Southtxbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

whitetrash said:

---

Southtxbear said:

---

ImwithBU said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

ImwithBU said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

historian said:

---

There is no question that Georgia is properly ranked #2. And SC probably does have a better argument than Bama but they lost too many games and some wins that looked good at the time don't look so good now. Bama had 1-2 good wins but they also 2 terrible losses. Ole Miss beat Georgia but also had too many losses, including against teams that are not so good after all. The committee properly left those three out and properly put in the better SEC teams.

---

The problem is that SEC schedules are really unequal. SC had to play Alabama, LSU, Ole Miss, Missouri, and A&M. Texas played Georgia and A&M and a bunch of lesser teams. Of course it makes sense for SC to have an extra conference loss than TX.

Then SC beat Clemson on the road for good measure (whom SMU lost to shortly afterward on a neutral field). SC's schedule was ridiculously more difficult than SMU's. That much harder schedule against numerous ranked teams produced 1 more loss, so based purely on a slightly better record against demonstrably lesser competition, SMU got in.

It boggles my mind that people think the SEC simply gets the benefit of the doubt for no reason other than money. The SEC has more good programs than any other conference, and teams drawing the hardest conference schedules are at a playoff disadvantage when using the best record as the prime factor in the methodology as this committee did.

---

Do they really. This is the problem. Their teams start off highly ranked every year and then they get the benefit of the doubt when they get beat in the bowl games. Maybe, just maybe they are like every other conference with a couple of dominate teams a few surprise teams and few terrible teams that beat the better teams some years. Vanderbilt beat Bama. Im pretty sure Kansas has beaten Texas a few times as well

---

The SEC was not the SEC this year. The results have been making that clear all season. It was just another league in 2024.

There are years where that conference is head and shoulders above the rest. This wasn't even close to one of those. Expectations (and commentary) need to be adjusted accordingly.

---

Naw. They are pretty much what they have been. The bowl record last year was 5-4 (just like the Big 12 and Pac 12). Big 10 went 6-4 (which is accounted for by winning the big game). Again they are like any other conference, one or 2 dominant teams and the rest can be beaten on any Saturday.
Bowl record the year before 7-5 (2 wins by Georgia), remove that and the record is pretty much the same.
Year before that 6-8. Narrative is always the same

---

LSU, Georgia, A&M, UT, Ole Miss and Tennessee would all be at the top of the big 12. Quit being silly.

---

They are all undefeated in hypothetical matchups. It's just on the field where they fall short.

---

We just watched a season where potentially no SEC team will finish with fewer than three losses, and we're still having to listen to how good all these teams are. It's absurd.

The SEC wasn't good this year. Anyone trying to fluff that league after the season it just had doesn't know ball.

---

the sec was the best conference. Get your head out of the sand.

---

If that's the case, why did its third-place team just get its **** pushed in by the Big Ten's third-place team? And why did a team that was one win away from the SEC championship game get beat by a thoroughly mediocre USC team -- that also happened to beat LSU early in the season?

Outside of its wins over Clemson, which was the tallest midget in a bad ACC, the SEC has done nothing out of conference to prove it's the best league this year. All of its perceived strength came from wins over teams we assume are good because they've been good in the past. And all of those teams have warts this year they didn't when they were winning titles -- as evidenced by the fact that no team had fewer than two losses this year and most lost three-plus games.

The SEC didn't get 4 teams into the playoffs, Bama was left out, Oregon is #1 (I don't think anyone expected them to be undefeated at this point), ASU is #4 after being picked last preseason, some are suggesting Indiana didn't belong in, etc. Also, I'm not talking solely about the playoffs.

Southtxbear said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

whitetrash said:

---

Southtxbear said:

---

ImwithBU said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

ImwithBU said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

historian said:

---

There is no question that Georgia is properly ranked #2. And SC probably does have a better argument than Bama but they lost too many games and some wins that looked good at the time don't look so good now. Bama had 1-2 good wins but they also 2 terrible losses. Ole Miss beat Georgia but also had too many losses, including against teams that are not so good after all. The committee properly left those three out and properly put in the better SEC teams.

---

The problem is that SEC schedules are really unequal. SC had to play Alabama, LSU, Ole Miss, Missouri, and A&M. Texas played Georgia and A&M and a bunch of lesser teams. Of course it makes sense for SC to have an extra conference loss than TX.

Then SC beat Clemson on the road for good measure (whom SMU lost to shortly afterward on a neutral field). SC's schedule was ridiculously more difficult than SMU's. That much harder schedule against numerous ranked teams produced 1 more loss, so based purely on a slightly better record against demonstrably lesser competition, SMU got in.

It boggles my mind that people think the SEC simply gets the benefit of the doubt for no reason other than money. The SEC has more good programs than any other conference, and teams drawing the hardest conference schedules are at a playoff disadvantage when using the best record as the prime factor in the methodology as this committee did.

---

Do they really. This is the problem. Their teams start off highly ranked every year and then they get the benefit of the doubt when they get beat in the bowl games. Maybe, just maybe they are like every other conference with a couple of dominate teams a few surprise teams and few terrible teams that beat the better teams some years. Vanderbilt beat Bama. Im pretty sure Kansas has beaten Texas a few times as well

---

The SEC was not the SEC this year. The results have been making that clear all season. It was just another league in 2024.

There are years where that conference is head and shoulders above the rest. This wasn't even close to one of those. Expectations (and commentary) need to be adjusted accordingly.

---

Naw. They are pretty much what they have been. The bowl record last year was 5-4 (just like the Big 12 and Pac 12). Big 10 went 6-4 (which is accounted for by winning the big game). Again they are like any other conference, one or 2 dominant teams and the rest can be beaten on any Saturday.
Bowl record the year before 7-5 (2 wins by Georgia), remove that and the record is pretty much the same.
Year before that 6-8. Narrative is always the same

---

LSU, Georgia, A&M, UT, Ole Miss and Tennessee would all be at the top of the big 12. Quit being silly.

---

They are all undefeated in hypothetical matchups. It's just on the field where they fall short.

---

We just watched a season where potentially no SEC team will finish with fewer than three losses, and we're still having to listen to how good all these teams are. It's absurd.

The SEC wasn't good this year. Anyone trying to fluff that league after the season it just had doesn't know ball.

---

the sec was the best conference. Get your head out of the sand.

