Playoff System

[fro daddy]

So past seasons don't matter but then you're reading us Mizzou's resume over the last seven years? OK. Over the last five years these "mediocre" Huskers still have more 10-win seasons and more Division titles than Mizzou. And we don't have two 8-win seasons and a losing season mixed in. Over the last seven that you quote we're all of one behind in both.

actually I said 7 and you only have (3) 10+ win seasons, and the same number of division titles over that time. you also have a 5 win season. Yours was due to being awful. Ours was due to having more injuries than Nebraska this season, including having 7 of our top 10 OL go down while playing the #2 schedule in the country. But that wasn't the point. the point is that that poster cant try to slam mizzou when recent history is not bad. I was just simply showing how silly it was to say that. And if Mizzou was second tier at the end of the big12 so was Nebraska since they were darn near identical those last years.

You are right though that it is not like everyone else is playing pee wee. But look at the players in the league, on every team. look at the rankings. look at the nfl draft. They did a little thing on a mizzou board comparing the number of 4 and 5 stars mizzou has faced this season compared to 2007. They faced like 54 in 2007, have faced 130 this season so far. That's crazy. by the time they finish this year that # will be triple 07. Its just there are fewer really bad teams and even the bad ones have playmakers and nfl talent. Regarding ATM and Mizzou doing well. JFF will do that for you. And I think we would all agree that ATM underachieved for years in the big12. They had plenty of top talent and just had crappy coaching. A new coach and a once in a quarter century type of player will change your level. As for Mizzou they started making changes back in 08 & 09 to be the team the are now. They had the makings of a really good team last year, but playing with a 3rd string oline, back up freshman qbs, missing your best RB, having DB's and LBS out will frankly kill you when you played the teams they did. Mizzou is trying to build to an every year thing, But they are really on a 3 year cycle right now. Pretty good for 2 years, and really good the 3rd.

 

[fro daddy]

Mavric (and others for that matter), I am not trying to come off as a d***. I just love my team. And every once in a while I get a little hot under the collar about it. I know Husker fans, if anyone, around here would understand that.

 

[Mavric]

No problem. As I said, I'm not really arguing with the statements, just the degree. The SEC is better, I just don't think by as much as many want to think. You can list all the excuses but the facts are A&M and Missouri have done at least as well if not better in two years in the SEC than they did in the last 10 years (and longer) in the Big XII. To me, that's more than a coincidence. Obviously Manziel is a unique talent. But it's not like A&M has had slouches at QB recently - Stephen McGee and Ryan Tannehill both went to the NFL among others. Not saying they're on the same level as Manziel but is a couple of Top 25 finishes in the 00s too much to ask - since they're playing in a much worse conference and all? As for Missouri, the only two times they actually won the division were when Nebraska had it's worst team in 50 years and the following year but kudos to you.

As far as draft picks, here's what I found on a quick search:

So over those 15 years, the SEC had about 100 more draft picks than the B1G - about six per year. There are roughly 255 draft picks each year which means the SEC had roughly 2.6% more of the draft picks than the B1G. Like I said, better, but not as much as many like to believe.

 

[Redux]

I wouldnt say Mizzou or Auburn isnt deserving, they both had tremendous seasons but both had a little luck in getting there, you have to this day and age. Regardless of tOSU wins, they havent lost so they earned it moreso than a couple one losses.

THe argument of Mizzou in the Big Tennis irrelevant. 1) They arent 2) They wanted in and were not invited and now act like they didnt ever want in 3) IF they were they would have at least two losses because they would not have had the clear path. They wouldve had to run a gauntlet like Nebraska did last couple years. Wisconsin could beat them I think, bad matchup. MSU would be too.

Nebraska wasnt great this year, no denying it. Young crew. Even our new recruit saw that and was impressed we were still competetive with backups.

