SEC ref rant

[California Husker]

It is funny how there are people who even think this is arguable. As there gets to be more money involved in college football, rankings mean more-and-more financially to a conference. Vandy is not going to a BCS game...they most likely won't even be ranked this season. If things go right, USC could remain in the top 10 for much of the season and maybe be another BCS team for the conference. If they get upset by Vandy it makes the road to the BCS a lot tougher (particularly with LSU on the sched). It is not as good for the conference if a top ten team loses to an unranked team. If the officials can make a difference with a non-call here or there, they will. It happens way to often to deny. I know all of you who survive on a steady diet of rainbows and unicorns can't imagine this type of thing goes on....but there is too much $$$$ in this for it not to happen.

[Excel]

It is funny how there are people who even think this is arguable. As there gets to be more money involved in college football, rankings mean more-and-more financially to a conference. Vandy is not going to a BCS game...they most likely won't even be ranked this season. If things go right, USC could remain in the top 10 for much of the season and maybe be another BCS team for the conference. If they get upset by Vandy it makes the road to the BCS a lot tougher (particularly with LSU on the sched). It is not as good for the conference if a top ten team loses to an unranked team. If the officials can make a difference with a non-call here or there, they will. It happens way to often to deny. I know all of you who survive on a steady diet of rainbows and unicorns can't imagine this type of thing goes on....but there is too much $$$$ in this for it not to happen.

 

If that's your argument then it would follow that in the SEC highly ranked teams with large and rich fan bases wouldn't lose close games because the officials would help them but instead we see;

 

Florida

2010 - Ranked 22, lost 7-10 to lower ranked Miss. St.

2008 - Ranked 4, lost 30-31 to lower ranked Ole Miss

2007 - Ranked 9, lost 30-42 to lower ranked UGA

2006 - Ranked 1, lost 17-27 to lower ranked AU

2005 - Ranked 12, lost 22-30 to lower ranked USC

 

Georgia

2005 - Ranked 4, lost 10-14 to lower ranked UF | ranked 9 lost 30-31 to lower ranked AU.

2006 - Ranked 14, lost 22-24 to lower ranked Vandy

2007 - Ranked 12, lost 12-16 to lower ranked USC

 

South Carolina

2011 - Ranked 9 lost 13-16 to lower ranked AU

2010 - Ranked 10 lost 28-31 to lower ranked UK

2008 - Ranked 24, lost 17-24 to lower ranked Vandy

2007 - Ranked 8, lost 6-17 to lower ranked Vandy. Ranked 17 lost 24-27 to lower ranked UT.

 

Tennessee

2005 - Ranked 23, lost 15-16 to lower ranked USC

2006 - Ranked 8, lost 24-28 to lower ranked LSU

 

Kentucky

2007 - Ranked 8, lost 37-45 to lower ranked UF.

 

Arkansas

2006 - Ranked 5 lost 26-31 to lower ranked LSU.

2007 - Ranked 16 lost 28-41 to lower ranked Alabama.

 

Alabama

2010 - Ranked 1, lost 21-35 to lower ranked USC. Ranked 5 lost 21-24 to lower ranked LSU.

2008 - Ranked 1, lost 20-31 to lower ranked UF.

2007 - Ranked 16, lost 23-26 to lower ranked UGA. Ranked 21 lost 12-17 to lower ranked Miss. St.

2005 - Ranked 4, lost 13-16 to lower ranked LSU. Ranked 8 lost 28-18 to lower ranked AU.

 

Auburn

2008 - Ranked 14, lost 13-14 to lower ranked Vandy. Ranked 23 lost 22-25 to lower ranked Arky.

2009 - Ranked 25, lost 24-31 to lower ranked UGA.

 

LSU

2010 - Ranked 6, lost 23-31 to lower ranked Arky.

2009 - Ranked 10, lost 23-25 to lower ranked Ole Miss.

2007 - Ranked 1, lost 37-42 to lower ranked UK. Ranked 1, lost 48-50 to lower ranked Arky.

2005 - Ranked 4 lost 27-30 to lower ranked UT.

 

Ole Miss

2009 - Ranked 4, lost 10-16 to lower ranked USC.

 

Mississippi State

2011 - Ranked 16, lost 34-41 to Auburn.

 

So there, that's 35 games in the last seven seasons that disprove your theory. If SEC officials were rigging games we wouldn't see nearly that many. Three are close games where the eventual national champion lost to a lower ranked or unranked team; UF v. Ole Miss, LSU v. UK and LSU v. Arkansas. SEC officials in your view of things definitely would've attempted to prevent that.

 

There's the unicorn and rainbow side of the argument, where we find all the facts and there's the conspiracy theorist side of it where we find a few sparse pieces of anecdotal "evidence." These missed calls happen in every game of every conference. It just happens that this one fits your theory.

[dutch91701]

Ranked teams losing to lower ranked teams doesn't disprove conspiracy. Some of those teams were not in a position to play BCS games and some losses are uncontrollable. Also, not every game has a make or break call (like this Vandy game) that sticks out and is easy to fix.

[California Husker]

It is funny how there are people who even think this is arguable. As there gets to be more money involved in college football, rankings mean more-and-more financially to a conference. Vandy is not going to a BCS game...they most likely won't even be ranked this season. If things go right, USC could remain in the top 10 for much of the season and maybe be another BCS team for the conference. If they get upset by Vandy it makes the road to the BCS a lot tougher (particularly with LSU on the sched). It is not as good for the conference if a top ten team loses to an unranked team. If the officials can make a difference with a non-call here or there, they will. It happens way to often to deny. I know all of you who survive on a steady diet of rainbows and unicorns can't imagine this type of thing goes on....but there is too much $$$$ in this for it not to happen.

 

If that's your argument then it would follow that in the SEC highly ranked teams with large and rich fan bases wouldn't lose close games because the officials would help them but instead we see;

 

Florida

2010 - Ranked 22, lost 7-10 to lower ranked Miss. St.

2008 - Ranked 4, lost 30-31 to lower ranked Ole Miss

2007 - Ranked 9, lost 30-42 to lower ranked UGA

2006 - Ranked 1, lost 17-27 to lower ranked AU

2005 - Ranked 12, lost 22-30 to lower ranked USC

 

Georgia

2005 - Ranked 4, lost 10-14 to lower ranked UF | ranked 9 lost 30-31 to lower ranked AU.

2006 - Ranked 14, lost 22-24 to lower ranked Vandy

2007 - Ranked 12, lost 12-16 to lower ranked USC

 

South Carolina

2011 - Ranked 9 lost 13-16 to lower ranked AU

2010 - Ranked 10 lost 28-31 to lower ranked UK

2008 - Ranked 24, lost 17-24 to lower ranked Vandy

2007 - Ranked 8, lost 6-17 to lower ranked Vandy. Ranked 17 lost 24-27 to lower ranked UT.

 

Tennessee

2005 - Ranked 23, lost 15-16 to lower ranked USC

2006 - Ranked 8, lost 24-28 to lower ranked LSU

 

Kentucky

2007 - Ranked 8, lost 37-45 to lower ranked UF.

 

Arkansas

2006 - Ranked 5 lost 26-31 to lower ranked LSU.

2007 - Ranked 16 lost 28-41 to lower ranked Alabama.

 

Alabama

2010 - Ranked 1, lost 21-35 to lower ranked USC. Ranked 5 lost 21-24 to lower ranked LSU.

2008 - Ranked 1, lost 20-31 to lower ranked UF.

2007 - Ranked 16, lost 23-26 to lower ranked UGA. Ranked 21 lost 12-17 to lower ranked Miss. St.

2005 - Ranked 4, lost 13-16 to lower ranked LSU. Ranked 8 lost 28-18 to lower ranked AU.

 

Auburn

2008 - Ranked 14, lost 13-14 to lower ranked Vandy. Ranked 23 lost 22-25 to lower ranked Arky.

2009 - Ranked 25, lost 24-31 to lower ranked UGA.

 

LSU

2010 - Ranked 6, lost 23-31 to lower ranked Arky.

2009 - Ranked 10, lost 23-25 to lower ranked Ole Miss.

2007 - Ranked 1, lost 37-42 to lower ranked UK. Ranked 1, lost 48-50 to lower ranked Arky.

2005 - Ranked 4 lost 27-30 to lower ranked UT.

 

Ole Miss

2009 - Ranked 4, lost 10-16 to lower ranked USC.

 

Mississippi State

2011 - Ranked 16, lost 34-41 to Auburn.

 

So there, that's 35 games in the last seven seasons that disprove your theory. If SEC officials were rigging games we wouldn't see nearly that many. Three are close games where the eventual national champion lost to a lower ranked or unranked team; UF v. Ole Miss, LSU v. UK and LSU v. Arkansas. SEC officials in your view of things definitely would've attempted to prevent that.

 

There's the unicorn and rainbow side of the argument, where we find all the facts and there's the conspiracy theorist side of it where we find a few sparse pieces of anecdotal "evidence." These missed calls happen in every game of every conference. It just happens that this one fits your theory.

I stand by my original statement. It is inarguable...top ranked teams get their ranking protected when the officials can. And dude, did you really go look all that stuff up just to prove me wrong? Geeeez. I guess you care waaaaaay more about this topic than I do.

[VA Husker Fan]

And SEC refs share in this money grab how? You think they are paid to throw games? Or penalized by not getting games if they don't? Yeah, it's inarguable, all right.

[Excel]

Ranked teams losing to lower ranked teams doesn't disprove conspiracy. Some of those teams were not in a position to play BCS games and some losses are uncontrollable. Also, not every game has a make or break call (like this Vandy game) that sticks out and is easy to fix.

 

Ranked teams losing to unranked teams CLEARLY shows there's no rigging going on. How is it in the interest of the conference to have your number one ranked team lose in triple overtime to a bad UK team? It isn't as it could potentially put them out of NC contention.

 

I think I'm on the rational side of this, you guys are claiming that, to some unknown but very real degree, the SEC rigs games. Well where's your evidence? One missed call in a Carolina game proves absolutely nothing, show me 35. Show me an official's testimony that he was told to look the other way. Show me an internal memo from Slive saying the same.

 

Also, according to your theory the Conference would do this to, at least in some way, be more successfull nationally. Well if that's the goal then why the hell would they do it for Carolina of all schools? I love USC but that's not the school you help out because it's going to win in the post season, we suck at that and helping USC isn't going to make the school any more money, we've sold out games in seasons where we had only one win and the next year when we had none.

 

I think much of this is born from frustration with the stranglehold the SEC has had on the sport lately. Viewed in that light this kind of talk is embarrassing and pathetic. If anybody else could beat them we wouldnt be hearing all this whining about oversigning and bad officiating.

[dutch91701]

And SEC refs share in this money grab how? You think they are paid to throw games? Or penalized by not getting games if they don't? Yeah, it's inarguable, all right.

What happens if you blatantly ignore what your boss tells you to do? Is it that hard to imagine what would happen to officials if they didn't fix games? It's the same thing we saw in the Big XII. To say that it doesn't happen is really just naive. There's so much money involved that it would honestly be stupid not to fix games. It's a shame, but that's what it's about.

[Excel]

It is funny how there are people who even think this is arguable. As there gets to be more money involved in college football, rankings mean more-and-more financially to a conference. Vandy is not going to a BCS game...they most likely won't even be ranked this season. If things go right, USC could remain in the top 10 for much of the season and maybe be another BCS team for the conference. If they get upset by Vandy it makes the road to the BCS a lot tougher (particularly with LSU on the sched). It is not as good for the conference if a top ten team loses to an unranked team. If the officials can make a difference with a non-call here or there, they will. It happens way to often to deny. I know all of you who survive on a steady diet of rainbows and unicorns can't imagine this type of thing goes on....but there is too much $$$$ in this for it not to happen.

 

If that's your argument then it would follow that in the SEC highly ranked teams with large and rich fan bases wouldn't lose close games because the officials would help them but instead we see;

 

Florida

2010 - Ranked 22, lost 7-10 to lower ranked Miss. St.

2008 - Ranked 4, lost 30-31 to lower ranked Ole Miss

2007 - Ranked 9, lost 30-42 to lower ranked UGA

2006 - Ranked 1, lost 17-27 to lower ranked AU

2005 - Ranked 12, lost 22-30 to lower ranked USC

 

Georgia

2005 - Ranked 4, lost 10-14 to lower ranked UF | ranked 9 lost 30-31 to lower ranked AU.

2006 - Ranked 14, lost 22-24 to lower ranked Vandy

2007 - Ranked 12, lost 12-16 to lower ranked USC

 

South Carolina

2011 - Ranked 9 lost 13-16 to lower ranked AU

2010 - Ranked 10 lost 28-31 to lower ranked UK

2008 - Ranked 24, lost 17-24 to lower ranked Vandy

2007 - Ranked 8, lost 6-17 to lower ranked Vandy. Ranked 17 lost 24-27 to lower ranked UT.

 

Tennessee

2005 - Ranked 23, lost 15-16 to lower ranked USC

2006 - Ranked 8, lost 24-28 to lower ranked LSU

 

Kentucky

2007 - Ranked 8, lost 37-45 to lower ranked UF.

 

Arkansas

2006 - Ranked 5 lost 26-31 to lower ranked LSU.

2007 - Ranked 16 lost 28-41 to lower ranked Alabama.

 

Alabama

2010 - Ranked 1, lost 21-35 to lower ranked USC. Ranked 5 lost 21-24 to lower ranked LSU.

2008 - Ranked 1, lost 20-31 to lower ranked UF.

2007 - Ranked 16, lost 23-26 to lower ranked UGA. Ranked 21 lost 12-17 to lower ranked Miss. St.

2005 - Ranked 4, lost 13-16 to lower ranked LSU. Ranked 8 lost 28-18 to lower ranked AU.

 

Auburn

2008 - Ranked 14, lost 13-14 to lower ranked Vandy. Ranked 23 lost 22-25 to lower ranked Arky.

2009 - Ranked 25, lost 24-31 to lower ranked UGA.

 

LSU

2010 - Ranked 6, lost 23-31 to lower ranked Arky.

2009 - Ranked 10, lost 23-25 to lower ranked Ole Miss.

2007 - Ranked 1, lost 37-42 to lower ranked UK. Ranked 1, lost 48-50 to lower ranked Arky.

2005 - Ranked 4 lost 27-30 to lower ranked UT.

 

Ole Miss

2009 - Ranked 4, lost 10-16 to lower ranked USC.

 

Mississippi State

2011 - Ranked 16, lost 34-41 to Auburn.

 

So there, that's 35 games in the last seven seasons that disprove your theory. If SEC officials were rigging games we wouldn't see nearly that many. Three are close games where the eventual national champion lost to a lower ranked or unranked team; UF v. Ole Miss, LSU v. UK and LSU v. Arkansas. SEC officials in your view of things definitely would've attempted to prevent that.

 

There's the unicorn and rainbow side of the argument, where we find all the facts and there's the conspiracy theorist side of it where we find a few sparse pieces of anecdotal "evidence." These missed calls happen in every game of every conference. It just happens that this one fits your theory.

I stand by my original statement. It is inarguable...top ranked teams get their ranking protected when the officials can. And dude, did you really go look all that stuff up just to prove me wrong? Geeeez. I guess you care waaaaaay more about this topic than I do.

 

If its inarguable then it should be easy to prove. Do it. You should be able to provide tons of irrefutable evidence. Pointing at a blown call and saying "See, I told you so" is horribly underwhelming.

 

...and yea I did look that up because I hate to hear the argument you're making. I think it's a poor one but I'm open to hearing evidence. Also the ND Navy game was killing me to watch

[Excel]

And SEC refs share in this money grab how? You think they are paid to throw games? Or penalized by not getting games if they don't? Yeah, it's inarguable, all right.

What happens if you blatantly ignore what your boss tells you to do? Is it that hard to imagine what would happen to officials if they didn't fix games? It's the same thing we saw in the Big XII. To say that it doesn't happen is really just naive. There's so much money involved that it would honestly be stupid not to fix games. It's a shame, but that's what it's about.

 

We would have heard a whistle blower by now, rankings have been around forever.

[dutch91701]

Ranked teams losing to lower ranked teams doesn't disprove conspiracy. Some of those teams were not in a position to play BCS games and some losses are uncontrollable. Also, not every game has a make or break call (like this Vandy game) that sticks out and is easy to fix.

 

Ranked teams losing to untangled teams CLEARLY shows there's no rigging going on. How is it in the interest of the conference to have your number one ranked team lose in triple overtime to a bad UK team? It isn't as it could potentially put them out of NC contention.

 

I think I'm on the rational side of this, you guys are claiming that, to some unknown but very real degree, the SEC rigs games. Well where's your evidence? One missed call in a Carolina game proves absolutely nothing, show me 35. Show me an official's testimony that he was told to look the other way. Show me an internal memo from Slive saying the same.

 

Also, according to your theory the Conference would do this to, at least in some way, be more successfull nationally. Well if that's the goal then why the hell would they do it for Carolina of all schools? I love USC but that's not the school you help out because it's going to win in the post season, we suck at that and helping USC isn't going to make the school any more money, we've sold out games in seasons where we had only one win and the next year when we had none.

 

I think much of this is born from frustration with the stranglehold the SEC has had on the sport lately. Viewed in that light this kind of talk is embarrassing and pathetic. If anybody else could beat them we wouldnt be hearing all this whining about oversigning and bad officiating.

First off, of your 35, 15 were by teams not ranked in the top 10. They don't make much difference in the BCS if they lose. Also, how many of the remaining 20 games were losses to completely insignificant teams? A top 10 South Carolina losing to a nobody Vandy team on national primetime television looks bad.

[Excel]

Ranked teams losing to lower ranked teams doesn't disprove conspiracy. Some of those teams were not in a position to play BCS games and some losses are uncontrollable. Also, not every game has a make or break call (like this Vandy game) that sticks out and is easy to fix.

 

Ranked teams losing to untangled teams CLEARLY shows there's no rigging going on. How is it in the interest of the conference to have your number one ranked team lose in triple overtime to a bad UK team? It isn't as it could potentially put them out of NC contention.

 

I think I'm on the rational side of this, you guys are claiming that, to some unknown but very real degree, the SEC rigs games. Well where's your evidence? One missed call in a Carolina game proves absolutely nothing, show me 35. Show me an official's testimony that he was told to look the other way. Show me an internal memo from Slive saying the same.

 

Also, according to your theory the Conference would do this to, at least in some way, be more successfull nationally. Well if that's the goal then why the hell would they do it for Carolina of all schools? I love USC but that's not the school you help out because it's going to win in the post season, we suck at that and helping USC isn't going to make the school any more money, we've sold out games in seasons where we had only one win and the next year when we had none.

 

I think much of this is born from frustration with the stranglehold the SEC has had on the sport lately. Viewed in that light this kind of talk is embarrassing and pathetic. If anybody else could beat them we wouldnt be hearing all this whining about oversigning and bad officiating.

First off, of your 35, 15 were by teams not ranked in the top 10. They don't make much difference in the BCS if they lose. Also, how many of the remaining 20 games were losses to completely insignificant teams? A top 10 South Carolina losing to a nobody Vandy team on national primetime television looks bad.

 

1. Still ranked higher than their opponents so their losing hurts the conference.

2. You're forgetting that USC isn't much better than Vandy. One conference championship in 120 years of football, and that one was from our time in the ACC. Vandy may be a nobody but USC is hardly a "somebody." The officials have also 'let' Vandy upset us in the past, take 2007 when we were ranked as high as sixth when they beat us. Finally a Vandy win would've brought much more attention to them and the conference by extension, the media loves Franklin.

[dutch91701]

Ranked teams losing to lower ranked teams doesn't disprove conspiracy. Some of those teams were not in a position to play BCS games and some losses are uncontrollable. Also, not every game has a make or break call (like this Vandy game) that sticks out and is easy to fix.

 

Ranked teams losing to untangled teams CLEARLY shows there's no rigging going on. How is it in the interest of the conference to have your number one ranked team lose in triple overtime to a bad UK team? It isn't as it could potentially put them out of NC contention.

 

I think I'm on the rational side of this, you guys are claiming that, to some unknown but very real degree, the SEC rigs games. Well where's your evidence? One missed call in a Carolina game proves absolutely nothing, show me 35. Show me an official's testimony that he was told to look the other way. Show me an internal memo from Slive saying the same.

 

Also, according to your theory the Conference would do this to, at least in some way, be more successfull nationally. Well if that's the goal then why the hell would they do it for Carolina of all schools? I love USC but that's not the school you help out because it's going to win in the post season, we suck at that and helping USC isn't going to make the school any more money, we've sold out games in seasons where we had only one win and the next year when we had none.

 

I think much of this is born from frustration with the stranglehold the SEC has had on the sport lately. Viewed in that light this kind of talk is embarrassing and pathetic. If anybody else could beat them we wouldnt be hearing all this whining about oversigning and bad officiating.

First off, of your 35, 15 were by teams not ranked in the top 10. They don't make much difference in the BCS if they lose. Also, how many of the remaining 20 games were losses to completely insignificant teams? A top 10 South Carolina losing to a nobody Vandy team on national primetime television looks bad.

 

1. Still ranked higher than their opponents so their losing hurts the conference.

2. You're forgetting that USC isn't much better than Vandy. One conference championship in 120 years of football, and that one was from our time in the ACC. Vandy may be a nobody but USC is hardly a "somebody." The officials have also 'let' Vandy upset us in the past, take 2007 when we were ranked as high as sixth when they beat us. Finally a Vandy win would've brought much more attention to them and the conference by extension, the media loves Franklin.

To a certain extent, competition makes the conference look good. Good football is appreciated most of the time. However, in the case of South Carolina, they were ranked 9th. That's being "somebody" in my mind. Traditionally they may not be a great program, but they are good right now. Vanderbilt is advertised as the "up and coming" team, so as far as the media goes, having a close game is good enough for national attention.

[VA Husker Fan]

And SEC refs share in this money grab how? You think they are paid to throw games? Or penalized by not getting games if they don't? Yeah, it's inarguable, all right.

What happens if you blatantly ignore what your boss tells you to do? Is it that hard to imagine what would happen to officials if they didn't fix games? It's the same thing we saw in the Big XII. To say that it doesn't happen is really just naive. There's so much money involved that it would honestly be stupid not to fix games. It's a shame, but that's what it's about.

If my boss (especially for a part-time gig like this) tells me to do something clearly immoral if not illegal, I would be going to the press and breaking this story wide open, or making money writing a book about it.

[Haspula]

Further evidence SEC refs go out of their way to help USC...

 

Is that fake? Can't stop laughing :laughpound

[California Husker]

It is funny how there are people who even think this is arguable. As there gets to be more money involved in college football, rankings mean more-and-more financially to a conference. Vandy is not going to a BCS game...they most likely won't even be ranked this season. If things go right, USC could remain in the top 10 for much of the season and maybe be another BCS team for the conference. If they get upset by Vandy it makes the road to the BCS a lot tougher (particularly with LSU on the sched). It is not as good for the conference if a top ten team loses to an unranked team. If the officials can make a difference with a non-call here or there, they will. It happens way to often to deny. I know all of you who survive on a steady diet of rainbows and unicorns can't imagine this type of thing goes on....but there is too much $$$$ in this for it not to happen.

 

If that's your argument then it would follow that in the SEC highly ranked teams with large and rich fan bases wouldn't lose close games because the officials would help them but instead we see;

 

Florida

2010 - Ranked 22, lost 7-10 to lower ranked Miss. St.

2008 - Ranked 4, lost 30-31 to lower ranked Ole Miss

2007 - Ranked 9, lost 30-42 to lower ranked UGA

2006 - Ranked 1, lost 17-27 to lower ranked AU

2005 - Ranked 12, lost 22-30 to lower ranked USC

 

Georgia

2005 - Ranked 4, lost 10-14 to lower ranked UF | ranked 9 lost 30-31 to lower ranked AU.

2006 - Ranked 14, lost 22-24 to lower ranked Vandy

2007 - Ranked 12, lost 12-16 to lower ranked USC

 

South Carolina

2011 - Ranked 9 lost 13-16 to lower ranked AU

2010 - Ranked 10 lost 28-31 to lower ranked UK

2008 - Ranked 24, lost 17-24 to lower ranked Vandy

2007 - Ranked 8, lost 6-17 to lower ranked Vandy. Ranked 17 lost 24-27 to lower ranked UT.

 

Tennessee

2005 - Ranked 23, lost 15-16 to lower ranked USC

2006 - Ranked 8, lost 24-28 to lower ranked LSU

 

Kentucky

2007 - Ranked 8, lost 37-45 to lower ranked UF.

 

Arkansas

2006 - Ranked 5 lost 26-31 to lower ranked LSU.

2007 - Ranked 16 lost 28-41 to lower ranked Alabama.

 

Alabama

2010 - Ranked 1, lost 21-35 to lower ranked USC. Ranked 5 lost 21-24 to lower ranked LSU.

2008 - Ranked 1, lost 20-31 to lower ranked UF.

2007 - Ranked 16, lost 23-26 to lower ranked UGA. Ranked 21 lost 12-17 to lower ranked Miss. St.

2005 - Ranked 4, lost 13-16 to lower ranked LSU. Ranked 8 lost 28-18 to lower ranked AU.

 

Auburn

2008 - Ranked 14, lost 13-14 to lower ranked Vandy. Ranked 23 lost 22-25 to lower ranked Arky.

2009 - Ranked 25, lost 24-31 to lower ranked UGA.

 

LSU

2010 - Ranked 6, lost 23-31 to lower ranked Arky.

2009 - Ranked 10, lost 23-25 to lower ranked Ole Miss.

2007 - Ranked 1, lost 37-42 to lower ranked UK. Ranked 1, lost 48-50 to lower ranked Arky.

2005 - Ranked 4 lost 27-30 to lower ranked UT.

 

Ole Miss

2009 - Ranked 4, lost 10-16 to lower ranked USC.

 

Mississippi State

2011 - Ranked 16, lost 34-41 to Auburn.

 

So there, that's 35 games in the last seven seasons that disprove your theory. If SEC officials were rigging games we wouldn't see nearly that many. Three are close games where the eventual national champion lost to a lower ranked or unranked team; UF v. Ole Miss, LSU v. UK and LSU v. Arkansas. SEC officials in your view of things definitely would've attempted to prevent that.

 

There's the unicorn and rainbow side of the argument, where we find all the facts and there's the conspiracy theorist side of it where we find a few sparse pieces of anecdotal "evidence." These missed calls happen in every game of every conference. It just happens that this one fits your theory.

I stand by my original statement. It is inarguable...top ranked teams get their ranking protected when the officials can. And dude, did you really go look all that stuff up just to prove me wrong? Geeeez. I guess you care waaaaaay more about this topic than I do.

 

If its inarguable then it should be easy to prove. Do it. You should be able to provide tons of irrefutable evidence. Pointing at a blown call and saying "See, I told you so" is horribly underwhelming.

 

...and yea I did look that up because I hate to hear the argument you're making. I think it's a poor one but I'm open to hearing evidence. Also the ND Navy game was killing me to watch

okay, you win...because I have a life