more SEC fun

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Mon Oct 29, 2007 3:46 pm

I heard on the radio this morning that the SEC is 5-5 vs out of conference BCS teams. This got me thinking...at what percentage should the SEC win its OOC games in order to justify the "we don't need to make excuses for our OOC schedule" argument?

In my opinion, you need to win your OOC games by AT LEAST an 80% rate in order to justify this absolutely ludicrous and over-the-top arrogant assertion of yours. 5-5? Shit, it's not even like most of those games were played in tough road environments or anything.

Now, let me clear up some confusion real quick for the SEC homers, because it seems like no matter how specific and in-depth these conference debates get, guys like Trixie and Sam still seem to think everything revolves around everybody calling the SEC a "crap conference," or something equally sophomoric.

I know this shit gets complicated for you guys, so please, DO pay close attention. Of course, I can only lead you to the water. But you guys...you'll probably have to combine the strength of your collective IQ to actually understand what I'm saying.

The debate was, is, and will ALWAYS be about how the SEC is not so tough that its fans can excuse playing a weak OOC schedule.

There's nothing wrong with talking the talk...but only if you can walk the freaking walk. You can't continue to act like your level of football is light years ahead of everybody else when you're winning your OOC games at a 50% margin. That's unacceptable.

If you're winning your OOC games at a consistent 80% margin or better, then I'll say "fine, play who you want to play. You're obviously that much better."

But that's not the case.

Look, if you can't BE world beaters out of your conference, then nobody gives a shit how difficult your conference games are. Don't you get it? Everybody knows the SEC is tough, but we're not just going to take your word for it that you're sooooooo tough that you can excuse a cupcake OOC schedule.

T REX · Post by **T REX** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 4:51 pm

Believe the Heupel wrote:Before I'd read too much into that, I'd take a gander at who's playing which games.

I mean, should Mississippi State get beaten at USC or something, that doesn't really say anything about the relative strength of either conference.

Word.....since he brought it up and wants to use it...get me the games and I'll respond accordingly.

Terry in Crapchester · Mon Oct 29, 2007 5:12 pm

Believe the Heupel wrote:Before I'd read too much into that, I'd take a gander at who's playing which games.

I mean, should Mississippi State get beaten at USC or something, that doesn't really say anything about the relative strength of either conference.

Fwiw, . . .

Georgia W vs. Oklahoma State (1-0)
Tennessee L @ Cal (1-1)
South Carolina W @ North Carolina (2-1)
Kentucky W vs. Louisville (3-1)
LSU W vs. Virginia Tech (4-1)
Alabama L vs. Florida State in Jacksonville (4-2)
Auburn W vs. Kansas State, L vs. South Florida (5-3)
Mississippi State L @ West Virginia (5-4)
Ole Miss L vs. Missouri (5-5)

Still left on the slate (all of these games scheduled for November 24). . .

Georgia @ Georgia Tech
Florida State @ Florida
Clemson @ South Carolina
Wake Forest @ Vanderbilt

Not a bad slate as far as it goes, but as Mgo points out, the SEC's results aren't nearly as dominating as SEC Ballsucking Homer would have you believe.

It's also worth pointing out that only 4 SEC OOC games have involved an SEC team traveling out of state, and only 2 of those games were more than one state over. The SEC is 0-2 in those games, although a big loss was to be expected in at least one of them.

SEC 4-2 at home vs. BCS opponents, 1-3 on the road or on a neutral field vs. BCS opponent.

SEC vs. ACC: 2-1 (note that 7 of 14 BCS OOC games will be vs. ACC opponents, this is the conference in closest geographical proximity to the SEC)
SEC vs. Big East: 1-2
SEC vs. Big XII: 2-1
SEC vs. Pac-10: 0-1

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Mon Oct 29, 2007 5:30 pm

Good god, SECFan isn't even good at being arrogant. If you want to be a bunch of arrogant asses, you can't tack on qualifiers.

If you want to make gawdy claims, then you need to back them up with gawdy results. Is that really asking too much? If you don't like what's being asked of you, then knock it off with the stupidness.

It doesn't matter who's on the schedule. If your take is essentially "we're so dominant we don't need to justify anything" then you need to beat practically everyone you play OOC.

Is that fair? No. Is that realistic? No. But your assinine statements are unfair and unrealistic. So...do you see how this works, SECFan?

Dinsdale · Post by **Dinsdale** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 6:30 pm

Looking over those results that were posted...

The symbols "@" and "L" seem to go hand-in-hand for the SEC.

They not only refuse to board planes, they not only justify this irrational fear of flying, but they even have the gall to still beat their chests and wax arrogant, even though actually playing a real road game seems to ring up L's wherever they go (typically not far).

When a conference as a whole tends to get shithammered every time they play a team from a major conference on the road, it might be time to back off the "we're sooooo much better than your conference" -- since on-field results tend to contradict that argument.

I am eagerly awaiting SEC Honk's response -- I'm sure it will have to do with all sorts of nonsequiturs, past glory from 10 years ago, and "you guys just hate the SEC because we're soooooo much better than you."

Just think if say... the PAC10 teams played by SEC rules -- as many home games as "creative scheduling" will allow, NO raodf OOC games, and playing as many crap schools as possible, to avoid "we beat each other up because we're so good."

I wonder what would happen if PAC10 teams did that....

Oh, wait. If a PAC10 team did that, they'd be called "Arizona State," and they'd be undefeated. I guess when Oregon beats ASU, we can chalk it up to "because our conference is so much better than all of the others." But somehow, I think only SECBSH gets to use that logic... "Southeastern Logic" at its finest, yet they wonder why they just can't shake that "inbred cousin-fucker" image.

Mr T · Post by **Mr T** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 9:14 pm

SEC definately took a hit this week.

The gates losing to Georgia
Kentucky getting assraped by MissSt
Tennessee beating the ole ball coach

My conference ratings this week
1. Pac-10
2. SEC
3. Big East
4. Big XII
5. ACC
6. Big 10

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 12:17 am

This whole "who plays in the toughest conference" debate, while amusing, doesn't make much sense. Do you really care how well your rival does when playing an OOC conference game? Nice dick measuring contest you've got going there, I guess. At the end of the day, I root for ONE team, and the rest of the Big XII can die in a plane crash (figuratively speaking) for all I care about their fortunes.

That said:

My conference ratings this week
1. Pac-10
2. SEC
3. Big East
4. Big XII
5. ACC
6. Big 10

Just how do you arrive at these ratings T? Is this a scientifically arrived at conclusion like a BCS computer, or do you just pull shit out your ass based on a whim?

Adelpiero · Post by **Adelpiero** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 12:20 am

he's trying to fish

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Tue Oct 30, 2007 12:51 am

Do you really care how well your rival does when playing an OOC conference game?

Apparently you haven't been paying very close attention. It has more to do with bashing the other guy, than it does propping your own.

But to get somewhat serious here - I can turn the question around on you and wonder why the hell do you care who or what I root for?

There are clear benefits to playing in a strong conference.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 12:55 am

Adelpiero wrote:he's trying to fish

You shush, Adel. I was asking Mr. T a legit question.

Howe does a conference that has 3 teams in the Top 10 rate as the 4th best? And no, Texass is not one of those teams.

Terry in Crapchester · Tue Oct 30, 2007 3:01 am

Just for kicks, I decided to do a little research on this very topic and compare by conferences. So I've grouped each of the BCS conferences by the total number of OOC games vs. BCS teams as a proportion of OOC games as a whole. The results surprised me a little. A few disclaimers:

1. The list includes OOC games that are on the schedule but have not yet been played this season.
2. Notre Dame is counted as a BCS team for purposes of this exercise, because -- well, by definition, that's what they are.

1. ACC: 22/48 = 45.8% of all OOC games vs. BCS teams
2. Big East: 15/40 = 37.5% of all OOC games vs. BCS teams
3. Pac-10: 11/30 = 36.7% of all OOC games vs. BCS teams
4. Big Ten: 13/44 = 29.5% of all OOC games vs. BCS teams
5. SEC: 14/48 = 29.2% of all OOC games vs. BCS teams
6. Big XII: 11/48 = 22.9% of all OOC games vs. BCS teams

TenTallBen · Post by **TenTallBen** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 4:06 am

Jesus Christ! Who gives a shit??

Name a PAC 10 team that won a mNC lately who's name isn't USC.

Bitch all you want people. The season will be determined after New Years in New Orleans. If LSU is there then hell yeah. If not, they didn't deserve it. The SEC is a damn good conference and so is all of the others...this isn't the NFL...we can't play everybody every year. Get over it.

RadioFan · Post by **RadioFan** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 7:03 am

TenTallBen wrote:Get over it.

With BC or ASU or Kansas in the MNC game, at this point?

Not bloodly likely!

Btw, there are playoffs in soccer, too.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial · Tue Oct 30, 2007 11:30 am

TenTallBen wrote:The SEC is a damn good conference and so is all of the others...this isn't the NFL...we can't play everybody every year. Get over it.

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Now, let me clear up some confusion real quick for the SEC homers, because it seems like no matter how specific and in-depth these conference debates get, guys like Trixie and Sam still seem to think everything revolves around everybody calling the SEC a "crap conference," or something equally sophomoric.

Sigh

There's just no getting through to you dipshits.

Mr T · Post by **Mr T** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 4:42 pm

Terry in Crapchester wrote: 1. ACC: 22/48 = 45.8% of all OOC games vs. BCS teams
2. Big East: 15/40 = 37.5% of all OOC games vs. BCS teams
3. Pac-10: 11/30 = 36.7% of all OOC games vs. BCS teams
4. Big Ten: 13/44 = 29.5% of all OOC games vs. BCS teams
5. SEC: 14/48 = 29.2% of all OOC games vs. BCS teams
6. Big XII: 11/48 = 22.9% of all OOC games vs. BCS teams

Haha...damn that shitty ACC.

That poll is bullshit. Big XII is #1.

sin,
War Wagon

Ps. War wagon, You say Conference ratings are bullshit and I agree with you. But you cant say they are bullshit and then started bitching about where the Big XII should be.

Mr T · Post by **Mr T** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 4:44 pm

RadioFan wrote:
TenTallBen wrote:Get over it.
With BC or ASU or Kansas in the MNC game, at this point?

Not bloodly likely!

Btw, there are playoffs in soccer, too.

Whats wrong with BC?

They have played a tougher schedule then OSU.

If Ohio State wasnt Ohio State, they would be ranked anywhere from 3rd to 5th right now.

T REX · Post by **T REX** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 5:19 pm

I agree.

OSU has NOT played a single team in the current top 25?

Yeah, great schedule.

buckeye_in_sc · Post by **buckeye_in_sc** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 5:29 pm

You are correct...tOSU fan has been here all year saying schedule was horrendous...

but...Washington was 2-0 when they played tOSU and that was the UPSET alert by every major media head...the week before U Dub beat Boise State in Boise...

now U DUB sucks balls...is that tOSU's fault? And you go to the when they played they were ranked card...so who has UF beaten that was ranked? They beat UT and Kentucky...both teams are teetering on being ranked or not depending on poll...so UF hasn't beaten anybody worth a shit...I mean UT and Tucky aren't even BCS top 25 teams...so I guess UF hasn't beaten a team worth a shit either...

now how silly does that sound...

but again that's cool you have your opinion...I have mine...

but PSU was ranked when tOSU played them as was Purdue...so there...

they get a ranked team this week...PSU was ranked 25th when tOSU played them and Purdue was ranked 23rd so it is only natural that they drop out of the rankings right?

L45B · Post by **L45B** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 5:45 pm

buckeye_in_sc wrote:...tOSU fan has been here all year saying schedule was horrendous...

Pretty much. I'm still pissed about playing a I-AA team.

But on a side note, for what it's worth, this season is the exception for tOSU given what our future schedules look like. I'll gladly wait a year to bust on LSU's OOC schedule.

Mr T wrote:Whats wrong with BC? They have played a tougher schedule then OSU. If Ohio State wasnt Ohio State, they would be ranked anywhere from 3rd to 5th right now.

You're probably correct. And I said it before, but if BC = Miami or Florida State they might be #1. Branding is branding.

Mr T · Post by **Mr T** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 7:16 pm

L45B wrote:
Mr T wrote:Whats wrong with BC? They have played a tougher schedule then OSU. If Ohio State wasnt Ohio State, they would be ranked anywhere from 3rd to 5th right now.
You're probably correct. And I said it before, but if BC = Miami or Florida State they might be #1. Branding is branding.

There is nothing wrong with OSU being #1 and BC #2 in my mind.

OSU should get the nod over BC because of past success but....

Why is the media and everybody jumping on BC?

If you got a problem with BC and Flutie, you should have a problem with OSU and Herby.

L45B · Post by **L45B** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 1:34 am

Mr T wrote:If you got a problem with BC and Flutie, you should have a problem with OSU and Herby.

Not exactly comparing apples to apples IMO, as Flutie isn't scared to stick up for his former team while Herbstreit dances all over the place. He gives tOSU some props but then quickly jumps to the SEC Is Supreme card in attempt to not look like a homer. Part of this is due to him defending tOSU last year and getting burned, but much of it has to do with the hype his employer wants to spew.

War Wagon · Post by **War Wagon** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 2:12 am

Mr T wrote: Ps. War wagon, You say Conference ratings are bullshit and I agree with you. But you cant say they are bullshit and then started bitching about where the Big XII should be.

You agree with me? Then why do you bother trying to rate, if those ratings are "bullshit"?

No bitching over here about where you rate the Big XII. Just a simple question that Terry (not you) attempted to answer. That guy has way too much time on his hands.

All I know is that IF Mizzou wins the rest of their regular season games, I'm going to be one happy camper.

Mr T · Post by **Mr T** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 5:22 pm

War Wagon wrote:
Mr T wrote: Ps. War wagon, You say Conference ratings are bullshit and I agree with you. But you cant say they are bullshit and then started bitching about where the Big XII should be.
You agree with me? Then why do you bother trying to rate, if those ratings are "bullshit"?

Adel already tried to tell you in this thread.

No bitching over here about where you rate the Big XII.

Yeah, you have never bitched about that...haha....

Just how do you arrive at these ratings T? Is this a scientifically arrived at conclusion like a BCS computer, or do you just pull shit out your ass based on a whim?

You shush, Adel. I was asking Mr. T a legit question.

Howe does a conference that has 3 teams in the Top 10 rate as the 4th best? And no, Texass is not one of those teams.

Keep on rockin mizzou fan

PSUFAN · Post by **PSUFAN** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 9:02 pm

Pretty much. I'm still pissed about playing a I-AA team.

Me too. Although, Youngstown State would smoke Temple or FIU, I'm pretty sure. OSU is benefitting a regional team as well, which you have to respect.

The only restrictions PSU's AD appear to be abiding by are how little the payoff offer can be.