Ill give Mizzou persevering without Franklin, good depth there in Columbia for sure. But lets face it. Georgia is beat up. Florida is atrocious and SCAR is a tad overrated. The path wasnt as daunting as some would think. Tennessee still gets in its own way, Vandy underachieved. Kentucky.........

 

[AgMarauder04]

Kentucky.....

Is Kentucky

 

[BigRedBuster]

The SEC is not some end all of college football. It's the best conference, but not by much. Look no further than Missouri already in their title game. The same Missouri that hasn't won a conference title since the 60s. That powerhouse is suddenly tops of the conference. A one-loss SEC does not belong in the same conversation as an undefeated team from the other power conferences.

I don't want to insult your intelligence...but can you explain what the past seasons have to do with this one?? Hate to break this to you...but if Missouri was in the big10, they are undefeated. They would be in this position regardless of conference. And every single husker fan or big10/big12 ding bat that tries to slam the SEC based on what Mizzou is doing this year is showing their ignorance and jealousy. If anything let me flip the script. Look at Nebraska. The fact that your record is what it is given just how avg to even below avg your team is shows just how pathetic your conference is. Do you even make a bowl if you are in the pac12 or sec? six wins max, and I don't know if you even get that. yet you champion OSU like they are gods. They haven't played a team ranked higher than 17 in two years. and that was NW who won 1 conference game and is closer to the bottom 25 than the top 25. Which means OSU's best win is what, Wisconsin. Wisconsin who has beaten only 3 teams that are even remotely decent in Iowa, BYU and Minn. Let that sink in for a minute. The first top 10 team that OSU will play is this weekend. That has to mean something. It has to mean something that their best win is only slightly better than Missouri's win over Florida. There just seems to be some blind hate about this stuff. Blind to how bad the big10 currently is and blind to the possibility of just how good mizzou and auburn might be. And FYI this is MU's 4th time winning or tying for a division in the last 7 seasons. Their 4th 10+ win season in that time frame. acting like we are some scrub group is just dumb

What proof of this do you have?

 

[Redux]

Mizzou is automatically better with SEC on the field than B1G

(I kid)

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

The SEC is not some end all of college football. It's the best conference, but not by much. Look no further than Missouri already in their title game. The same Missouri that hasn't won a conference title since the 60s. That powerhouse is suddenly tops of the conference. A one-loss SEC does not belong in the same conversation as an undefeated team from the other power conferences.

I don't want to insult your intelligence...but can you explain what the past seasons have to do with this one?? Hate to break this to you...but if Missouri was in the big10, they are undefeated. They would be in this position regardless of conference. And every single husker fan or big10/big12 ding bat that tries to slam the SEC based on what Mizzou is doing this year is showing their ignorance and jealousy. If anything let me flip the script. Look at Nebraska. The fact that your record is what it is given just how avg to even below avg your team is shows just how pathetic your conference is. Do you even make a bowl if you are in the pac12 or sec? six wins max, and I don't know if you even get that. yet you champion OSU like they are gods. They haven't played a team ranked higher than 17 in two years. and that was NW who won 1 conference game and is closer to the bottom 25 than the top 25. Which means OSU's best win is what, Wisconsin. Wisconsin who has beaten only 3 teams that are even remotely decent in Iowa, BYU and Minn. Let that sink in for a minute. The first top 10 team that OSU will play is this weekend. That has to mean something. It has to mean something that their best win is only slightly better than Missouri's win over Florida. There just seems to be some blind hate about this stuff. Blind to how bad the big10 currently is and blind to the possibility of just how good mizzou and auburn might be. And FYI this is MU's 4th time winning or tying for a division in the last 7 seasons. Their 4th 10+ win season in that time frame. acting like we are some scrub group is just dumb

What proof of this do you have?

They played Indiana and won 45-28...= UNDEFEATED!

Listen fro, I don't think anyone is in here trying to slam Missouri for what they have done this year. Going from no bowl to playing for the SEC championship is nothing short of remarkable. Same thing can be said about Auburn.

