Jump to content

SEC bias


ndomer4
 Share

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, jbrown_9999 said:

Btw, Tennessee losing to Purdue was probably due to a bunch of volunteer players sitting out and Tennessee not caring since they weren't in the CFP

I guess Freeman is off the hook with a loss since our two best players opted out and the rest mailed it in as a result of just missing the playoffs? 

  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


3 hours ago, OKelleyIrish said:

OK, since you want to exclude the top 3 teams from the SEC. Exclude the top 3 teams from the B10 over the last ten years (or any conference), and tell me what the OoC winning % is of all teams aside from the top 3..... 

While technically you’re right, you’re missing the premise. The SEC uses their conference superiority as an excuse for scheduling Mercer and The Citadel. No offence to those institutions, but that’s basically a glorified bye week. Imagine having 4 byes the entire season? 
 

I would argue the middle of the pack teams in the big 10 vs the SEC teams are a wash, regardless if the SEC teams have a slightly better OOC record. Keep in mind the Big 10 teams don’t get 4 byes each year. As poor as the other conferences are, the middle of the pack teams are similarly average. 
 

If my memory serves me correct, the SEC has not looked good for awhile during bowl season. These are neutral site games and I’m not buying the checking out excuse. Every team has opt outs and 9/10 teams had no shot in hell of making the playoffs. The gap is nowhere near how the media portrays it. 

Edited by ndomer4
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, OKelleyIrish said:

So you have a 8-4 Purdue who beat some highly ranked teams... vs a 7-5 TN team with a new HC, that was barely bowl eligible lol.. 

 

Great game to pound your chest on and sing SEC bias lol... 

 

Tennessee finished THIRD in their division while Purdue only finished FOURTH in theirs.

Purdue was also missing 9 players including two potential first round picks and the stadium was sold out with at least 80% being Tennessee fans.

Surely a mighty third place SEC team should beat a lowly fourth place Big Ten team? Especially when the fourth place team is playing short-handed (besides missing their two best players, Purdue had safeties playing CB and a LB was their nickel back) in a de facto home game for the third place team.

Seems to be a fair comparison to me

  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, OKelleyIrish said:

So you have a 8-4 Purdue who beat some highly ranked teams... vs a 7-5 TN team with a new HC, that was barely bowl eligible lol.. 

 

Great game to pound your chest on and sing SEC bias lol... 

 

So how good is the SEC other than Alabama and Georgia if a 7-5 TN team with a new HC, that was barely bowl eligible is able to finish THIRD in the their division? LOL....

Can we say the SEC is TOP HEAVY?

  • Heart 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, OKelleyIrish said:

OK, since you want to exclude the top 3 teams from the SEC. Exclude the top 3 teams from the B10 over the last ten years (or any conference), and tell me what the OoC winning % is of all teams aside from the top 3..... 

So, I did a bit of research and below is what I found out.  However, I went a bit further down the road.  These are the winning percentages for the B1G and SEC, not including the Top 3, over the last 23 years against all Power 5 conferences. 

B1G: W/L-135-170

SEC: W/L-166-173

B1G: 135/305=44%

SEC: 166/339=49%

The SEC has an advantage with having played 34 more games.  But as you can see, if you exclude the Group of 5 and FCS wins, the SECs winning percentage is only 5% higher than the B1G.  I wouldn’t call that dominant, or as you would say, heads and tails better.

Here are the links for the info I got this from:

https://topdan.com/college-football-conference-records/big-ten.html
https://topdan.com/college-football-conference-records/sec.html

I’m sure none of this will matter though and you’ll continue your love fest for the SEC and their “dominance” over all other conferences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okelley, I fail to see the point you are trying to make here.

Both Tenn and Purdue were middle of the pack in their respective conferences, both had players out (Purdue had two players sitting that were better than any of the Tenn players). The same or something similar could be said about every other SEC game this bowl season.

The SEC is top heavy, but the middle of the road gets favorable rankings so when the top teams beat them, it makes them look even better.

The SEC is getting smashed this regular season, but people will only care about Bama and if they win it all, the SEC as a whole will get credit (again).

  • Heart 4
  • Poo 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, NDhoosier said:

Okelley, I fail to see the point you are trying to make here.

Both Tenn and Purdue were middle of the pack in their respective conferences, both had players out (Purdue had two players sitting that were better than any of the Tenn players). The same or something similar could be said about every other SEC game this bowl season.

The SEC is top heavy, but the middle of the road gets favorable rankings so when the top teams beat them, it makes them look even better.

The SEC is getting smashed this regular season, but people will only care about Bama and if they win it all, the SEC as a whole will get credit (again).

