was several years ago when LSU, the best rush defense in the country, played Texas Tech with one of the worst rushing units. It was a lopsided blowout and about as entertaining as the typical SEC cream puff game in November. It might have been Mahomes's last year there.

---

That's partially because they have to play each other and that's been the SEC's point - multiple teams in the SEC would dunk on all of the legacy Big 12 teams any given year - and that was before adding UT/OU - so it doesn't make sense to limit the playoff field to only 1 loss teams as it was in the four team playoff era because a 1 loss champion in the Big 12 is not the same as a 1 loss champion in the SEC. Right now, Texas, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, Ole Miss, and maybe one more team (heck even OU if they sort out their QB situation) would demolish anyone from the current Big 12.

The ESPN playoff predictor currently gives 5 SEC teams a greater than 50% chance of making the CFP, and that sounds about right. No one in the Big 12 is greater than 36%.

Not necessarily. Big 12 teams have had several wins over SEC teams in ooc & bowl games over the past decade. We even beat Vandy in 2018 & Ole Miss in 2021. Granted, they are not an SEC powerhouse but there were others such as K State beating LSU. Texas beat Georgia in 2018? & OU beat Bama in 2013.

My observation that most SEC teams are mediocrities is based on their records over the past 10-12 years. Most have had fair records each year, rarely getting to 10 wins. That's true of most Big 12 teams too, except OU & Baylor.

IowaBear said:

---

21 BU is considered by most on this board to have been elite that year. They squeaked out SEVERAL wins. Why are certain teams expected to blow everyone out. (Mainly SEC teams I may add) A W is a W. And no has said Mizzou is elite. That's something you made up for the purpose of arguing. They're a damm good team. We're last and will be again this year

---

Our 2021 team didn't get talked about as an elite team after four games. It had to beat the best teams on its schedule and win about 10 games before anyone was speaking about it in those terms.

That's precisely the point.

Everyone else has to earn their respect while teams from the SEC start with it/have to lose it.

I'm OK giving that treatment to Alabama and Georgia based on their talent, success and longevity. But no one else has earned/deserves that benefit of the doubt. Everyone else should have to earn their respect and ranking like those from other leagues do.

That's especially true of programs like Missouri and A&M, which were mid in the Big 12 and have been just as mid for most of their time in the SEC.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

historian said:

---

If 2024 is like each of the past 10 seasons or so, most of the SEC teams will prove to be mediocre. Some ranked now probably won't be at the end. Some heavily hyped preseason will be embarrassing by the end and may struggle to get to a bowl game. This happens to the Aggies most years. The conference will probably do well in the bowl games but part of that will be because of terrible mismatches: teams that never should have been matched up in bowl games. The best example was several years ago when LSU, the best rush defense in the country, played Texas Tech with one of the worst rushing units. It was a lopsided blowout and about as entertaining as the typical SEC cream puff game in November. It might have been Mahomes's last year there.

---

That's partially because they have to play each other and that's been the SEC's point - multiple teams in the SEC would dunk on all of the legacy Big 12 teams any given year - and that was before adding UT/OU - so it doesn't make sense to limit the playoff field to only 1 loss teams as it was in the four team playoff era because a 1 loss champion in the Big 12 is not the same as a 1 loss champion in the SEC. Right now, Texas, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, Ole Miss, and maybe one more team (heck even OU if they sort out their QB situation) would demolish anyone from the current Big 12.

The ESPN playoff predictor currently gives 5 SEC teams a greater than 50% chance of making the CFP, and that sounds about right. No one in the Big 12 is greater than 36%.

---

This is the SEC talking point, of course, but if the gap were large enough to justify this type of bias, it would show up in the league's records against other P5 conferences.

And the fact of the matter is, outside of Alabama, Georgia and LSU, who I think most people would agree have been head and shoulders above their competition, no one else in the SEC is more than five games above .500 against non-SEC P5 competition since 1998, and rest of the league collectively is 194-198 in those games over that span.

This highlights the problem most have with the bull**** way this league is viewed. Teams that aren't elite get undue bumps simply by being associated with those that are.

In certain years, teams outside of that elite trio can jump up and have elite seasons, but none have come close to sustaining the level of excellence necessary to justify Alabama or Georgia treatment -- or the year to year benefit of doubt that comes with it.

It literally takes four losses for folks nationally to admit that A&M or Auburn is mid, while one loss does that for a Kansas State or Oklahoma State.

Again who's saying Mizzou is elite?? No one. But they're a damn good football team. You aren't 15-2 since the start of the 23 season by accident.

The SEC does have a lot of good teams this year, and I don't think there will be too much inter-conference chaos. I could see 5 one or two loss SEC teams getting into the playoff, and that is probably deserved. You get into three loss teams, and that's a little more sketchy depending on what else is out there.

Interesting dark horse is Wash St. If they win this weekend v Boise St, they could go undefeated. That would really create an interesting test for the new expanded playoff as P12 does not get auto bid.

Big if but if Boise St runs the table I think they'll be the G5 rep. Could say the same for Wash St

GoodOleBaylorLine said:

---

The SEC does have a lot of good teams this year, and I don't think there will be too much inter-conference chaos. I could see 5 one or two loss SEC teams getting into the playoff, and that is probably deserved. You get into three loss teams, and that's a little more sketchy depending on what else is out there.

Interesting dark horse is Wash St. If they win this weekend v Boise St, they could go undefeated. That would really create an interesting test for the new expanded playoff as P12 does not get auto bid.

---

I think Washington state would probably get in simply because they will likely be ranked in the top 12 if that were to happen.

historian said:

---

Georgia will probably get better. Maybe Tennessee & Alabama. But it likes like a typical opening of an SEC season except usually one team looks really good and the rest don't. We shall see.

I really don't like the SEC and I hope they all get worse, with only one team getting in the playoffs. Same with Big 10. We all know I won't get my wish. Such is can these days.

I grew up cheering for underdogs, partly because my teams were generally underdogs. That's where I'm coming from. Still, I can deal with reality too.

---

The SEC will get at least 3 teams in with the new 12 team format. They just simply overrate their middle of the road teams too much.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

historian said:

---

If 2024 is like each of the past 10 seasons or so, most of the SEC teams will prove to be mediocre. Some ranked now probably won't be at the end. Some heavily hyped preseason will be embarrassing by the end and may struggle to get to a bowl game. This happens to the Aggies most years. The conference will probably do well in the bowl games but part of that will be because of terrible mismatches: teams that never should have been matched up in bowl games. The best example was several years ago when LSU, the best rush defense in the country, played Texas Tech with one of the worst rushing units. It was a lopsided blowout and about as entertaining as the typical SEC cream puff game in November. It might have been Mahomes's last year there.

---

That's partially because they have to play each other and that's been the SEC's point - multiple teams in the SEC would dunk on all of the legacy Big 12 teams any given year - and that was before adding UT/OU - so it doesn't make sense to limit the playoff field to only 1 loss teams as it was in the four team playoff era because a 1 loss champion in the Big 12 is not the same as a 1 loss champion in the SEC. Right now, Texas, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, Ole Miss, and maybe one more team (heck even OU if they sort out their QB situation) would demolish anyone from the current Big 12.

The ESPN playoff predictor currently gives 5 SEC teams a greater than 50% chance of making the CFP, and that sounds about right. No one in the Big 12 is greater than 36%.

---

The Big 12 will get one team. They just won't get any favor. Two teams would be a miracle. Hey, still much better than the old 2 teams get a shot only format.

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

historian said:

---

Georgia will probably get better. Maybe Tennessee & Alabama. But it likes like a typical opening of an SEC season except usually one team looks really good and the rest don't. We shall see.

I really don't like the SEC and I hope they all get worse, with only one team getting in the playoffs. Same with Big 10. We all know I won't get my wish. Such is can these days.

I grew up cheering for underdogs, partly because my teams were generally underdogs. That's where I'm coming from. Still, I can deal with reality too.

---

The SEC will get at least 3 teams in with the new 12 team format. They just simply overrate their middle of the road teams too much.

---

With the additions of Texas and Oklahoma, the SEC will deserve three or four teams every year. It's how we talk about their fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth teams that bothers me.

The special teams deserve special treatment. I just don't like the artificial bump given to those below that tier.

bear2be2 said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

historian said:

---

Georgia will probably get better. Maybe Tennessee & Alabama. But it likes like a typical opening of an SEC season except usually one team looks really good and the rest don't. We shall see.

I really don't like the SEC and I hope they all get worse, with only one team getting in the playoffs. Same with Big 10. We all know I won't get my wish. Such is can these days.

I grew up cheering for underdogs, partly because my teams were generally underdogs. That's where I'm coming from. Still, I can deal with reality too.

