...implemented this 4-team playoff back in the mid-90s when the BCS was created? Regardless of "preception" based on "reality", the SEC has been overrated/inflated for years and it's finally been coming to light these past few years.

I absolutely love this playoff structure and it's only gonna grow to 8 or 16. but I digress. That's why you play THE GAME and not let ESPN and their media-darling conference The $EC with all their fancy money and their lucrative SEC/ESPN TV-contracts, and all the MEDIA-BIAS/propaganda which has continued over the past 10 years to automatically get them into the NC game. This is why I LOVED watching Alabama getting their arses handed to them by Ohio State. Just imagine if we still didn't have a playoff this year. You would've had #1 Alabama play #2 FSU (who both got SPANKED!) and Bama would've probably won (remember, Alabama was #1 and FSU was #2 in the final AP and coaches polls, under this hypothetical scenario there wouldn't have beena separate "playoff rankings poll").......and all of the talking-heads and everyone else would be screaming ONCE again "SEC! SEC! SEC! they're the best! SEC!).......but no, not any more! Alabama got their arses waxed, as did FSU. If they didn't have the 4-team playoff this year EVERYONE would've scoffed at the idea of Ohio St. beating big bad SEC champion and #1 overall ranked Alabama.

People claim perception of the SEC is all based on "reality"........well, just imagine if we had this 4-team playoff implemented back in the mid-90's......."perceptions" and "realites" would be totally different. Just like last year, you'd have "upsets"...which would change the true "perception/reality" of college programs/conferences.

I just find it so ironic that THIS playoff system is what the SEC wanted ......."oh we're so good of a conference, we need to break away from the whole NCAA or we need to have a 4-team playoff so we can get as many of our media-bias overhyped teams in that top-4 because you know, we are soooo good, in all" yadada bull crap.

Anyway, I'm tickled to death that:
-The SEC only got 1 team in the top-4
-The other SEC's "best" got their arses handed to them by "inferior" programs in the other bowls
-The SEC's best got their arse handed to them by a team that "shouldn't have been in the top-4......all of that is just PRICELESS.


Sorry for the rant. Me being a Southern Miss fan and living in the shadows (and completely surrounded by) any and EVERY type of walmart/sidewalk/die-hard-never-even-stepped-foot-in-a-college-classroom-or-even-knows-where-(insert SEC school)'s-campus-is PLUS the creation of the BCS and the fruition of lucractive TV-contracts....this has all KILLED the Southern Miss program....and it's largely in part because of the SEC and their Commish (who used to be C-USA's Commish). Anyway, I'm out. To The Top!

so cliff notes: I don't like the SEC because everyone roots for them and ignores my school.

(01-06-2015 10:22 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  so cliff notes: The SEC is overrated. The SEC wants to play by their own rules so they set forth their own rules...and it backfires. Everyone points and laughs at them.

FIFY

I don't hate the SEC, but they are overrated. A lot of it is because the there are more fans of college football in the Southeast. Some of it is East Coast bias (teams on the West coast are not seen by the fans in the Southeast as often). In addition to that, teams from the SEC do not play as difficult of an OOC as some of the other conferences and do not play as many conference games.

This doesn't mean that the SEC is bad. They are a competitor for being the best conference year in and year out. It just means that they aren't light years ahead of every other P5 like some fans and media would lead you to believe.

Oh, in no way am I saying the SEC is a bad conference...that's ridiculous. They are just on same competitive level as the rest of the power conferences, and had we had this 4-team playoff implemented back in mid-90s...it'd further prove it.

(01-06-2015 10:42 AM)TTT Wrote:  Oh, in no way am I saying the SEC is a bad conference...that's ridiculous. They are just on same competitive level as the rest of the power conferences, and had we had this 4-team playoff implemented back in mid-90s...it'd further prove it.

That's called speculation.

Side note:

Is that the new Southern Miss eagle? Please tell me it isn't.

While we're imagining things, imagine if the NCAA created a football championship tournament of 4 or 8 teams back in 1939 when they started the basketball tournament.

(01-06-2015 10:52 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 10:42 AM)TTT Wrote:  Oh, in no way am I saying the SEC is a bad conference...that's ridiculous. They are just on same competitive level as the rest of the power conferences, and had we had this 4-team playoff implemented back in mid-90s...it'd further prove it.

That's called speculation.

"Perception" is "reality".

Last year, unranked Nebraska beats #22 ranked Georgia, big bag Bama got spanked last year by Oklahoma. Big bag Auburn got beat by Florida State. The '12 bowl season Clemson beat LSU, Northwestern beat Mississippi State, Louisville beats Florida in the sugar bowl (imagine that...another SEC team getting trounced in the sugar bowl)....yeah Alabama dominated Notre Dame in the NC game but everyone and their mom knew Notre Dame didn't deserve to be in that game....they should've put Alabama against Stanford, Oregon, FSU, or Louisville....but NOOOOO....that would be too tough for the SEC...can't have the SEC losing the national championship. Year before that ('11 bowl season) was the ONLY season in recent years where two SEC teams deserved to be in the NC game (LSU/alabama) allbeit was boring as hell. The NC game before that it was Oregon/Auburn and had it not been for the fluke "no whistle"....Oregon wins.

