I know what the ranking were. But you SPECIFICALLY mentioned teams ranked well below 4, including one that was beaten by said overrated team. Also you have yet to describe how they were overrated going into the game. Was it the schedule? I mean their schedule was about as good as it comes, but okay. Was it too many close games? Well only three of the games were even less than a touchdown win. Was it lack of marquee names? Well Michigan, Mich St, Stanford, Miami, Oklahoma, and USC are certainly good names. Maybe none of the teams were any good? Well ten of them made bowls (or were bowl eligible and had to withdraw from a bowl invite) , and the other two won five games. So it can't be that either. Maybe they didn't play anyone on the road? Well they did play at USC, @ BC, @ Oklahoma, and @ Mich St, and played Navy in Ireland. So it can't be that either.

So what was it that made them overrated going into the game? Their performance in the CCG is not admissible, because you are talking about who should have been in, not how they played. Plus we have no idea how other teams might have done against Bama. You have YET to come close to describing how they were overrated, and instead have proposed that teams they beat, or teams that lost to teams they beat should be in. Also to note in your top four, Florida did not even win their division, and Oregon lost to a team that was beaten by said overrated (yet undefeated and number one ND).

(01-06-2015 12:06 PM)oliveandblue Wrote:  When the SEC was on its run, there was no better conference in college football. The playoff would have amplified the point - not undermined it.

The college landscape would not be any different than it is today.

Yes and no. If there had been a 4-team playoff from the start of the BCS (1998), the SEC would have had at least one team in the playoff from 2002 through this year. That's 13 years in a row. The next longest run during that time would have been the Pac at 6 years in a row. So the SEC would have been in the mix more often than any other league in a 4-team playoff during that period.

Sure, there would have been different champs in some years just because whenever you play more games, shtt happens. More games mean more upsets and/or 50-50 games going the other way.

like I said other places- if there was a playoff- there would have been a chance the SEC could have won more...
1999- Alabama
2002- Georgia
2004- Auburn
2005- Georgia

The point I'm trying to make is:

NO ONE THOUGHT OHIO STATE WOULD BEAT ALABAMA....but they abused them on both the offensive and defensive line. How many yards did Alabama give up? Can't remember the stats but OSU's rb was the first RB to rush for over 200 against them since Cadillac Williams did umpteen years ago....


...I'm so glad we have a playoff now, so you won't see any more SEC/ESPN media-bias...because we ALL know ESPN has clearly cornered the market for college football and their media darling is the SEC....so they are trying all they can to protect/promote their asset.


Another horrible aspect in college football that has continued to snowball for the SEC is their pre-season rankings. People will argue that you NEED pre-season rankings for the purpose of TV-ratings but that is false. College football is more about BRAND-VALUE than RANKING. Having pre-season rankings puts a dampening effect on the ACCURACY of how GOOD teams really are. They shouldn't have significant polls (coaches, AP, play-off, etc.) until about midway through the season...well after teams have gone through their non-conf. games, yet we still have them and NO other conference has benefited from the "pre-season rankings" better than the SEC....and it's one continuous cycle because after that Leak/Tebow team in '06....the SEC continued to get teams ranked pre-season (and we all know the SEC, w/ the exception of a few) schedule CRAP teams (relative to how other power conference teams schedule) and they go 4-0 in non.conf plus wins over Vandy/Kentucky and they are undefeated...meanwhile that earlier #22 pre-season ranking has now moved to #14 at week 6 and they are playing their conference brethren (insert different SEC school not Vandy or Kentucky) who was #20 pre-season and now at #10 at week 6 because they went 4-0 in conference and then also beat Vandy and Kentucky. The cycle continues.


DO AWAY W/ PRE-SEASON RANKINGS and do away w/ ANY rankings until midway through the season.

In other words... Let's forget I so t all of this time making such a moronic statement....

