I know it was wrong or whatever.

But it worked. I was in north end zone with the Horns missus and she would have killed me if I participated lol. I think it came from student section at first.

I get it. I understand all the "grown up" stuff and would not want my kid to behave like that.

BUT a non-reviewable play got reviewed and a penalty got reversed.

My opinion FWIW
THE reason the fine is $250K is because the league recognizes that their response to the episode set a precedent. And the fine had to be high enough that it won't happen again next week.

Refs miss calls sometimes and that can change outcomes. Can even make the difference in recruiting or drafting or play time for athletes. So I get the reaction. My wife was mortified.

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

boykin_spaniel said:

---

I will not take this slander against the real UT with my Bears struggling this year. GBO! Our Volunteers are why Texas is a state so yes we are the real UT besides the fact the university was founded before Texas was even a country or state much less had a university.

---

I'm with you on Tennessee, but they have looked like a different team ever since Oklahoma… Like they're playing not to lose. They have a really good quarterback from Nashville coming next year, and I hope he gets a shot to compete against Nico if Nico doesn't start pulling it together.

---

They finally started playing real defenses, and Nico started looking like a freshman.

Tennessee, Ole Miss and Missouri all had their "unstoppable" offenses exposed once their schedules toughened.

---

NC State is not exactly chopped liver. They were actually ranked at the time TN beat them 51-10.

---

NC State isn't good this year. The ranking system is meaningless and without merit, so whatever 'rank' they were given is irrelevant.

---

NC State is 3-4 with 4 P5 losses. They were outclassed by Clemson and TN and blew out a lower-level team. They also beat N Illinois (who was formerly ranked after beating Notre Dame) and had a 1 score loss to 5-1 Syracuse. I'm not arguing they are a good team, but they are on par with many of the teams in the Big 12 and are not chopped liver. It's ironic that some want to give Rhule's 2019 team undue credit for narrowly beating a slate of teams similar or worse to this year's NC State team

---

Your position is based on multiple fallacies. The first, that rankings have merit - they don't. The second fallacy is using the transitive property in sports and not only that but you are trying to do it across conferences and teams that span 5 years apart.. The third, is giving merit to a MAC team.

---

The biggest flaw is mentioning P4 losses as a feather in the cap without making the more meaningful point that NC State has yet to beat a single P4 opponent.

In fact, their only wins are over a 3-3 FCS team in Western Carolina, a 2-4 CUSA team in Louisiana Tech and a MAC team that lost to Buffalo the week before in Northern Illinois. And none of those wins were particularly impressive in terms of game control.

Tennessee's a good, solid team that will likely have a solid resume at the end of the year. But trying to use that NC State win as evidence this late in the season, with what we now know about that team, is ludicrous. Their "ranked wins" over NC State and Oklahoma have lost a ton of their punch.

---

It wasn't the fact that UT won, it was the manner in which they dominated them. I acknowledge that NC State is not a good team this year . . . I've said so all along. However, NC State is also not a creampuff non-com game (that's been the point I have consistently made). Dismantling them 51-10 in Charlotte is more impressive than dismantling the likes of S Dakota State and Lindenwood. NC State is not good, but they are still on par with most of our B12 competition. I don't see many of our conference brethren beating each other 51-10 regardless of whether one team is having a down year or not. NC State was a ranked team that played Kansas State in a bowl game last year.

---

NC State has a solid program. But I don't care what they did in previous years.

---

The problem with your post is that it's based on logic.

This is CFB - we don't use logic, balanced scheduling or a real playoff system. We make up rankings based on prior years and a programs namesake and create committees to tell us who the best teams are.

The challenge for the Big 12 is usually a lack of meaningful regular season out of conference wins. At this point in the season, the SEC has wins over 6-1 Clemson, 5-2 Wisconsin, 4-3 Virginia Tech, 4-3 Boston College, 4-3 Michigan, 4-4 NC State, etc. with additional opportunities for wins over 6-1 Clemson, 5-3 Georgia Tech, 4-3 Louisville, etc.

In the case of the Big 12, it's been a win over 6-1 SMU and then wins over 4-3 Arkansas and 4-3 Iowa. That's fine, but that's not how the conference builds its case relative to other conferences - especially with maintaining a larger conference than the SEC. While it's true that there were some non conference games against conference opponents this season, this issue is not limited to this season.

Valid point.

At least Baylor is doing its part going forward with home & home series against Oregon & Auburn. We need to have more like this: Ole Miss, Arky, Wisconsin, Miami, etc

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

The challenge for the Big 12 is usually a lack of meaningful regular season out of conference wins. At this point in the season, the SEC has wins over 6-1 Clemson, 5-2 Wisconsin, 4-3 Virginia Tech, 4-3 Boston College, 4-3 Michigan, 4-4 NC State, etc. with additional opportunities for wins over 6-1 Clemson, 5-3 Georgia Tech, 4-3 Louisville, etc.

In the case of the Big 12, it's been a win over 6-1 SMU and then wins over 4-3 Arkansas and 4-3 Iowa. That's fine, but that's not how the conference builds its case relative to other conferences - especially with maintaining a larger conference than the SEC. While it's true that there were some non conference games against conference opponents this season, this issue is not limited to this season.

---

Clemson is the only feather in the cap win on that list. The others are OK, but they're likely going to be over 7-5 or 6-6 type teams by the end of the year.

The SEC usually does have more good out-of-conference wins than other leagues, but this season, that list isn't terribly impressive. Whether it's a one-off deal or not, the SEC's dominance gap has closed considerably this year, and that needs to be acknowledged when it's the case.

I have no problem crediting that league when it is head and shoulders above the field, as it has often been in the past 15-20 years. But that's not the case in 2024. A lot of the teams that folks tried to convince us in September were dominant this season simply aren't. It's Georgia, Texas and a bunch of good, but vulnerable teams after that. And Georgia has only looked dominant in spurts.

historian said:

---

Valid point.

At least Baylor is doing its part going forward with home & home series against Oregon & Auburn. We need to have more like this: Ole Miss, Arky, Wisconsin, Miami, etc

---

We play Auburn and SMU next year. I can't imagine there are many other teams -- if any -- that are playing 11 of their 12 games against P4 competition.

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

The challenge for the Big 12 is usually a lack of meaningful regular season out of conference wins. At this point in the season, the SEC has wins over 6-1 Clemson, 5-2 Wisconsin, 4-3 Virginia Tech, 4-3 Boston College, 4-3 Michigan, 4-4 NC State, etc. with additional opportunities for wins over 6-1 Clemson, 5-3 Georgia Tech, 4-3 Louisville, etc.

In the case of the Big 12, it's been a win over 6-1 SMU and then wins over 4-3 Arkansas and 4-3 Iowa. That's fine, but that's not how the conference builds its case relative to other conferences - especially with maintaining a larger conference than the SEC. While it's true that there were some non conference games against conference opponents this season, this issue is not limited to this season.

---

Clemson is the only feather in the cap win on that list. The others are OK, but they're likely going to be over 7-5 or 6-6 type teams by the end of the year.

The SEC usually does have more good out-of-conference wins than other leagues, but this season, that list isn't terribly impressive. Whether it's a one-off deal or not, the SEC's dominance gap has closed considerably this year, and that needs to be acknowledged when it's the case.

I have no problem crediting that league when it is head and shoulders above the field, as it has often been in the past 15-20 years. But that's not the case in 2024. A lot of the teams that folks tried to convince us in September were dominant this season simply aren't. It's Georgia, Texas and a bunch of good, but vulnerable teams after that. And Georgia has only looked dominant in spurts.

---

The end of the year is the end of the year, but, right now, the SEC has a great collection of wins and such wins stabilize the rankings of the very SEC teams that many in this very forum whine about the rankings of. BYU, Oklahoma State and Iowa State have the only meaningful out of conference wins for the league as of this week and it's reflected in the rankings - or lack thereof - for the conference.

The key is regular season out of conference wins vs P5 opponents help stabilize rankings of P5s early in the season, and that is an area of weakness for the Big 12 that shows.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

The challenge for the Big 12 is usually a lack of meaningful regular season out of conference wins. At this point in the season, the SEC has wins over 6-1 Clemson, 5-2 Wisconsin, 4-3 Virginia Tech, 4-3 Boston College, 4-3 Michigan, 4-4 NC State, etc. with additional opportunities for wins over 6-1 Clemson, 5-3 Georgia Tech, 4-3 Louisville, etc.

In the case of the Big 12, it's been a win over 6-1 SMU and then wins over 4-3 Arkansas and 4-3 Iowa. That's fine, but that's not how the conference builds its case relative to other conferences - especially with maintaining a larger conference than the SEC. While it's true that there were some non conference games against conference opponents this season, this issue is not limited to this season.

---

Clemson is the only feather in the cap win on that list. The others are OK, but they're likely going to be over 7-5 or 6-6 type teams by the end of the year.

The SEC usually does have more good out-of-conference wins than other leagues, but this season, that list isn't terribly impressive. Whether it's a one-off deal or not, the SEC's dominance gap has closed considerably this year, and that needs to be acknowledged when it's the case.

I have no problem crediting that league when it is head and shoulders above the field, as it has often been in the past 15-20 years. But that's not the case in 2024. A lot of the teams that folks tried to convince us in September were dominant this season simply aren't. It's Georgia, Texas and a bunch of good, but vulnerable teams after that. And Georgia has only looked dominant in spurts.

---

The end of the year is the end of the year, but, right now, the SEC has a great collection of wins and such wins stabilize the rankings of the very SEC teams that many in this very forum whine about the rankings of. BYU, Oklahoma State and Iowa State have the only meaningful out of conference wins for the league as of this week and it's reflected in the rankings - or lack thereof - for the conference.

The key is regular season out of conference wins vs P5 opponents help stabilize rankings of P5s early in the season, and that is an area of weakness for the Big 12 that shows.

---

What helps "stabilize the rankings" (whatever the hell that means) for the SEC is starting every season with five or more teams in the top 10.

The problem people have with the way the SEC is represented in the rankings stems from the fact that it is perception and not results that start the ball rolling in a pre-determined direction.

By this point in the season, we have enough information to look at objective strength of schedule/strength of record data. And because of the influence of preseason biases, the current rankings are largely out of line with that data.

College football is -- and has always been -- more about perception than results. And the treatment of SEC also-rans is perhaps the most visible symptom of that illness.

You're leaving out the 4 team playoff. The Big12 never had a team win a game until TCU and they promptly got dismantled and the powers that be wrote it off as a fluke. I agree the SEC is not as strong as prior years but they get the benefit of the doubt because they've won most of the championships.

boykin_spaniel said:

---

You're leaving out the 4 team playoff. The Big12 never had a team win a game until TCU and they promptly got dismantled and the powers that be wrote it off as a fluke. I agree the SEC is not as strong as prior years but they get the benefit of the doubt because they've won most of the championships.

---

The SEC gets the benefit of the doubt because they manipulated the BCS system (if not ran it) and control the invitational era. They run the committee and determine how many teams get to play and who gets invited.

To call that a fair system is out of line with reality. I think most people don't think much of it because its just been that way for so long

boykin_spaniel said:

---

You're leaving out the 4 team playoff. The Big12 never had a team win a game until TCU and they promptly got dismantled and the powers that be wrote it off as a fluke. I agree the SEC is not as strong as prior years but they get the benefit of the doubt because they've won most of the championships.

---

I don't have a problem with the teams winning those titles getting a reasonable benefit of the doubt. I have a massive problem with the hangers-on in that league getting the same benefit of doubt by association. And no one can tell me with a straight face that it doesn't happen every single year and create a self-fulfilling hype cycle as a result.

And unfortunately, perception matters. If you don't believe, look how many posters tried to convince me in this thread that teams like Ole Miss, Missouri and even Tennessee were elite based on extremely limited and largely meaningless data in September.

Tennessee has an elite defense this year and would win the Big12 with it. I do agree that many of their teams outside the top dogs look average at best, but when your conference wins titles it trickles down to other teams. Not saying it's fair or I agree with it. The only way to change it is to win come playoff time. If we crap the bed in the expanded playoff continually it just adds fuel to the SEC and Big10 wanting more of their teams. If ISU, BYU, or KSU draws Missouri or Penn State they need to win that game and prove our top teams are better than 3rd and 4th place SEC/Big10 teams.

The Big12 had plenty of success under the BCS system. Plenty of highly ranked teams.

boykin_spaniel said:

---

Tennessee has an elite defense this year and would win the Big12 with it. I do agree that many of their teams outside the top dogs look average at best, but when your conference wins titles it trickles down to other teams. Not saying it's fair or I agree with it. The only way to change it is to win come playoff time. If we crap the bed in the expanded playoff continually it just adds fuel to the SEC and Big10 wanting more of their teams. If ISU, BYU, or KSU draws Missouri or Penn State they need to win that game and prove our top teams are better than 3rd and 4th place SEC/Big10 teams.

---

Tennessee's offense is becoming a problem, though. Since SEC play started, that unit hasn't even been average.

I can't call any team that is squeaking by the worst teams on its conference schedule elite, even if it has one elite unit.

That team looks more like our 2019 or 2021 team than it does a traditional SEC juggernaut. They're definitely good -- potentially very good. But they're playing the type of low-margin football that will lead to another loss (or two) eventually.

bear2be2 said:

---

It's Georgia, Texas and a bunch of good, but vulnerable teams after that. And Georgia has only looked dominant in spurts.

---

That's usually the case except in recent years it was Bama & Georgia. A few years ago it was LSU. There usually are 1-2 with potential to be more but they end up falling flat in November. This seems to be A&M every year except the covid year.

boykin_spaniel said:

---

The Big12 had plenty of success under the BCS system. Plenty of highly ranked teams.

