It is Mid-October and there are over 10 teams still in serious contention for the Title

[RubinRock]

ACC has about as many ranked teams right now as the SEC lol.

I just don't see it. Another reason I don't see it is because even our VOTING on here matches the National Narrative.

I just see a bunch of butt hurt people. I mean Ohio State is #2 right now with their soft schedule. I do think Clemson should be higher but they are definitely in playoff mix as well.

I can't argue about the UTEP fan because he is a UTEP fan and they don't get media coverage.

Also at @ELTEXAN, Texas gets plenty of media love, perhaps more than any team on the list for what they accomplish. The problem with Texas, ever season, is they go out and beat or look good in defeat against a good team like Alabama or Oklahoma and then they turn around and lose to Texas Tech, Kansas, or Maryland, etc. Texas just cannot get up for and win consistently against the easier opponents on their schedule.

And yet you don't hear people talking about 3 acc teams making the playoffs. What if Clemson, Syracuse, and UNC all go 11-1? Sure it seems laughable, but so does having 3 11-1 sec teams.

All those ranked teams in the ACC and yet plenty in the media still want to say the ACC is weak and Clemson has a weak schedule and can't afford a loss. And before anyone brings up SOS rankings, those are some of the biggest crock of shit.

Don't hear much nationally about Sam Hartman in the Heisman race either. Go look and compare his stats to Bryce Young and Hendon Hooker.

Don't hear much nationally about Sean Tucker winning the Heisman race either. Compare his stats to Jahmyr Gibbs.

I could keep going. I'm not saying its just a media thing.

 

[Volbound1700]

And yet you don't hear people talking about 3 acc teams making the playoffs. What if Clemson, Syracuse, and UNC all go 11-1? Sure it seems laughable, but so does having 3 11-1 sec teams.

All those ranked teams in the ACC and yet plenty in the media still want to say the ACC is weak and Clemson has a weak schedule and can't afford a loss. And before anyone brings up SOS rankings, those are some of the biggest crock of shit.

Don't hear much nationally about Sam Hartman in the Heisman race either. Go look and compare his stats to Bryce Young and Hendon Hooker.

Don't hear much nationally about Sean Tucker winning the Heisman race either. Compare his stats to Jahmyr Gibbs.

I could keep going. I'm not saying its just a media thing.

I can probably agree on Heisman race. I have always hated how they do the Heisman and frankly I think it should not be awarded until mid-January when everything is done. The problem with the ACC teams not named Clemson is that they don't have a lot of big wins yet. North Carolina lost to Notre Dame which is an ugly loss. Syracuse best win is NC State. Clemson is in discussions.

Actually Wake Forest (rightfully) is ahead of both UNC and Syracuse. ACC Coastal is BAD so that also hurts UNC.

Ole Miss isn't in anybody's playoff discussions and they are undefeated. The only reason Tennessee is in the discussion is the win over Alabama. Alabama is in the mix because they have been every year since 2009 while Georgia is in the mix because they beat Oregon and they are the defending champion.

I know you claim SEC bias but there is logic. If Syracuse beat Alabama, then yes they would probably be in the discussion. Ole Miss NOT being in discussion is further proof that the media is looking at the teams and body of the work and isn't just picking teams because SEC.

North Carolina was a very bad example on your part because they have barely won 2-3 games this year, play in a very bad division, and have a loss to Notre Dame. You might as well pick any 1-loss team in the nation if you pick North Carolina. There is logic as to why they are NOT in the mix. They are still ranked though. Wake Forest is a better example than North Carolina and Wake won't win the division unless Clemson just collapses.

ACC also has some terrible OOC losses. SEC's only bad OOC loss to date is probably Texas A&M's loss to Appalachian State. Auburn and LSU also had bad losses to Penn State and FSU but those are still Power 5 teams win winning records.

 

[RubinRock]

I can probably agree on Heisman race. I have always hated how they do the Heisman and frankly I think it should not be awarded until mid-January when everything is done. The problem with the ACC teams not named Clemson is that they don't have a lot of big wins yet. North Carolina lost to Notre Dame which is an ugly loss. Syracuse best win is NC State. Clemson is in discussions.

