Chatelain: Playoff should reward conference champions

[huKSer]

Quit playing low end schedules is the exact reason why top 4 in the polls doesn't work. While the rest of the country is balls deep in massive conference matchups and rivalry games, the SEC is playing teams like Middle Tennessee, UMass, New Mexico State, Troy, LA-Lafayette. And then of course there is this powerhouse week at the end of November:

 

TBD Alabama A&M @ Auburn Tickets » TBD Jacksonville State @ Florida Tickets » TBD Georgia Southern @ Georgia Tickets » TBD Samford @ Kentucky Tickets » TBD Ole Miss @ LSU Tickets » TBD Syracuse @ Missouri Tickets » TBD Tennessee @ Vanderbilt Tickets » TBD Sam Houston State @ Texas A&M Tickets » TBD Western Carolina @ Alabama Tickets » TBD Arkansas @ Mississippi State Tickets » TBD Wofford @ South Carolina

 

While I apprieciate the effort, your approach is all wrong. Because unlike every other conference the SEC plays conference games in the first weeks of the year. Meaning they have to spread out OOC games. While the big10 and everyone playing warmups the SEC is playing full on games. So frankly that little dig your trying to make is flawed and 100% incorrect.

 

In comparison, while ne plays 2 high school teams, 1 decent mid and an avg BSC school in their first four games, Missouri would have played 1 HS team, 1 avg BSC school and 2 top 10 conference opponents. so.......i guess that "powerhouse week" comment looks just a little different now? huh?!

 

And frankly calling out SEC schools for their noncon is kinda silly. Because they play decent teams out of conference. As good or better than any other collective conference. Then when you consider the quality of conference opponent it just adds to it. Consider that Indiana and Minnisota are two of the worst BCS confernce teams their are. If you know you have creampuffs on your schedule its your job to schedule teams around that to beef it up. Yes certain teams can catch a load in any conference, nebraskas has a much harder sched. than say mich or wisc this year. But you or I just cant write it off that in the SEC you are likely to play in minnimum of 4 to 5 ranked teams. Then if you play 1 good non con that is 9 BCS games and nearly half you scheduled would be ranked teams.

 

And again, let me say, yes the SEC is it right now, but it likely wont be that way forever. I like the 4 best teams things because I like it. Not because my old and new conference both like it. Not because some secret SEC newsletter told me too. BUt because I like it that way. And maybe one day if the big10 raises again, I will still like it. I will still think you take the best teams and play them. And its not perfect, but you can use some knowledge and common sense to help you make the picks, you can use as SOS, games agasint ranked teams, losses to ranked and unranked opps, head to head wins, wins agasint teams with winning records, margin of victory and so on.

 

Neither way is perfect. The first time a 1 loss team gets left out some team that hasnt beaten anybody wins their first game against a team with a winning record and its for a conf. title and that team that has the loss is 5-1 against ranked teams, people will flip. And before you say that cant happen, ku was #2 in the country and 1 game away from playing for a big12 title and 2 from a MNC and they had not beaten a winning team all year. Infact until the bowl games went final and some 6-6 teams picked up that 7th win, they only beat 1 team with a winning record all year and that was VT in the orange bowl. they made a BCS game with ZERO wins over teams with winning records... Teams will get the shaft either way. But for me personally I want that #5 team that gets left out, to be ranked #5 or higher.

Fro Daddy = $EC homer !!????!!?

[HuskerFanChuck]

I don't care for at time of game, really, but I'll still play. I take C-D maybe F or H could be considered.

 

This is not at all realistic because the BCS gets to see who the teams are, see the statistics, see how they fare and matchup against other teams, and gets to give them the eye test. Your giving me a bunch of records that have no way of being distinguished from each other. Highly flawed.

 

Once again, this won't really work unless I have end of season SOS, top 25 W-L, at the bare minimum.