Also, you mentioned something about the number of 4 or 5 star players that you are playing. I think that number is a little inflated, not because the schools in the SEC get more 4 and 5 star players, but because some services give some recruits who go to an SEC school an extra star because they are going to an SEC school. Whether or not they are more talented I believe isn't really taken into account. Instead, the perception exists that, if he is going to play for Alabama he must be better than he would be if he was going to play for Michigan State.

Missouri is playing tougher teams on a more consistent basis than they would in the Big Ten, Big XII, or ACC. Your easy games were Kentucky, Vanderbilt, and Florida and I believe that Vanderbilt could compete with most schools in other conferences. Don't have that 2OT loss to South Carolina, and you have a shot at playing for the national title. Heck, you still do; take care of business on Saturday and hope that either FSU or tOSU lose.

But if either FSU nor tOSU loses, then I don't think there should be any room for protest. Florida State and Ohio State would both be undefeated. Ohio State will have played and beaten 3 ranked teams (Wisconsin--23rd, Northwestern--16th, and Michigan State--10th). Florida State will have played and beaten 4 ranked teams (Maryland--25th, Clemson--#3, Miami--#7, and Duke--#20). Taking a look at Bama's schedule when they've appeared in the national title and you'll see that in 2012 they beat 4 ranked teams (Michigan--#8, Mississippi State--#11, LSU--#5, and Georgia--#3), in 2011 they beat 4 ranked teams (Penn State--#23, Arkansas--#14, Florida--#12, and Auburn--#24). In 2009, they beat 5 ranked teams (Virginia Tech--#7, Ole Miss--#20, South Carolina--#22, LSU--#9, and Florida--#1). Auburn in 2010 beat 5 ranked teams (South Carolina--#12, Arkansas--#12, LSU--#6, Alabama--#11, and South Carolina--#19). So I don't think the standard is far different between these past champions and the current undefeated teams. Certainly not so when you consider that 2011 and 2012 Bama had a loss and FSU and tOSU do not have a loss.

Finally, let's compare Missouri to both Ohio State and Florida State in terms of ranked wins. Should Missouri beat Auburn on Saturday, the Tigers will have beaten 5 ranked teams (Georgia--#7, Florida--#22, Ole Miss--#24, Texas A&M--#21, and Auburn--#3). If we're looking at wins alone, then Missouri should jump Ohio State. But losses have to be factored in as well and Missouri has one of those and Ohio State does not. Should Auburn win, they will have the same number of wins against ranked teams, 5. But again, they have that one loss.

We've touted the mantra that the college football playoff is the regular season. Why this all of a sudden shouldn't hold true when the SEC could potentially be left out of the national title game is mind-boggling.

Again, should Ohio State or Florida State lose, whoever wins the SEC game on Saturday will take their place.

 

[WoodyHayes1951]

Does anyone else think 12-1 R-Barn would be above 13-0 Sparty?

I doubt that if OSU was the 1 loss team and Sparty went through OSU's schedule and was undefeated that they would be chosen above R-Barn.

 

[AgMarauder04]

Who'd Sparty play?

And really? "R-Barn?"

 

[WoodyHayes1951]

Sparty would be 13-0 against 13-0 FSU.

hypothetically. I think their "helmet" would keep them out of it. Am I wrong?

 

[Redux]

Sparty beat Nebraska in Lincoln. Automatic Rose Bowl berth!

 

[fro daddy]

So over those 15 years, the SEC had about 100 more draft picks than the B1G - about six per year. There are roughly 255 draft picks each year which means the SEC had roughly 2.6% more of the draft picks than the B1G. Like I said, better, but not as much as many like to believe.

