Official College Football Bowls/Postseason

[cartman]

This is the first time in a while that Romo hasn't been blamed for a late game turnover costing the Cowboys a win at Jerry's World.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Just curious - would it change your mind at all if Alabama had been the one to beat Oregon and West Virginia head to head in 2011, thus giving them a better record and an H2H win?

Nope. When I say, you need to win your conference, I mean it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

You win your conference and then you can play other Conference Champs and then you can have a (small sample size, yes) comparable competition among conferences.

Except that conference titles really don't mean jackshit except for the trophy case.

Parity doesn't exist between conferences. Hell, parity doesn't exist between some "D1" conferences and some of the better high school regions in some of the top football states.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Except that conference titles really don't mean jackshit except for the trophy case.

Parity doesn't exist between conferences. Hell, parity doesn't exist between some "D1" conferences and some of the better high school regions in some of the top football states.

counter point
Dont like your conference lot, change conferences.

On a very surface level, it just seems counter intuitive that you can be the best football team in the country and not the best in your division.

[MizzouRah]

That game was a nail biter.. I still don't understand why Pinkel puts Mauk in, he goes down and they score a TD, and then he puts Franklin back out there. Franklin just didn't have it last night.

[Julio Riddols]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Stat of the night before I load up and pull into traffic.
In 116 years of Ohio State football they are now 285-1-1 when scoring 35 points.

That is the first loss in 287 games where Ohio State scored 35 points

Holy moly.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

counter point
Dont like your conference lot, change conferences.

On a very surface level, it just seems counter intuitive that you can be the best football team in the country and not the best in your division.

It is common in other sports at both the professional and amateur levels. Americans will accept this is it seems for more exciting version of playoffs. As far as finding the best team each year the playoff systems we here in America do a poor job.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

On a very surface level, it just seems counter intuitive that you can be the best football team in the country and not the best in your division.

If Clemson goes 11-1 while beating 4 top 10 SEC teams but losing to NC State, while NC State finishes 7-6 (0-4 OOC, 7-1 in ACC, loses ACC title game), I have no problem saying Clemson is better.

It's why the earlier comparison to NFL division winners makes no sense - Dallas wasn't the NFC East Champion, the Lions didn't win the NFC North, San Francisco didn't win the NFC West, and the Steelers didn't beat the Bengals for the AFC North, despite all 4 of those teams having better division records than the "division champion". Because we all acknowledge that the results over a 16-game season paint a more accurate picture.

12 games is already too small a small sample size to pare 120 teams down to 2/4 - I don't understand people who are so eager to limit the focus to only 8 of those games.

[molson]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

It's why the earlier comparison to NFL division winners makes no sense - Dallas wasn't the NFC East Champion, the Lions didn't win the NFC North, San Francisco didn't win the NFC West, and the Steelers didn't beat the Bengals for the AFC North, despite all 4 of those teams having better division records than the "division champion". Because we all acknowledge that the results over a 16-game season paint a more accurate picture.

That's a really good point - to those who think division/conference championships are the most important thing when determining who is worthy to be most rewarded in terms of college rankings and playoffs, should the NFL award division championships to the teams that have the best record within the division, and award the #1 overall seed to the team that has the best record within the conference? Then the non-conference games could just kind of be a tie-breaker, kind of like how they are in college if conference championships are the most important thing.

[larrymcg421]

Playoffs should be about finding the most exciting way to determine a champion on the field. I don't give a shit who the "best" team is.

My only problem with non-conference champions getting a shot at the title is if the conference champion doesn't also have a shot. And that is unique to college football.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Just to clarify, you think the following 3 teams

- a 2-loss Oregon team LSU beat by 13
- a 3-loss West Virginia team LSU beat by 26 @ WVU
- a Clemson team that lost 3 of its last 5 games by 14+ points

were all more deserving of a title game shot than an Alabama team LSU beat by 3 in OT (and who didn't have a single other game closer than 16 points)?

You just ignored the 12-1 Oklahoma State team that had a 37-31 loss in 2OT to Iowa State. I would argue that yes, Oklahoma State had more of an argument to that title game than Alabama. Oregon's loss to LSU was opening weekend, their bigger problem was the 3-point loss to USC late in the year, but yes I still felt they were far more deserving of a rematch with LSU than Alabama was.

