College Football III

[Black Dow]

Carry on, all!

4 days until the most important Civil War game in their 113-game history. That's nuts to me. What's more nuts is the hope that this Oregon team - after losing their entire starting OLine, most of their defensive secondary and a good chunk of their players everywhere - could be even better than last year.

Ohio State lost, at home, to a deeply flawed USC team. If you believe that this in any way makes them the best team in the nation, I'd like some of what you're drinking.

And yeah, Florida and Alabama both haven't played anyone of note. It's pretty sad. Cinci actually has the best pedigree of the undefeated teams so far; Texas' best win was against Oklahoma, Florida's against LSU - but Cinci has beaten Oregon State and everyone else in the Big East. Pretty impressive - and no one is remotely talking about them. So odd.

Quite frankly, Boise St. has a better argument to go the title game than UC, at least up to this point. If UC manages to beat Pittsburgh, that changes. Against common opponents, Boise St. defeated Fresno St. by 17, while on the road, whereas UC beat Fresno St. by 8, at home. Boise St. obliterated Miami of Ohio from the first quarter on, while UC was up by a mere 10 point against this terrible team in 4th quarter, only managing to pull away late. Moreover, Boise St. has a more impressive signature win this year- against Oregon.

UC's sagarin rating, using the "Pure Points" formula, which Sagarin claims is the best predictor of performace in future game is No. 14 in the country. Boise St., No. 9.

That's just Boise St. Suffice it to say that the likes of Florida, Alabama, and Texas have better arguments than that. The SEC is just a different world than the Big East, and UC will discover that, much to its dismay, when it will have the misfortune to encounter the loser of the Florida-Alabama game in the Sugar Bowl. I won't predict the final score just yet, instead, I will predict the opening line. Florida favored by 14, Alabama favored by 11.

[Black Dow]

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.

The weakest its been in years, and still, without a doubt, the elite of the country. Last Saturday, if nothing else, sure proved superiority over the ACC, if nothing else. Middle of the pack SEC team Georgia, over elite ACC team Georgia Tech. Middle of the pack SEC over elite ACC team, Clemson. And then when the elite SEC team gets to play the middle of the pack ACC team (Florida v. Fla. St), it's not just a win but a bloodbath. Realistically, it's the SEC's world, and everyone else just happens to be living in it, as the bowl games will conclusively show. Again.

[Arakasi]

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.

Two things.

1) USC proves it year in and year out with their OOC scheduling. The SEC does not.

2) It has gotten to the point that the media has pretty much given the SEC the tiebreaker. Basically the narrative now is that if there are a certain number of teams tied at the end of the year with 0 losses, then the SEC automatically makes it. Which leaves the other spot for any other undefeateds.

It is conference specific. Why is it when USC recently lost a Pac 10 game did it instantly disqualify them for national title consideration. But when last year Florida lost at home it was shrugged off as "The SEC is the best conference in the land, losses in conference matter less here". You can't use USC as an example when recently they've been boned out of games (as has the rest of the Pac 10) by the stupid system.

[Chodawg]

The weakest its been in years, and still, without a doubt, the elite of the country. Last Saturday, if nothing else, sure proved superiority over the ACC, if nothing else. Middle of the pack SEC team Georgia, over elite ACC team Georgia Tech. Middle of the pack SEC over elite ACC team, Clemson. And then when the elite SEC team gets to play the middle of the pack ACC team (Florida v. Fla. St), it's not just a win but a bloodbath. Realistically, it's the SEC's world, and everyone else just happens to be living in it, as the bowl games will conclusively show. Again.

I certainly wouldn't go that far. Yeah, the SEC is better than the ACC, but that doesn't really mean much at all. The ACC has been bad for years now. Beating them doesn't make the SEC the class of the country. The best conference this year could easily be the Pac-10. The SEC has two tough teams, then a huge mish-mosh of inconsistency. The Pac-10 doesn't have the two teams that have separated themselves from the pack, but it's just as deep if not deeper with 6 or 7 teams that could show up any given week and give anyone in the country a run.