---

By what metric? SEC may have the best team, which is how it typically works. But how is the SEC the best top to bottom? Vandy, Miss St, UF, Kentucky and Auburn that much better than the B12s bottom? Better names, but teams? UT and UGA are about the only 2 schools that the B12 can't match up with right now. A few more years of the transfer portal and NIL, we may see a BYU, COL, ASU, or a Utah getting up there. Look at the math

105 scholarships
Players as staying as long as 6 years
New crop of HS studs every year.
Still only 22 starters

Even with unlimited funds how many can the SEC and B10 take year over year? First 2 or 3 years, they will be a disparity. As players don't see the field and new ones require the same investment players are leaving the big programs. Is there that much of a difference between a Robertson and Evers? Or Manning? They may be better, but by how much? The two areas that are going to be difficult is CB and OT. Teams don't have to beat UGA 9 out of 10, just once in a playoff. So, I am optimistic and the SEC is not that good. I live in SEC country and UF can't get out of its own way.

The challenge with these conversations is that the goal posts continuously get moved and thus they end up going nowhere. Here we go though:

College football has collectively determined that the P4 is stronger on the field than the G5 - to the extent that a randomly selected P4 schedule is more difficult than a randomly selected G5 schedule. While some may base that conclusion on their feelings, this outcome is justified by advanced stats. No one reasonably disagrees with any of that.

The disconnect in the discussions around the SEC and Big 12 is that the same data sets that are used to show that the P4 is stronger than the G5 can also be used to show that some P4s are stronger than other P4s. To that end, none of the generally accepted data sets (i.e. used in BCS or otherwise widely utilized) show that the Big 12 is as good as or better than the SEC. That's okay.

Moving forward is a separate issue. With B1G/SEC poised for massive annual payout increases between their media deals and CFP contracts plus the new revenue sharing scheme with players will make it difficult for other conferences to match up. That's also okay - the Big 12 can be fine without worrying about winning a national title given the last time a current member won one was almost 35 years ago.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

The challenge with these conversations is that the goal posts continuously get moved and thus they end up going nowhere. Here we go though:

College football has collectively determined that the P4 is stronger on the field than the G5 - to the extent that a randomly selected P4 schedule is more difficult than a randomly selected G5 schedule. While some may base that conclusion on their feelings, this outcome is justified by advanced stats. No one reasonably disagrees with any of that.

The disconnect in the discussions around the SEC and Big 12 is that the same data sets that are used to show that the P4 is stronger than the G5 can also be used to show that some P4s are stronger than other P4s. To that end, none of the generally accepted data sets (i.e. used in BCS or otherwise widely utilized) show that the Big 12 is as good as or better than the SEC. That's okay.

Moving forward is a separate issue. With B1G/SEC poised for massive annual payout increases between their media deals and CFP contracts plus the new revenue sharing scheme with players will make it difficult for other conferences to match up. That's also okay - the Big 12 can be fine without worrying about winning a national title given the last time a current member won one was almost 35 years ago.

---

Moving forward, I don't see the issue as a NC being out of reach.

There will be a "ramp up" with the influx of money for a few years.

But, there is only so many facility upgrades, only so much NIL that can be spent on 105 players, only a finite number of football players and they come out each year. The kicker for the B12 and ACC is that the supply increases, those that are not seeing the field or like how they are being used leave.

It is like a gravity model, it will overflow to the next levels. We are seeing it right now with this recruiting cycle, BU is getting some top level HS guys from a few years ago. Are the ones that are staying in the SEC THAT much better? I am not seeing a quality level in the SEC that I saw 4 years ago. It is diffusing. Maintaining access is key, we may get beat this year and next, but in 3 to 5 the talent will not be that different.

Interesting metric, how many players on B12 and ACC rosters have had a cup of coffee in the SEC or B10? I bet that increases...

FLBear5630 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

The challenge with these conversations is that the goal posts continuously get moved and thus they end up going nowhere. Here we go though:

College football has collectively determined that the P4 is stronger on the field than the G5 - to the extent that a randomly selected P4 schedule is more difficult than a randomly selected G5 schedule. While some may base that conclusion on their feelings, this outcome is justified by advanced stats. No one reasonably disagrees with any of that.

The disconnect in the discussions around the SEC and Big 12 is that the same data sets that are used to show that the P4 is stronger than the G5 can also be used to show that some P4s are stronger than other P4s. To that end, none of the generally accepted data sets (i.e. used in BCS or otherwise widely utilized) show that the Big 12 is as good as or better than the SEC. That's okay.

Moving forward is a separate issue. With B1G/SEC poised for massive annual payout increases between their media deals and CFP contracts plus the new revenue sharing scheme with players will make it difficult for other conferences to match up. That's also okay - the Big 12 can be fine without worrying about winning a national title given the last time a current member won one was almost 35 years ago.

---

Moving forward, I don't see the issue as a NC being out of reach.

There will be a "ramp up" with the influx of money for a few years.

But, there is only so many facility upgrades, only so much NIL that can be spent on 105 players, only a finite number of football players and they come out each year. The kicker for the B12 and ACC is that the supply increases, those that are not seeing the field or like how they are being used leave.

It is like a gravity model, it will overflow to the next levels. We are seeing it right now with this recruiting cycle, BU is getting some top level HS guys from a few years ago. Are the ones that are staying in the SEC THAT much better? I am not seeing a quality level in the SEC that I saw 4 years ago. It is diffusing. Maintaining access is key, we may get beat this year and next, but in 3 to 5 the talent will not be that different.

Interesting metric, how many players on B12 and ACC rosters have had a cup of coffee in the SEC or B10? I bet that increases...

---

"Quality levels" Is referring to what exactly? The SEC finished with 6 of the top 15 teams in the final CFP poll, and there were no out of conference losses from that group in the regular season (no reason to focus on incomplete postseason results).

Some in this forum are arguing that the fact that because, for example, Georgia and Texas each have two losses somehow means that the SEC is becoming weaker than it was, however, given the SEC's top 6-7 teams have been pretty great out of conference, maybe it's just as likely that the SEC's middle tier is becoming better as it's still quantitatively the best conference overall.

Even if we expanded the SEC regular season out of conference to all teams, the number of regular season out of conference losses is minimal - Miami beat Florida, USC beat LSU, Notre Dame (CFP participant) beat Texas A&M, Arizona State (CFP participant) beat MS State, Georgia State beat Vanderbilt, and Louisville beat Kentucky. To rephrase, the SEC lost 3 regular season of conference games total against teams that weren't P4s/ND that won double digit games. The Big 12 wasn't so fortunate.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

The challenge with these conversations is that the goal posts continuously get moved and thus they end up going nowhere. Here we go though:

College football has collectively determined that the P4 is stronger on the field than the G5 - to the extent that a randomly selected P4 schedule is more difficult than a randomly selected G5 schedule. While some may base that conclusion on their feelings, this outcome is justified by advanced stats. No one reasonably disagrees with any of that.

