Free Trial Ad
Why Subscribe?
  • Player/Prospect News
  • Exclusive Insider Info
  • Members-Only Forums
  • Exclusive Videos
  • Subscribe Now!
Inbox
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 6  Next >

There is a reason for all the SEC bashing by other leagues

Posted: 7/25/2014 1:16 PM

There is a reason for all the SEC bashing by other leagues 


"This is a new day in college football. We are steaming straight ahead, like the Titanic at the iceberg, into a postseason where the participants in the championship playoff will be chosen by a committee. There are no objective criteria in place, just the votes of 13 people. And when an issue is going to be decided by partisan voting (and it will be partisan), the way things are done in America means it will lead to one thing.

Lobbying.

That's all these other leagues are doing. They are so fearful the committee will actually pick the four best teams (don't worry, they won't) and the SEC may have more than one of those teams, they are lobbying as hard as they can before the season is even played. They are planting seeds for their own leagues they hope to harvest in November. There is nothing wrong with that, as far as it goes. You might think they would concentrate on their own teams, and playing good football. But why talk about that — when you can bash?"

***Winner- 2012 SEC Preseason Challenge***

Last edited 7/25/2014 1:26 PM by ALA2262

Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/25/2014 2:47 PM

Re: There is a reason for all the SEC bashing by other leagues 


Nothing really is different.  Now we lobby the committee instead of lobbying the media.

Unless you are suggesting payola.....

As far as complaining about "no objective criteria"... well, we had objective criteria - people called it "the computer".  I hated when people said that.

So anyway, we went with "the computer" for a few years and we didn't like that.  So then we put the people vote back into it, and gave "the computer" one-third.  Objective criteria?  Nobody wants objective criteria, we're not even smart enough to understand its value.

The only thing that solves all this is league infrastructure.  Divisions.  Equal teams.  Division winners.  Championship winners.  A final bracket.  The big enchilada.  Then a champ.

There is no substitution that we will ever be happy with.  The NFL discovered this over 50 years ago.

So here we go, it will be a slow process, but that's where we're going.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 7/25/2014 3:28 PM

Re: There is a reason for all the SEC bashing by other leagues 


I wish the computers had ever actually been utilized.  They were compromised pseudo-versions of themselves.  Sad.

As long as the SEC's top teams have salty defenses, we'll pass the eye test.

He fixes the cable?

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 7/25/2014 3:38 PM

Re: There is a reason for all the SEC bashing by other leagues 


Any system with a huge human voter component is inevitably subject to politicking.
 
Reply | Quote
  • bamajoe
  • Straight Shooter
  • 5596 posts this site

Posted: 7/25/2014 6:55 PM

Re: There is a reason for all the SEC bashing by other leagues 



Texas95 wrote: Nothing really is different.  Now we lobby the committee instead of lobbying the media.

Unless you are suggesting payola.....

As far as complaining about "no objective criteria"... well, we had objective criteria - people called it "the computer".  I hated when people said that.

So anyway, we went with "the computer" for a few years and we didn't like that.  So then we put the people vote back into it, and gave "the computer" one-third.  Objective criteria?  Nobody wants objective criteria, we're not even smart enough to understand its value.

The only thing that solves all this is league infrastructure.  Divisions.  Equal teams.  Division winners.  Championship winners.  A final bracket.  The big enchilada.  Then a champ.

There is no substitution that we will ever be happy with.  The NFL discovered this over 50 years ago.

So here we go, it will be a slow process, but that's where we're going.
You must have been incommunicado for the last 20 years. The media had nothing to do with picking the NC participants during the life of the BCS. It was the coaches who contributed 2/3 of the weighted vote. The computers that I hated only contributed 1/3 of the value and I don't think there was a time that they upset the coaches vote during the life of the BCS.

