IowaBear said:

---

Last year has EVERYTHING to do with pre season rankings.

---

Why do we use preseason rankings? This year has nothing to do with last year.

So if your upset about Mizzou ranking does that make you upset Okie St was ranked ? . The pre season? What about KSU ? Or does your logic only apply when discussing SEC teams?
Your upset a team whose 15-2 since last year started is ranked high.

IowaBear said:

---

So if your upset about Mizzou ranking does that make you upset Okie St was ranked

---

I'm not upset about it.

I'm merely pointing out the absurdity of the system that has been in place for decades and how the SEC benefits the most from it.

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

Last year has EVERYTHING to do with pre season rankings.

---

Why do we use preseason rankings? This year has nothing to do with last year.

---

Data drives preseason rankings - especially ESPN's FPI.

Statistically speaking, programs that do well one season, recruit at an elite level over the immediately preceding few years, retain their HC/OC/DC, and return a starting QB (or pull in an elite QB in the portal) generally perform better the next season than teams that do not. To rephrase, a team recruiting in the 30s of team rankings over its immediately preceding few recruiting classes has no shot at winning a national title, so it's generally not going to be ranked as high as teams that do.

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

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.

---

The AP gave them a national championship anyway.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

Last year has EVERYTHING to do with pre season rankings.

---

Why do we use preseason rankings? This year has nothing to do with last year.

---

Data drives preseason rankings - especially ESPN's FPI.

Statistically speaking, programs that do well one season, recruit at an elite level over the immediately preceding few years, retain their HC/OC/DC, and return a starting QB (or pull in an elite QB in the portal) generally perform better the next season than teams that do not. To rephrase, a team recruiting in the 30s of team rankings over its immediately preceding few recruiting classes has no shot at winning a national title, so it's generally not going to be ranked as high as teams that do.

---

ESPN's FPI is a terrible stat.

There are so many metrics out there that are better and more reliable in creating more accurate power rankings.

And that's not even getting into the obvious conflict of interest of using a stat created by the company in charge of the playoff that has a partnership with some leagues and not others.

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

Last year has EVERYTHING to do with pre season rankings.

---

Why do we use preseason rankings? This year has nothing to do with last year.

---

Data drives preseason rankings - especially ESPN's FPI.

Statistically speaking, programs that do well one season, recruit at an elite level over the immediately preceding few years, retain their HC/OC/DC, and return a starting QB (or pull in an elite QB in the portal) generally perform better the next season than teams that do not. To rephrase, a team recruiting in the 30s of team rankings over its immediately preceding few recruiting classes has no shot at winning a national title, so it's generally not going to be ranked as high as teams that do.

---

ESPN's FPI is a terrible stat.

There are so many metrics out there that are better and more reliable in creating more accurate power rankings.

And that's not even getting into the obvious conflict of interest of using a stat created by the company in charge of the playoff that has a partnership with some leagues and not others.

---

ESPN's FPI is fantastic in terms of assessing how strong a team should be for its next game. Hey, maybe the Big 12 champ will win the national title and prove it all wrong, huh?

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

Last year has EVERYTHING to do with pre season rankings.

---

Why do we use preseason rankings? This year has nothing to do with last year.

---

Data drives preseason rankings - especially ESPN's FPI.

Statistically speaking, programs that do well one season, recruit at an elite level over the immediately preceding few years, retain their HC/OC/DC, and return a starting QB (or pull in an elite QB in the portal) generally perform better the next season than teams that do not. To rephrase, a team recruiting in the 30s of team rankings over its immediately preceding few recruiting classes has no shot at winning a national title, so it's generally not going to be ranked as high as teams that do.

---

ESPN's FPI is a terrible stat.

There are so many metrics out there that are better and more reliable in creating more accurate power rankings.

And that's not even getting into the obvious conflict of interest of using a stat created by the company in charge of the playoff that has a partnership with some leagues and not others.

---

ESPN's FPI is fantastic in terms of assessing how strong a team should be for its next game. Hey, maybe the Big 12 champ will win the national title and prove it all wrong, huh?