The disconnect in the discussions around the SEC and Big 12 is that the same data sets that are used to show that the P4 is stronger than the G5 can also be used to show that some P4s are stronger than other P4s. To that end, none of the generally accepted data sets (i.e. used in BCS or otherwise widely utilized) show that the Big 12 is as good as or better than the SEC. That's okay.

Moving forward is a separate issue. With B1G/SEC poised for massive annual payout increases between their media deals and CFP contracts plus the new revenue sharing scheme with players will make it difficult for other conferences to match up. That's also okay - the Big 12 can be fine without worrying about winning a national title given the last time a current member won one was almost 35 years ago.

---

The big problem with your second and third paragraphs is that we have tons of empirical evidence that tells us the Power 4 is stronger than the Group of 5. Most P4 teams play between one and three G5 schools per year, so we have actual data points to study and put into computer models.

Such data does not exist when comparing P4 conferences, where teams typically play a maximum of one out-of-conference P4 game a year before bowl season -- and those are spread out across the other power conferences, are rarely against peer teams from other leagues and, in the SEC's case, are often played at "neutral sites" rather than on the road.

Without good cross-conference data points, comparing conferences is a masturbatory exercise where perception and biases matter as much as results. Especially in this era, where every bowl loss comes with an excuse.

The SEC has typically had one or two teams a year that are stronger than most other conference's top teams. But that hasn't been the case the last two years. And this year, in particular, was an uncharacteristically weak one for that league, which didn't do anything special in nonconference play and has looked anything but dominant in the postseason.

The SEC and Big Ten will have more playoff type teams annually, and that's fine. Throughout the entirety of college football history, brands have always drawn the bulk of the blue chip talent, and the SEC and Big Ten have collected almost all of the sport's biggest brands. But this idea that all of these teams are special is a joke. The truth is there are only about three or four special teams a year, and those teams are less special in the NIL and transfer portal era than they were before it. The gap between the No. 6 or 7 team in the country and the No. 35 or 40 team has never been narrower than it is currently in modern college football.

Those fluffing the SEC incessantly have yet to make this realization. Barring a major sea change, they'll have to sooner or later because the results will be too strong to deny.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

The challenge with these conversations is that the goal posts continuously get moved and thus they end up going nowhere. Here we go though:

College football has collectively determined that the P4 is stronger on the field than the G5 - to the extent that a randomly selected P4 schedule is more difficult than a randomly selected G5 schedule. While some may base that conclusion on their feelings, this outcome is justified by advanced stats. No one reasonably disagrees with any of that.

The disconnect in the discussions around the SEC and Big 12 is that the same data sets that are used to show that the P4 is stronger than the G5 can also be used to show that some P4s are stronger than other P4s. To that end, none of the generally accepted data sets (i.e. used in BCS or otherwise widely utilized) show that the Big 12 is as good as or better than the SEC. That's okay.

Moving forward is a separate issue. With B1G/SEC poised for massive annual payout increases between their media deals and CFP contracts plus the new revenue sharing scheme with players will make it difficult for other conferences to match up. That's also okay - the Big 12 can be fine without worrying about winning a national title given the last time a current member won one was almost 35 years ago.

---

Moving forward, I don't see the issue as a NC being out of reach.

There will be a "ramp up" with the influx of money for a few years.

But, there is only so many facility upgrades, only so much NIL that can be spent on 105 players, only a finite number of football players and they come out each year. The kicker for the B12 and ACC is that the supply increases, those that are not seeing the field or like how they are being used leave.

It is like a gravity model, it will overflow to the next levels. We are seeing it right now with this recruiting cycle, BU is getting some top level HS guys from a few years ago. Are the ones that are staying in the SEC THAT much better? I am not seeing a quality level in the SEC that I saw 4 years ago. It is diffusing. Maintaining access is key, we may get beat this year and next, but in 3 to 5 the talent will not be that different.

Interesting metric, how many players on B12 and ACC rosters have had a cup of coffee in the SEC or B10? I bet that increases...

---

"Quality levels" Is referring to what exactly? The SEC finished with 6 of the top 15 teams in the final CFP poll, and there were no out of conference losses from that group in the regular season (no reason to focus on incomplete postseason results).

Some in this forum are arguing that the fact that because, for example, Georgia and Texas each have two losses somehow means that the SEC is becoming weaker than it was, however, given the SEC's top 6-7 teams have been pretty great out of conference, maybe it's just as likely that the SEC's middle tier is becoming better as it's still quantitatively the best conference overall.

Even if we expanded the SEC regular season out of conference to all teams, the number of regular season out of conference losses is minimal - Miami beat Florida, USC beat LSU, Notre Dame (CFP participant) beat Texas A&M, Arizona State (CFP participant) beat MS State, Georgia State beat Vanderbilt, and Louisville beat Kentucky. To rephrase, the SEC lost 3 regular season of conference games total against teams that weren't P4s/ND that won double digit games. The Big 12 wasn't so fortunate.

---

Yes, this year. The 1st under this new system. That should continue for a year or two, but as more top players enter the current darlings will become disenchanted and leave. It is a waterfall, the capacity of the SEC and B10 will be reached in how many players they can take. We need to keep NIL up and work the portal.

Watch the OOC over the next 5 years, I would bet B12 closes gap and increases talented players that have LEFT the SEC and B10 as the new ones are courted. We just signed a former top 50 from Auburn that realized getting on the field will be problematic.

Just one persons F-ed up theory.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

The challenge with these conversations is that the goal posts continuously get moved and thus they end up going nowhere. Here we go though:

College football has collectively determined that the P4 is stronger on the field than the G5 - to the extent that a randomly selected P4 schedule is more difficult than a randomly selected G5 schedule. While some may base that conclusion on their feelings, this outcome is justified by advanced stats. No one reasonably disagrees with any of that.

The disconnect in the discussions around the SEC and Big 12 is that the same data sets that are used to show that the P4 is stronger than the G5 can also be used to show that some P4s are stronger than other P4s. To that end, none of the generally accepted data sets (i.e. used in BCS or otherwise widely utilized) show that the Big 12 is as good as or better than the SEC. That's okay.

Moving forward is a separate issue. With B1G/SEC poised for massive annual payout increases between their media deals and CFP contracts plus the new revenue sharing scheme with players will make it difficult for other conferences to match up. That's also okay - the Big 12 can be fine without worrying about winning a national title given the last time a current member won one was almost 35 years ago.

