Bo and SECPN

[Saunders]

Again. This is hindsight. Why did they ALWAYS get the benefit of the doubt?

because it is an imperfect system with limited information.

and i think it is funny that people are mad at the lsu/bama rematch, but also mad that mich. did not get a second shot at osu.

this all just comes off as sour grapes, in my imo.

Actually, it's pretty easy to figure out why people were mad, hypocrisy.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Those last 7 NCs have absolutely NOTHING to do with this year. NOTHING!!!!!!!

Of course they do.

No they don't. Every team is different from year to year. Just because Alabama might win an NC one year, doesn't mean they should be looked at as a dominant team (without beating anyone good outside their conference) during the next year. Prove it every year.

This is how absurd the preseason polls are and people have shown on here why it completely skews everything.

Many SEC teams don't play squat outside the SEC. They get ranked high because of the prior year. THEN...when one beats the other one, it's pointed out how GREAT team A is because they beat team B. That is total BS. Both team A and B could be down from the prior year and don't deserve to be ranked that high. But, because they really didn't play anyone outside their conference, what do you expect?

 

[sd'sker]

Again. This is hindsight. Why did they ALWAYS get the benefit of the doubt?

because it is an imperfect system with limited information.

and i think it is funny that people are mad at the lsu/bama rematch, but also mad that mich. did not get a second shot at osu.

this all just comes off as sour grapes, in my imo.

Actually, it's pretty easy to figure out why people were mad, hypocrisy.

that is assuming all relevant factors were the same, which they were not. but even so, this carries little weight when the sec teams that shouldn't be there still beat the other team.

 

[StPaulHusker]

Again. This is hindsight. Why did they ALWAYS get the benefit of the doubt?

because it is an imperfect system with limited information.

and i think it is funny that people are mad at the lsu/bama rematch, but also mad that mich. did not get a second shot at osu.

this all just comes off as sour grapes, in my imo.

And the imperfect system with limited information conveniently picked a team from the SEC every time? bullsh#t!

No one was mad that the rematches didn't happen at the time they were possible. People got mad because once LSU/Bama II happened, it pulled the curtain back and showed that there were now 3 legitimate arguments where this could have happened and the only one that did involved the SEC.

 

[knapplc]

The "odds stacked in your favor" saunders is talking about are more based on recruiting.

Yeah, about that.

No question there's an advantage with proximity. But that's the only one that I clearly, unequivocally see.

Even with that advantage, many sec teams put an incredible premium on recruiting. Efforts that shame Nebraska's. Which is puzzling considering Bo's background before he was a coach here.

If NU can put forward an equal effort on recruiting, and still loses kids, then I'll listen more to this bias argument.

As for the bag man flavor of the day complaint......look,mall I going to say is if about wants to run the first completely, utterly on the level team without the slightest hint of impropriety, well then he's the first Nebraska to try this.

The "others do it too so there isn't anything to see here" argument holds no water. Improprieties happen at every program, D1A to DIII. It's gone to another level in the SEC, and that's a problem.

And the main reason we cannot see "unequivocally" that there's a significant problem is that the press has abrogated their duty to dig into these stories. We saw it with Miami, we saw it with Cam Newton, we saw it with Penn State, and we're seeing it with story after story that makes a tiny ripple on the pond about money being passed around the SEC. We can look at all those stories and say there are problems everywhere - and there are. But when a consistent story line is that SEC schools are sweeping up huge swaths of recruits that they never, ever did before, say, 15 years ago, there's a bit of hivemind mentality to just accept what's being given and not think, "Something might be up there." All the good worker bees drone on to the "nothing to see here" story line, and as long as they keep doing so, nothing will change.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Again. This is hindsight. Why did they ALWAYS get the benefit of the doubt?

because it is an imperfect system with limited information.

and i think it is funny that people are mad at the lsu/bama rematch, but also mad that mich. did not get a second shot at osu.

this all just comes off as sour grapes, in my imo.

The mad is because the SEC got that rematch. The Big Ten and Big 12 did NOT-in favor of an SEC team.

First the BigTen didnt get the rematch. Then the Big 12 didnt. OH oh oh. But when it's the SEC, yep yep yep. Theyre the two best teams. Just look at that tough SEC schedule. LOL

I have a friend on Facebook that is a big Ol Miss fan. This morning, he was mocking FSU for having a weak schedule. I looked at what Ol Miss played in non-con......um.......I chose not to say anything and just leave it as rolling my eyes.

 

[Saunders]

Again. This is hindsight. Why did they ALWAYS get the benefit of the doubt?

because it is an imperfect system with limited information.

and i think it is funny that people are mad at the lsu/bama rematch, but also mad that mich. did not get a second shot at osu.

this all just comes off as sour grapes, in my imo.

Actually, it's pretty easy to figure out why people were mad, hypocrisy.

that is assuming all relevant factors were the same, which they were not. but even so, this carries little weight when the sec teams that shouldn't be there still beat the other team.

The scenarios were extremely similar. The presumption you're making is flawed in that you're assuming that other teams that were left out couldn't have beaten the championship loser as well.

 

[Count 'Bility]

The way that ESPN parades Danny Kannel around talking against the SEC shows that ESPN knows what theyre doing. They know it's an issue. And they know the backlash is growing to an uncontrollable level. So theyre gonna start having/letting guys like Kannell speak out against the SEC. To show that unbiased side. it's an admission of guilt. Why do I think this. Simple. Kannel is still employed by ESPN.

 

[sd'sker]

Again. This is hindsight. Why did they ALWAYS get the benefit of the doubt?

because it is an imperfect system with limited information.

and i think it is funny that people are mad at the lsu/bama rematch, but also mad that mich. did not get a second shot at osu.

this all just comes off as sour grapes, in my imo.

And the imperfect system with limited information conveniently picked a team from the SEC every time? bullsh#t!

No one was mad that the rematches didn't happen at the time they were possible. People got mad because once LSU/Bama II happened, it pulled the curtain back and showed that there were now 3 legitimate arguments where this could have happened and the only one that did involved the SEC.

oklahoma st. should have beaten iowa st. easy-peesy. or the big 12 and pac 10 should not have rejected a 4 team playoff, that the sec proposed.

 

[StPaulHusker]

The "odds stacked in your favor" saunders is talking about are more based on recruiting.

Yeah, about that.

No question there's an advantage with proximity. But that's the only one that I clearly, unequivocally see.

Even with that advantage, many sec teams put an incredible premium on recruiting. Efforts that shame Nebraska's. Which is puzzling considering Bo's background before he was a coach here.

If NU can put forward an equal effort on recruiting, and still loses kids, then I'll listen more to this bias argument.

As for the bag man flavor of the day complaint......look,mall I going to say is if about wants to run the first completely, utterly on the level team without the slightest hint of impropriety, well then he's the first Nebraska to try this.

Another advantage is the availability to over-sign and cut players to make room for others.

Maybe Bo does put a premium on recruiting. But Pearlman and Eichorst/Osborne held the purse strings and I have not to this day seen them step up to the plate like an SEC school. It's not all on Bo.

I have no idea how to interpret your last sentence. Did you start drinking while typing it?

 

[Redux]

As much as I want to believe the comittee is going to pick teams baed off their own knowledgeable perception, something just doesnt feel right. Yeah the rankings are less meaningful and strictly suggestive now, but they will weigh in. If they cant come to a consensus, whats stopping them from putting 2 or even three SEC teams in if their so called SOS and final ranking say they are the best? Champions weigh in yes but its not a requirement.

Why Now? Why a playoff now? The BCS was designed to oit the tip two teams in a title game. But it was also designed to make the filthy rich richer, and the power schools more powerful. Who benefitted the most from the BCS era? Easily the SEC. So is it really coincidental conference champions arent a requirement to get in to determine the best in the nation? The best in the nation gets decided mid season in the SEC WEST and the also rans get to fill in whatever spots are left.

Hope Im wrong. Hope this comittee thing works out. But it just doesnt feel rivht to me yet. The SEC could lotentially fill all four spots. Incredibly unlikely but its not impossible, no rule against it. And who gets to air all thes huge games? ESPN gets that honor. So really, whats to make me NOT think the SEC and ESPN dont already have a hand in how this playoff will take shape moving forward?

 

[Saunders]

Again. This is hindsight. Why did they ALWAYS get the benefit of the doubt?

because it is an imperfect system with limited information.

and i think it is funny that people are mad at the lsu/bama rematch, but also mad that mich. did not get a second shot at osu.

this all just comes off as sour grapes, in my imo.

And the imperfect system with limited information conveniently picked a team from the SEC every time? bullsh#t!

No one was mad that the rematches didn't happen at the time they were possible. People got mad because once LSU/Bama II happened, it pulled the curtain back and showed that there were now 3 legitimate arguments where this could have happened and the only one that did involved the SEC.

oklahoma st. should have beaten iowa st. easy-peesy. or the big 12 and pac 10 should not have rejected a 4 team playoff, that the sec proposed.

So, big 12 teams aren't given a pass for losing to unranked teams, but the SEC is?

Once again, a hypocritical double standard.

 

[Count 'Bility]

Again. This is hindsight. Why did they ALWAYS get the benefit of the doubt?

because it is an imperfect system with limited information.

and i think it is funny that people are mad at the lsu/bama rematch, but also mad that mich. did not get a second shot at osu.

this all just comes off as sour grapes, in my imo.

And the imperfect system with limited information conveniently picked a team from the SEC every time? bullsh#t!

No one was mad that the rematches didn't happen at the time they were possible. People got mad because once LSU/Bama II happened, it pulled the curtain back and showed that there were now 3 legitimate arguments where this could have happened and the only one that did involved the SEC.

oklahoma st. should have beaten iowa st. easy-peesy. or the big 12 and pac 10 should not have rejected a 4 team playoff, that the sec proposed.

So, big 12 teams aren't given a pass for losing to unranked teams, but the SEC is?

Once again, a hypocritical double standard.

At least the unranked team OSU lost to was on the road

 

[QMany]

The big 12 and pac 10 should not have rejected a 4 team playoff, that the sec proposed.

How was that 4-team playoff going to be determined? I wonder what the SEC's proposal entailed, I'm sure it was in their self-interest first and foremost. For Silve to say "LSU and Alabama would’ve had to beat two extremely good teams on a neutral field" is laughable.

 

[Count 'Bility]

Also, LSU in 2007 lost to TWO unranked teams. LOL. Kentucky, though ranked 17 at the time, was not ranked at the end of the year, and finished 8-5 and 3-5 in conference play. My god.