Expansion Talk 2021

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,118
Location
North Shore, Chicago
Yeah, let’s have a system where the better teams don’t get in because we have to make it fair for lesser teams. Some of y’all need to grow a pair. If the ACC has 5 teams ranked in the top 10 then you better be darn right I’d advocate for them to all be in a 12 team playoff. I know the country is just yearning to see 2 PAC 12 teams ranked in the lower 20’s in an 8 team playoff when a 11 ranked GT gets left out because Clemson and UNC are ranked higher. I know I’d be thrilled for that scenario.

The whining over one conference being better at football is just comical. If you are tired of the SEC stealing the spotlight then demand your school does better. GT has had a shot every season to stop UGA and we see how that usually goes. Stop the whining and just compete!!!!!! Clemson does and it wasn’t so long ago where we beat Clemson regularly.
The rankings are subjective and not necessarily reflective of the best teams. There is built-in bias to the pre-season rankings and expectations of where teams should be. If it were all earned on the field, then fine; but, it's not. The built-in bias is going to stack the deck and that's what the whole playoff is supposed to be moving away from. Sorry, like your take on the SEC strength, you're wrong on this too.
 

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,118
Location
North Shore, Chicago
That is the "system" for basketball. I'd recommend not making comparisons to the basketball tournament... it is apples & oranges.

An 8 team playoff would likely only have 2 (max) deserving from any one conference. Once a conference runs its schedule.... usually they beat up on each other enough that 3rd place has too many losses to justify a "top 8" ranking. Emphasis on usually.

With only a 12 game schedule & 130 teams... it's very difficult to compare teams across conferences & draw line with a bunch of 1-2 loss teams if those losses are against quality opponents. The 2-3 loss SEC teams (lately) get an inflated ranking. It's just the way it is. The SEC has some elite teams... but so do other conferences... & finding 8 of them is pretty easy to do "before" you get to 3rd place SEC team.
If you can't win your conference, you have no business having a shot at the National Championship. Make it a Tournament of Champions and I'd be happy.
 

yjack

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
102
Overall the playoff committee has done a pretty good job in selecting the top 4 teams. Some years there could be contention between teams 4 and 5, and occasionally team 6. In other words, in any given year there may be up to 6 teams really deserving of NC consideration. I understand a 12-team playoff is a money thing and would allow lesser teams to participate. But, to me, a seeded 8-team bracket, of the top 8 committee ranked teams makes the most sense. Yes, the top 8 teams, regardless of which conference they come from, without special treatment for ND. Each team makes its case on the field. Conference champions have the extra championship game to state their case, so they aren't automatically granted entry. No artificially limiting the number of teams from any conference. (I'm old enough to remember 1971 when Nebraska, Oklahoma, and Colorado finished 1, 2, and 3 in the final AP poll. Yes, Colorado had 2 losses, but they were to Nebraska and Oklahoma.) Fire away!
 

SOWEGA Jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,886
The rankings are subjective and not necessarily reflective of the best teams. There is built-in bias to the pre-season rankings and expectations of where teams should be. If it were all earned on the field, then fine; but, it's not. The built-in bias is going to stack the deck and that's what the whole playoff is supposed to be moving away from. Sorry, like your take on the SEC strength, you're wrong on this too.
Well, when the SEC wins another one this year I guess I’ll be wrong about how strong they are - and they have 3 teams with a shot (Bama, UGA, and Texas A&M). The ACC has 1. So 11 out of the last 20 by 4 teams and 2 in a row by 2 different teams isn’t strong. I’d hate to see what you do think is strong.

And the SEC is not considered the best because ESPN puts them on TV and the pollsters rank them highly. They are strongper because they get the majority of best high school players and they attract the best coaches because they are willing to pay to be the best. We pay our coach a little over 3 million per year. Auburn just paid a high level coach 5.25 million per year. The SEC is simply willing to pay to be the best at football. Other conferences spend their money elsewhere and then fans wonder why it is how it is when it comes to football.

