Georgia Boss to Big Ten and Pac-12: Get Real

[M2]

Georgia Boss to Big Ten and Pac-12: Get Real





University of Georgia president Michael Adams, left


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... +the+field

University of Georgia president Michael Adams criticized the Big Ten and Pac-12 conferences for seeking special treatment in ongoing negotiations about the next Bowl Championship Series format.

"This is not 1950, or 1960," Adams said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal, adding, "I don't think that they have the right to dictate policy to all the rest of us."

Adams's comments come amid reports of an unusual postseason plan that calls for three semifinal-round games in order to preserve a traditional Big Ten-Pac-12 matchup in the Rose Bowl.

Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany said he is "glad that Michael Adams and others are fully participating in the conversation," and that "the Rose Bowl has, and will continue to have, a very important relationship with the Big Ten." Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott could not immediately be reached for comment.

Yeah, it's not fair when the system favors anyone other than the SEC.

[M2]

The Rose Bowl BS is ludicrous. It's really damn funny that Delaney and Scott think their conferences are deserving of such treatment.

Learn to spell...



Scott and Delany will do what's best for the PAC 12 and the Big 10/12.

The SEC can pound sand, for all I care.

[Goober McTuber]

That's BS and you know it.

Nothing is favoring the SEC as things are now, nor would it if there were semifinal games between the top 4 teams at the end of the year.

The Rose Bowl BS is ludicrous. It's really damn funny that Delaney and Scott think their conferences are deserving of such treatment.

Yet it may happen just to get those two bozos to sign on to some sort of altered format.

Unreal.

I guess it's their only hope of getting a team in the championship game.

Won't matter anyway. :wink:

I believe that under the proposed format, Alabama would not have made the final 4 last season.

[M2]

Oh, it just keeps getting better...





Georgia president says the Big Ten-Pac-12 Rose Bowl matchup is outdated






http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr- ... 11910.html

University of Georgia president Michael Adams is in favor of a playoff, but not if it gives the Pac-12 and Big Ten special treatment.

USA Today reported last week that the 11 BCS commissioners and Notre Dame were considering a "Four Teams Plus" model that would allow the Big Ten and Pac-12 champions to continue to meet in the Rose Bowl even if one of those teams isn't among the top four teams in whatever poll they decide to use to determine a four-team playoff.

This didn't exactly sit will with Adams, who thinks the top four teams should just be the top four teams regardless of conference affiliation, and that the historic Rose Bowl rivalry between the Big Ten and the Pac-12 is dated.

"This is not 1950, or 1960," Adams told The Wall Street Journal. "There are great schools in the [Atlantic Coast Conference] and the Southeastern Conference and the Big 12. I think it's time to put everybody on an equal footing. I just reject the notion that the Big Ten and the Pac-12 ought to be treated differently in this process.

"If they can be accommodated without changing the entire process, then I think everyone is open to that. I have great respect for the Big Ten and the Pac-12, and have two Big Ten degrees [from Ohio State]. But I don't think that they have the right to dictate policy to all the rest of us."

Cheers to that.

I think any college football fan can appreciate the historical significance of the Rose Bowl, but I agree that changing the rules to accommodate the Pac-12 and Big Ten is ludicrous and unfair to teams that worked hard to get into the top four spots and actually deserve to be in the playoff.

Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany didn't have the expected reaction to Adams comments (at least not publicly) and told the Wall Street Journal he was "glad that Michael Adams and others are fully participating in the conversation," and that "the Rose Bowl has, and will continue to have, a very important relationship with the Big Ten."

Of course, Adams isn't exactly championing the sanctity of fair college football, rather trying to protect the SEC from getting aced out of a national championship or an extra playoff berth.

"The predominant view seems to be for a four-team playoff of some sort," Adams said. "I think that's an improvement, but I think it diminishes the importance of the nation's strongest athletic conference, the Southeastern Conference."

While a four-team playoff might not be the perfect solution, at least it's step in the right direction and a step toward a fair way of picking a national champion. Adding in a special provision for the Rose Bowl and the Pac-12 and Big Ten would diminish any progress toward a fair system.

