This is comical....yeah no SEC bias

[WVUDAD]

So now college football is nascar where it's about trying to draw interest to the sport rather than trying to find the best way to crown a national champion?

No thanks.

SO, I guess a popularity contest, like a miss America pageant is a better way to crown a champion than playing on the field? Just why is the SEC so scared to play for a title? Are they afraid they may be exposed?

 

[4down20]

SO, I guess a popularity contest, like a miss America pageant is a better way to crown a champion than playing on the field? Just why is the SEC so scared to play for a title? Are they afraid they may be exposed?

The SEC has won how many national championships in recent years? Of which was done playing the best teams the rest of the country could bring against them. In some of those years, it was done in dominating fashion even.

Sorry, I'm done with you. I tried to inform you and that's as far as I'm going to go. If you are going to be one of those people - you can keep on being miserable and complaining about bias all you want. College football in general gives no shits about it. I'd just soon taunt you for the ignorance of it all.

 

[WVUDAD]

The SEC has won how many national championships in recent years? Of which was done playing the best teams the rest of the country could bring against them. In some of those years, it was done in dominating fashion even.

Sorry, I'm done with you. I tried to inform you and that's as far as I'm going to go. If you are going to be one of those people - you can keep on being miserable and complaining about bias all you want. College football in general gives no shits about it. I'd just soon taunt you for the ignorance of it all.

You have not tried to inform anyone, you have thumped the SEC drum, EVERY other level of the sport PLAYS for their championship, and no SEC team or any other has EVER WON a national championship, they won a popularity contest.

 

[4down20]

You have not tried to inform anyone, you have thumped the SEC drum, EVERY other level of the sport PLAYS for their championship, and no SEC team or any other has EVER WON a national championship, they won a popularity contest.

Good luck with that.

 

[mountaineers44]

Are you new to college football? Be honest.

Because in previous years it would have been other conferences with 2 teams in the playoffs, not the SEC.

In 2006 the Big10 would have likely had 2 with Michigan and Ohio St.

In 2008 the Big12 would have had 2 with Oklahoma and Texas.

Is this not an example of the bias. The only conference "deserving" to have a rematch is the SEC?

 

[4down20]

Is this not an example of the bias. The only conference "deserving" to have a rematch is the SEC?

No, not at all.

A few years back it would have been the Big12 with 2, in Texas and Oklahoma. And right around that same time it would have been the B1G with 2 teams in Ohio St and Michigan.

And for the record, not only am I fine with those rematches happening - I think they should happen and I also believe allowing those rematches to happen are the reason why we have a playoff system and a benefit of it.

 

[WVUDAD]

Yes there is a way. Alabama beat WVU, and Auburn beat K-State and these are 2 of the top teams from the Big12.

Played on the field and all that jazz.

Basically, what you are wanting to do is punish teams for being in tough conferences and reward teams for being in easy conferences with easy play off births. The majority of time it will be conference champions by default, but if it isn't - there is a reason for it.

Marshall has not been beating people soundly, they were losing against FAU this past week until 3 minutes left in the 3rd quarter and didn't put them away until middle of the 4th quarter. Meanwhile, Alabama played FAU and won 41-0 and had backups in during the same time that FAU was winning against Marshall.

A playoff is seeded, the higher seeded teams would have the easiest playoff games.........

 

[bbwvfan]

Well the vast majority of people in the know disagree with you.

The college playoff was not added to prevent Alabama from being there in 2011. It was added to allow Oklahoma St to participate.

As I already pointed out, Oklahoma St lost the exact same number of conference games that Alabama did. The difference was - the team Oklahoma St lost to sucked so bad it didn't matter for the conference rankings, but Alabama lost to the #1 team in the country by a FG in OT(after missing like 5 FG).

So basically, according to you - Alabama would have been deserving if they had lost to Vandy instead of LSU. IMO, when your logic dictates that losing to worse teams is somehow a sign your team is more qualified for a national championship - maybe it's time to realize the logic is screwed up.

Actually... the vast majority of people absolutely agreed with me... hence why the playoffs were agreed to right after the travesty that was the rematch game.

As I already said... Bama did not deserve to be in the BCSNCG because it didn't even win its own division... let alone its conference.

I don't care who else Bama could have lost to in the SEC that year... they were not entitled to play for a title game since they couldn't even win a division.

The rematch just made your stupid argument about the regular season having meaning... become... meaningless..

 

[mountaineers44]

No, not at all.

A few years back it would have been the Big12 with 2, in Texas and Oklahoma. And right around that same time it would have been the B1G with 2 teams in Ohio St and Michigan.

And for the record, not only am I fine with those rematches happening - I think they should happen and I also believe allowing those rematches to happen are the reason why we have a playoff system and a benefit of it.

At the time I thought they should happen as well. However if memory serves, Ohio St won by a field goal at home, propelling them to the BCSNC game. How did that work out for the bucknuts? Giving the rematch would not have allowed FL to come in and curb stomp OSU, showing the world that the pundits (who are in the know) were wrong and that there were better teams in other conferences.

 

[bbwvfan]

The SEC has won how many national championships in recent years? Of which was done playing the best teams the rest of the country could bring against them. In some of those years, it was done in dominating fashion even.

Sorry, I'm done with you. I tried to inform you and that's as far as I'm going to go. If you are going to be one of those people - you can keep on being miserable and complaining about bias all you want. College football in general gives no shits about it. I'd just soon taunt you for the ignorance of it all.

You're coming across as one of those SEC conference... conference homers.

The SEC did not win BCSNCG's... one of its teams won a BCSNCG.

