Why I Don't Respect The Sec

[chomp]

It's early in the season so there are no doubt posers mixed in there, but of this week's AP Top 10, five of the teams are from the SEC. USC is the only team from the Pac 10 in the top 15 and Oregon is the only other Pac 10 in the AP Top 20. That seems to be as clear of indicator of the SEC's strength relative to the Pac 10 at this point in the season as we can get. LSU plays all four of the other SEC teams that are now in the Top 10 this season. That is pretty brutal (particularly when you come to Gainesville, Crip*TeamKatt!).

Edited September 14, 2008 by chomp

[shaft]

There is no reason for a D1/FBS team to play any d1aa/fcs teams.

I do give LSU a bit of a pass on the Appy State game for the reason that is was a novelty to match the "two" champions against each other, especially after Appy win in the Big House. Had Appy not had the upset of the century there is no reason for them to being playing D1/FBS program.

[Crip*TeamKATT]

The worse SEC team can beat the worse team from any of the other confrences! Thats what makes the SEC ahead of everyone else and such a tough confrence to play in.

And all confrences should play a championship game plan and simple. How can you call yourself a champion of your confrence if the 2 best teams NEVER meet during the season.

[Crip*TeamKATT]

It's early in the season so there are no doubt posers mixed in there, but of this week's AP Top 10, five of the teams are from the SEC. USC is the only team from the Pac 10 in the top 15 and Oregon is the only other Pac 10 in the AP Top 20. That seems to be as clear of indicator of the SEC's strength relative to the Pac 10 at this point in the season as we can get. LSU plays all four of the other SEC teams that are now in the Top 10 this season. That is pretty brutal (particularly when you come to Gainesville, Crip*TeamKatt!).

And I know that the only measuring stick is the polls....no pun intended...but like I said take the worse SEC team Kentucky or Vandy usually.

Whats the bottom dwellers of the Pac 10 and Big 10

Pac 10 usually Washington and Zona

Big 10 Indiana and Northwestern

The SEC would be heavily favored in those match ups!!!!

I was in the swamp back in 02 when we beat y'all that was a GREAT TIME!!!!!!

[Crip*TeamKATT]

There is no reason for a D1/FBS team to play any d1aa/fcs teams.

I do give LSU a bit of a pass on the Appy State game for the reason that is was a novelty to match the "two" champions against each other, especially after Appy win in the Big House. Had Appy not had the upset of the century there is no reason for them to being playing D1/FBS program.

They play D1 teams to make themselves better. When you beat the crap out of there own year in and year out they dont gain anything. By playing someone better then them it in turn makes then a better program. Back to Back to Back titles says alot reguardless if it is DII or not.

After the played us their second game they won 56 - 3 or something like.

AND because of the upset to UM (this is coming from the fan base) no DI school wanted to play them and have what happened to UM happen to them. The fans eventhough they knew they would proably lose were GREATFUL for having the chance to play us. Dont believe all you gotta do is go to their team forum and read.

There is nothing wrong with a lower class team wanting to better themselves by playing an upper level team. Unless of course they are just looking for the check!

[DallasGreen]

ANY team from the non-BCS or 1-AA is looking for the check. The deck is stacked against them (non-BCS) in that they will never get a home and home, most of their fans can't travel or buy BCS inflated game tickets, officiating will always protect the BCS in any close situation, and even when they do win it's called a fluke by the rest of the halves. The kicker to this is parity is starting to raise its head. As Mack Brown once said UT can get all the blue chips it wants, but you never know if they've hit their lifetime peak at the HS level, and a non-BCS can afford to take a chance on "potential" and just might find a sleeping star a la Brandon "Booger" Kennedy in the early 2000's at UNT. This is the big undisclosed fear of all the BCS, and the reason they will never want a true playoff such as NCAA BB has.

[eulessismore]

ANY team from the non-BCS or 1-AA is looking for the check. The deck is stacked against them (non-BCS) in that they will never get a home and home, most of their fans can't travel or buy BCS inflated game tickets, officiating will always protect the BCS in any close situation, and even when they do win it's called a fluke by the rest of the halves. The kicker to this is parity is starting to raise its head. As Mack Brown once said UT can get all the blue chips it wants, but you never know if they've hit their lifetime peak at the HS level, and a non-BCS can afford to take a chance on "potential" and just might find a sleeping star a la Brandon "Booger" Kennedy in the early 2000's at UNT. This is the big undisclosed fear of all the BCS, and the reason they will never want a true playoff such as NCAA BB has.