---

I agree. I think whoever has been at the top of any P5 conference at any point throughout the year . . . and certainly any team that emerges out of a P5 conference . . . has gotten the benefit of the doubt when it comes to rankings.

It will be true for the top couple of teams in the Big12 this year regardless of how good those teams really are. Right now, it could be any number of different teams.

Because Florida State went undefeated in their conference last year, they finished with a very high ranking. It's unfortunate their QB got hurt, but everyone knew they were not a playoff caliber team as their 63-3 loss to Georgia in their bowl game demonstrated. The ACC was pretty anemic last year, so it's hard to say how good Fl State really was throughout last season.

The problem I have is that the fans of every P5 conference expect their conference to be looked at equally to the other conferences at the beginning of every year and that their champions should be looked at just as favorably as the champion of any other P5 conference.

If the quality of competition and relative strength of each conference is equal, then that makes sense, but if it isn't in fact equal, then teams with lesser records in top conferences are unfairly maligned as being middling. There have been years where the SEC has had the top 2 teams in the country. Should the 3rd or 4th ranked team in the conference be considered irrelevant? The SEC basically played musical chairs with six different champions over a 15-20 year period. They can't all be champions at once, but they can all be very good programs at the same time even though some may occasionally have a more pedestrian record due to the competition.

With the SEC's track record of success in championships, recruiting, and NFL draft picks, it's unrealistic to expect that the slate should be wiped clean every year. I believe Georgia was probably the best team in the country last year and probably would have been the odds favorite to win had they been voted to the playoffs, but their close loss in the SEC championship game to Alabama prevented them from getting in over other conference champions. In some ways the SEC has been penalized in the past, and the 12 team playoff will rectify that.

Chuckroast said:

---

The problem I have is that the fans of every P5 conference expect their conference to be looked at equally to the other conferences at the beginning of every year and that their champions should be looked at just as favorably as the champion of any other P5 conference.

If the quality of competition and relative strength of each conference is equal, then that makes sense, but if it isn't in fact equal, then teams with lesser records in top conferences are unfairly maligned as being middling. There have been years where the SEC has had the top 2 teams in the country. Should the 3rd or 4th ranked team in the conference be considered irrelevant? The SEC basically played musical chairs with six different champions over a 15-20 year period. They can't all be champions at once, but they can all be very good programs at the same time even though some may occasionally have a more pedestrian record due to the competition.

With the SEC's track record of success in championships, recruiting, and NFL draft picks, it's unrealistic to expect that the slate should be wiped clean every year. I believe Georgia was probably the best team in the country last year and probably would have been the odds favorite to win had they been voted to the playoffs, but their close loss in the SEC championship game to Alabama prevented them from getting in over other conference champions. In some ways the SEC has been penalized in the past, and the 12 team playoff will rectify that.

---

I don't think most have a problem with the SEC's champions being given special treatment. I think the problem people have is that teams like Ole Miss, Missouri, A&M, etc., get the same treatment while having done almost nothing historically to earn it.

The fact of the matter is that only Alabama, Georgia and LSU have been consistently elite -- or even close -- during this period of SEC dominance. Others have had one off teams that were really good or brief periods of prosperity but inevitably fall back to the pack after.

Why then do we give that same benefit of doubt to programs that prove year after year after year they don't deserve it? Those schools should have to earn their respect like everyone else does -- not start in the top 10 annually only to finish in the 20s or outside of the rankings altogether most years.

I don't know if LSU is still elite.

I think we agree overall. Obviously Notre Dame has done nothing to prove it's a legitimate top 5 team yet they frequently end up ranked there at some point because they are Notre Dame. They have one of the biggest fan bases and draw lots of eyeballs and clicks. Good for media whether they deserve the hype or not. Big state school SEC teams also draw lots of views and clicks. They also get assisted by Bama, UGA, and LSU winning national championships.

Non Big12 fans complain in basketball when a Big12 teams makes March Madness with a losing conference record. Similar to us Big12 fans complaining about 8-4 SEC team being talked about ahead of 10-2 Big12 team. Big12 has been cutting down the nets in March recently so our lower positioned bball teams get talked about more than mid tier other conference teams.

If we want to get more respect we have to earn it on the field to the point if it being impossible to ignore.

historian said:

---

I don't know if LSU is still elite.

---

I'm not saying this particular LSU team is elite. It's been several years since they last were IMO. But that program has performed at a consistently elite level compared to the rest of college football the past 20 years. Outside of the end of the Ed Orgeron era, their floor is about eight or nine wins, and their ceiling has always been national titles. Not many other programs nationwide can claim that.

boykin_spaniel said:

---

I think we agree overall. Obviously Notre Dame has done nothing to prove it's a legitimate top 5 team yet they frequently end up ranked there at some point because they are Notre Dame. They have one of the biggest fan bases and draw lots of eyeballs and clicks. Good for media whether they deserve the hype or not. Big state school SEC teams also draw lots of views and clicks. They also get assisted by Bama, UGA, and LSU winning national championships.

Non Big12 fans complain in basketball when a Big12 teams makes March Madness with a losing conference record. Similar to us Big12 fans complaining about 8-4 SEC team being talked about ahead of 10-2 Big12 team. Big12 has been cutting down the nets in March recently so our lower positioned bball teams get talked about more than mid tier other conference teams.

If we want to get more respect we have to earn it on the field to the point if it being impossible to ignore.

---

My argument isn't from a Big 12 fan's perspective here. It's just from a health of college football perspective. Overrating certain programs in basketball has no real impact on the sport because a) we have a real, robust playoff that sorts itself out, and b) the biggest arguments come from bubble teams, so who really cares? All truly deserving teams get the opportunity to prove on the court who is and is not legit during March.

College football is inherently different because perception drives literally everything.

The playoff has historically either not existed or been too small to include all worthy teams, so biased human beings and/or polls have always selected the pool from which the eventual winner will come. And the cutoff between the Nos. 2 and 3 teams or Nos. 4 and 5 teams has decided who has access into the process and who doesn't. When every single aspect of the process is designed to favor one or two conferences (or programs, in Notre Dame's case) -- and perception plays a large role in deciding who does and does not get access -- you're talking about a farcical system.

The SEC getting five teams in the top 10 every year -- two or three of which have no business being there -- creates a rippling effect because teams get massive bumps off beating what turn out to be average or worse teams. It's creates a self-perpetuating hype cycle.

I think the new, expanded playoff -- if it's allowed to play out organically -- will show that the SEC's hold on the sport isn't nearly as ironclad as many believe it to be. This is especially true in the NIL/portal era, which has had a clear parity-increasing effect in its own right. I just don't want to see the SEC and Big Ten rig the system further before we get to see how this all plays out. And I'm almost certain that's what's going to happen.

Chuckroast said:

---

The problem I have is that the fans of every P5 conference expect their conference to be looked at equally to the other conferences at the beginning of every year and that their champions should be looked at just as favorably as the champion of any other P5 conference.

If the quality of competition and relative strength of each conference is equal, then that makes sense, but if it isn't in fact equal, then teams with lesser records in top conferences are unfairly maligned as being middling. There have been years where the SEC has had the top 2 teams in the country. Should the 3rd or 4th ranked team in the conference be considered irrelevant? The SEC basically played musical chairs with six different champions over a 15-20 year period. They can't all be champions at once, but they can all be very good programs at the same time even though some may occasionally have a more pedestrian record due to the competition.

---

You should take your ideas to the NFL. Maybe they will adopt them and get rid of the silly playoff that they have in place and instead use the superior system that we use in the FBS.

Valid point. If they don't start doing better regularly they will lose that elite status. Maybe not in the minds of the pundits, the SEC, ESPN, or the committee but in the minds of most people they won't be very elite without a recent record to back it up. Same with ND, USC, etc. Bama could lose that status without Saban although it might take 20 years or more the reality of mediocrity to settle in.

bear2be2 said:

---

boykin_spaniel said:

---

I think we agree overall. Obviously Notre Dame has done nothing to prove it's a legitimate top 5 team yet they frequently end up ranked there at some point because they are Notre Dame. They have one of the biggest fan bases and draw lots of eyeballs and clicks. Good for media whether they deserve the hype or not. Big state school SEC teams also draw lots of views and clicks. They also get assisted by Bama, UGA, and LSU winning national championships.

Non Big12 fans complain in basketball when a Big12 teams makes March Madness with a losing conference record. Similar to us Big12 fans complaining about 8-4 SEC team being talked about ahead of 10-2 Big12 team. Big12 has been cutting down the nets in March recently so our lower positioned bball teams get talked about more than mid tier other conference teams.

If we want to get more respect we have to earn it on the field to the point if it being impossible to ignore.

---

My argument isn't from a Big 12 fan's perspective here. It's just from a health of college football perspective. Overrating certain programs in basketball has no real impact on the sport because a) we have a real, robust playoff that sorts itself out, and b) the biggest arguments come from bubble teams, so who really cares? All truly deserving teams get the opportunity to prove on the court who is and is not legit during March.

College football is inherently different because perception drives literally everything.

The playoff has historically either not existed or been too small to include all worthy teams, so biased human beings and/or polls have always selected the pool from which the eventual winner will come. And the cutoff between the Nos. 2 and 3 teams or Nos. 4 and 5 teams has decided who has access into the process and who doesn't. When every single aspect of the process is designed to favor one or two conferences (or programs, in Notre Dame's case) -- and perception plays a large role in deciding who does and does not get access -- you're talking about a farcical system.

