Ohio State in AP Poll - Week 14

[Van]

Sorry, but yes, year in and year out only the SEC automatically receives those conference-wide rankings. I notice also that you didn't even try to refute the bit about the SEC automatically receiving the nod in any tiebreaker.

By all means, please explain why it was practically a fait accompli that the SEC was going to receive one if not both of the title-game berths had Notre Dame suffered a single loss. See, even with that loss they still would have had a far more impressive resume than any SEC squad this year. Bama's loss also occured late in the season, so you can't use that one either. Kansas St and Oregon? Never had a chance. We would have seen another All SEC title-game rematch between Florida (who didn't even win their own division, much less the conference) and Georgia long before we ever would have seen K St vs Oregon or ND.

Don't even bother trying to deny this, and good luck coming up with any rationale that would explain it beyond the obvious answer: Every other conference is playing under a different set of title-game criteria than the SEC is, and that's why the SEC has been afforded the opportunity to win all those titles in a row.


29-50

[Mace]

Sorry, but yes, year in and year out only the SEC automatically receives those conference-wide rankings. I notice also that you didn't even try to refute the bit about the SEC automatically receiving the nod in any tiebreaker.

By all means, please explain why it was practically a fait accompli that the SEC was going to receive one if not both of the title-game berths had Notre Dame suffered a single loss. See, even with that loss they still would have had a far more impressive resume than any SEC squad this year. Bama's loss also occured late in the season, so you can't use that one either. Kansas St and Oregon? Never had a chance. We would have seen another All SEC title-game rematch between Florida (who didn't even win their own division, much less the conference) and Georgia long before we ever would have seen K St vs Oregon or ND.

Don't even bother trying to deny this, and good luck coming up with any rationale that would explain it beyond the obvious answer: Every other conference is playing under a different set of title-game criteria than the SEC is, and that's why the SEC has been afforded the opportunity to win all those titles in a row.


29-50

You're full of shit....no news there...and you conveniently ignore the facts that I posted about the preseason rankings to counter your other bullshit offering. Oh so typical...and oh so PACBSHerish.

[buckeye_in_sc]

Sam...I was saying Miss State was considered a good win but then they got pole axed by Ole Miss


it's all a scam/ponzi anyway...until they go to a D1AA model eff it

[Killian]

I knew it was tongue in cheek, and I knew exactly what you were trying to do.

It’s funny, because I share almost the complete inverse of your opinion on the potential OSU v ND game. I think ND playing the tougher schedule plays into their hands as they have been able to wear down almost every team they have played, with the exception of Stanford. So while ND’s offense looks anemic, I think that is partly by design. They rarely try many quick score type of plays but when they’ve needed to score quickly, they’ve been pretty successful. Their offense is similar to Tressel ball. Run the ball, control the clock, and don’t fuck up. Only recently has Kelly and Martin started trusting Golson to throw the ball some more and run the ball himself. So I think the first 3 quarters would be close, but in the 4th ND would start to run on OSU the way they have most every team, eat up a bunch of clock and win by 7-10 points.

As far as the NC game, we’ll have to see. I have a feeling you will see a different ND offense than we’ve seen for most of the year. Either way, I think it will be a very good game.

[Mace]

Sorry, but yes, year in and year out only the SEC automatically receives those conference-wide rankings.

I decided to check out the preseason rankings for the past several years to see if you're truly full of shit, as I suspect, or if you actually have a valid point for the first time in years. Here's what I found in the AP Top 25 rankings for four of the major conference schools.....

2007: SEC - 5
Big 12 - 5
Big 10 - 4
PAC - 4

2008: SEC - 4
Big 12 - 5
Big 10 - 4
PAC - 3

2009: SEC - 4
Big 12 - 3
Big 10 - 4
PAC - 2

2010: SEC - 4
Big 12 - 5
Big 10 - 3
PAC - 2

2011: SEC - 5
Big 12 - 4
Big 10 - 4
PAC - 3

2012: SEC - 5
Big 12 - 6
Big 10 - 5
PAC - 4

To summarize, over the past six seasons (including this one), the SEC has had a total of 27 teams ranked in the preseason Top 25, Big 12 had 28 teams, Big 10 with 24, and the PAC had 18. Doesn't seem to be a huge disparity there if you look at it objectively, Van.

