SEC non-conference slates are an absolute joke!

[Conan]

Why does your proof always consist of hypotheticals? If a team finds itself in that situation (like Alabama, Ole Miss, Florida, and Georgia *appear* to this year...only one major game vs. opposite divisions this year: LSU-Florida, LSU-Georgia), then these teams are at a heightened disadvantage with regard to scheduling. That means they will not get the benefits that they did when they had tougher schedules with the exception of the two teams competing in the SEC Championship Game (which is a *huge* mulligan for those two teams). It goes back to the idea that if your schedule is light, you need to go undefeated or have a LOT of things fall your way. If your schedule is strong, then you have some margin for error. It's not an excuse, it's an explanation.

-ETC

How about a rundown of those tough SEC schedules you tout as the reason for cowardly OOC scheduling? It's not done to average things out, it's being done to virtually guarantee a bowl position and national rank by inflating W/L records in non-conference games that comprise 1/3 of your season. Ducking even AVERAGE competition to accomplish this is cowardly, taking the low road, working the system.

Let's see the top 5 schedules if you want to prove how "tough" it really is. Don't just claim it's true, show us some examples. No, show us the list of the top 5. No more cherrypicking. What I described was in truth the average schedule in an average year. I probably cited too many tough games just to cut you a little slack but in reality it's still just as easy as I pointed out. It's obvious to anyone who gives it a little thought. It doesn't take much to see what's really happening.

As far as the NFL draft number goes, they are meaningless if you include 2 teams more in your conference than the Pac-10 from which to draw NFL draftees... another "cheat" where you are not comparing apples to apples. A dishonest advantage like almost everything else about the the way your conference sets itself up and how readily you argue from that perspective attempting to defend the indefensible.

Redo your list and come up with per team averages if you want to make sense and be fair about it. (Also Oregon had 6 drafted, not 5... to be fair and accurate.) I should have inserted the words "more players drafted per team" which would be the only fair way to make the comparison. Pac-10 32 players, 3.2 per team. SEC 37 players, 3.08 per team.

It figures you'd seize the out and grab it. Opportunists like yourself that don't mind cheating the numbers or working the system wouldn't have an easy out making a comparison in unfair ways, including 2 extra teams to pick up the total. I shouldn't have left the opening for you to interpret the draft in an unfair way. That's so "SECish" of you to "work the system" as you did.

...so much like the cupcake OOC schedule approach, 4 games featuring OOC cupcakes as opposed to just 3 OOC games, mostly vs BCS schools with a round robin conference schedule in which no one gets a pass on any strong conference team in a given year.

The SEC could have added an extra conference game like the Pac-10 did when the schedule was expanded to 12 games a year... but once again, they chose the low road with 4 instead of just 3 patsies. That's working the system to it's finest, again the cowardly approach, especially when you include the additional patsies.

The championship game goes a ways to level that discrepancy... but only for 2 teams, not the whole conference with an added loss for someone x6 extra conference games per year instead of the extra patsy... x5 in the Pac-10 with 5 extra conference games per year, and no chance of ducking any one of them.)

You appear to have little respect for this forum because you keep veering off the topic which is about the piss poor embarrassment of a conference the SEC is because of it's weak non-conf schedules. You have yet to acknowledge what your southern comrades have begun to accept, starting with the topic article in this thread. Instead you choose to do the typical SEC meandering around the subject and talk about greatness and even try to put down the conference that chooses to play the toughest non-conference schedule of all...

...and just in case you feel like making the typical SEC BS retort about that, no the Pac-10 teams don't do it because they have to to bring their schedules up to par, they do it because they've always done it, even long before there was such a thing as the SEC as we know it today. They do it for the sake of the game. Now such simple things practically need to be legislated into reality so the cheats can't "work the system to their advantage."

For your sake, you argue money and the right way to work the system.
But for the sake of the game and for the sake of the fans, who is right?

I would feel ashamed to have to defend the SEC's position. As it is, you should be ashamed because you are in denial of something you don't have the huevos to admit.

 

[EatTheChalk]

You appear to have little respect for this forum because you keep veering off the topic which is about the piss poor embarrassment of a conference the SEC is because of it's weak non-conf schedules.

I have a great respect for this forum, and for your insight as well, especially as it pertains to that which occurs WITHIN the PAC 10. I think you are a great resource to the community, and I hope to be able to contribute even a small fraction of what you bring to the table this year in some regards as it pertains to Southern football.

You are sending me mixed messages, you seem to indicate that you are not interested in debating this in some cases, but then you continue to ask me questions. Then you get frustrated when I answer your questions.

One last thought unless you are at all interested in my thoughts on the topic (and if you're not, that's fine too, I've more than said my piece). With respect to the NFL draft, there's more to it than just "average per team" when you have everyone in the PAC 10 swinging from USC's nuts (except for the Oregon schools which were respectable in their own right as far as draft numbers go). It's the depth of the conference that makes the difference. USC is just as good as the best team in the SEC on a regular basis; just as Oklahoma/Texas are just as good as the best team in the SEC on a regular basis.

-ETC

 

[Conan]

Well I have indulged you for the sake of answering the accusations. But I'd rather not so let's agree to keep to the subject at hand in future posts.

In theory, and no way provable in an absolute sense, many of USC's top recruits would have attended a different school on the WC so it is entirely possible that USC's dominance as a program wouldn't necessarily affect the amount of NFL talent out this way. But it can't be demonstrated without examining every player drafted and move some around to the other schools on their recruiting list had USC not been "the place to go" for those that chose USC.

They are a once or twice in a lifetime dynasty. (Nobody has ever had 6 consecutive 11-win seasons.) They not only had more players drafted than anyone, but they nearly doubled the output of most every other school in any conference. Furthermore, I can see how some people would use their dominance as a way of putting down the rest of the conference. Or is is just a case of a truly great team rising above a lot of good teams? Judging from the draft numbers, bowl records et. al., the latter is more likely true.

 

[Flsunman]

To add to that final statement...

I would hope to see SEC fans see the truth in it and be up in arms against the responsible parties for what it's doing to their reputations. But instead I hear all sorts of excuses trying to defend the indefensible and attempts to hijack the topic and turn it into an SEC cheerleading thread or even more ridiculous than that, trying to put down the Pac-10 who's reputation for putting on good inter-conference games goes back a long time, way before the SEC even existed as it does now and before there was such a thing as the BCS.

SEC fans up in arms about the SEC's rep? LOL!!! About the SEC being the best conference winning every national title game it sees? I'm reaaly confused.

You live in the twilight zone man. You're the ONLY person I ever see talk about nonsense like this. Logical people look at the whole schedule not just OOC and at the end of the day the SEC plays tougher opponents, plain and simple. And yes, I know you are very simple.

 

[Conan]

SEC fans up in arms about the SEC's rep? LOL!!! About the SEC being the best conference winning every national title game it sees? I'm reaaly confused.

You are always confused. You think this is about something else than the SEC's disgusting reputation concerning their pusssy OOC schedules and cheating their way into the NC game with it and the artificially inflated W/L records they get from doing things that way... or as you guys prefer to put it... "working the system" (like a bunch of grifters.) Unless you have something to say that demonstrates that you understand where the flack is coming from and why, or even understand this topic, I won't bother with anymore of your cheerleading posts.

 

[Flsunman]

How about a rundown of those tough SEC schedules you tout as the reason for cowardly OOC scheduling? It's not done to average things out, it's being done to virtually guarantee a bowl position and national rank by inflating W/L records in non-conference games that comprise 1/3 of your season. Ducking even AVERAGE competition to accomplish this is cowardly, taking the low road, working the system.

Let's see the top 5 schedules if you want to prove how "tough" it really is. Don't just claim it's true, show us some examples. No, show us the list of the top 5. No more cherrypicking. What I described was in truth the average schedule in an average year. I probably cited too many tough games just to cut you a little slack but in reality it's still just as easy as I pointed out. It's obvious to anyone who gives it a little thought. It doesn't take much to see what's really happening.

