[awm]

Can anyone explain to me why the SEC teams are all rated so high? They don't seem to really play anyone of significance outside their conference. In fact last week while the PAC-12 teams had a number of big matchups the SEC all seemed to have scheduled "patsies" who weren't even in the top division!

Yet coming into today, SEC teams held positions 4-8 in the polls. With #1 and #2 losing, it appears that if USC beats Notre Dame next week (no guarantee, but certainly possible) we will be headed for our second straight SEC vs. SEC national championship game. And once again, one of the teams in this game will not even have had a good enough record to play for the SEC championship (presumably the national championship will pit the SEC winner against some one-loss SEC team, and the SEC championship loser will have two losses).

Really seems to me that to play in the national championship, you should have to win your conference... Anyway it will be good to see a playoff system next year!

[bd71]

awm, on 2012-November-18, 17:02, said:

Can anyone explain to me why the SEC teams are all rated so high? They don't seem to really play anyone of significance outside their conference. In fact last week while the PAC-12 teams had a number of big matchups the SEC all seemed to have scheduled "patsies" who weren't even in the top division!

Yet coming into today, SEC teams held positions 4-8 in the polls. With #1 and #2 losing, it appears that if USC beats Notre Dame next week (no guarantee, but certainly possible) we will be headed for our second straight SEC vs. SEC national championship game. And once again, one of the teams in this game will not even have had a good enough record to play for the SEC championship (presumably the national championship will pit the SEC winner against some one-loss SEC team, and the SEC championship loser will have two losses).

Really seems to me that to play in the national championship, you should have to win your conference... Anyway it will be good to see a playoff system next year!

http://en.wikipedia....s_by_conference

Check out the SEC's historical record in BCS bowl games at the link. They have won almost 70% of those games against the best teams the rest of the country can offer. The only conference that comes remotely close to that record is the Pac 10, which is largely driven by one school (USC) who hasn't really been elite-good in the last few years.

I actually dislike the SEC, but there's no question they are the pre-eminent college football conference in the last 10-15 years and consistently have had 2-3 of the best 5 teams in the country.

I of course agree that the new playoffs are a welcome change.

[awm]

Then again, most of the SEC's good bowl results are from Florida and LSU (both of which had recent periods of substantial dominance and are mostly out of the running this year).

I have no real problem with the SEC champ getting a national championship bid -- it is the toughest conference in the country. It's this idea that we should take a second team from the SEC for a "rematch" national championship game, especially when this second team has a substantially weaker schedule. It also bothers me that a team (even from the strongest conference in the country) can win a national championship without winning the conference or even playing a ranked team from outside the conference (as Alabama did last year).

I guess I should cheer for Notre Dame to win next week and make this issue moot.

[blackshoe]

SEC has a lot of referents. Securities and Exchange Commission. St. Edmund's College. Securities Exchange Company (which was run by Charles Ponzi). Subject Experiment Corporation, which sounds pretty scary. Whatever it is, it's Russian. Something to do with the gulags, maybe? Oh, yeah, and South Eastern Conference.

[billw55]

awm, on 2012-November-18, 19:47, said:

Then again, most of the SEC's good bowl results are from Florida and LSU (both of which had recent periods of substantial dominance and are mostly out of the running this year).

I have no real problem with the SEC champ getting a national championship bid -- it is the toughest conference in the country. It's this idea that we should take a second team from the SEC for a "rematch" national championship game, especially when this second team has a substantially weaker schedule. It also bothers me that a team (even from the strongest conference in the country) can win a national championship without winning the conference or even playing a ranked team from outside the conference (as Alabama did last year).

I guess I should cheer for Notre Dame to win next week and make this issue moot.

It doesn't bother me because I know that it is not a national championship. Rather, it is an arranged showcase game between two very good teams, for the purpose of generating revenue and perpetuating the dominance of the major conferences.

[Bbradley62]

billw55, on 2012-November-19, 09:21, said:

It doesn't bother me because I know that it is not a national championship.

Except, of course, that a representative of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (the organization authorized to make such designations) will present the winning team with a great big trophy that says "national champions". Does your fantasy world, where this is not a national championship game because you don't like the manner in which the participants are selected, include unicorns and leprechauns?

[Zelandakh]

Perhaps it is a national championship game in the same way that the final of an all-American sports competition is a world championship game?

PS: I am sure Phil will tell you that SEC is the Scottish Episcopal Church but when I see it I am thinking Daleks...

[inquiry]

awm, on 2012-November-18, 19:47, said:

Then again, most of the SEC's good bowl results are from Florida and LSU (both of which had recent periods of substantial dominance and are mostly out of the running this year).

Well, Florida, ranked 4th in the BCS this week, and facing I think its 5th top 10 oppenent this week in Florida State isn't quite yet out of the picture .

The current BCS IS

1- NOTRE DAME
2- ALABAMA
3-GEORGIA
4-FLORIDA.

If notre dame loses to usc, they will drop down.Alabama and Georgia play in the SEC championship game and one of those will drop down. So it is possible, at least, that Florida could move up to number 2 and play for the National Championship against the winner of the SEC championship game. I don't think that is going to happen. First, I don't think USC can beat Notre Dame without Barkley. Second, I don't think the odds of Florida beating Florida State are very good. Third, even if Notre Dame loses and Florida wins, Oregon beating Oregan State and Florida's poor performance in winning in the past month and voters not wanting to see yet another all SEC national championship game, Oregon will leap over Florida in the final vote. But, to say Florida is "mostly out" of the running this year seems an overbid. For what it is worth, I think it is alos possible that Florida could get without Notre Dame losing. It would take Georgia Tech beating Georgia, Georgia then beating Alabama and Oregon State upsetting Oregon. None of those loses are wildly unlikely, but I think Florida State has a better chance to beat Florida than any of those three games being upsets, so that sequence seems wildly unlikely.

[Phil]

USC probably won't beat Notre Dame. However, Notre Dame is a very weak #1 and probably won't be favored against any of the top 3 SEC teams.

Oregon lost when Stanford played an A+ game and Oregon's kicker glanced one off the upright. K-State just had a bad night period.

The real championship in my mind is Oregon versus K-State or maybe the SEC winner.

[kenrexford]

All I know is OH, IO!

[ArtK78]

Phil, on 2012-November-19, 14:10, said:

USC probably won't beat Notre Dame. However, Notre Dame is a very weak #1 and probably won't be favored against any of the top 3 SEC teams.

Oregon lost when Stanford played an A+ game and Oregon's kicker glanced one off the upright. K-State just had a bad night period.

The real championship in my mind is Oregon versus K-State or maybe the SEC winner.

Don't give Notre Dame such short shrift. Consider that Notre Dame beat Stanford (at Notre Dame in OT) and then beat Oklahoma soundly AT OKLAHOMA.

Going into this season, by any objective standard, Notre Dame was considered to have the country's toughest schedule. Achieving a perfect record against the country's toughest schedule is worthy of some respect.

Yes, USC turned out not to be as good as most believed they would be, and USC will face Notre Dame without its star quarterback. But you can only beat the teams on your schedule. And Notre Dame has done that. That is something the other teams cannot say.

[mike777]

alabama would be a ten point favorite against ND at this point in a nat. championship game.


Of course this is too just equalize the betting pools if that matters.

[jjbrr]

awm, on 2012-November-18, 17:02, said:

Can anyone explain to me why the SEC teams are all rated so high? They don't seem to really play anyone of significance outside their conference. In fact last week while the PAC-12 teams had a number of big matchups the SEC all seemed to have scheduled "patsies" who weren't even in the top division!

Yet coming into today, SEC teams held positions 4-8 in the polls. With #1 and #2 losing, it appears that if USC beats Notre Dame next week (no guarantee, but certainly possible) we will be headed for our second straight SEC vs. SEC national championship game. And once again, one of the teams in this game will not even have had a good enough record to play for the SEC championship (presumably the national championship will pit the SEC winner against some one-loss SEC team, and the SEC championship loser will have two losses).

