SEC not the most powerful...

[volfanbill]

Well, at least you are honest. Short-sighted and pointlessly vindictive, but honest.

at this point in the season, what florida does doesn't really help UT all that much IMO. I could see myself rooting for UF in the regular season if it meant Tennessee got a better bowl or a higher ranking during the season. Finishing the season ranked 15 instead of 14th because Florida lost the national title game doesn't hold much water with me because I'm more concerned with potential recruits seeing us play well in a bowl game. I don't put a lot of stock in what Florida does in one game against the consesus #1 team affecting our recruiting or the future of UT's program all that much. Honestly, if anything, a Florida win will just send more recruits your way, so why do I want that? I do despise Tosu greatly, just not as much as Florida. if both could somehow lose, I'd have an even bigger smile. Sadly, that isn't possible, so I'll pull for the lesser of two evils.

 

[lawgator1]

let's see... ask any analyst and pundit which win was more impressive. herein lies your answer. Maybe it's because UT looked incredible against a tough opponent and Florida "hung on" against FSU? FSU lost to NC State. I live in Florida... I am surrounded by UF fans... i even watched the game with UF fans. So, don't even try to argue that you guys had a comfortable win. they were all letting out collective sighs of relief after the game was over. i think you, sir, and your other biased gator friends, are the only people that would argue that UF's win over FSU was more impressive.


and, if you guys honestly don't think that recruiting peaks for teams that win a NC, you are wrong. Kids want to be a part of the next big thing... and you can't get any bigger than winning a NC. Urban would flash his ring all over the south in direct competition with the talent that we are fighting for. Success almost always translates into great recruiting.... and failure.... well look at UT's class last year in respect to their on-field performance.

i don't really even want to argue about Wake... they beat up on Ole Miss. In no way does this look good for the SEC. I still think they are overrated, and they will get romped by Louisville. What is the line for this game BTW?

i agree that teams schedule years in advance and have no way of knowing how good the teams will be, but i am not going to blindly argue that we are in the best conference b/c our in-conference teams are so good. in my mind, the SEC claims to be some great conference because of all the tough in-conference games.... but a bunch of teams beating up on each other doesn't prove anything if they never beat anyone OOC that is decent. That's like the Big East saying they are the best conference b/c they have Rutgers, Lousivile, and WVU... but everyone will argue that outside of each other, they have played noone good. This case applies to the SEC as well. Yeah, the SEC teams didn't win any games that they were supposed to lose, yet they won all the games they were supposed to win.... that doesn't tell me anything about the conference except that people have us pegged for what we truly are.


and i agree with jake about not wanting a moral victory. noone expects florida to win except florida fans. losing to ohio state and their media king, smith, won't look bad since OSU is supposed to win. if florida wins, sure it makes the SEC look good, but then tennessee begins to become a footnote to "the best team in the land". i don't see any positives out of losing to florida.

First, I never said that Florida's win against FSU was impressive. I am just saying that it deserves more credit than you give it (which appears to be none).

Second, as to recruiting, I don't think Floridas needs any more help. We ARE, as you would put it, the next big thing. At least as compared to choosing between UF, FSU, and Miami.

Third, I am not suggesting that there is a "positive" to you having lost to Florida. What I AM saying is that there is a positive to you, albeit slght, to having an SEC team win a bowl game. And that is true regardless of whether it is Florida in the NT game or LSU in the Sugar Bowl.

Picture this: At end of '07, UT is 12-1, having won the SEC title game. USC is undefeated. OSU and Texas each have one loss and it is once again a beuty contest as to who gets in to play USC. Don't you think there might be some advantage to being able to point to Florida, or to the SEC in general, as having done well in bowls the previous year to support your own bid to get in?

 

[lawgator1]

This year's Southern Miss team is not nearly as good as some of their recent editions.

Agree with that.

 

[lawgator1]

at this point in the season, what florida does doesn't really help UT all that much IMO. I could see myself rooting for UF in the regular season if it meant Tennessee got a better bowl or a higher ranking during the season. Finishing the season ranked 15 instead of 14th because Florida lost the national title game doesn't hold much water with me because I'm more concerned with potential recruits seeing us play well in a bowl game. I don't put a lot of stock in what Florida does in one game against the consesus #1 team affecting our recruiting or the future of UT's program all that much. Honestly, if anything, a Florida win will just send more recruits your way, so why do I want that? I do despise Tosu greatly, just not as much as Florida. if both could somehow lose, I'd have an even bigger smile. Sadly, that isn't possible, so I'll pull for the lesser of two evils.

In that case I think you are underestimating the significance of bowl wins, especially BCS bowl wins, to the overall perception of the conference. I happen to think it makes a huge difference.

 

[tidwell]

regional pride.

the SEC won't look weak for losing a national championship game to the consensus #1 team in the country from start to finish.

jakez. He makes the point so YOU don't have to.

 

[volfanbill]

In that case I think you are underestimating the significance of bowl wins, especially BCS bowl wins, to the overall perception of the conference. I happen to think it makes a huge difference.

i respect your argument law, but right now while the computers may not show it for this year, i believe that anyone w/ half a brain, and this includes recruits, knows how special it is to play in the SEC for one of top 6 teams and one Florida loss to Tosu won't be that big a difference. Now a Boise St win will do wonders for the WAC, or a good showing by WVU, Louisville, and Rutgers will do the same for the Big East.

 

[Vercingetorix]

It wouldn't surprise me that a big chunk of Sagarin's results are due to the fact that the PAC-10 took the 12th game to schedule an extra conference game, while most other conferences just loaded an extra patsy to the schedule. You'd have to assume that a whole extra round of conference games would make a big difference in SOS compared to games vs. Western Carolina, SE Missouri State, Wofford, Western Kentucky, etc.

 

[njuneardave]

First, I never said that Florida's win against FSU was impressive. I am just saying that it deserves more credit than you give it (which appears to be none).

Second, as to recruiting, I don't think Floridas needs any more help. We ARE, as you would put it, the next big thing. At least as compared to choosing between UF, FSU, and Miami.

Third, I am not suggesting that there is a "positive" to you having lost to Florida. What I AM saying is that there is a positive to you, albeit slght, to having an SEC team win a bowl game. And that is true regardless of whether it is Florida in the NT game or LSU in the Sugar Bowl.

Picture this: At end of '07, UT is 12-1, having won the SEC title game. USC is undefeated. OSU and Texas each have one loss and it is once again a beuty contest as to who gets in to play USC. Don't you think there might be some advantage to being able to point to Florida, or to the SEC in general, as having done well in bowls the previous year to support your own bid to get in?

1.) UF recruits outside of Florida as well. Tennessee and Florida, will no doubt, be fighting over several recruits every year. A team's performance is directly correlated with it's recruiting pull, and you cant get any better than winning a NC.

2.) I don't buy your "SEC needs to look good for UT to make it to the NC over OSU or Texas" argument. The SEC is already seen by a majority as the toughest conference. A win over OSU will not validate that the SEC is better than the Big-10.... it will only validate that UF is better than OSU. If Louisville beats Wake, does that mean that the Big East is better than the ACC? Just because the best team from one conference beats the best from another, doesn't mean that the winner's conference is overall better. I don't buy it.

3.) The SEC's toughness will be validated during bowl season. If SEC has a good showing, then we can argue about the SEC being the best. Until then, I can continue to see both sides of the argument.

 

[Lexvol]

3.) The SEC's toughness will be validated during bowl season. If SEC has a good showing, then we can argue about the SEC being the best. Until then, I can continue to see both sides of the argument.

IMHO the only thing most bowls really prove is this:
Bowl Season has turned into a big pile of Dookie.