---

Moving forward, I don't see the issue as a NC being out of reach.

There will be a "ramp up" with the influx of money for a few years.

But, there is only so many facility upgrades, only so much NIL that can be spent on 105 players, only a finite number of football players and they come out each year. The kicker for the B12 and ACC is that the supply increases, those that are not seeing the field or like how they are being used leave.

It is like a gravity model, it will overflow to the next levels. We are seeing it right now with this recruiting cycle, BU is getting some top level HS guys from a few years ago. Are the ones that are staying in the SEC THAT much better? I am not seeing a quality level in the SEC that I saw 4 years ago. It is diffusing. Maintaining access is key, we may get beat this year and next, but in 3 to 5 the talent will not be that different.

Interesting metric, how many players on B12 and ACC rosters have had a cup of coffee in the SEC or B10? I bet that increases...

---

"Quality levels" Is referring to what exactly? The SEC finished with 6 of the top 15 teams in the final CFP poll, and there were no out of conference losses from that group in the regular season (no reason to focus on incomplete postseason results).

Some in this forum are arguing that the fact that because, for example, Georgia and Texas each have two losses somehow means that the SEC is becoming weaker than it was, however, given the SEC's top 6-7 teams have been pretty great out of conference, maybe it's just as likely that the SEC's middle tier is becoming better as it's still quantitatively the best conference overall.

Even if we expanded the SEC regular season out of conference to all teams, the number of regular season out of conference losses is minimal - Miami beat Florida, USC beat LSU, Notre Dame (CFP participant) beat Texas A&M, Arizona State (CFP participant) beat MS State, Georgia State beat Vanderbilt, and Louisville beat Kentucky. To rephrase, the SEC lost 3 regular season of conference games total against teams that weren't P4s/ND that won double digit games. The Big 12 wasn't so fortunate.

---

Yes, this year. The 1st under this new system. That should continue for a year or two, but as more top players enter the current darlings will become disenchanted and leave. It is a waterfall, the capacity of the SEC and B10 will be reached in how many players they can take. We need to keep NIL up and work the portal.

Watch the OOC over the next 5 years, I would bet B12 closes gap and increases talented players that have LEFT the SEC and B10 as the new ones are courted. We just signed a former top 50 from Auburn that realized getting on the field will be problematic.

Just one persons F-ed up theory.

---

That's a fair assessment. Personally, I would be hesitant to be optimistic due to implications of the blue chip ratio - the Big 12 needs programs to reach over 50% blue chip if a national title will ever be on the table. Given that most Big 12 programs are currently around 21% or less in that category, the league could dramatically improve in that area and still not come close.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

The challenge with these conversations is that the goal posts continuously get moved and thus they end up going nowhere. Here we go though:

College football has collectively determined that the P4 is stronger on the field than the G5 - to the extent that a randomly selected P4 schedule is more difficult than a randomly selected G5 schedule. While some may base that conclusion on their feelings, this outcome is justified by advanced stats. No one reasonably disagrees with any of that.

The disconnect in the discussions around the SEC and Big 12 is that the same data sets that are used to show that the P4 is stronger than the G5 can also be used to show that some P4s are stronger than other P4s. To that end, none of the generally accepted data sets (i.e. used in BCS or otherwise widely utilized) show that the Big 12 is as good as or better than the SEC. That's okay.

Moving forward is a separate issue. With B1G/SEC poised for massive annual payout increases between their media deals and CFP contracts plus the new revenue sharing scheme with players will make it difficult for other conferences to match up. That's also okay - the Big 12 can be fine without worrying about winning a national title given the last time a current member won one was almost 35 years ago.

---

Moving forward, I don't see the issue as a NC being out of reach.

There will be a "ramp up" with the influx of money for a few years.

But, there is only so many facility upgrades, only so much NIL that can be spent on 105 players, only a finite number of football players and they come out each year. The kicker for the B12 and ACC is that the supply increases, those that are not seeing the field or like how they are being used leave.

It is like a gravity model, it will overflow to the next levels. We are seeing it right now with this recruiting cycle, BU is getting some top level HS guys from a few years ago. Are the ones that are staying in the SEC THAT much better? I am not seeing a quality level in the SEC that I saw 4 years ago. It is diffusing. Maintaining access is key, we may get beat this year and next, but in 3 to 5 the talent will not be that different.

Interesting metric, how many players on B12 and ACC rosters have had a cup of coffee in the SEC or B10? I bet that increases...

---

"Quality levels" Is referring to what exactly? The SEC finished with 6 of the top 15 teams in the final CFP poll, and there were no out of conference losses from that group in the regular season (no reason to focus on incomplete postseason results).

Some in this forum are arguing that the fact that because, for example, Georgia and Texas each have two losses somehow means that the SEC is becoming weaker than it was, however, given the SEC's top 6-7 teams have been pretty great out of conference, maybe it's just as likely that the SEC's middle tier is becoming better as it's still quantitatively the best conference overall.

Even if we expanded the SEC regular season out of conference to all teams, the number of regular season out of conference losses is minimal - Miami beat Florida, USC beat LSU, Notre Dame (CFP participant) beat Texas A&M, Arizona State (CFP participant) beat MS State, Georgia State beat Vanderbilt, and Louisville beat Kentucky. To rephrase, the SEC lost 3 regular season of conference games total against teams that weren't P4s/ND that won double digit games. The Big 12 wasn't so fortunate.

---

Yes, this year. The 1st under this new system. That should continue for a year or two, but as more top players enter the current darlings will become disenchanted and leave. It is a waterfall, the capacity of the SEC and B10 will be reached in how many players they can take. We need to keep NIL up and work the portal.

Watch the OOC over the next 5 years, I would bet B12 closes gap and increases talented players that have LEFT the SEC and B10 as the new ones are courted. We just signed a former top 50 from Auburn that realized getting on the field will be problematic.

Just one persons F-ed up theory.

---

That's a fair assessment. Personally, I would be hesitant to be optimistic due to implications of the blue chip ratio - the Big 12 needs programs to reach over 50% blue chip if a national title will ever be on the table. Given that most Big 12 programs are currently around 21% or less in that category, the league could dramatically improve in that area and still not come close.

---

I think that will go up, the bottomline is we will see the Blue chips more concentrated. When the 30 per team that can't get on the field go, we are the next most lucrative place. To me that is key, remain being the next most lucrative place to get to the 50% mark.