As far as the NFL draft number goes, they are meaningless if you include 2 teams more in your conference than the Pac-10 from which to draw NFL draftees... another "cheat" where you are not comparing apples to apples. A dishonest advantage like almost everything else about the the way your conference sets itself up and how readily you argue from that perspective attempting to defend the indefensible.

Redo your list and come up with per team averages if you want to make sense and be fair about it. (Also Oregon had 6 drafted, not 5... to be fair and accurate.) I should have inserted the words "more players drafted per team" which would be the only fair way to make the comparison. Pac-10 32 players, 3.2 per team. SEC 37 players, 3.08 per team.

It figures you'd seize the out and grab it. Opportunists like yourself that don't mind cheating the numbers or working the system wouldn't have an easy out making a comparison in unfair ways, including 2 extra teams to pick up the total. I shouldn't have left the opening for you to interpret the draft in an unfair way. That's so "SECish" of you to "work the system" as you did.

...so much like the cupcake OOC schedule approach, 4 games featuring OOC cupcakes as opposed to just 3 OOC games, mostly vs BCS schools with a round robin conference schedule in which no one gets a pass on any strong conference team in a given year.

The SEC could have added an extra conference game like the Pac-10 did when the schedule was expanded to 12 games a year... but once again, they chose the low road with 4 instead of just 3 patsies. That's working the system to it's finest, again the cowardly approach, especially when you include the additional patsies.

The championship game goes a ways to level that discrepancy... but only for 2 teams, not the whole conference with an added loss for someone x6 extra conference games per year instead of the extra patsy... x5 in the Pac-10 with 5 extra conference games per year, and no chance of ducking any one of them.)

You appear to have little respect for this forum because you keep veering off the topic which is about the piss poor embarrassment of a conference the SEC is because of it's weak non-conf schedules. You have yet to acknowledge what your southern comrades have begun to accept, starting with the topic article in this thread. Instead you choose to do the typical SEC meandering around the subject and talk about greatness and even try to put down the conference that chooses to play the toughest non-conference schedule of all...

...and just in case you feel like making the typical SEC BS retort about that, no the Pac-10 teams don't do it because they have to to bring their schedules up to par, they do it because they've always done it, even long before there was such a thing as the SEC as we know it today. They do it for the sake of the game. Now such simple things practically need to be legislated into reality so the cheats can't "work the system to their advantage."

For your sake, you argue money and the right way to work the system.
But for the sake of the game and for the sake of the fans, who is right?

I would feel ashamed to have to defend the SEC's position. As it is, you should be ashamed because you are in denial of something you don't have the huevos to admit.

Ok dummy... so I'll tell Jeremy Foley at UF to schedule Ohio State and Texas for 2020. In order for USC to make up for that, you have to now schedule UGA, LSU, Alabama and OU... And Uf's schedule would still be MUCH tougher. You live in nonreality.

 

[Flsunman]

You are always confused. You think this is about something else than the SEC's reputation about their pusssy OOC schedules. Unless you have something to say that demonstrates that you understand where the flack is coming from and why, or even understand this topic, I won't bother with anymore of your cheerleading posts.

Again, the Flack is coming from one little girl out west...

 

[Flsunman]

You are always confused. You think this is about something else than the SEC's reputation about their pusssy OOC schedules and cheating their way into the NC game with it... or "working the system" like a bunch of grifters. Unless you have something to say that demonstrates that you understand where the flack is coming from and why, or even understand this topic, I won't bother with anymore of your cheerleading posts.

The Pac-1 has 3 ranked teams to start the season... it will be down to 1 in no time though. So I guess the Pac-1 just needs to get a WHOLE lot better. So I guess USC is also "working the system." The only problem is, people see right through your weak ass conference and that's why a 1 loss UF team will ALWAYS go over a 1 loss SC team.

 

[Flsunman]

And Conan

I will gladly swap schedules with USC EVERY year. EVERY SEC team would do the same.