[Van]

Sorry, but yes, year in and year out only the SEC automatically receives those conference-wide rankings. I notice also that you didn't even try to refute the bit about the SEC automatically receiving the nod in any tiebreaker.

By all means, please explain why it was practically a fait accompli that the SEC was going to receive one if not both of the title-game berths had Notre Dame suffered a single loss. See, even with that loss they still would have had a far more impressive resume than any SEC squad this year. Bama's loss also occured late in the season, so you can't use that one either. Kansas St and Oregon? Never had a chance. We would have seen another All SEC title-game rematch between Florida (who didn't even win their own division, much less the conference) and Georgia long before we ever would have seen K St vs Oregon or ND.

Don't even bother trying to deny this, and good luck coming up with any rationale that would explain it beyond the obvious answer: Every other conference is playing under a different set of title-game criteria than the SEC is, and that's why the SEC has been afforded the opportunity to win all those titles in a row.


29-50

You're full of shit....no news there...and you conveniently ignore the facts that I posted about the preseason rankings to counter your other bullshit offering. Oh so typical...and oh so PACBSHerish.

1. I didn't ignore it. I addressed it directly by stating that no other conference receives those preseason rankings as rote procedure year in and year out. You, however, did conveniently ignore the fact that only the SEC gets the automatic nod in any tiebreaker situation. Again...LSU twice, Florida twice, Bama last year, either Bama or Georgia this year, and Florida also would've gotten it had ND lost a game. In every instance since ESPN bought the SEC and the BCS the SEC was granted a berth in the title game despite teams from other conferences having equal or better records. It has now gotten to the point where people simply assume it, as if other one-loss teams don't even factor into the equation.

2. You can quit your excuse-making about PACBSH. Last I checked, neither ND nor K St are in the Pac 12. I'm describing a rigged system that favors the SEC over all conferences and all teams across the nation, not just Pac 12 teams.



30-50

[Killian]

I’m not trying to speak for Van, nor do I know the exact rankings, but I think the general consensus about the SEC is the self fulfilling prophecy that happens because the SEC teams get the benefit of the doubt at the beginning of the season, hence higher SOS for most in conference teams. They also seem to be penalized less for losses in conference because of the aforementioned strong SOS and rewarded more for wins. Preseason rankings completely shape the next year. So the fact that Notre Dame didn’t play well last season in their bowl game, resulted in them starting the season unranked in the AP and 24th in the coaches, while the team that beat them by 4 in a shitty bowl game was on the cusp of the top 10 and being talked about as a legit NC candidate. Well if the rankings are artificially high to begin with, then we don’t know if these really are good teams. And because these teams rarely, if ever, go north of the Mason-Dixon Line and typically play very weak OOC schedules, we have no idea how they would stack up against other teams/conferences.

Who has Georgia played this year? In the one game they had against a good opponent, they got gorilla raped. Who has Oregon played this year? In the one game they had against a good opponent, they lost by 3 in OT. Alabama at least attempted to play a quality OOC game. Florida has their tilt with FSU, albeit still in the same state and FSU was vastly overrated. Everyone wants to bitch about UF? Fuck UF. I’m glad they were left out. That’s what happens when you don’t leave your region.

But Missississippi State? Who had they played when they rose all the way to #11? No one. South Carolina? All SEC games. Some tough teams for sure, but again, how tough? I think more people would be comfortable with SEC teams and their rankings if they actually traveled out of their region for a game and didn’t get more than a week to prepare for a team. The one thing I think cannot be debated is that the SEC has some of the best coaches in the game. When you give a team with a great coach more than a week to prepare, he typically wins.

[M Club]

It was said tongue in cheek. I mostly wanted to get a rise out of Michigan fan, who did not take the bait.