FLBear5630 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

The challenge with these conversations is that the goal posts continuously get moved and thus they end up going nowhere. Here we go though:

College football has collectively determined that the P4 is stronger on the field than the G5 - to the extent that a randomly selected P4 schedule is more difficult than a randomly selected G5 schedule. While some may base that conclusion on their feelings, this outcome is justified by advanced stats. No one reasonably disagrees with any of that.

The disconnect in the discussions around the SEC and Big 12 is that the same data sets that are used to show that the P4 is stronger than the G5 can also be used to show that some P4s are stronger than other P4s. To that end, none of the generally accepted data sets (i.e. used in BCS or otherwise widely utilized) show that the Big 12 is as good as or better than the SEC. That's okay.

Moving forward is a separate issue. With B1G/SEC poised for massive annual payout increases between their media deals and CFP contracts plus the new revenue sharing scheme with players will make it difficult for other conferences to match up. That's also okay - the Big 12 can be fine without worrying about winning a national title given the last time a current member won one was almost 35 years ago.

---

Moving forward, I don't see the issue as a NC being out of reach.

There will be a "ramp up" with the influx of money for a few years.

But, there is only so many facility upgrades, only so much NIL that can be spent on 105 players, only a finite number of football players and they come out each year. The kicker for the B12 and ACC is that the supply increases, those that are not seeing the field or like how they are being used leave.

It is like a gravity model, it will overflow to the next levels. We are seeing it right now with this recruiting cycle, BU is getting some top level HS guys from a few years ago. Are the ones that are staying in the SEC THAT much better? I am not seeing a quality level in the SEC that I saw 4 years ago. It is diffusing. Maintaining access is key, we may get beat this year and next, but in 3 to 5 the talent will not be that different.

Interesting metric, how many players on B12 and ACC rosters have had a cup of coffee in the SEC or B10? I bet that increases...

---

"Quality levels" Is referring to what exactly? The SEC finished with 6 of the top 15 teams in the final CFP poll, and there were no out of conference losses from that group in the regular season (no reason to focus on incomplete postseason results).

Some in this forum are arguing that the fact that because, for example, Georgia and Texas each have two losses somehow means that the SEC is becoming weaker than it was, however, given the SEC's top 6-7 teams have been pretty great out of conference, maybe it's just as likely that the SEC's middle tier is becoming better as it's still quantitatively the best conference overall.

Even if we expanded the SEC regular season out of conference to all teams, the number of regular season out of conference losses is minimal - Miami beat Florida, USC beat LSU, Notre Dame (CFP participant) beat Texas A&M, Arizona State (CFP participant) beat MS State, Georgia State beat Vanderbilt, and Louisville beat Kentucky. To rephrase, the SEC lost 3 regular season of conference games total against teams that weren't P4s/ND that won double digit games. The Big 12 wasn't so fortunate.

---

Yes, this year. The 1st under this new system. That should continue for a year or two, but as more top players enter the current darlings will become disenchanted and leave. It is a waterfall, the capacity of the SEC and B10 will be reached in how many players they can take. We need to keep NIL up and work the portal.

Watch the OOC over the next 5 years, I would bet B12 closes gap and increases talented players that have LEFT the SEC and B10 as the new ones are courted. We just signed a former top 50 from Auburn that realized getting on the field will be problematic.

Just one persons F-ed up theory.

---

That's a fair assessment. Personally, I would be hesitant to be optimistic due to implications of the blue chip ratio - the Big 12 needs programs to reach over 50% blue chip if a national title will ever be on the table. Given that most Big 12 programs are currently around 21% or less in that category, the league could dramatically improve in that area and still not come close.

---

I think that will go up, the bottomline is we will see the Blue chips more concentrated. When the 30 per team that can't get on the field go, we are the next most lucrative place. To me that is key, remain being the next most lucrative place to get to the 50% mark.

---

I think a culture program that can retain and develop talent will break through at some point because experience and continuity will be the scarcest (and most precious) commodities in college football within the next decade.

Those types of programs won't be able to sustain/maintain a championship level of play, but in the right year, where all of their best players are juniors and seniors, they'll be hard to beat -- even for teams with more raw talent.

Our 2021 team, for instance, would be really good in this new era of college of college football, where few programs hold onto players for more than a year or two and most are reshuffling the deck every year. If you can find a way to keep a core together, develop those three- and four-star recruits into five-star players as upperclassmen and fill holes with good portal fits, you can contend in modern college football. But those are obviously some really big ifs.

For what it's worth, Washington almost did this last year.

bear2be2 said:

---

ImwithBU said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

historian said:

---

There is no question that Georgia is properly ranked #2. And SC probably does have a better argument than Bama but they lost too many games and some wins that looked good at the time don't look so good now. Bama had 1-2 good wins but they also 2 terrible losses. Ole Miss beat Georgia but also had too many losses, including against teams that are not so good after all. The committee properly left those three out and properly put in the better SEC teams.

---

The problem is that SEC schedules are really unequal. SC had to play Alabama, LSU, Ole Miss, Missouri, and A&M. Texas played Georgia and A&M and a bunch of lesser teams. Of course it makes sense for SC to have an extra conference loss than TX.

Then SC beat Clemson on the road for good measure (whom SMU lost to shortly afterward on a neutral field). SC's schedule was ridiculously more difficult than SMU's. That much harder schedule against numerous ranked teams produced 1 more loss, so based purely on a slightly better record against demonstrably lesser competition, SMU got in.

It boggles my mind that people think the SEC simply gets the benefit of the doubt for no reason other than money. The SEC has more good programs than any other conference, and teams drawing the hardest conference schedules are at a playoff disadvantage when using the best record as the prime factor in the methodology as this committee did.

---

Do they really. This is the problem. Their teams start off highly ranked every year and then they get the benefit of the doubt when they get beat in the bowl games. Maybe, just maybe they are like every other conference with a couple of dominate teams a few surprise teams and few terrible teams that beat the better teams some years. Vanderbilt beat Bama. Im pretty sure Kansas has beaten Texas a few times as well

---

The SEC was not the SEC this year. The results have been making that clear all season. It was just another league in 2024.

There are years where that conference is head and shoulders above the rest. This wasn't even close to one of those. Expectations (and commentary) need to be adjusted accordingly.

---

Generally agree. However, while the SEC may not have a dominant team this year (no conference does), they still have more balance this year than any other conference. I would also argue that Georgia would have likely been the Vegas favorite had they made the playoffs last year.

While they may not have a dominant team, they had 6 teams that were playoff caliber. A&M, Missouri, and LSU weren't even one of the top 6 teams. No other conference is close to that deep this year. No surprise that teams are going to have 3 conference losses.

Several SEC teams that looked playoff caliber in October proved not to be: Bama, Aggies, Mizzou, & SC. For all but Bama, this is normal. Bama is clearly not the same team without Saban. It remains to be seen if they will ever return to the top of the league & country without one of the greatest coaches ever. In the last decade none of the rest have played for a conference title much less been in playoff consideration. This is what I mean when I describe most SEC members as mediocre. Very few will ever win a conference title or be in the playoffs if recent trends continue.

historian said:

---

Several SEC teams that looked playoff caliber in October proved not to be: Bama, Aggies, Mizzou, & SC. For all but Bama, this is normal. Bama is clearly not the same team without Saban. It remains to be seen if they will ever return to the top of the league & country without one of the greatest coaches ever. In the last decade none of the rest have played for a conference title much less been in playoff consideration. This is what I mean when I describe most SEC members as mediocre. Very few will ever win a conference title or be in the playoffs if recent trends continue.

---

To top it off, it is pure speculation to say that any would have won the B12 or the ACC. A&M never did when they were in the B12.

The BU/LSU game will be interesting. I want to see how we hold up to the SEC level talent.

True. It is definitely pure speculation, guesswork. However, the SEC middle of the pack has not given us any reason to expect them to buck the trends of the past 10-15 years.

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

ImwithBU said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

historian said:

---

There is no question that Georgia is properly ranked #2. And SC probably does have a better argument than Bama but they lost too many games and some wins that looked good at the time don't look so good now. Bama had 1-2 good wins but they also 2 terrible losses. Ole Miss beat Georgia but also had too many losses, including against teams that are not so good after all. The committee properly left those three out and properly put in the better SEC teams.

---

The problem is that SEC schedules are really unequal. SC had to play Alabama, LSU, Ole Miss, Missouri, and A&M. Texas played Georgia and A&M and a bunch of lesser teams. Of course it makes sense for SC to have an extra conference loss than TX.

Then SC beat Clemson on the road for good measure (whom SMU lost to shortly afterward on a neutral field). SC's schedule was ridiculously more difficult than SMU's. That much harder schedule against numerous ranked teams produced 1 more loss, so based purely on a slightly better record against demonstrably lesser competition, SMU got in.

It boggles my mind that people think the SEC simply gets the benefit of the doubt for no reason other than money. The SEC has more good programs than any other conference, and teams drawing the hardest conference schedules are at a playoff disadvantage when using the best record as the prime factor in the methodology as this committee did.

---

Do they really. This is the problem. Their teams start off highly ranked every year and then they get the benefit of the doubt when they get beat in the bowl games. Maybe, just maybe they are like every other conference with a couple of dominate teams a few surprise teams and few terrible teams that beat the better teams some years. Vanderbilt beat Bama. Im pretty sure Kansas has beaten Texas a few times as well

---

The SEC was not the SEC this year. The results have been making that clear all season. It was just another league in 2024.

There are years where that conference is head and shoulders above the rest. This wasn't even close to one of those. Expectations (and commentary) need to be adjusted accordingly.

---

Generally agree. However, while the SEC may not have a dominant team this year (no conference does), they still have more balance this year than any other conference. I would also argue that Georgia would have likely been the Vegas favorite had they made the playoffs last year.

While they may not have a dominant team, they had 6 teams that were playoff caliber. A&M, Missouri, and LSU weren't even one of the top 6 teams. No other conference is close to that deep this year. No surprise that teams are going to have 3 conference losses.

---

My counter argument would be that teams that lose three conference games (especially with an eight-game league schedule) aren't actually playoff contenders. Fortunately, the committee agreed with me this year.

The SEC has a lot of good teams. It had maybe two actual championship caliber teams this year -- and even those two were a level or two below the typical SEC flag-bearers. The next six were all good, but nothing remotely special.

We should not forget that most SEC teams play an extra patsy every year, including one in November.

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

ImwithBU said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

historian said:

---

There is no question that Georgia is properly ranked #2. And SC probably does have a better argument than Bama but they lost too many games and some wins that looked good at the time don't look so good now. Bama had 1-2 good wins but they also 2 terrible losses. Ole Miss beat Georgia but also had too many losses, including against teams that are not so good after all. The committee properly left those three out and properly put in the better SEC teams.

---

The problem is that SEC schedules are really unequal. SC had to play Alabama, LSU, Ole Miss, Missouri, and A&M. Texas played Georgia and A&M and a bunch of lesser teams. Of course it makes sense for SC to have an extra conference loss than TX.

Then SC beat Clemson on the road for good measure (whom SMU lost to shortly afterward on a neutral field). SC's schedule was ridiculously more difficult than SMU's. That much harder schedule against numerous ranked teams produced 1 more loss, so based purely on a slightly better record against demonstrably lesser competition, SMU got in.

It boggles my mind that people think the SEC simply gets the benefit of the doubt for no reason other than money. The SEC has more good programs than any other conference, and teams drawing the hardest conference schedules are at a playoff disadvantage when using the best record as the prime factor in the methodology as this committee did.

---

Do they really. This is the problem. Their teams start off highly ranked every year and then they get the benefit of the doubt when they get beat in the bowl games. Maybe, just maybe they are like every other conference with a couple of dominate teams a few surprise teams and few terrible teams that beat the better teams some years. Vanderbilt beat Bama. Im pretty sure Kansas has beaten Texas a few times as well

---

The SEC was not the SEC this year. The results have been making that clear all season. It was just another league in 2024.

There are years where that conference is head and shoulders above the rest. This wasn't even close to one of those. Expectations (and commentary) need to be adjusted accordingly.

---

Generally agree. However, while the SEC may not have a dominant team this year (no conference does), they still have more balance this year than any other conference. I would also argue that Georgia would have likely been the Vegas favorite had they made the playoffs last year.

While they may not have a dominant team, they had 6 teams that were playoff caliber. A&M, Missouri, and LSU weren't even one of the top 6 teams. No other conference is close to that deep this year. No surprise that teams are going to have 3 conference losses.

---

My counter argument would be that teams that lose three conference games (especially with an eight-game league schedule) aren't actually playoff contenders. Fortunately, the committee agreed with me this year.

The SEC has a lot of good teams. It had maybe two actual championship caliber teams this year -- and even those two were a level or two below the typical SEC flag-bearers. The next six were all good, but nothing remotely special.

---

The 3 playoff caliber teams that didn't make it in my estimation were Ole Miss, South Carolina, and Alabama (with Bama being the worst of those 3 teams at the end of the year). Those teams are on par with most of the teams in the playoff field. South Carolina was probably the most deserving with a road win over Clemson at the end of the year. Just saying that 6 SEC teams were playoff caliber. When that is the case, some are going to have 3 losses. With the exception of Georgia, the teams with less than 3 losses basically had easier conference schedules.

historian said:

---

We should not forget that most SEC teams play an extra patsy every year, including one in November.