Neither Clemson nor West Virginia deserve serious consideration over Alabama, granted, although I would definitely allow them into a playoff. That Clemson team in particular really blew it down the stretch.

As for this part:

Sorry, but until conferences are remotely comparable or we do get that 8+ team playoff putting a "conference championship" over a teams whole resume is dumb

If conferences aren't "remotely comparable", how can you compare "whole resumes"? Most games are within the conference. I do think you can separate the have from the havenot conferences, we know who the big 5 (6 at that time) were, and they were somewhat comparable, but to judge the conferences based on a handful of cross-conference games early in the season is just dumb.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

It's why the earlier comparison to NFL division winners makes no sense - Dallas wasn't the NFC East Champion, the Lions didn't win the NFC North, San Francisco didn't win the NFC West, and the Steelers didn't beat the Bengals for the AFC North, despite all 4 of those teams having better division records than the "division champion". Because we all acknowledge that the results over a 16-game season paint a more accurate picture.

This is a reason in favor of the wildcards. But within a division, they most certainly play VERY similar schedules. Only 2 opponents out of 16 games differ among the teams of a division. It would be much easier to compare the SEC and ACC if they each played 7 or 8 conference games, and then 3 or 4 games against teams from the other conference, with 1 or 2 open dates. That's much closer to what the NFL does.

[cuervo72]

Someone posted the link to this at Deadspin. It's old, but if you get down to the part with the tables, it illustrates what I've thought about the SEC for a long time but just haven't elaborated with the same detail.

The National, 11/19/12: Carousel. - Bring On The Cats

You can look at the chances of winning the national title all day long, but the reality is this: the SEC always has that chance to sneak two one-loss teams into the title game as a direct result of their scheduling model, which almost always makes the SEC look like giant-killers because so many teams have ten wins at the end of the regular season. They might be, they might not be; that isn't the point at all. Again, I'm not making a value judgement on the SEC's talent level in any way, shape, or form here. I am not saying the system makes them overrated. I'm saying that no matter what the level of talent in the two leagues, the SEC is always going to look better when people look at the standings... because their model makes it nearly inevitable.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

If Clemson goes 11-1 while beating 4 top 10 SEC teams but losing to NC State, while NC State finishes 7-6 (0-4 OOC, 7-1 in ACC, loses ACC title game), I have no problem saying Clemson is better.

12 games is already too small a small sample size to pare 120 teams down to 2/4 - I don't understand people who are so eager to limit the focus to only 8 of those games.

Because the issue is, to me and many others, the SEC does a horrific job playing out of conference opponents other than 1 traditional in rival in a few cases.

As such many feel that the SEC in conference rankings are biased.

In the NFL example everyone in the NFC East for example plays every team in the AFC.

Bama loses to LSU and had they have played an OOC team with a pulse they MIGHT have lost that as well.

That year their OOC slate was Penn State, North Texas, Kent State and Georgia Southern. Stats will tell you that they had a great Strength of Schedule because they beat up on a bunch of other SEC teams who also played a cupcake out of conference schedule.

And the SEC does a thorough job of controlling who their teams play out of conference. In the past 3 years alone it has forced both Ole Miss and Vandy to cancel home and home series with Clemson that were already under contract. In both cases the conference covered the cancellation fee for the member school.

[Solecismic]

Growing up, all we cared about was going to the Rose Bowl. I don't think we even articulated it as a Big Ten championship. It was simply our run for the roses.

If we made it through the pre-season undefeated, we might have a chance at a national title in the Rose Bowl. But that was secondary and somewhat out of our control.

What we have today is a different paradigm. Conference championship games seem like an uncomfortable compromise within a half-assed attempt to determine a national champion amongst a giant set of teams that play vastly different schedules.

I can't identify with it. I either want to go back to the old system and let decaying sportswriters and yahoos with foam fingers argue about a national champion that's about as valid in terms of analysis as arguing whether Miley Cyrus is better than Taylor Swift. Or I want a real 16,24 or 32-team tournament.

[PilotMan]

NDSU!!! FCS National Champs 3 years in a row with the 35-7 win over Towson. I'd say you could make a very strong case that this is the best team in FCS history.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

NDSU!!! FCS National Champs 3 years in a row with the 35-7 win over Towson. I'd say you could make a very strong case that this is the best team in FCS history.