The fun thing about stats is you can manipulate the amount of data to make the numbers support your argument. Your numbers go back to 97 when the Big10 was still a power and not a weak link of the auto qualifiers. Just by using the last 10 seasons it becomes 105 more picks or more than 10 per year. How about I only grab the last 5 during which the SEC has dominated recruiting and been knee deep in the title streak. Well now that number is 229 SEC to 150 for the big10. 79 more picks in 5 drafts, or nearly 16 more players per draft. Or how about first round picks during those 5 years? 46 to 18. Or 9.2 a year for the SEC compared to 3.6 for the big10. slightly more than 2.5 times the number of players. That's pretty significant. Add in Missouri, ATM and Neb for the time prior and then that number jumps to 55-20 or 11 first round picks a year to 4. Total of 255 SEC to 167 Big10 or 17.6 more players taken per year. Just for fun the past two seasons are 105 picks / 22 first round SEC to 61 picks / 5 first round Big10.

no real point, other than showing that I can make the same numbers look dramatically different than you did. In fact I made that number jump by 3 times.

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

So over those 15 years, the SEC had about 100 more draft picks than the B1G - about six per year. There are roughly 255 draft picks each year which means the SEC had roughly 2.6% more of the draft picks than the B1G. Like I said, better, but not as much as many like to believe.

The fun thing about stats is you can manipulate the amount of data to make the numbers support your argument. Your numbers go back to 97 when the Big10 was still a power and not a weak link of the auto qualifiers. Just by using the last 10 seasons it becomes 105 more picks or more than 10 per year. How about I only grab the last 5 during which the SEC has dominated recruiting and been knee deep in the title streak. Well now that number is 229 SEC to 150 for the big10. 79 more picks in 5 drafts, or nearly 16 more players per draft. Or how about first round picks during those 5 years? 46 to 18. Or 9.2 a year for the SEC compared to 3.6 for the big10. slightly more than 2.5 times the number of players. That's pretty significant. Add in Missouri, ATM and Neb for the time prior and then that number jumps to 55-20 or 11 first round picks a year to 4. Total of 255 SEC to 167 Big10 or 17.6 more players taken per year. Just for fun the past two seasons are 105 picks / 22 first round SEC to 61 picks / 5 first round Big10.

no real point, other than showing that I can make the same numbers look dramatically different than you did. In fact I made that number jump by 3 times.

Ever wonder how media perception and presentation could play into those stats?

 

[fro daddy]

those stats specifically? No, because I seriously doubt a NFL scout, coach or GM sit and think, "ESPN says he is good, so never mind what the tape says". I think if you really believe that ESPN, or Fox, or USA today has any power or influence over what players get picked in the NFL draft then you are really reaching. Heisman trophy, yeah you are absolutely right. Who they invest millions in and stake their jobs on? no way.

influence over the general public, absolutely. But then again, if you sit down and watch the teams you can get a feel for teams or conference strength. I watch a lot of games. And it is clear that the SEC and PAC12 are clearly the best two conferences. Most of that has to do with their players and coaches. And I would wager that over the next few years those two conference will have more picks than the BIG10 or Big12 because of that.Not because espn has a hard on for one team or conference over another.

The whole thing comes down to players and coaches. Either you better recruit the heck outta some good players or be able to identify and develop talent. And I fully disagree with your statement about rankings of hs players. You claim they get extra stars after they commit to SEC schools. That is pretty far fetched really. Considering most high ranked players receive rankings long before the commit. The reason the SEC has more 4 and 5 star player is they have a lot of really talented players in their areas. Have some advantages by being able to sign extra and redistribute early enrollers to the prior year and that frankly right now the SEC is 'cool'. The play the 'best players and teams'. Some of that is media perception and some is based on the run of championships multiple teams share, the vast number of players drafted the past few years and because they (the SEC) market the heck out of them selves and their conference. One thing that differs the SEC from everyone is that the SEC is important to all SEC teams. They champion the conference. They support the other teams when they play OOC. You watch, no matter which team wins on Saturday, coaches, ADs, fans & SEC mouth pieces all alike will champion that team to the NC game. The SEC is a draw to players because of all of those things. And all the teams bring in top players.