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?

---

The point of this question is unclear. For example: the Big 12 is usually the best basketball conference. How does that work out when the Big 12 doesn't win the men's NCAA tournament? Does it change the fact that the Big 12 is the best basketball conference? Of course not.

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?

---

What more does the SEC have to do to demonstrate it has multiple teams with great programs?

---

As related to the BCS era, what exactly did the sec demonstrate during the 2 team invitational era? You would probably say they won more MNC's, right? Anyone can see the results, it's obvious right?

Well, it's simple really. They were invited more often. That doesn't mean they were the best conference, it just means they had more opportunity to play.

You cannot win if you aren't being allowed to play. It's as simple as that.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

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?

---

The point of this question is unclear.

---

Thank you for letting me know.

I'll rephrase. Who was considered the best conference at the start of 2023?

IowaBear said:

---

SEC had 4 teams last season who won 11 games.

---

If the sec played 9 conference games like the b10, b12 and old p12, would that have been the result?

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

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?

---

What more does the SEC have to do to demonstrate it has multiple teams with great programs?

---

As related to the BCS era, what exactly did the sec demonstrate during the 2 team invitational era? You would probably say they won more MNC's, right? Anyone can see the results, it's obvious right?

Well, it's simple really. They were invited more often. That doesn't mean they were the best conference, it just means they had more opportunity to play.

You cannot win if you aren't being allowed to play. It's as simple as that.

---

The BCS era endeavored to take complete subjectivity out of the determination by introducing unbiased computers as a metric. That's when the SEC started having the opportunity to gather more NCs. You have it backwards. A team like Auburn is never going to have the media attention of USC, Ohio State, or Notre Dame.

When you consider the recruiting dominance and NFL draft success of the SEC over the last 20 years, it confirms they had a good product on the field.

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

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?

---

The point of this question is unclear.

---

Thank you for letting me know.

Who was considered the best conference at the start of 2023? Let me know if that isn't clear. I'll await your answer.

---

Why did you only quote part of my post? It makes it seem like it wasn't clear what was being said.

EDIT: If you want to be bad faith, be bad faith, but don't do so under the guise of good faith discourse.

Yes most likely. Those 4 squads were damm good and proved it all year

Chuckroast said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

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?

---

What more does the SEC have to do to demonstrate it has multiple teams with great programs?

---

As related to the BCS era, what exactly did the sec demonstrate during the 2 team invitational era? You would probably say they won more MNC's, right? Anyone can see the results, it's obvious right?

Well, it's simple really. They were invited more often. That doesn't mean they were the best conference, it just means they had more opportunity to play.

You cannot win if you aren't being allowed to play. It's as simple as that.

---

The BCS era endeavored to take complete subjectivity out of the determination by introducing unbiased computers as a metric. That's when the SEC started having the opportunity to gather more NCs. You have it backwards. A team like Auburn is never going to have the media attention of USC, Ohio State, or Notre Dame.

---

The SEC was invited more. It does not mean they were better.

A 2 team invitational does not prove anything, except that there will be a a winner of that game. It was not a real playoff, just like the 4 team invitational was not a real playoff.

If your argument is based on solely who wins the natty yearly than we can't sit here and claim the B12 has the best basketball conference now can we? After all we haven't won a title since KU in 22.
See how silly that sounds. B12 is definitely the toughest BB conference. Just like the SEC is undoubtedly the best FB conference. I don't see how people can argue otherwise with a straight face.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

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?

---

The point of this question is unclear.

---

Thank you for letting me know.

Who was considered the best conference at the start of 2023? Let me know if that isn't clear. I'll await your answer.

---

Why did you only quote part of my post? It makes it seem like it wasn't clear what was being said.

EDIT: If you want to be bad faith, be bad faith, but don't do so under the guise of good faith discourse.

---

You said the question was unclear, so I rephrased it. Here it is again.

Who was considered the best conference before the start of 2023?

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

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?

---

What more does the SEC have to do to demonstrate it has multiple teams with great programs?

---

As related to the BCS era, what exactly did the sec demonstrate during the 2 team invitational era? You would probably say they won more MNC's, right? Anyone can see the results, it's obvious right?

Well, it's simple really. They were invited more often. That doesn't mean they were the best conference, it just means they had more opportunity to play.

You cannot win if you aren't being allowed to play. It's as simple as that.

---

The BCS era endeavored to take complete subjectivity out of the determination by introducing unbiased computers as a metric. That's when the SEC started having the opportunity to gather more NCs. You have it backwards. A team like Auburn is never going to have the media attention of USC, Ohio State, or Notre Dame.

---

The SEC was invited more. It does not mean they were better.

A 2 team invitational does not prove anything, except that there will be a a winner of that game. It was not a real playoff, just like the 4 team invitational was not a real playoff.

---

The early BCS years are confirmed by the playoff era which gave more P5 conferences the opportunity to be represented. The Playoff era started during the 2014/2015 season. In those 10 play offs, the SEC has won six national championships and been runner-up four times. No other conference is remotely close to that. In fact, that is better than all of the other P5 conferences combined.

IowaBear said:

---

If your argument is based on solely who wins the natty yearly than we can't sit here and claim the B12 has the best basketball conference now can we? After all we haven't won a title since KU in 22.
See how silly that sounds. B12 is definitely the toughest BB conference. Just like the SEC is undoubtedly the best FB conference. I don't see how people can argue otherwise with a straight face.

---

I'm not sure what you are referring to as you did not quote anything.

You ask who the best conference was at the start of 23…. Referring to the fact the SEC didn't win the title last year.
You know exactly what I was responding to come on now.

Chuckroast said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

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?

---

What more does the SEC have to do to demonstrate it has multiple teams with great programs?

---

As related to the BCS era, what exactly did the sec demonstrate during the 2 team invitational era? You would probably say they won more MNC's, right? Anyone can see the results, it's obvious right?

Well, it's simple really. They were invited more often. That doesn't mean they were the best conference, it just means they had more opportunity to play.

You cannot win if you aren't being allowed to play. It's as simple as that.

---

The BCS era endeavored to take complete subjectivity out of the determination by introducing unbiased computers as a metric. That's when the SEC started having the opportunity to gather more NCs. You have it backwards. A team like Auburn is never going to have the media attention of USC, Ohio State, or Notre Dame.

---

The SEC was invited more. It does not mean they were better.

A 2 team invitational does not prove anything, except that there will be a a winner of that game. It was not a real playoff, just like the 4 team invitational was not a real playoff.

---

The early BCS years are confirmed by the playoff era which gave more P5 conferences the opportunity to be represented. The Playoff era started during the 2014/2015 season.

---

Now so it looks like we have moved away from the BCS era to the 4 team invitational era. Two different topics altogether.

If we are talking about the 4 team invitational era now, it's not a playoff. It's a group of people picking teams to play in an invitational. There isn't anything playoff about it.

I agree the sec has dominated the 4 team invitational era.

IowaBear said:

---

You ask who the best conference was at the start of 23…. Referring to the fact the SEC didn't win the title last year.
You know exactly what I was responding to come on now.

---

I don't know if you are replying to something I wrote, or something someone else wrote.

I don't know what you are asking because you aren't quoting anything.

I'll ask you one simple question. In your opinion which conference has been the best the last 15-20 years?
You seem to be strongly against the idea that it's the SEC. So in your opinion which conference is it.

IowaBear said:

---

Yes most likely.

---

So, without them even playing, you are awarding them the win. That says a lot.

Yes it says those teams were all 11-2 and the 2 "lesser" programs beat Ohio St and Penn St during bowl season. Those teams played 1 less conference game and still played more difficult schedules than anyone in the JV league does on a yearly basis. Let's just say for your argument because god forbid we assume a win. Is 10-3 bad? Seems like a huge reach to crap on the best conference in CFB by miles

IowaBear said:

---

I'll ask you one simple question. In your opinion which conference has been the best the last 15-20 years?
You seem to be strongly against the idea that it's the SEC. So in your opinion which conference is it.

---

I don't have the statistics at hand, but I would look at P5 vs P5 stats before giving a response.

If we are merely going off the invitational results, the sec gets the nod for the last 15.

Individual results would imply 1 team has dominated from a natty perspective correct? In the last 15 years the SeC has had 5 different teams with titles. That alone should end any debate imo.

IowaBear said:

---

Yes

---

Well, you and I will never see eye to eye on that.

You don't know the outcome of those 4 additional games because we don't know what the matchups would have been and for the most obvious reason - they weren't played.

There have been numerous teams from the P12/B12/B10 who were left out title conversations because of 1 loss. If those conferences played only 8 conference games, those teams may have gone undefeated and been invited to those titles games.

1 game, can make a huge difference..

Mizzou and Ole Miss weren't in the title discussion.
Historian state last year the SEC had only 1-2 good teams. I merely stated that's factually incorrect. They had 4 good teams. You don't win 11 games by being crappy.
Btw there's nothing wrong with us not seeing eye to eye. That would make these boards boring

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 hasn't been good lately. But to call them the best in 2024, before the season is complete is kind of ridiculous and points to bias and nothing more.

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?

---

Georgia wouldve beat the brakes off Michigan but they were the best team that got left out.

muddybrazos said:

---

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 hasn't been good lately. But to call them the best in 2024, before the season is complete is kind of ridiculous and points to bias and nothing more.

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?

---

Georgia wouldve beat the brakes off Michigan but they were the best team that got left out.

---

This. The SEC was the best conference in 2023 - and everyone knows that - and the fact that Michigan won the national title that season doesn't change that. Fortunately for the SEC, they added OU and UT so that there is now no meaningful room for debate.

IowaBear said:

---

Mizzou and Ole Miss weren't in the title discussion.

---

I only point out title discussions to show how even 1 game can make a huge difference. It could prevent a team from going bowling, or drop it down a peg from a really good bowl to a **** bowl. It could even leave a team out of a title game.

The sec has 16 teams now? If they played 9 conference games, that would mean 8 additional guaranteed losses across the conference.

The sec has been dodging that 9th game for decades.

jikespingleton said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

Mizzou and Ole Miss weren't in the title discussion.

---

I only point out title discussions to show how even 1 game can make a huge difference. It could prevent a team from going bowling, or drop it down a peg from a really good bowl to a **** bowl. It could even leave a team out of a title game.

The sec has 16 teams now? If they played 9 conference games, that would mean 8 additional guaranteed losses across the conference.

The sec has been dodging that 9th game for decades.

---

But most of those SEC teams play good teams OOC. Florida plays FSU, Carolina plays Clemson, Georgia plays Clemson, Texas plays MIch etc. The SEC plays plenty of tough games and none of them have Briles era 3 cupcake games.

muddybrazos said:

---

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 2000-2018. 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 good lately. But to call them the best in 2024, before the season is complete 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?

---

Georgia wouldve beat the brakes off Michigan but they were the best team that got left out.

---

I agree that a team cannot win if they don't get invited.

IowaBear said:

---

You ask who the best conference was at the start of 23…. Referring to the fact the SEC didn't win the title last year.
You know exactly what I was responding to come on now.

---

If you don't quote, I don't know what you are replying to and I don't have enough time to scroll back and figure it out.

As far as who was the best conference at the start of 2023 - I'm pointing to the fallacy involved in the FBS

News / media / people claim who is the best, without a game being played. It's a fallacy.

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

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?

---

What more does the SEC have to do to demonstrate it has multiple teams with great programs?

---

As related to the BCS era, what exactly did the sec demonstrate during the 2 team invitational era? You would probably say they won more MNC's, right? Anyone can see the results, it's obvious right?

Well, it's simple really. They were invited more often. That doesn't mean they were the best conference, it just means they had more opportunity to play.

You cannot win if you aren't being allowed to play. It's as simple as that.

---

Who do you think the best conference has been the past 7 years?

muddybrazos said:

---

jikespingleton said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

Mizzou and Ole Miss weren't in the title discussion.

---

I only point out title discussions to show how even 1 game can make a huge difference. It could prevent a team from going bowling, or drop it down a peg from a really good bowl to a **** bowl. It could even leave a team out of a title game.

The sec has 16 teams now? If they played 9 conference games, that would mean 8 additional guaranteed losses across the conference.

The sec has been dodging that 9th game for decades.

---

But most of those SEC teams play good teams OOC. Florida plays FSU, Carolina plays Clemson, Georgia plays Clemson, Texas plays MIch etc. The SEC plays plenty of tough games and none of them have Briles era 3 cupcake games.

---

Furman/Middle Tennessee/Wake Forest/Georgia Southern say hello (Ole Miss)

So do:

Murray St/Buffalo/UMass (Mizzou)
ColoSt/UTSA/La-Monroe (UT)
Alabama A&M/New Mexico/La-Monroe (Auburn)
Murray St/Ohio/Southern Miss (UK)
Akron/Old Dominion/Wofford (SCar)
McNeese/Bowling Green/NMSt (Aggy)
E Kentucky/Toledo**/UMass (MissSt)
AlcornSt/GeorgiaSt**/BallSt (Vandy)
Chattanooga/KentSt/UTEP (other UT)


But hey, kudos to UGA, LSU and Florida for scheduling 2 P4 noncon opponents and thus equaling the 10 that every other P4 team plays.



**scheduled a cupcake, and lost at home

whitetrash said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

jikespingleton said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

Mizzou and Ole Miss weren't in the title discussion.

---

I only point out title discussions to show how even 1 game can make a huge difference. It could prevent a team from going bowling, or drop it down a peg from a really good bowl to a **** bowl. It could even leave a team out of a title game.

The sec has 16 teams now? If they played 9 conference games, that would mean 8 additional guaranteed losses across the conference.

The sec has been dodging that 9th game for decades.

---

But most of those SEC teams play good teams OOC. Florida plays FSU, Carolina plays Clemson, Georgia plays Clemson, Texas plays MIch etc. The SEC plays plenty of tough games and none of them have Briles era 3 cupcake games.

---

Furman/Middle Tennessee/Wake Forest/Georgia Southern say hello (Ole Miss)

So do:

Murray St/Buffalo/UMass (Mizzou)
ColoSt/UTSA/La-Monroe (UT)
Alabama A&M/New Mexico/La-Monroe (Auburn)
Murray St/Ohio/Southern Miss (UK)
Akron/Old Dominion/Wofford (SCar)
McNeese/Bowling Green/NMSt (Aggy)
E Kentucky/Toledo**/UMass (MissSt)
AlcornSt/GeorgiaSt**/BallSt (Vandy)
Chattanooga/KentSt/UTEP (other UT)


But hey, kudos to UGA, LSU and Florida for scheduling 2 P4 noncon opponents and thus equaling the 10 that every other P4 team plays.



**scheduled a cupcake, and lost at home

---

Lol, Wake is a P4 team and Ga Southern is basically like Texas st who kicked our ass last year and probably would this year.
Colo St and UTSA arent cupcake type games. Maybe UTSA took a step back this year but thats how the chips fall. Colo St damn near beat the buffs.
As for the rest who cares bc they arent really in contention for anything except Mizz. Also, counting Mac teams as cupcake games isnt really fair. Ohio beat Iowa state last year and N. Ill beat ND this year. Bowling Green darn near beat aggy. Those teams arent exactly Tarleton or some SoCon school.

muddybrazos said:

---

whitetrash said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

jikespingleton said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

Mizzou and Ole Miss weren't in the title discussion.

---

I only point out title discussions to show how even 1 game can make a huge difference. It could prevent a team from going bowling, or drop it down a peg from a really good bowl to a **** bowl. It could even leave a team out of a title game.

The sec has 16 teams now? If they played 9 conference games, that would mean 8 additional guaranteed losses across the conference.

The sec has been dodging that 9th game for decades.

---

But most of those SEC teams play good teams OOC. Florida plays FSU, Carolina plays Clemson, Georgia plays Clemson, Texas plays MIch etc. The SEC plays plenty of tough games and none of them have Briles era 3 cupcake games.

---

Furman/Middle Tennessee/Wake Forest/Georgia Southern say hello (Ole Miss)

So do:

Murray St/Buffalo/UMass (Mizzou)
ColoSt/UTSA/La-Monroe (UT)
Alabama A&M/New Mexico/La-Monroe (Auburn)
Murray St/Ohio/Southern Miss (UK)
Akron/Old Dominion/Wofford (SCar)
McNeese/Bowling Green/NMSt (Aggy)
E Kentucky/Toledo**/UMass (MissSt)
AlcornSt/GeorgiaSt**/BallSt (Vandy)
Chattanooga/KentSt/UTEP (other UT)


But hey, kudos to UGA, LSU and Florida for scheduling 2 P4 noncon opponents and thus equaling the 10 that every other P4 team plays.



**scheduled a cupcake, and lost at home

---

Lol, Wake is a P4 team and Ga Southern is basically like Texas st who kicked our ass last year and probably would this year.
Colo St and UTSA arent cupcake type games. Maybe UTSA took a step back this year but thats how the chips fall. Colo St damn near beat the buffs.
As for the rest who cares bc they arent really in contention for anything except Mizz. Also, counting Mac teams as cupcake games isnt really fair. Ohio beat Iowa state last year and N. Ill beat ND this year. Bowling Green darn near beat aggy. Those teams arent exactly Tarleton or some SoCon school.

