Great, but long article, about pumping up the SEC bias

[Stumpy1]

Nebraska couldn't beat the SEC #4 in our last two bowl games.

You can't refer to South Carolina and Georgia as both being the SEC #4 when they had different season results and different standings in their conference.

I can refer to them as #4 choice to represent the SEC in a bowl game, because that's what they were.

Go ahead and make your own Top 6 of SEC teams. Tell me how many you'd bet money on Nebraska beating the past two years.

It is what it is. The SEC is a little better right now. Not hugely better. They've been worse than the Big 10 and Big 12 in the past. They are better at the moment. Others will rise and fall in the future. ESPN will cover it either way.

Georgia wasn't the #4 team in the SEC last year...They were #2 and honestly should have beat the Gump in the SEC title game if it weren't for their coaches.

 

[lo country]

Not to mention a 6-3 UGA is now #25 in the polls. The same team who lost to perennial cellar dweller Vandy and almost lost to UT.

 

[Redux]

Not to mention a 6-3 UGA is now #25 in the polls. The same team who lost to perennial cellar dweller Vandy and almost lost to UT.

Further proof of the middle being overated. That in turn inflates the top.

 

[deedsker]

Here's a breakdown of the controversy back then.

http://www.huffingto..._n_1128189.html

In 2011, both Alabama and Oklahoma State had 1 loss. LSU was undefeated. It was something of a toss-up whether Alabama or Okie State was the better team. Each of Alabama's victories was by at least 16 points. And given that Alabama ultimately dominated LSU in winning 21-0, it's hard to see how you argue retroactively that they shouldn't even have been playing in that game.

Remember when they gave Wisconsin another chance against Nebraska last year?

Remember when they gave Wisconsin another chance against Michigan State two years ago?

Looks to me like I wouldn't want to have to play anybody twice if you won the first time.

 

[AgMarauder04]

It is what it is. The SEC is a little better right now. Not hugely better. They've been worse than the Big 10 and Big 12 in the past. They are better at the moment. Others will rise and fall in the future. ESPN will cover it either way.

</div>
This statement is the best statement in the entire thread.

 

[Zaimejs]

It is what it is. The SEC is a little better right now. Not hugely better. They've been worse than the Big 10 and Big 12 in the past. They are better at the moment. Others will rise and fall in the future. ESPN will cover it either way.

</div>
This statement is the best statement in the entire thread.

The point is that they are kept afloat by ESPN. It's not about ESPN "covering" the sporting news... it's about ESPN being the Fox news of sports and creating a narrative that promotes their own product. The whole idea of the article is that the SEC isn't the best, never were the best, but because of careful self-promotion, they've seemed like the dominant conference. Did you read the article?

 

[AgMarauder04]

I read the article, and I find some truths and some flaws in it. My entire point is that the SEC is the best conference in football, however they are not vastly superior as the polls and ESPN would have you believe. Yes, they are overrated, but they are some mediocre conference pumped up to be the best.

They are a conference that is a little bit better than the others, and is pumped up to be WAY better, which is not the case. ESPN is a sports entertainment network in addition to news, so they create their narratives to generate ratings.

 

[Ric Flair]

2012 -Bama lucks back into title game after Oregon and KSU lose on same night. And Ohio State Banned from bowl.

2011 - Okie State Big 12 Champ held out in favor of Bama that didnt win its division for a BS all SEC West title rematch

2010 - Boise St blows their shot with a missed FG and Auburn escapes Oregon via Dyers infamous Dyer isnt down run.

2009 - 5 Teams finish undefeated. Texas escapes us to lose Mccoy in the first quarter and be ineffective against Bama.

2008 - Oklahoma flexes its weaknesses against Florida after the 3 way Big 12 South tie that couldve gone to Texas.

2007 - An awful year for rankings. Everbody lost and lost alot. Ohio State and LSU limp into title game that was up for grabs.

2006 - Florida starts the trend and the nightmare continues this season.

Excuses are for losers. I'm not calling you a loser. I'm suggesting that we are (or used to be at least) better than this nonsense.

Some of you sound like Missouri or K-State fans used to back in the old Big 8 days. Good teams make their own luck.

