Is Auburn overrated?

[jojo]

Why did you vote the way you did?

[MWM]

Define over-rated? I think they're really good, but I don't think we really know just how good they are at this point. LSU is the team that was massively over-rated. We may not learn until they play Alabama as the SEC as a whole is way down this year vs where it's been over the past 5 years, but Alabama is still a legit excellent team (maybe the only other really good team in the conference this year).

Cam Newton is easily the Heisman winner, but without him I think they're very average. There just isn't any truly great teams in college football this year. Hell, I truly believe Boise State can play with anyone at this point... same for TCU.

[Brutus]

Because there are no great teams this year, and they've got as good a case as anyone to be where they're at, I voted 'no.'

That said, I do think their defense is borderline awful, and not championship material. I think they'll lose to Alabama, if not another game or so in between.

[KronoRed]

They don't have a Defense but then neither does Oregon, a title game with those 2 will have 120 points scored.

[dabvu2498]

Because there are no great teams this year, and they've got as good a case as anyone to be where they're at, I voted 'no.'

I tend to agree with this.

They're pretty good. Fun to watch. So is Oregon. I still think the best roster, overall, belongs to Alabama.

Quite honestly, I hope Auburn runs the table and thumps Bama.

Cam Newton is a transcendent college football player.

[guttle11]

I think they deserve to be #1 right now, but I still don't fully buy them. Every remotely tough game they've had has been at home, and they struggled to beat UK and Miss St on the road. Can't decide if they are great, or a product of simply protecting home field. So I guess...no, they aren't overrated, but I'm also not sure they are truly among the best in the country. Game at Bama may be for a spot in the national title game, assuming both win out until then.

[paintmered]

They're no more overrated than any other team out there, IMO. Given the events of the season so far, they should be #1.

[OnBaseMachine]

I've been impressed with both Auburn and Oregon. Oregon is very exciting to watch.

[macro]

They're ranked #1 because they're undefeated, yet they barely squeaked by in three of those wins against average opponents. The #1 ranking should go to the best team in the country, and they're not, so by definition, they're overrated.

[Boston Red]

same for TCU.

Yeah, I've had my doubts about TCU this year, and they've got a big one with Utah coming next weekend that they need to get through still. That being said, the most underrated result of this college football season is TCU 45, Baylor 10. Baylor's a really good team, and TCU just walloped them.

[guttle11]

They're ranked #1 because they're undefeated, yet they barely squeaked by in three of those wins against average opponents. The #1 ranking should go to the best team in the country, and they're not, so by definition, they're overrated.

So who is the best team, and how do you possibly determine that?

The biggest myth of the BCS is that it tries to find the best two teams. Not true, no system tries to do that. It tries to determine the two most qualified teams. Auburn has beaten LSU and South Carolina while remaining unbeaten, a better "resume" than every other team in the country. That's why they deserve to be #1 right now.

[webbbj]

i think they are overrated. right now they are #1. i dont think they finish #1 so by that token i would say they are overrated. but saying that i thnk right now they deserve that #1 ranking.

[Brutus]

i think they are overrated. right now they are #1. i dont think they finish #1 so by that token i would say they are overrated. but saying that i thnk right now they deserve that #1 ranking.

Then, by that logic, they're not overrated. The ranking isn't based on where we think they'll end up. It's based on right now. As of today. If we're saying today they deserve No. 1, then does that make them overrated? Rankings aren't projections.

If they're not No. 1, and they finish No. 4 and deserve to be No. 4, does that mean they're overrated because they finish somewhere they're not? All that means is that they lost a game.

I don't think Auburn is the best team, but since I can't sit here and produce anyone that is clearly better, regardless of whether or not I think they'll lose, as we discuss this, their rating seems justifiable. That to me is all that matters.

I still think Alabama is the best team in college football. That is to say if you put the best 8-16 teams in a playoff, I think Alabama wins. Oregon and Auburn are exciting, but traditionally, those types of defenses don't win the big one. But this year is a weird year, and while Alabama could still end up facing Oregon if it wins out, right now I recognize they're not going to be rated over undefeated teams in major conferences.

[RedsManRick]

It's college football. Take "on any given (saturday)" and then make it so the best teams don't play each other. You'll never convince me we have much of an idea on which teams are truly the best.

[jojo]

If Auburn can get by Georgia which is no given and Bama can get past LSU and Mississippi Sate both of which aren't givens either, we'll at least get to find out the answer to who is more deserving between Auburn and Bama (it's going to be a great football day after thanksgiving)...

Oregon is good I think but they've had an easier road to this point and looking forward they have an easier road. If the criticism is that the SEC is down (which really isn't a valid argument since the SEC west is loaded and that's the competition that most informs the Auburn/Alabama schedules), then i'm not sure what the argument for a PAC Ten team would be....

Just my two cents.

BTW, anyone who thinks SEC fans are unbearable should treat themselves to a gameday at Auburn during a big showdown weekend. It's a fabulous experience and you'll be hard pressed to find more gracious hosts or a more electric atmosphere.

[MWM]

Nobody in the southeast is ever going to admit the SEC is down.... just won't happen under any circumstance. But pretty much everyone outside it can see it. It's not as good as it has been. I don't buy the SEC west is loaded. They have Alabama and Auburn and that's about it. LSU is not very good regardless of their record and neither is Arkansas. If they're loaded because of LSU and Arkansas, then every conference is loaded because all of them can claim teams that good.

Auburn deserves the ranking they have and they have the best player in the game this year. They may just be the best team in the country. If they go onto beat Alabama, then there will be no doubt as to where they stand. But I don't think their path has been any more difficult than Oregon's to this point. And most people not living in the southeast are likely to agree. If the two teams played on neutral terf, I think it would be close but I'd probably bet on Oregon. Auburn's offense is very good, but is capable of being slowed down, even if just a little. I don't know that Oregon's could be slowed down at all.

But like Rick said, none of us have much idea of what would happen if all these teams were able to play on the field.

[RBA]

Oregon #1 in BCS. Richly deserved.

[LoganBuck]

Nobody in the southeast is ever going to admit the SEC is down.... just won't happen under any circumstance. But pretty much everyone outside it can see it. It's not as good as it has been. I don't buy the SEC west is loaded. They have Alabama and Auburn and that's about it. LSU is not very good regardless of their record and neither is Arkansas. If they're loaded because of LSU and Arkansas, then every conference is loaded because all of them can claim teams that good.

Auburn deserves the ranking they have and they have the best player in the game this year. They may just be the best team in the country. If they go onto beat Alabama, then there will be no doubt as to where they stand. But I don't think their path has been any more difficult than Oregon's to this point. And most people not living in the southeast are likely to agree. If the two teams played on neutral terf, I think it would be close but I'd probably bet on Oregon. Auburn's offense is very good, but is capable of being slowed down, even if just a little. I don't know that Oregon's could be slowed down at all.

But like Rick said, none of us have much idea of what would happen if all these teams were able to play on the field.

To me Oregon is the same team they were last year. Ohio State set the blueprint on how to beat them. Run the ball on offense, win the time of possession battle, hit the quarterback, hit him again, hit him again. I think the PAC10 is actually weaker than last year.

I really like Auburn's offense, especially Cam Newton. If they run through the rest of their schedule, and the SEC Championship, there will be no doubt where they deserve to be ranked.

[Brutus]

To me Oregon is the same team they were last year. Ohio State set the blueprint on how to beat them. Run the ball on offense, win the time of possession battle, hit the quarterback, hit him again, hit him again. I think the PAC10 is actually weaker than last year.

I really like Auburn's offense, especially Cam Newton. If they run through the rest of their schedule, and the SEC Championship, there will be no doubt where they deserve to be ranked.

Blueprints are nice, and perhaps Ohio State did set one. But you also need the personnel to do it. Quite honestly, I see only one defense good enough to stop Oregon this year (Alabama). I definitely don't think even Ohio State could do the same thing this year. In fact, this Ohio State defense as is would probably get dinged quite a bit against Oregon.

[jojo]

Nobody in the southeast is ever going to admit the SEC is down.... just won't happen under any circumstance.

This is simply untrue and unfair.

Five of the six SEC west teams are ranked in the top 20 of the BCS standing with 3 of the teams being in the top 10 (overall the SEC West is 39-11). Name another conference that bests how just the SEC west is viewed by the BCS....

Auburn has to play all of those teams in addition to another SEC team in the top 20-South Carolina.

Oregon's resume? To this point they've only played 2 teams that currently sport a winning record.

There are plenty of reasons to argue the SEC West is tough this year without being biased.

[MWM]

"Rankings" don't make teams good. Part of the reason those teams are ranked where they are is because they're in the SEC. I've watched LSU, Arkansas, and Mississippi play this year (part of living in the southeast is that about every game is on TV) and you're not going to convince me that those teams are worthy of making a conference "loaded". They're all very average and every conference has teams this good.

[jojo]

"Rankings" don't make teams good. Part of the reason those teams are ranked where they are is because they're in the SEC. I've watched LSU, Arkansas, and Mississippi play this year (part of living in the southeast is that about every game is on TV) and you're not going to convince me that those teams are worthy of making a conference "loaded". They're all very average and every conference has teams this good.

Rankings aren't as arbitrary as "someone in the southeast"....and that's the point.


If the SEC West is essentially average then its a down year for NCAA football.

[bucksfan2]

Blueprints are nice, and perhaps Ohio State did set one. But you also need the personnel to do it. Quite honestly, I see only one defense good enough to stop Oregon this year (Alabama). I definitely don't think even Ohio State could do the same thing this year. In fact, this Ohio State defense as is would probably get dinged quite a bit against Oregon.

The same things were being said last year about Oregon when OSU played them. Its the reason I really am not buying Oregon to this point yet. They haven't played a team yet who will hit them in the mouth. They will hit them over and over again.

As for Auburn I don't buy them yet. I won't buy them until they play and beat Alabama. They are a nice story with a dynamic QB but so was UM until they ran into some trouble. As someone said above I think the SEC is way down this season. LSU isn't all that great, neither is Arkansas or Ol Miss. Florida and Georgia are both down this season and Alabama is the cream of the crop but has one loss to their name.

I am not a big believer in teams that can't stop anybody. I am a big believer in dynamic offenses but those need to be accompanied by solid defenses. Both Auburn and Oregon don't have a defense.

[WVRed]

Nobody in the southeast is ever going to admit the SEC is down....

I'm not going to disagree with this, but the SEC is still in line to send a team to the national championship game for the FIFTH year in a row, with the leading Heisman candidate to boot.

It's not going to matter until after January 10th when the dust settles after all the bowl games and then we can justify whether or not the SEC is overrated.

[Brutus]

The same things were being said last year about Oregon when OSU played them. Its the reason I really am not buying Oregon to this point yet. They haven't played a team yet who will hit them in the mouth. They will hit them over and over again.

As for Auburn I don't buy them yet. I won't buy them until they play and beat Alabama. They are a nice story with a dynamic QB but so was UM until they ran into some trouble. As someone said above I think the SEC is way down this season. LSU isn't all that great, neither is Arkansas or Ol Miss. Florida and Georgia are both down this season and Alabama is the cream of the crop but has one loss to their name.

I am not a big believer in teams that can't stop anybody. I am a big believer in dynamic offenses but those need to be accompanied by solid defenses. Both Auburn and Oregon don't have a defense.

If you look around college football, however, you'll see a whole bunch of teams that can't stop anybody. Alabama and, I suppose TCU, are the only two teams really built on defense right now.

I usually agree with you about needing to be able to play defense. That usually is a team's downfall. Problem is, there aren't many teams that can make Oregon pay for that. This year the defenses just don't seem to be catching up with the offenses as much.

[Sea Ray]

Nobody in the southeast is ever going to admit the SEC is down.... just won't happen under any circumstance.

I don't know if I qualify as "the southeast" but I do think the SEC is down as compared to recent years. I still think they're the best football conference around but I'm "not as sure" ;) as I used to be...

[Sea Ray]

If you look around college football, however, you'll see a whole bunch of teams that can't stop anybody. Alabama and, I suppose TCU, are the only two teams really built on defense right now.

I usually agree with you about needing to be able to play defense. That usually is a team's downfall. Problem is, there aren't many teams that can make Oregon pay for that. This year the defenses just don't seem to be catching up with the offenses as much.

That's true. Syracuse is not a national contender but they do seem to be built on defense, but the top teams appear to be "we'll outscore" you types

[bucksfan2]

If you look around college football, however, you'll see a whole bunch of teams that can't stop anybody. Alabama and, I suppose TCU, are the only two teams really built on defense right now.

I usually agree with you about needing to be able to play defense. That usually is a team's downfall. Problem is, there aren't many teams that can make Oregon pay for that. This year the defenses just don't seem to be catching up with the offenses as much.

I would lump OSU in there as a good defensive team. They had one bad game against Wisconsin and thats about it.

The issue with Oregon is that they play in a conference that really doesn't value defense. Its a run and gun type league and has been ever since I can remember. There have been years when USC's defense has been good but thats about it.

I think that there are several teams that Oregon would have a tough time against. Alabama, TCU, and Ohio State come to my mind right away but also Big 10 teams like Wisconsin and Iowa (not being a Big 10 homer just impressed with these teams) have good defenses, good OLines, and solid QB's. Teams that can play a ball control offense and make sure you pay every time you run the ball.

[kaldaniels]

They are not overrated in that their play on the field so far undoubtedly merits their current ranking.

But Saban is gonna take em' down.

[OnBaseMachine]

To me Oregon is the same team they were last year. Ohio State set the blueprint on how to beat them. Run the ball on offense, win the time of possession battle, hit the quarterback, hit him again, hit him again. I think the PAC10 is actually weaker than last year.


I disagree. I think Oregon is much better this year than last. Jeremiah Masoli was a turnover machine. Darron Thomas is a much, much better QB, IMO.

[Boston Red]

To me Oregon is the same team they were last year. Ohio State set the blueprint on how to beat them.

I don't think Ohio State set the blueprint. They were just following the one Boise State provided.

[jojo]

I thought (and still do) that Alabama is the best all around team in 2010 but then they lost to South Carolina by 14.

My take is that they are better than Auburn until Auburn beats them. Auburn continually surprises me this year and it's been one of the most fun seasons I can remember.

As it stands, Alabama could win out and still not play in the championship game.

[LoganBuck]

I am not saying Oregon isn't an impressive team. But I don't think they are a head and shoulders top tier team. I still am not seeing the Oregon Qb getting hit. That was the difference between the rest of teams on their schedule last season and the Rose Bowl. Ohio State got to the QB. Of the teams at the top of the rankings, Alabama is the only one that I see as being able to stop Oregon.

For the record this year's OSU team does not have nearly as good a defense as years past. Injuries have riddled this secondary. I will be surprised if they can beat Iowa.

[LoganBuck]

I don't think Ohio State set the blueprint. They were just following the one Boise State provided.

In that game Oregon had some horrible mistakes, and lost their composure. I didn't really come away from that game thinking Boise State had beaten Oregon, I thought Oregon gave that game away.

[Boston Red]

In that game Oregon had some horrible mistakes, and lost their composure. I didn't really come away from that game thinking Boise State had beaten Oregon, I thought Oregon gave that game away.

Really? Oregon didn't have a first down in the first half. That's pretty solid domination.

How about 2008? Did Boise beat Oregon that year, or did Oregon beat themselves?

[LoganBuck]

I watched the Boise State game last year. Oregon shot itself in the foot time, and time again. It really isn't worth arguing about.

This is 2010, Oregon is very good, I just think that in order to be tested they will have to face a top defense.

[Boston Red]

Fair enough, but if you're going to cite Ohio State's win over Oregon last year, you should also cite Boise State's throttling of them. And the lack of a single first down by Oregon in the first half of that game frankly bolsters your argument about what happens to them against good defenses (Boise's defense is statistically #1 right now; obviously strength of schedule skews that some).

[Roy Tucker]

I voted overrated because it gave me the oportunity to say something negative about the SEC.

I know they play great football and all that, but I just get tired of the self-aggrandizement. So sue me. :)

[Todd Gack]

Because there are no great teams this year, and they've got as good a case as anyone to be where they're at, I voted 'no.'

That said, I do think their defense is borderline awful, and not championship material. I think they'll lose to Alabama, if not another game or so in between.

I think Oregon is close to being 'great.' They're the opposite in terms of ALabama from last year. Their offense is unstoppable ('Bama's D was immovable) and their D is good enough to win a NC (just as 'Bama's offense was).

[kaldaniels]

I think Oregon is close to being 'great.' They're the opposite in terms of ALabama from last year. Their offense is unstoppable ('Bama's D was immovable) and their D is good enough to win a NC (just as 'Bama's offense was).

I'm no SEC apologist, but I'd wager if Oregon had Auburn's schedule to this point, we wouldn't be viewing them as unstoppable.

[Sea Ray]

This is still another reason why we need a playoff. Under the present system, Oregon or Bosie St for that matter, will only have to win one big game in order to "be tested". In a playoff they'd have to beat about three teams. As a fan I feel cheated. I'd like to see Oregon have to beat three very good teams.

[Sea Ray]

I voted overrated because it gave me the oportunity to say something negative about the SEC.

I know they play great football and all that, but I just get tired of the self-aggrandizement. So sue me. :)

Enjoy this season then because I have my doubts that the SEC will even place a team in the NC game

[OnBaseMachine]

Oregon would go undefeated in the NFL but would probably lose 3-4 games in the SEC. ;)

Looking at Auburn's schedule, Oregon would more than likely be undefeated if they had the same schedule as Auburn. I don't see a big difference in their schedule compared to Oregon's.

[Todd Gack]

I'm no SEC apologist, but I'd wager if Oregon had Auburn's schedule to this point, we wouldn't be viewing them as unstoppable.

That's a fair argument. But then again, look at some of the scores in the SEC this season. Oregon's offense is the best in the nation IMO. They put up 48 at Tennessee, more than any other team this year. While Tennessee isn't a great example, it's a starting point. They had to travel 2K miles and they put 48 points on an SEC defense. I know UT has given up some points, but think about the conditions the game was played in too.

I think Oregon is legit this year more than any other. I think they're going to the NC against whomever the voters want.

[bucksfan2]

I think Oregon is close to being 'great.' They're the opposite in terms of ALabama from last year. Their offense is unstoppable ('Bama's D was immovable) and their D is good enough to win a NC (just as 'Bama's offense was).

After a week one loss to Boise St. the 2009 Oregon Ducks put up points of 38, 31, 42, 52, 24, 43, 47, 42, 44, 44, and 27. Everyone was talking about how unstoppable their offense was going into the bowl game. Lets be wary of history repeating itself when talking about Oregon's unstoppable offense.

[Todd Gack]

Enjoy this season then because I have my doubts that the SEC will even place a team in the NC game

Agreed. SEC has been down the past 2 seasons. Even with Alabama going to the NC, they had a 'down' year last year AND this year for their standards.

[Sea Ray]

It's sure lookin' like an Oregon/Boise St NC game

[OnBaseMachine]

It's sure lookin' like an Oregon/Boise St NC game

I hope. That would be a great game, IMO.

[Boston Red]

It's sure lookin' like an Oregon/Boise St NC game

Can't see it. TCU/Utah winner will have the upper hand on Boise, and I can't see the winner of that game losing again (I guess Notre Dame could knock off Utah, but that would be a shocker).

[Brutus]

Can't see it. TCU/Utah winner will have the upper hand on Boise, and I can't see the winner of that game losing again (I guess Notre Dame could knock off Utah, but that would be a shocker).

Agreed. I think TCU gets in over Boise State if they win out. Their SOS will help the computers if they continue to win.

[Boston Red]

Agreed. I think TCU gets in over Boise State if they win out. Their SOS will help the computers if they continue to win.

Boise/Alabama would make for one helluva Sugar Bowl, though. Ditto Boise/Nebraska in the Fiesta Bowl or Boise/Ohio State in the Rose Bowl.

[Todd Gack]

Agreed. I think TCU gets in over Boise State if they win out. Their SOS will help the computers if they continue to win.

Believe it or not, I think TCU has been the 2nd most impressive team in the country behind Oregon this year. Sure, they don't play an 'SEC' schedule, but they have been absolutely destroying their opponents.

[bucksfan2]

Believe it or not, I think TCU has been the 2nd most impressive team in the country behind Oregon this year. Sure, they don't play an 'SEC' schedule, but they have been absolutely destroying their opponents.

I think you can make an argument that the Mountain West is about the 4th best conference in college football. I would definitely put the SEC, Big 10, and Big 12 ahead of them but the other conferences not so much. The Pac 10 has an argument, but IMO the ACC and Big Least don't. Both those two conferences have been disappointing this season. Its a shame that Utah is bolting for the Pac 10 and BYU going indy because a conference with TCU, Utah, BYU, Boise St, and Air Force would be a pretty darn good conference, one deserving of an automatic BCS Bowl bid.

[WMR]

Nobody in the southeast is ever going to admit the SEC is down....

Ahem...

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2291889&postcount=111

:D

(The SEC was not down last year. This year, yes. Although the final script for this season has yet to be written... Auburn going nuts the rest of the way would help things tremendously.)

[Brutus]

Believe it or not, I think TCU has been the 2nd most impressive team in the country behind Oregon this year. Sure, they don't play an 'SEC' schedule, but they have been absolutely destroying their opponents.

That's not a stretch. They've been pretty stifling lately.

With each passing week, that win over Baylor looks better.

[Sea Ray]

Believe it or not, I think TCU has been the 2nd most impressive team in the country behind Oregon this year. Sure, they don't play an 'SEC' schedule, but they have been absolutely destroying their opponents.

I must admit I haven't seen them yet this year. I'll make it a point to see their showdown with Utah

[RedFanAlways1966]

I pray that we see either Boise State and/or TCU in the title game. I really hope both get in the game. Are they deserving? In my opnion neither one is deserving.

I see it as the only way to possibly get a playoff system. The big teams (big conferences) that generate big revenue might be willing to put the BCS system in its coffin. Money talks (esp. in the NCAA) and the conferences that generate big money (SEC, Big 10, Big 12, PAC 10, ACC?, Big East?) might decide a TCU-Boise game shows the system is broken.

Put TCU or Bosie State in the SEC and how many do they lose? Especially for those who think they are really in "the big time" and the SEC is so down this year. You say less than 2 losses in conference play, then I say you have drank too much of their kool-aid. Not being disrespectful nor am I a fan of the SEC (hate them!), but I am a realist.

[Boston Red]

Put TCU or Bosie State in the SEC and how many do they lose?

Who cares? They're not in the SEC. According to the Sagarin Predictor ratings (the best objective standard IMO), Boise would be the second best team in the SEC (behind Alabama), and TCU would be the best team in the SEC. But no SEC fan is going to buy that. It's the unwinnable argument (for both sides) and a pretty lousy rationale for wanting to exclude anyone.

How many losses would Auburn have if they were in the AFC South?

[KronoRed]

Only BCS conference teams should be in the BCS bowls.

Make a rule like that and you'll see a playoff much faster then what you have now.

[jojo]

At some point, the best way is just to have the teams put their shoulder pads on and that's the real shame of the BCS.

That's also why March Madness is the penultimate collegiate event IMHO.

[IslandRed]

Yeah, at some level, it's inherently ridiculous:


Q: Why can't we be in the national championship game? We're undefeated.

A: Because you didn't play a strong enough schedule.

Q: Okay. Will you schedule us out of conference?

A: No.

Q: So then what?

A: To have a strong enough schedule, you pretty much have to be in one of the BCS conferences.

Q: Okay. Can we be in your conference?

A: No.

Although I love college football enormously, one of the things I most love about college basketball is that Hoosiers can still conceivably happen. In college football as it exists today, a non-BCS school could have a team that could spot the Green Bay Packers seven points a half, but barring extraordinary circumstances, they won't get a chance at the big prize.

[KronoRed]

The last one there should be:

Q: Okay. Can we be in your conference?

A: Sure, but we need to have an opening first, and your other sports programs need to not be a complete embarrassment.

See Utah.

[Brutus]

The last one there should be:

Q: Okay. Can we be in your conference?

A: Sure, but we need to have an opening first, and your other sports programs need to not be a complete embarrassment.

See Utah.

Let's be honest... Utah was taken, not really for their sports per se, but because they are the flagship university in a state of over 3 million people. That's essentially it's own DMA market that hasn't been tapped into, and since the Pac-10 still has an eye toward their own sports network, they were taken because that could wind up providing valuable inventory down the line.

[cincrazy]

Auburn isn't a great team, but in this particular year, they're certainly one of the best in college football. I think anyone in the top 11 or 12 can pretty much beat anyone else on any given day, it truly is a toss-up. Would be a perfect year for a playof...... ah, never mind.

[bucksfan2]

Re Boise St's soft schedule.

I heard it mentioned on the radio that they were offered a 2 for 1 series with Nebraska. They turned it down.

[Boston Red]

Re Boise St's soft schedule.

I heard it mentioned on the radio that they were offered a 2 for 1 series with Nebraska. They turned it down.

Nebraska tried to get something valuable (an extra home game) for free. Boise simply asked for the going rate. Complete non-story.

As a matter of fact, Michigan State actually gave Boise State more money for a 2 for 1 than Boise State asked for from Nebraska.

[bucksfan2]

Nebraska tried to get something valuable (an extra home game) for free. Boise simply asked for the going rate. Complete non-story.

To me it is a story. BSU needs strength of schedule. They need to increase the competition of their schedule regardless if that means they lose some money. To me they need to play anyone anywhere.

[Boston Red]

So not only do they have to do 2 for 1s (name another program about to go to its third BCS game in five years willing to do that), but they have to let Nebraska bend them over in the process? That makes no sense. Nebraska should get a windfall (free home game against a marqee opponent) because of the ridiculous BCS system in place? Why wouldn't Nebraksa do a better deal (for Nebraska) than the one Michigan State just agreed to?

[bucksfan2]

So not only do they have to do 2 for 1s (name another program about to go to its third BCS game in five years willing to do that), but they have to let Nebraska bend them over in the process? That makes no sense. Nebraska should get a windfall (free home game against a marqee opponent) because of the ridiculous BCS system in place? Why wouldn't Nebraksa do a better deal (for Nebraska) than the one Michigan State just agreed to?

Colorado is taking a $1M payday to go play at OSU. UC took a payday to go to Tennessee and Washington DC to play Va Tech.

BSU isn't getting bent over in this process. They need to bolster their schedule because they play in the WAC. Would we expect a MAC conference team who runs the table to play in the National Championship game? Bosie needs a stronger schedule and needs to accept deals like this. If they want the home pay day then good for their bottom line not for their BCS Championship hopes.

[WVRed]

Nebraska tried to get something valuable (an extra home game) for free. Boise simply asked for the going rate. Complete non-story.

As a matter of fact, Michigan State actually gave Boise State more money for a 2 for 1 than Boise State asked for from Nebraska.

Correct me if im wrong, but wasn't this the same Boise State who last season was offering to come to any top teams stadium with no return trip to Boise?

Beggars can't be choosers.

[Boston Red]

Correct me if im wrong, but wasn't this the same Boise State who last season was offering to come to any top teams stadium with no return trip to Boise?



Not for free. The VaTech deal was a 1 for none. But they got paid for it.

[Boston Red]

Colorado is taking a $1M payday to go play at OSU. UC took a payday to go to Tennessee and Washington DC to play Va Tech.


I'm not sure what the issue is, then. Boise asked for the same $1 million payday to take Nebraska's deal. They were willing to take the payday to play twice in Lincoln. Just lilke they took the payday to play VaTech in D.C. Just like they're taking the payday ($1.2 million) to play twice in East Lansing.

[Todd Gack]

Has the BCS ever selected the wrong champion?

[Sea Ray]

We'll never know. With a playoff a one or two win team may very well beat the BCS champion. For example last year Boise St may or may not have able to beat Alabama. We'll never know and that's the point. It wasn't settled on the field

[IslandRed]

To me it is a story. BSU needs strength of schedule. They need to increase the competition of their schedule regardless if that means they lose some money. To me they need to play anyone anywhere.

It's basically impossible to satisfy some people on this score, though.

* For most people to change their minds about BSU's worthiness, they probably have to beat a team that's minimum Top 10-15.

* They probably have to win two or three such games to really make a case.

* Most scheduling is done years in advance.

So what is the probability, really, of knowing today what schools they'll have to have on the schedule in 2013 and beyond to impress voters and computers enough to get into the national title game? I mean, suppose they'd lined up Tennessee, Michigan and Texas a few years back for 2010. Would winning those games be proof to you they belonged in the big game, or would they be waved off because those teams aren't much good this year?

Even if you don't really think Boise State is one of the two best teams in the country -- and I don't -- it's still obvious the system is rigged.

[bucksfan2]

It's basically impossible to satisfy some people on this score, though.

* For most people to change their minds about BSU's worthiness, they probably have to beat a team that's minimum Top 10-15.

* They probably have to win two or three such games to really make a case.

* Most scheduling is done years in advance.

So what is the probability, really, of knowing today what schools they'll have to have on the schedule in 2013 and beyond to impress voters and computers enough to get into the national title game? I mean, suppose they'd lined up Tennessee, Michigan and Texas a few years back for 2010. Would winning those games be proof to you they belonged in the big game, or would they be waved off because those teams aren't much good this year?

Even if you don't really think Boise State is one of the two best teams in the country -- and I don't -- it's still obvious the system is rigged.

Yes and no. In essence you are correct about the scheduling. Most schedules are worked out years ahead of time. But it is my understanding that those are home and home series. If a team is willing to travel and play anywhere that can be done almost on a yearly basis.

I guess my point is that BSU needs to be flexible. They need to be willing to go on the road and play a top team. Home and home series are great for the big time programs but BSU isn't a big time program yet. They don't have the luxury of playing one (or even two BCS teams) and then sitting at home and playing cream puffs while the rest of conference play is going on.

[Boston Red]

But Boise agreed to a 2 for 1 with Nebraska (that Nebraska balked at because they wanted something valuable for free). And they agreed with a 1 for none with VaTech. And they just signed a 2 for 1 with Michigan State. How much more flexible would you like them to be?

[15fan]

Boise State could take a big step towards legitimacy by simply ripping up that blue turf and replacing it with something crazy like...green turf.

Standing outside the gate in a clown costume isn't a great way to get someone to sponsor you as a new member in the country club.

[kaldaniels]

Boise State could take a big step towards legitimacy by simply ripping up that blue turf and replacing it with something crazy like...green turf.

Standing outside the gate in a clown costume isn't a great way to get someone to sponsor you as a new member in the country club.

Never thought about that...you make a nice point there.

[Chip R]

Boise State could take a big step towards legitimacy by simply ripping up that blue turf and replacing it with something crazy like...green turf.

Standing outside the gate in a clown costume isn't a great way to get someone to sponsor you as a new member in the country club.


I don't know about that. It's an attention getter.

[bucksfan2]

I don't know about that. It's an attention getter.

Sure its an attention getter. But once you get to the point where you want to be considered a big time program you don't need attention getters.

I guess its a good thing for BSU football in that they are know for their actual team instead of their field. But I wonder what kind of backlash they would have if they decided to put green turf in.

[Homer Bailey]

LaMichael James at 3-1 to win the Heisman? Absolutely.

[kaldaniels]

LaMichael James at 3-1 to win the Heisman? Absolutely.

What's this West Coast place where James plays? Never heard of it.

It's Cam Newton's trophy right now, and unless he lays a huge egg against Bama (I expect Bama to win) it's his.

I'd need more of a premium than 3-1 to put some cash on James.

[Boston Red]

I agree with kal. Seems to me you're taking 3-1 odds on Newton getting hurt.

[kaldaniels]

I agree with kal. Seems to me you're taking 3-1 odds on Newton getting hurt.

Or soliciting a bribe.

[Boston Red]

LaMichael James at 3-1 to win the Heisman? Absolutely.

He's at 3.5-1 at my book now. With the Newton scandal swirling, I'm thinking of putting a small play on him and Kellen Moore (8-1) tonight before they take Heisman betting down.

[Kingspoint]

The entire SEC is overrated. They've played absolutely nobody.

[Kingspoint]

The only "computer" rankings I pay attention to is Jeff Sagarin's (one of six that the BCS uses). Whether it's football, basketball, or baseball, his rankings always seem to be fairly accurate in my opinion. He's got Oregon #1, but because the top and the bottom computer rankings are thrown out leaving 4 computer rankings to calculate their average, Oregon gets the shaft and falls way down to #8.

I'm sorry, but the Pac-10 is, by far, the strongest Conference in the Nation.

Oregon gave Tennessee a thumping 48-13 in Tennessee.

Arizona beat Iowa 34-27 in Tuscon.

Stanford crushed Wake Forest 68-24 and drilled Notre Dame at their place 37-14.

The Beavers beat Louisville 35-28 but lost @ TCU 30-21 (it was 21-21 going in the 3rd, and 28-21 going into the 4th Quarter, but Oregon State couldn't get that tying TD. They also lost @ Boise State 37-24 (31-24 going into the 4th Quarter). Oregon State under Mike Riley always struggles their first few games, then gets better game after game more than any team that there is. The reason is because they just don't get the armload of talent, so their progress has to come from coaching and discipline. The Rodgers brothers obviously have loads of talent (WR James Rodgers is done for the season as of 2 games ago), but it stops there. Oregon is loaded, as is USC, Stanford, Arizona, Washington and California. UCLA should be, but I have no idea what Neuheisel is doing down there.

That said, UCLA thumped Texas in Texas 34-12, and it wasn't that close. They lost their opener at Kansas State 31-22.

USC beat Virgina 17-14 (just mentioning major conference vs major conference games) and won @ Minnesota 32-21. They should have won those games by wider margin, but Auburn should have won many of their games by wider margin, too.

California beat Colorado 52-7, but they lost @ Nevada 52-31.

Washington beat Syracuse 41-20, but got thumped by Nebraska in Seattle 56-21.

Arizona State lost @ Wisconsin 20-19 when they failed to execute an extra point that would have tied the game with 4:09 left, possibly sending the game into overtime.

Washington State doesn't beat anybody lately, losing at Oklahoma State 65-17 and at SMU 35-21.

All told the Pac-10 is 10-8 this year against quality teams and/or BCS Major Conferences outside the conference. What's of note is the total number of road games against quality opponents, something the ACC and the SEC schools avoid like the plague, maybe not all, but certainly Florida State has always been guilty of that. The Southwest schools, Oklahoma, OK ST, Texas and Texas Tech haven't been afraid to do that. Teams like Florida State won't even play a decent school at home, instead opting for 3 or 4 patsies to warm up their Conference season. Oregon usually schedules stronger than they did this season, as these games are scheduled 5-6 years out, and it just happened that they didn't have two strong games to prep them for the Conference schedule, but scheduling @ Tennessee 5-6 years ago was National Championship suicide at the time. Who knew how the Lane Kiffin/etc. fiasco was going to turn out.

The quality road games scheduled this year by the Pac-10 schools:

@ Tennessee
@ Notre Dame (The Irish lose @ Mich St 34-31 in OT and then come home and get thumped by Stanford 37-14)
@ TCU
@ Boise State
@ Texas
@ Kansas State
@ Minnesota
@ Nevada
@ Wisconsin
@ Oklahoma State
@ SMU

Compare to the SEC's non-conference quality/BCS Major Conference road games:

Note: Auburn has none with only 4 road games all year vs 8 home games and 3 of the 4 road games are easy pickings (Kentucky, Mississippi, Mississippi State).

@ Duke (technically, they have a football team in the ACC, so Bama is willing to take a chance)
@ North Carolina (LSU)

Hope these players aren't getting travel fatigue from having to travel so far.

@ Texas A&M (Arkansas)

And, that's your SEC West. Three road games against bottom-of-the-conference opponents.

Now, for the SEC East. They have a lot more guts than the weak sisters Alabama and Auburn (always include Florida in that as they never travel anywhere).

@ Clemson (South Carolina)
@ Colorado (Georgia) I'm shocked. Some actual travel. They lost 29-27.
@ Connecticut (Vanderbilt) They lost 40-21.
@ Louisville (Kentucky, of course) They won 23-16.
@ Florida State (Florida).

Those are some pretty ugly road games for a "resume" for the SEC.

The SEC is a joke.


The Big-10 (11) is just like the Pac-10...always ready to schedule tough road games:

Looks like Ohio State and Michigan State are tired of not getting any credit for scheduling tough road games and are opting out and pulling a Florida State/Alabama/Auburn/Florida glide your way through an easy schedule on your way to a Championship method. Those two teams have zero quality non-conference road games. Wisconsin doesn't either, though, this year.

@ Arizona (Iowa) They paid the price and lost 34-27.
@ Notre Dame (Purdue) Next-door neighbors. They lost 23-12.
@ Missouri (Illini) They lost 23-13.
@ Fresno State (Illini) Gutsy schedule the last game of the season flying all the way out west. Fresno State can beat Majors, especially at home.
@ Notre Dame (Michigan) They won 28-24. A great game.
@ Vanderbilt (Northwestern) They won 23-21. Squeaked by a very, very bad team.
@ Alabama (Penn St.) JoePa would never purposely schedule a patsy schedule just to win a National Championship. He wants to earn it. They didn't. They lost 24-3. But, they can hold their heads up high. It's how you handle defeat in life that makes a person, not how you handle success.

There's only 7 quality non-conference road games from 11 schools. That's disappointing, as it appears the Big Ten is heading the way of the ACC and SEC. But, those 7 games that were scheduled matches up with the Pac-10's 11 games, and blows away the combined games of the SEC and the ACC.

[kaldaniels]

The only "computer" rankings I pay attention to is Jeff Sagarin's (one of six that the BCS uses). Whether it's football, basketball, or baseball, his rankings always seem to be fairly accurate in my opinion. He's got Oregon #1, but because the top and the bottom computer rankings are thrown out leaving 4 computer rankings to calculate their average, Oregon gets the shaft and falls way down to #8.

I'm sorry, but the Pac-10 is, by far, the strongest Conference in the Nation.

Oregon gave Tennessee a thumping 48-13 in Tennessee.

Arizona beat Iowa 34-27 in Tuscon.

Stanford crushed Wake Forest 68-24 and drilled Notre Dame at their place 37-14.

The Beavers beat Louisville 35-28 but lost @ TCU 30-21 (it was 21-21 going in the 3rd, and 28-21 going into the 4th Quarter, but Oregon State couldn't get that tying TD. They also lost @ Boise State 37-24 (31-24 going into the 4th Quarter). Oregon State under Mike Riley always struggles their first few games, then gets better game after game more than any team that there is. The reason is because they just don't get the armload of talent, so their progress has to come from coaching and discipline. The Rodgers brothers obviously have loads of talent (WR James Rodgers is done for the season as of 2 games ago), but it stops there. Oregon is loaded, as is USC, Stanford, Arizona, Washington and California. UCLA should be, but I have no idea what Neuheisel is doing down there.

That said, UCLA thumped Texas in Texas 34-12, and it wasn't that close. They lost their opener at Kansas State 31-22.

USC beat Virgina 17-14 (just mentioning major conference vs major conference games) and won @ Minnesota 32-21. They should have won those games by wider margin, but Auburn should have won many of their games by wider margin, too.

California beat Colorado 52-7, but they lost @ Nevada 52-31.

Washington beat Syracuse 41-20, but got thumped by Nebraska in Seattle 56-21.

Arizona State lost @ Wisconsin 20-19 when they failed to execute an extra point that would have tied the game with 4:09 left, possibly sending the game into overtime.

Washington State doesn't beat anybody lately, losing at Oklahoma State 65-17 and at SMU 35-21.

All told the Pac-10 is 10-8 this year against quality teams and/or BCS Major Conferences outside the conference. What's of note is the total number of road games against quality opponents, something the ACC and the SEC schools avoid like the plague, maybe not all, but certainly Florida State has always been guilty of that. The Southwest schools, Oklahoma, OK ST, Texas and Texas Tech haven't been afraid to do that. Teams like Florida State won't even play a decent school at home, instead opting for 3 or 4 patsies to warm up their Conference season. Oregon usually schedules stronger than they did this season, as these games are scheduled 5-6 years out, and it just happened that they didn't have two strong games to prep them for the Conference schedule, but scheduling @ Tennessee 5-6 years ago was National Championship suicide at the time. Who knew how the Lane Kiffin/etc. fiasco was going to turn out.

The quality road games scheduled this year by the Pac-10 schools:

@ Tennessee
@ Notre Dame (The Irish lose @ Mich St 34-31 in OT and then come home and get thumped by Stanford 37-14)
@ TCU
@ Boise State
@ Texas
@ Kansas State
@ Minnesota
@ Nevada
@ Wisconsin
@ Oklahoma State
@ SMU

Compare to the SEC's non-conference quality/BCS Major Conference road games:

Note: Auburn has none with only 4 road games all year vs 8 home games and 3 of the 4 road games are easy pickings (Kentucky, Mississippi, Mississippi State).

@ Duke (technically, they have a football team in the ACC, so Bama is willing to take a chance)
@ North Carolina (LSU)

Hope these players aren't getting travel fatigue from having to travel so far.

@ Texas A&M (Arkansas)

And, that's your SEC West. Three road games against bottom-of-the-conference opponents.

Now, for the SEC East. They have a lot more guts than the weak sisters Alabama and Auburn (always include Florida in that as they never travel anywhere).

@ Clemson (South Carolina)
@ Colorado (Georgia) I'm shocked. Some actual travel. They lost 29-27.
@ Connecticut (Vanderbilt) They lost 40-21.
@ Louisville (Kentucky, of course) They won 23-16.
@ Florida State (Florida).

Those are some pretty ugly road games for a "resume" for the SEC.

The SEC is a joke.


The Big-10 (11) is just like the Pac-10...always ready to schedule tough road games:

Looks like Ohio State and Michigan State are tired of not getting any credit for scheduling tough road games and are opting out and pulling a Florida State/Alabama/Auburn/Florida glide your way through an easy schedule on your way to a Championship method. Those two teams have zero quality non-conference road games. Wisconsin doesn't either, though, this year.

@ Arizona (Iowa) They paid the price and lost 34-27.
@ Notre Dame (Purdue) Next-door neighbors. They lost 23-12.
@ Missouri (Illini) They lost 23-13.
@ Fresno State (Illini) Gutsy schedule the last game of the season flying all the way out west. Fresno State can beat Majors, especially at home.
@ Notre Dame (Michigan) They won 28-24. A great game.
@ Vanderbilt (Northwestern) They won 23-21. Squeaked by a very, very bad team.
@ Alabama (Penn St.) JoePa would never purposely schedule a patsy schedule just to win a National Championship. He wants to earn it. They didn't. They lost 24-3. But, they can hold their heads up high. It's how you handle defeat in life that makes a person, not how you handle success.

There's only 7 quality non-conference road games from 11 schools. That's disappointing, as it appears the Big Ten is heading the way of the ACC and SEC. But, those 7 games that were scheduled matches up with the Pac-10's 11 games, and blows away the combined games of the SEC and the ACC.

I appreciate the work you put into this but in isolation that is a weak argument for the PAC-10.

The bolded teams are average to weak teams that should have been beaten. Not impressed.

The 4 teams I have put in red are the 4 best teams that the PAC-10 has played out of conference. The results speak for themselves.

[jojo]

The SEC is a joke.


The Big-10 (11) is just like the Pac-10...always ready to schedule tough road games:

Jeff Sagarin's conference rankings essentially bunch the PAC-10, Big 12 and SEC (81.95, 79.78, and 78.78 respectively) together according to his conference ranking so the hyperbole is misplaced. Arguing that the Big Ten is a weaker sister or that the Big East or Mountain West were jokes relative to the BCS would be more fair and balanced. But kudos to the PAC-10 as their second tier teams historically have been willing to get the snot beat out of them by the Boise States of the world thus elevating the conference as a whole.


Note: Auburn has none with only 4 road games all year vs 8 home games and 3 of the 4 road games are easy pickings (Kentucky, Mississippi, Mississippi State).

@ Duke (technically, they have a football team in the ACC, so Bama is willing to take a chance)
@ North Carolina (LSU)

MSU is 7-2 and a top 20 team this season. Beating them on the road is a quality road win in my book. Also, for the sake of accuracy, Auburn also played Clemson. Assuming Auburn makes it to the SEC championship game, it's looking like they will have played 9 games against teams that will be bowl eligible with as many as 6 games being against teams ranked in the top 25 of the BCS standings depending upon how the last few weeks turn out. Picking on their schedule is kinda like picking on Cindy Crawford's beauty mark.

[Kingspoint]

They aren't bunched together.

For one conference to be 2 whole points ahead of the 2nd place conference is quite a bit and the SEC falls another whole point behind. That's not bunched together. The Big-10 falls a few points back and then the smaller conferences show up after that.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc10.htm

The ACC is the real joke, for sure.

All of this refers to this year only, of course.

Last year, the SEC was the dominant Conference.

[Kingspoint]

MSU is 7-2 and a top 20 team this season. Beating them on the road is a quality road win in my book. Also, for the sake of accuracy, Auburn also played Clemson. Assuming Auburn makes it to the SEC championship game, it's looking like they will have played 9 games against teams that will be bowl eligible with as many as 6 games being against teams ranked in the top 25 of the BCS standings depending upon how the last few weeks turn out. Picking on their schedule is kinda like picking on Cindy Crawford's beauty mark.

Playing other SEC teams at home is an easy schedule. Playing a traveling SEC team is a pretty easy match. It's no tougher than Boise State's, or TCU's schedule. There's not a single SEC team that could go beat Boise State or TCU at their place. They would all get crushed.

[jojo]

They aren't bunched together.

For one conference to be 2 whole points ahead of the 2nd place conference is quite a bit and the SEC falls another whole point behind. That's not bunched together. The Big-10 falls a few points back and then the smaller conferences show up after that.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbc10.htm

The ACC is the real joke, for sure.

All of this refers to this year only, of course.

Last year, the SEC was the dominant Conference.

Again call me when the Oregon States (and i'm an alum who roots for them), Washingtons, WSUs, UCLAs etc of the PAC 10 actually beat good non conference opponents consistently.

UCLA did beat Texas but that's not turning out to be such coup this season. Really the only impressive out of conference victory for the PAC10 was Arizona beating Iowa. Lets look at the SEC West. Auburn took out Clemson. LSU took out North Carolina and West Virginia. Bama took out Penn State. Arkansas took out Texas A&M. Heck a down Ole Miss beat the snot out of Fresno.

The hyperbole when comparing PAC10 vs the SEC seems a little misplaced.

[jojo]

Playing other SEC teams at home is an easy schedule. Playing a traveling SEC team is a pretty easy match. It's no tougher than Boise State's, or TCU's schedule. There's not a single SEC team that could go beat Boise State or TCU at their place. They would all get crushed.

The PAC 10 is loaded with teams that would crush BSU or TCU? Who in the country would be expected to crush either team in their stadiums?

Oregon might be the only team in the PAC 10 that is even capable of beating either team on a neutral field....

I have a lot of respect for Boise but come on, beating MSU, Clemson, South Carolina, Arkansas, and LSU (and hopefully Bama!) is the same thing as beating Wyoming, Toledo, San Jose State, LTU, Hawaii? TCU's schedule is an absolute joke in the context of your arguments in this thread about strength of conference and schedules.

[bucksfan2]

I have a lot of respect for Boise but come on, beating MSU, Clemson, South Carolina, Arkansas, and LSU (and hopefully Bama!) is the same thing as beating Wyoming, Toledo, San Jose State, LTU, Hawaii? TCU's schedule is an absolute joke in the context of your arguments in this thread about strength of conference and schedules.

Both Boise and TCU are good football teams. The biggest issue I have with them playing in the title game is their schedule. BSU's conference schedule looks a lot like top team's non conference (preseason) type schedule. The reason why it is so difficult to go undefeated though a college season is the grind of a schedule. You may not have what looks like a tough game, but conference road games can be disastrous. On one hand you have Alabama going to South Carolina, on the other you have Boise going to Wyoming. It just doesn't match up if you ask me. I am not saying that BSU can't be a top team, just that they don't play a tough enough schedule to warrant playing in the title game.

[Sea Ray]

The only "computer" rankings I pay attention to is Jeff Sagarin's (one of six that the BCS uses). Whether it's football, basketball, or baseball, his rankings always seem to be fairly accurate in my opinion. He's got Oregon #1, but because the top and the bottom computer rankings are thrown out leaving 4 computer rankings to calculate their average, Oregon gets the shaft and falls way down to #8.

I'm sorry, but the Pac-10 is, by far, the strongest Conference in the Nation.



With very few common opponents, it's tough to compare these conferences with any certainty. My view is that the SEC has come back to the pack somewhat this year and they have played a very boring non conference schedule.

What have you proven when you state that an undefeated PAC 10 team beat a winless (in the SEC) SEC team in Tennessee? Notre Dame and Minnesota can't be called quality opponents this year either.

It's fun to debate conference strength this time of year but it's all talk at this point.

It should be noted that you were also pimping the PAC 10 just before Bowl season last year only to see the conference lay an egg.

I think the PAC 10 plays exciting football but the question remains come Bowl season: will they play enough defense to win vs top notch opponents?

[MWM]

Just because their schedules aren't as strong does not mean they aren't capable of beating a better schedule. I honestly believe TCU is capable of beating ANYONE in the country, regardless of conference. That team is legit.

[bucksfan2]

Just because their schedules aren't as strong does not mean they aren't capable of beating a better schedule. I honestly believe TCU is capable of beating ANYONE in the country, regardless of conference. That team is legit.

On a one game basis I do feel that TCU could beat any team in the country. I also think that when your conference has the likes of Utah, BYU, and Air Force you have some decent conference games (although I think Utah was seriously over rated this season). My major issues is that college football isn't just a one game season. It isn't about gearing up for one game and being able to rest your players and play your 2nd and 3rd stringers. That is my biggest issue with BSU and TCU for that matter.

Lets take a look at Wisconsin's schedule. IMO Wisconsin is a pretty good football team this year. They are arguably the best in the Big 10. They had a stretch of games where they went @ MSU, Minnesota, OSU, and @ Iowa. The issues isn't that the teams on the schedule were great, the issue was they were playing 3 good teams over the course of 4 weeks. Most major conference teams have a stretch of their schedule where they play good teams week after week. I just don't know if BSU or TCU could run the table when they are force to bring their A game every week. It is easy when you have a couple of weeks to get ready for a big game and then have another couple of weeks to get healthy for another big game. It isn't so easy when you have 6 days.

[IslandRed]

All told the Pac-10 is 10-8 this year against quality teams and/or BCS Major Conferences outside the conference. What's of note is the total number of road games against quality opponents, something the ACC and the SEC schools avoid like the plague, maybe not all, but certainly Florida State has always been guilty of that. The Southwest schools, Oklahoma, OK ST, Texas and Texas Tech haven't been afraid to do that. Teams like Florida State won't even play a decent school at home, instead opting for 3 or 4 patsies to warm up their Conference season.

Ummm... not quite?

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=formidable/080905

[MWM]

wrong thread

[Kingspoint]

Again call me when the Oregon States (and i'm an alum who roots for them), Washingtons, WSUs, UCLAs etc of the PAC 10 actually beat good non conference opponents consistently.

UCLA did beat Texas but that's not turning out to be such coup this season. Really the only impressive out of conference victory for the PAC10 was Arizona beating Iowa. Lets look at the SEC West. Auburn took out Clemson. LSU took out North Carolina and West Virginia. Bama took out Penn State. Arkansas took out Texas A&M. Heck a down Ole Miss beat the snot out of Fresno.

The hyperbole when comparing PAC10 vs the SEC seems a little misplaced.

I thought I was pretty clear in my original thread. SEC schools fail to schedule non-conference away games against anybody who could half-way give them a run for their money. Pac-10 schools, along with Big-10 schools, do the opposite.

Thus, the SEC (and ACC) schools take every possible chance to ensure that they have good "overall" records as the only competition they get is from inside the conference. If the conference is in a down year, there's absolutely no way, record-wise, that the conference will suffer because they won't ever play anyone outside their conference.

This is a year where the SEC is weak....extremely weak, and every team in that conference is sure to lose their Bowl game as proof of it at the end of the season, even those teams that have "home" Bowl games.

You asked me to show you where the Pac-10 beats good non-conference teams regularly. That's a strange request when the SEC doesn't even schedule games against good non-conference teams. The Pac-10 schedules them and they win them, too. As does the Big-10, and to a lesser degree, the Big-12.

The SEC and ACC are jokes for conferences when it comes to football as they are all too afraid to schedule quality road non-conference games. I already pointed out the list of quality Big-10 and Pac-10 road non-conference games for 2010, and there's no difference when you look back at any of the previous 10 seasons.

[Kingspoint]

Ummm... not quite?

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=formidable/080905

....ummmmm.....quite.

From the article, a two-year old article at that, and it doesn't talk about specific games that Florida State played, only the traditional Miami game, which is an in-state game....it's not like they were "traveling" or anything, while losing their last 4 to Florida when the article was written.

"The Seminoles have begun playing softer nonconference schedules in recent seasons, including -- gasp! -- Division I-AA Citadel in 2005. The Seminoles will play more I-AA teams (two) in 2008 than they did in the previous 12 years combined."

It's all about road non-conference games. Are they going to Ohio State, USC, Michigan, Oregon, Texas, Alabama, Boise State, Utah....schools where they have to do some real traveling while playing at venues where they will probably lose? I don't see them scheduling those games. But, maybe they're changing. They were at Oklahoma this year. They lost by 30 points. That might make them never schedule a tough road game again for the next 10 years. I hope not.

[Kingspoint]

What have you proven when you state that an undefeated PAC 10 team beat a winless (in the SEC) SEC team in Tennessee? Notre Dame and Minnesota can't be called quality opponents this year either.



The point that when the game was scheduled, Tennessee was predicted to be a Top-10 team in the country, as everything was going right for the program. That Lane Kiffin threw them under the bus was no fault of Oregon's, even though Oregon still beat them more easily than some of the "quality" SEC's have played them.

[Kingspoint]

The PAC 10 is loaded with teams that would crush BSU or TCU? Who in the country would be expected to crush either team in their stadiums?

Oregon might be the only team in the PAC 10 that is even capable of beating either team on a neutral field....

I have a lot of respect for Boise but come on, beating MSU, Clemson, South Carolina, Arkansas, and LSU (and hopefully Bama!) is the same thing as beating Wyoming, Toledo, San Jose State, LTU, Hawaii? TCU's schedule is an absolute joke in the context of your arguments in this thread about strength of conference and schedules.

Stanford would beat either team.

[IslandRed]

It's all about road non-conference games. Are they going to Ohio State, USC, Michigan, Oregon, Texas, Alabama, Boise State, Utah....schools where they have to do some real traveling while playing at venues where they will probably lose? I don't see them scheduling those games. But, maybe they're changing. They were at Oklahoma this year. They lost by 30 points. That might make them never schedule a tough road game again for the next 10 years. I hope not.

I had just had to gig you about singling out FSU because their historical reputation is the polar opposite of "ducks tough non-conference games," so if that's your perception, either you're getting them confused with someone else or your sense of college football history doesn't go back very far. FSU made its reputation on intersectional road wins.

But since you asked, just in the past four years they've traveled to Oklahoma, Colorado, and BYU, and played Alabama at a neutral site. And that doesn't count playing Florida, which is still a tough road game even if it is within state borders. If you need the rest of the chapter and verse, I'll be happy to provide it. :p: But if you want to see it, I'll send it via PM, since this is an Auburn thread, not a Florida State thread.

[jojo]

This is a year where the SEC is weak....extremely weak, and every team in that conference is sure to lose their Bowl game as proof of it at the end of the season, even those teams that have "home" Bowl games.

It's tough to take such misplaced hyperbole seriously. For instance, the statement above doesn't even jive with your own favorite metric guru's rankings.

[RiverRat13]

While I believe the SEC is the best conference, it would be nice if their teams scheduled some cross-sectional non-conference games. Tennessee has done this in the past and Alabama will visit Penn State in '11. SEC teams get the built-in advantage of having bowl games played in their region (and many times in their home state). I think we'd get a much more accurate picture of which conference is better if SEC teams did some real traveling in their non-conference schedules.

That's also hope that if a playoff does occur, it goes along the same lines of the other NCAA divisions' playoff systems where the higher seed hosts. It would be interesting to see Southern schools have to come North in December or January every once in a while.

[Kingspoint]

It's tough to take such misplaced hyperbole seriously. For instance, the statement above doesn't even jive with your own favorite metric guru's rankings.

When they face Big-Ten, Pac-10, Big-12 or TCU/Boise State in a Bowl game, they will lose them all, even the Orange and Sugar Bowls, where they should have home field advantages.

[Kingspoint]

While I believe the SEC is the best conference, it would be nice if their teams scheduled some cross-sectional non-conference games. Tennessee has done this in the past and Alabama will visit Penn State in '11. SEC teams get the built-in advantage of having bowl games played in their region (and many times in their home state). I think we'd get a much more accurate picture of which conference is better if SEC teams did some real traveling in their non-conference schedules.



Exactly. It's not asking that much.

[Kingspoint]

I had just had to gig you about singling out FSU because their historical reputation is the polar opposite of "ducks tough non-conference games," so if that's your perception, either you're getting them confused with someone else or your sense of college football history doesn't go back very far. FSU made its reputation on intersectional road wins.

But since you asked, just in the past four years they've traveled to Oklahoma, Colorado, and BYU, and played Alabama at a neutral site. And that doesn't count playing Florida, which is still a tough road game even if it is within state borders. If you need the rest of the chapter and verse, I'll be happy to provide it. :p: But if you want to see it, I'll send it via PM, since this is an Auburn thread, not a Florida State thread.

I looked it up and those are viable non-conference road games. Florida State should get credit for that. Too many teams that battle for the National Title aren't willing to do that. The trend seems to be getting worse.

Once again, an eight-game playoff would eliminate this. Ironically, it's the President of the Pac-10 who is the most against this happening. The President(s) of the Pac-10 has always been idiots when it comes to competitive balancing and scheduling, opting to vote against or not even bring up conference playoffs in basketball until years after being eliminated in first rounds in the NCAA's year after year after year. When it comes to being progressive in sports "competition", those in charge of making the decisions for the Pac-10 sports are more often behind the times.

[jojo]

When they face Big-Ten, Pac-10, Big-12 or TCU/Boise State in a Bowl game, they will lose them all, even the Orange and Sugar Bowls, where they should have home field advantages.

You certainly seem sincere in your hope that the great Pac10 will rise from the pumpkin patch and shower fans with toys. :cool:

[jojo]

Exactly. It's not asking that much.

Unfortunately given your standard, Oregon needs to turn down their invitation to a BCS bowl game if they get one....

[kaldaniels]

When they face Big-Ten, Pac-10, Big-12 or TCU/Boise State in a Bowl game, they will lose them all, even the Orange and Sugar Bowls, where they should have home field advantages.

FCB was the leader in the clubhouse for most ridiculous post of the year. He is now in 2nd place.

[dabvu2498]

While I believe the SEC is the best conference, it would be nice if their teams scheduled some cross-sectional non-conference games. Tennessee has done this in the past and Alabama will visit Penn State in '11. SEC teams get the built-in advantage of having bowl games played in their region (and many times in their home state). I think we'd get a much more accurate picture of which conference is better if SEC teams did some real traveling in their non-conference schedules.



I agree. That would be nice.

But let's not forget this is a business. And teams like UGa, Florida, South Carolina, and Kentucky have to play in-state rivals on the road every other year. Unfortunately, these schools just aren't going to give up the chance to have a home game, even if it is against a weaker opponent, just to boost their strength of schedule.

[dabvu2498]

Also... in '11, LSU will be playing Oregon in Dallas and at Morgantown, WV. Auburn will be @ Clemson. Ole Miss will be @ Fresno. Tennessee will be @ UNC.

And in the recent past, Arky has played Texas A+M in Dallas, @ Texas, LSU @ UW, USC @ NC State, Auburn @ WVU, UGa @ AZ St.

[Kingspoint]

Unfortunately given your standard, Oregon needs to turn down their invitation to a BCS bowl game if they get one....


Why? They traditionally schedule difficult non-conference road games. They schedule more in a 3-year stretch than Alabama or Auburn does in a 7-year stretch.

Next year they have road games @ Colorado and in Dallas vs LSU.

This year was @ Tennessee (which was projected as a Top-10 team at the time of scheduling).
Last year was @ Boise State (w/ home games vs. Utah and Purdue instead of some II-A school).
The year before @ Purdue (as part of the home-and-home, while also hosting Boise State as part of the home-and-home).
The year before that @ Michigan.

The list goes on and on.

[jojo]

Why?

Because they haven't played anybody this year.... Given your standards, they are a fraud this season. They've beaten up on teams collectively sporting a 34-51 record coming into today. Fluffy. If they get an invite to the BCS championship, you should be loudly calling for them to decline based upon the standards you've argued. I think that would be absurd but it's the logical extension of your arguments.


This year was @ Tennessee (which was projected as a Top-10 team at the time of scheduling).

That's absolutely ludicrous to suggest a team was projected to be ranked at any position four seasons before the actual game is to be played. Over that stretch the Vols didn't finish in the top 10 BTW. Coming into the season, the Vols program was in flux and expected to have a big drop off defensively due to departures and given the youth on both sides of the ball. On paper, it looked like a gift of a foray into SEC going into this season. The Ducks went into Knoxville something like 13.5 pt favorites. Seriously.

[kaldaniels]

Why? They traditionally schedule difficult non-conference road games. They schedule more in a 3-year stretch than Alabama or Auburn does in a 7-year stretch.

Next year they have road games @ Colorado and in Dallas vs LSU.

This year was @ Tennessee (which was projected as a Top-10 team at the time of scheduling).
Last year was @ Boise State (w/ home games vs. Utah and Purdue instead of some II-A school You mean like Portland State?).
The year before @ Purdue (as part of the home-and-home, while also hosting Boise State as part of the home-and-home).
The year before that @ Michigan.

The list goes on and on.

I can't remember the last time I saw a position staked that could be so easily be torn limb from limb. The SEC is weak? Please.

[Kingspoint]

Because they haven't played anybody this year.... Given your standards, they are a fraud this season. They've beaten up on teams collectively sporting a 34-51 record coming into today. Fluffy. If they get an invite to the BCS championship, you should be loudly calling for them to decline based upon the standards you've argued. I think that would be absurd but it's the logical extension of your arguments.



That's absolutely ludicrous to suggest a team was projected to be ranked at any position four seasons before the actual game is to be played. Over that stretch the Vols didn't finish in the top 10 BTW. Coming into the season, the Vols program was in flux and expected to have a big drop off defensively due to departures and given the youth on both sides of the ball. On paper, it looked like a gift of a foray into SEC going into this season. The Ducks went into Knoxville something like 13.5 pt favorites. Seriously.

You couldn't be more wrong on every account.

When the Tennessee game was scheduled, they were a Top-10 program in the country. Why you're talking about what expectations were for this year I have no idea. Speak about what they were at the time the game was scheduled. That's all that matters.

Stanford has one of the best teams in the Country and will defeat whoever they play in their Bowl game. The Ducks handled them easily.

The Ducks went into USC and and handled them easily. Road games of 1000 miles are difficult, especially against teams that see you every year.

Auburn plays @ Mississippi State, a distance of about 50 miles...not exactly traveling, and they squeak by with a 3-point win. Auburn has had 8 home games and only 3 road games so far this season. That's a joke. They play @ Kentucky...again, not very far away, and they squeak by that game with a 3-point win.

With their next two games on the Road, Auburn will show their true colors and lose one, if not both games.

Oregon will travel another long distance in their BCS title game and beat whoever they have to play.

[jojo]

You couldn't be more wrong on every account.

When the Tennessee game was scheduled, they were a Top-10 program in the country. Why you're talking about what expectations were for this year I have no idea. Speak about what they were at the time the game was scheduled. That's all that matters.

Stanford has one of the best teams in the Country and will defeat whoever they play in their Bowl game. The Ducks handled them easily.

The Ducks went into USC and and handled them easily. Road games of 1000 miles are difficult, especially against teams that see you every year.

Auburn plays @ Mississippi State, a distance of about 50 miles...not exactly traveling, and they squeak by with a 3-point win. Auburn has had 8 home games and only 3 road games so far this season. That's a joke. They play @ Kentucky...again, not very far away, and they squeak by that game with a 3-point win.

With their next two games on the Road, Auburn will show their true colors and lose one, if not both games.

Oregon will travel another long distance in their BCS title game and beat whoever they have to play.

Just stop it already. Please brush up on your geography and you do realize that air travel is now possible?

[RedFanAlways1966]

Stanford has one of the best teams in the Country and will defeat whoever they play in their Bowl game.

With their next two games on the Road, Auburn will show their true colors and lose one, if not both games.

Oregon will travel another long distance in their BCS title game and beat whoever they have to play.

I assume you gamble for a living. Or just a big-time (some might call it arrogant) PAC-10 fan blinded with faith? :)

[jojo]

Who is Oregon playing in the Pac-10 championship game? Oh wait they don't have to play one.... :cool:

[Kingspoint]

Who is Oregon playing in the Pac-10 championship game? Oh wait they don't have to play one.... :cool:

You should have at least a 12-team league for a Championship game. I believe it's part of the new format when Utah and Colorado are added in 2012 (or is it next year?). Unfortunately, for Oregon, they only play USC every other year once that happens. They'll continue to have a strong non-conference schedule, though.

[Kingspoint]

I can't remember the last time I saw a position staked that could be so easily be torn limb from limb. The SEC is weak? Please.


Yes. The SEC is weak.

[Kingspoint]

Just stop it already. Please brush up on your geography and you do realize that air travel is now possible?

Have no idea what you're talking about. Can you be more specific, please?

[jojo]

Have no idea what you're talking about.

It's clear that you don't.

[Kingspoint]

It's clear that you don't.

What an intelligent response.

[jojo]

What an intelligent response.

To be fair, several people have made valiant efforts to engage you on this issue. A threshold of reasonable effort has long since been passed IMHO.

Jeeps the ignore function is actually the next step.

[Boston Red]

Auburn is currently a 6 point underdog in the Iron Bowl for whatever that is worth.

[Chip R]

You should have at least a 12-team league for a Championship game. I believe it's part of the new format when Utah and Colorado are added in 2012 (or is it next year?). Unfortunately, for Oregon, they only play USC every other year once that happens. They'll continue to have a strong non-conference schedule, though.


I thought I heard that the PAC 12 would not have a conference championship game.

[Sea Ray]

Auburn is currently a 6 point underdog in the Iron Bowl for whatever that is worth.

What that means is the SEC is a grueling league even in a down year. If Auburn beats Alabama and wins in the SEC Championship game they will have earned their trip to the BCS Championship game. I know this kind of talk ruffles feathers of the sensitive Big Ten Fans but let's look at it. In order for Ohio State to win the Big Ten, they have to gear up for two big games, Wisconsin and Iowa. That's it. Auburn has Alabama, LSU, Arkansas and will likely have to beat South Carolina twice. Add in a surprising Miss St team and you've got a very compelling season from a fan's standpoint.

Kudos to the Big Ten for addressing this problem. When they add Nebraska and a championship game it will make their league much more fun to follow.

I think this weekend's OSU-Iowa game will be one of the conference's best of the year and I'm looking forward to it but it pales in comparison to the Iron Bowl next week. That'll be huge and Auburn will really have its hands full

[Sea Ray]

To be fair, several people have made valiant efforts to engage you on this issue. A threshold of reasonable effort has long since been passed IMHO.

Jeeps the ignore function is actually the next step.

I don't know why you have a problem with Kingspoint. He'll gladly debate anything on its merits. I disagree with him on the SEC but that doesn't mean that I'm considering the ignore option

[kaldaniels]

Yes. The SEC is weak.

I am not out to say the SEC is the best conference. I am out to say it is not weak.

http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/football/ncaaf/stats/AP-Poll

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt10.htm

I have 5 SEC teams in Sagarians top 20.
I have 6 SEC teams in the AP top 25.

Go ahead. Rebut.

[Sea Ray]

I am not out to say the SEC is the best conference. I am out to say it is not weak.

http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/football/ncaaf/stats/AP-Poll

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt10.htm

I have 5 SEC teams in Sagarians top 20.
I have 6 SEC teams in the AP top 25.

Go ahead. Rebut.

You get no argument from me

[jojo]

I don't know why you have a problem with Kingspoint. He'll gladly debate anything on its merits. I disagree with him on the SEC but that doesn't mean that I'm considering the ignore option

That's your prerogative but this is a conversation for PM.

[Boston Red]

I think the SEC is down a bit this year....which is absolutely amazing.

[Sea Ray]

That's your prerogative but this is a conversation for PM.

No, I won't use PM to discuss things on its merits. That'd be silly

[jojo]

No, I won't use PM to discuss things on its merits. That'd be silly

Again, PM is the exact forum for this type of nonsensical meta-commentary.

[Kingspoint]

I am not out to say the SEC is the best conference. I am out to say it is not weak.

http://content.usatoday.com/sportsdata/football/ncaaf/stats/AP-Poll

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/fbt10.htm

I have 5 SEC teams in Sagarians top 20.
I have 6 SEC teams in the AP top 25.

Go ahead. Rebut.

You're right. They aren't weak. They are adding up to be the 2nd best conference behind the Pac-10 this season as this season is winding down. They were the best conference last season (as I said in one of my posts).

[Kingspoint]

Auburn is currently a 6 point underdog in the Iron Bowl for whatever that is worth.

That sounds about right.

[Kingspoint]

I thought I heard that the PAC 12 would not have a conference championship game.

Scott said the conference championship game in football will be held at the home site of the No. 1 overall seed. That would be determined by best conference record among the division champs, with head-to-head result, if applicable, serving as the first tiebreaker.

http://tucsoncitizen.com/wildcatreport/2010/10/21/pac-10-realignment-arizona-part-of-pac-12-south/


Oregon will suffer more than any other school in this new conference. Their schedule will be weaker, something the school has been fighting in the eyes of East Coast writers for the last 20 years. Now that their conference will be the Washington, Oregon Schools and Stanford and Cal, the Championship game will mean everything. It's akin to the breakdown of the Big-12 North and South, where Nebraska suffered heavily for the split, to the point that the Big-12 is unstable now.

All 4 Northwest schools voted against it and Stanford and Cal were voting against it (the South being comprised of Utah, Colorado, and the Arizona and LA schools), too. The reason is that the money lies in playing the LA schools every year. That's where the best recruiting takes place (most of Oregon's players for a long time now have come from the Southern California area), and the best national exposure occurs (especially vs USC).

But, because the LA schools hold so much political power in the conference, they were able to make it work by guaranteeing Stanford and Cal games against both LA schools every year. That swung the vote to 8-4. What irks the Northwest schools the most is that they've been part of the Pac-8 for about 100 years now and thus have paid their dues. Utah and Colorado get to come in their first year and get the best of everything while the NW schools go to a poorer schedule, only getting to play UCLA at their place once every four years and USC once every four years, instead of every other year.

Oregon's answer to this can only be one, "They'll just make sure they're in the Championship game every year."

It could all be a moot point if the newer Pac-12 goes to a Super-Conference of 16 teams a few years later by adding among the schools of Nebraska (who's likely to join the Big-10 [need to change that name]), Boise State, Texas, Oklahoma, OK State or TCU.

It all seems to be dynamic and ever-changing.

[jojo]

Oregon will suffer more than any other school in this new conference. Their schedule will be weaker

Weaker than their schedule this season? That would take some doing.

[Sea Ray]

So how's the schedule going to go? Will they play 8 or 9 conference games a year? I think it should be 9. I imagine you get one rival in the other half to play every year or will they do two? Who will be Oregon's rival?

[Sea Ray]

Weaker than their schedule this season? That would take some doing.

Hey, hey, hey! They played the Big Orange to kick off their year...

[MWM]

I love it. Alabama being a favorite over Auburn somehow means the SEC is so good. LOL!!!

I think it's more like a recognition that Auburn, while a good team, is not a great team. If anything, it reinforces that it's a down year for the conference. Let's be honest, the current Auburn team would be the 3rd or 4th best team at best in the conference in any of the past 5 years when the SEC was pretty loaded at the top. They picked the right year to have a good team.

I think it's also possible that Alabama is being over-rated here. They looked really good early on, but they lost almost their entire defense from last year's championship team. No one can take that kind of attrition and not take a step backwards. Alabama will be scary good next year, but they're probably a year away.

[jojo]

I love it. Alabama being a favorite over Auburn somehow means the SEC is so good. LOL!!!

Who said that?

[bucksfan2]

I love it. Alabama being a favorite over Auburn somehow means the SEC is so good. LOL!!!

I think it's more like a recognition that Auburn, while a good team, is not a great team. If anything, it reinforces that it's a down year for the conference. Let's be honest, the current Auburn team would be the 3rd or 4th best team at best in the conference in any of the past 5 years when the SEC was pretty loaded at the top. They picked the right year to have a good team.

I think it's also possible that Alabama is being over-rated here. They looked really good early on, but they lost almost their entire defense from last year's championship team. No one can take that kind of attrition and not take a step backwards. Alabama will be scary good next year, but they're probably a year away.

I feel the same way you do. I still feel like most of the voters think Alabama is the best team in the nation. Hence the reason that LSU leap frogged a lot of teams in the rankings when they beat Bama.

I get the sense in watching a lot of football this season that LSU and Auburn just aren't that good. Nice teams to watch, fun teams to watch, but most people are waiting for the other shoe to drop.

I am starting to come around to Oregon a little but evident by the Cal game, if you punch them in the face they don't like it all that much. They too remind me of last season's team. Dynamic offense that may struggle when they play a good defensive team.

This year would be a great year for a playoff. Some years you know who the two best teams are or you know who the best team is and then the other few teams who belong in the mix. I look at my team, OSU, and realize that their only loss is a night game on the road at Wisconsin, who is a pretty damn good team. TCU looked very good against Utah, but then how good is Utah?

[jojo]

I feel the same way you do. I still feel like most of the voters think Alabama is the best team in the nation. Hence the reason that LSU leap frogged a lot of teams in the rankings when they beat Bama.

I get the sense in watching a lot of football this season that LSU and Auburn just aren't that good. Nice teams to watch, fun teams to watch, but most people are waiting for the other shoe to drop.

I am starting to come around to Oregon a little but evident by the Cal game, if you punch them in the face they don't like it all that much. They too remind me of last season's team. Dynamic offense that may struggle when they play a good defensive team.

This year would be a great year for a playoff. Some years you know who the two best teams are or you know who the best team is and then the other few teams who belong in the mix. I look at my team, OSU, and realize that their only loss is a night game on the road at Wisconsin, who is a pretty damn good team. TCU looked very good against Utah, but then how good is Utah?

This year screams playoffs because someone is going to get hosed. But "that's what makes college football relevant".

[IslandRed]

I feel the same way you do. I still feel like most of the voters think Alabama is the best team in the nation. Hence the reason that LSU leap frogged a lot of teams in the rankings when they beat Bama.

I get the sense in watching a lot of football this season that LSU and Auburn just aren't that good. Nice teams to watch, fun teams to watch, but most people are waiting for the other shoe to drop.

I am starting to come around to Oregon a little but evident by the Cal game, if you punch them in the face they don't like it all that much. They too remind me of last season's team. Dynamic offense that may struggle when they play a good defensive team.

I agree. None of the top teams are top-shelf on both sides of the ball. If you paired up Auburn's offense and LSU's defense, you'd have a great team. The flip side of that team would be in the bottom half of the SEC.

Alabama's reputation definitely exceeds their actual body of work this year. Pretty dadgum solid for a rebuilding year, gotta admit.

I still like Oregon a lot. They'll probably be better for surviving a scare. Teams can get too comfortable.

[MWM]

Does anyone in the SEC play any defense this year? Week after week, living here in the south, I watch SEC games and I can't believe how bad the defenses are. I know it's an off year for the conference, but geez, the display of defense this year has been atrocious.

And anyone who thinks LSU is worthy of a shot at the national championship, hopefully came to their senses tonight.

[Boston Red]

They need to increase the competition of their schedule regardless if that means they lose some money. To me they need to play anyone anywhere.

FYI, Boise is opening next year against Georgia.

[OnBaseMachine]

And anyone who thinks LSU is worthy of a shot at the national championship, hopefully came to their senses tonight.

Agreed 100%. LSU is so overrated it's not even funny. I'm stunned they are somehow 10-1. They should have lost lost to Tennessee if not for an ignorant penalty on Tennessee to extend the game and give LSU a second chance.

[dabvu2498]

Does anyone in the SEC play any defense this year? Week after week, living here in the south, I watch SEC games and I can't believe how bad the defenses are. I know it's an off year for the conference, but geez, the display of defense this year has been atrocious.



Average points allowed by SEC teams, per game, through last Saturday: 23.33
Average points allowed by Big Ten teams, per game, through last Saturday: 23.74

Average yards allowed by SEC teams, per game, through last Saturday: 320.30
Average yards allowed by Big 10 teams, per game, through last Saturday: 354.08

National rankings, through last Saturday:

Alabama -- #4 scoring defense, #14 total defense
LSU -- #6 scoring defense, #5 total defense
Mississippi St. -- #16 scoring defense
Florida -- #11 total defense
Georgia -- #24 total defense

[MWM]

Who said anything about the Big Ten? Certainly not me. Of course, I'm not surprised it always comes back to that.

And if those are the rankings, then they are pretty much worthless. I am surrounded by Florida fans and I think most of them would laugh if I told them they had the #11 defense in the country. Trying to "rank" defenses of 100+ schools who all play different schedules is an exercise in futility. And you mean to tell me the LSU defense I watched tonight against Ole Miss is the 5th best in the country?

I think it's a this year thing, but I've watched tons of SEC football this year, and the quality of the defense played has been bad.... very bad. I can't speak to the big 10 because I've watched only a few games this year.

[dabvu2498]

Who said anything about the Big Ten? Certainly not me. Of course, I'm not surprised it always comes back to that.

You're a Big 10 fan. Was just doing a little compare/contrast for you.


And if those are the rankings, then they are pretty much worthless.

They are: http://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/2010/Internet/conf%20stats/2010000000911TD.HTML


I am surrounded by Florida fans and I think most of them would laugh if I told them they had the #11 defense in the country. Trying to "rank" defenses of 100+ schools who all play different schedules is an exercise in futility.

So how do we analyze defense (or any other facet of the game)? By what we see on the 3:30 CBS game of the week?

Florida has given up a good number of points to the good teams on their schedule, no doubt. Most teams do. In the other games, they've been lights out. They've also been pretty miserable offensively, meaning their defense has been on the field A LOT.

[dabvu2498]

And you mean to tell me the LSU defense I watched tonight against Ole Miss is the 5th best in the country?


I'm not telling you that. The numbers are.

Is the TCU defense that gave up 35 points to San Diego State last week the #1 defense in the country?

[MWM]

Nope, and that's exactly my point. Ole Miss had no problem moving them ball on LSU all night and they're supposedly the best defense in the conference. I know Auburn doesn't play any defense. I've watched enough to know that the overall caliber of defense being played on saturdays in the SEC is not good this year.

BTW, I'm not a Big Ten fan. I'm a fan of Ohio State, and to some degree Michigan having gotten a degree from there. :evil:

[jojo]

So how do we analyze defense (or any other facet of the game)? By what we see on the 3:30 CBS game of the week?

Baselines just ruin a good story!

[dabvu2498]

Nope, and that's exactly my point. Ole Miss had no problem moving them ball on LSU all night and they're supposedly the best defense in the conference. I know Auburn doesn't play any defense. I've watched enough to know that the overall caliber of defense being played on saturdays in the SEC is not good this year.



Just saying... It's a large leap from LSU giving up 36 points to Ole Miss (who averages 31.27 ppg) and Auburn not having a good defense (ranked 50th, BTW) to "does anyone in the SEC play any defense?"

The numbers tell us they play defense, as a conference as a whole, at least as well as the "stout" Big 10.

And let's not forget, the SEC has some pretty good offenses that can look pretty good on occaision. Auburn and Arkansas are both top 10 in total offense. Kentucky has the NCAA's all purpose yardage leader. Georgia has the best receiver in collge football. South Carolina has some future NFL talent carrying and catching the ball. Alabama has 2 stud backs. 8 of the 12 SEC programs are in the top 40 in the country in scoring offense. And everyone but Vandy (the worst SEC offense I've ever seen. Ever.) is 65 or better.

[Sea Ray]

Who said anything about the Big Ten? Certainly not me. Of course, I'm not surprised it always comes back to that.

And if those are the rankings, then they are pretty much worthless. I am surrounded by Florida fans and I think most of them would laugh if I told them they had the #11 defense in the country. Trying to "rank" defenses of 100+ schools who all play different schedules is an exercise in futility. And you mean to tell me the LSU defense I watched tonight against Ole Miss is the 5th best in the country?

I think it's a this year thing, but I've watched tons of SEC football this year, and the quality of the defense played has been bad.... very bad. I can't speak to the big 10 because I've watched only a few games this year.

Your opinion of the SEC is well documented. My question is why are you picking on the SEC? This is a banner year for the PAC 10 and is home to the #1 team in the country. I don't see much defense in the PAC 10. Why not mention them first?

The teams that play defense in college football are few and far between in this age of spread offenses. That's what makes TCU and BSU so intriguing . Those two teams play defense. How will it stand up against the nation's best?

[MWM]

The Pac-10 never plays defense and hasn't for as long as I can remember. This is unusual for the SEC. And as has been pointed out, it could be my eyes are deceiving me. And I'm not "picking on" the SEC. It's just that I live in SEC land these days and there's little good college football on TV other than the SEC. And I'm not sure how my opinion is "well documented". I've said dozens of times on here that the SEC is the strongest conference int eh country top to bottom. That hasn't changed. What more am I supposed to say about it?

[Sea Ray]

The Pac-10 never plays defense and hasn't for as long as I can remember. This is unusual for the SEC. And as has been pointed out, it could be my eyes are deceiving me. And I'm not "picking on" the SEC. It's just that I live in SEC land these days and there's little good college football on TV other than the SEC. And I'm not sure how my opinion is "well documented". I've said dozens of times on here that the SEC is the strongest conference int eh country top to bottom. That hasn't changed. What more am I supposed to say about it?

Well, if that's the way you put it, you get no argument from me. I think you answered your own question. The SEC has dropped a bit this year and that's very clear as you look at the defenses. Powers like Florida and Alabama lost a lot of talent to the NFL. That's how college football works

[Kingspoint]

Weaker than their schedule this season? That would take some doing.

Yes. Weaker than their schedule this season. It sucks.

Right now only Stanford has a good team.

Oregon State traditionally has one of the Top-20 teams in the Country, but that isn't until the end of the season, as their lack of talent always causes them to lose early season games, this year being an aberration. Mike Riley is the best Coach in the Pac-10 and has been during both his stints at Oregon State (sandwiched around a poor debut in the NFL as Head Coach of the Chargers).

Washington State always suffers along with Oregon State as far as lack of talent (based on budget).

Washington has political problems at the top of the University structure where not all see Football as important to it's face.

California is down right now. It wasn't very long ago that they got screwed out of BCS bowlgame. They'll be back.

UCLA has issues beyond Rick Neuheisel, though he's not the problem.

Oregon no longer will be able to put a Portland State on their schedule, while attempting to get two Top-20 teams every season on their non-conference schedule.

[Kingspoint]

So how's the schedule going to go? Will they play 8 or 9 conference games a year? I think it should be 9. I imagine you get one rival in the other half to play every year or will they do two? Who will be Oregon's rival?

Oregon's rival....that's a good question.

I imagine it will be USC as they run into each other in the Conference Championship game frequently.

I don't know about the rest of the system when it comes to them playing Utah, Colorado and the Arizona schools. They have to play each LA school at least once over every two-year period. And, of course, they play 5 games in their Division.

[Kingspoint]

This year screams playoffs because someone is going to get hosed. But "that's what makes college football relevant".

Every year somebody gets hosed. It was often done because of Notre Dame. But, they've been so bad for so long that they can't hose anyone anymore.

[Kingspoint]

FYI, Boise is opening next year against Georgia.

Boise State's problem is that nobody is willing to go there because they know they'd lose and their season would end before it began. It's scheduling suicide for quality schools, but I wish they'd do it anyway, as most schools agree to do home-and-homes. But, they won't with Boise State.

[Sea Ray]

Boise State's problem is that nobody is willing to go there because they know they'd lose and their season would end before it began. It's scheduling suicide for quality schools, but I wish they'd do it anyway, as most schools agree to do home-and-homes. But, they won't with Boise State.

Boise looked like a million dollars Friday night vs Fresno. They have their toughest game of the yr this Friday vs Nevada but if they win they could still very well miss the BCS altogether and that'd be a travesty.

[Boston Red]

If Boise wins in Reno, they'll pass TCU for #3. TCU is the one in danger of being undefeated and left out.

[jojo]

If Boise wins in Reno, they'll pass TCU for #3. TCU is the one in danger of being undefeated and left out.

It's very possible that Oregon and auburn both end up with a loss maybe even two....

[WMR]

War Eagle!! :D

[OnBaseMachine]

Alabama had no business losing that game. Trent Richardson dropped a TD pass that my grandma could have caught. Horrible. Those two fumbles deep inside Auburn territory didn't help either.

[jojo]

War Eagle!! :D

War Eagle!!!

[Razor Shines]

My buddy is a huge Alabama fan and was at Bryant-Denny today. He was mass texting/facebooking during the first half. No one's heard a peep out from him since the 3rd quarter.

[WMR]

My buddy is a huge Alabama fan and was at Bryant-Denny today. He was mass texting/facebooking during the first half. No one's heard a peep out from him since the 3rd quarter.

For an Alabama fan, this hurts worse than just about anything... lose to your most hated rival and see them move on for a chance at a NC.

Expect them to really ratchet up the anti-Cam rhetoric after this.

Now just have to take care of Ole Balls Coach and they'll be playing for a NC. I really want to see AU v Oregon.

[GAC]

Alabama should have won the game..... but they didn't. For Auburn to be down 24 -0 in Alabama, and to come back and win like they did shows their mettle. They've trailed in 8 of their 12 games this year, yet are undefeated. IMO, that says something about this team. And lets also not forget the level of the competition they have faced this year too.

The beat S.Carolina earlier in the year in a good game when at one point they were down by 13. So if they can beat the Gamecocks next week in the SEC championship game, then IMO, they deserve to be in NC game vs Oregon.

Who is more deserving?

I think it would be a good game. High scoring, but a good game.

[jojo]

Auburn adjusts at halftime like no team I've seen. They've got one of the better coaching staffs in the country.

[Caveat Emperor]

Auburn adjusts at halftime like no team I've seen. They've got one of the better coaching staffs in the country.

Which is amusing, considering how strong the hatred was from most corners when Gene Chizik was hired.

[Caveat Emperor]

Now just have to take care of Ole Balls Coach and they'll be playing for a NC. I really want to see AU v Oregon.

Every college football purists' dream: a gimmicky spread offense vs. a team paying it's star player.

Good think Boise lost -- would hate to think how it would spit in the face of tradition to see them get a shot. ;)

[MWM]

Nick Saban totally outcoached.... that's something you don't hear every day. That Auburn is certainly a resilient bunch. But I also think we learned that Alabama was never quite as good as their brand this year. They made their name in a blowout win against Florida, but we've also since learned that Florida isn't very good. That's a lot to lose on defense for them.

Auburn-Oregon could be the highest scoring national championship game in history. Both teams have high-powered offenses with not-so-good defense. Now watch, it will wind up being 10-3. :)

[Brutus]

Every college football purists' dream: a gimmicky spread offense vs. a team paying it's star player.

Good think Boise lost -- would hate to think how it would spit in the face of tradition to see them get a shot. ;)

It's really not too much of a gimmick that Oregon runs. It's simply a spread with zone read looks. They're successful because they change tempo well and mix in enough things to keep defenses honest. The thing they've done is added a middle zone read that allows the nose tackle to come in unblocked (similar to the inside zone with the end) that gives the QB a shot to read the tackle. The idea is that most defensive tackles aren't athletic enough to adjust to the read. It's highly effective but seems counter-intuitive to leave someone unblocked closest to the point of attack.


Nick Saban totally outcoached.... that's something you don't hear every day. That Auburn is certainly a resilient bunch. But I also think we learned that Alabama was never quite as good as their brand this year. They made their name in a blowout win against Florida, but we've also since learned that Florida isn't very good. That's a lot to lose on defense for them.

Auburn-Oregon could be the highest scoring national championship game in history. Both teams have high-powered offenses with not-so-good defense. Now watch, it will wind up being 10-3. :)

They are the two leaders in plays run per game. I think it's safe to say there's very little chance of seeing an under-60 in points. In fact, that game could produce over 180 plays or more, which is downright scary.

[dabvu2498]

They are the two leaders in plays run per game. I think it's safe to say there's very little chance of seeing an under-60 in points. In fact, that game could produce over 180 plays or more, which is downright scary.

That's what I was thinking. With extra halftime time, extra commercial breaks, we could easily be looking at a 4:15 game.

[RBA]

The answer is still YES to the original question.

[jojo]

Which is amusing, considering how strong the hatred was from most corners when Gene Chizik was hired.

I think most of that was coming from a very vocal Tuberville contingent. But ya, Chizik was a bit of a head scratcher for those wanting a big splash to rival Saban.

The genius of Chizik has been the staff of coaching/recruiting talent he's built.

[Brutus]

The genius of Chizik has been the staff of coaching/paying talent he's built.

I kid.

[jojo]

I kid.

If it were true it would be funny. But given there is zero reason to think it's true, it's mostly just boorish.

[Brutus]

If it were true it would be funny. But given there is zero reason to think it's true, it's mostly just boorish.

Boorish? Come on, get a sense of humor.

Things can't be funny even if they're not true? I think that's being a little overly sensitive.

Fact is, UK fans on here, outside of one particular, are good sports dealing with all the jokes about Calipari. Ohio State fans put up with the "O$U" type of statements. Surely you can take a joke about paying players given the current situation.

[jojo]

Boorish? Come on, get a sense of humor.

Things can't be funny even if they're not true? I think that's being a little overly sensitive.

Fact is, UK fans on here, outside of one particular, are good sports dealing with all the jokes about Calipari. Ohio State fans put up with the "O$U" type of statements. Surely you can take a joke about paying players given the current situation.

But you're on record as suggesting Auburn paid Cam making the "joke"seem a little more like sour grapes.

[Brutus]

But you're on record as suggesting Auburn paid Cam making the "joke"seem a little more like sour grapes.

I'm on record as saying I believe Cam's father had his hand out (admitted by Cecil himself) and saying I believe he probably got money from someone. That doesn't say anything about Chizik paying him. I think 95% of actual players getting paid in college athletics (which is extremely common if you know anything about stuff behind the scenes), it's by boosters. So that, not what I was joking about here, has been the extent of my suggestion.

Suggesting someone got paid isn't going as far as saying I think the coaching staff did it. I think someone with Auburn or supporting Auburn paid Newton's father. I believe that wholeheartedly and I won't back down from that. But that doesn't mean I'm pointing fingers at Chizik.

[jojo]

I'm on record as saying I believe Cam's father had his hand out (admitted by Cecil himself) and saying I believe he probably got money from someone. That doesn't say anything about Chizik paying him. I think 95% of actual players getting paid in college athletics (which is extremely common if you know anything about stuff behind the scenes), it's by boosters. So that, not what I was joking about here, has been the extent of my suggestion.

Suggesting someone got paid isn't going as far as saying I think the coaching staff did it. I think someone with Auburn or supporting Auburn paid Newton's father. I believe that wholeheartedly and I won't back down from that. But that doesn't mean I'm pointing fingers at Chizik.

Really this is in the wrong thread. It should be in the thread where it was pointed out that Cecil is not on record admitting what you're claiming.

[WMR]

Can we please not get this thread trolled into another Cam Newton debate.

I love RBA showing that Pac 10 pride! :D

[Brutus]

Really this is in the wrong thread. It should be in the thread where it was pointed out that Cecil is not on record admitting what you're claiming.

Yes, he absolutely did admit it. It was on record with quotes from Cecil himself.

[Kingspoint]

Auburn adjusts at halftime like no team I've seen. They've got one of the better coaching staffs in the country.

If they were worth their ranking, they wouldn't have to come from behind so often. They'd start out ahead, stay ahead, and finish strong while playing the subs in the 2nd half.

They've been fortunate to play most of their games at home where it's much easier to make comebacks. They'll have a much more difficult time next week against South Carolina did than when they played them at home during their first meeting.

For a conference that's supposed to play defense, that was some pretty horrible tackling there by Alabama. I don't expect South Carolina to oblige Auburn so graciously.

[jojo]

If they were worth their ranking, they wouldn't have to come from behind so often. They'd start out ahead, stay ahead, and finish strong while playing the subs in the 2nd half.

They've been fortunate to play most of their games at home where it's much easier to make comebacks. They'll have a much more difficult time next week against South Carolina did than when they played them at home during their first meeting.

For a conference that's supposed to play defense, that was some pretty horrible tackling there by Alabama. I don't expect South Carolina to oblige Auburn so graciously.

They just came back from 24 pts down in one of the most hostile road environments in the nation.

[RBA]

You have to give credit for Auburn to win that game. The better team won. I hope I don't get a warning for that comment.

[oneupper]

They just came back from 24 pts down in one of the most hostile road environments in the nation.

Very, very impressive.

[Sea Ray]

Alabama should have won the game..... but they didn't. For Auburn to be down 24 -0 in Alabama, and to come back and win like they did shows their mettle. They've trailed in 8 of their 12 games this year, yet are undefeated. IMO, that says something about this team. And lets also not forget the level of the competition they have faced this year too.

The beat S.Carolina earlier in the year in a good game when at one point they were down by 13. So if they can beat the Gamecocks next week in the SEC championship game, then IMO, they deserve to be in NC game vs Oregon.

Who is more deserving?

I think it would be a good game. High scoring, but a good game.

Why should they have to beat SC twice to earn a trip? Oregon doesn't have that burden? I'd say they've already earned their trip and if SC upsets them in Atlanta then Auburn got screwed by the system.

[IslandRed]

Why should they have to beat SC twice to earn a trip? Oregon doesn't have that burden? I'd say they've already earned their trip and if SC upsets them in Atlanta then Auburn got screwed by the system.

If Auburn's getting screwed, their own hands are on the implement, unless they voted "no" when the SEC voted to expand, split into divisions and hold a championship game 20ish years ago. Everyone thought it was a great idea, and then they started divisional play in 1992 and Alabama was apparently shocked to discover that it might be knocked out of the national championship game if it lost to Florida.

But the SEC (and other leagues later, including the one my school is in) chose the $$$, knowing full well they were exposing their two best teams to an additional loss. That's the bargain they made, and if they don't like the bargain, they can stop having a conference championship game any time they want. But instead of acknowledging that the "unfairness" is self-inflicted, they'd rather solve the problem by trying to force everyone else to do it their way.

[Sea Ray]

If Auburn's getting screwed, their own hands are on the implement, unless they voted "no" when the SEC voted to expand, split into divisions and hold a championship game 20ish years ago. Everyone thought it was a great idea, and then they started divisional play in 1992 and Alabama was apparently shocked to discover that it might be knocked out of the national championship game if it lost to Florida.

The logic was lame then and it's lame now. The SEC chose the $$$, knowing full well they were exposing their two best teams to an additional loss. That's the bargain they made, and if they don't like the bargain, they can stop having a conference championship game any time they want. But instead of acknowledging that the "unfairness" is self-inflicted, they'd rather solve the problem by trying to force everyone else to do it their way.

Money-wise having a championship game is the way to go but it does bring with it a burden for a top ranked team. In 2001 Tennessee went into it as the #2 team in the land and a shot to go to the Rose Bowl. They'd already beaten LSU earlier in the year. But LSU got 'em in the championship game.

I guess I'm puzzled why you feel the need to identify a villian here. We all know how this came about. My point is that it's harder to go to the NC game from the SEC than other conferences for the very reason I brought up.

In the Big Ten, not only is there no championship game, they don't even have to play the other top contenders. Thus they're left with things like a 3 way tie where the teams hadn't even played each other on the field.

I think Auburn will handle SC but it's an extra burden that some others don't have, such as their likely opponent, Oregon.

[Roy Tucker]

Money-wise having a championship game is the way to go but it does bring with it a burden for a top ranked team. In 2001 Tennessee went into it as the #2 team in the land and a shot to go to the Rose Bowl. They'd already beaten LSU earlier in the year. But LSU got 'em in the championship game.

I guess I'm puzzled why you feel the need to identify a villian here. We all know how this came about. My point is that it's harder to go to the NC game from the SEC than other conferences for the very reason I brought up.

In the Big Ten, not only is there no championship game, they don't even have to play the other top contenders. Thus they're left with things like a 3 way tie where the teams hadn't even played each other on the field.

I think Auburn will handle SC but it's an extra burden that some others don't have, such as their likely opponent, Oregon.

Like IslandRed said, the SEC willingly chose to go this way. Making it hard to get to the NC game is a by-product of this and is self-imposed. The SEC made their bed and now they have to sleep in it. I have a hard time mustering up any sympathy for this extra burden.

In general, I'm not a fan of conference championship games.

[MWM]

The SEC crowd were also leading the chorus against Michigan in 2006 because "they didn't even win their conference." The consensus was that a team should have to win their conference to play in the title game.

[Sea Ray]

The SEC crowd were also leading the chorus against Michigan in 2006 because "they didn't even win their conference." The consensus was that a team should have to win their conference to play in the title game.

I don't know anyone who disagrees with that. Do you?

[RBA]

How about this scenario: The Florida Gators are ranked 5th in the BCS. Auburn is ranked 2nd. Now Florida has a real small chance of making the BCS title game if there was no SEC title game. But since there is, Florida plays Auburn and if Florida wins gives them an advantage over other conference teams that don't have conference championships. Florida leaps over teams 3 and 4 to the BCS title game. Stanford and Ohio State (teams 3 and 4) are at a disadvantage. (hypothetical)

[Sea Ray]

Like IslandRed said, the SEC willingly chose to go this way. Making it hard to get to the NC game is a by-product of this and is self-imposed. The SEC made their bed and now they have to sleep in it. I have a hard time mustering up any sympathy for this extra burden.



They did and I think it was a good move. The Big Ten will have one after Nebraska joins and IMO it'll be an improvement over what they have now.

The SEC was fully aware the burden that comes with such a move and so am I.

[Sea Ray]

How about this scenario: The Florida Gators are ranked 5th in the BCS. Auburn is ranked 2nd. Now Florida has a real small chance of making the BCS title game if there was no SEC title game. But since there is, Florida plays Auburn and if Florida wins gives them an advantage over other conference teams that don't have conference championships. Florida leaps over teams 3 and 4 to the BCS title game. Stanford and Ohio State (teams 3 and 4) are at a disadvantage. (hypothetical)

That scenario would represent a possible plus to having a championship game. More often than not the risk is worse than the benefit but your scenario does show a positive side

[kaldaniels]

As long as you have the current setup where conference teams play 3 OOC games (usually 2 are against creampuffs) and the rest of the games vs their conference, someone is always gonna get screwed to put it kindly. There is no accurate way to determine the relative strength of both conferences and teams....there are simply not enough inter-conference games to do that. Computers do the best they can with the data, but there is just not enough of it.

[RiverRat13]

If Auburn's getting screwed, their own hands are on the implement, unless they voted "no" when the SEC voted to expand, split into divisions and hold a championship game 20ish years ago. Everyone thought it was a great idea, and then they started divisional play in 1992 and Alabama was apparently shocked to discover that it might be knocked out of the national championship game if it lost to Florida.

But the SEC (and other leagues later, including the one my school is in) chose the $$$, knowing full well they were exposing their two best teams to an additional loss. That's the bargain they made, and if they don't like the bargain, they can stop having a conference championship game any time they want. But instead of acknowledging that the "unfairness" is self-inflicted, they'd rather solve the problem by trying to force everyone else to do it their way.
:beerme:

[IslandRed]

I guess I'm puzzled why you feel the need to identify a villian here. We all know how this came about. My point is that it's harder to go to the NC game from the SEC than other conferences for the very reason I brought up.

Nothing wrong with your basic point, as long as you're not arguing that anyone else has an obligation to do anything about it.

But many people (not necessarily you), inside the game and out, have suggested in the past the burden faced by SEC and Big 12 teams was unfair, and their proposed remedy was to require BCS conferences to have a championship game. Before ACC expansion earlier this decade, one coach even suggested forcing the ACC and Big East champions to have a "championship game" with only the winner getting an automatic bid.

Or, as I believed you were inferring when you wrote "Why should they have to beat SC twice... they've already earned their trip...", that the BCS rankings be adjusted to discount conference champion game losses -- in other words, getting the money and the bump from a win, but ducking the fallout from a loss. That's another one I've often heard. If that's not your position, my apologies.

[MWM]

I don't know anyone who disagrees with that. Do you?

My point was that you're suggesting Auburn should automatically make the title game even if they lose to SCU. If that happens, they wouldn't have won their conference and that was the resounding chorus coming from the SEC contingent in 2006.

If Auburn loses to SCU, then they'd basically have the same resume as Wisconsin, Stanford, or Ohio State. They'd be equally deserving as those teams, IMO. No more, no less.

Ironically, Auburn is perhaps the school more screwed than anyone else since the advent of the BCS. They went undefeated in the SEC in 2004 and were on the outside looking in. If you search the archives you'll see that I was very vocal about how royally screwed they were because they just went undefeated in the toughest conference in the country. You had 3 teams *equally* deserving and only 2 spots. There's nothing more annoying, IMO, than the exercise of trying to compare the resumes of undefeated teams or 1 loss teams and try to determine who's more "deserving." It's 100% speculation and it's going to be based on personal opinion as opposed to objective data. If 3 teams go undefeated in major conferences, they all deserve to play for the national championship. The whole once conference is better so that team is more deserving is nonsense, IMO. No one really knows until they play it on the field.

But, if Auburn somehow loses to SCU in the SEC title game, my personal opinion is that TCU should play for the national title. Hell, I think they could beat either Oregon or Auburn and I'd love to see them get the chance.

[Sea Ray]

Nothing wrong with your basic point, as long as you're not arguing that anyone else has an obligation to do anything about it.

But many people (not necessarily you), inside the game and out, have suggested in the past the burden faced by SEC and Big 12 teams was unfair, and their proposed remedy was to require BCS conferences to have a championship game. Before ACC expansion earlier this decade, one coach even suggested forcing the ACC and Big East champions to have a "championship game" with only the winner getting an automatic bid.

Or, as I believed you were inferring when you wrote "Why should they have to beat SC twice... they've already earned their trip...", that the BCS rankings be adjusted to discount conference champion game losses -- in other words, getting the money and the bump from a win, but ducking the fallout from a loss. That's another one I've often heard. If that's not your position, my apologies.


A lot of assumptions there on your part. I will be very clear:

-I do not think the BCS should force any conference to have championship games

-I do not think that these games can be discounted by the BCS

-I do not think anyone has any obligation to do anything about it

It is what it is.

What I am saying is that an SEC winner must achieve more to earn a spot than some other teams such as a PAC 10 or a Big 10 team and that fact makes it all the more impressive that we've had three straight SEC national champs

[Sea Ray]

My point was that you're suggesting Auburn should automatically make the title game even if they lose to SCU. If that happens, they wouldn't have won their conference and that was the resounding chorus coming from the SEC contingent in 2006.




I am suggesting nothing of the type. I'm merely saying that an SEC team has to work harder in order to earn a trip to the NC game than many others. I am not suggesting that Tennessee should have gotten to go to the Rose Bowl in 2001 when they lost in the SEC championship game. I'm saying that they paid a price for being in the SEC that year

[Sea Ray]

If Auburn loses to SCU, then they'd basically have the same resume as Wisconsin, Stanford, or Ohio State. They'd be equally deserving as those teams, IMO. No more, no less.



I totally disagree.

If Auburn had lost to Alabama, "they'd basically have the same resume as Wisc, Stan, and OSU" . Now you're saying if they lose to U of SC, they lose all the benefit they gained by beating a very good Alabama team. Add on to that, you think that 12-1 equates to 11-1. I don't understand your math.

[jojo]

If Auburn loses to SC, they won't be SEC champions. It would be a big loss at a very bad time.

[Sea Ray]

If Auburn loses to SC, they won't be SEC champions. It would be a big loss at a very bad time.

Exactly right. So this is a huge game that others like Oregon don't even have to face; thus my point that the SEC teams have an extra step to go in order to qualify for the NC

[Roy Tucker]

Exactly right. So this is a huge game that others like Oregon don't even have to face; thus my point that the SEC teams have an extra step to go in order to qualify for the NC

Late losses count more than early losses according to the polls.

And the SEC guarantees that one of their top 2 teams end the season with a loss.

[Slyder]

If they were worth their ranking, they wouldn't have to come from behind so often. They'd start out ahead, stay ahead, and finish strong while playing the subs in the 2nd half.

They've been fortunate to play most of their games at home where it's much easier to make comebacks. They'll have a much more difficult time next week against South Carolina did than when they played them at home during their first meeting.

For a conference that's supposed to play defense, that was some pretty horrible tackling there by Alabama. I don't expect South Carolina to oblige Auburn so graciously.

Sounds like Ohio State what circa 2006?

[Todd Gack]

Wisconsin ran up the score on Indiana and Northwestern and everyone is ready to crown them. How in the world are they more deserving than Auburn? What's their best win? The Big in general has been down. Their best win OOC is arguably Wisconsin beating an Arizona State team who isn't even bowl eligible yet, at home because of a missed XP.

Same goes for OSU. What has OSU done to impress anyone? Beat Iowa? The same team who lost at Arizona? Iowa's also the same team to win on a last second drive vs an awful Indiana team.

Auburn's 1 loss resume is > than anyone in the Big 10's resume

[gonelong]

Late losses count more than early losses according to the polls.

And the SEC guarantees that one of their top 2 teams end the season with a loss.

A late win over a highly ranked oponent doesn't do any harm either. And the SEC guarantees that one of their top 2 teams end the season with a quality win.

LSU doesn't make the 2008 title game without the SEC championship game. They had lost the week before, which would normally kill your season.

GL

[Roy Tucker]

Not to beat a dead horse, but this all cries out for a playoff system.

If Auburn loses to USC, their critics will say their luck ran out (see Miss. St, Clemson, UK games). Oregon is one kicker stutter-step away from a loss to Cal. Boise's kicker got the yips. Many teams have a point or 2 in their season where luck entered into their record. The winds of fate can be very fickle.

I'd say there are 7-8 teams that are all on the same level. Trying to compare the pedigrees to say who is better than others is a "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" kind of exercise. I'd rather it be done on the playing field.

[Kingspoint]

Having a Championship game has always been a benefit for the SEC, not a detriment to their chances of having a representative playing for the National Championship.

By being guaranteed of one final game against a ranked opponent, that's one additional opportunity that the SEC has to move up in the BCS standings, not an opportunity to move down. If a team is already ranked #1 or #2 and they can't win the Championship Game of their Conference, then that's all the proof that's needed that they never were worthy of being ranked #1 or #2, or wherever it is that they are currently ranked before that matchup.

Conversely, the Pac-10 has always suffered by not having that Championship game when their Top-team or #2 team has needed another game against a ranked team in order to move up a little bit more in the standings and secure either a BCS game (which it had been robbed from several times in the past, mostly by Notre Dame, similar to what's going to happen to Michigan State this season), or the Bowl Championship Game.

The newer Pac-12 will have a Championship Game; and that, along with TCU's entrance into the Big East, will make everything more balanced, except that Boise State will continue to get screwed. What Boise State needs is a late-season non-conference game scheduled at a top school's stadium every season, along with their normally tough, pre-season schedule. Moving to their new Conference next season isn't going to cut it for them.

If Boise State, and the Pac-12 North Division were smart, they'd schedule a late game every year with Boise State in order to add to each other's strength of schedule. Whether Boise State plays Washinton, Washington State, Oregon or Oregon State, doing so at the end of the season would help each school participating. That would make up for not playing USC as often.

With BYU going Independent, that's another game Boise State should schedule late, as BYU has their good years to go along with their not-so-good years. It's also a game that one of the four NW schools should schedule every year, and forget any more Eastern Washington, Montana, or Portland State's being on the schedule.

[Kingspoint]

Late losses count more than early losses according to the polls.

And the SEC guarantees that one of their top 2 teams end the season with a loss.

Every Conference should guarantee that no two teams in the same conference go undefeated.

The Pac-10 does as every body plays everybody else.

The "Pac-12" will have their Championship Game.

The Big-10,11,...or whatever they are going to call themselves needs to do the same. They screwed themselves by not having two Divisions and a Championship Game this year.

[Sea Ray]

Every Conference should guarantee that no two teams in the same conference go undefeated.

The Pac-10 does as every body plays everybody else.

The "Pac-12" will have their Championship Game.

The Big-10,11,...or whatever they are going to call themselves needs to do the same. They screwed themselves by not having two Divisions and a Championship Game this year.

It is crazy that the Big Ten (11) has a system where more than one team can go undefeated. In fact there's not one but every team misses two schools every year.

[Slyder]

It is crazy that the Big Ten (11) has a system where more than one team can go undefeated. In fact there's not one but every team misses two schools every year.

Has there been a year where 3 teams go undefeated in conference? Is it possible? I dont know how the games are scheduled for the big 10.

[Sea Ray]

Has there been a year where 3 teams go undefeated in conference? Is it possible? I dont know how the games are scheduled for the Big 10.

It's certainly possible that two teams go undefeated. OSU's loss to Wisconsin and MSU's loss to Iowa prevented those two teams from tying for first with undefeated records. I don't know whether three teams could go undefeated. But this system also lends itself to three way ties like we saw this year. It's kinda nuts that the Big Ten champion is determined by a mere one place ranking in the BCS.

[Chip R]

Has there been a year where 3 teams go undefeated in conference? Is it possible? I dont know how the games are scheduled for the big 10.


That's a good question. I would think so but someone smarter than me would have to crunch the numbers and figure that out.

[Hoosier Red]

Actually I don't think so.
The Big Ten currently plays 8 games for 11 teams, so every team is only missing 2 others from its schedule. But the missing teams are staggered, so even if OSU didn't play MSU or Wisconsin one year, MSU and Wisconsin would have to play each other. Otherwise, you would essentially have three team pods(not playing each other) and as we know 3 does not divide into 11 very easily.

Next year with 12 teams, it would have been possible for a fluke in the schedule like that, but not with two divisions. Each team will play every other team in its division, so there can only be two undefeated teams at the end of the year. Those two teams would of course meet in the championship game.

[jojo]

That's a good question. I would think so but someone smarter than me would have to crunch the numbers and figure that out.

Here's a great reference for college football for those who might not have discovered it yet: http://cfreference.net/cfr/cfr.s

It's actually fairly uncommon for ties in the Big Ten (but I guess it's common enough where people could argue its a problem). The last time there were two undefeated teams at the top was the 2002 season when OSU and Iowa were tied at 8-0. In 2000 there was a three-way tie at 6-2 between Michigan, Northwestern and Purdue. There was another 3-way tie at 7-1 in 1998.

[Sea Ray]

Here's a great reference for college football for those who might not have discovered it yet: http://cfreference.net/cfr/cfr.s

It's actually fairly uncommon for ties in the Big Ten (but I guess it's common enough where people could argue its a problem). The last time there were two undefeated teams at the top was the 2002 season when OSU and Iowa were tied at 8-0. In 2000 there was a three-way tie at 6-2 between Michigan, Northwestern and Purdue. There was another 3-way tie at 7-1 in 1998.

Three times in the last dozen years or so is still way too many

[MWM]

I do agree that ties blow and the Big Ten shouldn't have them. If you're not going to have a playoff, then every team should play against all other teams. I liked the days of 10 team conferences with 9 conference games and just a couple of non-conference games much better than what they have now. There are too many cupcake games scheduled these days by just about all of the top tier programs. As much as I love Ohio State football, I don't even bother watching when they're playing a team like Eatern Michigan. What's the point?

[Sea Ray]

I don't even bother watching when they're playing a team like Eatern Michigan. What's the point?

...or Indiana, Minnesota, Youngstown St, Ohio U, Marshall or Purdue...


I find it very hard to enjoy OSU football due to the lack of good games. OSU is one of the top ranked teams in the country, playing in a major conference, yet they haven't beaten a top 25 team yet. We're not talking TCU here. How does a Big Ten team do that?

[gonelong]

...or Indiana, Minnesota, Youngstown St, Ohio U, Marshall or Purdue...


I find it very hard to enjoy OSU football due to the lack of good games. OSU is one of the top ranked teams in the country, playing in a major conference, yet they haven't beaten a top 25 team yet. We're not talking TCU here. How does a Big Ten team do that?

Sadly, I have to agree. There have only been 3 games this season worth watching. Miami(FL), Wisconsin, and Iowa.

I hate to say it, but I didn't even watch the OSU/Mich game this year.

Adding Nebraska will help, but the Big10 sorely needs Penn State and Michigan to return to prominence.

GL

[WMR]

Auburn playing for SEC Championship today...

Ole Balls Coach back in the big game...

Expecting a good one.

[jojo]

Auburn playing for SEC Championship today...

Ole Balls Coach back in the big game...

Expecting a good one.

Spurrier is about as good as it gets with the ball.

[WMR]

I love that Lutzenkirchen kid. Hard nosed football player.

[jojo]

OMG

It's not fair if lady luck is a Cam fan too.....

[WMR]

OBC barely made it through that halftime interview without going completely bonkers. :lol:

[jojo]

OBC barely made it through that halftime interview without going completely bonkers. :lol:

I have a feeling it's on in the second half..... Bet it gets a lot more physical. This could turn into a wild battle to the finish. I really wish Auburn wouldn't have left so many points on the field....

Hopefully the AU staff will continue to dominate the adjustment battle coming out of the half...

[Brutus]

Auburn's offense is built around tempo and one single player. But that tempo is tough to prepare for and that one player is as good a college player there's been in the past five seasons.

[Cedric]

Auburn's offense is built around tempo and one single player. But that tempo is tough to prepare for and that one player is as good a college player there's been in the past five seasons.

He is an incredible player. Absolutely the best I have seen in years.

He's worth well more than 180,000 dollars.

[jojo]

He is an incredible player. Absolutely the best I have seen in years.

He's worth well more than 180,000 dollars.

And an incredible bargain for free....

[WMR]

I could be wrong, but I'm thinking Auburn will steamroll Oregon.

I'm very interested to see Oregon's offense versus Auburn's D, because Auburn's defense is underrated, IMO. Lots of playmakers on that D.

[Cedric]

I could be wrong, but I'm thinking Auburn will steamroll Oregon.

I'm very interested to see Oregon's offense versus Auburn's D, because Auburn's defense is underrated, IMO. Lots of playmakers on that D.

Auburn will destroy Oregon. Auburn is great against the run and that is certainly the bread and butter of Oregon.

Now Oregon trying to stop Cam Newton and that awesome Oline? Not a chance in the world, IMO.

[jojo]

I could be wrong, but I'm thinking Auburn will steamroll Oregon.

I'm very interested to see Oregon's offense versus Auburn's D, because Auburn's defense is underrated, IMO. Lots of playmakers on that D.

Auburn has a very good run defense and a good pass rush. They have a good staff scheming too.

[WMR]

And to think how close my boys came to beating you all. :lol:

[WMR]

Auburn has a very good run defense and a good pass rush. They have a good staff scheming too.

They make adjustments better than any team in the SEC right now, IMO.

Part of it is Chizik not being married to a particular "way" of playing the game... I really love his malleability when it comes to adjusting his team's approach.

[Cedric]

They make adjustments better than any team in the SEC right now, IMO.

Part of it is Chizik not being married to a particular "way" of playing the game... I really love his malleability when it comes to adjusting his team's approach.

At the end of the day it's still easy to win when you have the most dominant player in a LONG time.

Newton is just a perfect college player.

[jojo]

They make adjustments better than any team in the SEC right now, IMO.

Part of it is Chizik not being married to a particular "way" of playing the game... I really love his malleability when it comes to adjusting his team's approach.

This is a dream season....All college fans should get at least one of these.

[WMR]

Yeah he is poetry in motion on the football field. Reminds me of old Herschel Walker highlights or something... a man among boys.

[Brutus]

Auburn will destroy Oregon. Auburn is great against the run and that is certainly the bread and butter of Oregon.

Now Oregon trying to stop Cam Newton and that awesome Oline? Not a chance in the world, IMO.

You got it backwards. Oregon has a better defense overall and will outscheme Auburn. Mark that down.

I totally agree that Auburn is good up front. Thing is, Oregon's running game is not the traditional running game. Auburn's d-line is built on power. Oregon's running game requires tremendous discipline and holding blocks and staying in a zone. Auburn's run defense will have a different type of test then they're accustomed to.

[Cedric]

You got it backwards. Oregon has a better defense overall and will outscheme Auburn. Mark that down.

I totally agree that Auburn is good up front. Thing is, Oregon's running game is not the traditional running game. Auburn's d-line is built on power. Oregon's running game requires tremendous discipline and holding blocks and staying in a zone. Auburn's run defense will have a different type of test then they're accustomed to.

Oregon hasn't played anyone like Cam Newton. He will dominate Oregon like he dominates everyone else.

[Cedric]

This is a dream season....All college fans should get at least one of these.

Be prepared for being on top. Others can almost turn it into a nightmare. You think it's bad with Newton? Just wait until everyone goes after every damn detail like they did when TOSU won in 2002.

It's over the day after the NC.