Way Too Early NCAA 2012 Predictions

[Chicageaux]

I'm going to go with the homer pick and stick my prediction of it being LSU-USCw in the National Championship this season as long as LSU throws the ball well with Mettenberger under center.

The SEC Championship Game will be a rematch from 2011.

WVU will NOT win the Big XII.

The Heisman winner will be from the Pac 12 (Barkley or Thomas)

And.. somebody, somewhere, will switch conferences by November and start this whole "Super Conference" talk all over again.

[DC in Da House w/o a Doubt]

They padded their stats pretty well when they played Georgia and Oklahoma...

I don't remember West Virginia playing Georgia or Oklahoma last season. Not quite sure how relevant bowl games (with a month of preparation) from 2005 and 2007 are when 2012 predictions are being made (based on the previous season's play).

Oh and if we want to go more current, Geno threw for over 460 yards against LSU last season. How's that for padding stats?

1. West Virginia was down 20 points to LSU at halftime. At West Virginia. They had to throw the ball in the second half.

2. When the game truly mattered, WV only had 226 total yards at the half. West Virginia piled up the yardage once LSU let their foot off the gas.

3. 460 passing yards don't mean much when you're throwing the ball 65 times and turning the ball over 4 times (plus a turnover on downs).

How is that not padding stats?

Ignoramuses like you have been dogging WVU for years just because they were in the Big East. Yet time and time again they have proven they can school teams from the power conferences (yes, not just beat... But school.) so I believe it is relevant to bring up that they have already proven they belong with the big boys.

And they didn't throw the ball in the second half because they had to, throwing the ball is just our style of offense. They were going to throw the ball regardless.

WVU cut the lead to 6 in the 3rd quarter... Pretty sure the game still mattered then Hedley.

Did West Virginia win? Nah. But did they prove they can pad stats even against dominant defenses? Yes. Now with another year in Holgorsen's system, the offense will be even better.

[winghaz]

Let's settle this USC thing once and for all.

To the vast majority of the country, USC means Southern Cal. In some parts, yes, USC means South Carolina, but even Gamecock fans should realize USC, the one out West, has gotten much more attention over the years than USC, the one down South.

[dfwabel]

Iowa will have a Class 1-A RB walk on to save the day.

[Cola]

A 1-loss SEC champion is no guarantee to play in the NCG if there's an undefeated Pac-12 champion (especially if it's Southern Cal) and undefeated Big XII champion.

I didn't say it would be a guarantee...I just said it would happen. I would be bothered by a 1-loss SEC team being left out while your scenario takes place. To be the man, you've got to beat the man.

[Breakwood]

A 1-loss SEC champion is no guarantee to play in the NCG if there's an undefeated Pac-12 champion (especially if it's Southern Cal) and undefeated Big XII champion.

I didn't say it would be a guarantee...I just said it would happen. I would be bothered by a 1-loss SEC team being left out while your scenario takes place. To be the man, you've got to beat the man.

Someone's been listening to too much Finebaum. Two unbeaten teams from power conferences will always beat out 1 loss teams no matter where they're from. I know some of you from the South don't think they play football north of Nashville, but going undefeated in the Big 10 or Big 12 is more impressive than losing a game in the Ess E Cee.

[Cola]

A 1-loss SEC champion is no guarantee to play in the NCG if there's an undefeated Pac-12 champion (especially if it's Southern Cal) and undefeated Big XII champion.

I didn't say it would be a guarantee...I just said it would happen. I would be bothered by a 1-loss SEC team being left out while your scenario takes place. To be the man, you've got to beat the man.

Someone's been listening to too much Finebaum. Two unbeaten teams from power conferences will always beat out 1 loss teams no matter where they're from. I know some of you from the South don't think they play football north of Nashville, but going undefeated in the Big 10 or Big 12 is more impressive than losing a game in the Ess E Cee.

Nah, I don't listen to any "experts"...just try to form my own opinions on what I see. Look, I recognize there are other conferences out there that play football at a high level...I am just being honest when I say that it would bother me. I know the whole "the SEC reign is over! haha omglol" would begin and many would be left to wonder if that SEC one-loss team would stomp a mudhole in those 2 participants. Kind of how Oklahoma State or other fans that hated the Bama/LSU NCG last season felt...except with a little more reasoning and backup in the form of the last 6 championships.