[Arakasi]

The weakest its been in years, and still, without a doubt, the elite of the country. Last Saturday, if nothing else, sure proved superiority over the ACC, if nothing else. Middle of the pack SEC team Georgia, over elite ACC team Georgia Tech. Middle of the pack SEC over elite ACC team, Clemson. And then when the elite SEC team gets to play the middle of the pack ACC team (Florida v. Fla. St), it's not just a win but a bloodbath. Realistically, it's the SEC's world, and everyone else just happens to be living in it, as the bowl games will conclusively show. Again.

You're wrong. While they might be slightly better they're not the elite of the country. Sorry dude. Not this year like Hound said. The SEC has two top teams and no one else. I'm glad you're excited about beating the ACC, who isn't very good. But hey one of the worst teams in the Pac 10 just swept a home and home from one of your middling teams. (Tennessee) Arizona State going into Georgia and playing them within a field goal when most every team in the Pac 10 beat them by double digits. The Pac 10 is as good as the SEC, it is just we play an exhaustive schedule and get the short end of the stick on the pollsters. There are twice as many quality teams out west. LSU is mediocre on offense. Auburn can't run a 2 minute drill to save their ass. Who knows which Georgia or Vols team will show up each week.

The SEC does have a better out of conference record than the Big 12, but that is not saying much. Congrats on your only wins of note being against ACC teams. Also congrats on your best teams scheduling such power houses as Chatanooga and FIU. The conference rankings for this year have had the SEC and Pac 10 neck and neck the entire year. If you actually look at the results, who teams have played, who teams have beaten, how teams have beaten others and so on there just isn't that much difference at the top. But ignorant folks like you (which your last sentence shows) perpetuate the myth you've built up.

Oh, btw, congrats on your conference's refs saving your top teams from defeat. Can you teach our Pac 10 refs how to do that? It's a neat trick I must say.

[Arakasi]

I certainly wouldn't go that far. Yeah, the SEC is better than the ACC, but that doesn't really mean much at all. The ACC has been bad for years now. Beating them doesn't make the SEC the class of the country. The best conference this year could easily be the Pac-10. The SEC has two tough teams, then a huge mish-mosh of inconsistency. The Pac-10 doesn't have the two teams that have separated themselves from the pack, but it's just as deep if not deeper with 6 or 7 teams that could show up any given week and give anyone in the country a run.

This as well. To also elaborate on the points I made before. Of course an SEC team should be in the mix for the title. I just don't agree with this defacto pass they've given to the conference. They should be judged on the same merits as anyone else, which to me includes everything. Conference strength yes, OOC wins, quality of wins, margin of victory (aka dominating wins), quality road wins and so on. We've all known for years that non BCS teams have to schedule killer OOC schedules to get in the title hunt, or really even in the BCS hunt to make an at large bid. But in the last few years we've seen this same logic apply to the Big East and ACC. (would even 2 or 3 years ago an undefeated team from the Big East be struggling to stay in the top 5?) The Big 6 has become the Big 4. It seems like it is soon going to become the Big 1 though. (or 2, they seem to still love the Big 12) College football is becoming more and more stratified.

[Arakasi]

To clarify my point on Cinci, Brad Edwards and others have been talking about the scenario of Texas losing. According to them its a pretty good chance that the SEC loser (if the game is close) would be ranked in front of both TCU and Cinci. There will need to be heavy vote finagling like there was in 2006 to avoid this. Also the discussion in the last month pretty much confirmed that if one of the SEC teams had lost previous to the SEC title game but won it, they would be ranked in front of everyone but Texas. This never would have happened even 4 years ago. Where once there were 2 groups (BCS versus non BCS) there is now 3. I'm afraid it will soon be 4, and that top group will be very very exclusive.

[Celtigo]

To clarify my point on Cinci, Brad Edwards and others have been talking about the scenario of Texas losing. According to them its a pretty good chance that the SEC loser (if the game is close) would be ranked in front of both TCU and Cinci. There will need to be heavy vote finagling like there was in 2006 to avoid this. Also the discussion in the last month pretty much confirmed that if one of the SEC teams had lost previous to the SEC title game but won it, they would be ranked in front of everyone but Texas. This never would have happened even 4 years ago. Where once there were 2 groups (BCS versus non BCS) there is now 3. I'm afraid it will soon be 4, and that top group will be very very exclusive.

