|
Re: Maybe SEC isn't as good as advertised
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 11:44 AM
Re: Maybe SEC isn't as good as advertised
Stop changing the argument. If the sports operated the same, UNC would be highly likely to have many more titles than they do.
As to the conspiracy theories, I am not sure I hold to them either. The SEC has accomplished an amazing feat over these past 6 years and that certainly can't be refuted. However, in fairness, I share some "conspiracy" concerns and understand that argument. It is hard to ignore the correlation between the contract between ESPN and SEC and the idea that it would behoove ESPN to try an orchestrate continued SEC dominance (perceived or otherwise.)
---------------------------------------------
--- RoyIsTheBest wrote:
---------------------------------------------
--- SmackdownHeel wrote:
My bad...I was referring to LSU vs. Alabama where an SEC team didn't even half to play in their own conference championship to play for the BCS one.
Debating the semantics of that one point is not a great way to refute my post.
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
If Oregon, Oklahoma St, and Oklahoma don't lose in November, it would've been a moot point.
It was absolutely reasonable to have Alabama as the #2 team in the Nation after those events. They were the best 'one loss' team in the college game & showed it by crushing LSU in the Title Game.
This nonsense of an "SEC conspiracy" is ridiculous. You can say Alabama has been somewhat lucky to be in the title game given that they needed help in other teams losing. However, when all is said & done, they deserved to be in those title games more than anyone else.
Heck...if FSU takes care of business with their weak schedule, they would be playing Notre Dame for the National Title tomorrow & we wouldn't be having this discussion.
---------------------------------------------
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 11:57 AM
Re: Maybe SEC isn't as good as advertised
---------------------------------------------
--- SmackdownHeel wrote:
Stop changing the argument. If the sports operated the same, UNC would be highly likely to have many more titles than they do.
As to the conspiracy theories, I am not sure I hold to them either. The SEC has accomplished an amazing feat over these past 6 years and that certainly can't be refuted. However, in fairness, I share some "conspiracy" concerns and understand that argument. It is hard to ignore the correlation between the contract between ESPN and SEC and the idea that it would behoove ESPN to try an orchestrate continued SEC dominance (perceived or otherwise.)
-------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
1.) No they wouldn't have MANY more titles. The 1993 & 2009 teams wouldn't have even qualified for the finals.
2.) Where was the 'conspiracy' last year? Oregon had one loss & Alabama had one loss before Oregon played Stanford. If Oregon wins that game, they would've been the one-loss team to play LSU for the National Title. They lost. Maybe the game was fixed? Maybe ESPN paid Oregon to throw the game?
This talk of 'conspiracy' is a 100% joke.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 3:12 PM
Re: Maybe SEC isn't as good as advertised
---------------------------------------------
--- goheels13 wrote:
2006: Florida goes in as underdog to Ohio State. OSU was overconfident and lost their fastest receiver after he returned the opening kickoff for a TD. Never felt like OSU had enough speed in receiving corps with loss of Ginn and couldn't adjust. 41-14 Florida
---------------------------------------------
LOL...weak sauce analysis. Florida outcoached, outschemed, and, out-athleted Ohio State in that game. If simply losing Ted Ginn is why they lost, then OSU was nowhere near as good as everybody thought.
IMHO, OSU was good. UF was better. The better team won the game.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 3:19 PM
Re: Maybe SEC isn't as good as advertised
---------------------------------------------
--- WesternStormer wrote:
---------------------------------------------
--- goheels13 wrote:
2006: Florida goes in as underdog to Ohio State. OSU was overconfident and lost their fastest receiver after he returned the opening kickoff for a TD. Never felt like OSU had enough speed in receiving corps with loss of Ginn and couldn't adjust. 41-14 Florida
---------------------------------------------
LOL...weak sauce analysis. Florida outcoached, outschemed, and, out-athleted Ohio State in that game. If simply losing Ted Ginn is why they lost, then OSU was nowhere near as good as everybody thought.
IMHO, OSU was good. UF was better. The better team won the game.
---------------------------------------------
+1
In fact, the better team has won the title game every year since 2006...though, you could argue Auburn & Oregon were evenly-matched. And, fittingly, that game went down to the final seconds.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 3:38 PM
Re: Maybe SEC isn't as good as advertised
---------------------------------------------
--- WesternStormer wrote:
---------------------------------------------
--- goheels13 wrote:
2006: Florida goes in as underdog to Ohio State. OSU was overconfident and lost their fastest receiver after he returned the opening kickoff for a TD. Never felt like OSU had enough speed in receiving corps with loss of Ginn and couldn't adjust. 41-14 Florida
---------------------------------------------
LOL...weak sauce analysis. Florida outcoached, outschemed, and, out-athleted Ohio State in that game. If simply losing Ted Ginn is why they lost, then OSU was nowhere near as good as everybody thought.
IMHO, OSU was good. UF was better. The better team won the game.
---------------------------------------------
I think the key is that injuries and upsets happen. That's why, when we have an 8 team playoff, the NCs will start looking a bit different.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2013 11:23 PM
Re: Maybe SEC isn't as good as advertised
---------------------------------------------
--- ButtCheese wrote:
Objective rankings from unbiased sources indicate the Big 12 was better than the SEC this year. If you disagree, that's fine and you're probably in the majority who have bought into the ESPN SEC hype machine.
---------------------------------------------
Sorry, the Big 12 is nowhere near being the best conference in college football.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2013 12:38 AM
Re: Maybe SEC isn't as good as advertised
---------------------------------------------
--- Jason113 wrote:
---------------------------------------------
--- ButtCheese wrote:
Objective rankings from unbiased sources indicate the Big 12 was better than the SEC this year. If you disagree, that's fine and you're probably in the majority who have bought into the ESPN SEC hype machine.
---------------------------------------------
Sorry, the Big 12 is nowhere near being the best conference in college football.
---------------------------------------------
Kansas St and Oklahoma were overrated all year. SEC is no hype machine, they produce results.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2013 10:03 AM
Re: Maybe SEC isn't as good as advertised
Computer lie.
Texas A&M 41 OU 13
Oregon 35 K-State 17
Tulsa 31 Iowa St 17
Mich St 17 TCU 16
Syracuse 38 W Va 14
The league's 4 'impressive' bowl wins were against 6-7 Minnesota, 6-7 Purdue, Oregon St. by 4, and UCLA.
BEST league? Ummm...not by a long-shot.
---------------------------------------------
--- ButtCheese wrote:
Computer don't lie.
You certainly have the right to your opinion. To me it's mildly surprising, I'd like to hear a breakdown from Sagarin.
---------------------------------------------
--- RoyIsTheBest wrote:
---------------------------------------------
--- ButtCheese wrote:
I agree that the top of each is not debatable, but you've got to look top to bottom. That's why you go to an expert widely relied on like Sagarin. Anyways, obviously it's not as clear as those at ESPN and elsewhere would make it.
---------------------------------------------
When one league has 6 Top 10 teams & the other league as 1 Top 10 team...I think it is fairly clear.
Just because a 7-6 TCU & W Virginia team is 'better on paper' than a Tennessee or Missouri doesn't make it a better league in my mind.
I don't rely on Sagarin. I rely on my own 2 eyes & common sense. Using THOSE metrics, the SEC is HEAD & SHOULDERS BETTER than the Big 12...not even close. Feel free to disagree...
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Last edited 1/5/2013 10:05 AM by RoyIsTheBest
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2013 2:50 PM
Re: Maybe SEC isn't as good as advertised
I honestly believe the SEC is still the best conference, but the game is changing and I am not sure the SEC is prepared for it. Teams that can sling the ball around well seemed to give them a lot of problems. I think that is why Texas A&M did so well in their first year and Clemson and Louisville played tough against them. While defenses in the SEC are fantastic the offenses are not that great.
Last edited 1/5/2013 2:51 PM by drdre1
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2013 3:32 PM
Re: Maybe SEC isn't as good as advertised
I think you're right on the money drdre1.
However, to the extent that the nation has noticed Johnny Manziel, I guarantee you the SEC has noticed him even more. If Bama wins against ND, all the SEC teams will take note of how JM took them down (and how UGA's Murray almost took them down). It's funny because you would have expected Spurrier to be the one to change the SEC run-first philosophy. But instead, the SEC changed him.
At any rate, TAMU will most likely win the SEC next season, and everyone in that conference will be scrambling to emulate their success.
---------------------------------------------
--- drdre1 wrote:
I honestly believe the SEC is still the best conference, but the game is changing and I am not sure the SEC is prepared for it. Teams that can sling the ball around well seemed to give them a lot of problems. I think that is why Texas A&M did so well in their first year and Clemson and Louisville played tough against them. While defenses in the SEC are fantastic the offenses are not that great.
---------------------------------------------
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2013 4:12 PM
Re: Maybe SEC isn't as good as advertised
Clemson played the game of the season against LSU- and LSU just happens to be a team that can run the ball on anyone when they focus on doing it. When they start trying to throw the ball, they don't look good. But for some reason, they keep trying.
On the reverse- Clemson couldn't get going against South Carolina and South Carolina's defense controlled Clemson's high powered offense- and kept them off the field too.
The SEC is, for the most part, a physical league that wears down teams over the course of a season. Not every team plays the toughest of in conference schedules though. In bowl games, with a month to prepare, anything can happen.
---------------------------------------------
--- drdre1 wrote:
I honestly believe the SEC is still the best conference, but the game is changing and I am not sure the SEC is prepared for it. Teams that can sling the ball around well seemed to give them a lot of problems. I think that is why Texas A&M did so well in their first year and Clemson and Louisville played tough against them. While defenses in the SEC are fantastic the offenses are not that great.
