Rotinaj;1335358 wrote:I'd be fine with this but preseason polls have no affect on who the final 8 in the polls will be. It's not like if the preseason #1 team loses 3 times they will somehow be in be top 8 over respectable teams with 1 or 2 losses.

Preseason polls matter a lot, bc it already puts teams at the top, without having to prove anything.

ernest_t_bass;1335360 wrote:Preseason polls matter a lot, bc it already puts teams at the top, without having to prove anything.

Take a look at this years preseason poll then explain which current top 8 teams are not where they are supposed to be.

ernest_t_bass;1335360 wrote:Preseason polls matter a lot, bc it already puts teams at the top, without having to prove anything.

Teams have dropped out of #1 without losing. Teams have climbed to #1 without being ranked (or starting low). For the most part, pollsters seem to try and "get it right" in the last poll, which is the one that counts.

I don't really know of an example in which a team's preseason ranking was the determining factor in whether or not the team made the title game. (Lots of people immediately bring up Auburn - there's no doubt in my mind that USC and Oklahoma still would've been 1-2 even if they had only done one vote the entire season.)

Rotinaj;1335358 wrote:I'd be fine with this but preseason polls have no affect on who the final 8 in the polls will be. It's not like if the preseason #1 team loses 3 times they will somehow be in be top 8 over respectable teams with 1 or 2 losses.

Clueless.

If the #1 team loses 3 times and they are in the SEC they will likely lose to other pre-season ranked teams and continue the self-fulfilling prophecy.

Don't forget that Arkansas was pre-season #5 and it took 3 losses for them to drop out of the top 25.

sleeper;1335400 wrote:Clueless.

If the #1 team loses 3 times and they are in the SEC they will likely lose to other pre-season ranked teams and continue the self-fulfilling prophecy.

Don't forget that Arkansas was pre-season #5 and it took 3 losses for them to drop out of the top 25.

Actually, they were #10 and dropped out of the AP Poll after their first loss, the Coaches after their 2nd. Michigan and Stanford were the first 2-loss teams to continue or move into either of the polls. Hell, Texas and Iowa State were ranked in the BCS with 2 losses before any SEC team. Not to mention that WVU lost by a combined 76 points over a two week span....and was still ranked. But you know, the SEC is the only conference to have overranked teams.

Lol sleeper calling someone clueless and then posts some bullshit that isn't even factually correct. What's new?

enigmaax;1335415 wrote:Actually, they were #10 and dropped out of the AP Poll after their first loss, the Coaches after their 2nd. Michigan and Stanford were the first 2-loss teams to continue or move into either of the polls. Hell, Texas and Iowa State were ranked in the BCS with 2 losses before any SEC team. Not to mention that WVU lost by a combined 76 points over a two week span....and was still ranked. But you know, the SEC is the only conference to have overranked teams.

The point is you have media hype ranking teams pre-season and then creating a self-fulfilling prophecy based on absolutely nothing. The facts here are irrelevant.

sleeper;1335445 wrote:The point is you have media hype ranking teams pre-season and then creating a self-fulfilling prophecy based on absolutely nothing. The facts here are irrelevant.

You would be correct, if teams weren't penalized for losses. What was Notre Dame ranked to begin the season? Where did Arkansas (your example) end up after their loss(es)?

Aside from that, there are two parts to the "hype". One is the AP Poll, which you've stated in the past is irrelevant. That is the media poll, so that hype shouldn't be on your radar.

The other is the BCS. One part of the equation is the coaches poll. Coaches aren't media. A better argument for bias there would be the interests of one's own conference, but it's spread pretty evenly, so, everyone gets their own chance to be biased and it all balances out. Another part of the equation is the Harris poll, which is pretty diverse and not really media related. You might say that they could be influenced by the media, but the poll doesn't start until nearly halfway through the season...which is exactly what you are asking for. Then there are the computers. Are they influenced by the media?

Well in the SEC you only have to wake up twice a year to play a good team. The thing people forget about the SEC is their records are bloated because they have a lot of garbage teams in conference and a garbage OOC schedule.

I personally cannot wait for bowl season when the SEC is embarrassed(although Alabama will win the NC and people will ignore their upcoming dismal bowl record).

The funny thing is Sleeper is going to be right eventually. If you predict a bad bowl season every year it's bound to happen. So what do you think their bowl record ends up being?

Rotinaj;1335468 wrote:The funny thing is Sleeper is going to be right eventually. If you predict a bad bowl season every year it's bound to happen. So what do you think their bowl record ends up being?

