Support NeoGAF

[chicko1983]

Because people don't think Georgia or SCAR deserve anything close to top 15 rankings

The Georgia which beat Clemson was awesome, well TG was awesome anyway.They are too one-dimensional though and need some decent receivers.

I havent seen SCAR live yet so cant comment on them, but they were in many people's top 10 at the start of the year and a lot of people here even had them winning the SEC. They have the talent to be a top 25 team for sure, I just think they played Texas AM at their best, making them look bad in the process.

Pac-12 isn't looking so hot this year imo.

But yeah, using rankings to justify how great the SEC is isn't going to win you a lot of friends. A lot of the criticism of SECSECSEC stuff involves complaints about the ranking system.

Pac-12, in my opinion, is full of the teams which lose the ones they shouldnt. They will play awesome matches followed up by complete tripe, so I have not really rated them in the last two years of watching and following.

In terms of my gambling, I have lost more money on Pac-12 teams being inconsistent than any other conference.

Stanford, USC, Oregon, UCLA and ASU have all cost me money on the back of upsets against them.

As the resident ACC cheerleader, I wish it were true that the ACC was seen as premier competition. They're not seen anywhere near that level. Florida State? Yes. Clemson? Well, last year they did alright in beating Georgia and Ohio State. Anyone else? Anyone?

Just when we thought Virginia Tech might be getting back into the discussion, they went and lost at home to East Carolina. Maybe Louisville can get there, though losing in conference to Virginia didn't help. Duke won 10 games last year, still gets no respect, though truthfully, they still haven't beaten anyone of note out of conference, so I'm not sure they deserve it. Miami is a joke. North Carolina is an as yet overrated joke. And Georgia Tech just makes me sad.

Though it was good to see Boston College help take the PAC-12 down a notch.

I think ACC have the best out of conference record of the power 5 at the moment for this season.

But yeah, like the Pac-12, they seam to be a really inconsistent conference with teams winning the matches they shouldnt and then losing the ones they should win.

Florida St are head and shoulders above the rest in this conference, IMO.

Because those conferences actually play legitimate non-conference games.

I can see your argument but many SEC fans would say they play the hardest conference games so their non-conference games will be against weaker teams.

In the playoff era, the strength of schedule should come into play so the difficulty in the non-conference games will even out amongst the power 5 teams you would think?

It's the pendulum of public opinion swinging back the other way too. I'd go so far as to say the top SEC teams aren't much better, if at all, than Pac12 top teams. But the middle of the SEC provides more of a challenge which could help in the playoffs.

Yeah, this year I would say that all SEC teams are weaker than last year besides Ole Miss and Tennessee.

I agree that the SEC depth seems to be deeper than other conferences, and its probably because of this their teams get rated higher.

I do rate Stanford and Oregon, but I would still put my money on Bama in a national championship game if was played next week at a neutral venue, if it were possible.

Im not saying that Bama are a better team, just under match pressure, I would back them ahead of Stan

 

[Randolph Freelander]

Here are my week 3 Big 12 power rankings without explanation.

1. Oklahoma (3-0)
2. Baylor (3-0)
3. Oklahoma St. (2-1)
4. TCU (2-0)
5. Kansas St. (2-0)
6. WVU (2-1)
7. Texas (1-2)
8. Texas Tech (2-1)
9. Iowa St. (1-2)
10. Kansas (1-1)

Is it possible to rank Kansas #12? I'm not sure how they beat anyone this year. I'm surprised to see that they're 1-1, they looked terrible on Saturday.

Edit: Ah, that win was against SE Missouri State. FCS. Actually, it still surprises me they won.

 

[cdyhybrid]

I can see your argument but many SEC fans would say they play the hardest conference games so their non-conference games will be against weaker teams.

In the playoff era, the strength of schedule should come into play so the difficulty in the non-conference games will even out amongst the power 5 teams you would think?

Impossible to know when there are maybe 3 SEC teams that actually play anyone of note out of conference. Vast majority of their "strength of schedule" in conference is because of preseason rankings, which are a pure crapshoot.

 

[unholyrevenger72]

Pac-12, in my opinion, is full of the teams which lose the ones they shouldnt. They will play awesome matches followed up by complete tripe, so I have not really rated them in the last two years of watching and following.

You need to understand the concept of a "Trap Game." Trap games are games that usually follow a big emotional victory. i.e. USC v Stanford. USC puts down big bad cardinal, then follows up the next week with very little in the emotional well to carry them through a mediocre team. The pain of that loss will refill the well for the next week and potentially for the rest of the season.

 

[Affeinvasion]

You need to understand the concept of a "Trap Game." Trap games are games that usually follow a big emotional victory. i.e. USC v Stanford. USC puts down big bad cardinal, then follows up the next week with very little in the emotional well to carry them through a mediocre team. The pain of that loss will refill the well for the next week and potentially for the rest of the season.

Or they will collapse like they did under Kiffin.

 

[bachikarn]

Impossible to know when there are maybe 3 SEC teams that actually play anyone of note out of conference. Vast majority of their "strength of schedule" in conference is because of preseason rankings, which are a pure crapshoot.

I think that's a relatively fair argument, but post-season and recruiting success should not be ignored either.

 

[cdyhybrid]

I think that's a relatively fair argument, but post-season and recruiting success should not be ignored either.

Post-season success is a decent argument, but one-game sample size makes me a bit skeptical. Also, recruiting success isn't really a good indicator of on-the-field success - just look at Texas.

 

[bachikarn]

Post-season success is a decent argument, but one-game sample size makes me a bit skeptical. Also, recruiting success isn't really a good indicator of on-the-field success - just look at Texas.

Disagree. It is not conclusive, but it is definitely a good indicator. The reason schools like Bama, FSU, UF, USC etc win NCs is because they are just more talented. Coaching and scheme definitely helps, but most of those teams just had more NFL players.

 

[chicko1983]

You need to understand the concept of a "Trap Game." Trap games are games that usually follow a big emotional victory. i.e. USC v Stanford. USC puts down big bad cardinal, then follows up the next week with very little in the emotional well to carry them through a mediocre team. The pain of that loss will refill the well for the next week and potentially for the rest of the season.

This sort of thing happens the world over and in all sports. However, trap games aren't an excuse if you want to be considered the best team.

To me, from my own experience of putting money on Pac 12 and acc teams, they tend to lose more trap games than sec teams.

I dunno if you can find the stats to back it up, but if I sense it, I'm sure other cfb fans sense it also. Because that feeling is stronger with these two conferences compared to the sec, people may rate sec higher.

 

[cdyhybrid]

Disagree. It is not conclusive, but it is definitely a good indicator. The reason schools like Bama, FSU, UF, USC etc win NCs is because they are just more talented. Coaching and scheme definitely helps, but most of those teams just had more NFL players.

Sure, but I'm saying recruiting good players doesn't mean you're winning conferences and championships.

The teams that win recruit well, but not everyone that recruits well wins.

 

[Monroeski]

Post-season success is a decent argument, but one-game sample size makes me a bit skeptical. Also, recruiting success isn't really a good indicator of on-the-field success - just look at Texas.

I hear things like this fairly often down here lately and it still amazes me how quickly people seem to have forgotten that Texas averaged just over 10 wins per season for Mack Brown's first 12 seasons, including 3 BCS wins and 2 national championship appearances (with 1 win).

I guess you can argue that with as good as their recruiting was they "should" have done even better over that span, but you could still probably count on one hand the number of teams in the country that wouldn't want to switch what they did with what Texas did over Mack Brown's tenure.

 

[bucknuticus]

If we were on yahoo we would have had a week 3 thread by now

 

[KingGondo]

If we were on yahoo we would have had a week 3 thread by now

*nods solemnly*

 

[AlteredBeast]

If we were on yahoo we would have had a week 3 thread by now

To be fair, we have had a week 3 thread for a week.

 

[Tamanon]

I think Bucknuticus is just trying to forget Week 2 ever happened.

 

[Kacar]

Ohio St. drops even after dumping 66 points on Kent State? Sad part is that I'd drop us, too. Virgina Tech lost, so that makes last week's loss that much worse.

Why can't we be good? ;_;

I think Bucknuticus is just trying to forget Week 2 ever happened.

*Urban eating Papa John's*

 

[bucknuticus]

I think Bucknuticus is just trying to forget Week 2 ever happened.

IT WAS ALL IN MY HEAD

 

[StrikerObi]

I think this may be the first week I've ever missed all the Margin of Victory points on the pick 'em. But hey, at least I got 9 out of 12 games right (missed on Louisville, UGA, and Iowa). Real glad I switched that Arky/TTU pick.

 

[Lonestar]

IT WAS ALL IN MY HEAD

CRAAAWWWWLING INNN MY SKIIINNNN

 

[Monroeski]

I think this may be the first week I've ever missed all the Margin of Victory points on the pick 'em. But hey, at least I got 9 out of 12 games right (missed on Louisville, UGA, and Iowa). Real glad I switched that Arky/TTU pick.

Though I still picked Tech the actual outcome, unfortunately, wasn't a big surprise to me.

All it could take is a couple of early turnovers or bad penalties and an early 10 or 14 point lead by Arkansas, though, and the game could get pretty ugly for Tech as Arkansas could probably run up a few drives of 8+ minutes.

It was a pretty good, close game until Tech gave up an INT late in the first half to let Arkansas go up by 7, after which Arkansas received the second half kickoff and went up by 14. With the two score margin in place it got as ugly as I thought it would for Tech.

On the plus side, our passing defense stats at the end of the season are going to be AMAZING.

 

[Sirpopopop]

I decided to purge my Penn State emotions by ranting about Penn State on my facebook wall.

I look forward to the "Poor JoePa" responses. It's ridiculous how Penn State continues to boldly show that they don't give a damn about the NCAA, and gets rewarded for it, and the layperson has pretty much forgotten about Sandusky.