Really seems to me that to play in the national championship, you should have to win your conference... Anyway it will be good to see a playoff system next year!

LOL

[Phil]

ArtK78, on 2012-November-19, 14:58, said:

Don't give Notre Dame such short shrift.

I'm taking bets Art.

[Flem72]

bd71, on 2012-November-18, 19:21, said:

I actually dislike the SEC, but there's no question they are the pre-eminent college football conference in the last 10-15 years and consistently have had 2-3 of the best 5 teams in the country.

Love it when ND is up, b/c they are good for college football and they do play a consistently tough schedule. But don't overlook the reason the SEC is given the deference they are given: attrition. It's hard to win through a season when week in and week out you are getting punished physically. The conference is easily the most physical in the country, top to bottom; that's why you always hear so much about "one-loss SEC teams." Oregon's Pac 12 schedule is a marshmallow by contrast.

Georgia-Alabama will be a brawl.

[billw55]

Bbradley62, on 2012-November-19, 09:40, said:

Except, of course, that a representative of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (the orgnaization authorized to make such designations) will present the winning team with a great big trophy that says "national champions". Does your fantasy world, where this is not a national championship game because you don't like the manner in which the participants are selected, include unicorns and leprechauns?

Sad that the NCAA has sold out to this illusion. They know better themselves, staging a real championship in their lower divisions. Which also gives lie to many of their publicly spoken reasons (student schedules, etc) for avoiding it in D1.

Hopefully the farce is coming to an end though. The four team playoff will be so wildly successful that even the NCAA brass may see the light and get out of bed with the BCS.

[mike777]

billw55, on 2012-November-20, 07:37, said:

Sad that the NCAA has sold out to this illusion. They know better themselves, staging a real championship in their lower divisions. Which also gives lie to many of their publicly spoken reasons (student schedules, etc) for avoiding it in D1.

Hopefully the farce is coming to an end though. The four team playoff will be so wildly successful that even the NCAA brass may see the light and get out of bed with the BCS.

Not sure how you define wildly successful

schools trade integrity for glory and dollars for their football teams

College football is such a mess now with injures, academic fraud, etc...

I dont see how a playoff will help any of these issues.

60 minutes tv show said only about 25 teams break even or better

Local newspaper talks about rampant fraud at Univ of North Carolina where the players dont seem to know grammer school level math, english...etc...

rampant cheating, plagiarism, no show classes

[billw55]

mike777, on 2012-November-20, 08:40, said:

Not sure how you define wildly successful

schools trade integrity for glory and dollars for their football teams

College football is such a mess now with injures, academic fraud, etc...

I dont see how a playoff will help any of these issues.

60 minutes tv show said only about 25 teams break even or better

Local newspaper talks about rampant fraud at Univ of North Carolina where the players dont seem to know grammer school level math, english...etc...

rampant cheating, plagiarism, no show classes

Yes, these are all problems to some extent, and from a certain point of view.

When I said "wildly successful" I meant financially, for the NCAA. A playoff offers far more revenue than the archaic bowl system. The NCAA could, in principle, use this revenue to prop up underfunded programs in both academics and athletics. They figured this out long ago in basketball, and now the hoops tournament is one of the top spectacles in American sports, measured either by fan attention or revenue (which are correlated of course). Why then do they stubbornly continue to let private promoters operate the postseason of their most lucrative product - and rake in the profits? The NCAA is leaving a very large amount of money on the table.

From a different viewpoint, it could be argued that college revenue sports (football and basketball) are just a moneymaking proposition, and that the education of the athletes is a sham and has been for decades. It can also be argued that athletics should not be sponsored by the universities at all, and that this should be left solely to private enterprise. But those are different threads.

[jjbrr]

awm, on 2012-November-18, 17:02, said:

Really seems to me that to play in the national championship, you should have to win your conference...

Go on...

[Phil]

mike777, on 2012-November-20, 08:40, said:

Local newspaper talks about rampant fraud at Univ of North Carolina where the players dont seem to know grammer school level math, english...etc...

Um...