AU, Bama, LSU, and UF can float all of their banners... all they want...

 

[WVUDAD]

Actually... the vast majority of people absolutely agreed with me... hence why the playoffs were agreed to right after the travesty that was the rematch game.

As I already said... Bama did not deserve to be in the BCSNCG because it didn't even win its own division... let alone its conference.

I don't care who else Bama could have lost to in the SEC that year... they were not entitled to play for a title game since they couldn't even win a division.

The rematch just made your stupid argument about the regular season having meaning... become... meaningless..

This may only be the third time, but When losses in the regular season to THE SAME TEAM are ignored, why even bother with the season? Some didn't learn from the OSU, UM year, when there was a great amount of discussion about those two being heads and shoulders above every other team, then both got their asses kicked in their bowl games............

 

[4down20]

Actually... the vast majority of people absolutely agreed with me... hence why the playoffs were agreed to right after the travesty that was the rematch game.

As I already said... Bama did not deserve to be in the BCSNCG because it didn't even win its own division... let alone its conference.

I don't care who else Bama could have lost to in the SEC that year... they were not entitled to play for a title game since they couldn't even win a division.

The rematch just made your stupid argument about the regular season having meaning... become... meaningless..

The SEC has been pushing for a playoffs for nearly a decade. It was the Big12, Pac12 and B1G who constantly voted against it. It was then those conferences who changed their votes after 2011, it had nothing to do with what the people in general thought. That's the fact of the matter.

So really, you can thank the SEC for pulling the rest of college football by the hair.

And even then - the playoff weren't formed to prevent Alabama from being in them, it was formed to allow OkSt to join in.

I'm aware of your position on things, you believe the title of "conference champion" is most important, even if the team that has that title has it only as a result of losing to a crappy team. We'll just have to disagree.

 

[4down20]

You're coming across as one of those SEC conference... conference homers.

The SEC did not win BCSNCG's... one of its teams won a BCSNCG.

AU, Bama, LSU, and UF can float all of their banners... all they want...

Ok, so tell that WVUDAD guy who I was responding to and that I quoted after he said:

Just why is the SEC so scared to play for a title?

 

[Anotherwvufan]

So now college football is nascar where it's about trying to draw interest to the sport rather than trying to find the best way to crown a national champion?

No thanks.

So you contend that your BCS +2 system is better than a true playoff? You just want your mulligan because the SEC has won with popularity contest over the past 8 years. No good reason to have rematches of conference games in the playoff. Mississippi beat you fair and square by 6 points. If you get a rematch in the playoff and you win by 1 point, does this mean, you are really the better team?

You are happy with an unfair system because it benefits you. As long as we have rankings, there will be bias.

 

[4down20]

So you contend that your BCS +2 system is better than a true playoff? You just want your mulligan because the SEC has won with popularity contest over the past 8 years. No good reason to have rematches of conference games in the playoff. Mississippi beat you fair and square by 6 points. If you get a rematch in the playoff and you win by 1 point, does this mean, you are really the better team?

You are happy with an unfair system because it benefits you. As long as we have rankings, there will be bias.

Not sure how long you have been watching college football, but these things as far as conference strengths come and go. As I already pointed out, in previous years it would be the other conferences that got 2 teams in, and I think those teams deserve it.

My wanting the 4 best teams has nothing to do with what you are claiming. And in general, I personally believe that the conference champions will be the ones that fill those spots - because most of the time, conference champions are the best teams.

 

[RandomParticles]

If you cannot win your own division... let alone conference... you do not deserve to play for a title... of anything.


Talk about demeaning the regular season... I guess the actual loss on the playing field to LSU in the regular season... meant nothing...

There are two wild card teams in the World series this year, neither of which 'won' their division. All playoffs include non-division winners.

 

[WVUDAD]

Not sure how long you have been watching college football, but these things as far as conference strengths come and go. As I already pointed out, in previous years it would be the other conferences that got 2 teams in, and I think those teams deserve it.

My wanting the 4 best teams has nothing to do with what you are claiming. And in general, I personally believe that the conference champions will be the ones that fill those spots - because most of the time, conference champions are the best teams.

Who determines those "best" four teams? THAT is the issue, some, including me, want those teams to be determined by playing into that position, others, like you, want those teams to be determined by a small group of people's opinions, I think that play on the field is preferred to opinion, but that's just me. Ive been watching college football for 40+ years, if that has anything to do with it, and I much preferred the old system, where teams cared most about conference titles, beating their rivals, and winning period, the "national title" was more something to talk about than an absolute champion like some are now saying it is, it is no more real now than it was in the years that 6 teams laid claim to be "national champs" because their local paper happened to have a poll.

 

[WVUDAD]

There are two wild card teams in the World series this year, neither of which 'won' their division. All playoffs include non-division winners.

They include EVERY division winner, they do not exclude some division winners in favor of third place teams from a different division........

 

[Mike]

I say 8 teams, no more. The champs from the power 5 all get automatic bids, the other three come from the rest. If one of the other conferences have a conference champ in the top 12 of the panel they get in, then from there the panel picks the rest. ie: last year UCF would have got in. then 2 others from the power 5.

As far as the peception of the SEC being so good ( which I don't believe) the best way to change that is beat them in the OOC games. The Big 12 had 2 chances and WVU and KSU did not get it done.

Next year will be our chance, OOC schedule two cupcakes and MD at home. A senior defense, QB may be our problem.

 

[DBAR4WVU]

WV fans - you are wasting breath on this issue. Not an argument you can win or alter opinions on.