In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1326
Online now 1291 Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
I laugh at USC fans whining about biases and strength of schedule when they have been knocked out of more opportunities by losing to Oregon State and a Stanford team without Andrew Luck. Not exactly two powerhouses
I laugh at Aubbie fans, well, just because.
Thanks for strengthening our point, Mensa. The P12 is a tougher conference to navigate than the SEC. It's been that way forever.
Just because you lost to them doesnt mean they were that tough. Washington has already beaten Stanford and lots of teams beat the Oregon State teams you lost against
You are the LAST person to talk about who is and who is not good. A John L. Smith coached team just marched into Jordan-Hare and made your team assume the position while grabbing their ankles.
Still laughing at you. Just because...you don't know when to just bite your lip and walk away. Now go whine about Bama fan making fun of you. I was laughing at that last night too.
Alabama = 2 BCS titles. LSU = 2 BCS titles. Florida= 2 BCS titles. Tennessee= 1 BCS title. Auburn= 1 BCS title. Point being, name another conference in the country with this many teams that could even compete for one. You cant.
I have a lot of room to talk. USC fans like you saying Auburn should have been left in 2004 due to a weak schedule and then complaining about your own team not getting a lot of respect after losing to teams like Oregon State and Stanford is beyond comical. I am laughing at that kind of logic
OrSU and Stanford=ranked teams.
PS. Today 10/9/12 and your team is still waiting for their buttholes to relax back into shape after being "exercised."
yeah, i saw that after i posted my first post, and put in a second post saying i saw where they were coming from.
i disagree about the sec creating the system. how could you possibly think the sec created this? benefiting from it? sure, but there's also a reason the sec is getting the benefit of the doubt in many cases. they win the big ones.
and it isn't so much since the beginning of the bcs (98) as it is the beginning of this bcs title streak (06 i think). the sec's best has dominated the other conferences best, and the sec has sent 4 different teams as their best in that streak.
there's little difference between conferences from the "good" teams down. but at the elite level, the sec has dominated.
look at those same stats (8+win teams vs 8+ win teams, with bowl or without) and some others like what i'm talking about (elite, 10+ win teams or top 10 or top 5 finish teams) and you'll see what i'm saying. it's really the last 6-7 years that the sec has dominated. i'll post them later if i can find time and you don't want to.
This post was edited by theharbinater 18 months ago
Sorry, but I dont think Oregon State was ranked in 2006 and 2008 or whenever you lost to them. Stanford is only ranked this year because your overrated team could not beat them
Had to quote this 2 piss somebody off.
Once again, Mensa, thanks for continuing to prove that the P12 is more difficult to navigate than the SEC. Regardless of whether or not they are ranked or why they are ranked(like half of the SEC), the P12 is a better conference top to bottom.
From here on out I will not be responding to you anymore...I really dislike trolling special ed kids.
explain to me how lsu drops 2 spots after some bad showings, then. even before the loss to uf. i thought they got some kind of luxury. no, they showed poorly, and got dropped accordingly. similar to ou, in fact.
or how about both lsu and uga dropped significant spots after losing to top 10 teams, while usc drops roughly same amount after losing to barely top 25 team? or, again, ou?
fwiw, this is why i also don't buy all the "wait till oct for polls" bs. does anyone really think that bias will go away if we wait for a few weeks. if this week was the first poll, does anyone think it would look much, if any, different from what we have now? lsu, usc and ou were all preseason top 5. all have since shown they aren't legit top 5 (at least not to this point). and guess what, the polls reflect that.
is there bias in there? absolutely, no question. will that change if we wait till oct or nov or may? not a chance.
that second part had nothing to do with you, btw, just was a good example of why polls wouldn't be any better (or worse) if we waited a month or so.
In 2006, Oregon State went 10-4 and was ranked #21.In 2008, Oregon State went 9-4 and was ranked #18. 3 of their 4 losses came to teams ranked in the top ten.
Stanford was ranked before USC played them.