 

[GAVol]

I see some inconsistency in that wish for all the people above complaining that the SEC hasn't beaten enough OOC quality opponents.

Speaking for myself, I think I'm pretty consistent. I hope Florida gets waxed and I think strength of conference arguments are a waste of time. :salute:

 

[cotton]

If SEC has a good showing, then we can argue about the SEC being the best. Until then, I can continue to see both sides of the argument.

I guess I'm just not sure what you are saying the other side of the argument is. At first, you said the SEC was at fault because teams didn't schedule quality OOC opponents. Next, the argument was that the SEC didn't beat all of the quality OOC opponents. Now, I'm not sure what it is.

The reason I think the SEC is a tougher conference is because it has the highest number of good teams. Compare the top team (Florida) against the top team in each of the other conferences. Then do the same with the 2nd team, and the 3rd, all the way down to the bottom. I feel the SEC compares very favorably.

 

[hohenfelsvol]

Strength of conference only comes into play for me at the bar when I am trying to give my Other Conference friends a hard time.

 

[njuneardave]

well, cotton... i thought that you would deduct from my first post that simply playing a good team doesn't qualify as an argument to why the SEC is good. Buffalo plays plenty of good teams. Obviously you have to beat the teams. I was just reiterating this for you since you obviously want to nitpick instead of use rationale and logic.

we will see after the bowl season how well SEC teams do.. this will be the gauge that we will use to measure how good the SEC truly is.

 

[jakez4ut]

IMHO the only thing most bowls really prove is this:
Bowl Season has turned into a big pile of Dookie.

ho, ho, ho...merry f'in Christmas!!! LOL.

Speaking for myself, I think I'm pretty consistent. I hope Florida gets waxed and I think strength of conference arguments are a waste of time. :salute:

a life less complicated. we should all be so lucky.

 

[cotton]

I was just reiterating this for you since you obviously want to nitpick instead of use rationale and logic.

I'm not trying to nitpick, I just don't understand what you are trying to say. The SEC OOC schedule, taken as a whole, was very good this year. The top teams generally beat the teams from BCS conferences they played (UT, UF, GA, Auburn, LSU.) I don't see that the OOC games this year, with the possible exception of Arkansas v. USC, did anything but help the SEC's argument for being the toughest conference.

You seem to be using rationale and logic to prove a point that I don't understand.

 

[jakez4ut]

I'm not trying to nitpick, I just don't understand what you are trying to say. The SEC OOC schedule, taken as a whole, was very good this year. The top teams generally beat the teams from BCS conferences they played (UT, UF, GA, Auburn, LSU.) I don't see that the OOC games this year, with the possible exception of Arkansas v. USC, did anything but help the SEC's argument for being the toughest conference.

You seem to be using rationale and logic to prove a point that I don't understand.

no ooc schedule can be considerd very good with the likes of: Western Carolina, Ark. St, Buffalo, ULL, ULM, Jax St., Western KY, TN St, SE Missouri St, TX St, Duke, FL International, Northwestern St, Wofford, Fl Atlantic, Air Force, Kent St. and Utah St.

you can't make all that up with losses to USC, Michigan, Louisville and WVU, especially considering who those teams played from the SEC, save USC/Ark.

you get credit for Ga Tech, Clemson and FSU and Cal.

you keep it from being embarrassing with Memphis, UCF, Southern Miss, Wazzou, AZ, Marshall, Hawaii, UAB, MTSU, Wake, Missouri, Fresno St., and Colorado.

but any way you look at it, there are alot more cup cakes than anything else.

But there again, does it really matter? they won all the games they were supposed to, including the ones that matched up similar quality teams from other conferences,and in the end lost the games they were supposed to.

doesn't prove a darn thing, one way or the other.

