Maybe in an ideal world but there is no way that the media will wait until the 7th week before ranking teams. Heck, we get "way too early" preseason rankings shortly after the season ends. Same with basketball. And it's not just the media: a lot of fans want to know how everyone is ranked. It doesn't really matter. The key is for all of us to realize that they ring mean much until several weeks into the season.

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.

---

And let's do look at the 2023 rankings:

From the preseason rankings to the final rankings ...

Georgia fell from No. 1 to No. 4
Alabama fell from No. 4 to No. 5
LSU fell from No. 5 to 12
Tennessee fell from No. 12 to 17
Texas A&M fell from No. 23 to unranked

And mediocre or worse teams from South Carolina, Arkansas, Kentucky, Auburn, Mississippi State and Florida were all receiving votes, which is obviously a joke.

The only SEC teams that moved up from preseason to postseason were:

Ole Miss from No. 22 to 9
Missouri from unranked to No. 8

historian said:

---

Maybe in an ideal world but there is no way that the media will wait until the 7th week before ranking teams. Heck, we get "way too early" preseason rankings shortly after the season ends. Same with basketball. And it's not just the media: a lot of fans want to know how everyone is ranked. It doesn't really matter. The key is for all of us to realize that they ring mean much until several weeks into the season.

---

All I'm saying is that the preseason rankings are literally worthless. Every year.

And the SEC is consistently overrated by them, which sets wheels in motion that have a tangible impact the rest of the season.

Good question. USC was 13(?) when they played LSU. Not an SEC opponent.
All the conferences are are to predict with all the changes. If anything, it's a fun season to watch.

Agreed

bear2be2 said:

---

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.

---

It's too early in the season to focus on "drops" for any team with less than 3 losses as many of those SEC teams still have the opportunity to move up and/or make the playoff (to also move up).

There's definitely a reason the SEC and Big10 are already trying to lock up most of the spots for their teams. They fear a Boise State running buy A&M or Wisconsin and all the sudden more teams start demanding fair starting ground

bear2be2 said:

---

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.

---

Makes sense - no issues with these thoughts. I do believe that it's ok to give a top 10 preseason ranking to a team, regardless of conference, that finishes the previous year in the top 10 and returns many key players, with key new additions. That was the case with Ole Miss.

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

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.

---

Makes sense - no issues with these thoughts. I do believe that it's ok to give a top 10 preseason ranking to a team, regardless of conference, that finishes the previous year in the top 10 and returns many key players, with key new additions. That was the case with Ole Miss.

---

Preseason rankings shouldn't exist at all. They're never remotely accurate and have outsized impact on the narrative of every football season.

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

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.

---

Makes sense - no issues with these thoughts. I do believe that it's ok to give a top 10 preseason ranking to a team, regardless of conference, that finishes the previous year in the top 10 and returns many key players, with key new additions. That was the case with Ole Miss.

---

Preseason rankings shouldn't exist at all. They're never remotely accurate and have outsized impact on the narrative of every football season.

---

I don't disagree, but preseason rankings aren't gonna change, so you have to have some kind of reasonable basis to come up with them.

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

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.

---

Makes sense - no issues with these thoughts. I do believe that it's ok to give a top 10 preseason ranking to a team, regardless of conference, that finishes the previous year in the top 10 and returns many key players, with key new additions. That was the case with Ole Miss.

---

Preseason rankings shouldn't exist at all. They're never remotely accurate and have outsized impact on the narrative of every football season.

---

I don't disagree, but preseason rankings aren't gonna change, so you have to have some kind of reasonable basis to come up with them.

---

There is no reasonable basis for coming up with rankings of teams that have yet to play a single game. That's the point.

Just point to last year's postseason rankings. At least then you're not pretending those mean anything for the upcoming season.

bear2be2 said:

---

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.

---

I agree with that.

The B12, and others, need to be bold and innovative, or get further marginalized.

Maybe we need to spearhead revenue sharing, a CBA and draft and let the b10 and sec play catch up.

To me it seems rather intuitive that to be successful, we'll need to be at the forefront of change, instead of being reactive.

I wanted to say margarinized but I didn't expect many people to pick up the Key & Peele reference..

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

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.

---

Makes sense - no issues with these thoughts. I do believe that it's ok to give a top 10 preseason ranking to a team, regardless of conference, that finishes the previous year in the top 10 and returns many key players, with key new additions. That was the case with Ole Miss.

---

Preseason rankings shouldn't exist at all. They're never remotely accurate and have outsized impact on the narrative of every football season.

---

I don't disagree, but preseason rankings aren't gonna change, so you have to have some kind of reasonable basis to come up with them.

---

There is no reasonable basis for coming up with rankings of teams that have yet to play a single game. That's the point.

Just point to last year's postseason rankings. At least then you're not pretending those mean anything for the upcoming season.

---

The issue is that there are enough data to show that certain variables have an impact on how successful a team will likely be in the next season. Returning HCs, returning starting (successful) QBs, recruiting well and performing well in the field over the immediately preceding few seasons, etc. have all been shown to likely have such impacts.

No one is saying that it's a perfect system or that recent changes like the transfer portal may have made things a bit more complicated, but there is data being leveraged to arrive at these conclusions and such conclusions are not arbitrary or based on brand bias.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

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.

---

Makes sense - no issues with these thoughts. I do believe that it's ok to give a top 10 preseason ranking to a team, regardless of conference, that finishes the previous year in the top 10 and returns many key players, with key new additions. That was the case with Ole Miss.

---

Preseason rankings shouldn't exist at all. They're never remotely accurate and have outsized impact on the narrative of every football season.

---

I don't disagree, but preseason rankings aren't gonna change, so you have to have some kind of reasonable basis to come up with them.

---

There is no reasonable basis for coming up with rankings of teams that have yet to play a single game. That's the point.

Just point to last year's postseason rankings. At least then you're not pretending those mean anything for the upcoming season.

---

The issue is that there are enough data to show that certain variables have an impact on how successful a team will likely be in the next season...No one is saying that it's a perfect system ... but there is data being leveraged to arrive at these conclusions and such conclusions are not arbitrary or based on brand bias.

---

You should pitch that to the NFL. Maybe they will finally get rid of that silly "playoff" system of theirs and mimic the FBS.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

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.

---

Makes sense - no issues with these thoughts. I do believe that it's ok to give a top 10 preseason ranking to a team, regardless of conference, that finishes the previous year in the top 10 and returns many key players, with key new additions. That was the case with Ole Miss.

---

Preseason rankings shouldn't exist at all. They're never remotely accurate and have outsized impact on the narrative of every football season.

---

I don't disagree, but preseason rankings aren't gonna change, so you have to have some kind of reasonable basis to come up with them.

---

There is no reasonable basis for coming up with rankings of teams that have yet to play a single game. That's the point.

Just point to last year's postseason rankings. At least then you're not pretending those mean anything for the upcoming season.

---

The issue is that there are enough data to show that certain variables have an impact on how successful a team will likely be in the next season. Returning HCs, returning starting (successful) QBs, recruiting well and performing well in the field over the immediately preceding few seasons, etc. have all been shown to likely have such impacts.

No one is saying that it's a perfect system or that recent changes like the transfer portal may have made things a bit more complicated, but there is data being leveraged to arrive at these conclusions and such conclusions are not arbitrary or based on brand bias.

---

Also think that with the expanded playoff, the early rankings are less important than ever. Every team that has a reasonable argument for being the best team in the nation should have an opportunity in a 12 team playoff.

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

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.

---

Makes sense - no issues with these thoughts. I do believe that it's ok to give a top 10 preseason ranking to a team, regardless of conference, that finishes the previous year in the top 10 and returns many key players, with key new additions. That was the case with Ole Miss.

---

Preseason rankings shouldn't exist at all. They're never remotely accurate and have outsized impact on the narrative of every football season.

---

I don't disagree, but preseason rankings aren't gonna change, so you have to have some kind of reasonable basis to come up with them.

---

There is no reasonable basis for coming up with rankings of teams that have yet to play a single game. That's the point.

Just point to last year's postseason rankings. At least then you're not pretending those mean anything for the upcoming season.

---

The issue is that there are enough data to show that certain variables have an impact on how successful a team will likely be in the next season...No one is saying that it's a perfect system ... but there is data being leveraged to arrive at these conclusions and such conclusions are not arbitrary or based on brand bias.

---

You should pitch that to the NFL. Maybe they will finally get rid of that silly "playoff" system of theirs and mimic the FBS.

---

It's seems inevitable that the P2 will end up with a playoff system that mimics the NFL - where a 6-6 record wouldn't automatically exclude a team from the playoffs.

Chuckroast said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

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.

---

Makes sense - no issues with these thoughts. I do believe that it's ok to give a top 10 preseason ranking to a team, regardless of conference, that finishes the previous year in the top 10 and returns many key players, with key new additions. That was the case with Ole Miss.

---

Preseason rankings shouldn't exist at all. They're never remotely accurate and have outsized impact on the narrative of every football season.

---

I don't disagree, but preseason rankings aren't gonna change, so you have to have some kind of reasonable basis to come up with them.

---

There is no reasonable basis for coming up with rankings of teams that have yet to play a single game. That's the point.

Just point to last year's postseason rankings. At least then you're not pretending those mean anything for the upcoming season.

---

The issue is that there are enough data to show that certain variables have an impact on how successful a team will likely be in the next season. Returning HCs, returning starting (successful) QBs, recruiting well and performing well in the field over the immediately preceding few seasons, etc. have all been shown to likely have such impacts.

No one is saying that it's a perfect system or that recent changes like the transfer portal may have made things a bit more complicated, but there is data being leveraged to arrive at these conclusions and such conclusions are not arbitrary or based on brand bias.

---

Also think that with the expanded playoff, the early rankings are less important than ever. Every team that has a reasonable argument for being the best team in the nation should have an opportunity in a 12 team playoff.

---

Agreed in that if a P4 finishes with 1-2 losses, it would be in the playoffs unless it's excluded for another 1-2 loss P4. Looking back and fortunately, the preseason AP rankings have had no meaningful impact on who ultimately makes the playoffs in the playoff FBS era.