Online Now 2762

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

On this Board 3049
Record: 7394 (2/14/2012)

Online now 3806
Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)

Boards ▾

The Blue Board

We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.

247Rumors

College football scuttlebutt and scoop- powered by Football Rumor Mill

The Green Board

Where the madness isn't just in March.

Big Ten Board (Beta)

Reply

SEC homers - React!

  • I think I set that over/ under way too low. Its already been 22 yrs, so lets make it 18 more for an even 40 years.

    Hey Bama, the 1980's called and said its time to go on the road and beat a winning AQ team.

    Not a single win in the 90's or 2000s - totally amazing. What a joke.

    NcaaAssassinG13 ●

  • NcaaAssassinG13 said...

    I think I set that over/ under way too low. Its already been 22 yrs, so lets make it 18 more for an even 40 years.

    Hey Bama, the 1980's called and said its time to go on the road and beat a winning AQ team.

    Not a single win in the 90's or 2000s - totally amazing. What a joke.

    No the greatest time frame in Alabama history.

    As bad as things were though, Alabama did somehow pull home 2 Consensus National Championships in that time from compared to 0 from the sisters of troy.

    Que cry about how unfair college football is in 3, 2, 1......GO!

    This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by BetterOff on 8/27/2012 at 11:37 AM

    BetterOff

  • NcaaAssassinG13 said...

    I think I set that over/ under way too low. Its already been 22 yrs, so lets make it 18 more for an even 40 years.

    Hey Bama, the 1980's called and said its time to go on the road and beat a winning AQ team.

    Not a single win in the 90's or 2000s - totally amazing. What a joke.

    I guess you just missed last season as well.

    BetterOff

  • well, you missed it by 18 years (or 8 for your original bs).

    bama went to and beat psu last year, who was 9-4.

    theharbinater ●

  • Is it safe to assume that Kiffin's schedules are going to much better than they have recently?

    The only OOC games against teams with winning records have been against Hawaii and the has beens from South Bend that you guys are still counting as a major game I see.

    BetterOff

  • theharbinater said...

    well, you missed it by 18 years (or 8 for your original bs).

    bama went to and beat psu last year, who was 9-4.

    Watch your mouth!

    That game was nothing compared to a 2 point win against a 3-9 Minnesota team at home or a victory at home against Syracuse that finished 1-6 in the Big East.

    This post was edited by BetterOff on 8/27/2012 at 11:44 AM

    BetterOff

  • theharbinater said...

    well, you missed it by 18 years (or 8 for your original bs).

    bama went to and beat psu last year, who was 9-4.

    Plus, when your OOC opponents under Kiffin add up to a 41-47 record, does it really matter what conference they are in.

    Also, are we supposed to be impressed when the combined records of their opponents that they so manly traveled to the last 2 years is 11-14?

    BetterOff

  • BetterOff said...

    I guess you just missed last season as well.

    Tisk, tisk, my weasely friend. Penn St has no wins last year. You beat a winless Penn St. Rules, are rules. Funny how you assclowns try to apply that to only SC and 04.

    Thanks for showing everybody what a hypocrite you are. 1989 Chump.

    This post was edited by NcaaAssassinG13 on 8/27/2012 at 11:56 AM

    NcaaAssassinG13 ●

  • Or we can compare Kiffin (at USC) being 1-3 vs 10 win AQ schools and 0-0 vs 10 win AQ schools out side the PAC12 with Saban (at Bama) being 9-6 vs AQ schools with 10 wins and 3-1 vs 10 win teams outside the SEC (not adding AQ so I can give you the Utah loss).

    Are you guys scared of the big boys right now? Is that it?

    I see next year you are adding the big boys of Boston College that went 4-8 last season. Syracuse looking too tough down the road?

    BetterOff

  • NcaaAssassinG13 said...

    Tisk, tisk, my weasely friend. Penn St has no wins last year. You beat a winless Penn St. Rules, are rules. Funny how you assclowns try apply that to only SC and 04.

    Thanks for showing everybody what a hypocrite you are. 1989 Chump.

    That's cool. Washington chump. The only PAC10 team with an unblemished season in 40 years.

    40 years ago is also the last time a PAC10 team won a consensus National Championship as well. The SEC has 11 since then. But then again, we suck and all of college football in manipulated into thinking otherwise. The Southest has so much pull on the rest of the country. cry

    BetterOff

  • theharbinater said...

    so, how have the good teams in each conference fared vs the other good teams in other conferences? lets see:

    year end ranked top 25 bcs teams vs top 25 bcs ooc opp (bowls and reg season combined) since 98:
    Pos Team Record
    1. SEC (49-37-0)--0.56977[1]
    2. Pac-12 (29-23-0)--0.55769[2]
    3. Big Ten (34-31-0)--0.52308[3]
    4. Big East (21-22-0)--0.48837
    5. Big 12 (21-29-0)--0.42000
    6. ACC (27-39-0)--0.40909

    not too surprising, basically the same as the total, sec leading it slightly.

    but how about the elite? this is where the sec really separates, imo. the sec has been very good when facing elite vs elite.

    1. SEC (13-6-0)--0.68421
    2. Big East (7-5-0)--0.58333
    3. Big 12 (9-7-0)--0.56250
    4. Pac-12 (10-8-0)--0.55556[1]
    5. Big Ten (4-10-0)--0.28571
    6. ACC (4-11-0)--0.26667

    simply put, the sec's best has been better than the other conf's best, and it's significant. a full 10% points +.

    and it's not just 1 team making the noise (like it is with the pac12 where usc brings the conf up dramatically in the overall). bama, tenn, florida, uga, lsu and au all contributed to that #. (uga is the only one with only 1 game, the rest had multiple).

    I thought your entire post was outstanding. I am responding in two parts to focus on different aspects of it.

    I'm wondering how you are defining "elite vs elite" ? Top 10 ? Top 5 ? Not disputing those #s, just curious how you are defining elite.

    //

    I completely agree with your two main bolded points that where the SEC has separated itself is on the big stage.

    The SEC's best has beaten the other conferences' best teams every time they've been matched in a BCS title game, and it has frequently been ugly. That has left a lasting impression on the media.

    And the fact that four different SEC teams have won the title during this six year run has made that impression even stronger, as it hasn't just been a dominant Bama team or LSU team doing the damage as it was when USC was dominating during the mid-2000's, so the entire conference looks strong as a result of four different SEC teams beating teams from other conferences during this run.

    All of that is pretty much undeniable, and I don't think most rational non-SEC fans would argue those points.

    //

    What has happened, though, is that the echo chamber and group think aspects of the national media, combined with ESPN's vested interest in promoting the SEC, have combined to hype the SEC in a way that has given the SEC an advantage in terms of getting into the title game because the top 10 preseason poll usually has 4 or 5 SEC teams in it. (I thought the original article nailed this aspect of it.)

    So a team from another conference will need to go undefeated usually to get in over a 1 loss SEC team.

    That is what pisses me off as a USC fan, as I look at 2008 and think if SC had been given the opportunity, they could have easily won the title that year, but they weren't given that opportunity, even though they had the same number of losses as UF.

    Combined with 2003, where SC was #1 in both polls, yet got left out of the title game when the computers put OU into the title matchup, and let's just say I think the BCS system is incredibly flawed and am happy to see it die.

    I give Mike Slive full credit for proposing the playoff in '08, and I give Tom Hansen (the old PAC commissioner) full scorn for having his head up his arse and voting against it, so that we've had to endure the BCS this much longer.

    //

    There is no argument about the way the SEC teams have performed in the BCS title games, but the process of selecting the teams to be in the title game is what infuriates a lot of fans from other regions. More to follow……..

    This post was edited by USCTraveler on 8/27/2012 at 2:30 PM

    USCTraveler

  • theharbinater said...

    sec vs each conf (bowl and non-bowl):

    Combined:
    Pos Team Record
    1. Big 12 (27-19-0)--0.58696[1]
    2. ACC (61-46-0)--0.57009[2]
    3. Big Ten (28-22-0)--0.56000
    4. Pac-12 (11-12-0)--0.47826
    5. Big East (18-23-0)--0.43902
    Total (145-122-0)--0.54307

    i am of the belief that the sec is NOT head and shoulders above other conferences in any given year. i think each year they are among the top 2-3, and often the best, but it is not by an overly large margin. over time, however, the sec is at the top more than other conferences, and thus the best over time.

    bcs conf vs other bcs conf since 98 (bowls and reg season combined):
    Pos Team Record
    1. SEC (145-122-0)--0.54307[1]
    2. Pac-12 (110-97-0)--0.53140[2]*
    3. Big 12 (125-122-0)--0.50607
    4. ACC (145-164-0)--0.46926[3]
    5. Big East (109-134-0)--0.44856*
    6. Big Ten (105-131-0)--0.44492[4]

    so the sec leads it, but not by terribly much (which gives credence to my opinion that the sec is best over time, but not by a whole lot.) everyone is hovering around .500, give or take.


    If the media presented the case for the SEC in the way you did with your bolded statements above, I don't think a lot of people would have a problem with it.

    As your #'s show, the SEC has the best record against teams from the other conferences, but it's not by any large margin.

    I do think the consistency of the SEC has helped set it apart, and you can reasonably say that during the BCS era, the SEC overall has been the strongest conference, although not by any overwhelming degree (in overall terms).

    But the way the top SEC teams have performed in BCS title games has combined with the lemmings in the media and their group think/ echo chamber to produce an impression that is constantly regurgitated in the 24/7/365 cable tv and twitter world that "THE ALL-MIGHTY, ALL-POWERFULL, ALL-AWESOME SEC CAN NEVER BE BEAT."

    This would be merely irritating non-SEC fans if we had a real playoff featuring 8 teams (including the champions of each of the Big 4 conferences plus the ACC and a few at larges) and the champion each year was decided on the field.

    But since we are still in a poll-based system, having the top 10 stacked with SEC teams almost assures that we will see an SEC team in the title game every year. And it's a lot easier to win a BCS title if you are in the game than if you are not given the opportunity to play. (See USC '03, Auburn '04, USC, Texas and Utah '08, OK State last year, etc, etc.)

    That is where I thought the article was spot on, and why I can't wait for a playoff system, so that threads like this become a novelty of the past and we actually get to see the best of the best from each conference play each other every year in the post-season and the national title is truly that- a championship decided on the field by teams from all over the country.

    Our best vs your best. CAN'T WAIT!!!

    USCTraveler

  • USCTraveler said...

    I thought your entire post was outstanding. I am responding in two parts to focus on different aspects of it.

    I'm wondering how you are defining "elite vs elite" ? Top 10 ? Top 5 ? Not disputing those #s, just curious how you are defining elite.

    //

    I completely agree with your two main bolded points that where the SEC has separated itself is on the big stage.

    The SEC's best has beaten the other conferences' best teams every time they've been matched in a BCS title game, and it has frequently been ugly. That has left a lasting impression on the media.

    And the fact that four different SEC teams have won the title during this six year run has made that impression even stronger, as it hasn't just been a dominant Bama team or LSU team doing the damage as it was when USC was dominating during the mid-2000's, so the entire conference looks strong as a result of four different SEC teams beating teams from other conferences during this run.

    All of that is pretty much undeniable, and I don't think most rational non-SEC fans would argue those points.

    //

    What has happened, though, is that the echo chamber and group think aspects of the national media, combined with ESPN's vested interest in promoting the SEC, have combined to hype the SEC in a way that has given the SEC an advantage in terms of getting into the title game because the top 10 preseason poll usually has 4 or 5 SEC teams in it. (I thought the original article nailed this aspect of it.)