 

[Conan]

...and as I just pointed out. you have virtually no understanding whatsoever regarding teams that artificially pump up their W/L records to the effect of being nationally ranked by doing things that way, surely protecting any possible ranking they might receive for it as well as leaving themselves 2 wins away from being bowl eligible, needing just 2 patsy wins in conference to make it into the bowl season. That is degrading to any conference, especially a conference that fancies itself as the best in the nation. Just degrading.

Have I spelled it out clearly enough for you yet? Apparently not. You are thick and stupid if you still can't see the point. That has nothing to do with USC or anyone or any other conference, just your chickenshit AD's and administrators who fear losing to even a mid-level BCS school in non-conf games. If you think there's any defense to that, it is you who is ignorant. You can't even pay attention to your own who see it just as clearly as everyone else does. Read the topic article if your reading comprehension skills have advanced far enough for you to understand it.

 

[SantaBarbaraTrojan]

Sorry if I wasn't clear, but it's a composite ranking using nearly 30 ranking systems. Funny how 27% and 36% are irrelevant when considering strength of OOC schedules, but 33% and 25% are relevant when considering overall strength of schedule. That's a little hypocritical, don't you think? BTW, you wouldn't be impressed with the home portion of that either, but I can post that if you like.

-ETC

If you want to argue strength of OOC schedules, use the entire OOC schedule, not the 36% of it (the Pac 10 OOC road games) and the 27% of it (the SEC OOC road games). Then again, you probably didn't want that to be brought up, as again, it shows the SEC not only playing a crap OOC schedule, it shows the SEC playing a crap OOC schedule without having the 'nads to go on the road.

Last year's SEC OOC schedule was actually one of the better SEC OOC road schedules in comparison to years past, with 28% of OOC games on the road and 72%.

Year in and year out, the SEC plays more OOC home games than any other BCS conference.

Alabama has played 24 home games and 2 netural site games in a row since 2002 without a true road game OOC.

Arkansas- 23 OOC home games, 3 road games.

Auburn- 23 OOC home games, 3 road games.

These are just the first 3 teams alphabetically in the SEC, I'm not going to waste my time going through the entire conference because, except for Tennessee, it doesn't change much.

 

[EatTheChalk]

If you want to argue strength of OOC schedules, use the entire OOC schedule, not the 36% of it (the Pac 10 OOC road games) and the 27% of it (the SEC OOC road games).

Just to be clear, that's my point about only using OOC rather than the entire schedule to measure how tough a team's total schedule is (why focus on such a small percentage of the total schedule?). The OOC is used to properly balance the entire schedule. Teams in weaker conferences need to schedule harder, teams in harder conferences need to schedule weaker...to balance things out. If you only look at the OOC portion of it, then things are going to look lopsided; just like if you only look at the conference portion of it, then things are going to look lopsided. But you have to look at the big picture to get a true understanding of why the OOC scheduling is the way it is.

-ETC

 

[Conan]

Gotta give some credit for LSU and UGA going on the road to play BCS opponents... albeit they just happen to be 2 of the bottom of the barrel teams (UW & ASU) this season in a conference that is as bad as it is, according to the SEC pundits. Coincidence? I think not.

Even if the games were scheduled 5 years ago, the 2 AD's knew EXACTLY what they were doing when they picked ASU and UW as an out.

Coincidence that UGA turned down a chance for a home/home with UCLA? Probably, because they fear Norm Chow's offense and DeWayne Walker's defense (at the time.) No other possible explanation. Those 2 games had big money written all over them. Gigantic TV deals, 90,000+ fans attending each game.

No, there's more than just money involved. It's the protection they seek to save their reputation from being blown up by such a lowly conference as the Pac-10. They'd never live it down. Just look at Tennessee since their two embarrassments vs UCLA and Cal the last 2 years. They took it so hard they decided to hire a coach from the Pac-10 to straighten things around. But I give them credit for showing some guts. The only SEC team that has taken on at least a fair team from out west in the last 5 years. (Save for Arky, poor guys.)

 

[Conan]

Just to be clear, that's my point about only using OOC rather than the entire schedule to measure how tough a team's total schedule is (why focus on such a small percentage of the total schedule?). The OOC is used to properly balance the entire schedule. Teams in weaker conferences need to schedule harder, teams in harder conferences need to schedule weaker...to balance things out. If you only look at the OOC portion of it, then things are going to look lopsided; just like if you only look at the conference portion of it, then things are going to look lopsided. But you have to look at the big picture to get a true understanding of why the OOC scheduling is the way it is.

-ETC

ETC, it's not a "small" percentage. It's fully 1/3 of the season... 4 out of 12 games. Effectively every team that ascribes to the practice begins a 12-game season with a 4-0 record. Nobody else has that kind of an advantage. That's how people look at the schedule. IMHO, really, that isn't reason enough to claim 4 easy wins when they may play just 2 tough in-conference road games per year to warrant it. Don't forget that they play at least another 5 games vs mid to lower place teams in the conference too. These are typical numbers. In reality. That is the big picture. The argument about "HOW VERY HARD" they have it in conference doesn't REALLY carry as much weight as some SEC pundits say it does.

 

[blackbox]

Did not CAL beat Tenn. last year? Did the PAC10 go 5-1 in the bowl games? The only teams to beat USC are PAC-10 teams. STANFORD and OREGON as of late. gl all.

 

[Conan]

Did not CAL beat Tenn. last year? Did the PAC10 go 5-1 in the bowl games? The only teams to beat USC are PAC-10 teams. STANFORD and OREGON as of late. gl all.

Slight correction. The Pac-10 was 5-0 in the bowls, not 5-1.

 

[Furmanski]

Gotta give some credit for LSU and UGA going on the road to play BCS opponents... albeit they just happen to be 2 of the bottom of the barrel teams (UW & ASU) this season in a conference that is as bad as it is, according to the SEC pundits. Coincidence? I think not.

Even if the games were scheduled 5 years ago, the 2 AD's knew EXACTLY what they were doing when they picked ASU and UW as an out.

Coincidence that UGA turned down a chance for a home/home with UCLA? Probably, because they fear Norm Chow's offense and DeWayne Walker's defense (at the time.) No other possible explanation. Those 2 games had big money written all over them. Gigantic TV deals, 90,000+ fans attending each game.

No, there's more than just money involved. It's the protection they seek to save their reputation from being blown up by such a lowly conference as the Pac-10. They'd never live it down. Just look at Tennessee since their two embarrassments vs UCLA and Cal the last 2 years. They took it so hard they decided to hire a coach from the Pac-10 to straighten things around. But I give them credit for showing some guts. The only SEC team that has taken on at least a fair team from out west in the last 5 years. (Save for Arky, poor guys.)

UGA actually plays AT Oklahoma St. this year and ASU comes to Athens to play. Just a correction.

 

[Conan]

UGA actually plays AT Oklahoma St. this year and ASU comes to Athens to play. Just a correction.

Thanks, but in any event, it's a step in the right direction and good for the sport.

 

[SantaBarbaraTrojan]

Just to be clear, that's my point about only using OOC rather than the entire schedule to measure how tough a team's total schedule is (why focus on such a small percentage of the total schedule?). The OOC is used to properly balance the entire schedule. Teams in weaker conferences need to schedule harder, teams in harder conferences need to schedule weaker...to balance things out. If you only look at the OOC portion of it, then things are going to look lopsided; just like if you only look at the conference portion of it, then things are going to look lopsided. But you have to look at the big picture to get a true understanding of why the OOC scheduling is the way it is.

-ETC

You still don't get it.

The 27% isn't from the entire schedule.

You were trying to use 27% of the OOC schedule only, with the 13 OOC ROAD games the SEC played last year.

Quite frankly, that sample you tried using with the 13 OOC ROAD games amounts to 6% of the entire SEC schedule of 48 OOC games, 96 conf. games and 1 CCG = 145 games total.

You don't give a convincing argument at all for the SEC's "tough OOC schedule" using all of 27% of their total OOC games.

 

[Jlip9]

I dont have the time or desire to read all the BS, but if someone in here is trying to say pac 10 schedules are harder than those in the sec, they are absolutely retarded. period.

best of luck betting. I wish we got to play washinton, wash st, notre, stanford, asu and arizona every year. yawn