I think there are several reasons why the BCS doesn't want a true playoff, such as:

1. Some of the BCS schools came to football dominance due to racial segregation in southern universities sending the best black football players to northern schools or to historically black southern schools, thus keeping many of the best athletes from playing in major southern conferences, especially the SEC; the end of de jure segregation allowed the southern BCS schools to thrive, but those Jim Crow years established a "winning tradition" in northern schools that they continue to exploit long after they've won convincingly against any major competitors. Appalachian State just exposed a weakness that has long existed in the Northern BCS schools.

2. A playoff system would require the BCS schools to make major changes in strategy to remain competitive. Large, traditional organizations such as the NCAA do not favor change which would threaten many of their most powerful and historically successful members, especially since the policies and personnel of the NCAA have been determined by its most elite schools.

3. The power brokers want their traditional powerhouse schools to go to the best bowls, because...they always have. Parity is starting to work; last year was a prime year for the have nots, but one year does not a revolution make; if it did, North Texas would have been in a bowl in 1977 and Troy last year. My only hope is that enough Non-BCS FCS teams will win head to head against such phony elites as Michigan and Ohio State that not even the best big ten lawyer can make a coherent argument for keeping this dinosaur of a system.

[LongJim]

I think there are several reasons why the BCS doesn't want a true playoff, such as:

1. $

2. $

3. The power brokers want their traditional powerhouse schools to go to the best bowls, because...they travel and look good on TV, and have large national followings.

FIFY

[UNTFan23]

ANY team from the non-BCS or 1-AA is looking for the check.

You're going to start seeing $1 million games for schools looking for a paycheck.

A more interesting rule I'd like to see is limiting the number of home games to 6. Some schools like LSU in some seasons never play an away OOC game.

[GoMeanGreen1999]

You're going to start seeing $1 million games for schools looking for a paycheck.

A more interesting rule I'd like to see is limiting the number of home games to 6. Some schools like LSU in some seasons never play an away OOC game.

You mean you don't like how Ohio State plays 8 of it's 12 games at home?

[UNTFan23]

You mean you don't like how Ohio State plays 8 of it's 12 games at home?

I think it would create more parity in Div 1A.

If the Giants can win the SuperBowl without playing a single play-off game at home, then teams like OSU can play only 6 games at home and still have a shot at being Miss America the National Champion.

Edited September 15, 2008 by UNTFan23

[meangreendork]

You mean you don't like how Ohio State plays 8 of it's 12 games at home?

Wish our guys did that. Wish we'd do 5 games at home.

And no, Thanksgiving doesn't count. I'd almost rather have players not even be on the field that weekend so they could spend time with loved ones.

[GoMeanGreen1999]

Wish our guys did that. Wish we'd do 5 games at home.

And no, Thanksgiving doesn't count. I'd almost rather have players not even be on the field that weekend so they could spend time with loved ones.

I will NEVER understand why a school that struggles to get people to their games (especially when they are not winning) schedules home games on the Thanksgiving weekend. Not only are people gone, but many of the students are as well.

How was our attendence last year during this game - it must have been great, since we are doing it again this year.

Edited September 15, 2008 by GoMeanGreen1999

[Daddy Dumpsalot]

Perhaps a two team sampling isn't indicative of an overall trend, but when I look at the best of each conference, LSU and USC, I see a huge difference.

LSU schedules Appalachian St. and UNT while USC starts it's season with a road game against Virginia and a home game against Ohio State. Both teams routed the competition in the first two games, but USC at least put a hell of a lot more on the line. They could have feasibly been challenged or lost either one of those games, thus ruining their chances at the BCS championship game. LSU, on the other hand, gets full credit for their two victories, but there was no chance in hell that they were going to lose either one of them.

The year that LSU and USC split the two voting polls (2003), LSU played ULM and Western Illinois. They lost one game to Florida. USC played BYU and Hawaii and lost to Cal in triple overtime. Doesn't seem equal to me.

This year, USC doesn't have a single game against a non-BCS school. So while LSU is warming up, USC is already pounding it out, making it more likely that fatigue will be a factor later on in the season. The polls will reward USC for this only if it runs the table, but if both teams have one loss, I bet LSU will somehow come out on top in the polls. The SEC has obviously found a winning, and easy, formula for reaching the BCS successfully.

The SEC is hands down the strongest conference. It would be stupid to schedule all BCS opponents then go have play such strong conference opponents. If a team goes undefeated in the SEC they deserve to go to the national championship.

[oldguystudent]

I will NEVER understand why a school that struggles to get people to their games (especially when they are not winning) schedules home games on the Thanksgiving weekend. Not only are people gone, but many of the students are as well.

Maybe they're counting on spill over attendance from the Cowboys Thanksgiving game?

I'll be there unless it's 20 degrees outside. Nothing better to do that day.

