2012 NCAA Football thread

[Chicageaux]

Yes, Arkansas State and Fresno State, two powerhouse teams. Those two wins must have really helped their position in the BCS. I'm not questioning Oregon's OOC games, I was merely bringing up how you want to argue that the SEC doesn't play enough non-AQ schools on the road and then act like it's such a big deal that Oregon does so... So how about you actually read my post before posting? I'm glad Oregon is playing Tennessee and A&M at home, just shows the SEC actually does schedule tough OOC games.

[Cola]

Yes, Arkansas State and Fresno State, two powerhouse teams. Those two wins must have really helped their position in the BCS. I'm not questioning Oregon's OOC games, I was merely bringing up how you want to argue that the SEC doesn't play enough non-AQ schools on the road and then act like it's such a big deal that Oregon does so... So how about you actually read my post before posting? I'm glad Oregon is playing Tennessee and A&M at home, just shows the SEC actually does schedule tough OOC games.

But Jim, scheduling them is nothing. It only counts if you travel to play that OOC team. Then you also have to be careful of the cupcake you choose- they can't be an in-state school and you really should travel to them as much as they travel to you. Or else it isn't fair. And if you don't do that but find yourself winning National Championships, named the best team in the best conference in America by experts...there is this whole group of people on the outside who will say you don't deserve it, don't play fair, and they will enjoy rallying together hoping for your demise.

Oh forget it all, why don't these other conferences and their fans stop whining and just copy the model the SEC uses? Obviously the scheduling and media bias is the only reason they are dominant. Nothing to do with recruiting the best athletes, having the best coaches, having the best facilities, having the most supportive fans and boosters, and all these other things that might play a part in success.

[Cola]

its both they dont play any ooc games on the road period the fact FL has not played a ooc out of the state in over 20 years proves my point.

they played one back in 2007 against Ohio State in Arizona, I think?

nope

http://miami.cbsloca...nce-road-games/

Again, please defend this.

You aren't as sharp as I hoped.

In all seriousness, my honest defense for Florida (or any other SEC team doing it "wrong") is one that you will not be willing to comprehend or accept.

[Kramerica Industries]

Though it does remind me once again how weird most of us SEC fans are, with how we defend our rivals.

During the season, we're all wishing death on each others teams. Now? We're too busy saying all of our teams resume's are great.

This isn't a complaint. Just a regurgitated observation.

[rams80]

Oh forget it all, why don't these other conferences and their fans stop whining and just copy the model the SEC uses? Obviously the scheduling and media bias is the only reason they are dominant. Nothing to do with recruiting the best athletes, having the best coaches, having the best facilities, having the most supportive fans and boosters, and all these other things that might play a part in success.

The overall SEC schedule model does play a greater benefit in the league's success during the 2000s than most Southern hilljacks care to admit. It reduces the number of overall difficult games you have to play and then spaces them out throughout the season so the "gauntlet" is more like a moderately difficult steeplechase.

Ultimately people are going to adopt your model and that's going to suck because Conferences should play more games, not fewer; especially as they continue to grow, while September Conference games are going to suck because you have two teams trying to outderp each other as they remember what it is you do on a football field.

[Billy B]

It's too bad the Pac-12 had to call off the scheduling agreement with the Big Ten. Seeing even matchups each year between those two conferences would be great for the fans and for everyone's SOS like the Big Ten/ACC Challenge. Unfortunately in football the quantity of wins is more important than the quality of them.

[Cola]

Oh forget it all, why don't these other conferences and their fans stop whining and just copy the model the SEC uses? Obviously the scheduling and media bias is the only reason they are dominant. Nothing to do with recruiting the best athletes, having the best coaches, having the best facilities, having the most supportive fans and boosters, and all these other things that might play a part in success.

The overall SEC schedule model does play a greater benefit in the league's success during the 2000s than most Southern hilljacks care to admit. It reduces the number of overall difficult games you have to play and then spaces them out throughout the season so the "gauntlet" is more like a moderately difficult steeplechase.

Ultimately people are going to adopt your model and that's going to suck because Conferences should play more games, not fewer; especially as they continue to grow, while September Conference games are going to suck because you have two teams trying to outderp each other as they remember what it is you do on a football field.

LSU-Tennessee-Arkansas-Florida-Clemson is the type of schedule I often saw my team up against in the past. No cakewalk at all.

The victim mentality is truly pathetic and makes me think less of who I am debating with...almost like I can't lose and I kind of feel sorry for you (not you, but anyone who thinks that way).

It's almost like rewinding 2000 years and having you make fun of me for lighting a fire with a lighter while you brag about how I should be doing it with flint...while I am busy just burning it down my way without a care in the world.

The Big 10, Big 12, and Pac-12 have had their chances to make statement in the one OOC game that really counts every year. I truly wish there were more Pac-12/SEC and Big12/SEC matchups in postseason...only the Cotton Bowl exists and I can't remember the last time a Big 12 school has won that game.

[thespleenenator]

Yes, Arkansas State and Fresno State, two powerhouse teams. Those two wins must have really helped their position in the BCS. I'm not questioning Oregon's OOC games, I was merely bringing up how you want to argue that the SEC doesn't play enough non-AQ schools on the road and then act like it's such a big deal that Oregon does so... So how about you actually read my post before posting? I'm glad Oregon is playing Tennessee and A&M at home, just shows the SEC actually does schedule tough OOC games.

Yes, Arkansas State and Fresno State, two powerhouse teams. Those two wins must have really helped their position in the BCS. I'm not questioning Oregon's OOC games, I was merely bringing up how you want to argue that the SEC doesn't play enough non-AQ schools on the road and then act like it's such a big deal that Oregon does so... So how about you actually read my post before posting? I'm glad Oregon is playing Tennessee and A&M at home, just shows the SEC actually does schedule tough OOC games.

The Pac-12 has 73 BCS teams on their future schedules.

The SEC has 65.

The SEC has two more teams than the Pac-12.

[vicfurth]

Spleen, you're defending the Pac-12 like Nuordr defends the SEC. Give it a rest.

Oregon is this era's version of the late 90's Kansas State: They only win until it matters. Allow me to sit back while you have years of "coulda" and "shoulda" and "but they only played South Central Louisiana State University":

[thespleenenator]

Spleen, you're defending the Pac-12 like Nuordr defends the SEC. Give it a rest.

Oregon is this era's version of the late 90's Kansas State: They only win until it matters. Allow me to sit back while you have years of "coulda" and "shoulda" and "but they only played South Central Louisiana State University":

You completely ignored all of my arguments.

I'm trying to prove that the SEC plays a weak schedule. That's it. I'm comparing them to the Pac-12 because they have the toughest OOC schedules in the country.

And again, you keep bringing up Oregon. Oregon is only a part of this. They are only one team in the Pac-12. This isn't personal. Stop making it personal.

[Chicageaux]

I'll make one last point before further derailing this thread.

The Pac-12 schedules more games against BCS opponents because they have to. If a team like Oregon were to schedule similar to LSU, they would not have a similar ranking than they do now. If that's because of "media bias" or whatever, then it is what it is. I've said many times, I can't speak for any other SEC school but my own, but LSU's schedule isn't a cake walk. Yes, this year they played some cupcakes, but the heart of their schedule featured 5 top 25 teams and four of those teams who are still in the top 10. They still play in the SEC West, play Florida (who for the better of the last 7 years has been prominent), and then whoever the second East opponent is. Add in that for the last few years, they've played teams such an upstart UNC (neutral), Virginia Tech (home), Oregon (neutral), and WVU (home and home) and beat them all. So it's really not surprise that at the end of the season if LSU is 10-2 and Oregon is 10-2, they're going to be ranked higher.

Now for the last year 6 years, the SEC team has won the National Championship and they've beaten the best team from each of the other big three conferences in doing so. Until the day comes when there's an SEC team in the NCG and someone from one of the other big conferences rolls over them, then I will entertain the thought that the SEC plays in a weak conference.

I can respect the fact that Rams80 says he believes the Big XII is the best because the proof he gives shows that they make a good case, especially since the Big XII has the best average between their top team and their worst team. Add in the fact that he also speaks as if it's his opinion and while I might not completely agree with him, I can respect his opinion. You speak as if it's fact that the Pac-12 is the best and that's not case. The Pac 12 is still an offense first, defense maybe conference and the only team that shows the best balance on all three phases of the football was Stanford and that's why they beat Oregon.

[thespleenenator]

I'll make one last point before further derailing this thread.

The Pac-12 schedules more games against BCS opponents because they have to. If a team like Oregon were to schedule similar to LSU, they would not have a similar ranking than they do now. If that's because of "media bias" or whatever, then it is what it is. I've said many times, I can't speak for any other SEC school but my own, but LSU's schedule isn't a cake walk. Yes, this year they played some cupcakes, but the heart of their schedule featured 5 top 25 teams and four of those teams who are still in the top 10. They still play in the SEC West, play Florida (who for the better of the last 7 years has been prominent), and then whoever the second East opponent is. Add in that for the last few years, they've played teams such an upstart UNC (neutral), Virginia Tech (home), Oregon (neutral), and WVU (home and home) and beat them all. So it's really not surprise that at the end of the season if LSU is 10-2 and Oregon is 10-2, they're going to be ranked higher.

Now for the last year 6 years, the SEC team has won the National Championship and they've beaten the best team from each of the other big three conferences in doing so. Until the day comes when there's an SEC team in the NCG and someone from one of the other big conferences rolls over them, then I will entertain the thought that the SEC plays in a weak conference.

Could you actually use some facts like I am instead of projecting?

The SEC is a tough conference, nobody is denying that. And nobody is going to deny that the top of the SEC is very good. I'm saying that some of their records are inflated because they don't play a good strength of schedule. Do you REALLY think Mississippi State is an 8 win team?

[vicfurth]

*Desperately puts on the brakes*

I always could go completely homer and talk about the Heisman next saturday. Hmm...

[Chicageaux]

I'll make one last point before further derailing this thread.

The Pac-12 schedules more games against BCS opponents because they have to. If a team like Oregon were to schedule similar to LSU, they would not have a similar ranking than they do now. If that's because of "media bias" or whatever, then it is what it is. I've said many times, I can't speak for any other SEC school but my own, but LSU's schedule isn't a cake walk. Yes, this year they played some cupcakes, but the heart of their schedule featured 5 top 25 teams and four of those teams who are still in the top 10. They still play in the SEC West, play Florida (who for the better of the last 7 years has been prominent), and then whoever the second East opponent is. Add in that for the last few years, they've played teams such an upstart UNC (neutral), Virginia Tech (home), Oregon (neutral), and WVU (home and home) and beat them all. So it's really not surprise that at the end of the season if LSU is 10-2 and Oregon is 10-2, they're going to be ranked higher.

Now for the last year 6 years, the SEC team has won the National Championship and they've beaten the best team from each of the other big three conferences in doing so. Until the day comes when there's an SEC team in the NCG and someone from one of the other big conferences rolls over them, then I will entertain the thought that the SEC plays in a weak conference.

Could you actually use some facts like I am instead of projecting?

The SEC is a tough conference, nobody is denying that. And nobody is going to deny that the top of the SEC is very good. I'm saying that some of their records are inflated because they don't play a good strength of schedule. Do you REALLY think Mississippi State is an 8 win team?

No and that's why they were exposed when they played the three best teams in their division in three weeks. They will always battle for 3rd-5th place and that's nothing against them and I'm not sticking up for the lesser teams in the conference. Yes the bottom feeders in the conference are BAD. But the top 6 teams in the conference are still the best in college football and deserve to be ranked where they're at. They don't need to add any Non-AQ OOC games or tougher BCS games to prove that. The reason Alabama plays Tennessee every year is because of history and that's what a lot of the lesser games are all about. I'm sure the Third Saturday in October doesn't mean much to other areas of the country, but down south, it's a big deal between those two teams. That's why Missouri is sitting in the west right now because Alabama didn't want to give up either one of their big rivalry games. So for the time being, Alabama has an easy, almost guaranteed win every third Saturday in October. The conference stacks up on those easy games at the beginning because they want to make sure they have the best possible record when it comes into conference play when some teams don't know what's going to happen and others know they're going to get slaughtered. I don't see anything wrong with that.

[dfwabel]

I'll make one last point before further derailing this thread.

The Pac-12 schedules more games against BCS opponents because they have to. If a team like Oregon were to schedule similar to LSU, they would not have a similar ranking than they do now. If that's because of "media bias" or whatever, then it is what it is. I've said many times, I can't speak for any other SEC school but my own, but LSU's schedule isn't a cake walk. Yes, this year they played some cupcakes, but the heart of their schedule featured 5 top 25 teams and four of those teams who are still in the top 10. They still play in the SEC West, play Florida (who for the better of the last 7 years has been prominent), and then whoever the second East opponent is. Add in that for the last few years, they've played teams such an upstart UNC (neutral), Virginia Tech (home), Oregon (neutral), and WVU (home and home) and beat them all. So it's really not surprise that at the end of the season if LSU is 10-2 and Oregon is 10-2, they're going to be ranked higher.

Now for the last year 6 years, the SEC team has won the National Championship and they've beaten the best team from each of the other big three conferences in doing so. Until the day comes when there's an SEC team in the NCG and someone from one of the other big conferences rolls over them, then I will entertain the thought that the SEC plays in a weak conference.

Could you actually use some facts like I am instead of projecting?

The SEC is a tough conference, nobody is denying that. And nobody is going to deny that the top of the SEC is very good. I'm saying that some of their records are inflated because they don't play a good strength of schedule. Do you REALLY think Mississippi State is an 8 win team?

"You are what your record says you are."

-Bill Parcells

Here is a fact...You are a homer.

The game are "tougher" after you lose them. All your argument illustrates is that Pac-12 administrators hire coaches who generally are not good at their jobs since they have advantages in talent and facilities to win said games. Washington has not been good in a decade, same with UCLA. They lose games because they are not that good. Coaches have say in their schedules and if they oversetimate their talent and ability, that's on them.

Arguing the toughest OCC schedule is like arguing over the tallest dwarf.

[rams80]

Oh forget it all, why don't these other conferences and their fans stop whining and just copy the model the SEC uses? Obviously the scheduling and media bias is the only reason they are dominant. Nothing to do with recruiting the best athletes, having the best coaches, having the best facilities, having the most supportive fans and boosters, and all these other things that might play a part in success.

The overall SEC schedule model does play a greater benefit in the league's success during the 2000s than most Southern hilljacks care to admit. It reduces the number of overall difficult games you have to play and then spaces them out throughout the season so the "gauntlet" is more like a moderately difficult steeplechase.

Ultimately people are going to adopt your model and that's going to suck because Conferences should play more games, not fewer; especially as they continue to grow, while September Conference games are going to suck because you have two teams trying to outderp each other as they remember what it is you do on a football field.

LSU-Tennessee-Arkansas-Florida-Clemson is the type of schedule I often saw my team up against in the past. No cakewalk at all.

Vandy and Kentucky (in addition to the local OOC punching bags not named Clemson) have also been South Carolina schedule fixtures. And I know you've faced your fair share of the Mississippis to go with your LSU encounters under the SEC rotating schedule. You get plenty of easy wins in conference too-if only you weren't too obtuse to realize it.

P.S. If the SEC does continue with the 6-1-1, it's likely you'll only have 1 more encounter with LSU over the next decade (barring an SEC Championship game appearance). You'll face Alabama twice. Yeah, you'll face either Arky or A&M annually depending on how that shakes out, but you're already at the stage where you can't say "look at us! we play a tough schedule because of those SEC West teams."

The victim mentality is truly pathetic and makes me think less of who I am debating with...almost like I can't lose and I kind of feel sorry for you (not you, but anyone who thinks that way).

I am a fan of the sport, but at the same time, I do not like the direction the SEC heavy hitters are taking the sport in; while acknowledging that's where it's going overall. I don't want there to be fewer Conference games; but that's clearly the way things are going. I don't want games that will have an impact on the Conference title race played in Week 1 or 2-where players are still adjusting to playing the game. I want to see Nebraska play Indiana, but depending on what happens with realignment in the divisions, that may not happen until the 2020s.

Of course, I also take issue with South Carolina, the Mississippis, Arkansas, Kentucky, Vandy, etc. seeing the victory of another team in their conference in the NCG as some sort of validation of their own prowess, despite the fact that chances are said team kicked their own in at least as badly as they did in the NCG.

The Big 10, Big 12, and Pac-12 have had their chances to make statement in the one OOC game that really counts every year. I truly wish there were more Pac-12/SEC and Big12/SEC matchups in postseason...only the Cotton Bowl exists and I can't remember the last time a Big 12 school has won that game.

Bowl games are horrible measures of Conference superiority. They are exhibitions played during the holidays with nothing...repeat...nothing at stake in them. No Conference title if that's your thing. No chance at a national title no matter how well you do. No additional money for the winning players, because you don't get money at all. You get the same tours of the local tourist traps if you win or lose. The only reason they still exist is that enough people with blazers and town fathers can make some money off of the game and because this is about the only time the players can get gifts and not have it be an impermissible benefit.

[rams80]

The conference stacks up on those easy games at the beginning because they want to make sure they have the best possible record when it comes into conference play when some teams don't know what's going to happen and others know they're going to get slaughtered. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Point of order: I seem to notice a lot of November games against Sun Belt and I-AA teams on SEC schedules over the last few years. Yes I know there are reasons of varying validity for them, but this statement here is kind of...wrong.

[rams80]

One more thing, I do wish Indiana still played Kentucky in football, and I'm kind of upset with Indiana's Athletic Department since the sense I've gotten is that the decision to end the football series (at least) was Indiana's call.

