Is it fair that the SEC only plays H. School teams in week 13?

I got to see florida complete forward passes yesterday. Y'all can s my d with no c j all over a's
 
cudder said:
A two loss team is ranked ahead of a 3 loss team. Has nothing to do with preseason rankings.
Click to expand...


If you used last weeks rankings there are eight, yes eight, 3 or more loss teams in the top 25 ranked ahead of a zero loss team
 
gps_3 said:
I'm not sure why it matters when teams play FCS opponents, whether it's in Sept or Nov. I hate those games, but it's hard to be too critical when the FCS teams use the money to do stuff like add lights to their field, or have more scholarships to offer. It's a necessary evil in some respects. I'd be all for a 9 game conference schedule in the SEC, but the coaches don't want it. 13-1 against at the last SEC meeting.

You can call it a double standard, but one of those games had 25 or so defensive players get drafted. Wonder how many from Wake/Va Tech will? Sometimes it's great defense. Other times it's bad offense.
Click to expand...

I stopped reading at this' "Add lights to the field" :rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
gps_3 said:
The tv networks will never allow the end of preseason rankings. Kyle is right that having only conference champions, whether it's 4, 6, or 8 is the only "fair" way, but it's too late for that. No conference will agree that, not just the SEC
Click to expand...

What do you mean the networks will never allow for the end of pre season rankings? Network tv is obligated to show certain conferences no matter what. Are you saying they are too stupid to provide us with the best match-ups if there are no rankings by their names? Gimme a break.
 
Carolina Guy said:
What do you mean the networks will never allow for the end of pre season rankings? Network tv is obligated to show certain conferences no matter what. Are you saying they are too stupid to provide us with the best match-ups if there are no rankings by their names? Gimme a break.
Click to expand...

I think ESPN/ABC, who sponsored a ranking until this year, would definitely trump up rankings for teams it shows as opposed to teams on FOX or CBS. Of course they would figure out the best matchup of the games it carries. But they want to sell their game(s) as better than their competitors
 
Alex said:
Alabama and LSU go 6-3 or whatever and people say what a great game of two defenses. Va tech and Wake go 0-0 and make fun of the ACC? this is the double standard. I'm still hoping that the SEC gets left out of the playoff
Click to expand...

This post will get ignored unless Twank sees it and posts something profound for all of us to read.
 
twinkie13 said:
It's just dumb at this point. Ive said Ole Miss was shit all year,.......Arkansas has a biggest ofeensive line in the world....cfb or pro

I was never SEC fan guy

Now I am

Conference Dominance.....the others are shit


so Fla St won the last one...respect to them

who was it before? was it in the 1990s?
Click to expand...

I will agree with you here ... People talking shit about your conference will force one to circle the wagons, right or wrong.
 
gps_3 said:
I'm not sure why it matters when teams play FCS opponents, whether it's in Sept or Nov. I hate those games, but it's hard to be too critical when the FCS teams use the money to do stuff like add lights to their field, or have more scholarships to offer. It's a necessary evil in some respects. I'd be all for a 9 game conference schedule in the SEC, but the coaches don't want it. 13-1 against at the last SEC meeting.

You can call it a double standard, but one of those games had 25 or so defensive players get drafted. Wonder how many from Wake/Va Tech will? Sometimes it's great defense. Other times it's bad offense.
Click to expand...

The ACC and SEC consistently put the talent in the nfl. Every. F'ing. Year. 1 and 2 almost as a consistent as there has been an sec team win the title every year. In some of those years the ACC was the top dog. For the life of me I can't comprehend why this conference doesn't translate to winning in college like it does in April. Damnedest thing. Oh well.
 
Carolina Guy said:
The ACC and SEC consistently put the talent in the nfl. Every. F'ing. Year. 1 and 2 almost as a consistent as there has been an sec team win the title every year. In some of those years the ACC was the top dog. For the life of me I can't comprehend why this conference doesn't translate to winning in college like it does in April. Damnedest thing. Oh well.
Click to expand...


