SI still has us in NY6
- Thread starter Jerry
- Start date
Agreed--but for some reason many here don't want a large playoff. And in a perfect world that playoff game would be against a much lower seed at home before going on the road.
LSU ahead of USC
Alabama ahead of Clemson
Tennessee ahead of Penn State
The committee cares more about "big wins" or "quality wins" than losses.
Alabama ahead of Clemson
Tennessee ahead of Penn State
The committee cares more about "big wins" or "quality wins" than losses.
Of course another interpretation is that the committee has been brainwashed by the SEC propaganda machine.
Put Oregon over us as well as another example but they all have "big wins" which we all know that's lacking for Penn State
I know the reason we don’t is because we get an extra home game and that pays both the school and community. Wonder if a package like that could be sold to a network to make up for it.
The easiest thing to hope for is simply one of LSU, Bama, or Tenn lose this weekend. None individually is likely but if one happens and PSU wins then we’d very likely be ranked higher than that team and be in line for the Orange or Cotton. We only really need one of them (Auburn over Bama would obviously be the most helpful).
That's true but like you said it seems very likely. They all probably have similar odds of losing as we do which is slim to none. Maybe Tennessee chokes without Hooker but...
Where's Mufasa to tell us how every game matters and how magical the current system is.
It’s a “glorified exhibition “ but let’s play the worst team possible? If it is meaningless, what difference does it make if we win. Personally I want the best team possible.
Well, I keep looking for “Eye Test” in the list of criteria and it’s not there. #arbitrarydefined
All three of those make sense to me at this point in time. That will change one we see UT without Hooker and USC vs ND.
It’s not like LSU was a doormat…..they were in a few other games as well. Maybe Auburn can pull the big one to an Alabama team that could care less.
What did LSU do Saturday compared to what USC did to warrent moving up?
LSU 41, unranked UAB 10.
USC 48, ranked UCLA 45.
They've went through all these gymnastics to rank some weak PAC12 teams high, and a lot of them, only to push LSU up over them. It's predictable, but it's idiotic.
Except in the cases of Oregon, Washington and Tennessee with respect to Alabama.
Three of those 4 have wins against current top 10 teams.
One of those 4 has a h2h win over Alabama. None of them are ahead of Alabama.
They didn't give up 45 points?
LSU didn't jump USC. Tennessee slid down. USC didn't do enough to jump them which most people expected.
Again, selective criteria to fit whatever narrative you and the committee want. Hell the fact that at one point had to argue about Alabama's perceived talent advantage is just more proof even you know there's no real consistent logic at play here.
What does not giving up 45 pt have to do with it? USC played a ranked team. LSU didn't. Bama gave up 52 to Tennessee with the best roster in football. No punishment for that.
It isn't though. It's reality and has been a reality
Alabama does have a talent advantage--who would ignore that? The "eye test" has always been a thing
Bama has 2 ranked wins on the road--FACT
Bama has 2 losses to top 10 teams on the road by a total of 4 points--FACT
Bama plays in the SEC which is considered the strongest conference
Bama arguably is the most talented team in the country and the eye test matters fair or not
This isn't complicated or tough to figure out
What does Bama have to do with why didn't USC jump LSU?
LSU has the better resume
Dave, I suggest you take a long cool drink of the SEC Kool-Aid, and it will all make sense to you.
No one has to drink the Kool-Aid. It's a reality even if you don't like the reality of it.
The reality: the SEC gets ranked better than everyone regardless. They propped up A&M until they couldn't. They propped up Kentucky until they couldn't. They propped up Florida until they couldn't. They propped up Ole Miss until they kept losing and barely dropped them.
It's literally not based on anything, otherwise they wouldn't be so dead wrong on so many of them.
To be clear, you don't believe the SEC has proven repeatedly in the playoff they're the best conference?
It’s entirely possibly for the SEC to be clearly the strongest college football conference while also being overrated in polls. Sure the elite of the SEC are generally stronger (and perhaps more numerous) than similar teams in other conferences but there’s absolutely a bias that causes a 7-4 team in the SEC to be perceived as stronger than a 7-4 team in other conferences with similar resumes.
Also the SEC plays one fewer conference game than 3 other P5 conferences* - most of the SEC use that extra non conference game to play an extra cupcake and getting a whole bunch of extra total wins collectively for conference teams (as opposed to conference games that are always 1 win/1 loss) helps to color perceptions. It will be more comparable when the SEC goes to 9 conference games when UT/OU join.
*and ACC teams are more likely to play two P5 games OOC than SEC teams especially given the deal with Notre Dame.
Bama has. Not the entire conference.
Most years, they definitely have been the best conference.
This year, I'm not sure they are. The rankings would have you believe that they are and its not even close.
The two 7-4 teams that are ranked are in the Big XII and ACC not the SEC for the record
The SEC should play 9 conference games--we agree
The * isn't necessarily true--Georgia's playing 10 P5 teams for example this year and do so most years
Georgia hasn't won a title?
LSU hasn't won a title?
They've won 5 of 8 and have been the runner-up 4 times
They may not be this year but they've earned the benefit of the doubt
It will get worse and worse with ESPN needing to promote their “brand” in the future. It’s already started.
To overrate the middle tier for the purpose of propping up the top tier? No.
That's the problem with the system. They are the only conference to get 2 in the playoff. Of course their #s are better.
Still doesn't make Ole Miss a good team.
This is part of the problem with the current set up of college football. We don't know if they're overrated or not honestly. All these G5 and FCS games take away the ability to really see that. That's also why a larger playoff is needed (20-24 teams) so we get meaningful matchups.
The SEC is 14-5 in the playoff with only one loss in the semis. There's no way to take away from what they've done in the playoffs.
Ole Miss is "meh" like about 40 other teams but 8-3 for an SEC is going to carry some weight. Again, reality fair or not.
I can't wait for the explanation for Ole Miss being "meh" yet also qualifying as a big or quality win.
I've explained this half a dozen times already
The committee has Ole Miss ranked--therefore they deem it a quality win
Again, this is simple
SEC playing 8 conference games is a huge boon to their middle tier success. Take away 1 conference game for our Big 10 West bros and most of them likely are 8-3 instead of 7-4.
Does that make them a better team? I say no. Because unless they are playing a P5 opponent, it's more than likely a downgrade in competition.
Credit to the SEC, they are the better managed brand.
So, you are saying that if they rank Purdue next week, it makes them a quality win? Yes or no?
I say no, regardless of if it were to happen.