I challenge anybody to argue that the coaches were homeristic in the way they voted during that period. We had coaches in every part and conference across the country voting almost unanimously for NC participants. The problem was the SEC played the best football, won the NC repeatedly and the lynch mob wanted a change. So an unbiased system based on the coaches who are the experts on their subject was replaced with a secret cabal who secretly put whoever they want into the game.

I am not opposed to the four team play off. I am opposed to the idiotic way the participants are chosen and the secrecy involved in the deliberations.
Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 7/26/2014 1:03 AM

Re: There is a reason for all the SEC bashing by other leagues 


disbelief
The coaches didn't watch games.  They focused on their gameplans and what their opponent that week did.  You're romanticizing them.  Half of them didn't even do it, they pawned it off to someone in the athletic office.

He fixes the cable?

Reply | Quote
  • bamajoe
  • Straight Shooter
  • 5596 posts this site

Posted: 7/26/2014 7:49 AM

Re: There is a reason for all the SEC bashing by other leagues 


I don't think there is any question about the coaches being the experts in their field nor is there any question that they did a great job of selecting the best two participants for the BCSCG during its lifetime. You had almost universal agreement coast to coast and from every conference as to who the participants were to be. You say they don't watch the games. Do you think Jeff Long and Oliver Luck are going to subvert their duties as ADs at Arkansas and West Virginia to watch a multitude of football games? Oh course not.

 What we have done is taken a very good system with a minimum of regional and conference biases and Balkanized it. Now each conference sends its emissary to this meeting with the sole mission to get his conference team into the play off. We have taken order and replaced it with chaos.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/26/2014 8:30 AM

Re: There is a reason for all the SEC bashing by other leagues 



OrangeAfroMan wrote: disbelief
The coaches didn't watch games.  They focused on their gameplans and what their opponent that week did.  You're romanticizing them.  Half of them didn't even do it, they pawned it off to someone in the athletic office.
Half?  I'd say 95% plus.  The coach probably spends 30 seconds looking over whatever some GA puts in front of him and sends it in.  It has to be in rather quickly.

The committee is a decent approach I think.  The Final Four will USUALLY be four conference champs.  I think an at large aside from ND will be rare and only happen when two conference champs have 3 L's.

You can go back in time and pick your own in the BCS era and see it will be controversial almost every year.

I hate all over generalizations.

Reply | Quote
  • bamajoe
  • Straight Shooter
  • 5596 posts this site

Posted: 7/26/2014 9:01 AM

Re: There is a reason for all the SEC bashing by other leagues 



cincydawg4 wrote:
OrangeAfroMan wrote: disbelief
The coaches didn't watch games.  They focused on their gameplans and what their opponent that week did.  You're romanticizing them.  Half of them didn't even do it, they pawned it off to someone in the athletic office.
Half?  I'd say 95% plus.  The coach probably spends 30 seconds looking over whatever some GA puts in front of him and sends it in.  It has to be in rather quickly.

The committee is a decent approach I think.  The Final Four will USUALLY be four conference champs.  I think an at large aside from ND will be rare and only happen when two conference champs have 3 L's.

You can go back in time and pick your own in the BCS era and see it will be controversial almost every year.
Cincy, you have not answered my question. Will Jeff long and Oliver Luck circumscribe their duties as ADs at their schools in order to watch 20 or 30 college football games every week? You and Afro seem to think they will and if they do watch a game is that enough to form an opinion about the team? No. For instance, was South Carolina the team that lost to Tennessee or the one that clobbered Clemson?
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/26/2014 11:36 AM

Re: There is a reason for all the SEC bashing by other leagues 


I doubt the folks on the committee watch much more TV than any of us, if that.  They will get together at the end of the season and talk, obviously.  They have already said conference champs will have the upper hand.

I think in MOST years, the four teams will all be conference champs with 0, 1, or 2 losses, and the 2 loss champ will be in over any higher ranked at large with 1 loss.

This WILL be controversial, perhaps more so than the old system.  Last season, for example, you likely would have added Stanford and Michigan State, who in fact did play a game.  Then you would have the final game.