Really? If theres one thing that could kill the BCS, its this. At a certain point it would no longer become profitable for the other powers that be in CFB to play for one spot in a national title game with the other already de facto awarded. It would simply hurt there bottom line too much. This may already be happening in a sense, but playing an SEC title game rematch would just be too much of a slap in the face. Especially since the SECCG loser doesn't even have Michigan's argument that they lost a road game and things might have been different on a neutral field. The BCS officials aren't stupid and I could see serious pressure put out to avoid an SEC title game rematch at all costs ala 2006.

[Black Dow]

You're wrong. While they might be slightly better they're not the elite of the country. Sorry dude. Not this year like Hound said. The SEC has two top teams and no one else. I'm glad you're excited about beating the ACC, who isn't very good. But hey one of the worst teams in the Pac 10 just swept a home and home from one of your middling teams. (Tennessee) Arizona State going into Georgia and playing them within a field goal when most every team in the Pac 10 beat them by double digits. The Pac 10 is as good as the SEC, it is just we play an exhaustive schedule and get the short end of the stick on the pollsters. There are twice as many quality teams out west. LSU is mediocre on offense. Auburn can't run a 2 minute drill to save their ass. Who knows which Georgia or Vols team will show up each week.

The SEC does have a better out of conference record than the Big 12, but that is not saying much. Congrats on your only wins of note being against ACC teams. Also congrats on your best teams scheduling such power houses as Chatanooga and FIU. The conference rankings for this year have had the SEC and Pac 10 neck and neck the entire year. If you actually look at the results, who teams have played, who teams have beaten, how teams have beaten others and so on there just isn't that much difference at the top. But ignorant folks like you (which your last sentence shows) perpetuate the myth you've built up.

Oh, btw, congrats on your conference's refs saving your top teams from defeat. Can you teach our Pac 10 refs how to do that? It's a neat trick I must say.

Let's take a look at how the SEC has fared against non-conference BCS teams this year.

Arkansas over Texas A and M.

Auburn over West Virginia. (Isn't that at least a little bit of 'a win of note'?)

Florida over Florida State.

Georgia over Arizona State and Georgia Tech; and Oklahoma State over Georgia.

Kentucky over Louisville.

LSU over Washington.

Miss. St. loses to Georgia Tech.

South Carolina over NC State and Clemson.

Tennessee loses to UCLA.

Vanderbilt loses to Georgia Tech.

Now, that's a total record of 9-4 against BCS conference opponents. I counted a total of two losses to non-BCS conference opponents. One was a Mississippi State loss to Houston, which is quite excusable; one was a Vanderbilt loss to Army, which is not. The SEC has ONE loss OOC BCS-conference to a turd, which just happens to be the game that you mentioned. The other three are to BCS bowl game contender Georgia Tech (twice) and ranked Oklahoma State (itself a BCS bowl game contender as of a week ago).

Moving to the PAC-10.

Arizona loses to Iowa.

Arizona St. loses to Georgia.

Cal over Maryland and Minnesota.

Oregon over Purdue

Stanford loses to Wake Forest (wtf???)

UCLA over Tennessee and Kansas State.

USC over tOSU.

Oregon State loses to Cincinnati.

Washington loses to LSU and Notre Dame. (Notre Dame is considered a "BCS team" even though they are not in a conference).

Washington State did not play any BCS OOC.

That's a record of 6-6. For OOC non-BSC conference losses, you have one excusable one (Boise St. over Oregon, and one not-so-excusable one, Hawaii over Washington State). With respect to BCS conference OOC losses, you have four respectable ones and one to a joke and we'll be generous and call Notre Dame a borderline respectable loss.

I didn't double-check my research so it's very possible that I might have missed one here, but for my point to be wrong I would have had to missed a lot more than one or two. Bottom line: 9 and 4 versus 6 and 6. I'm glad that you were kind enough to concede that the SEC had a better out of conference record than the Big 12; and now it seems that we can add the PAC-10 to that list as well, no?

I'll gladly come back here after the bowl games and review all of this again, with updated results.

One other point- what makes you say that the SEC has two good teams, and "nobody else"? Two-thirds of the league only lost to other SEC teams.

[Celtigo]

Let's take a look at how the SEC has fared against non-conference BCS teams this year.

Arkansas over Texas A and M.

Auburn over West Virginia. (Isn't that at least a little bit of 'a win of note'?)

Florida over Florida State.

Georgia over Arizona State and Georgia Tech; and Oklahoma State over Georgia.

Kentucky over Louisville.

LSU over Washington.

Miss. St. loses to Georgia Tech.

South Carolina over NC State and Clemson.

Tennessee loses to UCLA.

Vanderbilt loses to Georgia Tech.

Now, that's a total record of 9-4 against BCS conference opponents. I counted a total of two losses to non-BCS conference opponents. One was a Mississippi State loss to Houston, which is quite excusable; one was a Vanderbilt loss to Army, which is not. The SEC has ONE loss OOC BCS-conference to a turd, which just happens to be the game that you mentioned. The other three are to BCS bowl game contender Georgia Tech (twice) and ranked Oklahoma State (itself a BCS bowl game contender as of a week ago).

Moving to the PAC-10.

Arizona loses to Iowa.

Arizona St. loses to Georgia.

Cal over Maryland and Minnesota.

Oregon over Purdue

Stanford loses to Wake Forest (wtf???)

UCLA over Tennessee and Kansas State.

USC over tOSU.

Oregon State loses to Cincinnati.

Washington loses to LSU and Notre Dame. (Notre Dame is considered a "BCS team" even though they are not in a conference).

Washington State did not play any BCS OOC.

That's a record of 6-6. For OOC non-BSC conference losses, you have one excusable one (Boise St. over Oregon, and one not-so-excusable one, Hawaii over Washington State). With respect to BCS conference OOC losses, you have four respectable ones and one to a joke and we'll be generous and call Notre Dame a borderline respectable loss.

I didn't double-check my research so it's very possible that I might have missed one here, but for my point to be wrong I would have had to missed a lot more than one or two. Bottom line: 9 and 4 versus 6 and 6. I'm glad that you were kind enough to concede that the SEC had a better out of conference record than the Big 12; and now it seems that we can add the PAC-10 to that list as well, no?

I'll gladly come back here after the bowl games and review all of this again, with updated results.

One other point- what makes you say that the SEC has two good teams, and "nobody else"? Two-thirds of the league only lost to other SEC teams.

First I'd argue the mid-majors out west are for the most part superior to the ones in the South. We're talking about Mountain West and WAC teams against Sun Belt and Conference USA squads. Oregon's win over Utah and loss to Boise State both came against teams that have proven they can play with anyone in the country on any given day. Even our red headed step child, 1-11 Wazzu, managed to beat the second place team in CUSA's Western Division.

I'd give you a deeper breakdown if I had the time but I think to truly compare the two, you need a break down of home and away matchups, records and placement in the conference of foes, etc. Its why I hate when Pac-10 fans (I am one) throw out the "We're 11-9 against the SEC!" without analyzing who played who and where the games occurred.

Just for the one quick example the SEC went 2-1 against the Pac-10 this year. Two of those games were played in the South. The matchups were":

LSU(9-3, 5-3)@UW( 4-7, 3-5): 31-23

UCLA(6-6, 3-6)@UT(7-5, 4-4): 19-15

Arizona State( 4-8, 2-7)@UGA (7-5, 4-4): 17-20

On paper, the SEC probably should've swept the Pac-10. They had the advantage in every game by quality of opponent and were playing their home stadiums in two of the contests. The end result was a loss on Rocky Top, UGA kicking a 40 yard field goal as time expires to beat Arizona State, and LSU and UW slugging it out down to the wire. Do these games conclusively proof the SEC is stronger because it happened to have a winning record?

And for a number of reasons I hate using bowl performance as an indicator of conference strength even after our 5-0 performance last year. They're just too different from regular season games and admittedly favor warm weather squads from the Pac, sec, acc, and big 12.

[Ken Stone]

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.

Are you referring to the Kansas team that beat #5 Virginia Tech in the Orange Bowl ;) Just checking :P

A lot of what seems to be going on here is "Team X played in Game Y in 2005 and lost, so they shouldn't be allowed to play in Game Y in 2006". The problem is that teams change year to year. You have 120 teams and each only play at max 14 games. Not only that but "football math" (Team A beat Team B, who is better than Team C, so Team A can beat Team C ... etc) isn't reliable.

The best people can do is look at what a team did last year, try to figure out what players they lost to graduation, and determine how good they will be next year. The reason the SEC has been the de facto NC contender is that in 2006 Florida dominated Ohio State with a very young team. It was pretty much a team of sophomores and freshmen. Since all of their key players were coming back for 3 more years, they got the benefit of the doubt. That benefit of the doubt extended to anyone who beat them.

It's not a conspiracy. College football isn't becoming any more stratified then it was when USC had their years of domination. It all goes back to the very young 2006 Florida team.

[Bronn Stone]

Moving to the PAC-10.

Arizona loses to Iowa.

Arizona St. loses to Georgia.

Cal over Maryland and Minnesota.

Oregon over Purdue

Stanford loses to Wake Forest (wtf???)

UCLA over Tennessee and Kansas State.

USC over tOSU.

Oregon State loses to Cincinnati.

Washington loses to LSU and Notre Dame. (Notre Dame is considered a "BCS team" even though they are not in a conference).

Washington State did not play any BCS OOC.

I didn't double-check my research so it's very possible that I might have missed one here, but for my point to be wrong I would have had to missed a lot more than one or two. Bottom line: 9 and 4 versus 6 and 6. I'm glad that you were kind enough to concede that the SEC had a better out of conference record than the Big 12; and now it seems that we can add the PAC-10 to that list as well, no?

You certainly didn't double-check your research. You missed three more Notre Dame games (wins for Stanford and USC and a loss by WSU).

Let's split both conferences in half.

The top half of the Pac 10 (UofO, OSU, Cal, USC, Furd) went 6-3 (counting BCS wins and all losses).

The bottom half (Arizona, UW, UCLA, ASU, WSU) went 2-5 (same).

The Pac 10 played a total of 14 NC games against BCS opponents, plus one more against a top 10 caliber non-BCS team (we'll ignore Oregon's win over Utah for now - though the Utes are ranked in the BCS). Now for the killer diller stat. NINE of those games were on the road (10 of the 15). Yep, NINE. Every single Pac 10 team save the Oregons played a non-conference road game against a BCS opponent. And both of the squads from the Beaver state went on road games to non-BCS teams - Boise State in the case of Oregon and UNLV (not so good) in the case of the OSU. 8-7 is not at all a bad record when shared across the conference and accounting for 10 of 15 on the road.

Arizona went to Iowa

Arizona State went to Georgia

California went to Minnesota

Stanford went to Wake Forest

UCLA went to Tennessee

USC went to Ohio State AND Notre Dame

Washington went to Notre Dame

Washington State went to Notre Dame

SEC comparison post to follow.

[Arakasi]

It's not a conspiracy. College football isn't becoming any more stratified then it was when USC had their years of domination. It all goes back to the very young 2006 Florida team.

Hmm, then why was everyone saying that if Bama had lost an SEC game down the stretch (like against the Vols) but won the SEC title game that they would have een ahead of everyone but Texas? Aka Brad Edwards and all the BCS experts. So it is just because Alabama beat them? That's convenient.

Plus remember that Florida team lost 4 games the year after their title game plus they lost their bowl game. They should have lost that defending champions right the next year when they weren't very good. Why was USC crucified last year for losing on the road to the team that was one loss away (the loss in the Civil War knocked Oregon State out of it) from being the Pac 10 champ but Florida got the pass for losing at home to a worse team?

So you're trying to equate USC to Florida here. Hmm, sorry man you couldn't be more wrong. What was the national narrative lately when USC was whupping all the teams out of conference but lost a close game in conference. Did it ever give any more prestige to the Pac 10? Sadly nope. The narrative became that USC wasn't as elite anymore because they couldn't sweep crappy Pac 10 teams. An upset win in the Pac 10 over the top team is very much treated differently than an upset win in the SEC. Even Herbstreit went over that last year when talking about USC and how they got absolutely killed for losing to Oregon State while Florida got the pass for losing to Ole Miss. When an up and comer wins in the SEC the talk is about how that team struggled to the top over the greatest teams in football, or how about how hard it is to win out in the toughest conference in the land. When someone other than UT, OU or USC wins the Big 12 or Pac 10, the story is why does USC, OU and UT suck this year.

The truth is that the SEC does get special rules that apply to them and yes college football is getting more stratified. That is absolute fact.

I'm not even using the team A/B/C thing. I'm just saying clear and simple that the SEC doesn't play difficult OOC schedules. (although they are better at it then the Big 12 and about even with the Big 10) That is fact as Bronn has shown here repeatedly over the years.

Black Dow: Way to ignore road games, non BCS quality schools (aka the MWC and WAC and CUSA do exist) and miss teams and games. Bronn has already responded so I'll leave it to him. But just think. In the BCS era the Pac 10 head to head against the SEC is 11-9. That to me does not spell the SEC as the clear elite dominant team in the land. Heck as John said, the Big East even has a winning record too.

[Bronn Stone]

Let's take a look at how the SEC has fared against non-conference BCS teams this year.

Arkansas over Texas A and M.

Auburn over West Virginia. (Isn't that at least a little bit of 'a win of note'?)

Florida over Florida State.

Georgia over Arizona State and Georgia Tech; and Oklahoma State over Georgia.

Kentucky over Louisville.

LSU over Washington.

Miss. St. loses to Georgia Tech.

South Carolina over NC State and Clemson.

Tennessee loses to UCLA.

Vanderbilt loses to Georgia Tech.

Now, that's a total record of 9-4 against BCS conference opponents. I counted a total of two losses to non-BCS conference opponents. One was a Mississippi State loss to Houston, which is quite excusable; one was a Vanderbilt loss to Army, which is not. The SEC has ONE loss OOC BCS-conference to a turd, which just happens to be the game that you mentioned. The other three are to BCS bowl game contender Georgia Tech (twice) and ranked Oklahoma State (itself a BCS bowl game contender as of a week ago).

I get 9-6 for the SEC, not 9-4. You said you would count the losses to non-BCS teams but didn't.

Florida, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, LSU, Mississippi (5-2)

South Carolina, Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Arkansas, Auburn, Missisippi State (4-4)

Florida beat Florida State

Tennessee lost to UCLA

Georgia beat Arizona State and at Georgia Tech and lost at Okie State

Alabama beat Virginia Tech on a neutral field

LSU won at Washington

Mississippi DNP

South Carolina won at NC State and beat Clemson

Kentucky DNP

Vanderbilt lost at Army and to Georgia Tech

Arkansas won at Texas A&M

Auburn beat West Virginia

Mississippi State lost to Georgia Tech and Houston

Let's count the road games here. I see 2 for Georgia, one for LSU, One for South Carolina, and one each for Vandy and Arkansas. Five road games vs. BCS opponents (plus a trip to Army for Vandy). And Alabama's neutral site game (generously called so as it was much closer to Bama than VTech). Of those five, one was played in the team's home state and two others in adjoining states (not much of a travel issue). Only one flight exceeded 1000 miles

And nine of those games were SEC home games and one a neutral site game. Only five true road games. And three of the five right nearby. None of the long travel you see on the Pac 10 list - save the one trip to Husky Stadium.

[S John]

In fairness Auburn / WVU was a home and home. Auburn did travel to West Virginia OOC last year.

