Campus Insiders... The IMG thing that they made up.

(10-19-2013 10:15 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(10-19-2013 09:58 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Bad day for the SEC for sure.

But ... but ... but ....

Speeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed.

And Johnny Football.

And Clowney.

Well, in their defense, it was a bad day for the SEC because those teams lost to other SEC teams that were lower ranked.

(10-19-2013 11:18 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Well, in their defense, it was a bad day for the SEC because those teams lost to other SEC teams that were lower ranked.

And that's very bad for the SEC. The reason they are always so respected is because their top teams beat their bottom teams all the time. When all the teams beat each other up, nobody ends up looking good (see the ACC).

(10-19-2013 11:34 PM)CoogNellie Wrote:  

(10-19-2013 11:18 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Well, in their defense, it was a bad day for the SEC because those teams lost to other SEC teams that were lower ranked.

And that's very bad for the SEC. The reason they are always so respected is because their top teams beat their bottom teams all the time. When all the teams beat each other up, nobody ends up looking good (see the ACC).

You understand the balance.

The SEC's hierarchy is breaking down due to a gluttony of talent.

(10-19-2013 11:34 PM)CoogNellie Wrote:  

(10-19-2013 11:18 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Well, in their defense, it was a bad day for the SEC because those teams lost to other SEC teams that were lower ranked.

And that's very bad for the SEC. The reason they are always so respected is because their top teams beat their bottom teams all the time. When all the teams beat each other up, nobody ends up looking good (see the ACC).

To be fair the ACC was held back by other conferences with their OOC play and atrocious BCS bowl record. If they were constantly winning the big bowls/big OOC match ups then the 2-3-4 loss ACC teams would see a lot more respect than they do.

(10-19-2013 11:43 PM)ncbeta Wrote:  

(10-19-2013 11:34 PM)CoogNellie Wrote:  

(10-19-2013 11:18 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Well, in their defense, it was a bad day for the SEC because those teams lost to other SEC teams that were lower ranked.

And that's very bad for the SEC. The reason they are always so respected is because their top teams beat their bottom teams all the time. When all the teams beat each other up, nobody ends up looking good (see the ACC).

To be fair the ACC was held back by other conferences with their OOC play and atrocious BCS bowl record. If they were constantly winning the big bowls/big OOC match ups then the 2-3-4 loss ACC teams would see a lot more respect than they do.

We are no longer talking about respect. We are talking about admittance into the future four team national tournament. A continued trend of parity in the SEC will actually work against the SEC in this regard. They could have ten teams in the top 25 but if none of them are able to be put in the "Top Four" then it won't matter how many SEC teams are ranked.

The SEC isn't just looking at the playoffs. They are also trying to fill as many spots in the other major bowls as possible. There's no restriction anymore after this year. So in a good year, the SEC might have 5 or 6 teams playing in the major bowls.

(10-19-2013 11:52 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  The SEC isn't just looking at the playoffs. They are also trying to fill as many spots in the other major bowls as possible. There's no restriction anymore after this year. So in a good year, the SEC might have 5 or 6 teams playing in the major bowls.

Really...after 7 straight years you think the SEC doesn't see putting a team in the National Championship game as a priority?

(10-20-2013 12:02 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-19-2013 11:52 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  The SEC isn't just looking at the playoffs. They are also trying to fill as many spots in the other major bowls as possible. There's no restriction anymore after this year. So in a good year, the SEC might have 5 or 6 teams playing in the major bowls.

Really...after 7 straight years you think the SEC doesn't see putting a team in the National Championship game as a priority?

I didn't say that. I'm saying their mission is two-fold. Getting a team into the playoffs isn't good enough. Most conference would be happy with that...not them. They want to dominate the other bowls too.

(10-20-2013 12:06 AM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  

(10-20-2013 12:02 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-19-2013 11:52 PM)jaminandjachin Wrote:  The SEC isn't just looking at the playoffs. They are also trying to fill as many spots in the other major bowls as possible. There's no restriction anymore after this year. So in a good year, the SEC might have 5 or 6 teams playing in the major bowls.

Really...after 7 straight years you think the SEC doesn't see putting a team in the National Championship game as a priority?

I didn't say that. I'm saying their mission is two-fold. Getting a team into the playoffs isn't good enough. Most conference would be happy with that...not them. They want to dominate the other bowls too.

As SEC parity continues, we will see more and more of what we see this year, injured SEC players. Teams are getting decimated this year. That could definitely lead to some struggles in the Bowls.

I don't think so. As we've seen in the past some strong unbeaten teams can get picked over in lieu of teams with a loss that are perceived as stronger. Especially if it's a committee picking the playoff teams...I can see it now... judges saying "Well, X team has 2 losses with an SEC west schedule and Y team has 1 loss in the ACC Coastal. I think X should get the spot." Or a situation with 2 SEC 1 loss teams vs a 1 loss from another conference.

If the playoff expands we will definitely see this.

(10-20-2013 12:48 AM)ncbeta Wrote:  I don't think so. As we've seen in the past some strong unbeaten teams can get picked over in lieu of teams with a loss that are perceived as stronger. Especially if it's a committee picking the playoff teams...I can see it now... judges saying "Well, X team has 2 losses with an SEC west schedule and Y team has 1 loss in the ACC Coastal. I think X should get the spot."