Gotta run before infrared finds me in here!

[HolyStroke]

Let's settle this USC thing once and for all.

To the vast majority of the country, USC means Southern Cal. In some parts, yes, USC means South Carolina, but even Gamecock fans should realize USC, the one out West, has gotten much more attention over the years than USC, the one down South.

Wasnt there a court ruling not too long ago about which school can use "USC"

[rams80]

A 1-loss SEC champion is no guarantee to play in the NCG if there's an undefeated Pac-12 champion (especially if it's Southern Cal) and undefeated Big XII champion.

I didn't say it would be a guarantee...I just said it would happen. I would be bothered by a 1-loss SEC team being left out while your scenario takes place. To be the man, you've got to beat the man.

Someone's been listening to too much Finebaum. Two unbeaten teams from power conferences will always beat out 1 loss teams no matter where they're from. I know some of you from the South don't think they play football north of Nashville, but going undefeated in the Big 10 or Big 12 is more impressive than losing a game in the Ess E Cee.

Nah, I don't listen to any "experts"...just try to form my own opinions on what I see. Look, I recognize there are other conferences out there that play football at a high level...I am just being honest when I say that it would bother me. I know the whole "the SEC reign is over! haha omglol" would begin and many would be left to wonder if that SEC one-loss team would stomp a mudhole in those 2 participants. Kind of how Oklahoma State or other fans that hated the Bama/LSU NCG last season felt...except with a little more reasoning and backup in the form of the last 6 championships.

Gotta run before infrared finds me in here!

Look Hanger-on for brains (since that's what Crackalackey is), there are Conferences that are top to bottom better than the SEC from time to time. For example, the Big XII last year. The SEC may have a couple really good teams annually, but they also have more than their fair share of smoking turdpiles that need to be considered when thumping your chest about the great and mighty SEC. An undefeated Big XII champ would have played an extra Conference game over the vaunted SEC, as well as likely had one or two non-conference games of note. The same applies for the Pac 12, only they Pac 12 champion also played in a conference championship game. Yes, those resumes are more attractive than that of the 1 loss SEC champion with its 8+1 Conference games combined with laying waste to the Sun Belt and Southern Conferences.

--------------------------------------------------

Of course the other thing to point out here is that Florida, LSU, Alabama, and Auburn are (or were) rolling death machines because of qualities unique to their programs-name, facilities, location, not because of some SEC battle testing. They'd do just as well as they did if they spent the last two decades in the ACC.

[Funky Bunky]

South Carolina or Southern California?

When ESPN talks about USC, they're talking about USC. When they talk about South Carolina, they say "South Carolina".

Well it wasn't ESPN saying it was it? USC is accepted for both, and South Carolina has a much better chance of all 3, honestly. ( Baseball for sure.)

1) Who owns the "USC" trademark? The University of Southern California.

2) I'm completely joking. USC Basketball sucks and the baseball team hasn't been good for a while..... but there's no way you're telling me South Carolina has a better chance at the football crown than Southern California! USC is ranked by many as the preseason #1. Oh, and in my original joke, I was talking about every sport... but you guys in the SEC have never heard of another sport outside of Football, Basketball, and baseball.

1. Southern Cal does not solely own that trademark. South Carolina does as well. You may be thinking of the interlocking "SC" logo.

2. The University of South Carolina was established before California was even a state.

1) I must've gotten them mixed up.

2) Irrelevant.

I'm just going to say this: Go to Chicago or some third party place, and ask what "USC" stands for. They sure as hell won't say South Carolina.

If you own a company called the American Boob company, yeah, your initials are "ABC", but that doesn't mean you're the real "ABC"

[Kevin W.]

An SEC team will win the N"C"G and the fans of the other 13 teams will take credit for it, as if their entire conference won the title.

[Cola]

A 1-loss SEC champion is no guarantee to play in the NCG if there's an undefeated Pac-12 champion (especially if it's Southern Cal) and undefeated Big XII champion.

I didn't say it would be a guarantee...I just said it would happen. I would be bothered by a 1-loss SEC team being left out while your scenario takes place. To be the man, you've got to beat the man.

Someone's been listening to too much Finebaum. Two unbeaten teams from power conferences will always beat out 1 loss teams no matter where they're from. I know some of you from the South don't think they play football north of Nashville, but going undefeated in the Big 10 or Big 12 is more impressive than losing a game in the Ess E Cee.

Nah, I don't listen to any "experts"...just try to form my own opinions on what I see. Look, I recognize there are other conferences out there that play football at a high level...I am just being honest when I say that it would bother me. I know the whole "the SEC reign is over! haha omglol" would begin and many would be left to wonder if that SEC one-loss team would stomp a mudhole in those 2 participants. Kind of how Oklahoma State or other fans that hated the Bama/LSU NCG last season felt...except with a little more reasoning and backup in the form of the last 6 championships.

Gotta run before infrared finds me in here!

Look Hanger-on for brains (since that's what Crackalackey is), there are Conferences that are top to bottom better than the SEC from time to time. For example, the Big XII last year. The SEC may have a couple really good teams annually, but they also have more than their fair share of smoking turdpiles that need to be considered when thumping your chest about the great and mighty SEC. An undefeated Big XII champ would have played an extra Conference game over the vaunted SEC, as well as likely had one or two non-conference games of note. The same applies for the Pac 12, only they Pac 12 champion also played in a conference championship game. Yes, those resumes are more attractive than that of the 1 loss SEC champion with its 8+1 Conference games combined with laying waste to the Sun Belt and Southern Conferences.

--------------------------------------------------

Of course the other thing to point out here is that Florida, LSU, Alabama, and Auburn are (or were) rolling death machines because of qualities unique to their programs-name, facilities, location, not because of some SEC battle testing. They'd do just as well as they did if they spent the last two decades in the ACC.

Those qualities are obviously very important in the recipe the SEC has going on here...but your reasoning is invalid strictly based on that last laughable comment. Do you think had they NOT been in the SEC (which you are suggesting), they would have as great as facilities, coaches, and talent pool/pull as being in another conference? Absolutely not. If so, what is up with Florida State? While still successful on a standard scale...by no means have they been "FSU good", especially in the talent pool they have along with a poor level of competition in the ACC.

Whether you want to accept it or not, the level of competition you compete against directly affects each member institution in some form- whether in on field play, facilities, coaching, recruiting, and money in general.

This isn't just football, either. Why my support of SEC continues to be viewed by people like you as "blind" or "homerism without basis" blows my mind when the results continue to support my comments.

In the past 6 years, the SEC has captured 33 national titles in NCAA sports. That covers EVERY sport except volleyball. In the past 3 seasons in the big 3 sports (baseball, basketball, and football)- the SEC has 7 of those 9 titles.

That is no accident.

[Island_Style]

Your logic cant hold water. Teams change every year. A conference shouldn't get a pass based on something some kids did that aren't even playing anymore. Got to look deeper than the surface here.

P.S. I absolutely love Oklahoma State's chances against LSU and Bama. I am curious to see how Luck could handle things, too.

Playoffs need to happen now. Too many "boxing" scenarios can happen when choosing only two teams out of 100+.

[Cola]

Your logic cant hold water. Teams change every year. A conference shouldn't get a pass based on something some kids did that aren't even playing anymore. Got to look deeper than the surface here.

P.S. I absolutely love Oklahoma State's chances against LSU and Bama. I am curious to see how Luck could handle things, too.

Playoffs need to happen now. Too many "boxing" scenarios can happen when choosing only two teams out of 100+.

Of course the teams change. However, you can't assume they are rebuilding rather than just reloading. I don't think the SEC should be an automatic qualifier for the NCG, but I do think a 1-loss SEC team should get some extra consideration in the form of computer points, SOS, etc etc. I'd say the same if the Big 12 or Pac 12 was tearing it up in the same fashion.

At any rate, I agree with your last 2 lines and if that happens- all of this will be moot. A playoff is the only fair way to determine a champion. I would have liked to have seen Oklahoma State versus LSU myself.

[Funky Bunky]

An SEC team will win the N"C"G and the fans of the other 13 teams will take credit for it, as if their entire conference won the title.

Well cause, y'know, If Mississippi State was in another conference, they would go 12-0. The other SEC teams are just that good. Hell, the 2008 Florida Gators were more talented than half the NFL teams.

I would go even as far to say that the 2008 Gators and 2009 Crimson Tide were better than the 1980's 49ers or early 2000's Patriots. The SEC is THAT good.

[rams80]

Those qualities are obviously very important in the recipe the SEC has going on here...but your reasoning is invalid strictly based on that last laughable comment. Do you think had they NOT been in the SEC (which you are suggesting), they would have as great as facilities, coaches, and talent pool/pull as being in another conference?

Yes, as a matter of fact I do. Alabama won't stop being Alabama if they can't have their annual demolitions of Mississippi. Indeed, I rather suspect few who matter (players, coaches, boosters) would notice (or care) if Alabama were to go full independent so long as Auburn and possibly Tennessee stayed on the schedule. (Same for Auburn, only substitute 'Bama and Georgia respectively). For the truly, consistently elite SEC schools, there isn't the NEED to stay in the SEC; its only helpful for television negotiations and whatnot.

Absolutely not. If so, what is up with Florida State? While still successful on a standard scale...by no means have they been "FSU good", especially in the talent pool they have along with a poor level of competition in the ACC.

What is up with Florida State is that Bobby Bowden pretty much took the last dadgum decade of his coaching career off (just think of everything after 1999 as one giant victory lap) and nobody at the school had the stones to fire him or call him on his litany of poor decisions before 2009. Jimbo Fisher is still trying to fumigate the place.

Whether you want to accept it or not, the level of competition you compete against directly affects each member institution in some form- whether in on field play, facilities, coaching, recruiting, and money in general.

Somehow I suspect the Mississippis and Kentucky would still be getting their kicked in the Pac 12, Big Ten, and Big XII as well. But it's mostly money that Conferences affect, and that's an off-field issue.

In the past 6 years, the SEC has captured 33 national titles in NCAA sports. That covers EVERY sport except volleyball. In the past 3 seasons in the big 3 sports (baseball, basketball, and football)- the SEC has 7 of those 9 titles.

That is no accident.

Baseball isn't a Big 3 sport in the college level. It's a regionally major sport like hockey. Beating your chest about baseball titles is kind of like a "Big Ten fan" proclaiming that you b!tches are just jelly 'bout our wrestling swagger. Which, ummm, either the SEC chooses not to field teams in or it kind of blows at. Same goes for cross country and golf.

[Chicageaux]

Your logic cant hold water. Teams change every year. A conference shouldn't get a pass based on something some kids did that aren't even playing anymore. Got to look deeper than the surface here.

P.S. I absolutely love Oklahoma State's chances against LSU and Bama. I am curious to see how Luck could handle things, too.

Playoffs need to happen now. Too many "boxing" scenarios can happen when choosing only two teams out of 100+.

Of course the teams change. However, you can't assume they are rebuilding rather than just reloading. I don't think the SEC should be an automatic qualifier for the NCG, but I do think a 1-loss SEC team should get some extra consideration in the form of computer points, SOS, etc etc. I'd say the same if the Big 12 or Pac 12 was tearing it up in the same fashion.

At any rate, I agree with your last 2 lines and if that happens- all of this will be moot. A playoff is the only fair way to determine a champion. I would have liked to have seen Oklahoma State versus LSU myself.

I gotta say I can't disagree more. Saying a 1-loss SEC deserves extra consideration over other teams from another big conference is ridiculous. That's exactly what happened last year. Is OK State went undefeated, you can bet your last dollar that they would have made the NCG over Alabama. The same goes for any undefeated team from the Pac 12 or the Big 10. I believe they get picked over a 1-loss SEC team no matter what the circumstances.

I don't care if you're an SEC homer, that's common sense.

[rams80]

An SEC team will win the N"C"G and the fans of the other 13 teams will take credit for it, as if their entire conference won the title.

"See what they're doing in the NCG? Well they did the same thing to my team, only twice it was even more one-sided!" Gives new meaning to the "defeat means friendship" trope.

[JayMac]

Another SEC champion...yawn.

[4_tattoos]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and boldly predict that an SEC team will not be in the BCS title game this season. I think this may be one of those years where all SEC teams beat up on each other. At the end of the regular season the best team in the SEC (record wise) will have 2 or 3 losses going into the conference championship game.