The 2014 NFL Draft marked the eighth year in a row in which the SEC had the most draftees, with 49.
» For the fourth year in a row, the SEC had the most first-round draftees, with 11. It's also the fourth year in a row the league has had double-digit picks in the first round. Only one other conference has had even eight in the first round in that span (the Big 12 twice, with nine in 2010 -- when it had the most first-rounders -- and eight in 2011).
» Over the past five drafts, the SEC blows away the field when it comes to draft picks, with 241. In second, 72 picks behind, is the ACC with 169. The rest of the FBS leagues in the past five drafts: Big Ten with 154, Pac-12 with 150, Big 12 with 124, the now-defunct Big East (for football) with 73, the Mountain West with 58, Conference USA with 45, the now-defunct Western Athletic 40, the Mid-American with 31, independents with 26 and the Sun Belt with 24. (Important to note: The league affiliation matches up with the conference the school was in at the time of the draft, i.e., Missouri in the Big 12 from 2010-12 and the SEC in 2013-14.)
» The SEC also blows away the field in first-round picks over the past five years, with 50. In second is the Big 12 with 27. The rest: The ACC with 21, the Big Ten with 18, the Pac-12 with 17, the Big East with six, independents with five, the AAC and MAC with four each, the Mountain West and WAC with three each and Conference USA with two.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap20...numbers-sec-dominates-in-producing-nfl-talent

SEC Bias has no boundaries
 
gps_3 said:
I think ESPN/ABC, who sponsored a ranking until this year, would definitely trump up rankings for teams it shows as opposed to teams on FOX or CBS. Of course they would figure out the best matchup of the games it carries. But they want to sell their game(s) as better than their competitors
Click to expand...

A ranking doesn't matter. The people will watch. Everybody knows an 8pm game on ABC is gonna be a really good one 13/14 weeks. Or however many weeks they play. And we also know the 12pm slot on espn f'ing blows unless one has vested interest. We may all play dumb from time to time, but we aren't literally dumb.
 
Carolina Guy said:
A ranking doesn't matter. The people will watch. Everybody knows an 8pm game on ABC is gonna be a really good one 13/14 weeks. Or however many weeks they play. And we also know the 12pm slot on espn f'ing blows unless one has vested interest. We may all play dumb from time to time, but we aren't literally dumb.
Click to expand...

I know you'll never agree with me, not sure what I did to upset you, but I disagree. Outside of the southeast where the viewership and fandom is more casual, people would be more likely to watch #2 vs #9 than #17 vs #25. IMO
 
gps_3 said:
I know you'll never agree with me, not sure what I did to upset you, but I disagree. Outside of the southeast where the viewership and fandom is more casual, people would be more likely to watch #2 vs #9 than #17 vs #25. IMO
Click to expand...

Yeah, this may be true, but I think the point is that if there were no rankings in the preseason (and until a certain week), people would watch the games anyway. It wouldn't matter if they would rather watch a 2/9 game instead of a 17/25 game because no one would have a number next to their name. The preseason rankings do need something done to them because it really is BS the way the rankings are thrown around as far as quality wins, when the preseason rankings are what drives it all...and they are completely subjective as no one has played a game.
 
If the preseason rankings were done away with, what would you guys do for the rankings...meaning, when would you publish the first set of rankings? Would it be right after Week 1, or would you wait a few weeks?
 
Lareux said:
Yeah, this may be true, but I think the point is that if there were no rankings in the preseason (and until a certain week), people would watch the games anyway. It wouldn't matter if they would rather watch a 2/9 game instead of a 17/25 game because no one would have a number next to their name. The preseason rankings do need something done to them because it really is BS the way the rankings are thrown around as far as quality wins, when the preseason rankings are what drives it all...and they are completely subjective as no one has played a game.
Click to expand...

I agree that people would watch if there were no rankings. I'm just saying that if there were no official polls, ESPN/ABC/CBS/FOX would make their own rankings to try to gain viewership over a rival network. Money drives nearly every discussion in the sport. This would be no different
 
Lareux said:
If the preseason rankings were done away with, what would you guys do for the rankings...meaning, when would you publish the first set of rankings? Would it be right after Week 1, or would you wait a few weeks?
Click to expand...

And there's another outfit that would have preseason rankings: the books. That would become the new rankings, assuming they couldn't keep them secret
 
gps_3 said:
I agree that people would watch if there were no rankings. I'm just saying that if there were no official polls, ESPN/ABC/CBS/FOX would make their own rankings to try to gain viewership over a rival network. Money drives nearly every discussion in the sport. This would be no different
Click to expand...

You're right, they probably would do that. But, at least with a few different sets of rankings by different networks, those rankings wouldn't be used later in the season to justify a team's ranking because of 'quality wins' based on BS rankings.
 
gps_3 said:
I know you'll never agree with me, not sure what I did to upset you, but I disagree. Outside of the southeast where the viewership and fandom is more casual, people would be more likely to watch #2 vs #9 than #17 vs #25. IMO
Click to expand...