The SEC getting five teams in the top 10 every year -- two or three of which have no business being there -- creates a rippling effect because teams get massive bumps off beating what turn out to be average or worse teams. It's creates a self-perpetuating hype cycle.

I think the new, expanded playoff -- if it's allowed to play out organically -- will show that the SEC's hold on the sport isn't nearly as ironclad as many believe it to be. This is especially true in the NIL/portal era, which has had a clear parity-increasing effect in its own right. I just don't want to see the SEC and Big Ten rig the system further before we get to see how this all plays out. And I'm almost certain that's what's going to happen.

---

I agree with most of what you have said. The problem though is most of the big name schools have been concentrated into 2 conferences and those two conferences will get the lions share of invitations. It's not organic at all - it is already rigged. Simple math tells me that having more inputs (invitations) will mean more outputs (MNCs)

The sec commish does not think the sport is broken. What that tells me is he sees his business doing great - which makes sense. We should never, ever assume that anyone in the b10 or sec will do anything except to look out for their own best interest.

Unless Yormark has some secret plan to beat the sec/b10 to the punch and create a super conference merging the acc + b12 and maybe even some G5s, I don't think the gap will ever be bridged between the Power 2 and the rest..

2 ranked wins. They have 3 ranked teams in their schedule so if they can sustain they earned it.

They are having a good season.

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

boykin_spaniel said:

---

I think we agree overall. Obviously Notre Dame has done nothing to prove it's a legitimate top 5 team yet they frequently end up ranked there at some point because they are Notre Dame. They have one of the biggest fan bases and draw lots of eyeballs and clicks. Good for media whether they deserve the hype or not. Big state school SEC teams also draw lots of views and clicks. They also get assisted by Bama, UGA, and LSU winning national championships.

Non Big12 fans complain in basketball when a Big12 teams makes March Madness with a losing conference record. Similar to us Big12 fans complaining about 8-4 SEC team being talked about ahead of 10-2 Big12 team. Big12 has been cutting down the nets in March recently so our lower positioned bball teams get talked about more than mid tier other conference teams.

If we want to get more respect we have to earn it on the field to the point if it being impossible to ignore.

---

My argument isn't from a Big 12 fan's perspective here. It's just from a health of college football perspective. Overrating certain programs in basketball has no real impact on the sport because a) we have a real, robust playoff that sorts itself out, and b) the biggest arguments come from bubble teams, so who really cares? All truly deserving teams get the opportunity to prove on the court who is and is not legit during March.

College football is inherently different because perception drives literally everything.

The playoff has historically either not existed or been too small to include all worthy teams, so biased human beings and/or polls have always selected the pool from which the eventual winner will come. And the cutoff between the Nos. 2 and 3 teams or Nos. 4 and 5 teams has decided who has access into the process and who doesn't. When every single aspect of the process is designed to favor one or two conferences (or programs, in Notre Dame's case) -- and perception plays a large role in deciding who does and does not get access -- you're talking about a farcical system.

The SEC getting five teams in the top 10 every year -- two or three of which have no business being there -- creates a rippling effect because teams get massive bumps off beating what turn out to be average or worse teams. It's creates a self-perpetuating hype cycle.

I think the new, expanded playoff -- if it's allowed to play out organically -- will show that the SEC's hold on the sport isn't nearly as ironclad as many believe it to be. This is especially true in the NIL/portal era, which has had a clear parity-increasing effect in its own right. I just don't want to see the SEC and Big Ten rig the system further before we get to see how this all plays out. And I'm almost certain that's what's going to happen.

---

I agree with most of what you have said. The problem though is most of the big name schools have been concentrated into 2 conferences and those two conferences will get the lions share of invitations. It's not organic at all - it is already rigged. Simple math tells me that having more inputs (invitations) will mean more outputs (MNCs)

The sec commish does not think the sport is broken. What that tells me is he sees his business doing great - which makes sense. We should never, ever assume that anyone in the b10 or sec will do anything except to look out for their own best interest.

Unless Yormark has some secret plan to beat the sec/b10 to the punch and create a super conference merging the acc + b12 and maybe even some G5s, I don't think the gap will ever be bridged between the Power 2 and the rest..

---

I'm with you there. I've been pretty adamant that the non-P2 leagues are doing themselves a disservice by agreeing to any of the P2's playoff stipulations regarding share pay or automatic bids. They'd be much better off calling the SEC and Big Ten's bluff.

