The Coastal "Race"

[Northeast Stinger]

Cherry picking! The SEC has lost lots of big and small bowl games. They get ignored as ESPN points to the one W.

Last season SEC lost BOTH BCS games, including the big enchilada. The season before that Louisville spanked Florida in the Sugar Bowl. The season before that we got SEC vs SEC and have no comparison games. The season before that Ohio State beat Arkansas in the Sugar Bowl.

The SEC is a combined 3-5 in BCS bowls over the past 4 bowl seasons. Take away the SEC vs SEC nonsense and the record is 2-4 in recent BCS bowls. Why is 2-4 considered "dominance"? Because ESPN has a 20 year contract with the SEC.

For some reason I was lying awake last night with my mind wandering and I suddenly asked myself how in the world Mississippi State ended up being number one in the polls. Call me paranoid but it really looks like there are pundits who are pushing for as many SEC teams in the top five as possible so that the playoffs will have at least two SEC teams. Earlier in the season teams like South Carolina, Missouri and Texas A&M were being pushed as nationally relevant teams. Now that they have finally dropped out of he picture we see that the SEC teams that beat them have been given a boost. What is the phrase that the playoff committee talks about, is it "banking?" I don't remember but it basically talks about how teams that were preseason picks, or even teams with historically good reputations, may in fact be really poor teams but they hang around higher in the polls and longer in the polls than they would if they had started the season with no ranking or a very low ranking. This "banking" (may not be the term) when it comes to the SEC creates a double jeopardy for non-SEC teams because a loss by any team to a member of their own conference is far more devastating than a loss by an SEC team to an SEC team.

Anyway, I predict that Mississippi State will lose at least two games this year. But the problem will be that those losses will be to SEC teams and the voters will decide that they are all just good teams and keep them all in the top ten. The pollsters seem to be ignoring the fact that there are no dominant teams in college football this year. Conferences that beat up on each other are viewed through a lens. If the conference has a reputation from previous seasons, and an ESPN boost like the SEC, then beating up each other means that every team in the conference is really strong. Thus Mississippi State can struggle against Kentucky and it is not viewed the same way as an ACC team struggling against Wake Forest. If the conference is not an SEC team then teams beating up on each other reinforces the idea that all the teams in that conference are weak.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

it's not just the ACC though.

This season alone LSU beat Wisconsin (blame it on Wisconsin because they stopped running the ball or whatever)

Bama beat West VA who's now a top team in the Big 12

Auburn beat K State in Manhattan who's also a top team in the Big 12.

The other aspect are the bowl games (which are virtual home games for most of the SEC given bowl locations), the SEC continues to do well in big bowl games.

The SEC has done a lot to validate itself this season, but I still don't want more than two teams from the SEC in the playoff. Win your conference to play for the national title.

If only four teams can be in the playoff (something I was strongly against) then each of those teams needs to be a conference winner. All the teams that get left out (whether Alabama, Notre Dame, Oklahoma or whoever) need to push for an expanded playoff next time.

 

[Declinometer]

Duke won't lose to a team that isn't more athletic than them. Which leaves UNC and VT as the possible losses. I have very little faith in VT. Maybe Pitt can turn something around we can only hope. I don't think Pitt's good at all but I do think Paul Chryst is a good coach.

I think Pitt is better than thier record indicates. We deserved the win because we converted on all of the turnovers I believe. Our offense played extremely well and we deserved the win but Pitt appeared to be very sound.

 

[AE 87]

If only four teams can be in the playoff (something I was strongly against) then each of those teams needs to be a conference winner. All the teams that get left out (whether Alabama, Notre Dame, Oklahoma or whoever) need to push for an expanded playoff next time.

Well, that's not how it will work. They're going to choose whom they believe to be the four best teams.

 

[Jean-Baptiste Rochambeau]

It's highly unlikely Duke will win out. Not because they aren't playing good right now, but other scheduling issues are not in their favor. They have to play VT after the Hokies get 2 weeks rest. Then they have to turn around and play UNC on a Thursday 5 days after facing VT. Duke is much better than they have been in the past, but not good enough yet to get through that unscathed. If VT roughs them up, they may lose both.

It was also "highly unlikely" that Duke would beat an undefeated Georgia Tech team in Atlanta. Why won't people accept that Duke is best team in the division now?

 

[Madison Grant]

I just gave the reasons why. 1) They had an extra week to prepare for us, just like we did for Miami. Bud Foster will have an extra week for them. 2) You do realize UVA was playing their backup QB against Duke two weeks ago? Duke has gotten a lot of breaks. 3) They are winning with superior execution right now. I'd argue that's a lot tougher to do than winning with superior talent. If the execution is off, the talent is still there. If the talent is missing, the execution will at some point misfire. Wake is the only team left on Duke's schedule that they are more talented than. Even Pitt- OL has two former 4 stars and a 5 star starting on it- is full of players who would have turned Duke down flat. I'd give Duke a 50/50 shot at winning the Coastal, but they are not the 'best team in the division'. Put a Clemson (us) or FSU (Miami) or Louisville on their schedule, and it's another L for them, and they likely wouldn't have much of a shot at the division. FWIW, we are a lot like Duke in that we have to execute because we're out-talented by most teams on our schedule.