---

Most SEC teams schedule at least one out of conference P4 team every year. They had more meaningful OOC games than any other conference.

Chuckroast said:

---

historian said:

---

We should not forget that most SEC teams play an extra patsy every year, including one in November.

---

Most SEC teams schedule at least three out of conference G5/FCS teams every year. With the exception of Florida and S Carolina, they had more meaningless OOC games than any other conference.

---

Edited for accuracy.

Just off the top of my head:

Texas played Michigan
Alabama played Wisconsin
South Carolina played Clemson
Georgia played Clemson and Georgia Tech
Florida played Miami, Fl State, and UCF
Tenn played NC State
A&M played Notre Dame
Kentucky played Louisville
Ole Miss played Wake
LSU played USC
Miss St played ASU
Missouri played Boston College

It looks like the SEC and the ACC were the most adventurous. The Big 12 needs to drop a conference game and start scheduling like this.

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

ImwithBU said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

historian said:

---

There is no question that Georgia is properly ranked #2. And SC probably does have a better argument than Bama but they lost too many games and some wins that looked good at the time don't look so good now. Bama had 1-2 good wins but they also 2 terrible losses. Ole Miss beat Georgia but also had too many losses, including against teams that are not so good after all. The committee properly left those three out and properly put in the better SEC teams.

---

The problem is that SEC schedules are really unequal. SC had to play Alabama, LSU, Ole Miss, Missouri, and A&M. Texas played Georgia and A&M and a bunch of lesser teams. Of course it makes sense for SC to have an extra conference loss than TX.

Then SC beat Clemson on the road for good measure (whom SMU lost to shortly afterward on a neutral field). SC's schedule was ridiculously more difficult than SMU's. That much harder schedule against numerous ranked teams produced 1 more loss, so based purely on a slightly better record against demonstrably lesser competition, SMU got in.

It boggles my mind that people think the SEC simply gets the benefit of the doubt for no reason other than money. The SEC has more good programs than any other conference, and teams drawing the hardest conference schedules are at a playoff disadvantage when using the best record as the prime factor in the methodology as this committee did.

---

Do they really. This is the problem. Their teams start off highly ranked every year and then they get the benefit of the doubt when they get beat in the bowl games. Maybe, just maybe they are like every other conference with a couple of dominate teams a few surprise teams and few terrible teams that beat the better teams some years. Vanderbilt beat Bama. Im pretty sure Kansas has beaten Texas a few times as well

---

The SEC was not the SEC this year. The results have been making that clear all season. It was just another league in 2024.

There are years where that conference is head and shoulders above the rest. This wasn't even close to one of those. Expectations (and commentary) need to be adjusted accordingly.

---

Generally agree. However, while the SEC may not have a dominant team this year (no conference does), they still have more balance this year than any other conference. I would also argue that Georgia would have likely been the Vegas favorite had they made the playoffs last year.

While they may not have a dominant team, they had 6 teams that were playoff caliber. A&M, Missouri, and LSU weren't even one of the top 6 teams. No other conference is close to that deep this year. No surprise that teams are going to have 3 conference losses.

---

My counter argument would be that teams that lose three conference games (especially with an eight-game league schedule) aren't actually playoff contenders. Fortunately, the committee agreed with me this year.

The SEC has a lot of good teams. It had maybe two actual championship caliber teams this year -- and even those two were a level or two below the typical SEC flag-bearers. The next six were all good, but nothing remotely special.

---

The 3 playoff caliber teams that didn't make it in my estimation were Ole Miss, South Carolina, and Alabama (with Bama being the worst of those 3 teams at the end of the year). Those teams are on par with most of the teams in the playoff field. South Carolina was probably the most deserving with a road win over Clemson at the end of the year. Just saying that 6 SEC teams were playoff caliber. When that is the case, some are going to have 3 losses. With the exception of Georgia, the teams with less than 3 losses basically had easier conference schedules.

---

I know who you were talking about. I just disagree with you. I didn't think any of those teams were playoff worthy this year, much less contenders.

Playoff teams don't lose three games IMO -- even in a 12-team bracket.

Well then only 2-4 teams played a schedule worthy of the playoffs this year.

Chuckroast said:

---

Just off the top of my head:

Texas played Michigan
Alabama played Wisconsin
South Carolina played Clemson
Georgia played Clemson and Georgia Tech
Florida played Miami, Fl State, and UCF
Tenn played NC State
A&M played Notre Dame
Kentucky played Louisville
Ole Miss played Wake
LSU played USC
Miss St played ASU
Missouri played Boston College

It looks like the SEC and the ACC were the most adventurous. The Big 12 needs to drop a conference game and start scheduling like this.

---

Don't treat rivalry games like typical P4 ooc matchups because they aren't. Yes, they still might be good wins, sometimes great, but they are a different thing than other games. Also many of those wins you cite are not very impressive: Michigan, Wisconsin, GT, etc. I don't think they were all bowl eligible. And some were losses. The Aggies lost to ND: good opponent but does not help their record.

historian said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

Just off the top of my head:

Texas played Michigan
Alabama played Wisconsin
South Carolina played Clemson
Georgia played Clemson and Georgia Tech
Florida played Miami, Fl State, and UCF
Tenn played NC State
A&M played Notre Dame
Kentucky played Louisville
Ole Miss played Wake
LSU played USC
Miss St played ASU
Missouri played Boston College

It looks like the SEC and the ACC were the most adventurous. The Big 12 needs to drop a conference game and start scheduling like this.

---

Don't treat rivalry games like typical P4 ooc matchups because they aren't. Yes, they still might be good wins, sometimes great, but they are a different thing than other games. Also many of those wins you cite are not very impressive: Michigan, Wisconsin, GT, etc. I don't think they were all bowl eligible. And some were losses. The Aggies lost to ND: good opponent but does not help their record.

---

Yes. And the SEC homer didn't mention Iowa/Iowa State, WV Pitt or TCU SMU, which are standing cross conference rivalry games in the B12. Or WV Penn St, Colo Nebbie, Ok St Arkie, UCF Fla. Baylor Utah was actually an OOC game too.

historian said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

Just off the top of my head:

Texas played Michigan
Alabama played Wisconsin
South Carolina played Clemson
Georgia played Clemson and Georgia Tech
Florida played Miami, Fl State, and UCF
Tenn played NC State
A&M played Notre Dame
Kentucky played Louisville
Ole Miss played Wake
LSU played USC
Miss St played ASU
Missouri played Boston College

It looks like the SEC and the ACC were the most adventurous. The Big 12 needs to drop a conference game and start scheduling like this.