    So a team from another conference will need to go undefeated usually to get in over a 1 loss SEC team.

    That is what pisses me off as a USC fan, as I look at 2008 and think if SC had been given the opportunity, they could have easily won the title that year, but they weren't given that opportunity, even though they had the same number of losses as UF.

    Combined with 2003, where SC was #1 in both polls, yet got left out of the title game when the computers put OU into the title matchup, and let's just say I think the BCS system is incredibly flawed and am happy to see it die.

    I give Mike Slive full credit for proposing the playoff in '08, and I give Tom Hansen (the old PAC commissioner) full scorn for having his head up his arse and voting against it, so that we've had to endure the BCS this much longer.

    //

    There is no argument about the way the SEC teams have performed in the BCS title games, but the process of selecting the teams to be in the title game is what infuriates a lot of fans from other regions. More to follow……..

    Great post.

    I think you will find a lot of people that would agree with USC being left out in 2008 a shame, although I think when you line things up, the same argument could be made for Florida if it was reverse. That is the problem with the 2 team BCS system. Yes, in some regards, it is a better system than in the past as it give you a chance to line up obvious 1 and 2 instead of them going their different ways to the Sugar, Cotton, Rose, or Orange Bowl, for the most part, but it doesn't help when there is one team above 2 or 3 others that could all make some argument.

    The streak of 6 in a row individually has a lot of luck involved. When you look at it as a whole, like you said, the most impressive thing is that there are 4 teams involved in it. You could say that the SEC has more teams capable of winning a championship over 10 years, but it doesn't mean that in any given year that there are 3, 4, or 5 SEC teams better than other conference's top teams. Auburn is a great example. They have the ability, the resources, and the program to win, but in those 6 years, 4 of the years, they were average to decent, with one of them being downright awful. Florida is one that had a good run, but the last couple of years has been very average at best.

    There is a sense of the SEC gets the "tiebreaker" if you will amongst one-loss teams and if this system was to continue, it would probably happen more times that not, until the streak was to end. With the playoff system coming down the road, hopefully it will help even things out a bit and I am not one for seeing any conference get more than one team in unless it is obvious. Still wish we could go to 16 and let every conference in FBS have a shot, including some at-large teams. I think it would suck to line up and play football every year with no chance, even if you win every game to see how good you really can be.

    This post was edited by BetterOff on 8/27/2012 at 3:03 PM

    BetterOff

  • BetterOff said...

    Great post.

    I think you will find a lot of people that would agree with USC being left out in 2008 a shame, although I think when you line things up, the same argument could be made for Florida if it was reverse. That is the problem with the 2 team BCS system. Yes, in some regards, it is a better system than in the past as it give you a chance to line up obvious 1 and 2 instead of them going their different ways to the Sugar, Cotton, Rose, or Orange Bowl, for the most part, but it doesn't help when there is one team above 2 or 3 others that could all make some argument.

    The streak of 6 in a row individually has a lot of luck involved. When you look at it as a whole, like you said, the most impressive thing is that there are 4 teams involved in it. You could say that the SEC has more teams capable of winning a championship over 10 years, but it doesn't mean that in any given year that there are 3, 4, or 5 SEC teams better than other conference's top teams. Auburn is a great example. They have the ability, the resources, and the program to win, but in those 6 years, 4 of the years, they were average to decent, with one of them being downright awful. Florida is one that had a good run, but the last couple of years has been very average at best.

    There is a sense of the SEC gets the "tiebreaker" if you will amongst one-loss teams and if this system was to continue, it would probably happen more times that not, until the streak was to end. With the playoff system coming down the road, hopefully it will help even things out a bit and I am not one for seeing any conference get more than one team in unless it is obvious. Still wish we could go to 16 and let every conference in FBS have a shot, including some at-large teams. I think it would suck to line up and play football every year with no chance, even if you win every game to see how good you really can be.

