The Wiz of Odds: ESPN's 'Game Day' Problem

[HTO]

is that really indicative of conference strength? i mean, it was a nice blow to the SEC, but seriously. they won 7 of the last 8 and this. this

All we hear and read is do something about it and beat them. So, someone finally beats them and what happens? You guessed it, a reference to the previous years winners is brought up as proof.

What about Nebraska beating Georgia? It drops Georgia from the 2013 EOS rankings and puts Nebraska at #25. What did that do for Nebraska on a national scale, going forward? Absolutely nothing, Georgia starts this season out as the #8 team in the country, receiving 1 first place vote. WUT!?! How in the living heck can anyone put Georgia that high? It's because of the SEC, that's why, there's no other sane reason to start them that high and have others lower.

Does the SEC have some of the best teams in the country? Right now, absolutely without question. However, just because a conference has 4 good teams doesn't give reason to inflate the others. For sh#t's sake, Alabama struggled to beat a bad Arkansas team (Indiana has more SEC wins in 1 season than Arkansas does in 1 1/2 seasons) and lost no ground in the polls. Matter of fact, they gained points. Nebraska doesn't struggle and beats a bad Rutgers team, by 18 points. And guess what, Nebraska dropped in the polls and lost points.

How can you, or anyone else, justify this?

 

[Saunders]

is that really indicative of conference strength? i mean, it was a nice blow to the SEC, but seriously. they won 7 of the last 8 and this. this too.

And yet, the entire "strength and dominance" talk of the SEC is based on this...

Double standards indeed.

what? i do not know what you are referring to. the fact that they have won 7 of the last 8 (quite the feat), or the other empirical evidence i provided about how well they have performed over other conferences in the bowls. and when non-con games are scheduled against them, they do pretty well: "In the last five years, the 12 continuous SEC programs are 41-24 (.631) in nonconference, regular-season games against Power 5 opponents."

I have no idea how you don't know what I'm referring to. The 7 MNC's in a row was the biggest feather in the cap of the "SEC dominance" talk. You couldn't ignore it because we were beat over the head with it on a weekly basis.

 

[Saunders]

is that really indicative of conference strength? i mean, it was a nice blow to the SEC, but seriously. they won 7 of the last 8 and this. this

All we hear and read is do something about it and beat them. So, someone finally beats them and what happens? You guessed it, a reference to the previous years winners is brought up as proof.

What about Nebraska beating Georgia? It drops Georgia from the 2013 EOS rankings and puts Nebraska at #25. What did that do for Nebraska on a national scale, going forward? Absolutely nothing, Georgia starts this season out as the #8 team in the country, receiving 1 first place vote. WUT!?! How in the living heck can anyone put Georgia that high? It's because of the SEC, that's why, there's no other sane reason to start them that high and have others lower.

Does the SEC have some of the best teams in the country? Right now, absolutely without question. However, just because a conference has 4 good teams doesn't give reason to inflate the others. For sh#t's sake, Alabama struggled to beat a bad Arkansas team (Indiana has more SEC wins in 1 season than Arkansas does in 1 1/2 seasons) and lost no ground in the polls. Matter of fact, they gained points. Nebraska doesn't struggle and beats a bad Rutgers team, by 18 points. And guess what, Nebraska dropped in the polls and lost points.

How can you, or anyone else, justify this?

You can't justify it. Anyone who disagrees is delusional.

 

[sd'sker]

is that really indicative of conference strength? i mean, it was a nice blow to the SEC, but seriously. they won 7 of the last 8 and this. this too.

And yet, the entire "strength and dominance" talk of the SEC is based on this...

Double standards indeed.

what? i do not know what you are referring to. the fact that they have won 7 of the last 8 (quite the feat), or the other empirical evidence i provided about how well they have performed over other conferences in the bowls. and when non-con games are scheduled against them, they do pretty well: "In the last five years, the 12 continuous SEC programs are 41-24 (.631) in nonconference, regular-season games against Power 5 opponents."

I have no idea how you don't know what I'm referring to. The 7 MNC's in a row was the biggest feather in the cap of the "SEC dominance" talk. You couldn't ignore it because we were beat over the head with it on a weekly basis.

it is, and should be, their biggest feather in their cap. but, there are other feathers. more evidence. i provided above.

 

[knapplc]

You can't justify it. Anyone who disagrees is delusional.

You don't say much my friend, but when you do it's to the point, and I salute you for it.

 

[Danny Bateman]

It's not a question of whether the SEC is good. They are. They've got their run of championships to prove it.

It's a question of whether ESPN is unfairly propagating that "greatness" and affecting the rankings during the season. That directly affected postseason births in previous years. Who knows if it still has an effect on the selection committee. God I hope not.

 

[zoogs]

I have to echo the thoughts of some here - if the SEC didn't have such good and highly ranked teams, ESPN wouldn't be talking about them as much.

*SNIP*

This is my problem with the SEC/ESPN bias. The only reason to me why the teams in the SEC are highly rated is because they get talked about non-stop by ESPN and made to look invisible. *SNIP*

That's the problem.

Enhance has a point: these are the top ranked teams in the country, after all.

But ESPN is on a mission to keep them that way. To make SEC the biggest brand, with the most relevant schools, the most talked about schools, feeding the interest, money, and recruits back into these programs.

The NFL recognizes that its growth as a league depends on fostering an environment of merit-based competition. The NCAA has never been quite the same, but one of the Power 5 conferences getting a leg up on the others through corporate efforts really threatens the game.

The critics of "ESPN bias" (which I've been in the past) assume a even field where the best football programs earn their place in the conversation, but that's exactly what ESPN is attempting to change. They're tied to SEC interests, not NCAA interests.

 

[Saunders]

is that really indicative of conference strength? i mean, it was a nice blow to the SEC, but seriously. they won 7 of the last 8 and this. this too.

And yet, the entire "strength and dominance" talk of the SEC is based on this...

Double standards indeed.

what? i do not know what you are referring to. the fact that they have won 7 of the last 8 (quite the feat), or the other empirical evidence i provided about how well they have performed over other conferences in the bowls. and when non-con games are scheduled against them, they do pretty well: "In the last five years, the 12 continuous SEC programs are 41-24 (.631) in nonconference, regular-season games against Power 5 opponents."

I have no idea how you don't know what I'm referring to. The 7 MNC's in a row was the biggest feather in the cap of the "SEC dominance" talk. You couldn't ignore it because we were beat over the head with it on a weekly basis.

it is, and should be, their biggest feather in their cap. but, there are other feathers. more evidence. i provided above.

I like cherry picked stats too.

Like, the SEC is 19-19 against the B1G in bowl games in the BCS era.

 

[Saunders]

You can't justify it. Anyone who disagrees is delusional.

You don't say much my friend, but when you do it's to the point, and I salute you for it.

 

[Saunders]

It's not a question of whether the SEC is good. They are. They've got their run of championships to prove it.

It's a question of whether ESPN is unfairly propagating that "greatness" and affecting the rankings during the season. That directly affected postseason births in previous years. Who knows if it still has an effect on the selection committee. God I hope not.

It 100% undeniably did in 2011.

And yet there are deniers.

 

[knapplc]

And yet there are deniers.

It's a fool that looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart.

 

[Saunders]

And yet there are deniers.

It's a fool that looks for logic in the chambers of the human heart.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

You'd almost think ESPN ranks the teams.

Actually the coaches and beat reporters do that. ESPN then reports that assessment.

And now a Selection Committee with both Tom Osborne and Barry Alverez on it are making up their own minds, and at the moment they appear to agree that the SEC West is pretty loaded.

There's a conflict of interest involving the SEC and ESPN. Won't argue that. But the argument that it's all about money cuts both ways. And in that way, Chris Fowler is correct. A strong Big 10 contender doesn't threaten ESPN at all. In fact, it's preferable. Arguments, demographics and viewership favor getting representatives from four different conferences and regions in the first NCAA playoff. The SEC is loaded with good teams and rabid followers. That's not a creation of ESPN. That's a creation of the SEC. Millions of people would love to see the SEC get that look of smug superiority wiped off its face. That works for ESPN, too.

How much is the SEC overrated? I honestly don't know. But when I look at the Big 10 West and look at the SEC West, I have to think Nebraska is lucky to be where we are.

I do think the Huskers can beat any given team on any given (if really lucky) day. But does anyone think Nebraska is 8 - 1 playing in the SEC West?

 

[VA Husker Fan]

So I guess the committee, Osborne included, is delirious because they don't veer too far from the AP or coaches poll. Clearly the good folks on Huskerboard are the only sane and knowledgeable ones.

 

[Saunders]

So I guess the committee, Osborne included, is delirious because they don't veer too far from the AP or coaches poll. Clearly the good folks on Huskerboard are the only sane and knowledgeable ones.

Osborne is 1 of 12.

We also don't have a monetary stake in it.