And yet, you just proved Saunders point, by needing that extra information. Who calculates SoS? What factors do they put in that are meaningful? What is the statistical formula used to come up with it? Even the best computer computation of SoS is only as good as the formula the programmer creates. And ultimately, when you have SoS, all of sudden you have bias enter into the system. How do you weigh an undefeated team with a low SoS against a 1 or 2 loss team with a higher SoS? At what point difference in the SoS measurements does that undefeated equal 1 or even 2 losses? Again, this becomes the problem with using ANY type of ranking system to determine the 'best 4'. As I stated earlier, 16 is best, but won't happen anytime soon, maybe never. 8 will likely happen at some point, but not now. So we need to figure out the best system to use now. We're unlikely to get either an all champions method or a 'best 4' method. I think there is enough resistance on both sides to each, that a hybrid is likely. I think Delaney, in the end, will get enough agreement for some type of hybrid. Be that 3 champs and 1 at-large, or 2 champs and 2 at-large. I'd be all for putting a restriction of top 6 or top 8 to the conference champs. I think that makes a ton of sense in a 4-team playoff. I just don't understand the resistance to such a hybrid, considering the inherent problems especially in a 'best 4' system.

[Notre Dame Joe]

Quit playing low end schedules is the exact reason why top 4 in the polls doesn't work. While the rest of the country is balls deep in massive conference matchups and rivalry games, the SEC is playing teams like Middle Tennessee, UMass, New Mexico State, Troy, LA-Lafayette. And then of course there is this powerhouse week at the end of November:

 

TBD Alabama A&M @ Auburn Tickets » TBD Jacksonville State @ Florida Tickets » TBD Georgia Southern @ Georgia Tickets » TBD Samford @ Kentucky Tickets » TBD Ole Miss @ LSU Tickets » TBD Syracuse @ Missouri Tickets » TBD Tennessee @ Vanderbilt Tickets » TBD Sam Houston State @ Texas A&M Tickets » TBD Western Carolina @ Alabama Tickets » TBD Arkansas @ Mississippi State Tickets » TBD Wofford @ South Carolina

 

While I apprieciate the effort, your approach is all wrong. Because unlike every other conference the SEC plays conference games in the first weeks of the year. Meaning they have to spread out OOC games. While the big10 and everyone playing warmups the SEC is playing full on games. So frankly that little dig your trying to make is flawed and 100% incorrect.

 

In comparison, while ne plays 2 high school teams, 1 decent mid and an avg BSC school in their first four games, Missouri would have played 1 HS team, 1 avg BSC school and 2 top 10 conference opponents. so.......i guess that "powerhouse week" comment looks just a little different now? huh?!

 

And frankly calling out SEC schools for their noncon is kinda silly. Because they play decent teams out of conference. As good or better than any other collective conference. Then when you consider the quality of conference opponent it just adds to it.

 

The SEC's schedule is designed to help them in the BCS. they play one fewer conference game and one extra high school team. That gives the middle of their conference better records than the ones that play 9 games. Add this to the fact that they never seem to travel to cold weather and only recently started adding marqui non conference, and you have one built for pumping up their own SOS.

[UABAlum]

I agree with Dirk. Point blank, Alabama shouldn't have been in that spot last year. They lost, and there were other one loss teams that actually won their conference. Was not a fan of that outcome, and refused to watch the 'championship' game because of it. I think either a 3-1 compromise, or even a 2-2 compromise might happen. Though I'd rather see a 3-1 compromise at least. And KC, it doesn't mean that, unless the MAC champ can earn a rating high enough to get there. The likelihood is the MAC champ still isn't going to be in a position to take advantage of a 'champions' only system. Saban knows the numbers he threw were skewed, and that last year, three of the top four were league champions. The likelihood that the numbers like what Saban stated ever occurring is next to nothing. Even in most of their undefeated years, TCU, Boise St., and Utah were still in the top 10 at the end of the year.

 

Only two of the BCS top 4 going into the bowl season were conference champions. Neither Bama nor Stanford won their conference.

 

Instead of Bama who lost to LSU by 3 in overtime, you get an Oklahoma State team who had not faced any team in the final top 10 and who lost to a weak team very late in the season. You also you get a 2-loss Oregon team who had already been drilled by LSU, and finally you get a Boise State team who lost to TCU and like Oklahoma State, had not faced a team in the final top 10. And that is better than a top-4 playoff.... why?

 

Some people make a big deal about Bama not deserving a chance to play LSU for the title while completely ignoring the fact that the other teams deserved it even less. But if you still think Oklahoma State deserved it more, then that is fine because a top 4 playoff would have included them. I suspect most Bama fans would have rather had a top 4 playoff last year too. The end result probably would have been the same with far less hate.

 

"If you are not the best in your conference, then you can't be the best in the country." Obviously true. But a conference champion is sometimes not always the the best team in its conference. No one who actually watched Bama/LSU play each other in their two games claims that LSU was the best team.

 

The real problems with the conference-champion-only playoff are that

• some conferences can have co-champions - what then?,
  
• not every team plays in a conference,
  
• OOC games do count towards a conference championship,
  
• it penalizes teams for playing in the bigger, tougher conferences, and
  
• it rewards teams in weaker conferences for playing weak schedules because an undefeated season almost always guarantees a spot in the top 8.
  

Should be the top 4 BCS conference champs. f#*k Boise, f#*k Alabama. If you can't win your conference or play in a real conference, don't bother showing up.

Top 4 conference champions in 2011: #1 LSU, #3 Oklahoma St, #5 Oregon, #7 Boise. You can't tell me you wouldn't be pissed that Boise got in over Alabama. ...or that 2001 Nebraska wouldn't have even been in the discussion.

Nope. If you aren't the best team in your own division, let alone conference, how can you be the best team in the country? It's stupidly simple. Win your division. Win your conference. Win the playoff. If you can't do all those, you don't deserve it, period. You don't have polls, voters, or anyone to blame but yourselves. No politicking. No "best conference" circular logic. None of it. I would have loved to see Boise get in over Bama, and I don't even like Boise. Any system that doesn't put a priority on conference champs is inherently flawed due to human bias. Since that will never happen (SEC is already crying) the a top 3 champs +1 at large is the next best thing.

 

 

 

 

So it was stupid simple that LSU was the best team in the SEC last year - gotcha.... You might have loved to see BSU get in over Bama, but that sounds like a personal bias because you won't find a single thread on BSU's board where they think they should have gone in over Bama.

[AFhusker]

It's not about Alabama being in the championship game. Everyone acts like we are picking the champion...they aren't. That's the point of a playoff, and the best 4 should be included. I don't care if you agree with last year, this is about next year and Alabama would have beat everyone of the other conference champions 4 out of 5 times, and quite possibly their own conference champion 3 out of 5....yet you don't think they should have been included in a playoff? Well that immediately takes any legitimacy away from the playoff. It's not Alabama's fault the SEC is loaded right now - it won't always be that way so why structure the playoff around the assumption they will always be heavily weighted and penalize them for that while they are?

 

Nope, under the current rules or in a potential 4 game playoff, if you can't win your conference, then you don't deserve to play for the MNC. If "every game counts" as the BCS's motto says, then I seem to remember a game @ Alabama where they lost to LSU. Sorry, you lost, see you next year. Besides how do we know that they would win a playoff? Or beat other conference champions 4 of 5 times? With a very few exceptions, the SEC is too scared to play out of the south.

 

If they want to and conference runner's up, they will need to expand the playoff to at least 8 teams. If it's 4, then it should be Conference Champions only. Because if they don't, then what is the point of having and winning conferences anyway?

[AFhusker]

Quit playing low end schedules is the exact reason why top 4 in the polls doesn't work. While the rest of the country is balls deep in massive conference matchups and rivalry games, the SEC is playing teams like Middle Tennessee, UMass, New Mexico State, Troy, LA-Lafayette. And then of course there is this powerhouse week at the end of November:

 

TBD Alabama A&M @ Auburn Tickets » TBD Jacksonville State @ Florida Tickets » TBD Georgia Southern @ Georgia Tickets » TBD Samford @ Kentucky Tickets » TBD Ole Miss @ LSU Tickets » TBD Syracuse @ Missouri Tickets » TBD Tennessee @ Vanderbilt Tickets » TBD Sam Houston State @ Texas A&M Tickets » TBD Western Carolina @ Alabama Tickets » TBD Arkansas @ Mississippi State Tickets » TBD Wofford @ South Carolina

 

While I apprieciate the effort, your approach is all wrong. Because unlike every other conference the SEC plays conference games in the first weeks of the year. Meaning they have to spread out OOC games. While the big10 and everyone playing warmups the SEC is playing full on games. So frankly that little dig your trying to make is flawed and 100% incorrect.