    HARBINGER - I think you have a mistake in the numbers. I think it's probably just a typo

    I'm almost positive the
    Big Ten is (125-131) .488 - instead of 105-131

    I also have the
    Pac12 (113-97) .538

    Overall, very nice work though.

    bcs conf vs other bcs conf since 98 (bowls and reg season combined):
    Pos Team Record
    1. SEC (145-122-0)--0.54307[1]
    2. Pac-12 (110-97-0)--0.53140[2]*
    3. Big 12 (125-122-0)--0.50607
    4. ACC (145-164-0)--0.46926[3]
    5. Big East (109-134-0)--0.44856*
    6. Big Ten (105-131-0)--0.44492[4]

    NcaaAssassinG13 ●

  • This thread is still here?

    signature image signature image signature image

    @BillyEN4C

    BillyEN4C ●

  • USCTraveler said...

    If the media presented the case for the SEC in the way you did with your bolded statements above, I don't think a lot of people would have a problem with it.

    As your #'s show, the SEC has the best record against teams from the other conferences, but it's not by any large margin.

    I do think the consistency of the SEC has helped set it apart, and you can reasonably say that during the BCS era, the SEC overall has been the strongest conference, although not by any overwhelming degree (in overall terms).

    But the way the top SEC teams have performed in BCS title games has combined with the lemmings in the media and their group think/ echo chamber to produce an impression that is constantly regurgitated in the 24/7/365 cable tv and twitter world that "THE ALL-MIGHTY, ALL-POWERFULL, ALL-AWESOME SEC CAN NEVER BE BEAT."

    This would be merely irritating non-SEC fans if we had a real playoff featuring 8 teams (including the champions of each of the Big 4 conferences plus the ACC and a few at larges) and the champion each year was decided on the field.

    But since we are still in a poll-based system, having the top 10 stacked with SEC teams almost assures that we will see an SEC team in the title game every year. And it's a lot easier to win a BCS title if you are in the game than if you are not given the opportunity to play. (See USC '03, Auburn '04, USC, Texas and Utah '08, OK State last year, etc, etc.)

    That is where I thought the article was spot on, and why I can't wait for a playoff system, so that threads like this become a novelty of the past and we actually get to see the best of the best from each conference play each other every year in the post-season and the national title is truly that- a championship decided on the field by teams from all over the country.

    Our best vs your best. CAN'T WAIT!!!

    I only slightly disagree, the numbers are rather close, a lot just depends on how you look at the numbers.
    But one thing that people like to ignore is the fact that the PAC has put up these equal or better numbers while playing a lot more road games. It's ridiculous to ignore that.

    When you look at it like this 1) head-2-head games, 2) games vs Conferences who have won at least 7 BCS bowl games (half of the BCS Era), & 3)The final 2 conferences that are relevant, the numbers tell a little different story.
    One that I believe is more accurate.

    Head-2-Head
    ===========
    SEC 11-12......4-6 road
    PAC 12-11......6-5 road $

    vs Big XII, B1G, BEast, PAC, and SEC
    ==============================
    SEC...85-76 (.527) 161 total games
    PAC 100-89 (.529) 187 total games $

    SEC 14-23 (.378) 37 road games
    PAC 29-43 (.402 ) 72 road games $

    As you can see in the above comparison the Pac12 played 35 more road games
    than the SEC did, and still had a better win pct.

    This is extremely important, especially considering on average, the home/road game location factor
    changes win pct from about 55-60% to 40-45%.

    Yet, everybody conviently ignores it.
    Especially several of the computers the BCS chose to use.

    vs BigXII, B1G, BEast, PAC, SEC, ACC, & MWC
    =====================================
    157-129 (.548) 286 total games
    163-129 (.558) 292 total games $

    SEC 38-43 (.469) 81 road games $
    PAC 46-60 (.433) 106 road games (but played 25 more road games)

    WHY MWC ?
    Just to be clear- below I'm talking about the MWC from 1998-2010,
    they are no longer relevant, after the exodus of BYU, TCU, Utah, Boise St.

