really great article, bshea85! appreciate you posting that on this site for the first time!
has it been posted anywhere that the aggieville creepster is throwing his hat in the ESPN/SEC bias article party?On Nov. 1 in Morgantown, W.Va., something so shocking, so disturbing, so un-ESPN-like will take place that it's hard to explain how it will occur. ESPN's College Gameday crew will cover a Big 12 Conference game for the first time this year.
I'm sure 'bias will enjoy the article, but I just wanted to say that I enjoyed it as well.
it completely ignores the abundance of positive nonconference results.there you go with that raging insecurity again. You need help guy :frown:
it completely ignores the computers which favor the SEC even more than the committee.
if the ap voters are biased, and the coaches are biased, and the committee is biased, and the computers are biased... maybe it just happens to be reality?
it isn't that the SEC is leaps and bounds better than every other conference, but the quality of teams and the depth is unmatched. the big 12 is pretty deep this season, but the SEC proved pretty handily that the SEC is better.
but yeah, great article, lol. keep the head in the sand.
So he starts his ESPN/SEC bias article by using Gameday locations? They've been to the SEC 4 times in 10 shows this year. In 2008 the Big12 hosted 5 times in an 8 week span. Was ESPN biased for the Big12 then with their traveling circus show? I don't care if you believe in the bias or not, but what a dumb way to start an article.
So he starts his ESPN/SEC bias article by using Gameday locations? They've been to the SEC 4 times in 10 shows this year. In 2008 the Big12 hosted 5 times in an 8 week span. Was ESPN biased for the Big12 then with their traveling circus show? I don't care if you believe in the bias or not, but what a dumb way to start an article.
Your point is well taken but it is worth noting that in 2008 ESPN didn't control the SEC rights anywhere close to what they do now but they did have exclusive control of tier 1 & 2 Big 12 media rights. FOX only had tier 3 rights to the Big 12 & the SEC controlled their own tier 3 rights.
So he starts his ESPN/SEC bias article by using Gameday locations? They've been to the SEC 4 times in 10 shows this year. In 2008 the Big12 hosted 5 times in an 8 week span. Was ESPN biased for the Big12 then with their traveling circus show? I don't care if you believe in the bias or not, but what a dumb way to start an article.
Your point is well taken but it is worth noting that in 2008 ESPN didn't control the SEC rights anywhere close to what they do now but they did have exclusive control of tier 1 & 2 Big 12 media rights. FOX only had tier 3 rights to the Big 12 & the SEC controlled their own tier 3 rights.
Good point.
Just read it. Wow, it really hits home.What's your take on this, SD?
http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/the-worldwide-cheerleader-espn-and-the-college-football-playoff-20141028?utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=daily&utm_campaign=102814_16&utm_medium=email&ea=c29vbmVyQG5jLnJyLmNvbQ==
the SEC is further (farther?) ahead of any other conference than usual, this year
Have we talked about how much scheduling Mississippi State might suck now down the road?
Have we talked about how much scheduling Mississippi State might suck now down the road?
Have we talked about how much scheduling Mississippi State might suck now down the road?
Have we talked about how much scheduling Mississippi State might suck now down the road?
I'm relieved that they might actually be good.
Have we talked about how much scheduling Mississippi State might suck now down the road?
I'm relieved that they might actually be good.
I'd think that the odds are decent that by the time that game rolls around we would have expanded to an 8 team playoff with auto bids for the 5 conference champions.
And Mullen will be long gone. Hell he will probably be in Florida next year.Have we talked about how much scheduling Mississippi State might suck now down the road?
I'm relieved that they might actually be good.
I'd think that the odds are decent that by the time that game rolls around we would have expanded to an 8 team playoff with auto bids for the 5 conference champions.
Have we talked about how much scheduling Mississippi State might suck now down the road?
I'm relieved that they might actually be good.
I'd think that the odds are decent that by the time that game rolls around we would have expanded to an 8 team playoff with auto bids for the 5 conference champions.
big time ooc games will be so much more fun when this happens.
:ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: :ROFL: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:Have we talked about how much scheduling Mississippi State might suck now down the road?
I'm relieved that they might actually be good.
I'd think that the odds are decent that by the time that game rolls around we would have expanded to an 8 team playoff with auto bids for the 5 conference champions.
I think you have to admit that the allegations in the article are overblown. The one solid point it does make, however, is with respect to the case study that is Texas A&M this year.
A&M started out barely in the top 25 and basically took South Carolina's spot around number 6 after trouncing them to open the season. In a situation like that at the beginning of the season you have to think it was either because SC was overrated or because A&M was underrated. Well it seems like the voters didn't even think about the former scenario (which has actually proven to be the case). Subsequently, every SEC West team that beat A&M basically got credit for slaying a juggernaut and jumped in the polls as a result (note, by the way, that each of the SEC West teams that beat A&M are now in the Top 10). Heck, despite Kentucky giving Miss. St. a better game than A&M, all you hear is about the strength of the teams that beat A&M, not about how weak A&M is.
Although the SEC West does get the benefit of never having to hear the word "overrated" for really any of its teams, a lot of this "bias" does come down to scheduling. The Big 12 (and other conferences) should get with the times and put their crap OOC games later in the season.
I think you have to admit that the allegations in the article are overblown. The one solid point it does make, however, is with respect to the case study that is Texas A&M this year.
A&M started out barely in the top 25 and basically took South Carolina's spot around number 6 after trouncing them to open the season. In a situation like that at the beginning of the season you have to think it was either because SC was overrated or because A&M was underrated. Well it seems like the voters didn't even think about the former scenario (which has actually proven to be the case). Subsequently, every SEC West team that beat A&M basically got credit for slaying a juggernaut and jumped in the polls as a result (note, by the way, that each of the SEC West teams that beat A&M are now in the Top 10). Heck, despite Kentucky giving Miss. St. a better game than A&M, all you hear is about the strength of the teams that beat A&M, not about how weak A&M is.
Although the SEC West does get the benefit of never having to hear the word "overrated" for really any of its teams, a lot of this "bias" does come down to scheduling. The Big 12 (and other conferences) should get with the times and put their crap OOC games later in the season.
And neither Texas A&M nor South Carolina are ranked right now. Amazing, isn't it? The more data you get, the better the rankings are! Oklahoma State was in the top 15 at one point this season, mainly on the strength of playing Florida State close. Is that Big 12 bias at work? Or once OKSt lost a few games and we saw NC State, Louisville, Clemson, and Notre Dame also play Florida State down to the wire were people just able to make better judgments about the strength of Oklahoma State?
I think you have to admit that the allegations in the article are overblown. The one solid point it does make, however, is with respect to the case study that is Texas A&M this year.
A&M started out barely in the top 25 and basically took South Carolina's spot around number 6 after trouncing them to open the season. In a situation like that at the beginning of the season you have to think it was either because SC was overrated or because A&M was underrated. Well it seems like the voters didn't even think about the former scenario (which has actually proven to be the case). Subsequently, every SEC West team that beat A&M basically got credit for slaying a juggernaut and jumped in the polls as a result (note, by the way, that each of the SEC West teams that beat A&M are now in the Top 10). Heck, despite Kentucky giving Miss. St. a better game than A&M, all you hear is about the strength of the teams that beat A&M, not about how weak A&M is.
Although the SEC West does get the benefit of never having to hear the word "overrated" for really any of its teams, a lot of this "bias" does come down to scheduling. The Big 12 (and other conferences) should get with the times and put their crap OOC games later in the season.
And neither Texas A&M nor South Carolina are ranked right now. Amazing, isn't it? The more data you get, the better the rankings are! Oklahoma State was in the top 15 at one point this season, mainly on the strength of playing Florida State close. Is that Big 12 bias at work? Or once OKSt lost a few games and we saw NC State, Louisville, Clemson, and Notre Dame also play Florida State down to the wire were people just able to make better judgments about the strength of Oklahoma State?
IIRC it didn't take OSU getting piss pounded into oblivion 3 weeks in a row before they finally dropped out of the top 25. And OSU hasn't continued to receive top 25 votes. But otherwise I think you make a valid comparison.