Listen, this is a football board not an ethics or morality board. If it were a board about strength of engineering programs and someone said GT was only strong in those fields because the pollsters (US News rankings and all other rankings) said they were and those polls tricked the public into believing it I’d point to the money GT puts into the engineering programs and I would definitely point out the scholastic ratings of the students that make up those programs (GPA, SAT, ACT). GT attracts 4 and 5 star students into their high level engineering programs because that is where the school puts their money and efforts. The SEC attracts 4 and 5 star athletes because that’s where they put their resources. Trying to say the SEC strength in football is a myth is just not being honest. That’s like UGA fans trying to tell us their enginneering programs are just as good as ours.
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,546
Listen, this is a football board not an ethics or morality board.
It is also not an SEC fan board. Yet, you keep on regurgitating SEC talking points over and over and over. I get it. You think that every single player in the SEC would be a star player at a any school in any other conference. You think that Vanderbilt and Kentucky would be in contention for the ACC championship every year. You think that any team that plays in the SEC goes thru a "gauntlet" of a schedule that no other team in the entire country could even keep their pants up if they had to play such a schedule.

I see all of those "talking points" as nothing but marketing from the SEC. Alabama has been great for the past 10 or so years. The rest of the conference hasn't been really much different than any other conference. Yet Finebaum (who I actually do not listen to) and all of you SEC hype worshipers believe any crap that the SEC media puts out.
 

billga99

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
652
Well, when the SEC wins another one this year I guess I’ll be wrong about how strong they are - and they have 3 teams with a shot (Bama, UGA, and Texas A&M). The ACC has 1. So 11 out of the last 20 by 4 teams and 2 in a row by 2 different teams isn’t strong. I’d hate to see what you do think is strong.

And the SEC is not considered the best because ESPN puts them on TV and the pollsters rank them highly. They are strongper because they get the majority of best high school players and they attract the best coaches because they are willing to pay to be the best. We pay our coach a little over 3 million per year. Auburn just paid a high level coach 5.25 million per year. The SEC is simply willing to pay to be the best at football. Other conferences spend their money elsewhere and then fans wonder why it is how it is when it comes to football.

Listen, this is a football board not an ethics or morality board. If it were a board about strength of engineering programs and someone said GT was only strong in those fields because the pollsters (US News rankings and all other rankings) said they were and those polls tricked the public into believing it I’d point to the money GT puts into the engineering programs and I would definitely point out the scholastic ratings of the students that make up those programs (GPA, SAT, ACT). GT attracts 4 and 5 star students into their high level engineering programs because that is where the school puts their money and efforts. The SEC attracts 4 and 5 star athletes because that’s where they put their resources. Trying to say the SEC strength in football is a myth is just not being honest. That’s like UGA fans trying to tell us their enginneering programs are just as good as ours.
First I think the preseason rankings really bias teams ability to get higher in the polls and really provides a huge benefit to teams who are ranked high initially. I think that has been a huge advantage the SEC has had for years. I would much prefer there were no rankings until the first release of the playoff rankings in October. I think that would give every team a much fairer chance to be ranked based on performance of the current year's team.

Second, this major hassle regarding letting any team from any conference doesn't play out in many sports. Check out this year's MLB race. The Braves are the 6th best record in the National League (actually could be 5th depending on SD). But fan interest is really high if you can win your division. That is true of all of the pro sports where division winners get in regardless of record. No one seems to mind that, it keeps interest up and the playoffs don't always favor the best records. My take would be to have a playoff of 8 to 12 teams where some number are automatic depending on conference champions. That would also allow teams to schedule whatever teams they want to schedule out of conference because winning the conference would overcome any drop off in record. So 8 team playoffs, Power 5 (or Power 4+1) and 3 wildcats. 12 team playoffs (Power 5+ 1 Group of 5 plus 6 wildcats). That would allow no limits on a conference but ensure national representation which long-term helps college football interest nationwide.
 

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,118
Location
North Shore, Chicago
Well, when the SEC wins another one this year I guess I’ll be wrong about how strong they are - and they have 3 teams with a shot (Bama, UGA, and Texas A&M). The ACC has 1. So 11 out of the last 20 by 4 teams and 2 in a row by 2 different teams isn’t strong. I’d hate to see what you do think is strong.

And the SEC is not considered the best because ESPN puts them on TV and the pollsters rank them highly. They are strongper because they get the majority of best high school players and they attract the best coaches because they are willing to pay to be the best. We pay our coach a little over 3 million per year. Auburn just paid a high level coach 5.25 million per year. The SEC is simply willing to pay to be the best at football. Other conferences spend their money elsewhere and then fans wonder why it is how it is when it comes to football.

Listen, this is a football board not an ethics or morality board. If it were a board about strength of engineering programs and someone said GT was only strong in those fields because the pollsters (US News rankings and all other rankings) said they were and those polls tricked the public into believing it I’d point to the money GT puts into the engineering programs and I would definitely point out the scholastic ratings of the students that make up those programs (GPA, SAT, ACT). GT attracts 4 and 5 star students into their high level engineering programs because that is where the school puts their money and efforts. The SEC attracts 4 and 5 star athletes because that’s where they put their resources. Trying to say the SEC strength in football is a myth is just not being honest. That’s like UGA fans trying to tell us their enginneering programs are just as good as ours.
Your logic is flawed. It's been shown to you numerous times why your logic is flawed, so I won't recite it again here.

Whether the SEC is the best or not the best is a matter of conjecture, discussion, and opinion. Spouting that they win the NC more than anyone else doesn't mean they're the best, it means that at least 1 team in that conference was good enough to beat two other highly ranked teams after the regular season was finished. How are these highly ranked teams deemed to be highly ranked? They're voted there. Who are they voted by? Well, that's not really clear. We know the sportswriters probably cast their own vote, but all the other voters are questionable. Ah, but there's the computer rankings, that's unbiased, right? Well, no. Not really. Computer rankings are based on how these teams did against other teams that are deemed to be good, average, or bad teams. How are they ranked to support these computer rankings? Well, by what they did last year, who their opponents are, where they're ranked, etc. It's a vicious cycle that props up those who have brand recognition (i.e. SEC! SEC! SEC!) and other well-heeled teams.

So, no, the SEC isn't the best because they win the most championships. The SEC is "the best" because they say they are and ESPN supports that because it furthers their agenda (i.e. to make more money and control College Football so they can make more money). If they keep saying it long enough people like you will start to believe it. Then it will become a reality. Fake it till you make it.

When the SEC steps outside their little fiefdom, and play someone of "their caliber" outside their conference, more likely than not, they get shellacked. There's a reason uga hadn't played a game west of the Mississippi in like 50 years before they played Colorado; they didn't want the high-profile loss. Well, they got their asses handed to them. The SEC is getting better about playing the big boys, but 2/3 of their conference is horse-****, just like everyone else. LSU and Alabama haven't been afraid to step out, but everyone else is looking for the good-looking mid-level P5 win to put on their schedule. And yes, the strength of the SEC varies year to year, with some years being stronger and some years being weaker. But, that's something all conferences experience.

I wasn't intending to write this much when I sat down to respond, so my thoughts may not flow as eloquently as usual, but I know you'll understand the gist of what I'm saying.
 

Vespidae

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,976
Location
Auburn, AL
Alabama has been great for the past 10 or so years. The rest of the conference hasn't been really much different than any other conference.
Alabama has been great for a very long time. Eighteen national championships. Saban has been there since 2007 and won 6.

