Todays upsets may help NU in BCS ranking.

[skersfan]

At this point, South Carolina, Missouri, Texas A&M, LSU, Ole Miss, Bama and Auburn would be tough for us to beat. Most had a real fear of Ole Miss starting the year. Georgia is just too beat up, way too many injuries. Feel sorry for Richt, he is a pretty good guy, but has some terrible luck. Florida was expected to mop the floor with Mizzou, according to all the local talking heads. Best defense in the SEC was the claim. Is Mizzou that good. I doubt it. But the conference is tough, and I do not think we would fair well in it this year. Next year, with a little more experience, possibly.

 

We start seeing what we have in the next few weeks. Our past means little, as no one we beat amounts to much and the on that beat us has some serious tests soon. We just need to keep winning, learning, and moving forward.

[shyndy]

we could lose to OSU in the champ game and still go to the rose bowl

IIRC, loser of the CCG doesn't get a bid to any BCS bowl appearance. This is what the talk was about last year, if Georgia was to beat Alabama in the SEC Championship.

Usually that is correct. But often that is because the loser of the CCG and the "third" best team in the conference are basically equal and the team that didn't make the CCG has one less loss. Might not be the case in the B1G this year. Assuming we're in the CCG, I'm not sure who the next most appealing team would be. Even a two-loss MSU team isn't really appealing for a bowl to select. Quite possibly nobody that looks that good. And definitely none that travel as well as us. If we're eligible, we'd get a long look.

IMO they should never let the loser of the champ game drop below 2. It would be weird sometimes when one division isn't as good or whatever, but you cant drop that team to 3 unless they already lost to the team you are moving up. It isn't fair to drop a team for losing to the conf champ without being able to defend their second place against the third place team.

[Count 'Bility]

It used to be that the SEC was given a free pass becuase of 2-3 legitimately elite teams (Bama, LSU, Georgia/Florida). Right now, it's Bama and absolutely no one more. But, the rest are gonna be given a free pass. because of Bama being the flag bearer. One can only hope Florida St/Oregon beats Bama in a title game. If not, Bama will once again carry the flag for the SEC and the blind perception will continue.

[Guy Chamberlin]

On the other hand, if you have a conference that's pretty strong top to bottom, it stands to reason that you will have some good two and three loss teams. That very well-coached Vanderbilt team might give the Big 10 some fits.

 

A lot of the folks decrying the over-ranking of SEC teams seem to be the same folks who want to dismiss the undefeated and one-loss teams from lesser conferences and weaker schedules. I don't think you can have it both ways. While I certainly enjoyed watching Johnny Football collect his second loss, I'd hate to think of him lining up against the Husker defense.

 

The SEC lives in a football happy world, from Pop Warner through High School, and that has given them a huge recruiting advantage as high school participation has dropped off elsewhere. It just is what it is.

 

It's crazy for the sports journalists to ignore the popularity of SEC football and Alabama's recent dynasty. It's also crazy to assume they're propping it up. If there's any rooting interest in the media, it's for the plucky small market underdog to take down the cocky rich kids at the legacy school.

[teachercd]

Washington should have never been ranked.

South Carolina was over ranked

[Guy Chamberlin]

Well.....this is why they play the games.

[shyndy]

On the other hand, if you have a conference that's pretty strong top to bottom, it stands to reason that you will have some good two and three loss teams. That very well-coached Vanderbilt team might give the Big 10 some fits.

 

A lot of the folks decrying the over-ranking of SEC teams seem to be the same folks who want to dismiss the undefeated and one-loss teams from lesser conferences and weaker schedules. I don't think you can have it both ways. While I certainly enjoyed watching Johnny Football collect his second loss, I'd hate to think of him lining up against the Husker defense.

 

The SEC lives in a football happy world, from Pop Warner through High School, and that has given them a huge recruiting advantage as high school participation has dropped off elsewhere. It just is what it is.

 

It's crazy for the sports journalists to ignore the popularity of SEC football and Alabama's recent dynasty. It's also crazy to assume they're propping it up. If there's any rooting interest in the media, it's for the plucky small market underdog to take down the cocky rich kids at the legacy school.

 

Give me a break. Nobody is dissing Bama. If you are just looking at facts, which is what people have supposedly been using the last few years (the SEC has posted well in bowl games and noncon), then the SEC is NOT top dog this year. I'm not saying the SEC is overrated because Vanderbilt upset somebody (that happens in every conference and isn't a good argument either way) but because of their performance against noncon opponents. The whole SEC vs. the world we've had to deal with for years has been for this very same reason, because they have had a good record in bowls and noncon. Yet the SEC really is getting it both ways, while the big 10 gets treated maybe like it should for dropping the ball in its big games.

[skersfan]

I just wonder how we would do if we lost, E, Bell, AA and Taylor.

 

Georgia has, SC lost their QB, and he has been hurt for awhile. Maybe giving Mizzou a little credit for beating Florida, as the SEC talking heads said they were the best defense in the SEC. Ole Miss has talent, and a lot of it is hurt. They are beating themselves up, there is no question in that. I want their dominance to end just as bad as anyone, but I hate seeing teams lose their top players to do it.

 

What I really want to see right now is, Florida State/Oregon. The build up for that game and the potential of that game is mind blowing. I would prefer no SEC teams in the final, but Bama has to figure a way to lose for that to happen. LSU losing to Ole Miss may light a fire under Miles, I am hoping so.

 

[QMany]

I just wonder how we would do if we lost, E, Bell, AA and Taylor.

 

Georgia has, SC lost their QB, and he has been hurt for awhile. Maybe giving Mizzou a little credit for beating Florida, as the SEC talking heads said they were the best defense in the SEC. Ole Miss has talent, and a lot of it is hurt. They are beating themselves up, there is no question in that. I want their dominance to end just as bad as anyone, but I hate seeing teams lose their top players to do it.

Florida's roster is severely depleted from injuries also. SEVEN starters are out of the season, and more than that have been out for certain games.

 

Still, imagine if other non-SEC teams had their stars out for the year. Do they get leniency in the polls?

 

Since Georgia has had studs go down, we've known they are not a good team. They should have lost to Tennessee, they should be 3-4. It is not going to get better for them.

 

Also, say we were to beat a Ohio State or Michigan team that has just one injury, do those victories get questioned? You better believe they do (and have in the last two years). But OH NO, NOT IN THE SEC. BS benefit of the doubt is given on every situation.

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

Also, say we were to beat a Ohio State or Michigan team that has just one injury, do those victories get questioned? You better believe they do (and have in the last two years). But OH NO, NOT IN THE SEC. BS benefit of the doubt is given on every situation.

 

Those Nebraska victories against injured opponents may have gotten questioned, but the wins still counted and by the time we got to the Big 10 Championship game we had the benefit of the doubt. Some might even say a pro-Nebraska bias, based on our legacy. Had Nebraska beaten that five loss Wisconsin team we would have been a Top Ten team heading into the Rose Bowl. But you know the rest of the story.

 

In recent years the SEC has had a good non-con and bowl game record. That's pretty much where you erase "benefit of the doubt" and prove yourself. The SEC had some lean years in the past. The Big 10 isn't the powerhouse it used to be. Oregon and Baylor are playing football that's impossible to ignore. The story is always changing and the media follows the story. Don't blame conspiracy theories if your team isn't proving itself on the field.

[shyndy]

We aren't talking about previous years however we are talking about this year. Last year shouldn't mean as much as it does to people

[Guy Chamberlin]

We aren't talking about previous years however we are talking about this year. Last year shouldn't mean as much as it does to people

 

Some people are talking about previous years, cause that's what it takes to establish bias.

 

I'm honestly not sure what you've been trying to say the last couple posts, but I think I might agree with it.

[shyndy]

I guess I should have said "I" am not talking about previous years. All I am saying is that when you look at the body of work so far, the SEC is either second or third. This is using head to head matchups which is the reason that we've had to put up with all the SEC talk as even though I think they weren't quite as distant in strength as it was made out to be, it was hard to argue because the SEC performed well in noncon and bowlgames. That isn't the case so far this year. Previous years bowl record and noncon should not have the effect it has on people's perception of these teams, ideally it wouldn't count for anything. Thus there shouldn't be teams in the polls just because they are SEC, as it hasn't shown up yet this year (not terrible, but not amazing).

[deedsker]

I guess I should have said "I" am not talking about previous years. All I am saying is that when you look at the body of work so far, the SEC is either second or third. This is using head to head matchups which is the reason that we've had to put up with all the SEC talk as even though I think they weren't quite as distant in strength as it was made out to be, it was hard to argue because the SEC performed well in noncon and bowlgames. That isn't the case so far this year. Previous years bowl record and noncon should not have the effect it has on people's perception of these teams, ideally it wouldn't count for anything. Thus there shouldn't be teams in the polls just because they are SEC, as it hasn't shown up yet this year (not terrible, but not amazing).

I guess this pretty well sums up what I have been getting at. Thanks Shyndy!