---

No, it's a terrible, convoluted, nebulous metric that frequently pumps out absolute trash.

Like I said, there are many, much better advanced metrics and stat sites out there with infinitely better methodology.

Case in point, Notre Dame and USC are currently ninth and 12th, respectively, in FPI, which is a joke given their schedules and results (or lack thereof) to date.

Yeah 4-0 is horrible!! How dare they be undefeated at this point

IowaBear said:

---

Yeah 4-0 is horrible!! How dare they be undefeated at this point

---

What post/team is this in reference to? It's a lot easier when you quote rather than reply. I literally don't even know who or what you're talking about.

IowaBear said:

---

Yeah 4-0 is horrible!! How dare they be undefeated at this point

---

I see what you're saying now. I didn't mean Missouri. I meant USC, which is 12th -- one spot ahead of Missouri.

I don't have a problem with Missouri being where it is currently. I was just thinking one thing and typed another. I've edited the original post for clarity.

Seems pretty clear I'm referencing Mizzou. The team with "joke results" so far
Ope just saw your edit! Yeah USC showed itself vs Michigan imo.
I've also gone on record that I think AM beats Mizzou in 2 weeks. Just a hunch.

IowaBear said:

---

Seems pretty clear I'm referencing Mizzou. The team with "joke results" so far

---

Read the post above. I was talking about USC, not Missouri. I just typed the wrong team name and didn't even realize it until you replied.

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

So if your upset about Mizzou ranking does that make you upset Okie St was ranked

---

I'm not upset about it.

I'm merely pointing out the absurdity of the system that has been in place for decades and how the SEC benefits the most from it.

---

When you have most of the best teams you get the benefit of the doubt.

IowaBear said:

---

Seems pretty clear I'm referencing Mizzou. The team with "joke results" so far
Ope just saw your edit! Yeah USC showed itself vs Michigan imo.
I've also gone on record that I think AM beats Mizzou in 2 weeks. Just a hunch.

---

I'm not buying A&M yet, though they do look a lot better with Reed than they did with Weigman.

That's been a really good change for them.

IowaBear said:

---

Seems pretty clear I'm referencing Mizzou. The team with "joke results" so far
Ope just saw your edit! Yeah USC showed itself vs Michigan imo.
I've also gone on record that I think AM beats Mizzou in 2 weeks. Just a hunch.

---

I'm predicting the cocks knock off aggy or mizz in Cola (mabye both). I think I'm going up for the aggy game.

Piggybacking off my post about FPI and better computer ranking/predictive systems, here's a good web site that ranks them by year for accuracy.

FPI's average ranking since it was created is about 13th. And you're almost always just better off using the Vegas line.

https://www.thepredictiontracker.com/ncaaresults.php?year=24

muddybrazos said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

So if your upset about Mizzou ranking does that make you upset Okie St was ranked

---

I'm not upset about it.

I'm merely pointing out the absurdity of the system that has been in place for decades and how the SEC benefits the most from it.

---

When you have most of the best teams you get the benefit of the doubt.

---

When you don't have most of the best teams (2000-2012) why get the benefit of the doubt?

Chuckroast said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

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.

---

The AP gave them a national championship anyway.

---

Is that your way of back tracking on your statement that USC "absolutely got the benefit of the doubt" in 2003?

Or are you still sticking with that?

bear2be2 said:

---

Piggybacking off my post about FPI and better computer ranking/predictive systems, here's a good web site that ranks them by year for accuracy.

FPI's average ranking since it was created is about 13th. And you're almost always just better off using the Vegas line.

https://www.thepredictiontracker.com/ncaaresults.php?year=24

---

Do you believe that there is a statistically significant difference between being right 72% of the time vs 70% of the time? If not, then the point here isn't clear as the top predictors - including FPI- are all in the same range.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Piggybacking off my post about FPI and better computer ranking/predictive systems, here's a good web site that ranks them by year for accuracy.