---------------------------------------------
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2013 7:48 PM
RE: Maybe SEC isn't as good as advertised
Did the Big 10 clean up in bowls this year or something? Just wondering.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2013 10:58 PM
Re: Maybe SEC isn't as good as advertised
LOL
---------------------------------------------
--- yallreadyforthis wrote:
Let's see...Miss St lost to Northwestern who hadn't won a bowl in forever. LSU lost in the Georgia Dome to Clemson. Both SC and GA are in tight battles against Nebraska and Michigan. I thought the SEC was supposed to be head and shoulders above everyone else.
---------------------------------------------
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 1/7/2013 11:04 PM
Re: Maybe SEC isn't as good as advertised
I would say that the SEC is just as good as advertised. 6-3 Bowl Record & another National Title. Just another typical year for this dominant league. It's been an amazing run...with no end in sight as much as I would like it to end.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
- Akwatic
- Starter
- 305 posts this site
|
Posted: 1/7/2013 11:13 PM
Re: Maybe SEC isn't as good as advertised
lol at this thread
all i can add is:
- Notre Dame looks like a perfect new member of ACC football (yes I know they're not going to be a full football member yet)
- I hate the Criminoles, but I'd have to think they wouldn't embarass themselves as much as the Irish
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2013 12:49 AM
Re: Maybe SEC isn't as good as advertised
Sling the ball around? I seem to recall The SEC playing the gun slinging teams from the Big 12, and doing quite well in a few national games, and containing those teams. As for Louisville and Clemson, quite frankly, both were overlooked by the opponents to a certain degree. Kudos to both teams for wanting it more, and doing it what takes to win, though. As for the game is changing, I don't see it. Maybe the personnel change...bigger, better and faster in some cases, but football is fundamentally the same, the best teams win at the line of scrimmage.
---------------------------------------------
--- drdre1 wrote:
I honestly believe the SEC is still the best conference, but the game is changing and I am not sure the SEC is prepared for it. Teams that can sling the ball around well seemed to give them a lot of problems. I think that is why Texas A&M did so well in their first year and Clemson and Louisville played tough against them. While defenses in the SEC are fantastic the offenses are not that great.
---------------------------------------------
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2013 1:33 AM
Re: Maybe SEC isn't as good as advertised
Hmmmm.... So you think that the SEC, as a conference, is too dumb to mutate to meet change ?
Well, they seem to have done pretty well for several decades. And, they just did rather well tonight.... I'd say.
---------------------------------------------
--- drdre1 wrote:
I honestly believe the SEC is still the best conference, but the game is changing and I am not sure the SEC is prepared for it. Teams that can sling the ball around well seemed to give them a lot of problems. I think that is why Texas A&M did so well in their first year and Clemson and Louisville played tough against them. While defenses in the SEC are fantastic the offenses are not that great.
---------------------------------------------
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2013 6:20 AM
RE: Maybe SEC isn't as good as advertised
only myth here is the irish defense. SEC looks ok to me. But hey nd has those academics to hide behind because we all know they don't put football above anything.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2013 6:31 AM
Re: Maybe SEC isn't as good as advertised
Georgia got ripped. They should have played instead of the irish. At least it would have been interesting.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2013 8:00 AM
Re: Maybe SEC isn't as good as advertised
Georgia had their chance.
---------------------------------------------
--- heelsince68 wrote:
Georgia got ripped. They should have played instead of the irish. At least it would have been interesting.
---------------------------------------------
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2013 8:01 AM
Re: Maybe SEC isn't as good as advertised
Decided to wait until all the results were in. Easy answer to the question--Nope.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2013 10:28 AM
Re: Maybe SEC isn't as good as advertised
I suppose you did not see the beat down the Ville put on #3 Florida. It should have been much worse. The same Bama team that lost to A&M who lost to Florida. Last night was very predictable. Notre Dame was very overrated. They barely beat USC who lost to Georgia Tech. Tech and Notre Dame would have been a great game.I never said the SEC could not evolve but they re a little behind the curve on that one. They still have the best talent.
---------------------------------------------
--- tarheelbillie wrote:
Hmmmm.... So you think that the SEC, as a conference, is too dumb to mutate to meet change ?
Well, they seem to have done pretty well for several decades. And, they just did rather well tonight.... I'd say.
---------------------------------------------
--- drdre1 wrote:
I honestly believe the SEC is still the best conference, but the game is changing and I am not sure the SEC is prepared for it. Teams that can sling the ball around well seemed to give them a lot of problems. I think that is why Texas A&M did so well in their first year and Clemson and Louisville played tough against them. While defenses in the SEC are fantastic the offenses are not that great.
---------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------
Last edited 1/8/2013 10:31 AM by drdre1
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2013 12:19 PM
Re: Maybe SEC isn't as good as advertised
I guess if they are down and struggling as a conference with a 6-3 record and the NC...then that's the way to do it. Stay down and struggling every year.
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
|
|
Posted: 1/8/2013 2:19 PM
Re: Maybe SEC isn't as good as advertised
So, you assume. Some thought ND would be interesting.
---------------------------------------------
--- heelsince68 wrote:
Georgia got ripped. They should have played instead of the irish. At least it would have been interesting.
---------------------------------------------
|
|
Reply |
Quote |