[Green Mean]

Ok I whole heartedly agree that the SEC is the best conferences overall in football. However as far as the PAC 10 is concerned, I believe that USC is the true exception. USC can blow just about any school out of the building on any given night. If USC were in the SEC then I think they would be the upper echelon group of the SEC. While its easy not to respect the SEC for who they play in OOC schedule, the same can be said for just about every other big boy school out there. Not to mention that its truly wheels off that the Pac 10 does not have a championship game.

[UNTFan23]

Ok I whole heartedly agree that the SEC is the best conferences overall in football. However as far as the PAC 10 is concerned, I believe that USC is the true exception. USC can blow just about any school out of the building on any given night. If USC were in the SEC then I think they would be the upper echelon group of the SEC. While its easy not to respect the SEC for who they play in OOC schedule, the same can be said for just about every other big boy school out there. Not to mention that its truly wheels off that the Pac 10 does not have a championship game.

Please add the Big Eleven Ten to your wheels off list of conferences that doesn't have a conference championship game.

[CMJ]

Not to mention that its truly wheels off that the Pac 10 does not have a championship game.

Everyone plays everyone though? No reason to have a championship game in the Pac-10.

[Green Mean]

Everyone plays everyone though? No reason to have a championship game in the Pac-10.

Regardless there needs to be a championship game. Both the Pac 10 and Big 10 needs to have championship games because the others do. They may play everybody but its still the regular season.

Edited September 15, 2008 by Green Mean

[Guest JohnDenver]

I've never heard someone say the SEC isn't a good conference... They definitely are

However, I don't think it is such a given to say OBVIOUSLY they are the best -- and then have a list of reasons (excuses) why they aren't better in post season games.

[CMJ]

Regardless there needs to be a championship game. Both the Pac 10 and Big 10 needs to have championship games because the others do. They may play everybody but its still the regular season.

The Big East everyone plays everyone, no championship game.

Those two conference shouldn't have a Championship game IMHO because everyone plays everyone. It's already determined on the field. The Big 10's rotating schedule does not, so I have no problem with them having a title game. But for any league where all the schools play each other, it has already been decided.

I mean should the Sunbelt have a title game?

Edited September 15, 2008 by CMJ

[Guest JohnDenver]

The Big East everyone plays everyone, no championship game.

Those two conference shouldn't have a Championship game IMHO because everyone plays everyone. It's already determined on the field. The Big 10's rotating schedule does not, so I have no problem with them having a title game. But for any league where all the schools play each other, it has already been decided.

I mean should the Sunbelt have a title game?

Yes. It may give us some cred by having another game in TV.

[Green Mean]

I mean should the Sunbelt have a title game?

In my opinion yes...every conference should have one. You get the two best teams and put them on the field to decide who is the true champion. Obviously the whole CFB system is wheels off so there are many problems with it but I dont see how some conferences have a championship game and some dont. To me it does not make sense. But then again CFB in general does not make much sense most of the time. Many European soccer leagues work like that in that the team with the best regular season or most points is crowned champion. I personally dont like that system.

Edited September 15, 2008 by Green Mean

[CMJ]

Once again, IMHO a league only needs a title game if not everyone plays each other. So for the MWC, SunBelt, Big East, Pac-10, and WAC it really makes no sense for a title game.

Title games were only began when the SEC went to 12 schools. Before that most leagues everyone played everyone, so once again - it was basically already settled. It makes sense for a conference with 12 schools to have a title game because not everyone can play everyone. Like say in the SEC...Auburn may not play Tennessee and they each may win their half of the league. So yes, it makes sense they should play. Or say they DO play each other in the regular season. It still makes sense in that scenario that they should play each other because maybe the other avoided the 2nd best team from the other division in the inter-division portion of the schedule - so whose to say would've had the best overall record if they HAD played all 11 other schools.

Again in a league where everyone plays everyone...just doesn't make sense.

Edited September 15, 2008 by CMJ

[Guest JohnDenver]

Once again, IMHO a league only needs a title game if not everyone plays each other. So for the MWC, SunBelt, Big East, Pac-10, and WAC it really makes no sense for a title game.

Title games were only began when the SEC went to 12 schools. Before that most leagues everyone played everyone, so once again - it was basically already settled. It makes sense for a conference with 12 schools to have a title game because not everyone can play everyone. Like say in the SEC...Auburn may not play Tennessee and they each may win their half of the league. So yes, it makes sense they should play. Or say they DO play each other in the regular season. It still makes sense in that scenario that they should play each other because maybe the other avoided the 2nd best team from the other division in the inter-division portion of the schedule - so whose to say would've had the best overall record if they HAD played all 11 other schools.

Again in a league where everyone plays everyone...just doesn't make sense.

In the SBC we don't play each team every year. Remember when MTSU and UNT were co-champs? A title game would have put that to rest.