Actually Wake Forest (rightfully) is ahead of both UNC and Syracuse. ACC Coastal is BAD so that also hurts UNC.

Ole Miss isn't in anybody's playoff discussions and they are undefeated. The only reason Tennessee is in the discussion is the win over Alabama. Alabama is in the mix because they have been every year since 2009 while Georgia is in the mix because they beat Oregon and they are the defending champion.

I know you claim SEC bias but there is logic. If Syracuse beat Alabama, then yes they would probably be in the discussion. Ole Miss NOT being in discussion is further proof that the media is looking at the teams and body of the work and isn't just picking teams because SEC.

North Carolina was a very bad example on your part because they have barely won 2-3 games this year, play in a very bad division, and have a loss to Notre Dame. You might as well pick any 1-loss team in the nation if you pick North Carolina. There is logic as to why they are NOT in the mix. They are still ranked though. Wake Forest is a better example than North Carolina and Wake won't win the division unless Clemson just collapses.

ACC also has some terrible OOC losses. SEC's only bad OOC loss to date is probably Texas A&M's loss to Appalachian State. Auburn and LSU also had bad losses to Penn State and FSU but those are still Power 5 teams win winning records.

Nope your right. Zero bias towards the SEC.

 

[Deep Creek]

The dunce fought me for two days when i said the b12 had the best middle of any conference and has had that for a long time.
Then he admits one day later in a separate thread to the very same idea.
He’s beyond help.

Yeah, with the exception of Kansas, there haven't been any real bad teams. And they don't have a top. Their middle is really 1-9...and maybe 1-10 this year.

The Big 12's problem has been two fold. One is they haven't had any teams that are head and shoulders above the rest. That makes for great and interesting conference races but doesn't help with the CFP at all. Conferences with one team that runs away without challenge get a lot more love with the CFP.

While OU won a lot of Big 12 titles, they really weren't THAT MUCH different than a lot of the other teams.

The second is the Big 12's talent has been behind the other leagues. The draft has shown how lacking it has been. Not many first round picks over the past few years IIRC.

 

[Deep Creek]

I can't argue about the UTEP fan because he is a UTEP fan and they don't get media coverage.

Also at @ELTEXAN, Texas gets plenty of media love, perhaps more than any team on the list for what they accomplish. The problem with Texas, ever season, is they go out and beat or look good in defeat against a good team like Alabama or Oklahoma and then they turn around and lose to Texas Tech, Kansas, or Maryland, etc. Texas just cannot get up for and win consistently against the easier opponents on their schedule.

We get media coverage. We've been in the bottom 25 as much as anyone over the years.

 

[osubuckeye89]

I will also say this about the SEC, the SEC Commissioner and league have been the greatest proponents for expanding the Playoffs. This gives all of the leagues a shot at the title. We are not running from the competition like the ACC, B1G, and Pac12 were. Let that one sink in as well. Heck, I even want the highest ranked G5 Team to get a spot in the playoff as well.

There is a reason we are not running...

Sure teams like Texas A&M can turn into duds during the season but this happens with every league (Michigan State and Wisconsin for the B1G, Miami for the ACC, Oklahoma for Big12, Utah for Pac12 - kind of. Pac12 really hasn't had a dud this year).

Texas A&M turns into a dud about every year, yet they constantly tout them as a "top team"

8/10 years in the SEC up until this year they've finished with 4+ losses. This year is looking like another 4+ loss season too.

 

[Volbound1700]

Texas A&M turns into a dud about every year, yet they constantly tout them as a "top team"

8/10 years in the SEC up until this year they've finished with 4+ losses. This year is looking like another 4+ loss season too.

Sounds like Longhorns as well . What is with the Texas teams?

Granted, they had good years with Johnny Manziel and the 2020 season but you are correct, they haven't lived up to hype with Jimbo Fisher and the recruiting classes.