We're too depressed that our offensive coordinator through in the towel so easily. Second guessing the play calling just goes with the territory since the other team's defense generally has more to do with a play not working, but in this case we even have the OSU coaches and players flabbergasted whatever it was Borges was trying to accomplish. That stings more than actual shit talking.

[Van]

Once again, I guess all the voters in the polls are located in the southeast? Is that really the case? Damn. That's mind-boggling that they can get away with that.

Sam, enough already with that silly point. No, not all voters are located in the South. All voters do have TVs and read online, though, and the vast majority of the info they digest is spoonfed to them by the owners of the SEC/BCS in an effort to convince them of the superiority of the SEC. When a person turns on their television in Wisconsin or Seattle he's still bombarded with the same barrage of SEC!SEC!SEC! that someone in Baton Rouge is hit with. ESPN LA is still ESPN, the very company with a strong financial interest in perpetuating the myth of the All Powerful SEC.



31-50

[Van]

Sorry, but yes, year in and year out only the SEC automatically receives those conference-wide rankings.

I decided to check out the preseason rankings for the past several years to see if you're truly full of shit, as I suspect, or if you actually have a valid point for the first time in years. Here's what I found in the AP Top 25 rankings for four of the major conference schools.....

2007: SEC - 5
Big 12 - 5
Big 10 - 4
PAC - 4

2008: SEC - 4
Big 12 - 5
Big 10 - 4
PAC - 3

2009: SEC - 4
Big 12 - 3
Big 10 - 4
PAC - 2

2010: SEC - 4
Big 12 - 5
Big 10 - 3
PAC - 2

2011: SEC - 5
Big 12 - 4
Big 10 - 4
PAC - 3

2012: SEC - 5
Big 12 - 6
Big 10 - 5
PAC - 4

To summarize, over the past six seasons (including this one), the SEC has had a total of 27 teams ranked in the preseason Top 25, Big 12 had 28 teams, Big 10 with 24, and the PAC had 18. Doesn't seem to be a huge disparity there if you look at it objectively, Van.

Now look up where in the Top 25 those teams were ranked, and while you're at it go ahead and check out where they were after everyone began to incur losses and all the reshuffling commenced.

See, in case you haven't noticed, when an SEC team loses to another SEC team, two things happen: 1. The losing team doesn't fall very far. 2. The winning team is given disproportionate credit. As a result, the SEC is able to perpetuate their stranglehold on the rankings because nearly every game they play involves two teams that are ranked artificially high.

Rank these teams realistically and Georgia's SOS would be about 874th. Bama's wouldn't even be within shouting distance of ND's.

Also, explain why K St, ND and probably Oregon too were never going to have a chance of getting to the title game with one loss while one-loss Bama, Georgia, and Florida were never not going to go to the title game as long as no one ran the table.

Again, tell me what happened in 2003, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2011, and 2012? In each instance an SEC team was given the berth in the title game despite other teams having equal or better records. The only year they didn't get the nod was 2004, which was before ESPN purchased the SEC/BCS.



32-50

[Goober McTuber]

And the Coaches Poll is made up of coaches from all over the country.

Alabama is 121 points ahead of Oregon.

Well, duh! The coaches are all watching ESPN!!

[Mace]

1. I didn't ignore it. I addressed it directly by stating that no other conference receives those preseason rankings as rote procedure year in and year out.

If you'll check the facts that I posted regarding Preseason AP rankings, you'll discover that you're once again full of shit.

You, however, did conveniently ignore the fact that only the SEC gets the automatic nod in any tiebreaker situation. Again...LSU twice, Florida twice, Bama last year, either Bama or Georgia this year, and Florida also would've gotten it had ND lost a game. In every instance since ESPN bought the SEC and the BCS the SEC was granted a berth in the title game despite teams from other conferences having equal or better records. It has now gotten to the point where people simply assume it, as if other one-loss teams don't even factor into the equation.