 

In comparison, while ne plays 2 high school teams, 1 decent mid and an avg BSC school in their first four games, Missouri would have played 1 HS team, 1 avg BSC school and 2 top 10 conference opponents. so.......i guess that "powerhouse week" comment looks just a little different now? huh?!

 

And frankly calling out SEC schools for their noncon is kinda silly. Because they play decent teams out of conference. As good or better than any other collective conference. Then when you consider the quality of conference opponent it just adds to it.

 

The SEC's schedule is designed to help them in the BCS. they play one fewer conference game and one extra high school team. That gives the middle of their conference better records than the ones that play 9 games. Add this to the fact that they never seem to travel to cold weather and only recently started adding marqui non conference, and you have one built for pumping up their own SOS.

 

You nailed it there. There are teams like Florida who haven't played an OOC game outside the state of Florida in over 50 years! The SEC has crappy teams just like everyone else does too, both Mississippi teams blow, as does Vandy and Kentucky. Well, you can add Missouri on that list now too. Sorry, I coulnd't resist that one, but you get the point. Alabama last year at PSU and Georgia going to Ok State,Colorado, and Arizona State are the only ones that I can think of where SEC teams left the south for OOC games.

[The Dude]

If they want to and conference runner's up, they will need to expand the playoff to at least 8 teams. If it's 4, then it should be Conference Champions only. Because if they don't, then what is the point of having and winning conferences anyway?

Exactly.

 

My idea is each conference should have a 4 team playoff to decide their champions, then the top 4 conference champs should play for the national title.

[Saunders]

I agree with Dirk. Point blank, Alabama shouldn't have been in that spot last year. They lost, and there were other one loss teams that actually won their conference. Was not a fan of that outcome, and refused to watch the 'championship' game because of it. I think either a 3-1 compromise, or even a 2-2 compromise might happen. Though I'd rather see a 3-1 compromise at least. And KC, it doesn't mean that, unless the MAC champ can earn a rating high enough to get there. The likelihood is the MAC champ still isn't going to be in a position to take advantage of a 'champions' only system. Saban knows the numbers he threw were skewed, and that last year, three of the top four were league champions. The likelihood that the numbers like what Saban stated ever occurring is next to nothing. Even in most of their undefeated years, TCU, Boise St., and Utah were still in the top 10 at the end of the year.

 

Only two of the BCS top 4 going into the bowl season were conference champions. Neither Bama nor Stanford won their conference.

 

Instead of Bama who lost to LSU by 3 in overtime, you get an Oklahoma State team who had not faced any team in the final top 10 and who lost to a weak team very late in the season. You also you get a 2-loss Oregon team who had already been drilled by LSU, and finally you get a Boise State team who lost to TCU and like Oklahoma State, had not faced a team in the final top 10. And that is better than a top-4 playoff.... why?

 

Some people make a big deal about Bama not deserving a chance to play LSU for the title while completely ignoring the fact that the other teams deserved it even less. But if you still think Oklahoma State deserved it more, then that is fine because a top 4 playoff would have included them. I suspect most Bama fans would have rather had a top 4 playoff last year too. The end result probably would have been the same with far less hate.

 

"If you are not the best in your conference, then you can't be the best in the country." Obviously true. But a conference champion is sometimes not always the the best team in its conference. No one who actually watched Bama/LSU play each other in their two games claims that LSU was the best team.

 

The real problems with the conference-champion-only playoff are that

• some conferences can have co-champions - what then?,
  
• not every team plays in a conference,
  
• OOC games do count towards a conference championship,
  
• it penalizes teams for playing in the bigger, tougher conferences, and
  
• it rewards teams in weaker conferences for playing weak schedules because an undefeated season almost always guarantees a spot in the top 8.
  

Should be the top 4 BCS conference champs. f#*k Boise, f#*k Alabama. If you can't win your conference or play in a real conference, don't bother showing up.

Top 4 conference champions in 2011: #1 LSU, #3 Oklahoma St, #5 Oregon, #7 Boise. You can't tell me you wouldn't be pissed that Boise got in over Alabama. ...or that 2001 Nebraska wouldn't have even been in the discussion.

Nope. If you aren't the best team in your own division, let alone conference, how can you be the best team in the country? It's stupidly simple. Win your division. Win your conference. Win the playoff. If you can't do all those, you don't deserve it, period. You don't have polls, voters, or anyone to blame but yourselves. No politicking. No "best conference" circular logic. None of it. I would have loved to see Boise get in over Bama, and I don't even like Boise. Any system that doesn't put a priority on conference champs is inherently flawed due to human bias. Since that will never happen (SEC is already crying) the a top 3 champs +1 at large is the next best thing.

 

 

 

 

 

So it was stupid simple that LSU was the best team in the SEC last year - gotcha.... You might have loved to see BSU get in over Bama, but that sounds like a personal bias because you won't find a single thread on BSU's board where they think they should have gone in over Bama.

This post amuses me.

[Saunders]

I don't care for at time of game, really, but I'll still play. I take C-D maybe F or H could be considered.

 

This is not at all realistic because the BCS gets to see who the teams are, see the statistics, see how they fare and matchup against other teams, and gets to give them the eye test. Your giving me a bunch of records that have no way of being distinguished from each other. Highly flawed.

 

Once again, this won't really work unless I have end of season SOS, top 25 W-L, at the bare minimum.

Again, SOS is a flawed. Teams like TT and KSU inflate their "strength" by beating up on creampuffs. The BCS SOS gives a team that went 4-0 vs bottom dwellers more "strength points" than a team that goes 3-1 vs all BCS conference teams.

 

Read this: http://www.thebestdamnpoll.com/ScoresandNews/tabid/177/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/745/Rigging-the-BCS-and-why-SOS-is-complete-BS.aspx

[VA Husker Fan]

It's not about Alabama being in the championship game. Everyone acts like we are picking the champion...they aren't. That's the point of a playoff, and the best 4 should be included. I don't care if you agree with last year, this is about next year and Alabama would have beat everyone of the other conference champions 4 out of 5 times, and quite possibly their own conference champion 3 out of 5....yet you don't think they should have been included in a playoff? Well that immediately takes any legitimacy away from the playoff. It's not Alabama's fault the SEC is loaded right now - it won't always be that way so why structure the playoff around the assumption they will always be heavily weighted and penalize them for that while they are?

 

Nope, under the current rules or in a potential 4 game playoff, if you can't win your conference, then you don't deserve to play for the MNC. If "every game counts" as the BCS's motto says, then I seem to remember a game @ Alabama where they lost to LSU. Sorry, you lost, see you next year. Besides how do we know that they would win a playoff? Or beat other conference champions 4 of 5 times? With a very few exceptions, the SEC is too scared to play out of the south.

 

If they want to and conference runner's up, they will need to expand the playoff to at least 8 teams. If it's 4, then it should be Conference Champions only. Because if they don't, then what is the point of having and winning conferences anyway?

Huh? As shown last year, the current rules don't require a conference champion, and the rules for a 4 team playoff haven't been nailed down yet.

[VA Husker Fan]

I don't care for at time of game, really, but I'll still play. I take C-D maybe F or H could be considered.

 

This is not at all realistic because the BCS gets to see who the teams are, see the statistics, see how they fare and matchup against other teams, and gets to give them the eye test. Your giving me a bunch of records that have no way of being distinguished from each other. Highly flawed.

 

Once again, this won't really work unless I have end of season SOS, top 25 W-L, at the bare minimum.

Again, SOS is a flawed. Teams like TT and KSU inflate their "strength" by beating up on creampuffs. The BCS SOS gives a team that went 4-0 vs bottom dwellers more "strength points" than a team that goes 3-1 vs all BCS conference teams.

 

Read this: http://www.thebestda...omplete-BS.aspx

How do you know they are creampuffs? You wanted us to pick nameless teams with just a W-L record and vs top 25 and (I'm guessing) not have a bias toward the SEC or perennial powers, but now you put a bias on some teams when it comes to SOS? That doesn't fly. Besides, SOS and everything else after 4 games doesn't mean much, those things will sort themselves out over a whole season.

[fro daddy]

The SEC's schedule is designed to help them in the BCS. they play one fewer conference game and one extra high school team. That gives the middle of their conference better records than the ones that play 9 games. Add this to the fact that they never seem to travel to cold weather and only recently started adding marqui non conference, and you have one built for pumping up their own SOS.

 

Your implying that this is a trick to make they look better? Thats kinda what it sounds like. Here is a little heads up for you Joe, EVERY team/conference does this. There that been plenty of years where the big10/big12/Pac12 power teams played a bunch of puffs and never left the home state. Every coach or conference commish is out to do whatever it takes to better their team/group.

 

Secondly, yes, 12 of the SEC teams play 9 BSC opps this year. 2 play 10. But I guess what I am confused about is your point here. Nearly every team in the big10 plays 9 BCS level teams, about another 7 or 8 teams out of the pac12&big12 only play 9, only half of the ACC plays more than 9....

 

I guess I just dont get what your saying? Do you feel the same about the big10, big12 or pac12? What about the ACC? Or is it because you have a bias against the SEC?

 

And an FYI, you cant blame a setup schedule, or favortism, or a design to cheat the system when their conference has done what they have done in BCS games. They have clear and away the best winning percentage and total wins of the major conferences and have won 8 of the 14 BCS championships (big12 is second best with 2).

 

I am no SEC homer, but I am also not a hater. The fact is that every little dig or reason that anyone of you have said is either false or applies to everyone else if college football. ANd they all fail to see that regardless of all those excuses, they then still kick everyones butt on the field.

 

You nailed it there. There are teams like Florida who haven't played an OOC game outside the state of Florida in over 50 years! The SEC has crappy teams just like everyone else does too, both Mississippi teams blow, as does Vandy and Kentucky. Well, you can add Missouri on that list now too. Sorry, I coulnd't resist that one, but you get the point. Alabama last year at PSU and Georgia going to Ok State,Colorado, and Arizona State are the only ones that I can think of where SEC teams left the south for OOC games.

 

AF yes florida never leaves. I think thats pretty punk of them, But they also play Miami and FL ST in their non con. What they do is not that different from a number of other teams. But yes I am sure there are a number of fans that would like to see them leave the state, and I am one of them. But 1 team does not make a conference.

 

And FYI Vandy and MIss St are not crappy teams. They are actually decent teams that are on the rise. Vandy really has a great coach so they could be getting pretty good. And frankly Mizzou is about as crappy as Ne is.....so i'm cool with it as long as you are .

[Caven]

Fro - I wasn't saying that the SEC does it and others don't. I am saying the SEC knows how to game the system with their scheduling. By playing the weak teams at the end of the year it give the SEC a 10-2 week at the end of November so they have 10 teams moving up in the polls and braindead pollsters going - wow look at how awesome the SEC is, they are winning 80% of their games this week while the Big 10 and Big 12 can only seem to wint 50% of their games. The SEC is so good. We must move all of their teams to the top of the polls even though we have absolultely no basis for comparison this year since the current poll based set up discourages top teams from playing each other. I mean 80% in the month of November. Sure the Big 10 and Big 12 can pull off 80% in September - but the mighty SEC can do it in November!

 

It is a fact that losses at the end of the season hurt more than losses at the beginning of the season so your argument about the SEC playing conference games in those first 4 weeks actually stregthens my arguemnt that the SEC knows how to game the poll system. Play some of your big games early so that the team that gets the loss isn't crippled by it.

 

Yes - the SEC has brings their A game to the title game. But last year was the perfect example of SEC homerism by the media in not even letting another conference team attempt to beat them even though there were several deserving teams (none from the Big 10 unfortunately).

 

If there was a conference champion provision can you imagine the non-con schedule we might start to see? It could be amazing.

[fro daddy]

Fro - I wasn't saying that the SEC does it and others don't. I am saying the SEC knows how to game the system with their scheduling. By playing the weak teams at the end of the year it give the SEC a 10-2 week at the end of November so they have 10 teams moving up in the polls and braindead pollsters going - wow look at how awesome the SEC is, they are winning 80% of their games this week while the Big 10 and Big 12 can only seem to wint 50% of their games. The SEC is so good. We must move all of their teams to the top of the polls even though we have absolultely no basis for comparison this year since the current poll based set up discourages top teams from playing each other. I mean 80% in the month of November. Sure the Big 10 and Big 12 can pull off 80% in September - but the mighty SEC can do it in November!

 

It is a fact that losses at the end of the season hurt more than losses at the beginning of the season so your argument about the SEC playing conference games in those first 4 weeks actually stregthens my arguemnt that the SEC knows how to game the poll system. Play some of your big games early so that the team that gets the loss isn't crippled by it.

 

Yes - the SEC has brings their A game to the title game. But last year was the perfect example of SEC homerism by the media in not even letting another conference team attempt to beat them even though there were several deserving teams (none from the Big 10 unfortunately).

 

If there was a conference champion provision can you imagine the non-con schedule we might start to see? It could be amazing.

 

Alot of the schedule really has to do with TV. If you put big conference games in nearly every week and spread them out from week 1 through the last week over thanksgiving your tv packages are valuable. We all know that ESPN is more likely to pick up a conference game then they are any of the 50 dog whippins that would be happening over that same weekend. Yes it does possibly lighten your NOV load, depending on what team you are looking at. But not all the non cons played in Nov are light. Some of the teams play their OCC rivals during that time. And others still play BCS teams like Mizzou. But I do see what your saying with losses as percetion. But I think alot of us also see it another way. I have always felt its not a benifit in my eyes. Ne winning a tight game over PSU is better that beating georiga southern by 40. I do see what your saying though, because its not always that way with the voters.

 

But I do truely beleive its about the tv and money that goes with it.

 

here are some of the games in the first 4 weeks of the sec while other are playing their puffs

Georgia @ Mizzou

Mizzou @ SC

Fl @ aTm

Fl @ Tenn

UK @ Fl

Vandy @ Georgia

SC @ vandy

Bama @ Arky

Aub @ Miss St

LSU @ Aub

 

obviously this doesnt include a number of good OCC games aswell through those weeks

 

Its a wierd set up for me, we play non con in our first, third, fifth & eleventh games of the season. Also though we know about the NOV booms, you have to think about the opposite also. How many SEC teams may take a loss or even two, compared to how many undefeated teams from others who play just 1 opp who is even close to their level? Its all perception. Georgia lost to Boise and SC in consecutive weeks last year. They started the year at #19 and played what was basically their two toughest games (minus the neutral site game with florida) in the first two weeks of the year. The fell to #29 after lossing to #5 Boise in week 1. Then they fell to #37 after lossing to #12 SC by 3. They didnt get back under the 30's until week 7 when they were #29. at #24 after week 8. By week 10 they were back to #18, around where they started. By playing tough games at the start they got hurt in the rankings.

[fro daddy]

If there was a conference champion provision can you imagine the non-con schedule we might start to see? It could be amazing.

 

also on this statement alone, I dont know that things would change. Its not like NE or Mizzou are going to say " you know what, since all we have to do is win our 8 game conference schedule, lets go out and schedule the best and toughest games we can to get ready"

 

Coaches will still go light for a number of reasons. Warmups & injuries and depth are the biggest two. Lets just say that mich goes all out. They go bama, nd, lsu and SC. Ne plays idaho, UCLA, school of the deaf & school of the blind. WHen NE and MIch meet Mich has played 8 staight games against BCS talent. They are tired, sore, have some injured players. Meanwhile Ne has played 5 BCS teams and had some light duty game where they got to rest, They are not yet tired and have little to no injuries. Ne wins the game and wins the big10. Nobody will do more than they have too. You play one, maybe two BCS level teams to test yourself or out of need. Then you play teams you should beat. this is the model for all good teams. Get ready, get warm, and try to get on a good roll. Do all that without putting yourself in a position to lose games, and surely not lose multiple games