Last season would be fairly clear cut, but previous seasons often would not be.

So, are these guys going to watch a lot of TV?  No.  Do they need to?  Not in my opinion.

I hate all over generalizations.

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 7/26/2014 11:54 AM

Re: There is a reason for all the SEC bashing by other leagues 



bamajoe wrote:
cincydawg4 wrote:
OrangeAfroMan wrote: disbelief
The coaches didn't watch games.  They focused on their gameplans and what their opponent that week did.  You're romanticizing them.  Half of them didn't even do it, they pawned it off to someone in the athletic office.
Half?  I'd say 95% plus.  The coach probably spends 30 seconds looking over whatever some GA puts in front of him and sends it in.  It has to be in rather quickly.

The committee is a decent approach I think.  The Final Four will USUALLY be four conference champs.  I think an at large aside from ND will be rare and only happen when two conference champs have 3 L's.

You can go back in time and pick your own in the BCS era and see it will be controversial almost every year.
Cincy, you have not answered my question. Will Jeff long and Oliver Luck circumscribe their duties as ADs at their schools in order to watch 20 or 30 college football games every week? You and Afro seem to think they will and if they do watch a game is that enough to form an opinion about the team? No. For instance, was South Carolina the team that lost to Tennessee or the one that clobbered Clemson?
lol, at least with the committee, a much higher % of them will watch a much higher % of games.

As for the bold statement.....how the hell else do you form an informed opinion of a team!?!??!!?!?!

He fixes the cable?

Reply | Quote
  • bamajoe
  • Straight Shooter
  • 5596 posts this site

Posted: 7/26/2014 2:35 PM

Re: There is a reason for all the SEC bashing by other leagues 


I am saying that looking at one or two games are insufficient to determine the strength of a team. Last year South Carolina lost to Tennessee and Oklahoma lost to West Virginia. What if those were the games the committee elected to watch in order to evaluate South Carolina and Oklahoma? Statistics are far better than watching one or two isolated games.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/26/2014 4:06 PM

Re: There is a reason for all the SEC bashing by other leagues 


I doubt the committee watches any more games than anyone.  They will discuss things at the end of the year and compare thoughts and notes and vote.

This is not some "panel of experts" weighing minutia that needs to see the games.  If a team wins their conference, they are in good shape.  If they have 1 or fewer losses, they are almost certainly "in".

Don't make this any harder than it will be in practice.

I hate all over generalizations.

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 7/27/2014 8:20 AM

Re: There is a reason for all the SEC bashing by other leagues 


If a 1 loss SEC team is not taken as the second team and left out vs. other conference 1 loss teams, it is an epic failure.

The Pac will have a solid argument b/c of their OOC schedules but no other conference even has an argument this year with 1 loss teams.
ALA2262 wrote:
"This is a new day in college football. We are steaming straight ahead, like the Titanic at the iceberg, into a postseason where the participants in the championship playoff will be chosen by a committee. There are no objective criteria in place, just the votes of 13 people. And when an issue is going to be decided by partisan voting (and it will be partisan), the way things are done in America means it will lead to one thing.

Lobbying.

That's all these other leagues are doing. They are so fearful the committee will actually pick the four best teams (don't worry, they won't) and the SEC may have more than one of those teams, they are lobbying as hard as they can before the season is even played. They are planting seeds for their own leagues they hope to harvest in November. There is nothing wrong with that, as far as it goes. You might think they would concentrate on their own teams, and playing good football. But why talk about that — when you can bash?"

Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/27/2014 9:10 AM

Re: There is a reason for all the SEC bashing by other leagues 


In the past, the typical season has one undefeated major team.

It then has 2 one loss major conference champs.

Those three are "in" like Flint.

That fourth team may well be a 2 loss conference champ over any one loss at large.

Last year would be fairly easy - Auburn, FSU, MichState, and Stanford.  In some of the previous years it gets rather gnarly.  No amount of watching and analysis of minutia is going to alter the controversial issues of some choices.

