2012 NCAA Football thread

[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.

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.

True enough. You still didn't respond to the record comment.

[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.

True enough. You still didn't respond to the record comment.

No. They (NIU) would be tied for second with all the other 1-loss teams in FBS. If you would like to rank a better 1-loss team via how many bowl eligible teams they faced...you do that.

[NEW.ERA]

Roll Tide

[tj4eck]

tl;dr

[HedleyLamarr]

Do you REALLY think Mississippi State is an 8 win team?

Yes, because they won 8 games this season.

[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.

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."

Yeah, Vandy and Kentucky are in the division and have been traditionally not-so-good in the past. Big deal, every conference has them. I would like to note Vanderbilt isn't same ole "Vandy" anymore and only lost to Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and Northwestern this year...all ranked teams.

However, the overall point is that our conference schedule has been tough and is nationally recognized as one of the toughest every year. We don't need to play every opponent in our conference to be validated by fans of those conferences who do or show our strength.

FYI, Texas A&M is our permanent opponent going forward.

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 scheduling in the SEC is not some recent phenomenon.

Also, just because you don't understand the conference pride thing...doesn't mean you should hate it. Maybe you should consider it as another reason why things have progressed in the SEC in the past decade. The SEC has a sharing mentality when it comes to cash- if Alabama wins the National Championship, they get the same amount of $ as Vanderbilt or we do at South Carolina. Same with all the bowls. It's not only that, but it doesn't hurt pulling for a team in the big game if they were the only to beat you in the regular season...OR, even better if you beat them (i.e. had Georgia beat Alabama and advanced). We all talk smack to each other throughout the rest of the season and I think Georgia has some of the worst fans in college football...but when the dust settles, I want to know the SEC and "our brand" of football was on top.

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.

You totally underestimate the value of a bowl game and what it does for a program and conference in the form of recruiting and national exposure. It just leads me to believe you don't quite "get it" and see a lot in black and white...missing out on a lot grey, bud.

[The_Admiral]

You totally underestimate the value of a bowl game and what it does for a program and conference in the form of recruiting and national exposure.

"I have been made to realize that Alabama has a good football program! This makes me want to go to Mississippi State."

[thespleenenator]

Do you REALLY think Mississippi State is an 8 win team?

Yes, because they won 8 games this season.

They did not win 8 games because they are good, they won 8 games because they played a pathetic schedule. Record isn't everything.

[Cola]

You totally underestimate the value of a bowl game and what it does for a program and conference in the form of recruiting and national exposure.

"I have been made to realize that Alabama has a good football program! This makes me want to go to Mississippi State."

Read the rest of my reply to rams80 as why, in some ways, a win for Alabama in the NCG is a win for Miss State, Kentucky, or anyone else in the conference. Or why that extra bid into a BCS game for Florida also helps those same teams.

[rams80]

Yeah, Vandy and Kentucky are in the division and have been traditionally not-so-good in the past. Big deal, every conference has them. I would like to note Vanderbilt isn't same ole "Vandy" anymore and only lost to Carolina, Georgia, Florida, and Northwestern this year...all ranked teams.

Conversely Vandy's only beaten one Bowl-Eligible team all season-6-6 Ole Miss. (*slow clap*) Remember what I was saying about guaranteed wins in the league schedule? 2012 Vandy is perhaps the perfect example of this phenomenon. Anyway while Vandy is currently on the rise, please note the utter destruction of Tennessee football and the addition of Missouri. Crackalacky's schedule isn't any tougher with a decent Vanderbilt team. Shoot, Mississippi State is an even better example; they got to 8-4 despite not beating an SEC team with more than 5 wins on the season (and their non-conference slate featured 3 Sun Belt teams and an HBCU).

However, the overall point is that our conference schedule has been tough and is nationally recognized as one of the toughest every year. We don't need to play every opponent in our conference to be validated by fans of those conferences who do or show our strength.

FYI, Texas A&M is our permanent opponent going forward.

OK since we're going to go off of the assumption espoused by the SEC that Bowls are the ultimate arbiters of Conference superiority. And here's some truth. This season, Every Big 12 team not named Kansas player 8 Bowl eligible teams in league play. (Kansas played 9) In league play, Alabama played 5-(counting SEC championship). South Carolina played 4. Georgia played 5 with the championship. Vandy played 4. Florida had 5. A&M played 5. LSU played 6 and is the clubhouse champion for actual difficult scheduling (although they missed Georgia). It's only an actually tough schedule if all of the heavy hitters play each other. And that's the point I'm trying to make here. The 10 win SEC teams aren't going to play each other structurally, and that is why the Conference has so many 10 win teams. Playing in a league that has a lot of teams with gaudy win totals doesn't automatically mean you play a tough schedule because the 10 win teams don't play each other.

The scheduling in the SEC is not some recent phenomenon.

It is. The expansion to 14 brought a shift from a 5-2-1 to a 6-1-1, and that change from 2 out of 5 to 1 out of 6 for non-fixed opponents is huge. Rather than playing Alabama and LSU 2 years out of every 5, South Carolina is going to play them 2 years out of every 12. Entire recruiting classes will, absent a SEC CG appearance, never play Alabama. A recruiting class will never play LSU. What good does being in a league with those schools do you when you literally never play them. I mean, sure, the extra win in lieu of facing them is nice, but maybe you should stop taking credit for their accomplishments.

Also, just because you don't understand the conference pride thing...doesn't mean you should hate it. Maybe you should consider it as another reason why things have progressed in the SEC in the past decade. The SEC has a sharing mentality when it comes to cash- if Alabama wins the National Championship, they get the same amount of $ as Vanderbilt or we do at South Carolina. Same with all the bowls. It's not only that, but it doesn't hurt pulling for a team in the big game if they were the only to beat you in the regular season...OR, even better if you beat them (i.e. had Georgia beat Alabama and advanced). We all talk smack to each other throughout the rest of the season and I think Georgia has some of the worst fans in college football...but when the dust settles, I want to know the SEC and "our brand" of football was on top.

Hi! Fan of Big Ten teams here. We're more Communist than the SEC. And that's not a reason to pull for the teams in the Bowl game because the winners purse and losers purse is the same. Our athletic departments will get the same amount of money if they win or lose. And while I can understand the sentiment regarding the National Championship Game, you didn't play Alabama so really, what does it mean for South Carolina if they win. (They beat a team that beat us, as well as beating a team we beat in the SEC Championship Game soooo....yay?) Outside of that, what does it mean for South Carolina that Florida kicks the out of Louisville? What does it mean for South Carolina if LSU also stomps the tar out of Clemson. Really Conference solidarity only works for me when this Peoria native is watching Missouri Valley teams in the NCAA tournament, and that's because it's the little guy facing the power guy.

You totally underestimate the value of a bowl game and what it does for a program and conference in the form of recruiting and national exposure. It just leads me to believe you don't quite "get it" and see a lot in black and white...missing out on a lot grey, bud.

*scans 2013 recruiting rankings* Yeah, beating the tar our of Clemson last year did wonders for West Virginia's recruiting, And beating Georgia did wonders for Sparty, which pretty much lost every recruiting battle to the Wolverines and the Buckeyes. Damn, USC pulled in the top class despite not even playing in a Bowl. I stand by my statement that Bowl games are kind of meaningless in the exposure and recruiting standpoint.

And yeah, there's something fundamentally silly about the notion of "I want to play Alabama, therefore I will join an SEC East team not named Tennessee that will only play them twice in the next 12 years."

[Kevin W.]

You totally underestimate the value of a bowl game and what it does for a program and conference in the form of recruiting and national exposure.

"I have been made to realize that Alabama has a good football program! This makes me want to go to Mississippi State."

Read the rest of my reply to rams80 as why, in some ways, a win for Alabama in the NCG is a win for Miss State, Kentucky, or anyone else in the conference. Or why that extra bid into a BCS game for Florida also helps those same teams.

What, the misguided SEC fan logic that if one team wins a national championship, every SEC team somehow gets to claim part of it? Because that's what it seems like every time an SEC fan screams about how they're "supporting their conference."

[Lights Out]

You totally underestimate the value of a bowl game and what it does for a program and conference in the form of recruiting and national exposure.

"I have been made to realize that Alabama has a good football program! Mississippi State will pay me more, though."

Fixed that for you.

[Lights Out]

Arkansas hires Bret Bielema.

[rams80]

Arkansas hires Bret Bielema.

[OnWis97]

Arkansas hires Bret Bielema.

Wow did that come out of left field. Clock management won't be too strong at Arkansas and Bret's going to be going to fewer BCS bowls...odd choice. Wisconsin fans turned on Bret some early this year, but this makes me somewhat nervous about the future.

[Raysfan12]

Arkansas hires Bret Bielema.

That was totally left field in my books! I seriously thought they were going after Charlie Strong or Patterson. It isn't actually a bad hire.

[NEW.ERA]

Barry Alvarez will coach the Badgers in Pasadena, that's my guess. At least he should.

[dwertman]

Arkansas hires Bret Bielema.

Paul Chryst making a comeback to Madison perhaps?

[OnWis97]

Arkansas hires Bret Bielema.

Paul Chryst making a comeback to Madison perhaps?

That occurred to me. But why this move from Bielema? I'd say one of two things:

1. AD Barry Alverez was leaning on him too much and did not react well to the down year

2. He's leaving Pete Carrol style and the NCAA sanctions are on their way.

2 makes more sense, since Barry hand picked him and he actually adjusted reasonably well to the very shaky start this year.

[crashcarson15]

But Carroll went to the NFL where sanctions couldn't follow him. If it would be sanctions, Bielema could still feel the impact from them.