 

[njuneardave]

no ooc schedule can be considerd very good with the likes of: Western Carolina, Ark. St, Buffalo, ULL, ULM, Jax St., Western KY, TN St, SE Missouri St, TX St, Duke, FL International, Northwestern St, Wofford, Fl Atlantic, Air Force, Kent St. and Utah St.

you can't make all that up with losses to USC, Michigan, Louisville and WVU, especially considering who those teams played from the SEC, save USC/Ark.

you get credit for Ga Tech, Clemson and FSU and Cal.

you keep it from being embarrassing with Memphis, UCF, Southern Miss, Wazzou, AZ, Marshall, Hawaii, UAB, MTSU, Wake, Missouri, Fresno St., and Colorado.

but any way you look at it, there are alot more cup cakes than anything else.

But there again, does it really matter? they won all the games they were supposed to, including the ones that matched up similar quality teams from other conferences,and in the end lost the games they were supposed to.

doesn't prove a darn thing, one way or the other.

completely agree. good post, jake.

 

[cotton]

no ooc schedule can be considerd very good with the likes of: Western Carolina, Ark. St, Buffalo, ULL, ULM, Jax St., Western KY, TN St, SE Missouri St, TX St, Duke, FL International, Northwestern St, Wofford, Fl Atlantic, Air Force, Kent St. and Utah St.

you can't make all that up with losses to USC, Michigan, Louisville and WVU, especially considering who those teams played from the SEC, save USC/Ark.

you get credit for Ga Tech, Clemson and FSU and Cal.

you keep it from being embarrassing with Memphis, UCF, Southern Miss, Wazzou, AZ, Marshall, Hawaii, UAB, MTSU, Wake, Missouri, Fresno St., and Colorado.

but any way you look at it, there are alot more cup cakes than anything else.

I disagree. I don't see much difference in playing MTSU and Buffalo; both are going to be wins, and it doesn't make much difference whether the score is 60-0 over a complete cream puff or 27-7 over a mid-major cream puff, which is another reason I think UT's philosophy of scheduling Memphis instead of Arkansas St is the right one. Both are going to be wins, one gets more credit than the other, although for a decent program, it shouldn't.

The test of an OOC schedule is the measure of the best teams on it, not the worst. It is much tougher to run the table against an intersectional schedule against say, a top 10 team, a midmajor team ranked 60th, and a 1-AA patsy, than it is to beat 3 teams ranked 50-70.

 

[jakez4ut]

I disagree. I don't see much difference in playing MTSU and Buffalo; both are going to be wins, and it doesn't make much difference whether the score is 60-0 over a complete cream puff or 27-7 over a mid-major cream puff, which is another reason I think UT's philosophy of scheduling Memphis instead of Arkansas St is the right one. Both are going to be wins, one gets more credit than the other, although for a decent program, it shouldn't.

The test of an OOC schedule is the measure of the best teams on it, not the worst. It is much tougher to run the table against an intersectional schedule against say, a top 10 team, a midmajor team ranked 60th, and a 1-AA patsy, than it is to beat 3 teams ranked 50-70.

OK, MTSU/Buffalo...i certainly won't split hairs on that issue...that aside, the bulk of the OOC games played were against cream puffs. the only real quality opponents scheduled, were scheduled by our own cream puff teams, they got labeled.

so at the end of the day, when you are comparing conferences etc...the only thing i can say with any reasonable accuracy, is that the top tier of the SEC is better than the middle of the Pac 10 (shocker!) and as a whole, the SEC is better than the ACC.

other than that...............not much else to say about it.

and i'm not one for scheduling a bowl game for each non conf. game...but i'm also not naive enough to say that we have this really strong ooc schedule either.

the bottom line is we are greedy. we don't want to give up a home game when most every SEC venue will sell out, even if you are playing buffalo or MTSU. and you pad your w/l column. scheduling other big boys from other bcs leagues, means that eve year you'd have to give up a home game in a home and home series, and you increase your chances for more losses.

lose, lose for SEC admin, and any bcs conf. admin for that matter.