College football 2013 week 2: OVERCOME ADVERSITY

[sperry]

I think you have to give a one loss SEC champ a virtual bye into the title game. Could you picture an Oregon v. Clemson title game? Do you think they wouldn't constantly hear "But you didn't beat an SEC team"? As Ric Flair always taught us, "To be the man, you gotta beat the man." And as the last half decade has shown us, the SEC has been the man. To win without playing the SEC champ would be akin to a heavyweight boxer winning a belt that had been vacated against another ranked contender instead of actually taking it in the ring.

I don't disagree that the SEC is not as strong this year as in years past, but I still believe the best of the conference is still better than the best of the rest of the country. Until I am disabused of that notion on the field in a game that counts, my opinion will be echoed by sports fans across the country.

See this preposterous to me. Why, in a sport where the composition of teams changes dramatically each year, should what you've done in years past have any bearing whatsoever on the current season? The SEC is 6-5 this season against the 4 other real conferences plus Louisville. That includes two losses by the vaunted top six of the conference. 5 of those 6 teams are pretty clearly worse than they were last year.

Once again, the top SEC teams play incredibly easy conference schedules. It's the reality of being in a 14 team conference with 7 or 8 bad teams. Alabama's schedule in particular is egregious. It's not really their fault that Virginia Tech sucks, but Virginia Tech does suck, their other three non-conference opponents suck, and their SEC schedule is toploaded with a couple tough games and then a cake walk. Ole Miss appears to be a competent opponent as well. Now if Bama goes undefeated against that schedule, then they deserve to be in the conversation for the national title game, and there's a very good chance they'd deserve to be in the game. But it's absurd to say that if they lose to LSU, and beat, say, Georgia in the SEC championship game that they deserve to go to the title game over an undefeated team from another conference.

[sperry]

And Georgia almost beat Alabama last year...

It still goes back to my point that until someone beats the SEC champ in a game that matters, any title will always have the "Yeah, but..." detractors.

And those detractors will be fools.

[Rhom]

And those detractors will be fools.

Well... yeah... Have you not watched ESPN lately?!!?

Regardless, they'll say it and they'll have a bully pulpit from which to preach it. Again, I think that if I were Oregon or Clemson; I'd desperately want Bama in that title game to get clear bragging rights. Even so, there's a good likelihood that both tOSU and UofL will be undefeated and left out of the game.

[S John]

I mostly agree with Rhom. I don't like the idea of having an SEC team no matter what but the last decade has been so SEC dominant that the best way to usher in a new era is for someone to knock the bully out head to head. A Clemson / Oregon title wouldn't accomplish that but Oregon hypothetically beating the SEC champ would. That said if Clemson and Oregon are both undefeated and all SEC teams are 1-loss then you've gotta go with Clemson/Oregon. But yea, if you want to shut the SEC up, then their champ has to go down in the title game.

[sperry]

Well... yeah... Have you not watched ESPN lately?!!?

Regardless, they'll say it and they'll have a bully pulpit from which to preach it. Again, I think that if I were Oregon or Clemson; I'd desperately want Bama in that title game to get clear bragging rights. Even so, there's a good likelihood that both tOSU and UofL will be undefeated and left out of the game.

Well, ESPN's major conflicts of interest and lack of journalistic integrity is pretty much the biggest problem with CFB today. Luckily a lot of that influence disappears with the creation of the playoff, and hopefully more of that influence will erode as Fox and NBC attempt to crack into the market dominance of ESPN.

UofL doesn't have much of a shot at the title game as a result of their conference. Ohio State, on the other hand, would have a legitimate beef if they were left out in favor of a 1 loss team from another conference.

Honestly, I hope it works out nicely and we get two undefeated teams out of the grouping of Alabama/ LSU, Clemson, and Oregon, and no one else goes undefeated. Normally I'd root for everyone to go undefeated and have the whole thing implode, but since the BCS is going away anyway I really dont' want to see someone have a great season and get screwed by the BCS. The Oregon- Alabama matchup is the one that everyone has wanted to see for a long time, and should be a good one. I think this is probably the worst Alabama team of the last 5 years (the defense the past two years has been down from where it was, and this year the offense has taken a step back with the loss of all those linemen) but it wuold still be fun to see.

[sperry]

With West Virginia's drubbing against Maryland, all of my careful predictions for the year are out the window, save one: the Big 12 is competing for the worst conference in football this season. After that, I have no clue what to think.

Oklahoma St. travels to West Virginia on Saturday. At the beginning of the season, I was figuring OSU would pull out a close but comfortable win in Morgantown. After the OU-WVU game in Norman, I figured that the game would be closer than I originally thought and essentially scored it with OSU pulling out a squeaker on the road. Then J.W. Walsh, who I had high hopes for at the beginning of the season, went 17-30 with 181 yards, 1 touchdown and 1 interception against FCS school Lamar, so I started thinking that WVU could pull off the upset. But now, with WVU getting blown out by Maryland, I've essentially thrown up my hands and decided that I'm just going to go along for the ride this year.

Big 12 is definitely weak top to bottom this year (unlike last year where it was extremely deep but not great at the top), but I think OSU, OU, and Baylor all have a chance to be really good teams this year. We'll find out a lot about OU going into South Bend this week.

OSU and Baylor played terrible non-con schedules, but they beat up who they did paly so we don't know a whole lot about them. Tech looks decent, but teams 5-10 look horrible this year.

[S John]

West Virginia can't score and Oklahoma State will score enough to win. Maryland scored 37 points but not a single touchdown that wasn't a result of an offensive turnover. Maryland scored 4 TD's off WVU turnovers. If WVU's offense didn't turn the ball over 6 freakin times that game probably ends in a 9-0 score. Still a loss, but slightly less embarrassing if the mistakes are eliminated. Its nuts how 2013 WVU is the polar opposite of 2012 WVU.

Anyway, I think OSU's O is better than Maryland's and WVU's defense won't be able to keep them out of the endzone the whole game. I feel bad for the defense, they've actually played really well but they are on the field the entire game. Unless WVU miraculously sprouts an O-line, a competent QB, and receivers that can actually catch the ball over the course of this week... OSU rolls. The only bright spot on WVU's offense is at running back, but if the o-line can't create holes (they can't) its pretty much a moot point.

WVU will be lucky to finish 4-8, in my opinion. Games like Kansas and ISU that I would have thought were likely W's going into the season I am no longer sure about. 6-6 is possible given the state of the conference, but I wouldn't bet on it.

[Switchback]

I'm an SEC homer for the most part, but since Florida started this whole thing by getting into the title game when all the talking heads said they didn't deserve it, I have a different point of view on the conference than most other SEC homers. Remember in 06 damn-near everyone was up in arms about putting Michigan in for a rematch of the great game they played with OSU at the end of the year. You heard a lot of "clearly the two best teams" and "Michigan would kill Florida" and "Big-10 is obviously the best conference", etc etc etc. This from all the talking heads on TV, the same ones who are now saying "SEC is obviously the best conference" "SEC Team A would kill Big-12 Team B", etc etc etc. This kind of shit just becomes "fact" until someone changes it. No other school has been able to change it in the big game yet, but I don't think that means the SEC should continue getting any kind of favorable treatment as far as getting into the game. If there are 2 unbeaten BCS conference champions, I think they should get in over a 1 loss SEC team. A i loss BCS conference champ should get in over a 1 loss SEC non-champ. It's impossible to compare these teams in vacuums using stats, since they all play completely different styles of football, with totally different types of players. I happen to believe the defense of the top tier SEC teams overcomes the offense of whichever other conference champion is out there, only because I think football comes down to the front 7, and the better teams in the SEC have monsters on the front 7 who are enormous but also fast as shit, and able to contain the speed offenses (which we have evidence of in some recent title games).

But the way the current system is set up, just making a statement like that and then using that as justification for elevating an SEC team over another conference champ with a better resume is stupid, and has no basis in logic. You have to get the schools on the field to actually play each other before being sure that's how it will play out. Thank god we are at least getting a playoff soon (which by the way I think will actually lead to more SEC champions than the BCS system, but that's another story.)

[sperry]

I'm an SEC homer for the most part, but since Florida started this whole thing by getting into the title game when all the talking heads said they didn't deserve it, I have a different point of view on the conference than most other SEC homers. Remember in 06 damn-near everyone was up in arms about putting Michigan in for a rematch of the great game they played with OSU at the end of the year. You heard a lot of "clearly the two best teams" and "Michigan would kill Florida" and "Big-10 is obviously the best conference", etc etc etc. This from all the talking heads on TV, the same ones who are now saying "SEC is obviously the best conference" "SEC Team A would kill Big-12 Team B", etc etc etc. This kind of shit just becomes "fact" until someone changes it. No other school has been able to change it in the big game yet, but I don't think that means the SEC should continue getting any kind of favorable treatment as far as getting into the game. If there are 2 unbeaten BCS conference champions, I think they should get in over a 1 loss SEC team. A i loss BCS conference champ should get in over a 1 loss SEC non-champ. It's impossible to compare these teams in vacuums using stats, since they all play completely different styles of football, with totally different types of players. I happen to believe the defense of the top tier SEC teams overcomes the offense of whichever other conference champion is out there, only because I think football comes down to the front 7, and the better teams in the SEC have monsters on the front 7 who are enormous but also fast as shit, and able to contain the speed offenses (which we have evidence of in some recent title games).