This is why I disagree with your point. After losses:
LSU dropped 5 spots in both polls. Georgia dropped 7 in the AP and 8 in the coaches.
USC dropped 11 spots in both polls. Stanford dropped 9 spots. Oklahoma dropped 11 spots in the AP and 9 spots in the coaches. Wisconsin dropped more than 12 spots. Michigan State dropped 10 in the AP, 11 in the coaches. UCLA went from 19th to unranked, so they dropped at least 7 spots.
All of those teams lost to ranked opponents. All of them played more competitively than Georgia. Oklahoma's loss to a top 10 team was punished way more harshly than LSU and Georgia's loss. Why did they drop so much further?
I do agree that polls coming out later in the year wouldn't solve anything.
I just can't wait for a playoff so this can all stop.
Stanford hadnt played anybody before they played USC. The fact remains that they lost to a mediocre Washington team after playing USC.
Teams in the SEC have to play multiple teams who have the same record Oregon State had in 2006 and 2008. Auburn went undefeated in 2004 and 2010 and they played at least 5 teams who won 9 games or more in 2004 and at least 7 teams who won 9 games or more in 2010
This post was edited by aubie25 18 months ago
There are a bunch of highly ranked teams that haven't played anybody. It's early. Stanford was ranked before the SC game and they're still ranked. There's a chance that they're pretty good.
Looking at records doesn't tell the whole story. Teams from the SEC play less conference games, more home games, and usually more FCS games..
For example, Oregon State went 9-4 in 2008, but they played 9 conference games and 2 non conference top 5 teams on the road. They also had two more top fifteen teams in the conference.
The 2010 Mississsippi State squad that you use as an example as a good 9 win team played Memphis, Alcorn State, Houston, and UAB out of conference. If the 2008 Beaver team had those four games as a non conference schedule, they would have gone 11-2.
The other 9 win teams on that Auburn schedule include South Carolina and Arkansas, who got six wins over Furman, Southern Miss, Troy, Tennessee Tech, UL Monroe, and UTEP.
Thats why records don't mean a thing to me. They don't translate between conferences.
I doubt the the Oregon State team would have gone 11-2 if they would have had to play a 10 win Alabama team in Tuscaloosa, a 11 win LSU team, a 10 win Arkansas, a 9 win South Carolina team twice, and an undefeated Oregon team. Auburn's 2010 team had to play all those teams
That same LSU team destroyed ATM in the Cotton Bowl, that same Alabama team destroyed Michigan State in the Capital One Bowl, Arkansas gave Ohio State all they wanted in the Sugar Bowl and one of South Carolina's 9 wins came against Alabama when they were the defending national champions and still ranked #1 in the country
It is also incredibly naive to think navigating through the Pac 12 conference schedule is as difficult as navigating through the SEC when 6 or 7 SEC teams have more tradition, resources, and fan support than any Pac 12 teams beside USC
look who else lost during those weeks, though. lsu, uga, fsu, and texas all lost during the same week. all were top 10 teams, 3 top 5. that means a ton of shuffling, trying to figure out where they all went.
usc and ou only had 1 other top 10 team lose same week, and it was behind them (well behind them). and neither lost to presently (at time of game) top 10 teams. all of those above did. (this doesn't matter after season for sos rankings, but is relevant when discussing ranking changes throughout the year)
also, usc only dropped 9 in one poll, 11 other. ou dropped 10 in both. uga dropped 7 and 9. lsu 5 in both.
ucla loss was to unranked team. all the rest lost to teams way outside the top 10, and most were at least 10 spots back (only ou was within 10, and it was 9 spots back). but all of the lsu/uga/fsu/ut losses were against top 10 opp, and all within 5 spots, or higher ranked.
as for the playoff, i'm looking forward to it. but i'm also not sold it will provide any clarity to the situation. it will provide a playoff champion, but i doubt it will remove doubt or argument for a better system. there's simply to many teams in cfb to have a decent way to decide a champ with little room for doubt.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports