2012 - 2013 SEC football

[Highlander]

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootbal ... -overrated

The SEC is awesome, usually, so a season like this was probably inevitable -- a year when the league would live off its reputation. Meanwhile, one-loss teams Florida State, Oregon and Kansas State have almost no shot at the BCS title game because they come from the wrong conference.

It's a Ponzi scheme, this 2012 SEC fraud, built upon layers of air. Georgia is great because it has beaten Florida. Florida is great because it has beaten Texas A&M. Texas A&M is great because it has beaten Alabama. And Alabama is great because it has beaten ... um, who has Alabama beaten, anyway?

He must have been reading my posts. I could not have said it better myself.

[AllThingsKC]

Perhaps the question should be "Who has Alabama lost to?"

[grovester]

Perhaps the question should be "Who has Alabama lost to?"

That sums up the SEC perfectly. Don't need to win, just don't lose. I think the phrase you're all looking for regarding their manipulation of the polls is "circle jerk".

[AllThingsKC]

But, the top SEC teams have lost a game, like like the top teams in the Big 12, Big Ten, and Pac-12. The difference? They didn't lose to losing teams. Teams that lose to losing teams generally don't do well in the polls.

[grovester]

Teams that lose at home shouldn't do well in the polls. Unless they're in the SEC.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

But, the top SEC teams have lost a game, like like the top teams in the Big 12, Big Ten, and Pac-12. The difference? They didn't lose to losing teams. Teams that lose to losing teams generally don't do well in the polls.

Teams who lose at home to a team who hasn't beaten anyone else in the current top 25 shouldn't do well in the polls.

Teams that go 1-1 against the top 25 and get blown out in that loss shouldn't do well in the polls especially when the team that beat them hasn't beaten anyone else in the top 25.

And, by the way, Stanford is not a losing team.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

Here's a list of the SEC's quality non-con wins that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are by far the best conference in the country.

- Alabama 41-14 over (currently #19) Michigan
- Texas A&M 59-57 over (currently unranked) Louisiana Tech
-
- Oh, you thought there would be more?

[AllThingsKC]

Teams that lose at home shouldn't do well in the polls. Unless they're in the SEC.

I know. And yet Texas is in the Top 20, despite losing 3 home games. Stupid SEC bias.

What are the Big 12's quality non-con wins?

[TheBigChuckbowski]

Teams that lose at home shouldn't do well in the polls. Unless they're in the SEC.

I know. And yet Texas is in the Top 20, despite losing 3 home games. Stupid SEC bias.

Uhh...Texas just picked up that 3rd loss. With two losses, they were ranked 4-9 spots below EVERY 2-loss SEC team even though Texas beat Ole Miss by more than EVERY SEC team that's played them (including Alabama, Georgia and LSU). So, yes, SEC bias.

What are the Big 12's quality non-con wins?

Not the point. If people are going to say that the SEC is by far the best conference in the country, shouldn't there like be a little evidence to back that up? No one's trying to claim the Big 12 is by far the best conference in the country.

By the way, the Big 12 is 5-1 against the rest of the BCS. The SEC is 4-6 (including 0-3 against the Big East, yikes!). Honestly, I didn't realize it was even that bad before I looked it up. Wow, the SEC might actually suck.

[AllThingsKC]

Uhh...Texas just picked up that 3rd loss. With two losses, they were ranked 4-9 spots below EVERY 2-loss SEC team even though Texas beat Ole Miss by more than EVERY SEC team that's played them (including Alabama, Georgia and LSU). So, yes, SEC bias.

That's because all the 2-loss SEC teams ahead of Texas have losses to teams Top 10 teams. 2 of UT's loses are against teams that are no longer ranked.

Not the point. If people are going to say that the SEC is by far the best conference in the country, shouldn't there like be a little evidence to back that up? No one's trying to claim the Big 12 is by far the best conference in the country.

Of course! If someone is going to claim that the SEC is a tough conference, they should have "a little" evidence. Perhaps most people would consider having 7 teams in the past 6 national championships as "a little" evidence.

[AllThingsKC]

The folks at Saturday Down South (a popular SEC blog) have responded to the CBS article. It's a great read even if you don't agree with it because they make some good points that should at least get you to think, even if it doesn't change your opinion.

The SEC bias has been debated before in endless arguments about preseason rankings and BCS rankings week-in and week-out. Weak non-conference schedules don’t help the argument, either. The SEC as a whole doesn’t play strong out-of-conference opponents because it doesn’t have to. That’s the reality of the SEC brand as a whole. Why risk the chance of playing a worthy out-of-conference opponent when it can only hurt you? However, LSU hammered Oregon last season, Alabama did thump a top team in the Big Ten in Michigan earlier this season and LSU also pounded Washington, who just happened to beat Stanford who beat Oregon. But that doesn’t help their argument. You can’t have it both ways.

Full article: http://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/2012/g ... ports-sec/

[Highlander]

The folks at Saturday Down South (a popular SEC blog) have responded to the CBS article. It's a great read even if you don't agree with it because they make some good points that should at least get you to think, even if it doesn't change your opinion.

The SEC bias has been debated before in endless arguments about preseason rankings and BCS rankings week-in and week-out. Weak non-conference schedules don’t help the argument, either. The SEC as a whole doesn’t play strong out-of-conference opponents because it doesn’t have to. That’s the reality of the SEC brand as a whole. Why risk the chance of playing a worthy out-of-conference opponent when it can only hurt you? However, LSU hammered Oregon last season, Alabama did thump a top team in the Big Ten in Michigan earlier this season and LSU also pounded Washington, who just happened to beat Stanford who beat Oregon. But that doesn’t help their argument. You can’t have it both ways.

Full article: http://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/2012/g ... ports-sec/

Please give it a rest. You and many other Mizzou fans are starting to remind me of this nerdy kid in high school that managed to get accepted into the cool kids clique and then flaunted it like he actually had achieved something. I don't give a shit if the SEC is good or not good...blah blah blah. It's irrelevant to the University of Missouri because they actually happen to stink at football. I am sorry but that is the ONLY reality Mizzou fans need to be concerned about right now. If you somehow want to take pride in an Alabama - LSU title game - be my guest. We Missourians have actually made our little contribution by being another crappy program that some title aspiring SEC team could manhandle and then beat their chest about. Wait a minute, didn't OU, UT and KSU do about the same thing for the last decade?

Oh yea, the article made absolutely no sense at all.

[phxcat]

But, the top SEC teams have lost a game, like like the top teams in the Big 12, Big Ten, and Pac-12. The difference? They didn't lose to losing teams. Teams that lose to losing teams generally don't do well in the polls.

Believe it or not, I am beginning to come around on the 14 team conference idea. The reason that the top teams in the SEC don't lose to losing teams is because the SEC doesn't have good teams that lose. The reason that Baylor was a losing team (they still have a good chance to become the 9th bowl eligible team in the conference) is that they had to play nine conference games and every team in the conference. The top teams in the SEC play only eight conference games and miss five teams in their conference, giving them a chance to miss playing the better teams in the other division. Combine the fact that half (I know, it is not literally half, but a good number) of the conference starts out ranked in the top ten and that those teams are relatively unlikely to play each other, and that is how they end the season with five top[ ten teams. I mean, they have three 1 loss teams and three 2 loss teams. The top six teams have nine losses between them. It is impossible for the top six teams in the Big XII to finish with fewer than fifteen losses. Bottom line is that the reason that K-State lost to a losing team is because they had a horrible game against a team that would be a winning team if it played in any other conference, including the SEC.

K State # 1? Everyone knew that was a joke and wouldn't last.
Seriously don't think they are even a top 10 team.

The SEC is easily the best conference in football.
On any given day over half of the the SEC teams could beat K State.
They are simply far and away a better conference.
The whole world (outside of Kansas) seems to know that.

On any given day K-State could (and would) beat any team in the SEC, and on any given day any team in the SEC could lose to 9/10th of the Big XII.

[Highlander]

But, the top SEC teams have lost a game, like like the top teams in the Big 12, Big Ten, and Pac-12. The difference? They didn't lose to losing teams. Teams that lose to losing teams generally don't do well in the polls.

Believe it or not, I am beginning to come around on the 14 team conference idea. The reason that the top teams in the SEC don't lose to losing teams is because the SEC doesn't have good teams that lose. The reason that Baylor was a losing team (they still have a good chance to become the 9th bowl eligible team in the conference) is that they had to play nine conference games and every team in the conference. The top teams in the SEC play only eight conference games and miss five teams in their conference, giving them a chance to miss playing the better teams in the other division.

BINGO

[AllThingsKC]

Please give it a rest. You and many other Mizzou fans are starting to remind me of this nerdy kid in high school that managed to get accepted into the cool kids clique and then flaunted it like he actually had achieved something. I don't give a shit if the SEC is good or not good...blah blah blah. It's irrelevant to the University of Missouri because they actually happen to stink at football. I am sorry but that is the ONLY reality Mizzou fans need to be concerned about right now. If you somehow want to take pride in an Alabama - LSU title game - be my guest. We Missourians have actually made our little contribution by being another crappy program that some title aspiring SEC team could manhandle and then beat their chest about. Wait a minute, didn't OU, UT and KSU do about the same thing for the last decade?