---

The SEC will get at least 3 teams in with the new 12 team format. They just simply overrate their middle of the road teams too much.

---

With the additions of Texas and Oklahoma, the SEC will deserve three teams every year. It's how we talk about their fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth teams that bothers me.

The special teams deserve special treatment. I just didn't like the artificial bump given to those below that tier.

---

This is fair. UT/GA/Bama deserve a slot. They are darn good teams. Beyond that, we will see.

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

historian said:

---

Georgia will probably get better. Maybe Tennessee & Alabama. But it likes like a typical opening of an SEC season except usually one team looks really good and the rest don't. We shall see.

I really don't like the SEC and I hope they all get worse, with only one team getting in the playoffs. Same with Big 10. We all know I won't get my wish. Such is can these days.

I grew up cheering for underdogs, partly because my teams were generally underdogs. That's where I'm coming from. Still, I can deal with reality too.

---

The SEC will get at least 3 teams in with the new 12 team format. They just simply overrate their middle of the road teams too much.

---

With the additions of Texas and Oklahoma, the SEC will deserve three teams every year. It's how we talk about their fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth teams that bothers me.

The special teams deserve special treatment. I just didn't like the artificial bump given to those below that tier.

---

This is fair. UT/GA/Bama deserve a slot. They are darn good teams. Beyond that, we will see.

---

I think Tennessee could belong in that group as well this season, but they have more to prove.

Texas looks like the best team in the country to me right now unfortunately.

bear2be2 said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

historian said:

---

Georgia will probably get better. Maybe Tennessee & Alabama. But it likes like a typical opening of an SEC season except usually one team looks really good and the rest don't. We shall see.

I really don't like the SEC and I hope they all get worse, with only one team getting in the playoffs. Same with Big 10. We all know I won't get my wish. Such is can these days.

I grew up cheering for underdogs, partly because my teams were generally underdogs. That's where I'm coming from. Still, I can deal with reality too.

---

The SEC will get at least 3 teams in with the new 12 team format. They just simply overrate their middle of the road teams too much.

---

With the additions of Texas and Oklahoma, the SEC will deserve three or four teams every year. It's how we talk about their fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth teams that bothers me.

The special teams deserve special treatment. I just don't like the artificial bump given to those below that tier.

---

Although I get your point, it is kind of funny because UT rarely got into the playoffs despite being the bluest of bluebloods and OU got in, but rarely won and often got housed and demonstrated they were a poor selection.

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

historian said:

---

Georgia will probably get better. Maybe Tennessee & Alabama. But it likes like a typical opening of an SEC season except usually one team looks really good and the rest don't. We shall see.

I really don't like the SEC and I hope they all get worse, with only one team getting in the playoffs. Same with Big 10. We all know I won't get my wish. Such is can these days.

I grew up cheering for underdogs, partly because my teams were generally underdogs. That's where I'm coming from. Still, I can deal with reality too.

---

The SEC will get at least 3 teams in with the new 12 team format. They just simply overrate their middle of the road teams too much.

---

All power five conferences get that benefit to some extent. Any team that starts out 4-0 is going to be ranked. Finishing near the top of a power five conference, regardless of its relative strength, gets you a top 10 ranking. I believe the 2019 Baylor team was ranked in single digits at one point and finished at 13 even though we had a really weak conference that year and and even though we beat only one team in the final rankings (at 25).

I agree that third tier SEC teams get the benefit of the doubt, but so do any undefeated teams in power five conferences. Look at Iowa last year. Then they got demolished 35-0 by 4 loss Tennessee in their bowl game. Tennessee's quarterback was starting his first game.

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

historian said:

---

If 2024 is like each of the past 10 seasons or so, most of the SEC teams will prove to be mediocre. Some ranked now probably won't be at the end. Some heavily hyped preseason will be embarrassing by the end and may struggle to get to a bowl game. This happens to the Aggies most years. The conference will probably do well in the bowl games but part of that will be because of terrible mismatches: teams that never should have been matched up in bowl games. The best example was several years ago when LSU, the best rush defense in the country, played Texas Tech with one of the worst rushing units. It was a lopsided blowout and about as entertaining as the typical SEC cream puff game in November. It might have been Mahomes's last year there.

---

That's partially because they have to play each other and that's been the SEC's point - multiple teams in the SEC would dunk on all of the legacy Big 12 teams any given year - and that was before adding UT/OU - so it doesn't make sense to limit the playoff field to only 1 loss teams as it was in the four team playoff era because a 1 loss champion in the Big 12 is not the same as a 1 loss champion in the SEC. Right now, Texas, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, Ole Miss, and maybe one more team (heck even OU if they sort out their QB situation) would demolish anyone from the current Big 12.

The ESPN playoff predictor currently gives 5 SEC teams a greater than 50% chance of making the CFP, and that sounds about right. No one in the Big 12 is greater than 36%.

---

The Big 12 will get one team. They just won't get any favor. Two teams would be a miracle. Hey, still much better than the old 2 teams get a shot only format.

---

I love the fact that the big 12 will always get a team in. Gives us hope at the beginning of every year that we have a chance since we shouldn't be too overmatched by any of our conference foes.

GoodOleBaylorLine said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

historian said:

---

Georgia will probably get better. Maybe Tennessee & Alabama. But it likes like a typical opening of an SEC season except usually one team looks really good and the rest don't. We shall see.

I really don't like the SEC and I hope they all get worse, with only one team getting in the playoffs. Same with Big 10. We all know I won't get my wish. Such is can these days.

I grew up cheering for underdogs, partly because my teams were generally underdogs. That's where I'm coming from. Still, I can deal with reality too.

---

The SEC will get at least 3 teams in with the new 12 team format. They just simply overrate their middle of the road teams too much.

---

With the additions of Texas and Oklahoma, the SEC will deserve three or four teams every year. It's how we talk about their fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth teams that bothers me.

The special teams deserve special treatment. I just don't like the artificial bump given to those below that tier.

---

Although I get your point, it is kind of funny because UT rarely got into the playoffs despite being the bluest of bluebloods and OU got in, but rarely won and often got housed and demonstrated they were a poor selection.

---

Texas has underachieved a lot the past 40-plus years, but their ceiling is national titles. We've seen that with Royal, Brown and perhaps soon Sarkesian.

And Oklahoma has the same ceiling with fewer -- and shorter -- periods of mediocrity.

I'm not a fan of either program. But they make the SEC even better and deeper.

The focus is this season since the SEC is stronger than it has been in years plus the larger format allows fewer teams to have to play each other. In terms of the latter, the Big 12 benefits from that as well but it's still mediocre.

Georgia, Texas, Alabama, Tennessee and Ole Miss plus probably Missouri and maybe one more team are better than anything the Big 12 has. And no, no one cares about who wins non-playoff bowls anymore - the transfer portal and NIL have changed that.

bear2be2 said:

---

GoodOleBaylorLine said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

historian said:

---

Georgia will probably get better. Maybe Tennessee & Alabama. But it likes like a typical opening of an SEC season except usually one team looks really good and the rest don't. We shall see.

I really don't like the SEC and I hope they all get worse, with only one team getting in the playoffs. Same with Big 10. We all know I won't get my wish. Such is can these days.

I grew up cheering for underdogs, partly because my teams were generally underdogs. That's where I'm coming from. Still, I can deal with reality too.

---

The SEC will get at least 3 teams in with the new 12 team format. They just simply overrate their middle of the road teams too much.

---

With the additions of Texas and Oklahoma, the SEC will deserve three or four teams every year. It's how we talk about their fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth teams that bothers me.

The special teams deserve special treatment. I just don't like the artificial bump given to those below that tier.

---

Although I get your point, it is kind of funny because UT rarely got into the playoffs despite being the bluest of bluebloods and OU got in, but rarely won and often got housed and demonstrated they were a poor selection.

---

Texas has underachieved a lot the past 40-plus years, but their ceiling is national titles. We've seen that with Royal, Brown and perhaps soon Sarkesian.

And Oklahoma has the same ceiling with fewer -- and shorter -- periods of mediocrity.

I'm not a fan of either program. But they make the SEC even better and deeper.

---

Going to the SEC could make Texas downright scary. Prior to joining, they would lose recruiting battles to A&M and others. Don't see that happening as much in the future with in state talent. Texas was starting to peak and should now be undisputed king of the state, and A&M will likely become more mediocre.

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

GoodOleBaylorLine said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

historian said:

---

Georgia will probably get better. Maybe Tennessee & Alabama. But it likes like a typical opening of an SEC season except usually one team looks really good and the rest don't. We shall see.

I really don't like the SEC and I hope they all get worse, with only one team getting in the playoffs. Same with Big 10. We all know I won't get my wish. Such is can these days.