[Rhom]

Interesting decision making on the bowls for the SEC. The Outback has chosen Auburn for some reason, which by trickle down effect has essentially left Kentucky and Georgia vieing for the Music City Bowl with the other going to the Independence Bowl.

It surprised more than a few sportswriters.

Then Tuesday morning, the Outback pulled a fast one. Fearing the effects of the sagging economy, the New Year's Day bowl picked Auburn, if partially because it is a scant 483-mile drive from the Plains to Tampa, compared with 696 miles from Knoxville or 860 miles from Lexington. Or even 504 miles from Georgia.

Never mind that Georgia beat Auburn this season. Or that Kentucky beat Auburn this season. (At Auburn.) Or that the Tigers lost five of their final seven games and finished 3-5 in the SEC. Gene Chizik's team will still collect a $3 million payout check for playing Wisconsin come Jan. 1.

That surprise reshuffled the deck for the remaining bowls and presented the very real possibility Kentucky could be bounced all the way down to the Independence Bowl, Dec. 28 in Shreveport, La.

I would have liked to see Kentucky get a shot at the Outback, but I suppose that's the way the cookie crumbles. So we may head to Nashville for the 3rd time in four years.

[Arakasi]

Really? If theres one thing that could kill the BCS, its this. At a certain point it would no longer become profitable for the other powers that be in CFB to play for one spot in a national title game with the other already de facto awarded. It would simply hurt there bottom line too much. This may already be happening in a sense, but playing an SEC title game rematch would just be too much of a slap in the face. Especially since the SECCG loser doesn't even have Michigan's argument that they lost a road game and things might have been different on a neutral field. The BCS officials aren't stupid and I could see serious pressure put out to avoid an SEC title game rematch at all costs ala 2006.

I agree it is stupid. But it is pretty clear and simple fact that a one loss SEC team would make it in over an undefeated Big East or Mid Major this year. Probably ACC too with how the conference is down. We can tell now that the SEC wins the tiebreakers with other similar win/loss teams. If we replay 2004 with Auburn one of OU or USC (probably USC) would have been left out now.

[Bronn Stone]

And the biggest number of all.

The SEC has twelve teams each playing four non-conference games. I counted 13 vs. BCS opponents.

The Pac 10 has ten teams each playing three non-conference games. I count 14 vs. BCS opponents.

When you hear the pundits talk about 'playing an SEC schedule' to me that means three games against FCS teams, all at home, interspersed throughout the whole season in order to maximize time off.

There are always a few exceptions, but for the most part Pac 10 teams finish their non-conference games in September and then October and November become a relentless string of nine brutal conference games.

This is the thing that chaps the collective hides of Pac 10 fans. Every year we hear that SEC teams should get the benefit of the doubt because of their tough schedules. But they wouldn't know a tough schedule if it bit them on the arse. USC plays the toughest schedule in college football, every year, hands down. But because strength of schedule rankings don't give adequate weight to road games, long travel times and BCS conference opposition, they lose out because of purported weakness.

Kudos to Georgia this year though. That is a real schedule. No wonder the coaches are under fire for their performance.

[Celtigo]

Let's count the road games here. I see 2 for Georgia, one for LSU, One for South Carolina, and one each for Vandy and Arkansas. Five road games vs. BCS opponents (plus a trip to Army for Vandy). And Alabama's neutral site game (generously called so as it was much closer to Bama than VTech). Of those five, one was played in the team's home state and two others in adjoining states (not much of a travel issue). Only one flight exceeded 1000 miles

And nine of those games were SEC home games and one a neutral site game. Only five true road games. And three of the five right nearby. None of the long travel you see on the Pac 10 list - save the one trip to Husky Stadium.

Arkansas-A&M was at Jerryworld, which is considered a netural site.

[stupidguy]

The SEC is given "special treatment" because they should ALWAYS have the better teams for one simple fact that everyone is ignoring: the population.

The majority of african americans live in the south. This means that there are a lot of black men in the south (40 % of the general population compared with 20 % nationwide). This means that college athletic teams have an advantage in regards to accessing the superior athletes. Most people figure that teams that are more likely to get the top athletes are more likely to be good.