Stuff like this begs for a promotional system like soccer. It's pretty clear some of these top FCS teams are better than half of the FBS teams.

[PilotMan]

Shit, we've only been D1 for 10 years, and were 1 loss from being in the finals 4 years in a row.

Next year will be good, but with 24 seniors leaving and a new coaching staff you have to think just making the tournament would be good.

Before today's game we #23 on Sagarin's College Football Power Rankings. I'd say we were better than more than half.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

Shit, we've only been D1 for 10 years, and were 1 loss from being in the finals 4 years in a row.

Next year will be good, but with 24 seniors leaving and a new coaching staff you have to think just making the tournament would be good.

Before today's game we #23 on Sagarin's College Football Power Rankings. I'd say we were better than more than half.

I was trying to be kind.

[CU Tiger]

Bob Stoops expresses it better than I (or most)

Bob Stoops, Oklahoma - ESPN

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

It's pretty clear some of these top FCS teams are better than half of the FBS teams.

{giggle}

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Bob Stoops expresses it better than I (or most)

Bob Stoops, Oklahoma - ESPN

A lot of what Stoops has had to say on this matter has been taken out of context. The past seven national championships have been won by a team from the SEC (Alabama, Florida, LSU and Auburn). Nobody disputes that.

The SEC leadership puts a lot of effort into making the road to the national championship as easy as possible for their members. First, they only play eight conference games. The cross-divisional games are set up where they only have to play certain teams once every six years. What if they had to play at least nine games against teams from BCS conferences? If Alabama had to play South Carolina, Florida and Georgia every year in addition to LSU, Auburn and Texas A&M, do you think they might lose a few more games? Instead, they get to play UT-Chattanooga and Georgia State. All of the SEC teams do this. And don't even go into the argument that the Big 12 doesn't have a conference championship game. Every team in the Big 12 plays every other team. A round-robin is actually the purest form of determining a champion.

Second, how did Texas A&M and Missouri join the SEC, flip a switch, and enjoy early success? Texas A&M was routinely the fourth best team in the Big XII South. They went 5-10 against Oklahoma, 5-10 against Texas, and 5-10 against Texas Tech. That's a combined 15-30 against those teams. Missouri never won a Big XII Championship, even though they played in the weak Big XII North.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Second, how did Texas A&M and Missouri join the SEC, flip a switch, and enjoy early success?

A&M seems like a rather obvious answer. I expect them to return to the middle of the pack the day a certain QB leaves campus.

Missouri? Damned if I can explain that situation.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

{giggle}

{ Snicker} nods at Jon and points at MBBF....

[Matthean]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

A lot of what Stoops has had to say on this matter has been taken out of context. The past seven national championships have been won by a team from the SEC (Alabama, Florida, LSU and Auburn). Nobody disputes that.

The SEC leadership puts a lot of effort into making the road to the national championship as easy as possible for their members. First, they only play eight conference games. The cross-divisional games are set up where they only have to play certain teams once every six years. What if they had to play at least nine games against teams from BCS conferences? If Alabama had to play South Carolina, Florida and Georgia every year in addition to LSU, Auburn and Texas A&M, do you think they might lose a few more games? Instead, they get to play UT-Chattanooga and Georgia State. All of the SEC teams do this. And don't even go into the argument that the Big 12 doesn't have a conference championship game. Every team in the Big 12 plays every other team. A round-robin is actually the purest form of determining a champion.

Second, how did Texas A&M and Missouri join the SEC, flip a switch, and enjoy early success? Texas A&M was routinely the fourth best team in the Big XII South. They went 5-10 against Oklahoma, 5-10 against Texas, and 5-10 against Texas Tech. That's a combined 15-30 against those teams. Missouri never won a Big XII Championship, even though they played in the weak Big XII North.

Currently 7-2 in bowl games. The BCS Title game record speaks for itself. Bitch all you want, the facts remain the same.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

A lot of what Stoops has had to say on this matter has been taken out of context. The past seven national championships have been won by a team from the SEC (Alabama, Florida, LSU and Auburn). Nobody disputes that.

The SEC leadership puts a lot of effort into making the road to the national championship as easy as possible for their members. First, they only play eight conference games. The cross-divisional games are set up where they only have to play certain teams once every six years. What if they had to play at least nine games against teams from BCS conferences? If Alabama had to play South Carolina, Florida and Georgia every year in addition to LSU, Auburn and Texas A&M, do you think they might lose a few more games? Instead, they get to play UT-Chattanooga and Georgia State. All of the SEC teams do this. And don't even go into the argument that the Big 12 doesn't have a conference championship game. Every team in the Big 12 plays every other team. A round-robin is actually the purest form of determining a champion.

Second, how did Texas A&M and Missouri join the SEC, flip a switch, and enjoy early success? Texas A&M was routinely the fourth best team in the Big XII South. They went 5-10 against Oklahoma, 5-10 against Texas, and 5-10 against Texas Tech. That's a combined 15-30 against those teams. Missouri never won a Big XII Championship, even though they played in the weak Big XII North.

The SEC has had the scheudle you mentioned for 2 years. As has the Big 12. Let's not act like this explains or doesn't explain the SEC's run. The problem with >10 members in your conference is you can't play everyone every season. And let's not act like the Big 12 wouldn't jump at more members and a conference championship if Notre Dame or someone of that caliber came calling. They just were left with TCU and WV level programs (nothing wrong with them but no reason for Texas or OU to except any more teams getting a cut at this level) after running off 3 of the members of the Big 8 and A&M.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by panerd

The SEC has had the scheudle you mentioned for 2 years. As has the Big 12.

No, it hasn't. Even when both teams were two 6-team divisions, the Big XII played a 5-3 schedule (playing every team in the other division 50% of the time), while the SEC played a 5-2-1 schedule, for the most part feasting on FCS and Sunbelt teams for their non-conference games.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

No, it hasn't. Even when both teams were two 6-team divisions, the Big XII played a 5-3 schedule (playing every team in the other division 50% of the time), while the SEC played a 5-2-1 schedule, for the most part feasting on FCS and Sunbelt teams for their non-conference games.

I guess I don't really understand your point. Nobody disputes OU and Texas are the cream of the Big 12 but Nebraska and K-State used to be huge power players as well. Alabama and LSU are also together in one of the divisions. It seems like you have just as much chance of avoiding a cupcake like Kentucky/Vanderbilt as you do of avoiding Florida/Georgia. The Big 12 OOC schedules were largely cupcakes as well. (Just from the Midwest instead of the South)

EDIT: I mean correct me if I am wrong but basically your point is the Big 12 lost two of its members to the SEC, one to the Big 10, and one to the PAC-12. So because of poor leadership they now play "pure" round robin football.

[cuervo72]

I guess the question would be - out of the following games, which would be matchups where both teams might be considered to be legit contenders and where the outcome should actually be in doubt (i.e. immediately throw out games with Kentucky, Vandy, MSU, probably Ole Miss, Tennessee, Arkansas, etc.) Are there enough of those games where the teams can split the games in such a way where two (or more) of them won't finish with only one loss? And if not, are there any OOC games that could be losses ('Bama plays WV - probably not. LSU plays Wisky - maybe)

2014 SEC Football Week-by-Week Schedule
(Conference Games Only)

Aug. 28
Texas A&M at South Carolina

Aug. 30
Arkansas at Auburn

Sept. 6
Ole Miss at Vanderbilt

Sept. 13
Kentucky at Florida
Georgia at South Carolina

Sept. 20
Florida at Alabama
Mississippi State at LSU
South Carolina at Vanderbilt

Sept. 27
Texas A&M vs. Arkansas (Dallas)
Tennessee at Georgia
Vanderbilt at Kentucky
Missouri at South Carolina

Oct. 4
Alabama at Ole Miss
LSU at Auburn
Florida at Tennessee
Vanderbilt at Georgia
South Carolina at Kentucky
Texas A&M at Mississippi State

Oct. 11
Alabama at Arkansas
Auburn at Mississippi State
LSU at Florida
Georgia at Missouri
Ole Miss at Texas A&M

Oct. 18
Texas A&M at Alabama
Georgia at Arkansas
Missouri at Florida
Kentucky at LSU
Tennessee at Ole Miss

Oct. 25
Alabama at Tennessee
South Carolina at Auburn
Mississippi State at Kentucky
Ole Miss at LSU
Vanderbilt at Missouri

Nov. 1
Arkansas at Mississippi State
Auburn at Ole Miss
Florida vs. Georgia (Jacksonville)
Kentucky at Missouri
Tennessee at South Carolina

Nov. 8
Alabama at LSU
Texas A&M at Auburn
Florida at Vanderbilt
Georgia at Kentucky

Nov. 15
Mississippi State at Alabama
LSU at Arkansas
Auburn at Georgia
South Carolina at Florida
Kentucky at Tennessee
Missouri at Texas A&M

Nov. 22
Ole Miss at Arkansas
Vanderbilt at Mississippi State
Missouri at Tennessee

Nov. 27
LSU at Texas A&M

Nov. 29
Auburn at Alabama
Arkansas at Missouri
Mississippi State at Ole Miss
Tennessee at Vanderbilt

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

You just ignored the 12-1 Oklahoma State team that had a 37-31 loss in 2OT to Iowa State. I would argue that yes, Oklahoma State had more of an argument to that title game than Alabama.

I talked about them in both posts and said I could easily support them playing in the title game over Alabama (and did at the time). You posted "Alabama couldn't win its DIVISION, let alone its CONFERENCE, so how can they play for the national championship? ... Alabama should not have been involved unless they had an 8-game playoff, in which case you can argue they should have been one of the 2 wildcards (there were still 6 AQ conferences then if I remember)." ; which certainly implies to me that you thought Alabama should only be considered after the 6 AQ's. Yet even you're willing to admit they deserved it over at least 2 of those AQ's.

To put it another way, if Oklahoma State had beaten Iowa State, but lost to Kansas State instead (and lost the Big 12 on a tiebreaker), would they have been less deserving? If Iowa State had won more games and won the Big 12, why would that make Oklahoma State less deserving with the same resume? I'm fine with using conference champion as a tiebreaker, but using it as a litmus test and cut-off makes no sense to me.

Oregon's loss to LSU was opening weekend, their bigger problem was the 3-point loss to USC late in the year, but yes I still felt they were far more deserving of a rematch with LSU than Alabama was.

I don't care when the loss is. Both Oregon and Alabama lost to LSU. Oregon lost by more and lost an additional game - I can't see how they're more deserving of a rematch. If anything Stanford was the PAC-10 team that deserved it, but again that's a team that didn't win its conference (or division if they had had them then.)

Neither Clemson nor West Virginia deserve serious consideration over Alabama, granted, although I would definitely allow them into a playoff. That Clemson team in particular really blew it down the stretch.

At least you'll admit that, which just means it's a matter of how much where you draw the line. I would love a TCY-esque 8 or 16-game playoff where each major D1 conference got an AQ and then we had a couple at-larges. But we don't, and until we get to that point, it's clearly at least *possible* for the 2nd best team in the country to be in the same division/conference as the best.

If conferences aren't "remotely comparable", how can you compare "whole resumes"? Most games are within the conference. I do think you can separate the have from the havenot conferences, we know who the big 5 (6 at that time) were, and they were somewhat comparable, but to judge the conferences based on a handful of cross-conference games early in the season is just dumb.

It's SSS and incomplete data, but it's all we have to go on. To pretend there's just 2 tiers (AQ/non-AQ) is silly, and I don't need more games than we saw to definitively say the SEC was better than the ACC or the Big East (or that the Big East/MWC is better than the Sun Belt/MAC). That's not to say every SEC team is better than those in the other conferences, or that a great team can't play in one of those conferences (I doubt I could find anyone who thinks the ACC is better than the SEC this year, but I also doubt I could find anyone rational who doesn't think FSU is legit), but yes as a whole it is, and has been for years. You'll notice I didn't say the Pac-12, Big-12, or even Big 10, because they've had some years where it's been much closer than any SEC partisan will admit, if not favoring another league (although the SEC has to get credit for consistency - every one of those 3 leagues suffered a real down year or two).

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Because the issue is, to me and many others, the SEC does a horrific job playing out of conference opponents other than 1 traditional in rival in a few cases.

As such many feel that the SEC in conference rankings are biased.

No shit SEC teams play cupcakes - so do teams from every BCS conference. Use teams backing out of an agreement all you want, fact is Clemson's played Troy, Wofford, Ball State, Furman, South Carolina St and the Citadel within the last 3 years. That 2011 Oklahoma State team people wanted in the championship beat Tulsa, Arizona, and ULL OOC (Oregon beat Nevada and Missouri State). Florida State this year beat Nevada, Bethune-Cookman, Idaho and Florida. Show me any objective measure of OOC schedule strength that shows the SEC significantly different than the other BCS leagues and I'll take this all back, but you can't, because they all schedule the same.

That year their OOC slate was Penn State, North Texas, Kent State and Georgia Southern. Stats will tell you that they had a great Strength of Schedule because they beat up on a bunch of other SEC teams who also played a cupcake out of conference schedule.

You can game the NCAA's old RPI, or the current BCS computers, but guys like Sagarin also put out their unfiltered ratings (the "Predictor" column) that actually use MoV and not just W/L. It spits out some interesting stuff - like how good the Pac-12 was this year, or how good the Big 12 was in 2011, but it also puts out stuff SEC-haters don't like to acknowledge - like 7 of the top 22 teams coming from the SEC this year, 6 of the top 12 last year, or Alabama ranking 2nd in 2013 (pre-Bowl), 1st in 2012, 1st in 2011, 3rd in 2010 (when they lost 3 games), and 1st in 2009.

And the SEC does a thorough job of controlling who their teams play out of conference. In the past 3 years alone it has forced both Ole Miss and Vandy to cancel home and home series with Clemson that were already under contract. In both cases the conference covered the cancellation fee for the member school.

I don't even doubt the specific examples because of who you know, but if they're so controlling then why would they let Clemson play Auburn 2x and Georgia at home in the last 3 years? (as well as SC, but I assume that's beyond any SEC commissioner's discretion)

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

NDSU!!! FCS National Champs 3 years in a row with the 35-7 win over Towson. I'd say you could make a very strong case that this is the best team in FCS history.

Congrats to North Dakota State! They took no prisoners in the playoffs. I wonder how their coach will do at the new job and level of football

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I guess the question would be - out of the following games, which would be matchups where both teams might be considered to be legit contenders and where the outcome should actually be in doubt (i.e. immediately throw out games with Kentucky, Vandy, MSU, probably Ole Miss, Tennessee, Arkansas, etc.) Are there enough of those games where the teams can split the games in such a way where two (or more) of them won't finish with only one loss? And if not, are there any OOC games that could be losses ('Bama plays WV - probably not. LSU plays Wisky - maybe)

Mizzou has another advantageous schedule again next year. No games vs. Alabama, LSU, or Auburn on the schedule. Real shot at repeating as SEC East champs.

[MrBug708]

@AdamSchefter: UCLA QB Brett Hundley, viewed as a potential top-10 pick, plans to return to school for senior season, per sources. Announcement this week.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

@AdamSchefter: UCLA QB Brett Hundley, viewed as a potential top-10 pick, plans to return to school for senior season, per sources. Announcement this week.

I like Hundley's potential but I think going back to school for another year is a good thing for him.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

).No shit SEC teams play cupcakes - so do teams from every BCS conference. Use teams backing out of an agreement all you want, fact is Clemson's played Troy, Wofford, Ball State, Furman, South Carolina St and the Citadel within the last 3 years.

I think you are missing my point. Yes every team plays cupcakes.
But during the last 4 years Clemson for example has also played 8 games against SEC schools OOC. (the state law mandated annual game against SC and Aub, Aub, Aub, UGA and will open this season in Athens)

And then added 2 cupcakes. Different world from three cupcakes or in the case of Bama with an in conference rival some years 4 cupcakes.

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

That 2011 Oklahoma State team people wanted in the championship beat Tulsa, Arizona, and ULL OOC (Oregon beat Nevada and Missouri State). Florida State this year beat Nevada, Bethune-Cookman, Idaho and Florida. Show me any objective measure of OOC schedule strength that shows the SEC significantly different than the other BCS leagues and I'll take this all back, but you can't, because they all schedule the same.You can game the NCAA's old RPI, or the current BCS computers, but guys like Sagarin also put out their unfiltered ratings (the "Predictor" column) that actually use MoV and not just W/L. It spits out some interesting stuff - like how good the Pac-12 was this year, or how good the Big 12 was in 2011, but it also puts out stuff SEC-haters don't like to acknowledge - like 7 of the top 22 teams coming from the SEC this year, 6 of the top 12 last year, or Alabama ranking 2nd in 2013 (pre-Bowl), 1st in 2012, 1st in 2011, 3rd in 2010 (when they lost 3 games), and 1st in 2009.I don't even doubt the specific examples because of who you know, but if they're so controlling then why would they let Clemson play Auburn 2x and Georgia at home in the last 3 years? (as well as SC, but I assume that's beyond any SEC commissioner's discretion)

Simple the SEC thought Auburn and UGa were better teams and could/would win.

