|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
98.232.224.41
In Reply to: RE: Since Regmac has been incommunicado the last few days, I'll do the honors, SEC has 4 of the Top 5! Yes, posted by Road Warrior on October 19, 2014 at 14:45:07
#5 Mizzou beats #17 Ok St.: mismatch.
#14 LSU barely beats unranked Iowa. Iowa!
#4 S. Carolina is paired with unranked Wisconsin. Wow, huh?
AL loses to similarly ranked OK. Hmmmm…
Ranked A&M squeaks by Duke. Duke, that is. Unranked Duke.
And mighty Georgia, whom did they get? Unranked Nebraska.
The most rabid SEC fan would look at those "matches" and see something strange going on.
Follow Ups:
to a 5 loss Texas Tech team,
Washington beat a 5 loss BYU team,
Ariz beat a 6, yes 6, loss Boston College team,
Oregon St beat a 5 loss Boys State team,
Wash St. LOST to a 6 loss Colo St. team.
None of those opponents were ranked
On the plus side, at least Stanford lost to a 1 loss Mich St team.
Avg losses per opponent, 4.75
SEC opponents (4 ranked) had losses of - 0, 4, 3, 2, 5, 4, 5, 4, 6, & 4
Avg losses per opponent, 3.70
You do remember what they say about stones and glass houses:)
--------------------------
"E burres stigano"
foes, too, because all the top-rated teams were SEC and they were given patty-cakes.
When SEC beats easier foes, they're given high rankings. When PAC teams do, they're dropped or stay even.
Since the SEC had 7(?) of the top 25 ranked teams,
A) That narrows down the number of ranked teams they can play and,
B) Several of our bowl teams were unranked 4 and 5 loss teams that couldn't, by definition, play a ranked opponent. Would you have liked to have seen a 5 loss Vanderbilt team play Stanford? Of course not.
By any measure the SEC played better bowl teams than the PAC Whatevers, end of story.
--------------------------
"E burres stigano"
any top PAC teams; PAC teams weren't given a chance to play similarly talented teams, to prove themselves.
The perception is what counts: SEC teams were highly rated, post season; they played weaker teams than they, on average, because so many SEC teams were overly high-rated; they didn't get teams that would challenge them, excepting AU THAT LOST.
Look at Alabama's result.
The rest played patsies.
NO one wanted to play PAC top teams. OR was willing to play anyone, got offered shitty Texas. Anyhow, the Rose Bowl was a good game, but it robbed SEC teams of two good opponents.
I favor a playoff system, completely. Do you? Of course, there has to be some pressure on SEC to play out-of-conference teams that are highly rated during the regular season...
One can always point to a "one off", i.e., Alabama's loss or the, as you call it, the relative weakness of one's opponents, in a given bowl season.
Don't blame the PAC's woes, such as you think they are, on the SEC. Y'all are getting exactly the recognition y'all deserve. The best program in the PAC the past 10(or more?) years, by a mile, Oregon, has been twice tested by our best and has been twice been found wanting. When you get those opportunites, by God, you're supposed to make the most of em!!
--------------------------
"E burres stigano"
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: