I think that is very accurate. I would make one addition: a 1-loss Mississippi team would be above the B10 champ ONLY if that loss is a close one to (a 1-loss) Georgia in the SECCG. In that scenario, Georgia would go as your #2 and the Miss. team would take the #5 spot (as Bama and Auburn would each have at least 2 losses).
Bama has been plagued by very un-Bama-like mistakes. They were very impressive against Florida and the defense has played very well for the most part while the offense (and especially the special teams) struggled. This feels very much like the 2010 team that went 9-3 then absolutely destroyed Michigan State in the Cap1 Bowl. That team didn't get it figured out until it was too late, and this one better hurry up or they will be in the same place.
I don't disagree with much of that. Ole Miss and State should have to win the West to get in (and the way they are playing, one of them will). If one of them makes it to the SECCG undefeated and drops to a 1-loss Georgia, they can still make it, but a 1-loss Mississippi team isn't going to the playoffs without at least a divisional title. Now Auburn or Alabama could do this. Bama needs to play a LOT better (they look like a 3-loss team the last couple of weeks) but if they win out they are likely in (especially if that win over WVa that you don't credit much keeps looking better) whether they win the conference or not. Same with Auburn.
As for the 2008 season - I think that mock pick is about right though I might have slipped in a Boise or Utah that year.. That was Bama's coming out year, but they were still young and played over their heads all year - I never thought they were the best in the country though.
The only thing we do know is that Indiana (the worst team in the B1G) beat Missouri (a middle of the road SEC team),
That may be the only game you are aware of, but you would be ignoring a lot of football that has been played. LSU (possibly the worst team in the SECw this year) beat Wisconsin (one of the better teams in the B10) on a neutral field. Alabama beat WVa, who beat Maryland, a middle of the road B10 team. If we draw this out a little further, Auburn beat K-State, who beat Iowa St, who beat Iowa, a middle/upper tier B10 team. And then there is South Carolina (possibly the worst team in the SECe), who beat ECU, who beat Va Tech, who beat OSU (possibly the best team in the B10). The B10 is 0-4 against currently ranked teams. SEC teams are 3-1, and the Mississippi teams appear to be the best teams in the SEC. You can claim bias and skewed polls all you want, but the results on the field back it up.
Note: I realize that transitive wins get ridiculous, but at this point, the only transitive losses you can point to re: the SEC are TCU and Baylor are better than Tennessee, and pretty much anybody is better than Vandy - both of which I agree with. The point is that there are several bad losses with the B10 (and other conferences as well) but much less with the SEC. That should show you the polls are not nearly as biased as you believe.
Yeah. Of course, officially they will conduct a "nationwide search" for his replacement ... that will lead them right back to their own office.
Again. He was treated for it successfully several years ago but it has returned. The diagnosis is positive so that is good.
It has long been speculated that Greg Sankey has been being groomed as his replacement (current Executive Associate Commissioner/COO of the conference)
Here's a link to the SEC official statement.
I used current rankings specifically because teams like Missouri are obviously NOT the #18 team in the country - but if you want to include that win, fine - add the Wisky-LSU loss as well and the B10 record becomes 1-5 (and the SEC goes to 4-1)(and the P12 and B12 both gain 2 more losses, each to BYU and UCLA). Can we count West Virginia too since they've been in "others receiving votes" all year. If so, the SEC gains another win and the B10 gains another loss. Any way you look at it, the SEC, as a conference comes out well in out of conference play against notable opponents - despite the constant drum beat that they don't play anybody.
More to your point, I don't have a problem with two teams from the same conference being in the playoffs. If the idea is to have the best 4 teams play for it, then how can we not allow for the possibility that 2 of these teams are in the same conference? Be that Alabama-LSU in 2012 or OSU-Michigan in 2006(?) - yes, the B10 would have had 2 in that year (something many from your area of the country was all in favor of back then) - or two teams with one or less losses in the SECw this year. I do think conference championships should have a priority, but if your conference hasn't done anything noteworthy, and your champion has a bad loss and no signature wins, I'm sorry, but you are going to get passed over by a non-champion with a "good" loss in what is proving to be a very tough division.
Well, they played Michigan State twice (in '11 and '12), losing 4-3 and 5-2 and beat some team called Michigan-Flint 4-3 in '13 (I have no idea if they are any good or not but if they are from that far north, they are likely decent). Not as bad as I would have thought.