Again I'm not saying the SEC is garbage, though some teams are, just as a whole over rated.

[gstelmack]

This morning's headline on Good Morning America: "National Chamiponship Pits Top Team Against Cinderella". They're already referring to Auburn as a "Cinderella", heh.

[Matthean]

It is an easy story to sell considering where people expected them to be and their ability to pull out victories in the end. I think FSU is going to win and could potentially do it by a solid margin.

[cuervo72]

The more I think about it, the more it seems like Georgia just keeps fucking up what should be a pretty nice situation. They miss Alabama more often than not, and miss LSU more often than not, and they still can't get shit done.

[cartman]

The end of the Go Daddy Bowl was pretty entertaining last night. Ball State scored with less than two minutes left to take the lead. Arkansas State scored in about a minute to retake a 3 point lead. Ball State then drove into long field goal range, and then picked up 15 yards on a hit out of bounds. They attempted a FG on the last play of regulation to send the game into OT, but Arkansas State blocked it.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

I think you are missing my point. Yes every team plays cupcakes.
But during the last 4 years Clemson for example has also played 8 games against SEC schools OOC. (the state law mandated annual game against SC and Aub, Aub, Aub, UGA and will open this season in Athens)

And then added 2 cupcakes. Different world from three cupcakes or in the case of Bama with an in conference rival some years 4 cupcakes.

The ACC also kind of screwed everyone (big surprise) by hinting all offseason that they would go to a 9 game conference schedule, then backtracking and forcing everyone to play the FCS lottery.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Except that conference titles really don't mean jackshit except for the trophy case.

Parity doesn't exist between conferences. Hell, parity doesn't exist between some "D1" conferences and some of the better high school regions in some of the top football states.

Conference teams don't play against other conference teams enough to determine what that "level" should be. Back in the old days of baseball, when the NL and AL didn't play each other except for the World Series, that was the argument - win your league and then get a shot to play the other league winner. And sometimes the 'worse' team actually did much better than they were supposed to because it isn't easy to evaluate which leagues are better than another if they don't play each other that often.

[jbergey22]

Anyone watching?

Florida St 3-0. Auburn missed out on a huge opportunity the first drive. A wide receiver running wide open in the seem couldnt adjust to a ball slightly underthrown that would have been 6.

[JonInMiddleGA]

(totally pasted from my FB just before kickoff)

For the record: I'm not all that emotionally invested in tonight's game. I'm kinda lightly pulling for FSU due to conference loyalty -- I am a Tech guy first & foremost after all -- but not going to be especially upset if Auburn happens to win (at least that way the SEC-haters exploding heads will provide some entertainment). Hope the game is a good one, hope both teams stay healthy, hope they both leave everything on the field.

[Bigsmooth]

Gus>Jimbo

[jbergey22]

Auburn 7-3. Big score from Auburn for confidence. This has the signs of a good one.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

Anyone watching?

Since you asked, this one's as unsatisfying as the World Series matchup this year so I'm just not watching

SI

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Since you asked, this one's as unsatisfying as the World Series matchup this year so I'm just not watching

SI

I was with ya on the World Series.

[jbergey22]

Auburn defense is ready to play. Wow!

7-3 burn end of 1.

Scary part for FSU is how ineffective their offense has been to this point. WRs look well covered and Winston isnt getting the time he usually has.

[Matthean]

I'm just waiting on the FSU offense to wake up. There's no way a team who gave up 108 points in its last three games continues to hold down FSU.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Matthean

I'm just waiting on the FSU offense to wake up. There's no way a team who gave up 108 points in its last three games continues to hold down FSU.

I think the Auburn/Oregon Nat'l Championship game from 3 years back started kind of like this. Everyone expecting big offense and the defenses shined at least until later.

FSU hasnt been held under 35 all season. Wouldnt expect it tonight either but at this point Auburn is making them work.