I grew up cheering for underdogs, partly because my teams were generally underdogs. That's where I'm coming from. Still, I can deal with reality too.

---

The SEC will get at least 3 teams in with the new 12 team format. They just simply overrate their middle of the road teams too much.

---

With the additions of Texas and Oklahoma, the SEC will deserve three or four teams every year. It's how we talk about their fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth teams that bothers me.

The special teams deserve special treatment. I just don't like the artificial bump given to those below that tier.

---

Although I get your point, it is kind of funny because UT rarely got into the playoffs despite being the bluest of bluebloods and OU got in, but rarely won and often got housed and demonstrated they were a poor selection.

---

Texas has underachieved a lot the past 40-plus years, but their ceiling is national titles. We've seen that with Royal, Brown and perhaps soon Sarkesian.

And Oklahoma has the same ceiling with fewer -- and shorter -- periods of mediocrity.

I'm not a fan of either program. But they make the SEC even better and deeper.

---

Going to the SEC could make Texas downright scary. Prior to joining, they would lose recruiting battles to A&M and others. Don't see that happening as much in the future with in state talent. Texas was starting to peak and should now be undisputed king of the state, and A&M will likely become more mediocre.

---

This is what many didn't understand. As good as Texas had it, being associated with the Big 12 and not the SEC was a weakness for the program in recruiting/exposure and likely the primary driver for them switching conferences.

Chuckroast said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

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 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.

---

Those changes were not voluntary. The sec wrote the rules, took over the narrative and other conferences have been in the back seat ever since.

---

What rules did the SEC write? The south does not have the population or media presence of the East Coast, West Coast, or Big Ten country. The SEC had to earn every ounce of respect it now gets. I think the media grudgingly came around to anccepting and acknowledging that the SEC is top tier. And in the BCS era, success has bred success for the SEC to the point that they probably get the best players and coaches.

---

This isn't remotely true. ESPN has been carrying that league's water since the early oughts -- basically as soon as the first semi-exclusive TV contract between the two parties was inked.

The ESPN-pushed narrative that the SEC was the undisputed best conference in America existed a good half-decade before it was actually true.

I don't have any problem acknowledging the SEC's strength. But it's path to this point was, in many ways, a self-fulfilling prophecy. ESPN squeezed everyone else out of that space through exposure and opportunity.

---

I've been closely following the SEC for 40+ years. I'm not just talking about the ESPN era. ESPN jumped on board at an opportune time, but they didn't create the success of the SEC

---

They didn't creat the ascent. They cleared the runway for it.

The SEC was never what we know the SEC to be now until ESPN got involved. And it took several years of fluffing the league before reality matched perception.

We're seeing the exact same thing now with the Big Ten and FOX. The TV networks set the narrative and perception fuels the machine.

We've seen that nonsense in this thread. We have people who genuinely believe a Missouri team that just struggled in back-to-back home games against Boston College and Vanderbilt is elite. Why? Because of the conference patch on their jerseys.

---

I'll give you that teams in the SEC now get the benefit of the doubt just like teams in the Pac 12 and Big Ten always have (see Wisconsin, Michigan, State, and Iowa), but Missouri is still Missouri. No amount of media fluffing is gonna make them better than they are.

---

I'll give you that teams in the SEC now get the benefit of the doubt
Now? The SEC has been getting the benefit of the doubt since arguably 2003 - and they didn't deserve it.

just like teams in the Pac 12 and Big Ten always have

That couldn't be further from the truth. The P10 didn't get the benefit of the doubt , which is how USC was left out of BCS title games in 2003, 2007 and 2008 and how Oregon was left out in 2012.

The SEC pushed the narrative they were the best and how their CCG made them more deserving.That's how they took over during the BCS era. Well that and having the former SEC commissioner run the BCS probably didn't hurt.

Missouri is still Missouri. No amount of media fluffing is gonna make them better than they are.
Missouri is a prime example of the bias and fluff in favor of the SEC. Rankings are a sham, but that's what we historically used in the FBS because it was never settled on the field with a real playoff.

Missouri is 4-0 and ranked #11. They have played Murray State, Buffalo, Boston College and Vanderbilt. If you know anything about those teams, it cannot be claimed Missouri is #11. However, here we are...

---

In 2003 ...USC absolutely got the benefit of the doubt.

---

They were left out of the 2004 Sugar Bowl (BCS title game). That is the opposite of getting the benefit of the doubt.