BigRedBuster

Have you sat in on the meetings? How do you know they aren't the minority arguing against what ultimately came out? And, once again....the bolded part should have absolutely NO affect on where teams are ranked right now.

i have softened my stance a little. and thank you. i agree that no one knows. it is all up to the "eyeball" test. but, at the same time, we are pretending that the sec has not proved themselves year after year. is the gap huge? no. but they win when it counts more times than not. and for the biggest game of them all, they are at least there year in and year out (blame that on bias if you want, but every team at the start of the year has a chance to get there, excluding 2004 auburn). so, when you have limited and imperfect information, you go on trends. but i am just not worried because this will either work itself out, or at least a lot of teams (including neb.) will have a chance to prove themselves. and that is all you can ask for. espn and sec are loathsome, but they are not the boogeymen we want them to be. and finally, that is the playoff picture right now. and ole miss is at best a head scratchier (i wonder if that was not the committee trying to tell us something about how they think? wins matter more the respectable losses? i mean, neb. did pretty good with just one respectable loss, and not any good wins), but that will certainly work itself out. quite nicely i imagine as well. just my imo. I don't disagree with you. In fact, I agree with a lot of what you said. However, I want to highlight the bolded part above. I'm not pretending anything. However, last year was last year. That should have absolutely NO bearing on how teams are ranked or viewed right now in this season. The problem is, it does because it affects the preseason polls which then affects how every other team is viewed when they go through the season with wins and losses.

Another interesting thing about this is that HS kids nowadays are totally different than HS kids 20-30 years ago. Our local class C1 HS has a weight room that would have made many colleges jealous back then. My son who is a freshman has been lifting since he was between his 7th and 8th grade year. We have a PE coach that is also the full time athletic trainer that works with these kids (all sports) in both weight training and nutrition. I think back to the weights we had in the 80s and these kids would laugh their azzes off and honestly, very very few kids took advantage of even the ones we had. NOW, take this to the level of some of these major HSs around the country and it's amazing how much more developed these kids are coming out of HS than they used to be. A truly good football player is already going to have multiple years of weight training.

This. Add it Alabama over a decent-looking West Vriginia team. The rest is full of terrible teams - not to mention no road games. this would be a good argument if other conferences had good wins in or our of conference. some teams do from other conferences, but there are few. i did not look at them all, but probably no more than two or three per conference, if that. i mean, wiscy is not even considered a good out of conference win for an SEC team, evidenced by it being ignored in the above posts. You are very right. That is why absolutely every fan or "expert" who proclaims the SEC as the greatest conference in the world right now doesn't have a friggen clue. NOBODY knows how good any conference is. That is also why multiple teams in a 4 team play off from any one conference is just total BS.

WTF???? 3 of 4 are from the SEC and they complain because the next two are too low when they are still in the top 11? What a bunch of BS. That is such a week argument that I'm shocked it was even attempted. Honestly, I think he was mainly being a smartass about it. All ESPN talkers lately have just been rubbin it in the nation's face and making smartass comments. If you ever listen to Cowherd you would understand it. No thanks.

WTF???? 3 of 4 are from the SEC and they complain because the next two are too low when they are still in the top 11? What a bunch of BS. That is such a week argument that I'm shocked it was even attempted.

How do you know we don't do that some now? People then need to realize if you recruit a player based on bone structure and plan on building him into a great O lineman, don't expect to see him on the field for a few years. Fans would go ape sh#t that we suck because nobody sees the field their Freshman or sophomore years.

If Michigan beats OSU, it will be fun seeing how much heat comes on Urby.

This right here is what has caused our media in this country to become so out of whack that you can't trust any of it to really tell you what is going on. They all have the attitude of the ends justify the means. They have a point they want to make. If they stretch the truth in this direction or mis lead in that direction, as long as they get the point across they want to make it's all worth it.

I agree. When you look at the all purpose yards compared to everyone else, I believe it is very clear. Sure, Mariota is a good QB that has thrown a lot of TDs and I think only one interception. But, Ameer is doing so much more on the field.

It is pretty bad one site has him as the #2 all purpose back(rivals, at least they did) and then other sites barely pay him any mind. But think about it Ameer was only a 3 star, Rex was 3/4 though I think he was a 4 star on one, Roy was a 3, Imani was a 3. I try and take all these rankings with a grain of salt as Bo and Co are going to recruit players based on what they can do both on and off the field and I respect that........ Plus they can develop the shat of an rb so give us tr type of player bussey is and I see an all big ten selection in the future I agree. I don't get too worked up if one site has a player as a 4 star but the others don't. I'm more impressed the more sites have a player ranked high. In other worlds, it doesn't make sense to me to just follow one site. Also, I would tend to think a player is probably pretty good if one of the major sites ranks him as a 4 star compared to a player that no site ranks him as a 4 star. I believe the 247 composite ranking somewhat takes this into account.

The thing is though that OM won't be in the playoff over Oregon at the end of the day if they don't deserve to be. So go ahead and get mad that they're ranked higher right now but you're wasting your time because it doesn't matter because right now isn't the end of the season. That is yet to be determined. And, the questions about how they handled the wins against top 25 that have been raised in this thread are very appropriate questions that would affect this greatly.

Until a few years ago I was the only male in an office with over 20 women. I worked in that environment for about five years. At no time was there anything untoward said, my coworkers were (and are) professionals, and I was never exposed to anything that I did not expect in my line of work. I'm not sure what women and football have to do with sexual harassment so I will focus on this. I'm interested in knowing what the average age was of the women you worked with. Mine was probably an average of 25-28. Also, it was in health care so all of us were working with "body parts" every day all day long. Women who do that tend to not be shy about anything.

Interesting. I'm interested in knowing if the wins against top 25 that were listed were ranked at time of playing or how they are ranked now.

I'm interested in knowing if any of the men here have ever had a job where they worked with a fairly large group of women where they were the minority. I have had that experience. In college, I worked at a place where there were probably 50-60 employees and all but maybe 8-10 were women. Most of the women were in their 20s - 30s. I honestly came out of there with a very strange attitude towards all of this. I can honestly say that I had experiences in that group that if the genders were reversed, I could have easily had a case for sexual harassment. For instance, one evening the group of women that were working that shift were sitting around finishing their paper work and I walked up. One turned around and flat out asked me..."Hey...do you want to screw?" As a 20 year old college student I must have had a very strange look on my face and all of them thought it was the funniest thing in the world. OK....now, how do you think that would have gone over if I was a woman in the work place with nothing but men? My point is, I believe much of this happens from both directions depending on who is in the majority and who is the minority. Heck, these women would sit around in the evening and talk about having sex with their husbands/boy friends and then laugh if something was said that made me embarrassed. I have a wife and two daughters that will be entering the work force and heading out on their own at some point. Obviously, I want them to be treated with the utmost respect. But, I believe many times this is over blown and made to look like men are absolute pigs and women are innocent victims of American society.

Three SEC teams in the top four is complete garbage. Here's why it's not. Suppose the committee really does want conference champions only when all else is close. So they go with 1. Miss St 2 FSU 3 Oregon 4 Mich St 5 Kansas St 6 Auburn 7 Alabama 8 Ole Miss even though they believe Now suppose Miss St loses (twice so Auburn can go to the CCG), but the others in the top 6 wins out, impressively. Now they've got to jump SEC champ Auburn over a team that was basically told they were in and did everything they needed to do to stay there, and have to tell them, well, we thought Auburn was better than you all along but didn't want to be criticized for putting too many SEC teams up there early when it really didn't matter so much. If this was a final ranking I'd be pissed too, since those SEC teams haven't distanced themselves from the rest of the 1 loss pack much at all. Other than that though, the committee was told to take the 4 best teams, with a conference championship A factor, but not a requirement. I'm not following your train of thought. They should put three SEC teams in the first poll because then God forbid, if the SEC champion isn't the one that's in the original poll they would have to actually work to justify getting them in? So....let's put three in to make sure there is one there? I can understand that, since I didn't even complete my first sentence. I meant to say: Here's why it's not. Suppose the committee really does want conference champions only when all else is close. So they go with 1. Miss St 2 FSU 3 Oregon 4 Mich St 5 Kansas St 6 Auburn 7 Alabama 8 Ole Miss even though they believe that the SEC has 3 of the top 4 teams at this point. So to finish my train of thought, since they think the SEC has 3 of the top 4, yes, whoever survives that should definitely be in. If the anti-SEC butt hurt is this bad now, how sore would it be if at the end of the season they move an SEC team they always thought was one of the top 4 ahead of a team that they believed was not? It's better to say "These are the top 4 teams right now. If you want in the playoffs, you have to do better than them from here on out. And do that, by winning out and win your conference CCG." Not, "Here are the teams we put 1-4. We don't really believe it, and we may make changes later that look random, but it's because these really aren't the best 4. We just thought this would make people happier." OK...I can somewhat buy into that. it just still gets down to people's opinion on who they think is better than other teams and that is what I don't like. I would add the red part above. Chances are, one of the SEC teams in the top 6 will win the conference. Yep....they are in. Now, let's see who else is conference champions and pick the best three of those and put them in to finish off the top four.

Good post. In the article/video, there were obviously men who I believe did things that any normal woman would be uncomfortable about. Like the guy who walked beside her for over 5 minutes. That's just creepy. But, really? Just saying...hi, how you doing? Also, I know it said "Manhattan". I have been to Manhattan. I have been to most cities across the country. I have walked with and around women in these cities including Manhattan. I am struggling to remember many times if any I was walking down the street and a woman was constantly getting cat calls or "harassed". This appears to be someone who wants to make a name for themselves by being an "investigative journalist".

I guess as a married guy with three kids, I shouldn't make eye contact with a woman and say hi. I guess now days that is implying to a woman that you're interested in them.

Three SEC teams in the top four is complete garbage. Here's why it's not. Suppose the committee really does want conference champions only when all else is close. So they go with 1. Miss St 2 FSU 3 Oregon 4 Mich St 5 Kansas St 6 Auburn 7 Alabama 8 Ole Miss even though they believe Now suppose Miss St loses (twice so Auburn can go to the CCG), but the others in the top 6 wins out, impressively. Now they've got to jump SEC champ Auburn over a team that was basically told they were in and did everything they needed to do to stay there, and have to tell them, well, we thought Auburn was better than you all along but didn't want to be criticized for putting too many SEC teams up there early when it really didn't matter so much. If this was a final ranking I'd be pissed too, since those SEC teams haven't distanced themselves from the rest of the 1 loss pack much at all. Other than that though, the committee was told to take the 4 best teams, with a conference championship A factor, but not a requirement. I'm not following your train of thought. They should put three SEC teams in the first poll because then God forbid, if the SEC champion isn't the one that's in the original poll they would have to actually work to justify getting them in? So....let's put three in to make sure there is one there? They? Are you talking about Tom Osborne and Barry Alvarez? I heard they are SEC homers. I simply asked for clarification of his comment because that is what it appears to me he was saying. Now, if all you have is a smart azz comment back then I guess that's all you have. My point is, you could say what he said about any conference. Why not have three Pac12 teams so that you don't have to try to justify this? Why not three Big Ten or Big XII.....or a combination of them. I simply asked for a clarification of his thoughts.

That is ultimately what we need. The committee's job would only be to figure out the 3 wild cards.

Three SEC teams in the top four is complete garbage. Here's why it's not. Suppose the committee really does want conference champions only when all else is close. So they go with 1. Miss St 2 FSU 3 Oregon 4 Mich St 5 Kansas St 6 Auburn 7 Alabama 8 Ole Miss even though they believe Now suppose Miss St loses (twice so Auburn can go to the CCG), but the others in the top 6 wins out, impressively. Now they've got to jump SEC champ Auburn over a team that was basically told they were in and did everything they needed to do to stay there, and have to tell them, well, we thought Auburn was better than you all along but didn't want to be criticized for putting too many SEC teams up there early when it really didn't matter so much. If this was a final ranking I'd be pissed too, since those SEC teams haven't distanced themselves from the rest of the 1 loss pack much at all. Other than that though, the committee was told to take the 4 best teams, with a conference championship A factor, but not a requirement. I'm not following your train of thought. They should put three SEC teams in the first poll because then God forbid, if the SEC champion isn't the one that's in the original poll they would have to actually work to justify getting them in? So....let's put three in to make sure there is one there?

Three SEC teams in the top four is complete garbage. why? would it be complete garbage if someday it was neb., osu, and mich st.? Yes No. Because at week 10 all those teams might have not played each other and could possibly all undefeated. By the end of the season they would all play each other sorting it all out. You are correct. I viewed the question as though this were the final poll going into the playoff. This morning someone asked me what I thought of the poll. I said..."If this were the final poll I would be pissed and have absolutely no desire to watch any of it. But, it should play out." However, Ol'Miss being there is a complete joke after being very recently beaten by pretty much an unranked team. In fact, most of it is a joke because most honest people admit the SEC is not as dominant as some thought it would be at the beginning of the season. I'm going to sit back and watch how this all plays out over the next 4-6 weeks. I'm holding off final judgement till then.

Three SEC teams in the top four is complete garbage. why? would it be complete garbage if someday it was neb., osu, and mich st.? Yes

If that is really what is happening then it's really idiotic on 247s part. They gain more and more subscriptions and attention the more correct they are on rating players. Interviews have nothing to do with how good a player is at playing football.

For the most part I agree with you. However, here is where it matters. If it comes down to deciding between them or another team with a similar record, their higher ranking could be the difference.