SEC is the best conference top to bottom. But just an opinion ... no way to know for sure which is why only one team from any given conference should make a playoff. You could make arguments that the Big12 and Pac12 are almost on par and I couldn't make valid arguments against them because all of my arguments would be circular. But by my pr, which will buy you a kick in the nuts and a thank you card from my bookie, SEC still number one.
How do you keep an undefeated team that is in the top 7 in offensive scoring and defensive scoring out of a playoffm no matter who they played?
The SEC hating is getting bigger and it should with the agendas certain outlets put out...
But, with the bolded....they have always been a few teams then garbage....brutal...hot garbage...like almost B1G garbage...
So I hate that 'to bottom' crap.
They should be with the recruiting land they have...they should kill it...even everybody but Vandy and UK will suprise next few years methinks.
Best conference? Yes, but they are not head and shoulders above the rest. They have weaknesses too. Until they play a power-5 heavy out of conference schedule, we will never know.
But they have to play a gauntlet of in conference. Really???
I will state. Until you schedule better out of conference competition, we will never know just how good you are. Catch 22.
That is 6 games out of a possible 56 non conference games. It is the Presbyterians, UT-Martns,...etc (pay day games). Sprinkle in a power-5. SEC hangs their hat on beating each other. They are awarded pre-season hype rankings. Coupled with ESPNs agenda to drive their own network. Then get the luxury of saying they beat the #1, 2, 3 4...team in the nation. Those rankings are not earned, rather given.
Matter of fact, this is a non-winnable argument. As you will not be able t convince me differently. And I am sure you are steadfast in your beliefs as well. We will just have to agree to disagree.
It is un-winnable because of the bias the already exists on both sides of the argument. It is just assumed that the SEC won't schedule anybody, but at least for Alabama, Mich St and Ga Tech both just opted out of H&H series. It works both ways. And the way this playoff committee has started, it makes zero sense to schedule a losable OOC game.
We must have very different definitions of the terms "never" or "road games".it is with a system that allows for two teams coming from one conference making a playoff of only four teams when they never schedule out of conference true road games.
What is the correct number of road games against power 5 teams that should be played, and should SEC teams not expect return trips from those power 5 teams?never wasn't to be taken literally. they have two true road game wins in another teams home stadium against the power5 this year ... in the entire conference.
Then you can certainly understand why looking at "true" road games in a one year snapshot makes exactly zero sense.They should expect a return trip.
Looking at last week's Top 25 (playoff committee), only Auburn (KSt), Clemson (UGA), UCLA (UVA), Notre Dame (FSU, ASU), Mich St (Ore), and West Virginia (Maryland) have played a power 5 team in a true road game. AU, WVU, and UCLA have the only wins. Maybe not just the SEC
The burden of proof on whether to have two playoff teams from one conference of 14 teams out of 128 ( *roughly 11% ) is squarely on that conference, though. In other words, it doesn't matter about the pac12 or the big12 or the bigten or the acc or the sun belt ... because no one is saying two teams from those conferences have a shot at going. No one ... and I mean no one ... talks about Oregon and ASU making it or Ohio State and Nebraska .. or Duke and FSU .. or TCU and Baylor .. .... see they actually have to win their conference.
Then you can certainly understand why looking at "true" road games in a one year snapshot makes exactly zero sense.
Earlier in the thread it was pointed out how many road games the SEC played this season. After ignoring the home and home series that have both been played in recent years and are on future schedules, we're basically told that Georgia, or I guess the conference in this context, gets no credit for beating Clemson because the game was in Athens this year (as opposed to Clemson last year). Apparently road games against power 5 conference teams is the only barometer to judge perceived conference strength, and the SEC should be scheduling differently than everyone else and playing more of those games.What teams are expecting a team to travel to their place and not expect a return the following year? I do notice that the SEC had a lot of neutrals to open the season. Not necessarily a bad thing, as it is the only true barometer to measure their worth. I dont know how far in advance these are scheduled. I can only speak for the ones I recall (AL/MICH, AU/CLEMSON, AL/WVU). These had one year advanced notice and think Chick-fil-a and Jerry Jones have the upper hand in the teams selected.
The one bad thing is that you take the common fan out of these games. Not every fan, or student, has the funds to attend these events. So, it does take the pageantry out of the game.
Then again I may not be understanding exactly what you are getting at.
I don't have much issue with a conference champ only playoff, but there is no denying that all conferences are not created equal. Not to beat up on the B1G or Ohio State, but last night was the first regular season ranked opponent Ohio St has played in something like 3 years. The last time they beat a ranked opponent in the regular season before last night was in 2006. If the goal is to get the best teams in the playoffs, the argument for a one loss non-champ is certainly valid over a 3 loss champ from a weak conference. Apples to oranges a bit, but when was the last time a conference champ won the NCAA BBall championship?
Earlier in the thread it was pointed out how many road games the SEC played this season. After ignoring the home and home series that have both been played in recent years and are on future schedules, we're basically told that Georgia, or I guess the conference in this context, gets no credit for beating Clemson because the game was in Athens this year (as opposed to Clemson last year). Apparently road games against power 5 conference teams is the only barometer to judge perceived conference strength, and the SEC should be scheduling differently than everyone else and playing more of those games.
That is completely absurd and I'm fairly certain you know it.You should be scheduling differently if you are going to be GIVEN the benefit of the doubt over every other conference based on perception. If the sec is the only conference allowed to get two teams into a 4 team playoff ( which would seem the case given the examples I already showed ), I should hope said conference has been held to a higher standard. In this case, the SEC is being held to a lower standard and reaping greater reward for it.
they are certainly behind the PAC 12 and BIG 12
Sorry, we can't make that judgement unless Ole Miss had played @Arizona State, @Michigan State, and @Florida State in addition to their game against Boise. We can't decide anything about Auburn since they didn't play @Oregon, @Baylor, and @Ohio State in addition to their game @Kansas State. We'll just never know.Lets say Auburn or Ole Miss is the 5th best team in the SEC, would you take Texas over either of them?
Whatever perceived bias ESPN has toward the SEC is no worse than what they had toward USC during their run or the Ohio State/Michigan hype machine mentioned previously. The simple solution is to change the channel. The only time I watch ESPN is if they are showing a game I want to watch.The entire point of the thread was to question the SEC's perceived strength compared to other conferences. Even though their is a network devoted to the conference, the worldwide leader uses each of their brands to push the conference in our faces. As if the rest of the country does not play football. With out of conference schedules such as the one you posted, the only other way to pass judgement is bowl scheduling. The SEC wins their share, but does not win them all (no conference does). When the conference loses, it is always a question of motivation ...ala BAMA/OK or uf/Louisville. ...and so on.
Ill be the first to say there are great teams in the SEC, particularly in the west. But, there are great teams in other conferences and all to often SEC fans refuse to give them credit because they "don't play anybody". Yet, I dont see them on the SEC schedules to warrant that claim. Instead, I see Sunbelt teams scattered all over their schedules.
The SEC shouldn't play any conference games. Since they have a network and some people that rank teams think they're good they should be forced to take on the top teams from everywhere. And the schedules have to be fluid, probably only made 3 or 4 weeks at a time once it is determined who is playing best and who the top teams from around the country really are.How can you argue that the good teams from smaller conferences should be able to play the bigger schools, but at the same time, the SEC should only schedule power 5 teams?
The SEC shouldn't play any conference games. Since they have a network and some people that rank teams think they're good they should be forced to take on the top teams from everywhere. And the schedules have to be fluid, probably only made 3 or 4 weeks at a time once it is determined who is playing best and who the top teams from around the country really are.