 

[Jean-Baptiste Rochambeau]

From http://www.thepostgame.com/commenta...sto-southern-secession-chuck-thompson-sec-bcs

Cherry picking! The SEC has lost lots of big and small bowl games. They get ignored as ESPN points to the one W.

Last season SEC lost BOTH BCS games, including the big enchilada. The season before that Louisville spanked Florida in the Sugar Bowl. The season before that we got SEC vs SEC and have no comparison games. The season before that Ohio State beat Arkansas in the Sugar Bowl.

The SEC is a combined 3-5 in BCS bowls over the past 4 bowl seasons. Take away the SEC vs SEC nonsense and the record is 2-4 in recent BCS bowls. Why is 2-4 considered "dominance"? Because ESPN has a 20 year contract with the SEC.

True, bowl match-ups are more easily manipulated. But at the top of conference there can be no debate that the SEC has stronger teams. Some of the "cherry-picked" wins for other leagues come against lower tier SEC teams, that get bowl bids that other conferences wouldn't get. Several factors---your location argument is valid, and the bowls (and ESPN) favor giving SEC teams bids because they have fans that actually go to the games. As I understand it, the Playoff Selection Committee is going to have a hand in making the bowl match-ups for not just the top four, but also for the bowls that are in the rotation for semi-finals. That could be very interesting. The committee will choose at large participants for the Peach, Fiesta, and Cotton Bowl, and the Orange Bowl if the ACC champion is in the semi-final games. Talk about a corruptible scenario. They will never pit SEC against SEC. They will want a national champion from the SEC PLUS the league going 4-0 against the other conferences in the "other" bowl games.

 

[DTGT]

True, bowl match-ups are more easily manipulated. But at the top of conference there can be no debate that the SEC has stronger teams. Some of the "cherry-picked" wins for other leagues come against lower tier SEC teams, that get bowl bids that other conferences wouldn't get... They will never pit SEC against SEC. They will want a national champion from the SEC PLUS the league going 4-0 against the other conferences in the "other" bowl games.

The #2 SEC team is a "lower tier"? ummm... ok...

Never say never when Disney dollars are involved. The point of the 4 team playoff (instead of 8) is to give the SEC with 2 schools a 50% chance of winning vs a 25% chance...

 

[Animal02]

It was also "highly unlikely" that Duke would beat an undefeated Georgia Tech team in Atlanta. Why won't people accept that Duke is best team in the division now?

Because the are not. We would beat Duke more times than lose if we played them every week. They played better two weeks ago. That is football.

 

[WreckinGT]

It was also "highly unlikely" that Duke would beat an undefeated Georgia Tech team in Atlanta. Why won't people accept that Duke is best team in the division now?

I watched Miami beat them pretty easily and that was before Miami was playing well. GT completely imploded against them so its hard to get a read on that game. UVA I didn't watch. From what I have seen of them they are a solid team but i'm not sure I would pick them in games against GT, Miami, or even UNC. They aren't even favored over Pitt right now.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I watched Miami beat them pretty easily and that was before Miami was playing well. GT completely imploded against them so its hard to get a read on that game. UVA I didn't watch. From what I have seen of them they are a solid team but i'm not sure I would pick them in games against GT, Miami, or even UNC. They aren't even favored over Pitt right now.

Because the are not. We would beat Duke more times than lose if we played them every week. They played better two weeks ago. That is football.

Exactly. Every team has at least one game where they come out flat and unfocused (just ask Alabama) and ours was against Duke. I hated it but that happens in football. You are right.

 

[jeffgt14]

For some reason I was lying awake last night with my mind wandering and I suddenly asked myself how in the world Mississippi State ended up being number one in the polls. Call me paranoid but it really looks like there are pundits who are pushing for as many SEC teams in the top five as possible so that the playoffs will have at least two SEC teams. Earlier in the season teams like South Carolina, Missouri and Texas A&M were being pushed as nationally relevant teams. Now that they have finally dropped out of he picture we see that the SEC teams that beat them have been given a boost. What is the phrase that the playoff committee talks about, is it "banking?" I don't remember but it basically talks about how teams that were preseason picks, or even teams with historically good reputations, may in fact be really poor teams but they hang around higher in the polls and longer in the polls than they would if they had started the season with no ranking or a very low ranking. This "banking" (may not be the term) when it comes to the SEC creates a double jeopardy for non-SEC teams because a loss by any team to a member of their own conference is far more devastating than a loss by an SEC team to an SEC team.

Anyway, I predict that Mississippi State will lose at least two games this year. But the problem will be that those losses will be to SEC teams and the voters will decide that they are all just good teams and keep them all in the top ten. The pollsters seem to be ignoring the fact that there are no dominant teams in college football this year. Conferences that beat up on each other are viewed through a lens. If the conference has a reputation from previous seasons, and an ESPN boost like the SEC, then beating up each other means that every team in the conference is really strong. Thus Mississippi State can struggle against Kentucky and it is not viewed the same way as an ACC team struggling against Wake Forest. If the conference is not an SEC team then teams beating up on each other reinforces the idea that all the teams in that conference are weak.

Mississippi State is for real. The only challenges they have left on their schedule are @Alabama and @Ole Miss. I’m not sold on Ole Miss at all. LSU should’ve beat them by 30. With that said, Alabama may win but Alabama winning out is probably the best thing that can happen to Miss St. They would avoid the SECCG and would be guaranteed a spot in the Playoffs. A loss to Alabama in the regular season would look better than a loss to most likely UGA in the SECCG.

With that said, this is a once in a lifetime Mississippi State team. They are loaded with seniors and even the Juniors (McKinney at LB and Prescott) will most likely bolt for the draft. McKinney is most likely a first round pick. Dan Mullen will be absolutely out of his mind if he doesn’t bolt to Florida after this year.

 

[jeffgt14]

I watched Miami beat them pretty easily and that was before Miami was playing well. GT completely imploded against them so its hard to get a read on that game. UVA I didn't watch. From what I have seen of them they are a solid team but i'm not sure I would pick them in games against GT, Miami, or even UNC. They aren't even favored over Pitt right now.

Yep. We were uncharacteristically very bad offensively with turnovers and redzone performance.

 

[Squints]

It was also "highly unlikely" that Duke would beat an undefeated Georgia Tech team in Atlanta. Why won't people accept that Duke is best team in the division now?

Anyone who said it was "highly unlikely" was grossly mistaken before the game was even played. At that point with our defense there's no way you could count any game as an easy win.

 

[Squints]

Pi$$es me off that when the SEC has two loss teams, it is because everyone is beating each other up, but for us it is the ACC wheel of destiny!

It's because for whatever reason the SEC is defined by the top of its conference and the some of the others, particularly the ACC, are defined by the bottom of their conferece. It drives me insane. Not to mention the blatant SEC ranking bias. I just hope the committee isn't influenced by the polls as much as they say won't be.

 

[Ggee87]

ESPN having a contract with the SEC has to be a conflict of interest in some way shape or form. The polls HEAVILY favor SEC teams for some reason. Yes they have some good teams at the top. But they also have alot of bad teams, just like every other conference. Have yall not seen how bad ESPN is trying to get FSU to bench Jameis Winston?? They are going for the head of the snake. FSU is good enough to repeat and they do not want that messing up the SEC lovefest. Hell... I barely saw anything of Gurley or the kid from Florida. But FSU and Jameis kept coming up over and over again. Its sad. I hope the.committee can see through the bias and pick the correct teams for this playoff system.

 

[Jean-Baptiste Rochambeau]

I watched Miami beat them pretty easily and that was before Miami was playing well. GT completely imploded against them so its hard to get a read on that game. UVA I didn't watch. From what I have seen of them they are a solid team but i'm not sure I would pick them in games against GT, Miami, or even UNC. They aren't even favored over Pitt right now.

I suppose you would find it acceptable if on the Hokie and Hurricane boards their faithful were saying "we are much better than Georgia Tech, we just played poorly against them" ? Isn't that why we play? Isn't that why we spend untold monies to build and coach a football team, to find out who is better?

 

[Jean-Baptiste Rochambeau]

ESPN having a contract with the SEC has to be a conflict of interest in some way shape or form. The polls HEAVILY favor SEC teams for some reason. Yes they have some good teams at the top. But they also have alot of bad teams, just like every other conference. Have yall not seen how bad ESPN is trying to get FSU to bench Jameis Winston?? They are going for the head of the snake. FSU is good enough to repeat and they do not want that messing up the SEC lovefest. Hell... I barely saw anything of Gurley or the kid from Florida. But FSU and Jameis kept coming up over and over again. Its sad. I hope the.committee can see through the bias and pick the correct teams for this playoff system.

Conference politicking aside, I wouldn' t be adverse to Winston having to sit. But your point is well taken.

 

[Madison Grant]

I suppose you would find it acceptable if on the Hokie and Hurricane boards their faithful were saying "we are much better than Georgia Tech, we just played poorly against them" ? Isn't that why we play? Isn't that why we spend untold monies to build and coach a football team, to find out who is better?

I don't think Miami would have a case for saying they are MUCH better than us, but they'd have a case for saying they played a bad game, and the outcome might be different in other circumstances. But then again, I think Miami's whole problem is most of their players think they should roll everybody just cuz. I mean, you know, they are Da U afterall.

 

[GTRX7]

I suppose you would find it acceptable if on the Hokie and Hurricane boards their faithful were saying "we are much better than Georgia Tech, we just played poorly against them" ? Isn't that why we play? Isn't that why we spend untold monies to build and coach a football team, to find out who is better?

Are you really arguing that a worse team has never pulled an upset in sports history and beaten a better team? Do you really think that any team that beats another team head-to-head is always better? You can't really believe that, right? Am I misunderstanding your point?