Oh yea, the article made absolutely no sense at all.

Mizzou being in the SEC is not some "crowning achievement" for Mizzou. It's doesn't give Mizzou any more trophies to brag about than being in the Big 12 did. But, while I'm willing to admit I could be wrong, I still think the SEC is good news for Mizzou, for reasons we've already talked about.

Do not think I'm beating my chest about an all-SEC title game. Mizzou doesn't win a trophy for that. Just like Mizzou wouldn't win a trophy for an all-Big 12 title game or even having one Big 12 in the title game. The only possible benefit to Mizzou would be that an extra SEC could go to a bowl game, which means a possible higher payout for all SEC teams. So, yes, I would still want the SEC to do as well as possible, but I'd love to a solid Mizzou football team even more. - It's like being a Royals fan. I'll root for the AL Central team in the World Series, but that does nothing for the Royals.

Believe it or not, I am beginning to come around on the 14 team conference idea. The reason that the top teams in the SEC don't lose to losing teams is because the SEC doesn't have good teams that lose. The reason that Baylor was a losing team (they still have a good chance to become the 9th bowl eligible team in the conference) is that they had to play nine conference games and every team in the conference. The top teams in the SEC play only eight conference games and miss five teams in their conference, giving them a chance to miss playing the better teams in the other division. Combine the fact that half (I know, it is not literally half, but a good number) of the conference starts out ranked in the top ten and that those teams are relatively unlikely to play each other, and that is how they end the season with five top[ ten teams.

You are correct that is one reason (maybe the main reason?) why we are seeing conferences move to 14 and maybe 16 teams. That seems to be trend in college football.

But, remember, this is the first year the SEC has had 14 teams. For over a decade, the SEC and Big 12 both had 12 teams...and the SEC still dominated the national championship. Why was that? The SEC didn't need to add 2 teams to be able to continue to do what the SEC was doing for the decade prior to Mizzou and A&M joining.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

Perhaps most people would consider having 7 teams in the past 6 national championships as "a little" evidence.

Don't really need to pile on to what phxcat and highlander have already said but I do want to point out how irrelevant this point is.

The last SEC team to win a legitimate national championship (as in, they had to play another conference) was Auburn. They're currently sitting at 3-8. Why are those past championships relevant to this season exactly?

[AllThingsKC]

The last SEC team to win a legitimate national championship (as in, they had to play another conference) was Auburn. They're currently sitting at 3-8.

Huh? I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Other than last year, the SEC defeated teams from other conferences in the national championship game.

Why are those past championships relevant to this season exactly?

Auburn's (you were talking about Auburn, right?) last national championship isn't relevant to this season. But, it does show the dominance of the SEC over the years. Now, Alabama's title last year probably plays into their current ranking, I'm sure.

[Highlander]

Mizzou being in the SEC is not some "crowning achievement" for Mizzou. It's doesn't give Mizzou any more trophies to brag about than being in the Big 12 did. But, while I'm willing to admit I could be wrong, I still think the SEC is good news for Mizzou, for reasons we've already talked about.

Do not think I'm beating my chest about an all-SEC title game. Mizzou doesn't win a trophy for that. Just like Mizzou wouldn't win a trophy for an all-Big 12 title game or even having one Big 12 in the title game. The only possible benefit to Mizzou would be that an extra SEC could go to a bowl game, which means a possible higher payout for all SEC teams. So, yes, I would still want the SEC to do as well as possible, but I'd love to a solid Mizzou football team even more. - It's like being a Royals fan. I'll root for the AL Central team in the World Series, but that does nothing for the Royals.

If its not a "crowning achievement" then you should quit talking like it is. Because you actually do talk like it is. You are the only fan I know that wants to celebrate the pittance that Mizzou will get from an extra SEC team in a bowl game; fans celebrate victories and decry the lack of them - AD's worry about the money.

[AllThingsKC]

If its not a "crowning achievement" then you should quit talking like it is. Because you actually do talk like it is. You are the only fan I know that wants to celebrate the pittance that Mizzou will get from an extra SEC team in a bowl game; fans celebrate victories and decry the lack of them - AD's worry about the money.

To be fair, I would have done the same thing with Mizzou being in the Big 12. That is, I rooted for as many Big 12 teams to make the best bowl games possible while Mizzou was in the Big 12. Even if my favorite team isn't playing, it's nice to know the conference is doing well (whether it's the SEC or Big 12).

[kcmetro]

LOL @ Mizzou