It's not about bridging the gap IMO. That ship has sailed. It's about holding onto what little control/power/access you have left. The Big 12 and ACC already emasculated themselves by agreeing to uneven playoff shares. If they give in on automatic bids as well, they'll have cemented themselves as red-headed stepchildren.

Killing Floor said:

---

2 ranked wins. They have 3 ranked teams in their schedule so if they can sustain they earned it.

They are having a good season.

---

LSU is better than I thought they'd be. But that USC loss could look pretty bad by season's end. They should have lost to South Carolina, too. But they wiggled off that hook.

Go Vanderbilt! Or any SEC not named Georgia, Alabama or Texas.

Shoot, I would even root for the Aggies over any of those three. And they are SEC undefeated!

Killing Floor said:

---

2 ranked wins. They have 3 ranked teams in their schedule so if they can sustain they earned it.

They are having a good season.

---

Are those legitimately ranked teams or are they ranked simply because they are in the SEC? That happens too often. I have not paid any attention to what LSU is doing this year so I honestly don't know.

historian said:

---

Killing Floor said:

---

2 ranked wins. They have 3 ranked teams in their schedule so if they can sustain they earned it.

They are having a good season.

---

Are those legitimately ranked teams or are they ranked simply because they are in the SEC? That happens too often. I have not paid any attention to what LSU is doing this year so I honestly don't know.

---

LSU's win over Ole Miss was a good one. But their best wins after that were against South Carolina and Arkansas.

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

boykin_spaniel said:

---

You're leaving out the 4 team playoff. The Big12 never had a team win a game until TCU and they promptly got dismantled and the powers that be wrote it off as a fluke. I agree the SEC is not as strong as prior years but they get the benefit of the doubt because they've won most of the championships.

---

The SEC gets the benefit of the doubt because they manipulated the BCS system (if not ran it) and control the invitational era. They run the committee and determine how many teams get to play and who gets invited.

To call that a fair system is out of line with reality. I think most people don't think much of it because its just been that way for so long

---

With the sole exception of 2023 FSU, the 4 team CFP era was mathematical and didn't truly demonstrate any bias in terms of who was selected to the playoffs. 13-0 P5 champ, 12-0 P5 champ, 12-1 P5 champ, 12-1 P5 champ game loser/11-1 P5 champ (no conference title game), etc. was the order of operations for the selection process and they were consistent.

It was literally that simple.

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

The challenge for the Big 12 is usually a lack of meaningful regular season out of conference wins. At this point in the season, the SEC has wins over 6-1 Clemson, 5-2 Wisconsin, 4-3 Virginia Tech, 4-3 Boston College, 4-3 Michigan, 4-4 NC State, etc. with additional opportunities for wins over 6-1 Clemson, 5-3 Georgia Tech, 4-3 Louisville, etc.

In the case of the Big 12, it's been a win over 6-1 SMU and then wins over 4-3 Arkansas and 4-3 Iowa. That's fine, but that's not how the conference builds its case relative to other conferences - especially with maintaining a larger conference than the SEC. While it's true that there were some non conference games against conference opponents this season, this issue is not limited to this season.

---

Clemson is the only feather in the cap win on that list. The others are OK, but they're likely going to be over 7-5 or 6-6 type teams by the end of the year.

The SEC usually does have more good out-of-conference wins than other leagues, but this season, that list isn't terribly impressive. Whether it's a one-off deal or not, the SEC's dominance gap has closed considerably this year, and that needs to be acknowledged when it's the case.

I have no problem crediting that league when it is head and shoulders above the field, as it has often been in the past 15-20 years. But that's not the case in 2024. A lot of the teams that folks tried to convince us in September were dominant this season simply aren't. It's Georgia, Texas and a bunch of good, but vulnerable teams after that. And Georgia has only looked dominant in spurts.

---

The end of the year is the end of the year, but, right now, the SEC has a great collection of wins and such wins stabilize the rankings of the very SEC teams that many in this very forum whine about the rankings of. BYU, Oklahoma State and Iowa State have the only meaningful out of conference wins for the league as of this week and it's reflected in the rankings - or lack thereof - for the conference.

The key is regular season out of conference wins vs P5 opponents help stabilize rankings of P5s early in the season, and that is an area of weakness for the Big 12 that shows.

---

What helps "stabilize the rankings" (whatever the hell that means) for the SEC is starting every season with five or more teams in the top 10.

The problem people have with the way the SEC is represented in the rankings stems from the fact that it is perception and not results that start the ball rolling in a pre-determined direction.

By this point in the season, we have enough information to look at objective strength of schedule/strength of record data. And because of the influence of preseason biases, the current rankings are largely out of line with that data.

College football is -- and has always been -- more about perception than results. And the treatment of SEC also-rans is perhaps the most visible symptom of that illness.