However, Notre Dame seems to do this a lot as well. Miami is another one that gets ranked high every preseason but tends to disappear. I think you are making more of an argument for why we shouldn't rank teams just because of their recruiting rankings.

 

[osubuckeye89]

Sounds like Longhorns as well . What is with the Texas teams?

Granted, they had good years with Johnny Manziel and the 2020 season but you are correct, they haven't lived up to hype with Jimbo Fisher and the recruiting classes.

They are still getting "benefit of the doubt" based off that one Johnny Manziel year where they beat Bama.

Funny thing is they fucking still didn't even win their division that year!

It's like the pollsters try to manifest teams like Texas A&M, Texas, USC & Miami into actually being elite teams by way overranking them most of the time.

 

[osubuckeye89]

I think there's a difference between teams like MSU & Wisconsin being rated in the 15-20 range and then being a dud and Texas A&M being baselessly hyped as a elite national title contender.

 

[Volbound1700]

They are still getting "benefit of the doubt" based off that one Johnny Manziel year where they beat Bama.

Funny thing is they fucking still didn't even win their division that year!

It's like the pollsters try to manifest teams like Texas A&M, Texas, USC & Miami into actually being elite teams by way overranking them most of the time.

Again to defend the media, these programs SHOULD BE GOOD. This is why I, frankly, trolled Texas so hard for losing to Tech and A&M so hard for losing to Appalachian State.

There is no reason these programs should be in the dumpster with the resources they have, the schedule they play, etc.

On paper, they should be top ten teams regularly but they continue to fail to live up to expectations. I think that is what your missing. Oklahoma was another one this year, although Oklahoma typically does live up to expectations.

If you want to talk about teams that may not get a lot of love, Oklahoma State and Wake Forest fit that bill although both were in top 10 at times earlier this season until they lost and Wake is #11 right now.

 

[osubuckeye89]

Again to defend the media, these programs SHOULD BE GOOD. This is why I, frankly, trolled Texas so hard for losing to Tech and A&M so hard for losing to Appalachian State.

There is no reason these programs should be in the dumpster with the resources they have, the schedule they play, etc.

On paper, they should be top ten teams regularly but they continue to fail to live up to expectations. I think that is what your missing. Oklahoma was another one this year, although Oklahoma typically does live up to expectations.

If you want to talk about teams that may not get a lot of love, Oklahoma State and Wake Forest fit that bill although both were in top 10 at times earlier this season until they lost and Wake is #11 right now.

I think this is why preseason polls suck

Rosters are constantly changing majorly every year in college football, especially now with the transfer portal.

You are ranking teams based on past success and "should be goods" in a sport where no year is ever the same as the last.

And these rankings set the tone for the season.

 

[osubuckeye89]

Again to defend the media, these programs SHOULD BE GOOD. This is why I, frankly, trolled Texas so hard for losing to Tech and A&M so hard for losing to Appalachian State.

There is no reason these programs should be in the dumpster with the resources they have, the schedule they play, etc.

On paper, they should be top ten teams regularly but they continue to fail to live up to expectations. I think that is what your missing. Oklahoma was another one this year, although Oklahoma typically does live up to expectations.

If you want to talk about teams that may not get a lot of love, Oklahoma State and Wake Forest fit that bill although both were in top 10 at times earlier this season until they lost and Wake is #11 right now.

I think Oklahoma is shockingly bad. #9 preseason was probably about the right ranking at the time, they've proved to earn that benefit most of the time. They've really hit skid row though.

ND was a bit over ranked considering their major offensive questions. I woulda had them in the 10-12 range preseason. Of course now we know they suck.

Texas A&M is the one comical one that they keep throwing up there even though more often than not theyll lose 4-5 games.

Miami is in the same boat too I guess, they constantly have fallen on their face the last like 15+ years.

 

[Volbound1700]

I think this is why preseason polls suck

Rosters are constantly changing majorly every year in college football, especially now with the transfer portal.

You are ranking teams based on past success and "should be goods" in a sport where no year is ever the same as the last.

And these rankings set the tone for the season.

True but put yourself in their position. I want to see how you rank teams next year. I would love to follow your polls.

It all works out in November. The issue is that you really cannot define teams until late November on whether they are true contenders or not. We can all guess up to this point. I have a feeling you would not be far off from the National Media in any of your rankings and frankly our own message board rankings tend to match closely to national media (but... SEC bias). If there is SEC bias than it exists with our own posters here.

I don't see SEC bias. Do we tend to favor programs? Yes. However, some of these programs (like Ohio State who should really be around #9 based on schedule and performance), have EARNED it. You don't see me on here whining about Ohio State being in top 5 because I know they have a roster loaded with talent and I have seen their performance in past seasons even if they haven't done much this season to date. When the SEC has 13/20 of the National Titles and 5-10 teams every offseason in top 10 recruiting, yes they are going to get teams ranked. Frankly, there is an argument on recruiting rankings that even more SEC teams should be ranked.

Florida got ranked because they won a big-time OOC game against the defending Pac12 Champion. In the first two weeks of the season, SEC teams beat the defending ACC, AAC, and Pac12 Champions in OOC game as well as #11 Oregon. That is going to generate some media hype. No other league had that OOC resume.

I vaguely remember the season @ELTEXAN is talking about. I think it was over 5 years ago because that was the Dak Prescott season with Miss State. I think the SEC West won a bunch of OOC games that were solid wins that propelled teams into the rankings. That was why they were high in the polls and some dropped out after their bowl losses. Also, go look at Bowl Matchups. It is often Big12 #2 against SEC #4 or something ridiculous were the opponent has a stronger record. Despite this, SEC has probably the best bowl record over last 10 years of any conference.

As stated, you need to win on the field. I have no issue with system. I love preseason polls because they generate hype and make the sport fun. Heck, NFL is kind of boring without polls and rankings. They do the same system in Basketball, Women's Basketball, Baseball, Softball, etc. (BTW, good to be Vols fan right now, we are ranked #11 preseason in Men's Basketball; #5 in Women's Basketball, and we will likely be ranked in Baseball and Softball as well).

 

[Volbound1700]

I think Oklahoma is shockingly bad. #9 preseason was probably about the right ranking at the time, they've proved to earn that benefit most of the time. They've really hit skid row though.

ND was a bit over ranked considering their major offensive questions. I woulda had them in the 10-12 range preseason. Of course now we know they suck.

Texas A&M is the one comical one that they keep throwing up there even though more often than not theyll lose 4-5 games.

Miami is in the same boat too I guess, they constantly have fallen on their face the last like 15+ years.

If any thing, it is the recruiting rankings that we may be reading into too much with regarding to rankings. I don't think it is the SEC logo.

A&M has beaten even Ohio State in recruiting the last 5 seasons so logically, A&M should be at Alabama, Georgia, and Ohio State's level but clearly they are NOT.

 

[7samurai13]

WTF. Why does it have to be 6-6 Michigan?

Figured you would be happy because he has a 6-6 Michigan BEATING Ohio State.

 

[osubuckeye89]

If any thing, it is the recruiting rankings that we may be reading into too much with regarding to rankings. I don't think it is the SEC logo.

A&M has beaten even Ohio State in recruiting the last 5 seasons so logically, A&M should be at Alabama, Georgia, and Ohio State's level but clearly they are NOT.

Yea, if we were going to just go off of recruiting rankings. The same 3 or 4 teams should be in the playoff every year regardless.

This is a problem.

Example -

If it came down to a 1 loss UGA and 0 Loss UCLA for the final spot in the playoff - They would at least seriously consider putting UGA in over UCLA. Based on the "well they have more talent" assumption based on recruiting rankings and also the "THEIR ONLY LOSS IS TO BAMA!"

At some point losses have to actually count. I don't think it's false to say that losses count for less for SEC teams. Bama and UGA basically get a free mulligan every year.

 

[Across The Field]

If any thing, it is the recruiting rankings that we may be reading into too much with regarding to rankings. I don't think it is the SEC logo.

A&M has beaten even Ohio State in recruiting the last 5 seasons so logically, A&M should be at Alabama, Georgia, and Ohio State's level but clearly they are NOT.

Really fair point. OSU has benefitted from it before for sure (last season, for example). You can't account for bad coaching, which is what we're seeing with Oklahoma and what we saw with Wisconsin. For so many years, Tennessee was in this boat where they'd have great classes but everyone knew the coaching was horrendous and it played out that way on the field.

Teams like Auburn, Tennessee, Miami, Texas, and USC (among others) have repeatedly fallen flat despite high end classes, which is why most fans can't give them the benefit of the doubt. On the flipside, teams like Utah, Wisconsin, Oklahoma State, etc. have repeatedly been good/great despite having mediocre classes. Just goes to show the importance of coaching.

 

[osubuckeye89]

Really fair point. OSU has benefitted from it before for sure (last season, for example). You can't account for bad coaching, which is what we're seeing with Oklahoma and what we saw with Wisconsin. For so many years, Tennessee was in this boat where they'd have great classes but everyone knew the coaching was horrendous and it played out that way on the field.

Teams like Auburn, Tennessee, Miami, Texas, and USC (among others) have repeatedly fallen flat despite high end classes, which is why most fans can't give them the benefit of the doubt. On the flipside, teams like Utah, Wisconsin, Oklahoma State, etc. have repeatedly been good/great despite having mediocre classes. Just goes to show the importance of coaching.

And A&M lol. Jimbo sucks.

Having 100 5* Defensive players does no good when you have zero offense.

 

[Illustrious Potentate]

Really fair point. OSU has benefitted from it before for sure (last season, for example). You can't account for bad coaching, which is what we're seeing with Oklahoma and what we saw with Wisconsin. For so many years, Tennessee was in this boat where they'd have great classes but everyone knew the coaching was horrendous and it played out that way on the field.

Teams like Auburn, Tennessee, Miami, Texas, and USC (among others) have repeatedly fallen flat despite high end classes, which is why most fans can't give them the benefit of the doubt. On the flipside, teams like Utah, Wisconsin, Oklahoma State, etc. have repeatedly been good/great despite having mediocre classes. Just goes to show the importance of coaching.

We thought you were dead

 

[Volbound1700]

Yea, if we were going to just go off of recruiting rankings. The same 3 or 4 teams should be in the playoff every year regardless.

This is a problem.

Example -

If it came down to a 1 loss UGA and 0 Loss UCLA for the final spot in the playoff - They would at least seriously consider putting UGA in over UCLA. Based on the "well they have more talent" assumption based on recruiting rankings and also the "THEIR ONLY LOSS IS TO BAMA!"

At some point losses have to actually count. I don't think it's false to say that losses count for less for SEC teams. Bama and UGA basically get a free mulligan every year.

I think you are starting to see the translation. SEC teams are getting hyped because of their recruiting rankings, OOC wins, and when they beat one of the elite SEC programs (like Alabama or Georgia).

There is an advantage to playing in the SEC, even if you are mid-tier, because if you upset a big team, like Tennessee did with Alabama this weekend, you get a lot of love. Of course the disadvantage is that you also can get beat more often and have worse records by playing these teams so it is a mixed bag.

Granted a B1G team would get the same love if they beat Ohio State as well. When people are saying the SEC is the strongest league, they are not saying Vandy is going to go into other leagues and compete, I think they are saying that it has typically 2-3 of the best teams that year and general 3-4 middle teams that can challenge them. The ACC and B1G have far less parity with Clemson and Ohio State dominating (although Michigan is rising). Big12 has a lot more parity but you really don't have a team at the level of Alabama and Georgia. Pac12 is interesting this year but in past years, they fit the description of the Big12. I do think there are some greater caliber teams in Pac12 this year although most (like USC) tend to be building for future. Too bad Pac12 is breaking up with the LA schools leaving because it is making some noise for first time in 4-5 years (a little while back, you had Oregon, both Washingtons, and Stanford playing good ball regularly).