[thespleenenator]

I'll make one last point before further derailing this thread.

The Pac-12 schedules more games against BCS opponents because they have to. If a team like Oregon were to schedule similar to LSU, they would not have a similar ranking than they do now. If that's because of "media bias" or whatever, then it is what it is. I've said many times, I can't speak for any other SEC school but my own, but LSU's schedule isn't a cake walk. Yes, this year they played some cupcakes, but the heart of their schedule featured 5 top 25 teams and four of those teams who are still in the top 10. They still play in the SEC West, play Florida (who for the better of the last 7 years has been prominent), and then whoever the second East opponent is. Add in that for the last few years, they've played teams such an upstart UNC (neutral), Virginia Tech (home), Oregon (neutral), and WVU (home and home) and beat them all. So it's really not surprise that at the end of the season if LSU is 10-2 and Oregon is 10-2, they're going to be ranked higher.

Now for the last year 6 years, the SEC team has won the National Championship and they've beaten the best team from each of the other big three conferences in doing so. Until the day comes when there's an SEC team in the NCG and someone from one of the other big conferences rolls over them, then I will entertain the thought that the SEC plays in a weak conference.

Could you actually use some facts like I am instead of projecting?

The SEC is a tough conference, nobody is denying that. And nobody is going to deny that the top of the SEC is very good. I'm saying that some of their records are inflated because they don't play a good strength of schedule. Do you REALLY think Mississippi State is an 8 win team?

"You are what your record says you are."

-Bill Parcells

Here is a fact...You are a homer.

The game are "tougher" after you lose them. All your argument illustrates is that Pac-12 administrators hire coaches who generally are not good at their jobs since they have advantages in talent and facilities to win said games. Washington has not been good in a decade, same with UCLA. They lose games because they are not that good. Coaches have say in their schedules and if they oversetimate their talent and ability, that's on them.

Arguing the toughest OCC schedule is like arguing over the tallest dwarf.

If that's the case, than NIU is the third best team in the nation, right?

And OOC matters a lot. Especially when this new playoff system is put into place.

[dfwabel]

I'll make one last point before further derailing this thread.

The Pac-12 schedules more games against BCS opponents because they have to. If a team like Oregon were to schedule similar to LSU, they would not have a similar ranking than they do now. If that's because of "media bias" or whatever, then it is what it is. I've said many times, I can't speak for any other SEC school but my own, but LSU's schedule isn't a cake walk. Yes, this year they played some cupcakes, but the heart of their schedule featured 5 top 25 teams and four of those teams who are still in the top 10. They still play in the SEC West, play Florida (who for the better of the last 7 years has been prominent), and then whoever the second East opponent is. Add in that for the last few years, they've played teams such an upstart UNC (neutral), Virginia Tech (home), Oregon (neutral), and WVU (home and home) and beat them all. So it's really not surprise that at the end of the season if LSU is 10-2 and Oregon is 10-2, they're going to be ranked higher.

Now for the last year 6 years, the SEC team has won the National Championship and they've beaten the best team from each of the other big three conferences in doing so. Until the day comes when there's an SEC team in the NCG and someone from one of the other big conferences rolls over them, then I will entertain the thought that the SEC plays in a weak conference.

Could you actually use some facts like I am instead of projecting?

The SEC is a tough conference, nobody is denying that. And nobody is going to deny that the top of the SEC is very good. I'm saying that some of their records are inflated because they don't play a good strength of schedule. Do you REALLY think Mississippi State is an 8 win team?

"You are what your record says you are."

-Bill Parcells

Here is a fact...You are a homer.

The game are "tougher" after you lose them. All your argument illustrates is that Pac-12 administrators hire coaches who generally are not good at their jobs since they have advantages in talent and facilities to win said games. Washington has not been good in a decade, same with UCLA. They lose games because they are not that good. Coaches have say in their schedules and if they oversetimate their talent and ability, that's on them.

Arguing the toughest OCC schedule is like arguing over the tallest dwarf.

If that's the case, than NIU is the third best team in the nation, right?

And OOC matters a lot. Especially when this new playoff system is put into place.

No, since we have zero idea on how the committee will look at the data.

More importantly, the vetting process for those on the playoff committee will be under more scrutiny than any man/woman picked to be a Supreme Court Justice.

I am not sure who would want to be on that committee, at any price. Finebaum Show or not, their past, present, and future will constantly be under a camera phone from where they went to college, to car they or their wife drives and where it was built, to if they had a drink a dinner, to ANYTHING which is not from a state which a team could be in the top 4 to be selected.