Purdue was 9-4z. Tennessee was 7-6…not an equal paring.  If you aligned the SEC equally against the Big Ten, the SEC would win the majority of the games…same for ahy conference equally pared with SEC teams.  You would start with Bama and UGA winning…followed by Ole Miss winning.  And so on and so forth…your argument doesn’t hold water.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, irishwavend said:

Purdue was 9-4z. Tennessee was 7-6…not an equal paring.  If you aligned the SEC equally against the Big Ten, the SEC would win the majority of the games…same for ahy conference equally pared with SEC teams.  You would start with Bama and UGA winning…followed by Ole Miss winning.  And so on and so forth…your argument doesn’t hold water.  

No, they were 8-4 and 7-5 going into the game. One game difference isnt an issue at all.

My argument is clearly holding water since they are 3-5 this year (which we knew Bama and UGA are going to win) the rest of the SEC is overrated. You debunked absolutely nothing.

You are also already proving my point. When Bama and UGA win, people will use that to negate all of the other SEC loses. The SEC is top heavy, the rest is overrated.

Edited by NDhoosier
  • Heart 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

4 minutes ago, NDhoosier said:

No, they were 8-4 and 7-5 going into the game. One game difference isnt an issue at all.

My argument is clearly holding water since they are 3-5 this year (which we knew Bama and UGA are going to win) the rest of the SEC is overrated. You debunked absolutely nothing.

You are also already proving my point. When Bama and UGA win, people will use that to negate all of the other SEC loses. The SEC is top heavy, the rest is overrated.

If Bama (or UGA) doesn’t make the playoff, one of them would play in the lesser bowls, forcing all the other SEC teams downward to play against more equally pared teams.  UT wouldn’t play Purdue…somebody better would, like Ole Miss, who would kill Purdue, and so on and so forth.

I’m not proving shit supporting your argument…. You’re ignoring the facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, irishwavend said:

 

If Bama (or UGA) doesn’t make the playoff, one of them would play in the lesser bowls, forcing all the other SEC teams downward to play against more equally pared teams.  UT wouldn’t play Purdue…somebody better would, like Ole Miss, who would kill Purdue, and so on and so forth.

I’m not proving shit supporting your argument…. You’re ignoring the facts.

Nonsense What GIF by GEICO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason there’s an SEC bias is because every year they have 2-3 teams that are so much more physically dominant than any other team. Watching Alabama and Georgia vs Cincinnati and Michigan was watching men dominate boys. That happens when you have no academic restrictions, or academic requirements. They are semi pro teams and exist because NFL money is so big that the best players are taking the gamble that going to Alabama/Georgia/LSU and being a de facto semi pro player will pan out. Their state (and regional) pride rests on their football success and they will spare no expense to keep it going. 

  • Heart 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Frankus said:

The reason there’s an SEC bias is because every year they have 2-3 teams that are so much more physically dominant than any other team. Watching Alabama and Georgia vs Cincinnati and Michigan was watching men dominate boys. That happens when you have no academic restrictions, or academic requirements. They are semi pro teams and exist because NFL money is so big that the best players are taking the gamble that going to Alabama/Georgia/LSU and being a de facto semi pro player will pan out. Their state (and regional) pride rests on their football success and they will spare no expense to keep it going. 

It really did look like men against boys.  Especially Alabama vs Cinci.  Not even just how lopsided the play was, but, the physical stature of the Alabama players compared to the Cincinnati players literally looked like men against boys.

  • Heart 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/31/2021 at 9:35 PM, irishwavend said:

 

If Bama (or UGA) doesn’t make the playoff, one of them would play in the lesser bowls, forcing all the other SEC teams downward to play against more equally pared teams.  UT wouldn’t play Purdue…somebody better would, like Ole Miss, who would kill Purdue, and so on and so forth.

I’m not proving shit supporting your argument…. You’re ignoring the facts.

Tennessee was 3rd in their division while Purdue was only 4th in theirs. Is the Big10 West tougher than the SEC East?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/1/2022 at 9:38 AM, NYGoldenDomer said:

It really did look like men against boys.  Especially Alabama vs Cinci.  Not even just how lopsided the play was, but, the physical stature of the Alabama players compared to the Cincinnati players literally looked like men against boys.

Same with Michigan/Georgia. There’s something different about getting a month to prepare for these games. ND sure stood toe to toe with Georgia in 2017 and 2019, however we know that wouldn’t happen during bowl season for whatever reason. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ndomer4 said:

Same with Michigan/Georgia. There’s something different about getting a month to prepare for these games. ND sure stood toe to toe with Georgia in 2017 and 2019, however we know that wouldn’t happen during bowl season for whatever reason. 

I know you know why.  More time will always favor the football factories.  If anything, 8 team playoffs shortens that , hopefully leveling things a bit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...