My point being...the SEC is AVERAGE relative to the rest of the power conferences. It was proved this year w/ the playoff system:

This year Ole Miss/MSU got WAXED by TCU and Ga Tech. Unranked Penn State beats #23 LSU, Wisconsin beat Auburn and big bad Bama again got spanked by Ohio State in the sugar bowl......AGAIN.. The SEC is not "all that" anymore.

(01-06-2015 10:53 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Side note:

Is that the new Southern Miss eagle? Please tell me it isn't.

Yes it is our new proposed logo. We were sued by BC$ school Iowa because our logos looked too similar:




...so we were forced to change our logo. I like our new logo:





Here's a link detailing the whole scenario and the new logo:
New Southern Miss logo

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.

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.

This year (had we NOT have a playoff)....Alabama would've probably crushed Florida State for the BCS national championship......we'd all be sitting here saying "SEC proves once again they are the best, yada yada"....yet they lost to #4 Ohio State (who some feel were undeserving.


Imagine all those BCS champ games where the SEC played in it...imagine if there were playoffs those years.....catch my drift?

(01-06-2015 10:19 AM)TTT Wrote:  ...implemented this 4-team playoff back in the mid-90s when the BCS was created? Regardless of "preception" based on "reality", the SEC has been overrated/inflated for years and it's finally been coming to light these past few years.

Well back in the mid 90's, the SEC was not near as dominant and this would not be an issue. Before Florida won in 96, the SEC had 1 champions the previous 15 years, and save for the 3 year run from 78-80, had another drought the 15 years prior to that. Simply wasn't an issue in the mid 90's.

(01-06-2015 12:23 PM)TTT Wrote:  This year (had we NOT have a playoff)....Alabama would've probably crushed Florida State for the BCS national championship......we'd all be sitting here saying "SEC proves once again they are the best, yada yada"....yet they lost to #4 Ohio State (who some feel were undeserving.


Imagine all those BCS champ games where the SEC played in it...imagine if there were playoffs those years.....catch my drift?

Your "drift" is a logical fallacy.

(01-06-2015 11:38 AM)TTT Wrote:  Yeah Alabama dominated Notre Dame in the NC game but everyone and their mom knew Notre Dame didn't deserve to be in that game....they should've put Alabama against Stanford, Oregon, FSU, or Louisville....but NOOOOO....that would be too tough for the SEC...can't have the SEC losing the national championship.

Just to be clear: you are saying that instead of matching up Number 2 Alabama with Undefeated Number 1 Notre Dame, they instead should have been matched up against number 4 Oregon, number 6 and 2 loss Stanford, number 12 and two loss Florida State, or number 21 and two loss Louisville, to give Alabama a better game?

(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.

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?

(01-06-2015 12:38 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 11:38 AM)TTT Wrote:  Yeah Alabama dominated Notre Dame in the NC game but everyone and their mom knew Notre Dame didn't deserve to be in that game....they should've put Alabama against Stanford, Oregon, FSU, or Louisville....but NOOOOO....that would be too tough for the SEC...can't have the SEC losing the national championship.

Just to be clear: you are saying that instead of matching up Number 2 Alabama with Undefeated Number 1 Notre Dame, they instead should have been matched up against number 4 Oregon, number 6 and 2 loss Stanford, number 12 and two loss Florida State, or number 21 and two loss Louisville, to give Alabama a better game?

BCS rankings that year:

#1. Notre Dame (way overrated)
#2. Alabama
#3. Florida
#4. Oregon


You would scoff at me if I told you Oregon would win it all that year....just like you probably scoffed when someone said Ohio State would beat Alabama this year.

(01-06-2015 11:43 AM)TTT Wrote:  

(01-06-2015 10:53 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Side note:

Is that the new Southern Miss eagle? Please tell me it isn't.

Yes it is our new proposed logo. We were sued by BC$ school Iowa because our logos looked too similar:


...so we were forced to change our logo. I like our new logo:





Here's a link detailing the whole scenario and the new logo:
New Southern Miss logo

I could see how a 3 year old could get the logos confused but any regular college fan should be able to tell them apart. And If they could not tell the old logos apart, what is so different about the new SM logo? That looks more like the Iowa Tiger Hawk than your old eagle does.

But what do I know? I am an Iowa fan, so maybe its easier for me to tell the difference. Maybe the average person can not tell then apart.

strangers I meet are constantly confusing the state of Iowa with Ohio or Idaho, so maybe I should not count on your average person to know these things.

Still this lawsuit was a stretch I believe. Iowa was having problems with merchandisers and High Schools blatantly ripping off the Tiger Hawk logo and Iowa got in the habit of suing. They just took it too far with Southern Miss.