---

Absolutely - there are plenty of teams outside of the P4 that are non-cupcake games and also many harder than some P4 teams.

Chuckroast said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

whitetrash said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

jikespingleton said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

Mizzou and Ole Miss weren't in the title discussion.

---

I only point out title discussions to show how even 1 game can make a huge difference. It could prevent a team from going bowling, or drop it down a peg from a really good bowl to a **** bowl. It could even leave a team out of a title game.

The sec has 16 teams now? If they played 9 conference games, that would mean 8 additional guaranteed losses across the conference.

The sec has been dodging that 9th game for decades.

---

But most of those SEC teams play good teams OOC. Florida plays FSU, Carolina plays Clemson, Georgia plays Clemson, Texas plays MIch etc. The SEC plays plenty of tough games and none of them have Briles era 3 cupcake games.

---

Furman/Middle Tennessee/Wake Forest/Georgia Southern say hello (Ole Miss)

So do:

Murray St/Buffalo/UMass (Mizzou)
ColoSt/UTSA/La-Monroe (UT)
Alabama A&M/New Mexico/La-Monroe (Auburn)
Murray St/Ohio/Southern Miss (UK)
Akron/Old Dominion/Wofford (SCar)
McNeese/Bowling Green/NMSt (Aggy)
E Kentucky/Toledo**/UMass (MissSt)
AlcornSt/GeorgiaSt**/BallSt (Vandy)
Chattanooga/KentSt/UTEP (other UT)


But hey, kudos to UGA, LSU and Florida for scheduling 2 P4 noncon opponents and thus equaling the 10 that every other P4 team plays.



**scheduled a cupcake, and lost at home

---

Lol, Wake is a P4 team and Ga Southern is basically like Texas st who kicked our ass last year and probably would this year.
Colo St and UTSA arent cupcake type games. Maybe UTSA took a step back this year but thats how the chips fall. Colo St damn near beat the buffs.
As for the rest who cares bc they arent really in contention for anything except Mizz. Also, counting Mac teams as cupcake games isnt really fair. Ohio beat Iowa state last year and N. Ill beat ND this year. Bowling Green darn near beat aggy. Those teams arent exactly Tarleton or some SoCon school.

---

Absolutely - there are plenty of teams outside of the P4 that are non-cupcake games and also many harder than some P4 teams.

---

James Madison just hung 70 on North Carolina in Chapel Hill.

Chuckroast said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

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?

---

What more does the SEC have to do to demonstrate it has multiple teams with great programs?

---

As related to the BCS era, what exactly did the sec demonstrate during the 2 team invitational era? You would probably say they won more MNC's, right? Anyone can see the results, it's obvious right?

Well, it's simple really. They were invited more often. That doesn't mean they were the best conference, it just means they had more opportunity to play.

You cannot win if you aren't being allowed to play. It's as simple as that.

---

The BCS era endeavored to take complete subjectivity out of the determination by introducing unbiased computers as a metric. That's when the SEC started having the opportunity to gather more NCs. You have it backwards. A team like Auburn is never going to have the media attention of USC, Ohio State, or Notre Dame.

When you consider the recruiting dominance and NFL draft success of the SEC over the last 20 years, it confirms they had a good product on the field.

---

The BCS originated with that intent. It didn't take long for them to shift the power from objective computer models back to subjective polls.

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

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?

---

What more does the SEC have to do to demonstrate it has multiple teams with great programs?

---

As related to the BCS era, what exactly did the sec demonstrate during the 2 team invitational era? You would probably say they won more MNC's, right? Anyone can see the results, it's obvious right?

Well, it's simple really. They were invited more often. That doesn't mean they were the best conference, it just means they had more opportunity to play.

You cannot win if you aren't being allowed to play. It's as simple as that.

---

The BCS era endeavored to take complete subjectivity out of the determination by introducing unbiased computers as a metric. That's when the SEC started having the opportunity to gather more NCs. You have it backwards. A team like Auburn is never going to have the media attention of USC, Ohio State, or Notre Dame.

When you consider the recruiting dominance and NFL draft success of the SEC over the last 20 years, it confirms they had a good product on the field.

---

The BCS originated with that intent. It didn't take long for them to shift the power from objective computer models back to subjective polls.

---

Yes that's why I said that the BCS computers were simply a metric of the overall determination. Still, that was better than complete subjectivity, which is what we had before.