 

[Incognito]

Thanks a lot, Louisiville, Georgia, Iowa, and Maryland. Not to mention USC. Horrible week. At least Florida St still on path for wire to wire. Obligatory laught at B1G ZERO.

 

[sf2fanatic]

The Georgia which beat Clemson was awesome, well TG was awesome anyway.They are too one-dimensional though and need some decent receivers.

I havent seen SCAR live yet so cant comment on them, but they were in many people's top 10 at the start of the year and a lot of people here even had them winning the SEC. They have the talent to be a top 25 team for sure, I just think they played Texas AM at their best, making them look bad in the process.



Pac-12, in my opinion, is full of the teams which lose the ones they shouldnt. They will play awesome matches followed up by complete tripe, so I have not really rated them in the last two years of watching and following.

In terms of my gambling, I have lost more money on Pac-12 teams being inconsistent than any other conference.

Stanford, USC, Oregon, UCLA and ASU have all cost me money on the back of upsets against them.



I think ACC have the best out of conference record of the power 5 at the moment for this season.

But yeah, like the Pac-12, they seam to be a really inconsistent conference with teams winning the matches they shouldnt and then losing the ones they should win.

Florida St are head and shoulders above the rest in this conference, IMO.



I can see your argument but many SEC fans would say they play the hardest conference games so their non-conference games will be against weaker teams.

In the playoff era, the strength of schedule should come into play so the difficulty in the non-conference games will even out amongst the power 5 teams you would think?



Yeah, this year I would say that all SEC teams are weaker than last year besides Ole Miss and Tennessee.

I agree that the SEC depth seems to be deeper than other conferences, and its probably because of this their teams get rated higher.

I do rate Stanford and Oregon, but I would still put my money on Bama in a national championship game if was played next week at a neutral venue, if it were possible.

Im not saying that Bama are a better team, just under match pressure, I would back them ahead of Stan

I coulda told you myself not to bet on either USC or UCLA. They are both unpredictable. If any, Oregon has been good to me

 

[Sirpopopop]

chicko is becoming a good SEC fan.

We tried so hard to get him to join the light side, but the power of the dark side was too much!

 

[JHall]

chicko is becoming a good SEC fan.

We tried so hard to get him to join the light side, but the power of the dark side was too much!

 

[bucknuticus]

chicko is becoming a good SEC fan.

We tried so hard to get him to join the light side, but the power of the dark side was too much!

Literally a case study on the influence ESPN has!

 

[Randolph Freelander]

chicko is becoming a good SEC fan.

We tried so hard to get him to join the light side, but the power of the dark side was too much!

Help me out here. The light side would be... ?

 

[Subitai]

ESS! EEE! SEE!

ESS! EEE! SEE!

ESS! EEE! SEE!



There is no stopping them.

 

[Sirpopopop]

Literally anyone but the SEC.

Bingo!

 

[Monroeski]

Literally anyone but the SEC.

Domers?

 

[Affeinvasion]

Domers?

depends on if you believe in Old Testament God or New Testament God.

 

[perfectchaos007]

depends on if you believe in Old Testament God or New Testament God.

or the super new testament featuring the Latter day saints of America. Then you're a BYU fan

 

[cashman]

Maybe the SEC is better than everybody else and we're are just clouded by a reflexive hate against them

 

[Sirpopopop]

Our AD is a fucking idiot for apologizing for the Ped State banner flag. I wouldn't mind it if Julie Hermann is sent packing with Flood.

That banner was a solid skewering of the Cult's continued culture of denial re: the Sandusky issue.

 

[Frustrated_Grunt]

Maybe the SEC is better than everybody else and we're are just clouded by a reflexive hate against them

NO! We can't let the enemy win!

 

[Draxal]

Our AD is a fucking idiot for apologizing for the Ped State banner flag. I wouldn't mind it if Julie Hermann is sent packing with Flood.

That banner was a solid skewering of the Cult's continued culture of denial re: the Sandusky issue.

She had to be proactive instead of reactive on that one.

 

[Subitai]

The SEC wills it! So it will be!

Maybe the SEC is better than everybody else and we're are just clouded by a reflexive hate against them

Blasphemy!

Spoiler

Never imagined it could suck this much having rooting interests in the B1G =/

 

[Subitai]

Our AD is a fucking idiot for apologizing for the Ped State banner flag. I wouldn't mind it if Julie Hermann is sent packing with Flood.

That banner was a solid skewering of the Cult's continued culture of denial re: the Sandusky issue.

You're completely sure the all of the victims would see it that way?

 

[Sirpopopop]

You're completely sure the all of the victims would see it that way?

I mean, if you guys cared about the victims you could have tried to hire a coach and President not known for covering sexual abuse scandals up.

The victim defense is hollow here. It's mocking your institution's inability to confront what happened there and show true remorse. It's also mocking your institution's ability to successfully make the sanctions about JoePa, and not about the actual victims, some of which were victimized on your campus. If you guys actually confronted that aspect of your history, you would have a stronger ground to make an objection.

Instead, it appears that we can't make any sort of commentary about Penn State at all.

 

[Purple Cheeto]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=130142612