The SEC's seven national titles in a row speak for themselves.

2011 was bullsh#t and its hard to argue otherwise. 2012 Bama had a loss and wouldnt have been in if not for the Buckeyes bowl ban they shouldve taken the year before. Those are facts

Here's a breakdown of the controversy back then.

http://www.huffingto..._n_1128189.html

In 2011, both Alabama and Oklahoma State had 1 loss. LSU was undefeated. It was something of a toss-up whether Alabama or Okie State was the better team. Each of Alabama's victories was by at least 16 points. And given that Alabama ultimately dominated LSU in winning 21-0, it's hard to see how you argue retroactively that they shouldn't even have been playing in that game.

Easily. LSU had defeated Alabama previously. Alanama did not win their division. Oklahoma State won their conference. Alabam was selected over Oklahoma State. This essentialy proved the BCS bias and inneficiancy to level the provebial playing field. If the champion of the supposed #2 conference got snubbed in favor of a 6-9 rematch of division foes, what is the point for anybody to try or give a sh#t? The logo on the field gets the final say. Really, the fact Bama smoked LSU in the rematch says more about the SEC NOT being as great.

I disagree completely. LSU had a very good team that year. They were undefeated. And Alabama came out and completely dominated them. They proved they deserved to be there.

The notion that Oklahoma State was a "great" team that year is simple nonsense. They had a good offense that would have been chewed up by a top-flight SEC defense. The Big 12 had quit playing defense, remember that? They had a lot of teams putting up Tecmo Bowl stats. So that offense had never really been tested. My view is that if it had been, they would have struggled.

You claim they were a better team than Alabama. I think you're dreaming. But let's assume they played head to head on a neutral field in a bowl game. Who do you think would have won? Do you really think that given a month to prepare, Nick Saban couldn't have come up with a way to shut down Oklahoma State's offense?

And this nonsense about some wide-spread conspiracy to pump up the SEC needs to stop. ESPN obviously has a financial interest in the SEC. So let's assume for the sake of argument that they do actively promote the SEC. Are you really suggesting that they have the influence to trick all of the voting members of the media and all of the coaches who vote in order to corrupt the AP and Coaches polls respectively and skew the results of the BCS poll? Is that before or after Lee Corso and Kirk Herbstreit plant viruses in the computer systems that run the other polls in order to make sure the SEC is favored there as well?

We're a mediocre team in a mediocre conference. Our focus needs to be on finding ways to get better, not on dreaming up crazy conspiracy theories about how unfair the system is.

 

[knapplc]

ESPN now has a (hugely) vested interest in perpetuating the supremacy of the SEC. It is an agenda they must push in order to meet the projected $1 Billion net worth of game inventory.

Basically, the ebb and flow of college football Guy referred to, from ESPN's perspective, cannot be allowed. The SEC cannot fall into dotage like the Big Ten has, cannot fall out of that #1 slot. ESPN and parent company Disney have invested far too much in the SEC Network for this to happen.

How can they influence that? By ignoring or downplaying damaging stories that might affect the teams in which they have invested. Synthetic marijuana abuse at Auburn? It may be mentioned, a blip on the back end of a story on the way to a commercial break, but not much more.

But that's not all. ESPN has direct competitors to the SEC Network, the Big Ten Network being the current most-successful rival. In the interest of protecting their investment, a scandal on the order of Buying Cam Newton's services at Auburn might get very little attention, while a scandal on the order of trading memorabilia for tattoos at Ohio State may lead off SportsCenter for weeks.

Coverage of the fancy new facilities at Alabama - and they are damned fancy - will get glowing reviews, while even fancier facilities at Oregon - and they are fancier - will be mentioned but not praised. Why? Because the better the SEC schools look, the more likely high school athletes are to sign there. ESPN can, and will, exert their influence to recruit for the SEC out of sheer necessity. The better the athletes in the schools they've invested in, the more likely they are to be better, the more likely they are to warrant remaining the lead story, and the snowball keeps rolling.

It doesn't matter if you're an Alabama fan or an Oregon fan, this ESPN/SEC deal should cause you deep concern. Whittling away at the support other schools/conferences have across the country will ultimately hurt all of college football.

Whether you like them or not, college football needs a solid base of good teams throughout the country to remain healthy. That means that these teams, in no particular order, need to remain viable and in the national picture:

Washington

Stanford

Oregon

USC

UCLA

Nebraska

Oklahoma

Texas

Texas A&M

LSU

Michigan

Ohio State

Tennessee

Alabama

Arkansas

Georgia

Florida

Florida State

Miami

Notre Dame

Penn State

These teams must consistently remain, if not in the national title hunt, but in the national consciousness. Why? Because the entire nation is not going to watch SEC football when the audience in their area - the PAC-12, the Big Ten, the Big XII, whatever - has dried up because their local teams cannot and will not ever compete.

In addition to those blue-blood schools, you MUST have a base of contenders, from every conference, who can on a minimum once a decade challenge for their conference title, and occasionally break their way into the national conversation:

Arizona

Boise State

Boston College

California

Clemson

Colorado

Iowa

Iowa State

Kansas State

Michigan State

Missouri

North Carolina

Oklahoma State

Ole Miss

Oregon State

South Carolina

Texas Tech

Washington State

West Virginia

Wisconsin

That's, at minimum, 40 schools whose health and well-being are absolutely vital to the overall health of this sport. Granted, one quarter of the schools in my lists are in the SEC, but seven are in the Big Ten and another nine are in the Pac-12. And I may be missing some - this was a quickly thrown together list.

The SEC is dominant right now, and they're playing entertaining football. But they cannot, must not, be the only contending conference in the land. And there is very little guarantee that ESPN will do anything to maintain a balance of power. In fact, their investment in the SEC nearly guarantees they won't.

And that's the problem.

 

[NUance]

^^ What he said.

 

[AgMarauder04]

The SEC is dominant right now, and they're playing entertaining football. But they cannot, must not, be the only contending conference in the land. And there is very little guarantee that ESPN will do anything to maintain a balance of power. In fact, their investment in the SEC nearly guarantees they won't.

Which is why it's so important that Fox Sports 1 continues to grow and strengthen to offer a viable alternative to ESPiN

 

[StPaulHusker]

Fox Sports 1 being a viable alternative to ESPN is not really the issue. People will watch a game if it is a good match up. But the problem lies with ESPN hitching it's wagon to the SEC and having a vested interest in one specific conference succeeding.

It is a border line conflict of interest. So really the only way that Fox Sports 1 is going to possibly level the playing field is to spend $2 billion dollars on a conference and sell out the same way ESPN does.

 

[AgMarauder04]

I disagree. The issue is less about the airing of games, but all the other coverage college football gets. If FS1 can offer a good alternative, and people get sick of ESPN pumping up one conference, then they will lose viewers and be forced to change their narrative. This shouldn't be hard. You would THINK the rest of the country, which far outnumbers the SEC, would be getting sick of it.

In the end, as long as they get the viewers, ESPN doesn't care.

 

[Landlord]

The notion that Oklahoma State was a "great" team that year is simple nonsense. They had a good offense that would have been chewed up by a top-flight SEC defense. The Big 12 had quit playing defense, remember that? They had a lot of teams putting up Tecmo Bowl stats. So that offense had never really been tested. My view is that if it had been, they would have struggled.

You claim they were a better team than Alabama. I think you're dreaming. But let's assume they played head to head on a neutral field in a bowl game. Who do you think would have won? Do you really think that given a month to prepare, Nick Saban couldn't have come up with a way to shut down Oklahoma State's offense?

I think Alabama would have beaten Oklahoma State easily.

I also think Oklahoma State should have been the other team playing in the championship game.

In the BCS system, it is not about who is better - it's about who deserves it more. Oklahoma State's production and success outweighed Alabama's and they deserved to be in the game.

 

[Ric Flair]

The only way to end SEC dominance is to beat their representative in the national title game. I believe that Florida State is set up well to take down Alabama should those teams make it that far.

Beat the SEC when it counts and ESPN will have a far tougher time claiming that conference is dominant.