Besides a lower seeded tam winning doesn't disprove that the teams higher rated did not deserve it. Did UConn winning the national title in basketball prove that the 30 plus teams seeded above them were not worthy of their seed? Of course not. Doesn't invalidate their win because they were an underdog, but has no bearing on past winners prior to the expansion past 32 teams (when uconn would not have made the cut)

(01-06-2015 12:45 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Notre Dame was undefeated and had wins over TEN bowl eligible teams, including Stanford, one of the very teams you state is better. Note that Stanford also beat Oregon that year. ND also beat Michigan, Michigan St, Oklahoma, and USC who were ranked at one point during the year (5 total ranked teams when you include Stanford). They played TEN P5/BCS schools, with the other two games being against Navy and BYU (both bowl teams). It's like you are trying to not make sense. Just how were they so overrated going into the game?

Everyone "knew" Notre Dame wasn't one of the top two teams. They "deserved" to be in the game, but they weren't as good as their ranking, much like FSU this year.

(01-06-2015 01:34 PM)stever20 Wrote:  like I said other places- if there was a playoff- there would have been a chance the SEC could have won more...
1999- Alabama
2002- Georgia
2004- Auburn
2005- Georgia

There's a chance Boise could have won 5 national titles too.
UGA 2005 was no match for USC or Texas. 2004 Auburn probably wasn't a match for OU, let alone USC. Years like 2007, 2008, 2010 and 2011 were much more debatable.

(01-06-2015 12:39 PM)TTT Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 12:03 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  SEC over-rated?

In the last six BCS championships won by the SEC (not counting the all-SEC match-up) the SEC team winning the title was the lower rated team four times. Even in the final match-up won by Florida State the SEC team was rated #2.

I think you're missing my point. If we had a 4 team playoff every year

'13 season: #1 FSU vs. #4 Michigan State...it's a toss-up game.
#2 Auburn vs #3 Alabama is a toss-up........winner of last year, had their been a playoff, who knows? All we do know is FSU beat Auburn....but they would've never matched up (assuming we're using the BCS rankings then as the NOW college football playoff rankings)


'12 season: #1 and EXTREMELY OVERRATED Notre Dame get's crushed by #4 Oregon...so Oregon plays winner of #2 Alabama and #3 Florida...Alabama would probably win so would leave an Oregon vs. Alabama matchup in the NC game....Oregon wins.

'11 season: #1 LSU vs. #4 Stanford = toss-up. #2 Alabama vs. #3 Okie State (who actually beat #4 Stanford in the Fiesta Bowl that year).......so you'd probably see a LSU vs. Okie State.......TOSS-UP. Okie State could've won.

'10 season: #1 Auburn vs. #4 Stanford = toss-up. #2 Oregon vs. #3 TCU = toss-up. NC winner = who knows.


Bottom-line is. The SEC media-BIAS w/ ESPN get's them BETTER/EASIER bowl matchups...which leads to BETTER bowl records which leads to BETTER PRE-SEASON rankings the following year...............THIS RIGHT HERE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE and it goes back all the way before '06 when the SEC started to really "take over" w/ the Leak/Tebow combination. THEY SHOULD DO AWAY W/ PRE-SEASON rankings until about the 5th or 6th week.......have a play-off at the end of the year. We're doing half of the things right now...........NOW we just need to DO AWAY W/ PRE-SEASON RANKINGS. PRE-SEASON RANKINGS are SEC-media biased every year.

I'm not missing your point, I just think that when the SEC won most of those championships as the #2 seed the claim that the they won it because of bias in their favor rings hollow.

(01-06-2015 02:13 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 01:34 PM)stever20 Wrote:  like I said other places- if there was a playoff- there would have been a chance the SEC could have won more...
1999- Alabama
2002- Georgia
2004- Auburn
2005- Georgia

There's a chance Boise could have won 5 national titles too.
UGA 2005 was no match for USC or Texas. 2004 Auburn probably wasn't a match for OU, let alone USC. Years like 2007, 2008, 2010 and 2011 were much more debatable.

we just don't know. And in a year like 2011- the SEC would have had 2 teams in- likely not playing each other 1st round. 2010- Auburn would have played Wisconsin 1st(same Wisconsin who lost to TCU). Very possible wind up with the exact same final matchup. 2007- LSU had already pounded VT earlier in the year. The fact is the SEC would have had a team in pretty much every year of the BCS except for 1 or 2 years. SEC may not have won 7 in a row, but the overall number of titles would have likely remained the same.

Also- Boise would have NEVER gotten in the playoff even once. So your statement is just false about them.