Yes, I've ignored that point, primarily because it's a very stupid point. Yes, the SEC will likely get the nod with a 1 loss team but it's very likely because they will provide the best team left standing...especially if 'Bama wins the CCG. Just because Brent Musberger says the SEC will get the nod doesn't make it so. If 'Bama wins the CCG, they deserve to be in the title game, imo.....Georgia, not so much.[/quote]

You can quit your excuse-making about PACBSH. Last I checked, neither ND nor K St are in the Pac 12. I'm describing a rigged system that favors the SEC over all conferences and all teams across the nation, not just Pac 12 teams.
30-50

Oh, you're a PACBSHer alright....no doubt about it. What's ND got to do with this? They're already ranked #1 and waiting to play for the title. K-State shot themselves in the foot by getting drilled by a .500 Baylor team and don't deserve consideration, imo. Oregon proved their jet fueled offense can't stand up to a good defense.....something they only see once a year in the PAC, and proved once again that they have no defense of their own. Of course they don't need a defense most weeks in the PAC.

Bottom line: If 'Bama wins this weekend, they will deserve to be in the NCG over any other one loss team, imo. You don't agree? I don't care. And your phony preferential treatment in the rankings argument is still nothing but bullshit.

[Van]

And the Coaches Poll is made up of coaches from all over the country.

Alabama is 121 points ahead of Oregon.

Coaches don't watch other teams' games. They (or, rather, their assistants or SIDs who do the actual voting for them) do, however, watch and read ESPN.

Are you really going to continue to pretend to ignore the obvious and overwhelming influence the biased national media has on every voter in the country? Seriously? That's your hole card, this ridiculous notion that each region exists in an information vacuum?


33-50

[Killian]

And the Coaches Poll is made up of coaches from all over the country.

Alabama is 121 points ahead of Oregon.

Do you really want to talk about the objectivity of coaches? Notre Dame is 3 votes, yet 6 points shy of being a unanimous selection among the coaches as the #1 team. If a coach wants to vote their team #1 over ND, fine, I guess. But the three votes that didn’t go to ND have them at an average of 3rd. Care to wager what conference produced those votes?

[Mace]

Now look up where in the Top 25 those teams were ranked, and while you're at it go ahead and check out where they were after everyone began to incur losses and all the reshuffling commenced.

Okay, let's start with the PAC.

USC was the Preseason #1, dropped to #10 after their first loss, #18 after their second, #21 after their 3rd, and finally dropped out of the top 25 after their 4th loss.....and all the while during their drop from #1, the PAC teams were getting credit for beating a ranked (artificially ranked) team. See, it happens in every conference, not just the SEC. The Big 12 actually benefits as much, or more, from the rankings than the SEC, as does the Big 10.

Personally, I think the SEC usually has the best top to bottom conference in the country. They're not as good this year but neither is any other conference.

[Van]

Yes, the SEC will likely get the nod with a 1 loss team but it's very likely because they will provide the best team left standing.

Based on what? Their SOS provides no corroboration of this perception. If, say, the Big XII was the conference that was constantly given preferential treatment then they would be the conference whose members were always assumed to be the best. It's all nothing but perception—perception molded by rankings, which are molded by the media, a media that has a vested interest in propping up the SEC.

...especially if 'Bama wins the CCG. Just because Brent Musberger says the SEC will get the nod doesn't make it so. If 'Bama wins the CCG, they deserve to be in the title game, imo.....Georgia, not so much.

And yet you know as sure as you're sitting there that Georgia and even Florida would get the title shot over K St, Oregon or ND.

You know this, and you know that Georgia really wouldn't deserve it, yet you don't even question it.

You can quit your excuse-making about PACBSH. Last I checked, neither ND nor K St are in the Pac 12. I'm describing a rigged system that favors the SEC over all conferences and all teams across the nation, not just Pac 12 teams.
30-50

Oh, you're a PACBSHer alright....no doubt about it. What's ND got to do with this? They're already ranked #1 and waiting to play for the title.

I know it's difficult for you when you're in full-on Internet Pitbull Mode, but quit playing stupid. I just told you what ND has to do with it. Had ND suffered a single loss they would be out of the title-game discussion. This, despite playing a far tougher schedule than any of the SEC teams, all of which would have been given the shot over ND without a moment's pause.

The same holds true for Kansas St. It would also be the case for, say, a one-loss Wisconsin, Michigan St, or Iowa. Hell, even a blueblood such as USC that clearly receives preferential treatment still cannot make it to the title game with one loss. They have to run the table or else they have no shot, not if an SEC team with a similar record exists.

Only the SEC is guaranteed a title berth when all things are equal.

K-State shot themselves in the foot by getting drilled by a .500 Baylor team and don't deserve consideration, imo.

And when an LSU loses to a doormat like Kentucky their bad loss is immediately forgiven.

Oregon proved their jet fueled offense can't stand up to a good defense.....something they only see once a year in the PAC, and proved once again that they have no defense of their own. Of course they don't need a defense most weeks in the PAC.

And Bama proved that their jet-fueled defense can't stand up to a decent offense, of which they've only faced one this entire season.

This argument works both ways, not just in the SEC's favor. The bottom line is that Oregon has proved their mettle. Three razor-thin losses over three years plus a fourth resulting from excessive turnovers by a true freshman playing in his first game ought to tell anyone with two brain cells to rub together that Oregon can play with anybody, even despite their somewhat porous defense; a defense that is somewhat porous in large part due to the fact that their offense is so explosive that of course they're on the field nearly all game, every game.

In the end, what is the goal of any football team?

~cue Herm Edwards~

"The goal is to win the game!"

Oregon wins games. They win nearly every one. When they very occasionally lose, it's usually only by the skin of their teeth. Obviously they're an extremely difficult team to beat, even despite their odd style of play.

There is no reason whatsoever that teams like Georgia and Florida should be given the automatic nod over them, much less over a team like ND that played a hellacious schedule.

Bottom line: If 'Bama wins this weekend, they will deserve to be in the NCG over any other one loss team, imo. You don't agree? I don't care. And your phony preferential treatment in the rankings argument is still nothing but bullshit.

And if Georgia wins? Had ND lost, you would have been perfectly cool with a Florida-Georgia title game? You know, because Georgia and Florida so clearly earned their lofty rankings.

You're a simple fucking idiot, and a hypocrite to boot.



34-50

[Van]

Now look up where in the Top 25 those teams were ranked, and while you're at it go ahead and check out where they were after everyone began to incur losses and all the reshuffling commenced.

Okay, let's start with the PAC.

USC was the Preseason #1, dropped to #10 after their first loss, #18 after their second, #21 after their 3rd, and finally dropped out of the top 25 after their 4th loss.....and all the while during their drop from #1, the PAC teams were getting credit for beating a ranked (artificially ranked) team. See, it happens in every conference, not just the SEC. The Big 12 actually benefits as much, or more, from the rankings than the SEC, as does the Big 10.

I wasn't aware that USC receives all the Pac 12 teams' rankings. I thought they only received one per week.

See, because the Top 25 continues to list a whole boatload of SEC teams even after they all start losing games, something which really isn't possible early in the season due to their laughable OOC scheduling. Whether it's the middle of the season or the end of the year, the Top 25 is riddled with SEC teams that did nothing more than beat each other. Those same artificially high rankings then lead to artificially high preseason rankings the following year: see Arkansas the last couple of years, or Georgia most any year.

Yes, teams like USC, Texas, OU, Ohio St, etc., also receive preferential treatment. The difference is, their entire conference isn't awash in reflected glory. That is the sole province of the SEC.

Personally, I think the SEC usually has the best top to bottom conference in the country. They're not as good this year but neither is any other conference.

I would tend to agree, but the difference is nowhere near as vast as the media makes it. There is certanly not a large enough disparity to justify giving the SEC an automatic berth in any tiebreaker situation, yet that is precisely where we're at now.


35-50

[Van]

Sam, Vegas would list Oregon as a major favorite over ND, so should Oregon be in the title game? For that matter, Oregon would be favored over Florida or Georgia.

Funny thing, though. Oregon won't get a sniff. One-loss Georgia, Florida, Bama? They're in. No questions asked.


36-50

[Mace]

You're a simple fucking idiot, and a hypocrite to boot. 34-50

I've tried to be objective in this discussion but if that makes me a "simple fucking idiot" and a "hypocrite", then so be it. At least I'm not AP....or you. My point all along has been that all of the major conferences receive preferential treatment in the rankings, not just the SEC, and that it's entirely probable that the SEC gets a lot of ranked teams in the preseason because they have more quality teams than the PAC or Big 10.

Now go fuck yourself, you long winded whimpering douchebag.

[Goober McTuber]

Sudden Sam does not appear to understand how point spreads work.

Sincerely,

MA

[Mace]

Vegas also had Oregon as a 21-25 point favorite over Stanford, apparently ignoring the face that they actually play defense.

[Killian]

5 SEC teams better than Notre Dame according to the folks making money. Wow.

Yet the Irish could win it all. We all know that.

Van, until more schools than just Stanford starts playing defense in your conference, you ain't gonna win shit.

If you believe your post right above this one, you can't believe your first line in this post.

I hope there are 100 more articles like this one.

[Van]

Maybe the voters and bookies are smart enough to know that defense wins championships and Oregon doesn't know how to play defense.

Then why were they one last-play FG away from winning one? That shitty defense of theirs contained Auburn's offense much better than yours did.

And if you're being honest, you know to a 100% certainty that you'd much rather face ND, K St, Florida or Georgia (all teams that are supposed to have better defenses than Oregon's) than the Ducks right now. You saw how Texas A&M erupted on you. None of those other teams put any fear into you. Oregon would. You know that Oregon has a more explosive quick-strike offense than A&M, and if you even stop to blink they could pull another Utah on you.

You also know that Bama is not built to play catch-up football. If Oregon burps up a 28 spot on you in one quarter, they're probably going to do it in another, as well. Along the way, McCarron trying to lead Bama back solely through the air means more short fields and easy scores for Oregon.

Yeah, spin it all you want. You know Oregon is the only team out there that scares you, and rightfully so.


38-50

[M Club]

5 SEC teams better than Notre Dame according to the folks making money. Wow.

Perception drives the odds, you dolt.

[Python]

Perception drives the odds, you dolt.

Incorrect. Vegas sets the initial spreads based on what they think it would take to even out the game and they move from there based on perception. Usually not more than a point or two at most.

[Van]

You're a simple fucking idiot, and a hypocrite to boot. 34-50

I've tried to be objective in this discussion but if that makes me a "simple fucking idiot" and a "hypocrite", then so be it.

You admit that Georgia would get the nod despite being undeserving of it. You fail to be bothered by this because you're so dug in and mule-headed that you can't admit the obvious: The SEC receives conference-wide preferential treatment. They're not playing under the same rules as everyone else.

Instead, you attempt to frame this as a Pac 12 issue despite the fact that I've made it clear this issue hurts every conference, not just the Pac 12.

So, no, it's not your completely bogus "objectivity" that makes you a hypocite, it's your willingness to be a head-in-the-sand pussy while pretending to be objective that makes you a laughable hypocrite. You're arguing this garbage so strenuously simply because it's me on the other side. That's it, plain and simple. It doesn't matter that you're blind as a bat, oblivious to the obvious, and arguing just out of sheer obstinacy.

Now, by all means, go ahead and once again trot out your favorite "twat lips" insult. That one always works so well for you.


39-50

[Van]

Perception drives the odds, you dolt.

Incorrect. Vegas sets the initial spreads based on what they think it would take to even out the game

And what do you think it means to "even out the game"? Vegas gauges people's perceptions of each team in an effort to come up with an equal number of bets for both sides. Then, as the bets begin to pour in, they adjust the number so as to keep the bets as close to 50-50 as possible.

Start to finish, it's all about perception.

Jesus, Py. C'mon. That was fucking awful.



40-50

[Killian]

Killian, yes, ND has a good defense, but they aren't perceived as being at the overall level of some other teams.

Van, you're damn right about Oregon. They are the only team out there I think Bama would have any trouble with. Today.

Bama figured out how to stop A&M...too late unfortunately. Given a month for Saban and Smart to look at Oregon's offense, I have no doubt they'd stuff them like Stanford did. And Bama would go through Oregon's defense like a hot knife through butter.

I can't tell when you're trolling or in full on SECBSH mode because you do it so effortlessly. It's a shame other coaches don't get a month to prepare. As for your comment about ND's defense, I guess we'll see. But there isn't a better front 7 in the nation.

[Mace]

Now, by all means, go ahead and once again trot out your favorite "twat lips" insult. That one always works so well for you. 39-50

Naww, I'll pass on the "twatlips" insult. You'd just argue that you have penis lips instead, and would make a lengthy diatribe to prove your point. I'll just go ahead and concede that one.

[Python]

Vegas gauges people's perceptions of each team in an effort to come up with an equal number of bets for both sides.

Again, incorrect. Vegas couldn't care less about people's "perceptions". Everyone please stop using that word. It's just plain dumb. Vegas oddsmakers are just that....oddsmakers. They only care about making money and set the line accordingly. What do you think they do before they set each line on each game every single weekend? Take a poll or something? Absolutely not. They don't gauge anything.

I

[Killian]

You act as if Saban and Smart are the only ones who get a month to prepare. Saban has had a month or more to prepare 13 times in his career. He’s 7-6. He’s 4-1 at Alabama, 3-2 at LSU and 0-3 at MSU. The whole “month to prepare” thing is a joke. Perhaps ND has the advantage in that regard as they have a week extra where they can self scout and identify their tendencies while Alabama and Georgia have to prepare for one another.

As far as the offense goes, I guess we’ll see on Jan 7th.

[Van]

And yeah, Sam, teams always shut down Oregon while rolling through them like a hot knife through butter. Happens all the time. Stanford thoroughly exposed them, kicking the shit out of them to the tune of...oh, wait. It went to OT. Oregon easily could have won it, despite being "exposed."

Four losses in three years. Three of them came down to the last play. The other was largely the result of a freshman's turnovers.

Yeah, Sam, let's just go ahead and assume that Oregon is going to be in with a fighting chance no matter who they play, Bama included. The Tide doesn't play Oregon every year the way Stanford does, and Oregon would not be in the middle of a four-game stretch including @USC, @Cal, Stanford, @Oregon St were they to play Bama in the title game. Also, as Killian alluded to, they would have a month to prepare for Bama.

They would score. Bama would not kill them. The game would likely be very close, and Oregon might very will win. In the unlikely event that the game did happen to be a blowout, Bama would probably be the ones on the wrong side of the asskicking. Oregon is going to light someone up something fierce in one of these bowl games, and after seeing what A&M did to Bama this year, hey, why not?


41-50

[Van]

Now, by all means, go ahead and once again trot out your favorite "twat lips" insult. That one always works so well for you. 39-50

Naww, I'll pass on the "twatlips" insult. You'd just argue that you have penis lips instead, and would make a lengthy diatribe to prove your point. I'll just go ahead and concede that one.

Hey, Goobs accused me of screwing socal with sig-bet posts that were too short. Apparently I'm expected to give full word-volume value here so I'm merely attempting to do my part.


42-50

[Goober McTuber]

I could start a "Stevie Vai sucks" thread, and you'd have your 50 done before lunch.

[Van]

Vegas gauges people's perceptions of each team in an effort to come up with an equal number of bets for both sides.

Again, incorrect. Vegas couldn't care less about people's "perceptions". Everyone please stop using that word. It's just plain dumb. Vegas oddsmakers are just that....oddsmakers. They only care about making money and set the line accordingly.

"Accordingly"...based on what?