This is be excellent fodder for message boards and beer.

I hate all over generalizations.

Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/27/2014 9:14 AM

Re: There is a reason for all the SEC bashing by other leagues 


2012 would be interesting, for example.  The final poll looked like this:

ND and Bama were 1-2.  OSU was 12-0 and ineligible, so they are out.

#4 Florida was 12-1 but an at large.

#5 was Oregon with one loss, they are in.

#6 was Georgia with 2 losses.  They are out.

#7 was Kansas State at 11-1.  FSU was well down with 2 losses.  So KSU gets the nod.

Assuming this, KSU beats ND and Alabama beats Oregon, say, and then Alabama beats KSU.  Same result.noidea

I hate all over generalizations.

Reply | Quote
  • bamajoe
  • Straight Shooter
  • 5596 posts this site

Posted: 7/27/2014 10:58 AM

Re: There is a reason for all the SEC bashing by other leagues 



cincydawg4 wrote: 2012 would be interesting, for example.  The final poll looked like this:

ND and Bama were 1-2.  OSU was 12-0 and ineligible, so they are out.

#4 Florida was 12-1 but an at large.

#5 was Oregon with one loss, they are in.

#6 was Georgia with 2 losses.  They are out.

#7 was Kansas State at 11-1.  FSU was well down with 2 losses.  So KSU gets the nod.

Assuming this, KSU beats ND and Alabama beats Oregon, say, and then Alabama beats KSU.  Same result.noidea
If the 7th place team gets to hop over three higher ranked teams then we have created a national playoff joke. Hopefully you are wrong about this as sometimes the conference champion does not deserve getting into the playoff. I don't think the committee is required to invite the conference champ as strength of schedule is to be considered.
Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/27/2014 2:44 PM

Re: There is a reason for all the SEC bashing by other leagues 


They are not required to be invited, but they will get a HUGE benefit of the doubt.

The top four ranked teams in whichever poll won't be how this is done.  They will usually select the top four conference champs.  This is indeed how it will work.

It will be rare that an at large gets invited.  You'd need two conference champs with 3 losses and an at large with only one loss to overcome that.

I hate all over generalizations.

Reply | Quote
Avatar

Posted: 7/27/2014 4:09 PM

Re: There is a reason for all the SEC bashing by other leagues 



bamajoe wrote: I am saying that looking at one or two games are insufficient to determine the strength of a team. Last year South Carolina lost to Tennessee and Oklahoma lost to West Virginia. What if those were the games the committee elected to watch in order to evaluate South Carolina and Oklahoma? Statistics are far better than watching one or two isolated games.
You're inventing the idea they'll watching 1 or 2 games.  You're disrespecting them in assuming they wouldn't realize those types of games listed are the exceptions.

Who said it has to be "watch 1 or 2 games OR use statistics"?????  They'll watch as many games are they're able (can record them, watch them on Monday, etc), which is why their rankings won't be rushed for a  Sunday release, but on Tuesday.

They won't wait around until the end, as their rankings begin in October I believe.

Are you guys absolutely ignoring the facts just for fun?!?

He fixes the cable?

Reply | Quote

Posted: 7/27/2014 4:26 PM

Re: There is a reason for all the SEC bashing by other leagues 



cincydawg4 wrote: They are not required to be invited, but they will get a HUGE benefit of the doubt.

The top four ranked teams in whichever poll won't be how this is done.  They will usually select the top four conference champs.  This is indeed how it will work.

It will be rare that an at large gets invited.  You'd need two conference champs with 3 losses and an at large with only one loss to overcome that.
I hope your wrong in 2008 the top 4 teams in the polls and probly the top 4 teams in college football were from 2 conferences. 2009 would be interesting too. If they really just unse conference champions then a 4 team playoff will not last long. In most years 2 of the top 4 teams in the contry come from the same conference.
Reply | Quote
Reply to TopicPost New Topic
  Page of 6  Next >