But the way the current system is set up, just making a statement like that and then using that as justification for elevating an SEC team over another conference champ with a better resume is stupid, and has no basis in logic. You have to get the schools on the field to actually play each other before being sure that's how it will play out. Thank god we are at least getting a playoff soon (which by the way I think will actually lead to more SEC champions than the BCS system, but that's another story.)

Your thought process on the champions is exactly right. SEC teams from years past have nothing to do with this year's SEC teams, and the same goes for other conferences.

As for the playoff, the thing I like the best about it is it pretty much guarantees that the best teams will get into the playoff. WIth the two team system, the best teams didn't always get in. Sometimes that's because of controversial tiebreakers, and sometimes it's just because the best team got upset somewhere along the way and someone else didn't. With 4, and in the future 6 or 8, the best teams will be in the playoff, and it will be settled on the field, not on the basis of bullshit voter bias and prejudices.

[Rhom]

If there are 2 unbeaten BCS conference champions, I think they should get in over a 1 loss SEC team. A i loss BCS conference champ should get in over a 1 loss SEC non-champ.

I don't totally disagree... But just to nitpick, let me remind you that the AAC is a BCS conference this year.

:lol:

[Switchback]

I don't totally disagree... But just to nitpick, let me remind you that the AAC is a BCS conference this year.

:lol:

Ha, yeah. Man it's going to be sweet seeing the ass-end of this system. Ugh.

[WrathOfTinyKittens]

Big 12 is pretty far down this year, but competing for the worst conference is pretty ridiculous. The MWC, AAC, WAC, etc, are all still around.

[sperry]

Big 12 is pretty far down this year, but competing for the worst conference is pretty ridiculous. The MWC, AAC, WAC, etc, are all still around.

Clearly those conferneces are not meant to be considered. There are 5 real D1 conferences, and a bunch of glorified FCS conferences.

[lokisnow]

I'm not so sure that the SEC will thrive in a playoff system. With their tradition of avoiding difficult schedules, running away from competition and playing lots of pussy games in November they'll probably struggle to secure playoff berths. Then they will actually have to compete (in more than one game) against high level teams in order to suceed. Considering how much the SEC avoids tough games, they'll probably get their asses handed to them the first few years.

;)

[Switchback]

I'm not so sure that the SEC will thrive in a playoff system. With their tradition of avoiding difficult schedules, running away from competition and playing lots of pussy games in November they'll probably struggle to secure playoff berths. Then they will actually have to compete (in more than one game) against high level teams in order to suceed. Considering how much the SEC avoids tough games, they'll probably get their asses handed to them the first few years.

;)

Ha. Again, it's about the players, and not about who plays who or who won't play who or whatever. The lines on SEC schools are full of 6-6 freaks who run 4.4s . They can play whoever through the regular season but it doesn't change the fact that their lines (offensive and defensive) are loaded with really large kids who run like gazelles. Good luck.

But as I say, that shouldn't affect who gets into the big game. The playoff is much needed.

[BLU-RAY]

Speaking as a Stanford fan, my ideal season involves beating Oregon and then getting Alabama in the title game; I agree with those who say it'd be more widely respected if a non-SEC team wins a title by beating an SEC team than if they played another non-SEC team.

Anyway, Week 3 is a bit early to worry about that. Got Wazzou in Seattle this weekend. Go Card!

[sperry]

Speaking as a Stanford fan, my ideal season involves beating Oregon and then getting Alabama in the title game; I agree with those who say it'd be more widely respected if a non-SEC team wins a title by beating an SEC team than if they played another non-SEC team.

Anyway, Week 3 is a bit early to worry about that. Got Wazzou in Seattle this weekend. Go Card!

I like Stanford's program and Shaw is a great coach, but I don't like the Stanford- Bama matchup at all. Bama just seems like a better coached, more talented version of Stanford. You need to be doing something different than what Bama faces every week in the SEC to beat them. That's why I'd like to see Clemson or Oregon matchup with Stanford, despite believing that Stanford is in the same tier as those teams this year.

[Rhom]

They're going to lose the Civil War by five scores at least.

Serious question... Does it matter if you just have an okay defense against Oregon?

It seems to me that you either have a great defense and can bottle them up legit or you just hope they misfire on a couple of those quick drives and give yourself a chance to run clock with your offense. From what I've seen, a middling defense will get beat just as bad as a poor defense.

[Baitac]

Genuinely sorry about your QB injury. I want to see Florida lose at full strength.

And the adoration is mutual.

Nope. I adore you more. For real. Anyway, those of us at the game thought he had a sprained ankle. He walked off the field for goodness' sake! Our new quarterback did great for his first game (other than a two point conversion). We are still totally screwed. There's always next year. :(

[sperry]

The Penn State sanctions have been essentially neuetered. Way to go NCAA! We're now rewarding programs for not covering up child predators for two whole years!