FPI's average ranking since it was created is about 13th. And you're almost always just better off using the Vegas line.

https://www.thepredictiontracker.com/ncaaresults.php?year=24

---

Do you believe that there is a statistically significant difference between being right 72% of the time vs 70% of the time? If not, then the point here isn't clear as the top predictors - including FPI- are all in the same range.

---

I believe a predictive stat that is worse than just blindly following the Vegas line has no reason to exist, particularly when it doesn't work at all as a power ranking.

Even Bama & Georgia should be required to earn that level of esteem each year. Every team has the potential for a down year or two, even the best. With Saban gone, we cannot assume anything about how good Bama will be.

IowaBear said:

---

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

---

Almost any team that runs the table should be in or at least be given serious consideration. The expanded playoff should never be a mere tool for P2 unearned glory.

Agreed. I'm not sure that many teams will objectively deserve to get in but they probably will anyway. Same is probably true for the Big 10. That's why the new ESPN Blue Blood Invitational (aka playoff) might not be much better than the old version.

I agree except I don't think the SEC will have that many teams that deserve it each year. For most of the past 10+ years Texas has been mediocre at best. Running to the SEC did not automatically make them better, although they clearly were better last year and have looked very good so far this year. Ironically, OU has not looked so good lately and certainly do not deserve any automatic contention. Neither does anyone else in any conference, not even Georgia or OSU.

Getting into the playoffs should be earned every year by every team. Georgia will probably have another very good year so they probably are a lock. If they earn it on the field then they deserve it. Bama is more of a question mark sans Saban but they still have a good shot. To be honest, so far Texas has looked like the best in the SEC and probably will deserve it most, if trends continue.

I still believe the cfb playoffs should resemble March Madness as much as possible.

muddybrazos said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

So if your upset about Mizzou ranking does that make you upset Okie St was ranked

---

I'm not upset about it.

I'm merely pointing out the absurdity of the system that has been in place for decades and how the SEC benefits the most from it.

---

When you have most of the best teams you get the benefit of the doubt.

---

But they don't have most of the best. In recent years, the SEC has only had 1-2 of the best each year. This year might be different.

SEC had 4 teams last season who won 11 games. That classifies as more than 1 or 2 good teams. At least in my book.

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

So if your upset about Mizzou ranking does that make you upset Okie St was ranked

---

I'm not upset about it.

I'm merely pointing out the absurdity of the system that has been in place for decades and how the SEC benefits the most from it.

---

When you have most of the best teams you get the benefit of the doubt.

---

When you don't have most of the best teams (2000-2012) why get the benefit of the doubt?

---

So why didnt auburn get the benefit of SEC bias in their undefeated season in 04? the b12 was on par with the SEC back in those days. It's 2024 and SEC is by far the best conf and its not close.

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

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.

---

The AP gave them a national championship anyway.

---

Is that your way of back tracking on your statement that USC "absolutely got the benefit of the doubt" in 2003?

Or are you still sticking with that?

---

My point is that the subjective component of declaring the champion picked USC. The objective component (BCS computers) picked LSU.

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

So if your upset about Mizzou ranking does that make you upset Okie St was ranked

---

I'm not upset about it.

I'm merely pointing out the absurdity of the system that has been in place for decades and how the SEC benefits the most from it.

---

When you have most of the best teams you get the benefit of the doubt.

---

When you don't have most of the best teams (2000-2012) why get the benefit of the doubt?

---

So are you saying that the SEC didn't have most of the best teams between 2000 and 2012? They only had four teams that won national championships between 2003 and 2012. Three teams won multiple championships during that span. In that span, Auburn won one championship and was denied the opportunity to play for another even though they were undefeated; LSU won two championships; Florida won two championships; and Alabama won three championships. Three teams out of the SEC West alone won championships.

Was that all due to media bias? The media still gave a national championship to USC in 2003 despite the BCS computers not awarding them the championship game. What more does the SEC have to do to demonstrate it has multiple teams with great programs? Having that many great programs can also undermine a conferences' ability to produce a national championship because it is difficult to come out unscathed - Especially out of the Former SEC West. The second best team in the west might be the second best team in the country for all we know, but they would never have an opportunity to prove it.

historian said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

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

---

Almost any team that runs the table should be in or at least be given serious consideration. The expanded playoff should never be a mere tool for P2 unearned glory.