Vanderbilt vs. North Carolina State
LSU vs. Clemson
Northwestern vs. Mississippi State
South Carolina vs. Michigan
Georgia vs. Nebraska
Florida vs. Louisville
Texas A&M vs. Oklahoma.
Ole Miss vs. Pittsburgh
Notre Dame vs. Alabama


3-6 is my prediction. The SEC is essentially gifted 3 wins because they got easy match ups against the Big East and Notre Dame. I personally can't wait for hapless Nebraska to run the train on Georgia. If LSU(or any team outside of Bama) had an offense, I could see them beating Clemson.

sleeper;1335466 wrote:Well in the SEC you only have to wake up twice a year to play a good team. The thing people forget about the SEC is their records are bloated because they have a lot of garbage teams in conference and a garbage OOC schedule.

I know, I'd really prefer not having to wake up to play a good team all season...like in some other conferences I know.

The thing people forget about other conferences is that the records aren't bloated because they lose to a garbage team either in or out of conference.

ernest_t_bass;1334855 wrote:I'd love to see:

1 vs 8 - Alabama vs. LSU
2 vs. 7 - LSU vs. Alabama
3 vs. 6 - Nick Saban vs. Les Miles
4 vs. 5 - LSU vs. Alabama

This. I can agree we want the best 8 teams in, but I'm not sure how you get consensus on who the top 8 teams are.

I think it's ludicrous that teams that don't win their conference get to play for the NC. How stupid is that? You want to be National Champ?...then win your conference, and then beat the other conferences. No second chances.Period.

HitsRus;1335597 wrote:I think it's ludicrous that teams that don't win their conference get to play for the NC. How stupid is that? You want to be National Champ?...then win your conference, and then beat the other conferences. No second chances.Period.

+10000

HitsRus;1335597 wrote:I think it's ludicrous that teams that don't win their conference get to play for the NC. How stupid is that? You want to be National Champ?...then win your conference, and then beat the other conferences. No second chances.Period.

Agreed.

gport_tennis;1335650 wrote:+10000

So good teams get punished for playing in good conferences, and those in weak conferences get rewarded. Sound spectacular.

HitsRus;1335597 wrote:I think it's ludicrous that teams that don't win their conference get to play for the NC. How stupid is that? You want to be National Champ?...then win your conference, and then beat the other conferences. No second chances.Period.

So are saying you would rather see Wisconsin and Louisville playing in a playoff than Oregon, Florida, or Oklahoma?

Man that would suck!

WebFire;1335657 wrote:So good teams get punished for playing in good conferences, and those in weak conferences get rewarded. Sound spectacular.

Socialism is a trend these days.

WebFire;1335657 wrote:So good teams get punished for playing in good conferences, and those in weak conferences get rewarded. Sound spectacular.

In the short run yes. But by doing this you will help balance the conference strength until it is eventually equal. If LSU feels that the SEC is too hard to win, they can go join the Sun Belt to get into the playoffs every year. When Wisconsin sees this, they will also go join the Sun Belt; and then Purdue/other B1G powers will join the Sun Belt until the advantage of joining the Sun Belt is less than or equal to staying put.

WebFire;1335657 wrote:So good teams get punished for playing in good conferences, and those in weak conferences get rewarded. Sound spectacular.

Do you want to reward a team that wasn't good enough to play in their conference title game? IMHO if you are taking 2 teams from a conference it should be the two who played for the title, not the one who won and another who was "lucky" enough to not have to play.

FatHobbit;1335682 wrote:Do you want to reward a team that wasn't good enough to play in their conference title game? IMHO if you are taking 2 teams from a conference it should be the two who played for the title, not the one who won and another who was "lucky" enough to not have to play.

So Oregon loses 1 game to Stanford and is out but Wisconsin loses 5 and gets smacked by Oregon State and is in? Makes no sense.

slcoach;1335687 wrote:So Oregon loses 1 game to Stanford and is out but Wisconsin loses 5 and gets smacked by Oregon State and is in? Makes no sense.

They won the B1G. If Oregon feels so raw about it, they can join the B1G and do what Wisconsin did. Only they will probably get stomped on and head back to the PAC-12 where you wake up to play Stanford and you're in the title game.

slcoach;1335687 wrote:So Oregon loses 1 game to Stanford and is out but Wisconsin loses 5 and gets smacked by Oregon State and is in? Makes no sense.

Get rid of conferences then.

If there is no benefit to winning a so called power conference, why have them at all?

wildcats20;1335692 wrote:Get rid of conferences then.

If there is no benefit to winning a so called power conference, why have them at all?

The intent of a conference in collegiate sports was NEVER about establishing a competitive balance.