Bo Pelini's Job Security Examined

[carlfense]

Those statements aren't even related.

Why not?

Kansas St and Oregon were one loss teams last year right?

Notre Dame was too, right? :lol:

 

[kchusker_chris]

Those statements aren't even related.

Why not?

Just because an SEC (or any other conference) team wins a BCS title doesn't automatically mean the whole conference is the best. It's quite simple. The whole concept is a media driven hype machine, and quite ludicrous.

Yeah, but in those BCS titles (9 out of 15 including the last 7) there have been 5 different teams from the SEC with a trophy. There's at most - 3 teams that are capable of winning a title in the B1G. Maybe 2 in the Big 12, 2 in the Pac12. But any given year...6 or 7 from the SEC teams could win it all. South Carolina and Georgia don't have a title, but are consistently 10-11 win teams of late. The SEC is deep. Far deeper than any other conference.

 

[carlfense]

Just because an SEC (or any other conference) team wins a BCS title doesn't automatically mean the whole conference is the best. It's quite simple. The whole concept is a media driven hype machine, and quite ludicrous.

Do they actually say that the whole conference is the best or that the best of the SEC is the best in the country? Because I think that the latter has been shown to be true.

They say it, as did you above.

Where?

Hopefully you aren't referring to this:

Actually . . . they are THAT much better than everyone else. The gap isn't that big at the skill positions but on the offensive and defensive lines the talent/depth gap between the top teams in the SEC and everyone else is enormous.

That doesn't mean that every team in the SEC is a world beater but the best in the SEC is easily the best in the country.

What do you see that would lead you to believe that the gap is closing fast?

 

[Saunders]

Just because an SEC (or any other conference) team wins a BCS title doesn't automatically mean the whole conference is the best. It's quite simple. The whole concept is a media driven hype machine, and quite ludicrous.

Do they actually say that the whole conference is the best or that the best of the SEC is the best in the country? Because I think that the latter has been shown to be true.

They say it, as did you above.

Where?

This, unless I'm mistaken...

If "wins are wins" (as has been said repeatedly in this thread) the SEC is the best. They win. Full stop.

 

[carlfense]

This, unless I'm mistaken...

If "wins are wins" (as has been said repeatedly in this thread) the SEC is the best. They win. Full stop.

Referring to the national champions . . .

 

[Saunders]

This, unless I'm mistaken...

If "wins are wins" (as has been said repeatedly in this thread) the SEC is the best. They win. Full stop.

Referring to the national champions . . .

Right...?

You stated that the SEC conference is the best because they have the team that won a national title.

 

[carlfense]

This, unless I'm mistaken...

If "wins are wins" (as has been said repeatedly in this thread) the SEC is the best. They win. Full stop.

Referring to the national champions . . .

Right...?

You stated that the SEC conference is the best because they have the team that won a national title.

And this . . . which you seem to be ignoring for some reason.

http://www.huskerboa...ost__p__1187866

What exactly is your argument? That the SEC isn't the best because every team in the SEC isn't great? Or are you just spitballing?

 

[EZ-E]

Those statements aren't even related.

Why not?

Just because an SEC (or any other conference) team wins a BCS title doesn't automatically mean the whole conference is the best. It's quite simple. The whole concept is a media driven hype machine, and quite ludicrous.

Yeah, but in those BCS titles (9 out of 15 including the last 7) there have been 5 different teams from the SEC with a trophy. There's at most - 3 teams that are capable of winning a title in the B1G. Maybe 2 in the Big 12, 2 in the Pac12. But any given year...6 or 7 from the SEC teams could win it all. South Carolina and Georgia don't have a title, but are consistently 10-11 win teams of late. The SEC is deep. Far deeper than any other conference.

If we are as bad as people like you claim we are this statement isn't true.

 

[Saunders]

This, unless I'm mistaken...

If "wins are wins" (as has been said repeatedly in this thread) the SEC is the best. They win. Full stop.

Referring to the national champions . . .

Right...?

You stated that the SEC conference is the best because they have the team that won a national title.

And this . . . which you seem to be ignoring for some reason.

http://www.huskerboa...ost__p__1187866

What exactly is your argument? That the SEC isn't the best because every team in the SEC isn't great? Or are you just spitballing?

My argument was already spelled out. Just because the SEC (or any conference) has a team win a title doesn't automatically make them the best. That's it.

 

[Saunders]

Those statements aren't even related.

Why not?

Just because an SEC (or any other conference) team wins a BCS title doesn't automatically mean the whole conference is the best. It's quite simple. The whole concept is a media driven hype machine, and quite ludicrous.

Yeah, but in those BCS titles (9 out of 15 including the last 7) there have been 5 different teams from the SEC with a trophy. There's at most - 3 teams that are capable of winning a title in the B1G. Maybe 2 in the Big 12, 2 in the Pac12. But any given year...6 or 7 from the SEC teams could win it all. South Carolina and Georgia don't have a title, but are consistently 10-11 win teams of late. The SEC is deep. Far deeper than any other conference.

The bottom 7 were 0-30 against the top 7. I'll give you 2-3 teams, but no way is it six or seven.

You also have to look at how those titles were won.

2012: Bama over Notre Dame. Did anyone really think ND was #1 or #2?

2011: SEC Circle Jerk with LSU and Bama. COuld make arguments for 3 other teams that should have been in there.

2010: Oregon and Auburn was a legit game.

2009: Bama and Texas. That game would have been completely different if Colt hadn't been knocked out 5 minutes in.

2008: OU and UF. Florida had a good game over OU. Texas and TT had legit complaints to be in there.

2007: LSU over OSU. OSU was overrated all year, and any of the other top 5 teams could have beat them.

 

[EZ-E]

People also forget that Texas was up on Bama in 09 with a true freshmen QB playing.

 

[carlfense]

My argument was already spelled out. Just because the SEC (or any conference) has a team win a title doesn't automatically make them the best. That's it.

So . . . who is better and why?

 

[BigRedBuster]

Those statements aren't even related.

Why not?

Just because an SEC (or any other conference) team wins a BCS title doesn't automatically mean the whole conference is the best. It's quite simple. The whole concept is a media driven hype machine, and quite ludicrous.

Yeah, but in those BCS titles (9 out of 15 including the last 7) there have been 5 different teams from the SEC with a trophy. There's at most - 3 teams that are capable of winning a title in the B1G. Maybe 2 in the Big 12, 2 in the Pac12. But any given year...6 or 7 from the SEC teams could win it all. South Carolina and Georgia don't have a title, but are consistently 10-11 win teams of late. The SEC is deep. Far deeper than any other conference.

The bottom 7 were 0-30 against the top 7. I'll give you 2-3 teams, but no way is it six or seven.

You also have to look at how those titles were won.

2012: Bama over Notre Dame. Did anyone really think ND was #1 or #2?

2011: SEC Circle Jerk with LSU and Bama. COuld make arguments for 3 other teams that should have been in there.

2010: Oregon and Auburn was a legit game.

2009: Bama and Texas. That game would have been completely different if Colt hadn't been knocked out 5 minutes in.

2008: OU and UF. Florida had a good game over OU. Texas and TT had legit complaints to be in there.

2007: LSU over OSU. OSU was overrated all year, and any of the other top 5 teams could have beat them.

Perfect argument for why we need the play off system.

 

[Saunders]

My argument was already spelled out. Just because the SEC (or any conference) has a team win a title doesn't automatically make them the best. That's it.

So . . . who is better and why?

da skers hit it: http://www.huskerboa...ost__p__1187868

TBH I don't really care, but I'm sick of the misinformation and the "OMG SOS" stuff that's spewed by ESPN and CBS. Between playing home bowl games, and gaming the schedules with cupcakes at the end of the season... Much of the perceived "strength" of the SEC is built on that principle. SOS is a horribly flawed system, and the fact that it's used to determine who gets a shot is ridiculous.

 

[EZ-E]

The SEC is very top heavy. No way do they have 6-7 teams every year that can win a title. Acting like the entire SEC conference is as a whole great gives the people of Kentucky, Mizzou, Miss St, Ole Miss, and Auburn some type of false sense of merit when talking football.