---

With 12 playoff spots, any team that is undefeated needs to be in. Doesn't matter how their schedule looked. That is a pretty easy move to enhance the legitimacy of the playoff system, and let's be honest, you'd be putting a 3 loss Penn State or some such in their place that simply did not earn the spot.

GoodOleBaylorLine said:

---

historian said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

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

---

Almost any team that runs the table should be in or at least be given serious consideration. The expanded playoff should never be a mere tool for P2 unearned glory.

---

With 12 playoff spots, any team that is undefeated needs to be in. Doesn't matter how their schedule looked. That is a pretty easy move to enhance the legitimacy of the playoff system, and let's be honest, you'd be putting a 3 loss Penn State or some such in their place that simply did not earn the spot.

---

It's unlikely that 3 loss teams will be in play - unless they lose their conference title game - since the main conferences are so large that they will produce several teams with 2 losses or less.

Chuckroast said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

So if your upset about Mizzou ranking does that make you upset Okie St was ranked

---

I'm not upset about it.

I'm merely pointing out the absurdity of the system that has been in place for decades and how the SEC benefits the most from it.

---

When you have most of the best teams you get the benefit of the doubt.

---

When you don't have most of the best teams (2000-2012) why get the benefit of the doubt?

---

So are you saying that the SEC didn't have most of the best teams between 2000 and 2012? They only had four teams that won national championships between 2003 and 2012. Three teams won multiple championships during that span.

---

No, they did not. They only appear to have the best teams because other deserving teams were left out. USC was repeatedly left out, Oregon was left out at least once, but perhaps twice.

The SEC was invited more often, but not deservedly so. You cannot win if you don't get to play. So the idea the SEC was the best in that era is absurd.

muddybrazos said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

So if your upset about Mizzou ranking does that make you upset Okie St was ranked

---

I'm not upset about it.

I'm merely pointing out the absurdity of the system that has been in place for decades and how the SEC benefits the most from it.

---

When you have most of the best teams you get the benefit of the doubt.

---

When you don't have most of the best teams (2000-2012) why get the benefit of the doubt?

---

So why didnt auburn get the benefit of SEC bias in their undefeated season in 04? the b12 was on par with the SEC back in those days. It's 2024 and SEC is by far the best conf and its not close.

---

Yes it can be argued a deserving auburn was left out that year. Just like it can be argued that +20 deserving teams not in the sec were left out from 2000-2018. the sec was not the best from 2000-2012, they just got invited more often due to muscling the system.

I'm not arguing the sec hasn't been very good lately. But to call them the best in 2024, before the season even started is kind of ridiculous and points to bias and nothing more.

Let me ask you this - at the start of 2023, before a game was played, who was the best conference?

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

So if your upset about Mizzou ranking does that make you upset Okie St was ranked

---

I'm not upset about it.

I'm merely pointing out the absurdity of the system that has been in place for decades and how the SEC benefits the most from it.

---

When you have most of the best teams you get the benefit of the doubt.

---

When you don't have most of the best teams (2000-2012) why get the benefit of the doubt?

---

So why didnt auburn get the benefit of SEC bias in their undefeated season in 04? the b12 was on par with the SEC back in those days. It's 2024 and SEC is by far the best conf and its not close.

---

Yes it can be argued a deserving auburn was left out that year. Just like it can be argued that +20 deserving teams not in the sec were left out from 2000-2012. the sec was not the best those days, they just got invited more often due to muscling the system.

I'm not arguing the sec isn't best in 2024.

Let me ask you this - at the start of 2023, who was the best conference? The SEC, right? How did that work out in the end?

---

I'm not saying the SEC will win the championship every year although I do believe they will most years. If we had a 12 team playoff in 2023, Georgia gets in, and there's your likely 2023 national champion.