You did nothing to upset me. And I don't think anything less of you here in fantasy world. I imagine if we were having brisket and a beer at dreamland we'd have a wonderful conversation about "you name it". (That goes for every poster here, btw). I just believe people are more aware about what happened the year before and what is supposed to happen this season as well as who has been good for a while to make a judgement about watching a good game no matter if rankings are by their name or not. We also are smart enough to know who blew last year or in years past. Waiting a month to rank teams officially won't change a damn thing. That's just my opinion. For all we know, it'll stay status quo.
 
Lareux said:
You're right, they probably would do that. But, at least with a few different sets of rankings by different networks, those rankings wouldn't be used later in the season to justify a team's ranking because of 'quality wins' based on BS rankings.
Click to expand...

It would be better, but with human voters, they would still be subject to what they've been told is correct, even if it isn't
 
gps_3 said:
And there's another outfit that would have preseason rankings: the books. That would become the new rankings, assuming they couldn't keep them secret
Click to expand...

Very true, you would be able to gather, for the most part, where a team 'ranks,' but unless Vegas is putting out hypothetical lines for every possible matchup, it wouldn't be a complete ranking. And, again, at least those wouldn't be used later in the year to justify someone's ranking based on 'quality wins' from BS rankings. I think that's really the crux of the issue...the fact that subjective, preseason rankings are being used to determine rankings later in the year...not the rankings themselves.
 
Carolina Guy said:
You did nothing to upset me. And I don't think anything less of you here in fantasy world. I imagine if we were having brisket and a beer at dreamland we'd have a wonderful conversation about "you name it". (That goes for every poster here, btw). I just believe people are more aware about what happened the year before and what is supposed to happen this season as well as who has been good for a while to make a judgement about watching a good game no matter if rankings are by their name or not. We also are smart enough to know who blew last year or in years past. Waiting a month to rank teams officially won't change a damn thing. That's just my opinion. For all we know, it'll stay status quo.
Click to expand...

If you got brisket at Dreamland, we wouldn't be friends. :cheers3:
 
For example, NBC was priming the Notre Dame / N'Western game last weekend. This is exactly how it went, "Twenty years ago N'Western upset ND and now ND looks to avenge that loss this weekend in NBC". I LOL at that and texted my brethren to let them know. We all had a great laugh. The point is, they didn't need rankings by their names. They just brought some facts to the table and made it personal. We will all watch just like we always watch unless life dictates otherwise.
 
gps_3 said:
I agree that people would watch if there were no rankings. I'm just saying that if there were no official polls, ESPN/ABC/CBS/FOX would make their own rankings to try to gain viewership over a rival network. Money drives nearly every discussion in the sport. This would be no different
Click to expand...

I agree with this, but there would be no official rankings on the commercials of said football games for the coming week. I can't honestly say the pollsters wouldn't be swayed by college football daily or whoever making up rankings. But if it made a difference on a couple of dark horses who wouldn't have been in the top 25 in August, but now get an honest shot to shoot up the rankings in early October - I'm all for it. Don't care what school it is or what conference they come from.
 
The preseason rankings have nothing to do with the committee's selections, in theory. Until another conference has 7 (or however many it was) championships from its conference in a row, the sec gets the benefit of the doubt. Unfair this year? Possibly, but it is what it is. There's a reason all of you sec haters are doing everything you can to bring your own conference up to the sec's standard and comparing them to the sec. The sec is the best and thats all there is to it. Not as head and shoulders above as in past years, but still the best. Look at it this way, There are 4 or 5 teams from the sec that would be favored (or at worse a pick) against the best team from the other power 5 conferences on a neutral field. Spend less time hating, and spend more time trying to emulate. And re: ooc schedule, nobody will schedule home & homes with the sec anymore? These games are scheduled at least 2 years in advance...point being, there's no difference in scheduling so miss or rice from marshall (all c-usa) when the games are scheduled two years in advance. Maybe these teams from weaker conferences (marshall) should work on scheduling power 5 games. There are at least 20 power 5 teams that would be favored over marshall right now. Who knows what would happen but thats a fact...
 
ram1502 said:
The preseason rankings have nothing to do with the committee's selections, in theory.
Click to expand...

They do when the committee points to quality wins over ranked opponents at the time of the game, which is what they've done.
 
ram1502 said:
And re: ooc schedule, nobody will schedule home & homes with the sec anymore? These games are scheduled at least 2 years in advance...point being, there's no difference in scheduling so miss or rice from marshall (all c-usa) when the games are scheduled two years in advance. Maybe these teams from weaker conferences (marshall) should work on scheduling power 5 games. There are at least 20 power 5 teams that would be favored over marshall right now. Who knows what would happen but thats a fact...
Click to expand...

Pretty sure they won't schedule with Marshall or Marshall would, or they're at least not as receptive to it as they should be. And I've asked this many times before...why do games need to be scheduled so far in advance? I know you've referenced 2 years, which isn't really that big of a deal, but so many people say these games are scheduled 5-8 years in advance...which makes no sense in 2014...it's not 1984.

And yes, most teams would be favored over Marshall, but that may not really be the point. If they have no chance to play for a championship because teams would be favored over them...we shouldn't use records, rankings, or games played at all and just use the pointspreads to determine who plays for the title. My point being...underdogs win games all the time, but they have to, at the very least, be able to play the game first.
 
What else do they have to point to right now? This will all work itself out in the end. They will have their year end rankings and thats what they will base their strength of schedule on, not some arbitrary bs preseason rankings. Fwiw, i couldnt agree with you more; auburn got absolutely screwed in 2004 bc they were ranked below usc and oklahoma preseason, went undefeated and it wasnt enough. Oklahoma proceeded to get skull drug by usc while auburn went on to beat #8 va tech in their bowl game. Then later usc had to vacate their title....all because auburn started outside the top 15 and had too much ground to make up.
 
clowncar said:
The solution is simple. 8 conferences and the 8 conference champions play in the playoffs. Then we remove all need for debate about fcs scheduling or how great or bad any conference is. ... and .... wait for it .. you get an actual champion. The way we do it now, you do not.
Click to expand...

Correct
 
ram1502 said:
The preseason rankings have nothing to do with the committee's selections, in theory. Until another conference has 7 (or however many it was) championships from its conference in a row, the sec gets the benefit of the doubt. Unfair this year? Possibly, but it is what it is. There's a reason all of you sec haters are doing everything you can to bring your own conference up to the sec's standard and comparing them to the sec. The sec is the best and thats all there is to it. Not as head and shoulders above as in past years, but still the best. Look at it this way, There are 4 or 5 teams from the sec that would be favored (or at worse a pick) against the best team from the other power 5 conferences on a neutral field. Spend less time hating, and spend more time trying to emulate. And re: ooc schedule, nobody will schedule home & homes with the sec anymore? These games are scheduled at least 2 years in advance...point being, there's no difference in scheduling so miss or rice from marshall (all c-usa) when the games are scheduled two years in advance. Maybe these teams from weaker conferences (marshall) should work on scheduling power 5 games. There are at least 20 power 5 teams that would be favored over marshall right now. Who knows what would happen but thats a fact...
Click to expand...

Which 4 or 5 teams will be favoured against Oregon or FSU on neutral?
 
Lareux said:
Pretty sure they won't schedule with Marshall or Marshall would, or they're at least not as receptive to it as they should be. And I've asked this many times before...why do games need to be scheduled so far in advance? I know you've referenced 2 years, which isn't really that big of a deal, but so many people say these games are scheduled 5-8 years in advance...which makes no sense in 2014...it's not 1984.

And yes, most teams would be favored over Marshall, but that may not really be the point. If they have no chance to play for a championship because teams would be favored over them...we shouldn't use records, rankings, or games played at all and just use the pointspreads to determine who plays for the title. My point being...underdogs win games all the time, but they have to, at the very least, be able to play the game first.
Click to expand...
I agree with you about scheduling. I have no idea why its like that, but it is. I also agree about the underdog point, but my point is when a team like marshall hasn't played ANYBODY. Not even one power 5 team on their schedule...then nobody even looks at them and IMO they shouldnt. You cant tell me marshall couldnt get west virginia or virginia or virginia tech or north carolina to play them...SOMETHING to hang their hat on. C-USA is C-USA until they beat power 5 teams on a regular basis, which aint happenin this century. It will be interesting to see who they get matched up with in the bowl game.
 
ram1502 said:
What else do they have to point to right now? This will all work itself out in the end. They will have their year end rankings and thats what they will base their strength of schedule on, not some arbitrary bs preseason rankings. Fwiw, i couldnt agree with you more; auburn got absolutely screwed in 2004 bc they were ranked below usc and oklahoma preseason, went undefeated and it wasnt enough. Oklahoma proceeded to get skull drug by usc while auburn went on to beat #8 va tech in their bowl game. Then later usc had to vacate their title....all because auburn started outside the top 15 and had too much ground to make up.
Click to expand...

Right, they don't have anything else to point to right now...but you said the committee wasn't using the preseason rankings...they are.

They should rank every team, or top 50 or whatever (they may do that now, not sure), and use the wins vs. their top 50 at the time of the poll, not at the time the game was played. Maybe that's what they will do in the last rankings...who knows?
 
ram1502 said:
I agree with you about scheduling. I have no idea why its like that, but it is. I also agree about the underdog point, but my point is when a team like marshall hasn't played ANYBODY. Not even one power 5 team on their schedule...then nobody even looks at them and IMO they shouldnt. You cant tell me marshall couldnt get west virginia or virginia or virginia tech or north carolina to play them...SOMETHING to hang their hat on. C-USA is C-USA until they beat power 5 teams on a regular basis, which aint happenin this century. It will be interesting to see who they get matched up with in the bowl game.
Click to expand...

Right, they should try and get someone. We don't know that they didn't try though, and were turned down. Plus, if they get a bottom feeder from a Power 5, all you'll hear is that it was a bottom feeder that they beat...they are pretty much damned if they do, and damned if they don't at this point.
 
Alan Tongue said:
Which 4 or 5 teams will be favoured against Oregon or FSU on neutral?
Click to expand...
Oregon would be the possible exception...bama and uga both would be favored over oregon. While bama, uga, miss st, ole miss, auburn all favored over fsu
 
Lareux said:
Right, they don't have anything else to point to right now...but you said the committee wasn't using the preseason rankings...they are.

They should rank every team, or top 50 or whatever (they may do that now, not sure), and use the wins vs. their top 50 at the time of the poll, not at the time the game was played. Maybe that's what they will do in the last rankings...who knows?
Click to expand...
i believe thats what they will do. But who the fukk knows at this point?
 
Lareux said:
Right, they should try and get someone. We don't know that they didn't try though, and were turned down. Plus, if they get a bottom feeder from a Power 5, all you'll hear is that it was a bottom feeder that they beat...they are pretty much damned if they do, and damned if they don't at this point.
Click to expand...
And i dont know that they didnt try, but im not sure it matters. Even purdue, vandy, unc, cal would be a step up in comp compared to who they play on a week to week basis...it would be something to show they can play with a percieved better football program from a much better conference. I think if marshall had played vandy and blew them out (which i think would have happened had they played), marshall would be in the top 20.
 
ram1502 said:
The preseason rankings have nothing to do with the committee's selections, in theory. Until another conference has 7 (or however many it was) championships from its conference in a row, the sec gets the benefit of the doubt. Unfair this year? Possibly, but it is what it is. There's a reason all of you sec haters are doing everything you can to bring your own conference up to the sec's standard and comparing them to the sec. The sec is the best and thats all there is to it. Not as head and shoulders above as in past years, but still the best. Look at it this way, There are 4 or 5 teams from the sec that would be favored (or at worse a pick) against the best team from the other power 5 conferences on a neutral field. Spend less time hating, and spend more time trying to emulate. And re: ooc schedule, nobody will schedule home & homes with the sec anymore? These games are scheduled at least 2 years in advance...point being, there's no difference in scheduling so miss or rice from marshall (all c-usa) when the games are scheduled two years in advance. Maybe these teams from weaker conferences (marshall) should work on scheduling power 5 games. There are at least 20 power 5 teams that would be favored over marshall right now. Who knows what would happen but thats a fact...
Click to expand...

:cheers3:
 
ram1502 said:
Oregon would be the possible exception...bama and uga both would be favored over oregon. While bama, uga, miss st, ole miss, auburn all favored over fsu
Click to expand...

Georgia would be favored against Oregon. You are the AntiChrist.

I hope college football fails because of fanboys like you, relegate this shit to the minor leagues where it belongs.
 
ram1502 said:
Oregon would be the possible exception...bama and uga both would be favored over oregon. While bama, uga, miss st, ole miss, auburn all favored over fsu
Click to expand...

This is an absurd post. I'm beginning to wonder if you think we are hating more or we believe you are more googly eyed over ur own conference. Auburn, ole piss, Georgia and possibly Miss St wouldn't be favored over either school.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
hawaii win total
Replies
7
Views
171
wiseplayer
wiseplayer
gps_3
2024 SEC Schedule
Replies
6
Views
289
KJ
KJ
Gandolf
College Football Survivor? How will that work?
Replies
2
Views
94
STEED
STEED
Br@ssknux
Championship Week Writeups(kind of) and Hopefully Feedbck
Replies
44
Views
2K
bones
bones
gps_3
SEC Pre-season Thread
Replies
47
Views
1K
gps_3
gps_3
Back
Top