[Van]

Nothing is favoring the SEC as things are now

Ummm...

[Mace]

I'm as big of Big 10 homer as there is in here and have likely watched more Rose Bowls that most any of you BUT, if the Big 10 and PAC's insistence on keeping the conference alignment for the Rose Bowl is going to throw a wrench in getting us to a playoff, then fuck both of them. Get a fucking playoff started...and do it NOW.

Oh, and btw....fuck the SEC.

[Van]

What is giving the SEC an advantage right now? Oh, let's see. There's...

Conference sponsors ESPN and CBS jocking them at every turn, thus inflating the perception of their worth.

Their pre-season rankings and all other rankings wherein SEC teams simply are not allowed to fall due to the fact that losing to another SEC team simply proves how super awesome they ALL are, while in any other conference a loss proves how weak they all are.

Their laughable SOS rankings that are based almost solely on playing nobody but themselves, and since playing themselves only means they'll substitute one overrated SEC team for another in a game of musical chairs all throughout the Top 25 it remains a no-lose prospect.

Everything in CF is geared towards rankings, including the title game. Everything in our current rankings system is geared towards perpetuating the SEC's place at the top, even if it means taking mid-tier nobodies and giving them Top 20 rankings so as to inflate the rankings of every other team in the conference.

As an example, I'm still waiting to hear or read any explanation whatsoever as to why Arkansas keeps receiving such high rankings. "Oh, but they only lost to Alabama and LSU!" Yes, and they only beat...?

Point me to any win they've had that mattered. What, eeking out a clusterfuck over piss-poor, barely .500 ATM?

Same with S. Carolina. Or Georgia. Every year these guys get inflated rankings without ever doing anything but treading water in a two-team SEC.

The SEC also is given the presumptive win by the media in terms of stats/style of play and how those things result in inflated rankings.

"Look at the defense they play! They have five teams ranked in the top fifteen!"

Yeah, because they played...? Roll out those stellar offenses they shut down to compile those gaudy defensive stats. Was it those awe-inspiring OOC tilts they schedule at home? Was it those defensive beatdowns of inept Kentucky, Auburn and S. Carolina?

"Yeah, but other conferences play NO defense, so their offensive stats are inflated!"

Yeah, but in the end these are both chicken-egg arguments except for the one obvious fact: The media, as driven for the most part by ESPN, is in the SEC's pocket so the ultimate spin always lands in favor of the SEC's chicken over anyone else's egg.

Shit, even the majority of the bowl games are played in the SEC's back yard. No bowl games are played in cold-weather locales, outside.

Bottom line, is there any aspect of current BTPCF politicking that doesn't shamelessly favor the SEC?

[M2]

I guess I just look at the fact that the SEC has whipped everybody that's been sent to knock them off the top of the mountain.

Really ???


Let's take a look at your SEC West Champions... last year, shall we ???


Boise State travels 3,000 miles to play Georgia in "Georgia"... to start the season last year.










Is Georgia returning the favor and playing Boise State... in say, Montana for a return game ???


Yeah, didn't think so.

[Van]

Hardly. Most unbiased observers thought Boise St was going to win that game, and so they did, handily.

Sam, one reason for the six-in-a-row is that the SEC bias means they keep getting selected to play in the game. Two-loss LSU got in, and that was iffy at best. Florida got in, same deal. Even last year saw the SEC win the media debate, otherwise Bama doesn't get in.

See, it's hard to win the game if you're never chosen to play in it.

Another advantage of the SEC is their penchant for oversigning, which ran rampant for years. On top of that is the fact that they're just the plumb dumbest BCS conference, by a country mile. The SEC has zero compunction about stocking the shelves with illiterate mercenary thugs who are about as much "student-athletes" as you are a "student-motorcycle rider."

[Van]

So? In three of the past six years teams other than those from the SEC could've had shots. They didn't get them because the bias for the SEC meant inflated rankings, inflated SOS rankings and inflated media perceptions. When push came to shove, the SEC was given the opportunity to play for the title every time. Last year, they were even given NO chance of NOT winning it!



And you can try to sugarcoat it all you want but no, they're not just littering the field with some "less than Einsteinian" kids. They're loading their rosters with too many players to begin with, and conspicuous among that excess are far more than any conference's fair share of dumbasses who have about as much business being in college as I do running NASA.

This cannot be minimized or swept under the rug...except it routinely is by ESPN and most of the nation's mainstream media, who routinely turn a blind eye towards every blatant thing the SEC does to achieve and maintain this ridiculous competitive advantage they've been given.

[M2]

Oregon had their shot against an Auburn team that barely won half of its SEC games.

Huh ?


Must be that southern mathematical edumacation I'm having a hard time deciphering.


Maybe you could translate that for me ?

[SoCalTrjn]

USC kick fucked every sec team that has had the balls to play them the sec needed the ncaa to trump up some charges on the Trojans and wrongfully punish them or USC would still be kick fucking any sec team that had the balls to play them.

[FLW Buckeye]

Shit, even the majority of the bowl games are played in the SEC's back yard. No bowl games are played in cold-weather locales, outside.

[Ah do declare] If'n dem yankees mess wif our home field advantage, we'll have ta rally the boys to fire on Ft. Sumter again, ya hear? [/Ah do declare]

[Truman]

Van:

I think we have a pretty good opportunity to put your theory to the smell-test this season.

For all intensive purposes, Mizzou is still a middle-of-the-pack XII team playing an SEC schedule this season. Should the Tigers finish, well, in the middle-of-the-pack in the SEC, say 8-4/4-4 or better (not completely out of the realm of possibility), does that prove your take? Or does such a finish suggest that Mizzou “rose to the level of its competition.” Or will we hear how down the East is again this year?

Given the quirks of the schedule, not to mention the availability - and continued vulnerability - of Junior starting quarterback James Franklin (redshirt Freshman Corbin Berkstresser has the keys to Mizzou offense presently), I'd take 8-4 in a heartbeat. At least we're not A&M.

[Van]

Van:

I think we have a pretty good opportunity to put your theory to the smell-test this season.

Which one?

:grin:

For all intensive purposes, Mizzou is still a middle-of-the-pack XII team playing an SEC schedule this season. Should the Tigers finish, well, in the middle-of-the-pack in the SEC, say 8-4/4-4 or better (not completely out of the realm of possibility), does that prove your take?

Which take? You lost me here, chief. Not trying to be obstinate or anything. I just don't know how Missouri factors into anything I've said in this thread.

Or does such a finish suggest that Mizzou “rose to the level of its competition.” Or will we hear how down the East is again this year?

Well, we know the East is down. The power of the conference is decidedly in the West. The East is the dregs.

Given the quirks of the schedule, not to mention the availability - and continued vulnerability - of Junior starting quarterback James Franklin (redshirt Freshman Corbin Berkstresser has the keys to Mizzou offense presently), I'd take 8-4 in a heartbeat. At least we're not A&M.

I'd have to go look it up in the other thread but I believe 8-4 was my main prediction for Missouri this year, yeah. I gave best-case/worst-case scenarios, with 8-4 being most likely.

Sam tried to put them at 6-6 or worse while Wags tried to put them at 10-2 or even 11-1, which is lunacy. I think 9-3 is their realistic ceiling, with 7-5 probably being their basement. I suppose if the wheels absolutely fell off then 6-6 is possible, but looking at their schedule I just don't see six losses.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

I see 7-5 on paper, 8-4 if they can steal one.

[Van]

I see Florida as being their swing game. Gotta find out what sort of team the Gators will be.

[Truman]

Um, well there’s this for starters…

Conference sponsors ESPN and CBS jocking them at every turn, thus inflating the perception of their worth.

Their pre-season rankings and all other rankings wherein SEC teams simply are not allowed to fall due to the fact that losing to another SEC team simply proves how super awesome they ALL are, while in any other conference a loss proves how weak they all are.

Their laughable SOS rankings that are based almost solely on playing nobody but themselves, and since playing themselves only means they'll substitute one overrated SEC team for another in a game of musical chairs all throughout the Top 25 it remains a no-lose prospect.

Everything in CF is geared towards rankings, including the title game. Everything in our current rankings system is geared towards perpetuating the SEC's place at the top, even if it means taking mid-tier nobodies and giving them Top 20 rankings so as to inflate the rankings of every other team in the conference.

As an example, I'm still waiting to hear or read any explanation whatsoever as to why Arkansas keeps receiving such high rankings. "Oh, but they only lost to Alabama and LSU!" Yes, and they only beat...?

Point me to any win they've had that mattered. What, eeking out a clusterfuck over piss-poor, barely .500 ATM?

Same with S. Carolina. Or Georgia. Every year these guys get inflated rankings without ever doing anything but treading water in a two-team SEC.

The SEC also is given the presumptive win by the media in terms of stats/style of play and how those things result in inflated rankings.

"Look at the defense they play! They have five teams ranked in the top fifteen!"

Yeah, because they played...? Roll out those stellar offenses they shut down to compile those gaudy defensive stats. Was it those awe-inspiring OOC tilts they schedule at home? Was it those defensive beatdowns of inept Kentucky, Auburn and S. Carolina?

"Yeah, but other conferences play NO defense, so their offensive stats are inflated!"

Yeah, but in the end these are both chicken-egg arguments except for the one obvious fact: The media, as driven for the most part by ESPN, is in the SEC's pocket so the ultimate spin always lands in favor of the SEC's chicken over anyone else's egg.

Shit, even the majority of the bowl games are played in the SEC's back yard. No bowl games are played in cold-weather locales, outside.

Bottom line, is there any aspect of current BTPCF politicking that doesn't shamelessly favor the SEC?

And then there's this…

Their laughable SOS rankings that are based almost solely on playing nobody but themselves, and since playing themselves only means they'll substitute one overrated SEC team for another in a game of musical chairs all throughout the Top 25 it remains a no-lose prospect.

Followed up by this:

In three of the past six years teams other than those from the SEC could've had shots. They didn't get them because the bias for the SEC meant inflated rankings, inflated SOS rankings and inflated media perceptions.

Sorry, but I sensed a trend here. Again, I think a good – and most certainly not great - Tiger squad will make a fine crucible to test your theory. Personally, I’m riding in your cart. I think the Mizzou spread is gonna fuck with this league. I do not happen to believe the SEC is as nearly good as touted. For one, the offenses in this conference suck-out-loud. But we won’t know until we play the string out.

[Van]

I'm still failing to see the Missouri correlation to any of that. They're newcomers to the league, so they've yet to receive any of those perks. In time, yes, any decent Missouri team will benefit from SEC reflected glory, but an 8-4/7-5 finish this season likely won't say much about them or the conference.

Clearly their big chances to make a splash are the Bama, S. Carolina and Georgia games. If they beat Bama, that'd be a huge middle finger to the SEC. If they lose the games they're expected to lose while beating the cupcakes, well, then what?

Not much, really.

[Truman]

The correlation, asshat, is that any Mizzou success (or A&M, for that matter) in the SEC this season potentially has the opportunity to prove your take correct.

Are you truly this obtuse?

"...The SEC is overrated... SOS is inflated..."

You've gone to great pains to denigrate my Tigers in the past. Middle of the road program in a bad conference. Whatever. My POINT, dumbass, is that if these same, stupid Tigers DO happen to challenge for the East, you've just proved your point: The SEC IS overrated and the SOS IS inflated.

Or have you...?

Does somebody need to draw you a picture? Jesus cats...

*Edit*

You know what? Strike all of that.

M2 was right: Slow-KalFan truly IS dumber than a box of Altoids.

[Van]

I never said the XII is a bad conference. Missouri is certainly middle-of-the-road, yes, but the XII isn't the Big East.

Well, the North pretty much is, but the South usually more than makes up for them.

Look, Missouri is moving to the SEC East, not the West. Their schedule says they should go 8-4 or 7-5. If that's what they manage, what does it say about the SEC?

Nothing, really. It says their shitty teams are just as bad as we all know they are. The problem is that the voters somehow view wins over Kentucky and Ole Miss to be more impressive than wins over Iowa St and ATM, so SEC rankings never plummet.

What does this mean for Missouri, and vice versa? It means that the first time Missouri burps up a 9-3 season they'll go into the following season with a Top 15 ranking and it'll be damn near impossible to dislodge them, except by another SEC team. Give them a ten-win season and they're a contender for the national title the following season. If they should burp up a five-win season, the Almighty SEC myth remains inviolate.

I just want to see them go in there and win. Love to see them smoke Bama in Columbia, and it'd be a total crack-up to see them roll into Athens and come out with a W.

[Truman]

You’re a mess.

There is no more North/South in the XII. Mizzou finished behind Poke State, Oklahoma, K-State, and Baylor. But we did finish ahead of UT and A&M.

As for your “first time” 9-3 characterization… Do you actually watch BTPCFB, Van?

2007 - 12-2-0
2008 - 10-4-0
2009 - 8-5-0
2010 - 10-3-0
2011 - 8-5-0

Um, 9-3 has become sorta an expectation ‘round here lately. Conference affiliations be damned. MY take all along has been that MY team has an opportunity to prove your take correct – that the SEC is overrated and its SOS is overvalued.

BTW, Homer, we get the Dawgs AND Bama at home. Win those, and you’re take is vindicated. We’re a suck XII school, after all.

Lose both, however… Well, we’re rebuilding.

[Van]

You’re a mess.

You're being unaccountably pissy.

There is no more North/South in the XII.

So what? For most of the XII's existence there were two divisions, and the South was usually much better. They certainly were better during Missouri's recent mini-ascencion. Even though the North sucking so badly provided an easy window for the Tigers to make it to the Cash Grab farce, they still failed to get there just about every year.

As for your “first time” 9-3 characterization… Do you actually watch BTPCFB, Van?

The first time they do it in the SEC. I would've thought that that could go without saying, but since you're being Captain Kotex today I guess it needed clarifying.

MY take all along has been that MY team has an opportunity to prove your take correct – that the SEC is overrated and its SOS is overvalued.

A ten-win season would do so. A middle-of-the-pack 7-5 or 8-4 season won't. You could garner seven wins simply by beating D1AA SE Louisiana, rebuilding ASU, Sunbelt UCF, perennial doormat Vandy, perennial doormat Kentucky, awful Tennessee, and awful Syracuse. You will rightly be favored in every one of those games. Add a victory against horrible ATM or .500 Florida and that's eight wins.

BTW, Homer, we get the Dawgs AND Bama at home. Win those, and you’re take is vindicated.

Yep. Those are your barometer games, along with the S. Carolina game.

We’re a suck XII North school, after all.

Yep.

Lose both, however… Well, we’re rebuilding.

Everyone will expect you to lose both, so it won't be any biggie if you do. Clearly the Georgia game should be more winnable than the roadie to S. Carolina. Bama? At least you're catching them in somewhat of a rebuilding/reloading year.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

I love how all those schools are "awful" yet ASU gets the much more polite "rebuilding" tag. I wonder why that is. :)

Not so much "rebuilding ASU" as they are just "ASU."

[Van]

You know, you're right. I stand corrected. ASU has certainly earned the "awful" tag.

The only thing is, christ, they beat my team and Truman's last year.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

I had to channel my "sorry to nitpick" inner TiC on that one. Carry on.

[Van]

They tried, but apparently the tractor-pull season is in full swing that time of year and they plumb ran out of available southern venues.

[Dinsdale]

No bowl games are played in cold-weather locales, outside.

Just looking down the list:



Yeah, Albuquerque is famous for its balmy winters

Boise? Doesn't get much warmer in December than Boise

Las Vegas? Yeah, notoriously toasty in December in the high desert

DC? We'll get Scewey's take on the Sahara known as DC in December

We all know Yankee Stadium is a golf destination in winter

San Fran? Not freezing, far from "warm" in winter



While I wouln't argue if you assert that those bowls suck, I'm just pointing out you tried to back up your point with an utter falsehood.