The people that were chosen won't make that call. You might and many fans might but not the persons that were chosen. Except Archie Manning of course, he would.

(10-20-2013 12:50 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-20-2013 12:48 AM)ncbeta Wrote:  I don't think so. As we've seen in the past some strong unbeaten teams can get picked over in lieu of teams with a loss that are perceived as stronger. Especially if it's a committee picking the playoff teams...I can see it now... judges saying "Well, X team has 2 losses with an SEC west schedule and Y team has 1 loss in the ACC Coastal. I think X should get the spot."

The people that were chosen won't make that call. You might and many fans might but not the persons that were chosen. Except Archie Manning of course, he would.

We will see when we see. Kind of useless to argue about it when we don't have a few years of the system behind us. Who knows what happens after the first few years anyway. They could expand the playoff, do away with it or do some other random thing...the computers could pick or they could pick a new panel of people.

(10-20-2013 12:50 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-20-2013 12:48 AM)ncbeta Wrote:  I don't think so. As we've seen in the past some strong unbeaten teams can get picked over in lieu of teams with a loss that are perceived as stronger. Especially if it's a committee picking the playoff teams...I can see it now... judges saying "Well, X team has 2 losses with an SEC west schedule and Y team has 1 loss in the ACC Coastal. I think X should get the spot."

The people that were chosen won't make that call. You might and many fans might but not the persons that were chosen. Except Archie Manning of course, he would.

I know you were probably just kidding around, but anyone who knows Archie would tell you that he is more likely to bend over backwards to prove a lack of partiality. He's one of the most decent people you'd want to meet and IMO was a perfect choice to be on such a committee.

(10-20-2013 01:28 AM)Zombiewoof Wrote:  

(10-20-2013 12:50 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-20-2013 12:48 AM)ncbeta Wrote:  I don't think so. As we've seen in the past some strong unbeaten teams can get picked over in lieu of teams with a loss that are perceived as stronger. Especially if it's a committee picking the playoff teams...I can see it now... judges saying "Well, X team has 2 losses with an SEC west schedule and Y team has 1 loss in the ACC Coastal. I think X should get the spot."

The people that were chosen won't make that call. You might and many fans might but not the persons that were chosen. Except Archie Manning of course, he would.

I know you were probably just kidding around, but anyone who knows Archie would tell you that he is more likely to bend over backwards to prove a lack of partiality. He's one of the most decent people you'd want to meet and IMO was a perfect choice to be on such a committee.

He was the SEC person on the panel that came to mind, that's all. I have no idea how he would truly vote.

(10-19-2013 12:46 PM)mnjayhawk Wrote:  0-6 Temple leads Army 14-0 in the 1st quarter.

? We were favored

(10-20-2013 07:33 AM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(10-19-2013 12:46 PM)mnjayhawk Wrote:  0-6 Temple leads Army 14-0 in the 1st quarter.

? We were favored

It's more proof that Army would be better off playing FCS football...

(10-20-2013 12:50 AM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(10-20-2013 12:48 AM)ncbeta Wrote:  I don't think so. As we've seen in the past some strong unbeaten teams can get picked over in lieu of teams with a loss that are perceived as stronger. Especially if it's a committee picking the playoff teams...I can see it now... judges saying "Well, X team has 2 losses with an SEC west schedule and Y team has 1 loss in the ACC Coastal. I think X should get the spot."

The people that were chosen won't make that call. You might and many fans might but not the persons that were chosen. Except Archie Manning of course, he would.

H1, Archie may be the least biased person on that committee. He's played on winning and losing teams. He's experienced what it is like to be bypassed for a big game. He is humble and doesn't foist his opinions on anyone, even his kids. Pick on another Southerner if you have to show your SEC hater side. The committee shouldn't exist in the first place. It's one more corporate monster of design to manipulate the profitability of the playoffs. We should have 4 champions playing it off and we should be in a P4 set up and not a P5.

(10-20-2013 09:00 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(10-20-2013 07:33 AM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(10-19-2013 12:46 PM)mnjayhawk Wrote:  0-6 Temple leads Army 14-0 in the 1st quarter.

? We were favored

It's more proof that Army would be better off playing FCS football...

Would they? They have a strong nationL following, a nice TV deal, and make a lot if money off of Army-Navy. That would as much the case as FCS

(10-20-2013 09:19 AM)SouthPhillyFall Wrote:  

(10-20-2013 09:00 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(10-20-2013 07:33 AM)JHG722 Wrote:  

(10-19-2013 12:46 PM)mnjayhawk Wrote:  0-6 Temple leads Army 14-0 in the 1st quarter.

? We were favored

It's more proof that Army would be better off playing FCS football...

Would they? They have a strong nationL following, a nice TV deal, and make a lot if money off of Army-Navy. That would as much the case as FCS

The Harvard-Yale game still gets plenty of TV coverage. I doubt a downgrade would effect the coverage of the Army-Navy game at all, due to the built in audience around the globe. There are a bunch of vets interested in the game, as well as all the people on active duty. Any interservice game is going to have a big audience, even if it's only on AFN...