    It is very convenient to use the excuse that because the Mountain West Conference was not an
    AQ conference, they shouldn't be included.

    Looking back, it really should have been the Mountain West with the AQ status, instead of the ACC.
    The ACC is 2-13 in BCS Bowl games, and 1 of the 2 wins was against current conf member Virginia Tech.
    You pretty much have to go back to 2000 to find any sort of signifigant win by an ACC team.
    Meanwhile, the MWC went 3-1 or 5-1 in BCS Bowl games with Boise St, with the only being when
    Boise St beat TCU.

    Above you can see how the ACC brings the numbers up for the SEC, especially the road games
    SEC was 23-18 on the road vs the ACC (56%) and 62-46 (57%) vs the ACC overall

    Losing 56% of your home games is just another example of why the ACC games should be
    categorized with the MWC. The MWC had a winning record at home vs the SEC and was .500
    vs the Pac12 at home. Before adding the ACC, the SEC had won only 37% of their road games,
    now with the ACC 47%.

    The SEC beat MWC teams 59%, and ACC teams 57% overall.
    The Pac 12 beat ACC teams (62%), and MWC teams (61%) of all games.
    ACC went 10-9 vs the MWC

    NcaaAssassinG13 ●

  • peace

    signature image signature image signature image

    No Excuses,'' OUR Immortal 75 is BETTER THAN YOUR 85 anyday,anytime ,anywhere.

    trojanfolife

  • BetterOff said...

    Great post.

    I think you will find a lot of people that would agree with USC being left out in 2008 a shame, although I think when you line things up, the same argument could be made for Florida if it was reverse. That is the problem with the 2 team BCS system. Yes, in some regards, it is a better system than in the past as it give you a chance to line up obvious 1 and 2 instead of them going their different ways to the Sugar, Cotton, Rose, or Orange Bowl, for the most part, but it doesn't help when there is one team above 2 or 3 others that could all make some argument.

    The streak of 6 in a row individually has a lot of luck involved. When you look at it as a whole, like you said, the most impressive thing is that there are 4 teams involved in it. You could say that the SEC has more teams capable of winning a championship over 10 years, but it doesn't mean that in any given year that there are 3, 4, or 5 SEC teams better than other conference's top teams. Auburn is a great example. They have the ability, the resources, and the program to win, but in those 6 years, 4 of the years, they were average to decent, with one of them being downright awful. Florida is one that had a good run, but the last couple of years has been very average at best.

    There is a sense of the SEC gets the "tiebreaker" if you will amongst one-loss teams and if this system was to continue, it would probably happen more times that not, until the streak was to end. With the playoff system coming down the road, hopefully it will help even things out a bit and I am not one for seeing any conference get more than one team in unless it is obvious. Still wish we could go to 16 and let every conference in FBS have a shot, including some at-large teams. I think it would suck to line up and play football every year with no chance, even if you win every game to see how good you really can be.

    I agree with you about the flaws of a two team system. It's been a step forward from what we had before, and some years, it's been fine, like in '05, but years like '03, '04, '08 and last year show how inadequate the system is.

    Four teams will be an improvement, and there will be less years where a deserving team gets left out, but it's still only four teams, and it will be dependent on the human element in the committee, so depending on who's on the committee and what its political dynamic is, I have no doubt that there will inevitably be years where a team gets left out that should have had a shot.

    I think we'll see it go to 8 teams when the next contract is up in 12 years, as that seems to be the format that has the most public support.

    I don't know if we'll see 16 teams, as there seems to be a lot of pushback against it, but I'd be fine with it.

    This post was edited by USCTraveler on 8/27/2012 at 9:27 PM

    USCTraveler

  • 6 in a row. Not sure what else to say. blank

    Ledrick_1914

Football Recruiting
Basketball Recruiting
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports