College Football III

[Arakasi]

The difference between the USC thing and the current SEC thing is that the latter far more changes the selection process. USC dominating didn't get the Pac 10 a 15 year, billion dollar contract with ESPN where they show all their games, even the crappier ones. I'm against this because it is even more creating a media created stratification of college football conferences. SEC is at the point now where their perceived strength is so strong that they don't need to prove themselves OOC. True that losing a couple title games might do it, but if they keep putting the Big 10 against them it's unlikely to happen.

This is also part of why now I am becoming a more enthusiastic Texas fan this year. I'm sure Sergio will be happy to know that I'm rooting for them. :P Anything that helps return some sanity to the college football rankings is healthy.

And yeah, pollsters and most of the media are morons. Maisel's comments on bemoaning the current season because USC and OU were down was pathetic tripe. Hearing Wojo this week crow about TCU after they blew out a 1 win team was similarly retarded. No shit they looked really good, they're playing a scrub. Funny enoug I think Craig James might be one of the saner people out there. He actually is one of the few that ranks teams on the quality of competition they beat. The rest though, they're mostly enslaved to the win/loss record, all else be damned.

[Arakasi]

So, yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you that in the past few years the SEC seems to be given the benefit of the doubt more than other conferences. I just felt like making the point that this hasn't always the case, and the idea of SEC as King is something that's come along only in the recent years. Before that, it was clearly the Big-12 getting benefits of the doubt, and then the Big-10 with Ohio State / Michigan. It also took a few BCS losses for that mindset to be changed, and I think the idea of SEC as king will give way once it loses a few BCS title games.

I never said that the SEC always had this benefit. They do now and it is not going away for the foreseeable future. That 15 year, one billion dollar ESPN contract on top of the CBS one gives unprecedented conference exposure. The meme that the SEC is the best, they don't need to do anything else other than that is accepted truism by now. Also their bowl games are mostly against the Big 10, so bowl records for the most part aren't going to change it since the SEC is better than the Big 10.

Yeah I am hoping on the BCS loss, and I hope now that Texas wins and wins big. But I still think if Florida gets to the title game they're going to win it again and we'll get more of this. The current system is just cycling more and more and giving more and more benefits and rewards to the SEC. When USC won, did the rest of the Pac 10 get any benefit? No. When the Big 10 won, did the rest of the conference get anything? Not really. But the SEC clearly is now.

As for tiebreakers, yes USC got that one. And you know the reason USC wins that one? Because of their unprecedented OOC schedule, where they take on all comers. Where they've gone on the road and beaten the best the nation has to offer. And guess what, it has cost them as much as it has won them. Maybe they wouldn't have had some of those conference slipups that the media always seems to crucify them for if they had taken a typical Alabama or Florida schedule. See they got that rep by beating all comers on the field. The SEC gets it because of unparalleled media exposure and hype, plus beating Big 10 teams that had no right to be there like Kal said.

[stupidguy]

Switching gears a little bit, but why isn't Toby Gerhardt getting more Heisman pub? I'm a huge SEC homer, and I think Mark Ingram is a very good runningback, but he has 300 yards and 14 TDs less than Gerhardt. 14 fewer TDs. That's ridiculous. Yet Mark May is still pimping Ingram (or he was on Gameday Final Saturday night). The Heisman is supposed to go to the most outstanding college football player, not the best skill position player on the best team. Not saying that Gerhardt would get my first place vote, but he'd definitely be a big part of the conversation.

Because Ingram is the better player. He's a future NFL star while Gerhardt is a nice guy.

[wolverine]

Because Ingram is the better player. He's a future NFL star while Gerhardt is a nice guy.

Last I checked the Heisman was for a college player in a particular year, not a future NFL star.

[Kalbear]

I don't think that Ingram is the better player. Gerhart has shown himself to be a simply dominant player; Ingram has often come up short when it mattered.

That being said, more often than not the Heisman has gone to the best player on the best team - not the best player overall. Also, they lurrrrrve QBs. I think McCoy is going to get it, even though he's been mostly meh.

[Celtigo]

I never said that the SEC always had this benefit. They do now and it is not going away for the foreseeable future. That 15 year, one billion dollar ESPN contract on top of the CBS one gives unprecedented conference exposure. The meme that the SEC is the best, they don't need to do anything else other than that is accepted truism by now. Also their bowl games are mostly against the Big 10, so bowl records for the most part aren't going to change it since the SEC is better than the Big 10.

Yeah I am hoping on the BCS loss, and I hope now that Texas wins and wins big. But I still think if Florida gets to the title game they're going to win it again and we'll get more of this. The current system is just cycling more and more and giving more and more benefits and rewards to the SEC. When USC won, did the rest of the Pac 10 get any benefit? No. When the Big 10 won, did the rest of the conference get anything? Not really. But the SEC clearly is now.

As for tiebreakers, yes USC got that one. And you know the reason USC wins that one? Because of their unprecedented OOC schedule, where they take on all comers. Where they've gone on the road and beaten the best the nation has to offer. And guess what, it has cost them as much as it has won them. Maybe they wouldn't have had some of those conference slipups that the media always seems to crucify them for if they had taken a typical Alabama or Florida schedule. See they got that rep by beating all comers on the field. The SEC gets it because of unparalleled media exposure and hype, plus beating Big 10 teams that had no right to be there like Kal said.

Additionally, its worth noting that four of the five SEC BCS titles came by beating perennial chokers Ohio State or Oklahoma and in three of those years (other than the 2006 Buckeyes) there were serious questions as to whether the SEC team was actually getting the Best Opponent: USC or Oklahoma, 2007 was just a mess so who knows, and 2008 there is an easy argument Texas got screwed.

Now this isn't the fault of the SEC. They simply played the opponent a deeply flawed system selected for them, but there is reason to believe that they've gotten "lucky" in who they've lined up against.

[Ken Stone]

Additionally, its worth noting that four of the five SEC BCS titles came by beating perennial chokers Ohio State or Oklahoma and in three of those years (other than the 2006 Buckeyes) there were serious questions as to whether the SEC team was actually getting the Best Opponent: USC or Oklahoma, 2007 was just a mess so who knows, and 2008 there is an easy argument Texas got screwed.

Now this isn't the fault of the SEC. They simply played the opponent a deeply flawed system selected for them, but there is reason to believe that they've gotten "lucky" in who they've lined up against.

Are Oklahoma and Ohio State chokers because they, I don't know, have something in the water at the school? Seems more likely to me that they just ran into a team that was better and lost. Also just because Ohio State lost doesn't mean the team that was "screwed" would have done any better. And even if they did, doesn't mean they are the better team. Pretty much every assumption you make here is flawed on some level. Calling nearly every team that made it to the NC game but didn't win "flawed" and "chokers" doesn't seem very useful.

Sure Texas could have went in 2008, but then Texas Tech would have been screwed. Texas Tech could have gone but then OK would have been screwed. In reality, no one was "screwed". All Texas had to do was beat Texas Tech. They didn't, so they screwed themselves.

[Ken Stone]

That being said, more often than not the Heisman has gone to the best player on the best team - not the best player overall. Also, they lurrrrrve QBs. I think McCoy is going to get it, even though he's been mostly meh.

Mostly meh? 3300+ yards, 27 td's, 71% completion rate. I'd hate to see what you consider a non-meh QB to be.

[Kalbear]

Texas didn't get screwed at all. They deserved to go where they did. Fuck Mack Brown right in the ear.

Ohio State and...well, really every Big-12 team save the Vince-Young piloted Longhorns - have measured up pretty poorly in their bigger bowl games, especially against the SEC. It sucks a bit because they often have pussy schedules and their conference is fairly weak. That's the real thing that sticks in people's craws - that teams that play harder schedules are likely better but get dinged on rating because they didn't beat McNeese State by 70 points, and go to lesser bowls to utterly dominate their competition.

[Celtigo]

Are Oklahoma and Ohio State chokers because they, I don't know, have something in the water at the school? Seems more likely to me that they just ran into a team that was better and lost. Also just because Ohio State lost doesn't mean the team that was "screwed" would have done any better. And even if they did, doesn't mean they are the better team. Pretty much every assumption you make here is flawed on some level. Calling nearly every team that made it to the NC game but didn't win "flawed" and "chokers" doesn't seem very useful.

