Bo and SECPN

[NUpolo8]

They. Don't. Have. Home. Field. Advantage.

So, Miami didn't have a home field advantage playing bowl games on their home field?

Well, pretty much everybody that knows anything about football knows that this is just not true. You really should have saved face and acknowledged that you were wrong instead of looking more foolish.

Is this real life?

I acknowledged Miami. The venue is not the reason Nebraska lost those games.

Sole reason, no. Contributing factor, yes.

Age old commentary: Had the game been played in Lincoln Nebraska wins. Probably. Not just the home field advantage but also because the Miami players would literally have frozen.

No.

 

[Redux]

No? No what?

You can disagree all you want. Miami had clear home field advantages in those games. If you seriously want to debate that you honestly are just looking to argue. Nebraska didnt win those games and we are a few National titles short. Happens. So really, you debating whether a bowl game played in one of the teams stadiums benefitted said team matters not.

Labeling a game a bowl game but playing it in one of the teams stadiums doesnt negate the advantage. You need to stop arguing this.

 

[Landlord]

If you have a judge for a case, and that judge was also the attorney for one of the parties, that would raise questions, yes?

There was very little difference between that situation and what the SEC did the past 7 years, and still tries to do.

Now, I don't think anyone will doubt the SEC is the #1 conference, but what is growing tiresome is this idea that they are so far ahead of every other conference. They aren't.

In the BCS era, the sec finished 17-10 in BCS bowl games. The only conference that comes remotely close is the PAC-12 at 13-8. The big east is the only other one with a winning record.

Which, conveniently, only focuses on the best 1 or 2 SEC teams per year while ignoring the results of the other 10.

Get me the overall bowl records and then we'll talk.

 

[sd'sker]

If you have a judge for a case, and that judge was also the attorney for one of the parties, that would raise questions, yes?

There was very little difference between that situation and what the SEC did the past 7 years, and still tries to do.

Now, I don't think anyone will doubt the SEC is the #1 conference, but what is growing tiresome is this idea that they are so far ahead of every other conference. They aren't.

In the BCS era, the sec finished 17-10 in BCS bowl games. The only conference that comes remotely close is the PAC-12 at 13-8. The big east is the only other one with a winning record.

Which, conveniently, only focuses on the best 1 or 2 SEC teams per year while ignoring the results of the other 10.

Get me the overall bowl records and then we'll talk.

here you go. but, should we not be comparing the best to the best of a conference? i mean if your best is beating everyone else's best, that is pretty good. regardless of how the rest is doing. but the rest is still doing pretty well.

and just look at how the sec does during bowl season. i think the B1G did so poorly because it often got two teams into the bcs, so every other team got bumped up and played a better team, but how is that biased? the B1G was regularly getting two teams in BCS games, which is plenty opportunity to prove your caliber.

and as a disclaimer, you will find that the SEC is not far and away the best conference, but it is convincingly no. 1.

 

[NUpolo8]

No? No what?

You can disagree all you want. Miami had clear home field advantages in those games. If you seriously want to debate that you honestly are just looking to argue. Nebraska didnt win those games and we are a few National titles short. Happens. So really, you debating whether a bowl game played in one of the teams stadiums benefitted said team matters not.

Labeling a game a bowl game but playing it in one of the teams stadiums doesnt negate the advantage. You need to stop arguing this.

I'll chalk it up to better talent, missing a two point corp version, bad schemes that needed updating and real,things like that.

Honestly, Sabermetrics has disproved home field advantages in nearly every instance. To claim one at a neutral site game is a little silly, especially in a sec bias thread.

 

[Count 'Bility]

What games are we talking about? The 88 and 91 Orange Bowls that were 23-3 and 22-0 respectively in which Miami coulda hung half a hundred on us if they gave two fu#*$? You guys arguing that bein in Lincoln woulda mattered, im sorry, but i really think you should watch those games and the tAlent disparities before making such a claim.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

If you have a judge for a case, and that judge was also the attorney for one of the parties, that would raise questions, yes?

There was very little difference between that situation and what the SEC did the past 7 years, and still tries to do.

Now, I don't think anyone will doubt the SEC is the #1 conference, but what is growing tiresome is this idea that they are so far ahead of every other conference. They aren't.

In the BCS era, the sec finished 17-10 in BCS bowl games. The only conference that comes remotely close is the PAC-12 at 13-8. The big east is the only other one with a winning record.

Which, conveniently, only focuses on the best 1 or 2 SEC teams per year while ignoring the results of the other 10.

Get me the overall bowl records and then we'll talk.

If you could pick any 8 teams from the SEC and arrange them in any Home and Away schedule, would you like Nebraska's chances better than with their current Big 10 schedule?

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

What games are we talking about? The 88 and 91 Orange Bowls that were 23-3 and 22-0 respectively in which Miami coulda hung half a hundred on us if they gave two fu#*$? You guys arguing that bein in Lincoln woulda mattered, im sorry, but i really think you should watch those games and the tAlent disparities before making such a claim.

Yep. I can't remember any bowl loss where it occurred to me to blame the location.

If we're talking Bo Pelini teams, they seem to have a slight motivational edge on the road, and get more yips at Memorial Stadium.

 

[HuskerNation1]

Bo is definitely right on his assessment here. While the SEC may still be the top conference overall, that gap has diminished in the past few seasons. Here are some key reasons the SEC bias is problematic.

1. When the polls come out at the beginning of the year with many SEC teams ranked high, when a non-SEC team loses in the non-conference season, the SEC teams poll status is elevated further. By the time conference season begins, the SEC is in a situation where they have 6 or 7 teams in the top 15, and thus every week there is a big matchup of top 15 teams. When one team goes on a roll and beats 2 other top-15 teams, they suddenly rise drastically in the polls as Ole Miss or MSU has. It's kind of like a self-fulfilling prophecy where only a great SEC team can beat another great SEC team.

2. The SEC is always given the benefit of the doubt. Case in point....had Texas A&M lost the same type of games while in the BIg 12 (prior to getting destroyed by Alabama), they would have fallen out of the top 25, and would not have hung around. Missouri is another example where, by joining the SEC, they are suddenly a part of point 1 above, and found themselves last year in the top 5 late in the season. They are the same damn team that they were in the Big 12, but because they joined the SEC, they must now suddenly be better?? Its hard to explain that just a month ago, A&M was ranked in the top 5 given the way they are playing.

3. Georgia is a great example of SEC bias. While I agree Georgia has played better ball the last week or two, they lost to South Carolina earlier in the season at a time when everyone assumed South Carolina was great. But South Carolina lost to Missouri, who lost to Indiana....aren't they in the Big Ten? And didn't NU, another Big Ten team, beat Georgia earlier in 2014? Yet prior to NU's loss to MSU, a 1-loss Georgia was still ranked several spots ahead of NU.

So in the end, is the SEC a good conference...yes....but that doesn't justify the SEC bias in the number of teams ranked, as well as the position/seeding of the rankings. Assuming two SEC teams don't make the top 4 teams in the playoffs, there will be more opportunity for a non-SEC team to knockout the SEC team in the playoff, and things can go back to normal where the media doesn't assume an SEC should win the NCAAF championship every year.

 

[Glendower]

Stealing this from my post in the woodshed thread:

Imagine if MSNBC had the exclusive rights to be the only network televising Election Night 2016. Now imagine if MSNBC controlled about 85% of all the access and coverage of the process leading up to the election, including the primaries, the debates, the conventions and all of the candidates’ appearances and speeches. Now imagine if MSNBC had a massive financial investment and interest in Hillary Clinton, to go along with having most of the control of the message, the medium, and the access to information in terms of covering other candidates and parties.

Now imagine that during the debates, aired exclusively on MSNBC, there were commercial breaks with ads for Hillary’s campaign, and during the broadcast, the moderator reminded you of future Hillary appearances all while a scroll/crawl was going at the bottom of the screen with almost all of the news about the Democrats and items pertaining to the party.

Now, imagine if the one network that aired the College Football Playoff and the national title game was also in deep, deep, deep, deep, deep with the best conference and the top teams in a sport that determines a tournament field based solely on judgment and perception.

One thing became extremely apparent in the first week of the 2014 season – too many are going to fall back on a lazy and erroneous narrative that a four-team college football playoff will all of a sudden make things more fair, when the opposite is potentially true.

At least with the BCS, a third of the formula was based on hard numbers and data, and now, even with the new playoff, it’s not possible for a team to earn its way in the same way college basketball teams can. Now it’s 100% ALL about opinion.

It’s all about whatever the 13 playoff committee members think and believe, it’s even more of a beauty contest than ever before. That means perception and packaging are everything, and ESPN is selling the sizzle along with the steak.

Considering the SEC is the best college football conference in college football, watching SEC games is unavoidable, which means you have to watch ESPN’s coverage on the SEC Network, which means you’re going to be bludgeoned by SEC propaganda.

That means if you’re a Utah State fan, you weren’t just competing with Tennessee in Knoxville, but also a broadcast that was geared towards an SEC slant.

That means if you were a Wisconsin fan watching the game against LSU on ESPN, you sat through a ceaseless array of promotions and ads pumping up the SEC Network and how great it and the league apparently are. That means that even if you were watching Texas A&M play South Carolina in an SEC vs. SEC battle, you were inundated with “this is what it’s all about” and “the atmosphere is special” and “this is as good as it gets” type of comments which only furthered the brand.

And it could all backfire in a huge way, at least theoretically, in terms of whether or not the right four teams are in the playoff.

Remember, with the College Football Playoff committee job simply to be to pick the four teams it thinks are best, it’s in no way out of the realm of possibility that the top four in college football this year are all in the SEC. Even if they really and truly are, considering the backlash from all the other fan bases and from a skeptical media, good luck trying to sell America on an inaugural four-team playoff with Alabama, Georgia, Auburn and Texas A&M – for example – even if all are worthy and even if all of their losses end up coming against each other.

Can’t happen?

If a committee decided on who the best four teams were at the end of the 2011 college football regular season, unbeaten LSU and one-loss Alabama – to LSU – would’ve been the top two seeds. In practicality, Oklahoma State would’ve been in along with Oregon, however, 2011 Arkansas had two losses – at Alabama and at LSU. There would’ve been a very, very reasonable fight for the SEC to get in three teams, and it could easily happen this year if the politics of the playoff weren’t in the equation.

But I digress.

If Week One was any indication, this whole ESPN/SEC marriage coming at the exact same time a playoff is kicking in puts college football in a tough spot. If there’s a question mark between a two teams for one or two of the playoff openings, even if the committee is representative of all the different interests in college football, what’s going to happen if the tie goes to the SEC? In terms of perception, it could be a no-win situation.

http://cfn.scout.com/2/1440930.html

Only a fool can't see the problem with ESPN and the SEC.

Except that controlling public opinion about the SEC doesn't really do the SEC any good in the playoff picture. We don't get to vote on that-- there are only 12 people who do. The only thing that can come of ESPN hyping the SEC in a hypothetical time when the SEC were bad is that ESPN looks like a bunch of idiots. I don't think they'd want to do that. I think they might be guilty of spinning things more positively (I heard someone on the radio, on an ESPN affiliate, point out that when a team in the PAC 12 beats a top team in the PAC 12, we say, "Oh, the PAC 12 just isn't that good"; but if a lower teams knocks off a top team in the SEC we say, "man, the SEC is so good!" I use "we" loosely there, but I think that is pretty representative of a common thought pattern that people have currently. It leads to, say, two SEC teams vying for a national championship that is actually an SEC championship). If you hate ESPN, you should hope they wrongly hype the SEC and make themselves look like fools. I think they're money wise enough to know that if the SEC starts to wane, they'll drop the overt and the subtle hyping and spinning. They just want to sell the network right now-- that's probably a bigger concern for the people who have the power there than how any one team or conference actually does. Those decision-making types also know that they can't afford to look like SEC homers on a national sports network. It'll all level out soon enough, one way or another.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

What are the specifics of ESPN's post-season NCAA contract?

Are they guaranteed one of the playoff games? Both of the games? None of the games? Only an SEC game?

Seems relevant.

 

[Redux]

Im not going to play the "what if" game like I can PROVE things would be different for Nebraska if it were played in a more friendly environment. But nobody can prove that things wouldnt have been different. True, alot of games we got slapped around. Maybe that doesnt happen in Lincoln. Maybe they come in intimidated and play like crap.

Home field advantage is a real thing, its pretty non debatable. Unless youre Northwestern and your fans sell their tickets to the first Husker fan that offers and your stadium turns red.

 

[knapplc]

I'm one hell of a cook and I'll gladly come to your house and make a meal for you and 20 of your friends. You'll like it, it'll be pretty good, and good times will be had by all.

But if you and your friends came to my home, it'd be better. I would have my range, my oven, my grill, I'd know the hot spots on the grill, the cold spots on the oven, which burner is just a little hotter than the others, exactly where all the pots and pans and sieves are, everything to hand. I'd have my entire spice cabinet, not what you had available or I was able to procure at your local markets, I'd have my knives, boards, prep cart, recipe stand and all my sauce bases to hand. I'd intrinsically know where they are without thinking, and things would just flow much more smoothly. Overall, I'd turn out a better product.

A stove is a stove, an oven is an oven, a knife is a knife. But my stove, my oven, my knives are easier for me to use.

It's my home kitchen advantage.

 

[StPaulHusker]

What games are we talking about? The 88 and 91 Orange Bowls that were 23-3 and 22-0 respectively in which Miami coulda hung half a hundred on us if they gave two fu#*$? You guys arguing that bein in Lincoln woulda mattered, im sorry, but i really think you should watch those games and the tAlent disparities before making such a claim.

I agree. And if we look at where Nebraska's last BCS game was played, Miami had a hell of a longer distance to travel than NU and we still got trounced.

 

[knapplc]

The location of a game does not matter, there is no such thing as home field advantage, and playing a game in another team's home stadium or region has no bearing on the outcomes of games, ever.

Good to know.