I get it, everyone likes to pile on the SEC. But day in day out, they fill stadiums, they sell millions in SWAG, their tailgates are packed, their stadiums lead the NCAA in attendance and fans support them. And yes, they get a A LOT of recruits. Forty years ago, West Georgia was a recruiting area for Tech (if you wanted to be an engineer, your choices then were pretty much Auburn or Tech). Today, from Newnan west is Auburn country. I asked them if they ever considered Tech and the answer was no ... they want to play against their friends and their friends play for SEC schools.

The ACC is historically a basketball conference. Great history but it is a smaller sport in terms of arena size, attendance, etc.

Vandy is an aberration. They are only in the SEC for the money. I would argue that the SEC simply plays a better brand of football than other conferences. Personally, come the start of the season, I'll watch every Tech game and then ... sit down for all of the SEC games on the tube. I just enjoy the SEC games more than any others. (If I could waive a magic wand, I'd put Auburn back on our schedule.)
 

bobongo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,071
It is also not an SEC fan board.
True, but that doesn't negate the facts. And the simple fact is that the SEC is the #1 conference top to bottom. Pretending doesn't make it any less so.

Proof's in the pudding:

SEC vs. Power 5 by winning pct.

.663 (vs. ACC)
.627 (vs. Pac-12)
.599 (vs. Big Ten)
.553 (vs. Big 12)

Now you can cherry-pick this all you want, and make all the excuses you want to make. But the fact is the SEC is the top conference overall, all things considered. And it isn't close.
 

forensicbuzz

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,118
Location
North Shore, Chicago
True, but that doesn't negate the facts. And the simple fact is that the SEC is the #1 conference top to bottom. Pretending doesn't make it any less so.

Proof's in the pudding:

SEC vs. Power 5 by winning pct.

.663 (vs. ACC)
.627 (vs. Pac-12)
.599 (vs. Big Ten)
.553 (vs. Big 12)

Now you can cherry-pick this all you want, and make all the excuses you want to make. But the fact is the SEC is the top conference overall, all things considered. And it isn't close.
Look at the match-ups. When the top of your conference always plays the middle or bottom of the other conferences, you're usually going to win. The problem is their middle and bottom teams don't really play the top of other conferences, so it's not really an apples-to-apples comparison. But you keep pushing those SEC talking points. Fake it till you make it.
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,546
Alabama has been great for a very long time. Eighteen national championships. Saban has been there since 2007 and won 6.
They were dominant when Bryant was there. Between 1983 and 2008 (Saban's second year), they weren't dominant. Stallings had some good years in the 90s, including 1 championship, but they were not a perineal dominant team. I wasn't trying to minimize what Alabama was like under Bryant, I was trying to say that Alabama has been a premier team in the last 10 years or so. They weren't between 1982 and 2008.

I get it, everyone likes to pile on the SEC. But day in day out, they fill stadiums, they sell millions in SWAG, their tailgates are packed, their stadiums lead the NCAA in attendance and fans support them. And yes, they get a A LOT of recruits. Forty years ago, West Georgia was a recruiting area for Tech (if you wanted to be an engineer, your choices then were pretty much Auburn or Tech). Today, from Newnan west is Auburn country. I asked them if they ever considered Tech and the answer was no ... they want to play against their friends and their friends play for SEC schools.

The ACC is historically a basketball conference. Great history but it is a smaller sport in terms of arena size, attendance, etc.

Vandy is an aberration. They are only in the SEC for the money. I would argue that the SEC simply plays a better brand of football than other conferences. Personally, come the start of the season, I'll watch every Tech game and then ... sit down for all of the SEC games on the tube. I just enjoy the SEC games more than any others. (If I could waive a magic wand, I'd put Auburn back on our schedule.)
I am not piling on the SEC. I am simply stating that all of the over-hype is ridiculous. They do have the best brand of college football. They do have energetic fans. However, they are not a conference that is so far above any other conference that no other team has any chance of beating an SEC team. Alabama winning 6 championships since 2009 does not mean that every other single SEC team is better than any other team in the country. I am not saying that the SEC is no good. However, I am not going to listen to people who make it sound like any team that isn't the SEC is no better than a rec-league team of 10 year olds.
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,546
True, but that doesn't negate the facts. And the simple fact is that the SEC is the #1 conference top to bottom. Pretending doesn't make it any less so.

Proof's in the pudding:

SEC vs. Power 5 by winning pct.

.663 (vs. ACC)
.627 (vs. Pac-12)
.599 (vs. Big Ten)
.553 (vs. Big 12)

Now you can cherry-pick this all you want, and make all the excuses you want to make. But the fact is the SEC is the top conference overall, all things considered. And it isn't close.
OOC only matters when it is in the favor of the SEC. In years when the SEC loses OOC games, OOC games don't matter. If the SEC hype train wants to use stats, they shouldn't change the stats that are important depending on which stat says the SEC is better.

If you want to discuss which conference has a better history, fine. What happened 50 years ago shouldn't have any influence on the polls and CFP rankings this year.
 

wesgt123

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,705
There's nothing positive for GT about being UGA's female dog. Financially or on the field. I know some won't want to hear that but facts are facts. We need to do what's best for GT and best for the ACC. If that's squeeze the SEC (and not play UGA) into a more fair money distribution then I'm 100% for it.
Don’t ever come here again with that mess.
 

bobongo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,071
OOC only matters when it is in the favor of the SEC. In years when the SEC loses OOC games, OOC games don't matter.
All the games are included in these stats, wins and losses. IIWII. You can talk about 50, 40, 30 20, or ten years ago. It's a constant theme.
 

RonJohn

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,546
All the games are included in these stats, wins and losses. IIWII.
I was saying that in a year where the SEC loses OOC games, the SEC hype train says that OOC games don't matter and are no indication of the strength of a conference. To them, stats only matter if they paint a picture that the SEC always was, is, and always will be dominant. In a year when the SEC wins the majority of OOC games, it is definitive proof of the strength of the SEC. In a year when the SEC doesn't, it isn't a stat that anyone should ever take into account.
 

bobongo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,071
Look at the match-ups. When the top of your conference always plays the middle or bottom of the other conferences, you're usually going to win. The problem is their middle and bottom teams don't really play the top of other conferences, so it's not really an apples-to-apples comparison. But you keep pushing those SEC talking points. Fake it till you make it.
Well if you want to parse it out, have at it. I doubt it will support your premise with the SEC holding a nearly two to one edge over the ACC, but go for it. I am not pushing any talking points, I am just stating facts. I always, without exception, root for any team playing against an SEC team OOC. And the other team more often than not loses.
 
Last edited:

bobongo

Helluva Engineer
Messages
7,071
I was saying that in a year where the SEC loses OOC games, the SEC hype train says that OOC games don't matter and are no indication of the strength of a conference. To them, stats only matter if they paint a picture that the SEC always was, is, and always will be dominant. In a year when the SEC wins the majority of OOC games, it is definitive proof of the strength of the SEC. In a year when the SEC doesn't, it isn't a stat that anyone should ever take into account.
Uh huh. The stats usually go their way. Has nothing to do with hype. IIWII.
 

85Escape

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,450
I was saying that in a year where the SEC loses OOC games, the SEC hype train says that OOC games don't matter and are no indication of the strength of a conference. To them, stats only matter if they paint a picture that the SEC always was, is, and always will be dominant. In a year when the SEC wins the majority of OOC games, it is definitive proof of the strength of the SEC. In a year when the SEC doesn't, it isn't a stat that anyone should ever take into account.
Yeah, even SEC apologists must admit that they discount SEC 'down' years by saying things like "We don't care at all about games outside the conference. Our players don't even practice for those teams. Only the SEC matters baby! Woof, woof. <picks nose>"
 
Top