I think people are missing one important thing here. College football's outcome is entirely predicated on how long they play for. From a purely logical perspective, there is no difference between the validity of an outcome after 14 games, instead of 15, or 16, or 20. It all comes back down to the fact that you pick a winner at a given point.

So, while you can say that the SEC team would not have won game 15, it doesn't undermine the fact that they did at game 14. Likewise, to say they wouldn't have won at game 15 is no more or less valid than saying they would have won at game 16.

If you were to add one more game you would get one result, add two more games and you get another, add three more and you get yet another.

Seen it on here before but the "E$PiN favors the SEC" narrative is a big theme in this thread and I think it's a load of rubbish. ESPN has significant stakes in all P5 conferences:

ACC: first, second and third tier rights
Big Ten: first tier rights
Big 12: joint first and second tier rights with FOX
PAC 12: joint first and second tier rights with FOX
SEC: second tier rights

The SEC is actually the only conference, at least for another decade, from which ESPN does not get first tier content. They get all of the top games from the ACC and Big Ten and a significant share of the Big 12 and PAC 12 first tier content. I do not buy for a second that they're spinning anything in the SEC's favor besides the typical media gushing over whoever happens to be top dog at the moment (e.g. during the SEC's 7 season championship run).

Top 4 since 2002.


2002: tOSU, Miami, UGA, USC

2003: OU, LSU, USC, Michigan

2004: USC, OU, Auburn, Cal

2005: USC, UT, PSU, tOSU

2006: tOSU, UF, UofM, LSU

2007: tOSU, LSU, Va Tech, OU

2008: OU, UF, Alabama, UT

2009: Alabama, UT, Cincinnati, TCU

2010: Auburn, Oregon, TCU, Stanford

2011: LSU, Alabama, Ok St, Stanford

2012: ND, Alabama, UF, Oregon

2013: FSU, Auburn, Alabama, Mich State



16 times in the top 4 in 12 years.

If anything, the SEC could have been champs 11 out of the last 12 years with the current playoff system.

(01-06-2015 03:51 PM)Brick City Wrote:  The SEC is actually the only conference, at least for another decade, from which ESPN does not get first tier content.

No. CBS gets about 15 SEC football games a year, and they probably get about 10 of the 15 best games, for various reasons.

So, ESPN gets 5 of the 15 best SEC games, which is pretty close to the 7 or 8 of the 15 best games they get from each of the Pac-12 and Big 12.

And ESPN, now that they have SECN, has at least 80 SEC home games a year (all of the SEC games other than those 15 CBS games), whereas they get a total of 22 or 23 Pac-12 games a year and a similar number of Big 12 games.

(01-06-2015 05:12 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 03:51 PM)Brick City Wrote:  The SEC is actually the only conference, at least for another decade, from which ESPN does not get first tier content.

No. CBS gets about 15 SEC football games a year, and they probably get about 10 of the 15 best games, for various reasons.

So, ESPN gets 5 of the 15 best SEC games, which is pretty close to the 7 or 8 of the 15 best games they get from each of the Pac-12 and Big 12.

And ESPN, now that they have SECN, has at least 80 SEC home games a year (all of the SEC games other than those 15 CBS games), whereas they get a total of 22 or 23 Pac-12 games a year and a similar number of Big 12 games.

I thought CBS pretty much got the first pick every week so for all intents and purposes had the top shelf stuff to itself. Thanks for the clarification on the above though. Regardless, my point remains that ESPN has huge vested interests in all the conferences. Even with the SECN stake (which I admittedly forgot to consider), they have all of the ACC's rights and all of the Big Ten's premier (i.e. the stuff that matters) content. Adding in the first tier splits with FOX for the Big 12 and PAC 12 and it is clear that ESPN has done well at getting a hand into everyone's pie.

Of the entire SEC schedule- there were only 2 weeks where ESPN got a better rating than CBS. 1 was Tennessee/Georgia- which beat Arkansas/Texas A&M, and the other was Alabama/Auburn- which was on ESPN only because Alabama had exceeded their appearance limit on CBS. SEC gets 2 doubleheader weekends on CBS- and 1 of those the 2nd game beat all the ESPN games that weekend as well. So no way in the world does ESPN get 5 of the 15 best SEC games. not even close.