---

Let's explain using examples: Texas is where it is in the rankings in part because it beat Michigan, Georgia is where it is in the rankings in part because it beat Clemson, and Alabama is where it is in the rankings in part because it beat Wisconsin. In contrast, Briles' teams would fall like a rock in the rankings after their first loss because they didn't have a meaningful out of conference win. This is well known.

Let's look back at the final AP rankings of 2023. Which of the four SEC teams didn't belong there? Similarly, which of the four SEC teams didn't belong in the preseason 2024 rankings? Ole Miss finished 11-2 in 2023, returned their QB, returned their coach, and signed the #1 transfer class, so surely they aren't who we are talking about here.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

The challenge for the Big 12 is usually a lack of meaningful regular season out of conference wins. At this point in the season, the SEC has wins over 6-1 Clemson, 5-2 Wisconsin, 4-3 Virginia Tech, 4-3 Boston College, 4-3 Michigan, 4-4 NC State, etc. with additional opportunities for wins over 6-1 Clemson, 5-3 Georgia Tech, 4-3 Louisville, etc.

In the case of the Big 12, it's been a win over 6-1 SMU and then wins over 4-3 Arkansas and 4-3 Iowa. That's fine, but that's not how the conference builds its case relative to other conferences - especially with maintaining a larger conference than the SEC. While it's true that there were some non conference games against conference opponents this season, this issue is not limited to this season.

---

Clemson is the only feather in the cap win on that list. The others are OK, but they're likely going to be over 7-5 or 6-6 type teams by the end of the year.

The SEC usually does have more good out-of-conference wins than other leagues, but this season, that list isn't terribly impressive. Whether it's a one-off deal or not, the SEC's dominance gap has closed considerably this year, and that needs to be acknowledged when it's the case.

I have no problem crediting that league when it is head and shoulders above the field, as it has often been in the past 15-20 years. But that's not the case in 2024. A lot of the teams that folks tried to convince us in September were dominant this season simply aren't. It's Georgia, Texas and a bunch of good, but vulnerable teams after that. And Georgia has only looked dominant in spurts.

---

The end of the year is the end of the year, but, right now, the SEC has a great collection of wins and such wins stabilize the rankings of the very SEC teams that many in this very forum whine about the rankings of. BYU, Oklahoma State and Iowa State have the only meaningful out of conference wins for the league as of this week and it's reflected in the rankings - or lack thereof - for the conference.

The key is regular season out of conference wins vs P5 opponents help stabilize rankings of P5s early in the season, and that is an area of weakness for the Big 12 that shows.

---

What helps "stabilize the rankings" (whatever the hell that means) for the SEC is starting every season with five or more teams in the top 10.

The problem people have with the way the SEC is represented in the rankings stems from the fact that it is perception and not results that start the ball rolling in a pre-determined direction.

By this point in the season, we have enough information to look at objective strength of schedule/strength of record data. And because of the influence of preseason biases, the current rankings are largely out of line with that data.

College football is -- and has always been -- more about perception than results. And the treatment of SEC also-rans is perhaps the most visible symptom of that illness.

---

Let's explain using examples: Texas is where it is in the rankings in part because it beat Michigan, Georgia is where it is in the rankings in part because it beat Clemson, and Alabama is where it is in the rankings in part because it beat Wisconsin. In contrast, Briles' teams would fall like a rock in the rankings after their first loss because they didn't have a meaningful out of conference win. This is well known.

Let's look back at the final AP rankings of 2023. Which of the four SEC teams didn't belong there? Similarly, which of the four SEC teams didn't belong in the preseason 2024 rankings? Ole Miss finished 11-2 in 2023, returned their QB, returned their coach, and signed the #1 transfer class, so surely they aren't who we are talking about here.

---

My argument is preseason rankings shouldn't exist at all. No rankings should exist until Week 7 (at the earliest).

Then we wouldn't have people hyping up Texas' win over a 4-3 unranked Michigan team like you're attempting to do here.

In nine weeks, we've seen ...

Georgia drop from No. 1 to 2
Texas drop from No. 4 to 5
Alabama drop from No. 5 to 15
Ole Miss drop from No. 6 to 18
Missouri drop from No. 11 to 21
Oklahoma drop from No. 16 to unranked


The only SEC teams have moved up are ...

Tennessee from No. 15 to 7
Texas A&M from 20 to 14

You can not tell me those preseason rankings were worth half a ***** And unfortunately, because of the way the sport is set up, they actually matter because early wins over mediocre but overrated teams help shape the narrative and set the agenda the rest of the way.

Thanks. I'm not sure if that is much of a resume. I hope the Aggies beat them this week. It's a dilemma in 2 weeks: they host Bama. I wish there was a way for both to lose!