Sure Texas could have went in 2008, but then Texas Tech would have been screwed. Texas Tech could have gone but then OK would have been screwed. In reality, no one was "screwed". All Texas had to do was beat Texas Tech. They didn't, so they screwed themselves.

I'm well aware of the problem with the Big 12 in 2008. Thats why I said there was an argument Texas got screwed. I thought the scenario was a perfect clusterfuck and yet one more example of why the BCS is a terrible system.

And yes, the play of Oklahoma and Ohio State in most big games they've been involved in for the past 6-7 years has resulted in their inability to hang with a team that was supposed to be their equal. Ohio State did beat a Texas team that went 10-3 that year but hasn't won a BCS bowl game since 2004. Their inability to beat USC, even this year, is testament to that. Oklahoma's record in BCS bowls is what, 2-5? 2-6? Their last win in a big time bowl was in 2003 or so. In addition to their SEC losses they've got beaten by ole Boise State and dismantled by USC. Somehow a system run primarily with human voter input keeps rotating these teams through.

The point was that the BCS system seems to spit out the same two teams to face down the SEC schools despite available alternatives nearly every time. At some point you have to ask what role facing off against Stoops and Tressel repeatedly has done for the SEC's title game record.

[Arakasi]

Are Oklahoma and Ohio State chokers because they, I don't know, have something in the water at the school? Seems more likely to me that they just ran into a team that was better and lost. Also just because Ohio State lost doesn't mean the team that was "screwed" would have done any better. And even if they did, doesn't mean they are the better team. Pretty much every assumption you make here is flawed on some level. Calling nearly every team that made it to the NC game but didn't win "flawed" and "chokers" doesn't seem very useful.

Sure Texas could have went in 2008, but then Texas Tech would have been screwed. Texas Tech could have gone but then OK would have been screwed. In reality, no one was "screwed". All Texas had to do was beat Texas Tech. They didn't, so they screwed themselves.

I think Stoops actually is a bit of a choker. But Tressel is just really conservative, and the Big 10 has fallen behind bigtime lately. A lack of an exhaustive schedule and many years where teams don't play the best teams in an already weak conference has led to an overexposure of Big 10 teams in BCS games. Even this year when the Big 10 is very much down they are still going to get 2 teams in BCS games.

See the SEC is the best conference year in and year out. But the second best conference most years (the Pac 10) constantly gets screwed. They play an exhaustive schedule (1 more in conference game) so they rack up more losses against better competition. They also don't like the Big 10 and Big 12 miss good teams a lot of the time. Remember the 2007 Kansas team who went 11-1 because they didn't face OU, Texas or Oklahoma State in the regular season. Also unlike the Pac 10, those teams have learned well the lesson of playing cowardly schedules and being rwwarded for it. Texas and Penn State's schedules this year are jokes. OU I'm impressed with the quality of opponents they are facing, and Ohio State isn't doing too badly. But the rest are just ehh awful in their scheduling.

This will just continue to get worse while they keep rewarding the most "deserving" team instead of the best team, where deserving is based on the number of losses you have and not on the quality of opponents you've beaten. SOS only matters now for tiebreakers between teams with equal number of losses. The powers of college football (for the most part, USC has resisted but there are signs they're giving in to this too) know this, so there is no point to punishing yourself in September by scheduling games fans would actually like to see. I look forward to more meaningless 60-10 blowouts.

[LacyinTX]

Texas didn't get screwed at all. They deserved to go where they did. Fuck Mack Brown right in the ear.

:thumbsup: You're welcome.

My bitterness might be showing here. :tantrum: I got no love for the 'Horns. But my question about the NC game is this...

If Tebow and McCoy are both there, who are the commentators gonna squee over the most. :rolleyes: I was gonna ask who would get the most suck...but that wouldn't be very lady like.

[Arakasi]

:thumbsup: You're welcome.

My bitterness might be showing here. :tantrum: I got no love for the 'Horns. But my question about the NC game is this...

If Tebow and McCoy are both there, who are the commentators gonna squee over the most. :rolleyes: I was gonna ask who would get the most suck...but that wouldn't be very lady like.

Tebow. The answer isn't even close. SEC love + the religious fervor that him and his persona have built up. Hell the end of the game the other day had the announcers rambling on about biblical verses. Fuck that shit.

Edit: It will be interesting though if it happens. McCoy and Texas might be the only thing standing in the way of Tebow being declared the best college football player of all time. If McCoy plays mediocre and Tebow wins the Heisman plus beats Texas in the title game, than Tebow goes out as a 2 time Hesiman winner with 3 national championships. However if McCoy wins both, then he goes out as the all time leader in QB wins in college plus a national title and a Heisman, which looks fairly comparable to Tebow's 2 titles (one as starter though) and one Heisman. It will be amusing in just how much this game will define who the greatest player of our generation (and indeed the modern era) is.

[Bronn Stone]

Mostly meh? 3300+ yards, 27 td's, 71% completion rate. I'd hate to see what you consider a non-meh QB to be.

How about someone who did it against remotely good competition?

More than half (16 of 27 TD) of those came in these games. Those six opponents were a combined 4-22 vs. teams from the six BCS conferences.

Baylor 2TD (2-7 vs. BCS 6 - Missou and Wake)

UCF 2TD (0-2 vs. BCS 6)

UTEP 3TD (0-2 vs. BCS 6)

Wyoming 3TD (0-2 vs. BCS 6)

LA Monroe 2TD (0-2 vs. BCS 6)

Kansas 4TD (2-7 vs. BCS 6 - Ia St and Duke)

There is another QB with 3700+ yards, 68% completion rate and 28 TDs (and only 4 INT to McCoy's 9). His team faced 10 opponents from the 6 BCS conferences. But nobody is (still) talking Jimmy Clausen for the Heisman.

[Arakasi]

Well to be honest Clausen was getting some Heisman hype coming off the USC game when they were 4-2 and before they started losing with the Navy game. But going 0-4 down the stretch killed that, no matter how good he was. No player from a 6-6 team will ever win the Heisman. Hell Gearhart still being in the running with a 3 loss team is miracle enough.

[TheHoundRules]

I see the SEC love is at an all time high today.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4702788

Dumbasslap is suspended for the SEC Championship. He should be for the bowl game also. 1 game is not enough.

As for the Heisman, that Stanford guy....forget his name since he does not play for Bama....is damn good. He should be getting some talk and is starting to. Maybe to late. I heard someone on ESPN say he deserved a seat for the presentation.

[Arakasi]

THR I think everyone here respects the SEC a lot. I just think that some of us are getting wary that the media narrative on the title game has increasingly become the "Who will play the SEC this year" game.

[TheHoundRules]

THR I think everyone here respects the SEC a lot. I just think that some of us are getting wary that the media narrative on the title game has increasingly become the "Who will play the SEC this year" game.

I can not disagree with this. I got sick of it before the season started. This is the weakest the SEC has been in years, and the hype before the season has helped Florida and Alabama.

[Chodawg]

THR I think everyone here respects the SEC a lot. I just think that some of us are getting wary that the media narrative on the title game has increasingly become the "Who will play the SEC this year" game.

Isn't "who will play the SEC this year" a fair question though, given the circumstances? Do you not think the winner of the SEC title game this year should get a title shot? Florida is the defending champions, they have the nation's longest winning streak, they're #1 in the nation in both scoring defense and total defense, and they have a proven decorated senior QB. I don't think its unreasonable at all for them (or an undefeated team who beats them) to be the presumptive favorite.

I also don't think that sentiment is conference specific. If USC were defending champs riding a 22 game winning streak, there's no way the question wouldn't be "who will play USC this year." Same goes for Oklahoma or Ohio State, or even Miami Fl, or heaven forbid Notre Dame. In fact, if it was USC, the rest of the country would be subjected to more debates about not who they would play but whether they were the greatest team of all time, ala 2005.

[Black Dow]

Is Gerhart not a pro prospect because he's white or something? I admit that there are nearly no white ball carriers in the NFL, but it's not unheard of. Hester is getting carries for San Diego right now (albeit very situationally) and Gerhart is lightyears more dynamic than Hester was.

Gerhart is a pro prospect, but is not considered a first round prospect. He is expected to be drafted in the second or third round, and could have an outside shot at the first round if he runs 4.5 or faster at the combine. Unlike Hester, he is actually projected as a tailback in the NFL, but probably more of a "thunder'' part of a two tailback backfield than a feature back.