Alphgrizz is really uninformed if he thinkgs "as fast as a running back we will see all year" plays at Montana, unless Demps transferred from Florida or isn't playing this year because of Olympic track preperation after all.
I also don't understand what the statement "we have 5 guys who would make your roster and 2 that would start" is supposed to prove. Its mathmatically the same arguement as "we have 80 guys who wouldn't make your roster and 20 guys would wouldn't start for your team, so watch out."
As far as no championships for the SEC if there was a playoff, I can't even guess at what magical thinking it takes to draw that conclusion.
The SEC has won 5 more titles than the next closest conference. Of its 7 titles, 5 different teams have won one with the SEC being undefeated in title games. It has the highest BCS bowl win percentage of conferences with more than 4 BCS appearances (MWC has .750 win rate, but only 4 appearances while SEC has a staggering .714 considering the 21 appearances). It has a winning percentage against every conference in BCS games but the Mountain West (0 - 1 from Utah beating Alabama). Its never had a title game loss.
Hell, the BCS left out an undefeated SEC team in 2004 and took a team that couldn't win its own conference one year, and the SEC is still ahead by 5 over the next closest conference even if you don't vacate the USC titles, which would be vacated even under a playoff system anyway and didn't come vs. the SEC regardless. With its conference depth and win percentage vs. other conferences in the most prestigous bowls, its impossible to reasonably argue a playoff system would hurt the SEC when it comes to winning titles.
Montana has a hell of program, perhaps the best corner in the country, a great tradition, a great state, and some great fans. Whatever point the guy who said all that nonsense is tyring to make, I don't get it. Montana doesn't have to have a chip on its shoulder for not being an SEC caliber team. They are a great program in their division. There is nothing wrong with that.
I also don't understand what the statement "we have 5 guys who would make your roster and 2 that would start" is supposed to prove. Its mathmatically the same arguement as "we have 80 guys who wouldn't make your roster and 20 guys would wouldn't start for your team, so watch out."
As far as no championships for the SEC if there was a playoff, I can't even guess at what magical thinking it takes to draw that conclusion.
The SEC has won 5 more titles than the next closest conference. Of its 7 titles, 5 different teams have won one with the SEC being undefeated in title games. It has the highest BCS bowl win percentage of conferences with more than 4 BCS appearances (MWC has .750 win rate, but only 4 appearances while SEC has a staggering .714 considering the 21 appearances). It has a winning percentage against every conference in BCS games but the Mountain West (0 - 1 from Utah beating Alabama). Its never had a title game loss.
Hell, the BCS left out an undefeated SEC team in 2004 and took a team that couldn't win its own conference one year, and the SEC is still ahead by 5 over the next closest conference even if you don't vacate the USC titles, which would be vacated even under a playoff system anyway and didn't come vs. the SEC regardless. With its conference depth and win percentage vs. other conferences in the most prestigous bowls, its impossible to reasonably argue a playoff system would hurt the SEC when it comes to winning titles.
Montana has a hell of program, perhaps the best corner in the country, a great tradition, a great state, and some great fans. Whatever point the guy who said all that nonsense is tyring to make, I don't get it. Montana doesn't have to have a chip on its shoulder for not being an SEC caliber team. They are a great program in their division. There is nothing wrong with that.