Bo and SECPN

[sd'sker]

 

 

 

 

Again. This is hindsight. Why did they ALWAYS get the benefit of the doubt?

because it is an imperfect system with limited information.

 

and i think it is funny that people are mad at the lsu/bama rematch, but also mad that mich. did not get a second shot at osu.

 

this all just comes off as sour grapes, in my imo.

 

And the imperfect system with limited information conveniently picked a team from the SEC every time? bullsh#t!

 

No one was mad that the rematches didn't happen at the time they were possible. People got mad because once LSU/Bama II happened, it pulled the curtain back and showed that there were now 3 legitimate arguments where this could have happened and the only one that did involved the SEC.

 

oklahoma st. should have beaten iowa st. easy-peesy. or the big 12 and pac 10 should not have rejected a 4 team playoff, that the sec proposed.

 

So, big 12 teams aren't given a pass for losing to unranked teams, but the SEC is?

 

Once again, a hypocritical double standard.

 

there are more factors than that. but someone has to. there is limited information that creates this imperfect system. but you control your chances, and the sec makes the most of theirs, usually.

 

but this double standard bias was created after the 2005 championship? right? before that is was fair and perfect.

[knapplc]

 

As for the bag man flavor of the day complaint......look,mall I going to say is if about wants to run the first completely, utterly on the level team without the slightest hint of impropriety, well then he's the first Nebraska to try this.

 

I have no idea how to interpret your last sentence. Did you start drinking while typing it?

 

 

That last sentence is autocorrect run amok. He said, "As for the bag man "flavor of the day" complaint......look, all I'm going to say is if Bo wants to run the first completely, utterly on-the-level team without the slightest hint of impropriety, well then he's the first in Nebraska to try this."

 

I added some punctuation to help with the interpretation.

[StPaulHusker]

 

 

 

Again. This is hindsight. Why did they ALWAYS get the benefit of the doubt?

because it is an imperfect system with limited information.

 

and i think it is funny that people are mad at the lsu/bama rematch, but also mad that mich. did not get a second shot at osu.

 

this all just comes off as sour grapes, in my imo.

 

And the imperfect system with limited information conveniently picked a team from the SEC every time? bullsh#t!

 

No one was mad that the rematches didn't happen at the time they were possible. People got mad because once LSU/Bama II happened, it pulled the curtain back and showed that there were now 3 legitimate arguments where this could have happened and the only one that did involved the SEC.

 

oklahoma st. should have beaten iowa st. easy-peesy. or the big 12 and pac 10 should not have rejected a 4 team playoff, that the sec proposed.

 

You're right, they should have had their head in the game the night of the plane crash.

 

Also, the B1G and Big 12 rejected the playoff that Slive contrived because he wanted to use the BCS polls which we all know are biased.

[sd'sker]

Also, LSU in 2007 lost to TWO unranked teams. LOL. Kentucky, though ranked 17 at the time, was not ranked at the end of the year, and finished 8-5 and 3-5 in conference play. My god.

good thing osu destroyed them to prove what a flawed pick that was.

[BigRedBuster]

 

So, big 12 teams aren't given a pass for losing to unranked teams, but the SEC is?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Once again, a hypocritical double standard.

 

At least the unranked team OSU lost to was on the road

 

With extenuating outside circumstances involving OSU that weekend.

[StPaulHusker]

 

Also, LSU in 2007 lost to TWO unranked teams. LOL. Kentucky, though ranked 17 at the time, was not ranked at the end of the year, and finished 8-5 and 3-5 in conference play. My god.

good thing osu destroyed them to prove what a flawed pick that was.

 

But the argument is that Michigan should have had the opportunity to beat OSU. Not LSU

[Count 'Bility]

 

Also, LSU in 2007 lost to TWO unranked teams. LOL. Kentucky, though ranked 17 at the time, was not ranked at the end of the year, and finished 8-5 and 3-5 in conference play. My god.

good thing osu destroyed them to prove what a flawed pick that was.

 

Again. That's revisionist. And it's not the point.

[sd'sker]

 

 

 

 

Again. This is hindsight. Why did they ALWAYS get the benefit of the doubt?

because it is an imperfect system with limited information.

 

and i think it is funny that people are mad at the lsu/bama rematch, but also mad that mich. did not get a second shot at osu.

 

this all just comes off as sour grapes, in my imo.

 

And the imperfect system with limited information conveniently picked a team from the SEC every time? bullsh#t!

 

No one was mad that the rematches didn't happen at the time they were possible. People got mad because once LSU/Bama II happened, it pulled the curtain back and showed that there were now 3 legitimate arguments where this could have happened and the only one that did involved the SEC.

 

oklahoma st. should have beaten iowa st. easy-peesy. or the big 12 and pac 10 should not have rejected a 4 team playoff, that the sec proposed.

 

You're right, they should have had their head in the game the night of the plane crash.

 

Also, the B1G and Big 12 rejected the playoff that Slive contrived because he wanted to use the BCS polls which we all know are biased.

 

how was the bcs biased? it was imperfect, just as any system will be.

 

i do not even know what to say to the plane crash comment other than how would you factor it in to determining the best teams? no matter what there was going to be controversy and bias, it is just not the bias we, as non-SEC, fans prefer.

[sd'sker]

 

 

Also, LSU in 2007 lost to TWO unranked teams. LOL. Kentucky, though ranked 17 at the time, was not ranked at the end of the year, and finished 8-5 and 3-5 in conference play. My god.

good thing osu destroyed them to prove what a flawed pick that was.

 

But the argument is that Michigan should have had the opportunity to beat OSU. Not LSU

 

unless it is 'bama deserving the opportunity to beat lsu.

[Count 'Bility]

 

 

 

Also, LSU in 2007 lost to TWO unranked teams. LOL. Kentucky, though ranked 17 at the time, was not ranked at the end of the year, and finished 8-5 and 3-5 in conference play. My god.

good thing osu destroyed them to prove what a flawed pick that was.

 

But the argument is that Michigan should have had the opportunity to beat OSU. Not LSU

 

unless it is 'bama deserving the opportunity to beat lsu.

 

that's the whole point. Why does the SEC get that, but the BigTen and Big 12 didnt?

[sd'sker]

 

 

 

 

Also, LSU in 2007 lost to TWO unranked teams. LOL. Kentucky, though ranked 17 at the time, was not ranked at the end of the year, and finished 8-5 and 3-5 in conference play. My god.

good thing osu destroyed them to prove what a flawed pick that was.

 

But the argument is that Michigan should have had the opportunity to beat OSU. Not LSU

 

unless it is 'bama deserving the opportunity to beat lsu.

 

that's the whole point. Why does the SEC get that, but the BigTen and Big 12 didnt?

 

because, it was not that great of a system. and it will not be until more teams are let into the playoffs.

 

but this is all idle chatter because more times than not, when it matters, the sec proves they deserved to be there as much as anyone else. so, i am not going to cry over spilled milk. until teams start showing up and beating the sec, i am not going to whine about bias and whatever. it was nice to see oklahoma do what they did. we need more of that. too bad wiscy and ksu could not have had more to say on the matter.

[Count 'Bility]

there are more factors than that. but someone has to. there is limited information that creates this imperfect system. but you control your chances, and the sec makes the most of theirs, usually.

 

 

but this double standard bias was created after the 2005 championship? right? before that is was fair and perfect.

 

No. Actually it goes back to 2003, when LSU got the nod over USC. Or all the way back to the first year in 1998, when Tennesse got he nod over Tulane (ok. I'm not serious about that)

[sd'sker]

just to be clear, i hate the sec as much as anyone. they are annoying, it is an annoying conference. but, the only way to change it is to beat them regularly. which other conferences have failed to do. but, complaining about some unholy alliance between the SEC and espn (which is corrupt as hell, but such an alliance has not really helped texas much at all) is not going to do anything. this problem exists and can only be fixed on the field.

 

and any complaints about a self-fulfilling prophecy of the media making the SEC good is unfounded and chicken and egg stuff. but some teams have different advantages. that has always been the case. so deal with it. be better.

[Count 'Bility]

 

because, it was not that great of a system. and it will not be until more teams are let into the playoffs.

 

 

but this is all idle chatter because more times than not, when it matters, the sec proves they deserved to be there as much as anyone else. so, i am not going to cry over spilled milk. until teams start showing up and beating the sec, i am not going to whine about bias and whatever. it was nice to see oklahoma do what they did. we need more of that. too bad wiscy and ksu could not have had more to say on the matter.

 

I agree with that. I said that in my lengthy post last page, that give the SEC teams credit for taking advantage of those opportunities. The tiring part is is how the SEC is annointed as this untouchable dominant faction when legit arguments can be made that they didnt deserve them opportunities to begin with.

 

This topic can go back and forth forever. it really can.

[sd'sker]

 

 

because, it was not that great of a system. and it will not be until more teams are let into the playoffs.

 

 

but this is all idle chatter because more times than not, when it matters, the sec proves they deserved to be there as much as anyone else. so, i am not going to cry over spilled milk. until teams start showing up and beating the sec, i am not going to whine about bias and whatever. it was nice to see oklahoma do what they did. we need more of that. too bad wiscy and ksu could not have had more to say on the matter.

 

I agree with that. I said that in my lengthy post last page, that give the SEC teams credit for taking advantage of those opportunities. The tiring part is is how the SEC is annointed as this untouchable dominant faction when legit arguments can be made that they didnt deserve them opportunities to begin with.

 

This topic can go back and forth forever. it really can.

 

i am not saying other teams were not deserving, but the sec teams were just as deserving. including 2004 auburn. and if you want to blame media bias for the benefit of the doubt, well winning when it counts will do that. again, limited information, so you go on what you can when making a decision between two teams with minute differences that play different teams. if there was more crossover, that would help a lot. but when you only play 12 games against maybe 3 or 4 good teams, that is such a small sample size the differences are almost meaningless. so, what can you do? and if you complain about bias or whatever else when the teams you hate are winning, then it just comes off as whining.