People's perceptions, that's what. The object is to create a 50-50 split, and they post odds accordingly. Those odds are based on their best guess as to what people think—their perception—of each team.

What do you think they do before they set each line on each game every single weekend? Take a poll or something? Absolutely not. They don't gauge anything.

Of course they do. They gauge the market's perception of each team and, via the benefit of long years of experience, set the number accordingly.


42-50

[Killian]

Van - Oregon isn't even going to be playing in the fucking Pac12 CG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't know why that's so hard for you to understand! Had they beaten Stanford - they would EASILY be in the game. Stanford ain't gonna make it because they have TWO losses. Shit, dude - it's really that simple!

Then who should have made it if ND lost? KSU?

[Van]

Van - Oregon isn't even going to be playing in the fucking Pac12 CG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, so?

-2011 Bama

Really. Don't be so melodramatic.

-2012 Florida, had USC beaten ND.

I don't know why that's so hard for you to understand! Had they beaten Stanford - they would EASILY be in the game.

Exactly. As long as another BCS conference's team runs the table, they can get in. Otherwise, no chance. Only the SEC gets to have teams with losses.

Seems fair. Well, okay, I could have said, "Had Bama beaten A&M they would EASILY be in the game," or, "Had Georgia not gotten shellacked to the tune of 35-7 by South Carolina THEY would EASILY be in the game," but that would just sound silly, right?

Would you please take the time to suss this shit out a bit before posting this childish nonsense? All you keep doing is proving my point that the SEC is playing by different rules than everyone else.

Stanford ain't gonna make it because they have TWO losses. Shit, dude - it's really that simple!

Now this makes no sense at all to us. Two losses is perfectly acceptable on the way to the title game. Hell, they can even come at the hands of dogshit Kentucky and...what was that other one...oh yeah, in our final game of the season, to Arkansas.

What's the problem again?

-2007 LSU


43-50

[Van]

All three teams' losses occured late in the year, and no, I don't believe that K St was ever going to have a chance of finishing ahead of Bama, Georgia or Florida, not with equal records.

The most galling thing about this whole sordid affair is the way everyone just knew that all three one-loss SEC teams would immediately be chosen over one-loss K St, Oregon, and ND. Short of running the table, the non-SEC teams didn't stand a chance. Meanwhile, the SEC teams were always going to be forgiven their losses, even horrible ones.

It's as plain as the nose on your face.


45-50

[Van]

Van - all of the computer models, all of the coaches, and all of the writers are enormously influenced by the ESPN-controlled media, which is in the bought-and-paid-for business of perpetuating the Myth of the SEC's Overwhelming Superiority.

Yep.



47-50

[Van]

All three teams' losses occured late in the year, and no, I don't believe that K St was ever going to have a chance of finishing ahead of Bama, Georgia or Florida, not with equal records.

The most galling thing about this whole sordid affair is the way everyone just knew that all three one-loss SEC teams would immediately be chosen over one-loss K St, Oregon, and ND. Short of running the table, the non-SEC teams didn't stand a chance. Meanwhile, the SEC teams were always going to be forgiven their losses, even horrible ones.

It's as plain as the nose on your face.

Not true.

If K-State loses two weeks before Bama lost, they fall to 4 or 5, then the Tide loses and drops to that spot, K-State passes them and doesn't lose again. Same with Oregon.

If K-State and/or Oregon had lost before Alabama did, they'd have definitely regained their positions above the Tide. Oregon would have wins over Stanford, Oregon State, and possible UCLA after that and Bama wouldn't have been able to make up that ground.

Wouldn't have mattered. Bama would have been given enormous undue credit for smoking Auburn and Georgia, and that would have been that. Conversely, Georgia's horrific loss at the hands of South Carolina would have been forgiven and they would have salted away the title-game berth with a win over Bama in the CCG. Failing that, and including a USC win over ND, Florida would have waltzed right in in their stead, where they would have faced...one-loss Alabama.

Among one-loss teams there was no way the SEC would be shut out of the title game. Zero chance.


49-50