---

Don't treat rivalry games like typical P4 ooc matchups because they aren't. Yes, they still might be good wins, sometimes great, but they are a different thing than other games. Also many of those wins you cite are not very impressive: Michigan, Wisconsin, GT, etc. I don't think they were all bowl eligible. And some were losses. The Aggies lost to ND: good opponent but does not help their record.

---

This year they may not have all been good wins. For instance, Texas throttled Michigan who was down this year. However, Michigan came back and beat Ohio State on the road.

My point is that it was ambitious scheduling at the time these games were scheduled. It basically destroys the narrative that the SEC is just looking for a bunch of easy OOC wins. The SEC's out of conference scheduling is light years ahead of the Big 12s.

The big 12 needs to start winning some meaningful regular season inner conference matchups in order to boost its perception.

GoodOleBaylorLine said:

---

historian said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

Just off the top of my head:

Texas played Michigan
Alabama played Wisconsin
South Carolina played Clemson
Georgia played Clemson and Georgia Tech
Florida played Miami, Fl State, and UCF
Tenn played NC State
A&M played Notre Dame
Kentucky played Louisville
Ole Miss played Wake
LSU played USC
Miss St played ASU
Missouri played Boston College

It looks like the SEC and the ACC were the most adventurous. The Big 12 needs to drop a conference game and start scheduling like this.

---

Don't treat rivalry games like typical P4 ooc matchups because they aren't. Yes, they still might be good wins, sometimes great, but they are a different thing than other games. Also many of those wins you cite are not very impressive: Michigan, Wisconsin, GT, etc. I don't think they were all bowl eligible. And some were losses. The Aggies lost to ND: good opponent but does not help their record.

---

Yes. And the SEC homer didn't mention Iowa/Iowa State, WV Pitt or TCU SMU, which are standing cross conference rivalry games in the B12. Or WV Penn St, Colo Nebbie, Ok St Arkie, UCF Fla. Baylor Utah was actually an OOC game too.

---

I was just discussing the SEC off the top of my head, not the entire college football landscape. Earlier in the season, I posted a league comparison of out of conference scheduling if you think I'm just cherry picking. The SEC was way ahead of the others back then and have added some meaningful late season contests as well.. People have to have their head in the sand not to recognize that the SEC has earned the respect it has.

Chuckroast said:

---

Well then only 2-4 teams played a schedule worthy of the playoffs this year.

---

The schedule you play doesn't matter as much as how you do against that schedule.

Playoff-worthy teams don't lose to multiple mediocre or worse teams -- or in the case of South Carolina, lose every meaningful game they played in conference play.

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

Well then only 2-4 teams played a schedule worthy of the playoffs this year.

---

The schedule you play doesn't matter as much as how you do against that schedule.

Playoff-worthy teams don't lose to multiple mediocre or worse teams -- or in the case of South Carolina, lose every meaningful game they played in conference play.

---

My point is that 2/3 of the teams in this playoff would have three or more losses if they played South Carolina's schedule.

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

Well then only 2-4 teams played a schedule worthy of the playoffs this year.

---

The schedule you play doesn't matter as much as how you do against that schedule.

Playoff-worthy teams don't lose to multiple mediocre or worse teams -- or in the case of South Carolina, lose every meaningful game they played in conference play.

---

My point is that 2/3 of the teams in this playoff would have three or more losses if they played South Carolina's schedule.

---

Objection: Speculation.

The SEC and its backers are much better at discussing hypothetical football games than they are at analyzing those that were actually played.

In any event, I think there are way more than two or three playoff teams (including several of those who are already out) that would have beaten Vanderbilt, Oklahoma, Kentucky and Florida if given the chance.

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

Well then only 2-4 teams played a schedule worthy of the playoffs this year.

---

The schedule you play doesn't matter as much as how you do against that schedule.

Playoff-worthy teams don't lose to multiple mediocre or worse teams -- or in the case of South Carolina, lose every meaningful game they played in conference play.

---

My point is that 2/3 of the teams in this playoff would have three or more losses if they played South Carolina's schedule.

---

Objection: Speculation.

The SEC and its backers are much better at discussing hypothetical football games than they are at analyzing those that were actually played.

---

Speculation based on years of data as well as metrics from this year… to ignore all of that is more like wishful thinking.

I think you and I agree that the SEC is not full of championship caliber teams this year. Where we disagree is that it has more really good … and even playoff caliber teams than anyone else… with that type of schedule, it makes total sense that it's league members would have an extra loss during the course of the season. All of the top six SEC teams took care of business against P4 OOC competition.

You realize that the SEC plays 4 non-conference games right? So that Ole Miss/Wake game was in lieu of playing Tennessee, for example, in any other conference. Their other OOC were Furman, Middle Tenn and GA Southern

GoodOleBaylorLine said:

---

You realize that the SEC plays 4 non-conference games right? So that Ole Miss/Wake game was in lieu of playing Tennessee, for example, in any other conference. Their other OOC were Furman, Middle Tenn and GA Southern

---

Absolutely. I'm just countering the argument that the SEC has an extra creampuff like some here seem to believe. They have chosen to play against other conferences, and I wish the big 12 would drop a conference game and do that more too.

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

Well then only 2-4 teams played a schedule worthy of the playoffs this year.

---

The schedule you play doesn't matter as much as how you do against that schedule.

Playoff-worthy teams don't lose to multiple mediocre or worse teams -- or in the case of South Carolina, lose every meaningful game they played in conference play.

---

My point is that 2/3 of the teams in this playoff would have three or more losses if they played South Carolina's schedule.

---

Objection: Speculation.

The SEC and its backers are much better at discussing hypothetical football games than they are at analyzing those that were actually played.

---

Speculation based on years of data as well as metrics from this year… to ignore all of that is more like wishful thinking.

I think you and I agree that the SEC is not full of championship caliber teams this year. Where we disagree is that it has more really good … and even playoff caliber teams than anyone else… with that type of schedule, it makes total sense that it's league members would have an extra loss during the course of the season. All of the top six SEC teams took care of business against P4 OOC competition.

---

This year's SEC wasn't nearly good enough to play the murderer's row card, especially with the 16-team league and eight-game format watering down most of the schedules.

There were like three teams in the league that played schedules worthy of special consideration this year, and two of those -- Florida and Alabama -- disqualified themselves with their performances.