The records hadn't been updated for the weekend when I posted earlier. Bama is currently 6-1 after the weekend games.
I agree (they are included in the count - if that was unclear). My point is that the ACC has them scheduled several times because of their new agreement - kinda the same with the Pac and B10. The B12 and SEC don't have any games against ND, and also have the fewest P5 games. This doesn't excuse them for not scheduling more (and if ND were to play an SEC team they would likely not schedule another) just an observation.
Rankings of teams you've beaten mean diddly squat
??? So in your eyes, beating Kansas in their house is a better win than beating East Carolina at home? Sorry, but that is stupid. How can you possibly say that wins over ranked opponents is not relevant?
I can guarantee you they hardly travelled for those games.
Of the 11 OOC games against P5 teams, 3 were/are at home, 6 were/are true away games, and 2 were neutral sites.
It is a valid criticism, but they do have the best resume right now without one. If you disagree, who has a better one? Would you really feel better about them had they beaten Kansas the first week of the season instead of Southern Miss?
Given that they play so little power 5 competition outside of their own conference.
They play a few less than other conferences (though that seems to often be those that play Notre Dame a lot). By my count, the SEC plays 11 P5 teams this year, the ACC plays 16 (Notre Dame 4 times), B12 plays 10, the P12 plays 11 (NDx3), and the B10 plays 17 (NDx3) ... but you're asking the wrong question. Afterall, Vanderbilt, Kansas, Purdue, and others are P5 teams, but don't really pose a serious threat to a top team. Why not look at ranked opponents? Again by my count, the SEC, to date has played 4 currently ranked teams with the ACC playing 7, B12 playing 4, the P12 playing 2, and the B10 playing 4. The SEC has by far the best record against those opponents (3-1, .750); ACC (2-5, .286); B12 (0-4 .000); P12 (1-1, .500); B10 (0-4, .000).
It does solve the problems. We just create new ones. The BCS was designed to get the #1 vs #2 teams to play each other. The problem was that there were often a team or 2 that could claim those 1 and 2 spots. Now that we moved it to 4 teams, we will most assuredly get everyone with a claim on the top spots in, but now we are going to bitch over who's #4 and that is what will kill college football.
Perhaps by Div 1 standards, but for the club level, many of them are decent. Bama is sitting at 5-0 right now. I work walking distance from where they play their home games and catch a few games every year. It is a little slower than the progames I've watched, but fun and entertaining nonetheless. They are working towards becoming officially sanctioned teams - I look forward to seeing how they do against "real" teams if they do.
Zoom in. Duke actually has the majority of that state by area. Very odd indeed.
History is written by the victorious. That is the difference between being a "gang of treasonous scumbags" and "freedom fighters" or patriots. You have to win to be seen in a favorable light.
To me, Redskins is the more descriptive word, no? Indians is a name Columbus gave the natives because he thought he was on the other side of the planet, but we let that one stick around because we didn't want to bother correcting ourselves I guess. That seems more offensive to me: calling someone something they clearly are not. Then again, PC is a subject I'm better off staying away from - as I'd never once (before the recent hoopla) considered Redskins to be a slur, nor had I ever used it with malice intent.
I wish I knew Fido. I really didn't notice it until JPW but it has probably been around a lot longer (I've never been much for noticing fashion on anyone). My main concern with Blake Sims as far as his race goes is only that he is limited in his "Bama Bangs" production because of racial genes. Perhaps he'll usher in a new era in Bama hair fashion.
Of course, there has been some notable success with it ...
When did "Redskins" become this horrible slur? By that standard, is "Rebels" not considered a slur for those that fought for the South? I get it: The South wanted slavery to continue and that is the worst thing this country has ever done - but it wasn't the only thing driving the Civil War, but slavery was (a big) part of it and I guess that trumps everything else to the point that anything else doesn't matter anymore and therefore anyone who so much as breathes anything positive about anything from that era or those people are therefore racists and shall not be tolerated.
But back to my question: Redskins (and Seminoles, Indians, Braves, etc.) are criticized because using them as mascots is thought to be demeaning to the subjects - however when Col. Reb is the mascot, it is seen as glorifying the symbol that many associate only with the sins of the past. So which is it - is a mascot demeaning the subject or glorifying it?