Posted by edsortails on 12/1/2017 2:35:00 PM (view original):
Well his point being if they played Indiana St instead of OU, they likely win and therefore absorb the Iowa loss OK.

I know what his point was. 1 year it helped them, 1 year it might have hurt them (after all they might still lose to Wisconsin which would eliminate them anyway). The Buckeye loss to Va Tech in the first playoff year (when they won the national title) didn't hurt them either.

As I said there are pros and cons to playing a tough non-con game and the committee thus far seems to favor the teams that do, even when they lose.

Posted by all3 on 12/1/2017 3:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Vitamin_C on 12/1/2017 11:53:00 AM (view original):
I don't understand how anyone could argue against the SE having the most talented players in the country. It isn't a big deal it is just a fact due to the very long stretches of milder weather there. There are any number of things you could look at that would lead you to draw that conclusion. One of the easiest IMO would be the NFL draft and current NFL rosters. Overwhelmingly full of players who hail from the SE.

The only way one can argue against this fact is if they are just stubborn and refusing to kowtow to reality.

You know that teams in the South don't practice any more than teams in the North, right? There are NCAA regulations on that. Which Conference is best (in any sport at any time) will NEVER be a fact. It's impossible - every team in a Conference would need to play every other team in every other Conference for it to be a fact. Yes, the Southern Colleges may have a higher number of better athletes, but better athletes don't always make better football players. Those better athletes also perform better in the combine testing, which is what so many NFL teams love. That gets those athletes a spot in the NFL, but does it make them better NFL players? Even if you'd argue it does (which it doesn't), being better in the NFL doesn't mean you were better in College (especially given the admitted Coaching lack in the SEC as a whole). Not sure why you want to continue arguing that your opinion is fact.

In addition, just because the south produces generally faster high school athletes, it doesn't mean that they all go to college in the S.E. As I already showed in this thread, that just isn't true. Indiana (a pretty poor Big Ten team) has more than double the kids from Florida then Missouri and Tennessee have on their rosters combined. And speed, doesn't equate to strength, skill, or athleticism. Also, Ohio is traditionally one of the best high school football states in the country, producing a lot of NFL players, many of which you know happen to go to Big Ten schools.

If we look at the top 50 from ESPN's 300 for next year the commitments thus far for next year are
Ohio State - 7
Texas - 4
Clemson - 3
Georgia - 3
Miami - 2
Florida State - 2
Penn State - 2
Auburn - 1
Nebraska - 1
Washington - 1
Alabama - 1
USC - 1
Michigan - 1

So 4 separate Big Ten schools with 11 recruits. SEC and ACC both have 3 schools, but the ACC has 7 recruits while the SEC currently only had 5. Pac 12 has 2 recruits from 2 schools while the Big 12 only has 1 school, but has 4 recruits. Obviously this will change as recruiting progress, but this notion that because southern high schools are better (and it really only is Florida, Georgia, and Texas) that it means the schools that play there get the top tier talent is just a silly notion.

Posted by all3 on 12/1/2017 3:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Vitamin_C on 12/1/2017 11:53:00 AM (view original):
I don't understand how anyone could argue against the SE having the most talented players in the country. It isn't a big deal it is just a fact due to the very long stretches of milder weather there. There are any number of things you could look at that would lead you to draw that conclusion. One of the easiest IMO would be the NFL draft and current NFL rosters. Overwhelmingly full of players who hail from the SE.

The only way one can argue against this fact is if they are just stubborn and refusing to kowtow to reality.

You know that teams in the South don't practice any more than teams in the North, right? There are NCAA regulations on that. Which Conference is best (in any sport at any time) will NEVER be a fact. It's impossible - every team in a Conference would need to play every other team in every other Conference for it to be a fact. Yes, the Southern Colleges may have a higher number of better athletes, but better athletes don't always make better football players. Those better athletes also perform better in the combine testing, which is what so many NFL teams love. That gets those athletes a spot in the NFL, but does it make them better NFL players? Even if you'd argue it does (which it doesn't), being better in the NFL doesn't mean you were better in College (especially given the admitted Coaching lack in the SEC as a whole). Not sure why you want to continue arguing that your opinion is fact.

I think you conflated two posters.

I do not "want to continue arguing" about anything. That was the first I've posted on the matter at all.
Nowhere did I mention anything about the SEC (probably the other poster you are conflating me with) I also never made any statement that would lead one to believe I think better natural athletic ability automatically translates into better this or that. Rather, I made a blanket statement of fact that the SE (region of the country, NOT conference) has a much larger pool of naturally gifted athletes as a whole. I'll stand by that because it is a fact.

Posted by all3 on 12/1/2017 3:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Vitamin_C on 12/1/2017 11:53:00 AM (view original):
I don't understand how anyone could argue against the SE having the most talented players in the country. It isn't a big deal it is just a fact due to the very long stretches of milder weather there. There are any number of things you could look at that would lead you to draw that conclusion. One of the easiest IMO would be the NFL draft and current NFL rosters. Overwhelmingly full of players who hail from the SE.

The only way one can argue against this fact is if they are just stubborn and refusing to kowtow to reality.

You know that teams in the South don't practice any more than teams in the North, right? There are NCAA regulations on that. Which Conference is best (in any sport at any time) will NEVER be a fact. It's impossible - every team in a Conference would need to play every other team in every other Conference for it to be a fact. Yes, the Southern Colleges may have a higher number of better athletes, but better athletes don't always make better football players. Those better athletes also perform better in the combine testing, which is what so many NFL teams love. That gets those athletes a spot in the NFL, but does it make them better NFL players? Even if you'd argue it does (which it doesn't), being better in the NFL doesn't mean you were better in College (especially given the admitted Coaching lack in the SEC as a whole). Not sure why you want to continue arguing that your opinion is fact.

I agree with this.

Posted by moranis on 12/1/2017 3:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by edsortails on 12/1/2017 2:35:00 PM (view original):
Well his point being if they played Indiana St instead of OU, they likely win and therefore absorb the Iowa loss OK.

I know what his point was. 1 year it helped them, 1 year it might have hurt them (after all they might still lose to Wisconsin which would eliminate them anyway). The Buckeye loss to Va Tech in the first playoff year (when they won the national title) didn't hurt them either.

As I said there are pros and cons to playing a tough non-con game and the committee thus far seems to favor the teams that do, even when they lose.

No they don't. They favor conference champions and undefeated teams.

Posted by moranis on 12/1/2017 3:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by edsortails on 12/1/2017 2:35:00 PM (view original):
Well his point being if they played Indiana St instead of OU, they likely win and therefore absorb the Iowa loss OK.

I know what his point was. 1 year it helped them, 1 year it might have hurt them (after all they might still lose to Wisconsin which would eliminate them anyway). The Buckeye loss to Va Tech in the first playoff year (when they won the national title) didn't hurt them either.

As I said there are pros and cons to playing a tough non-con game and the committee thus far seems to favor the teams that do, even when they lose.

As long as the 2016 Washingtons of CFB continue to get in (simply because they are Power5 conference champs with no more than one loss), playing tough OOC games is a high risk proposition.

If you can go 13-0 or 12-1 and win your conference you are almost assured a spot. At least that has been the case every season so far since the implementation of the CFP.

I'd love to see more marquee match-ups in OOC games, but in this current climate it doesn't make a lot of sense.
Perhaps as the years roll on and more teams end the season with 0 or 1 loss and some one-loss conference champ gets left out due to "weak SOS" things may change. Maybe then it starts moving the other way and teams will have to start scheduling tougher OOC games to standout over the other 4, but as the current system stands it isn't wise.

Posted by moranis on 12/1/2017 3:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by edsortails on 12/1/2017 2:35:00 PM (view original):
Well his point being if they played Indiana St instead of OU, they likely win and therefore absorb the Iowa loss OK.

I know what his point was. 1 year it helped them, 1 year it might have hurt them (after all they might still lose to Wisconsin which would eliminate them anyway). The Buckeye loss to Va Tech in the first playoff year (when they won the national title) didn't hurt them either.

As I said there are pros and cons to playing a tough non-con game and the committee thus far seems to favor the teams that do, even when they lose.

Your original response was deep in lack of understanding.

You may have got it, but that post did not say you did.

Posted by Vitamin_C on 12/1/2017 4:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 12/1/2017 3:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Vitamin_C on 12/1/2017 11:53:00 AM (view original):
I don't understand how anyone could argue against the SE having the most talented players in the country. It isn't a big deal it is just a fact due to the very long stretches of milder weather there. There are any number of things you could look at that would lead you to draw that conclusion. One of the easiest IMO would be the NFL draft and current NFL rosters. Overwhelmingly full of players who hail from the SE.

The only way one can argue against this fact is if they are just stubborn and refusing to kowtow to reality.

You know that teams in the South don't practice any more than teams in the North, right? There are NCAA regulations on that. Which Conference is best (in any sport at any time) will NEVER be a fact. It's impossible - every team in a Conference would need to play every other team in every other Conference for it to be a fact. Yes, the Southern Colleges may have a higher number of better athletes, but better athletes don't always make better football players. Those better athletes also perform better in the combine testing, which is what so many NFL teams love. That gets those athletes a spot in the NFL, but does it make them better NFL players? Even if you'd argue it does (which it doesn't), being better in the NFL doesn't mean you were better in College (especially given the admitted Coaching lack in the SEC as a whole). Not sure why you want to continue arguing that your opinion is fact.

I think you conflated two posters.

I do not "want to continue arguing" about anything. That was the first I've posted on the matter at all.
Nowhere did I mention anything about the SEC (probably the other poster you are conflating me with) I also never made any statement that would lead one to believe I think better natural athletic ability automatically translates into better this or that. Rather, I made a blanket statement of fact that the SE (region of the country, NOT conference) has a much larger pool of naturally gifted athletes as a whole. I'll stand by that because it is a fact.

I see several other of your posts that seem to support the SEC argument. Somebody steal your ID to post those?
Regardless, who is the best athlete is ALWAYS an OPINION. (Is being quicker and a better jumper "more athletic" than being stronger?)

What is "the SEC argument" exactly?

IIRC, I first came to this forum asking opinions on something I had been discussing with co-workers. Namely, the ridiculousness of having a 6-team playoff where two arbitrarily decided teams get a bye.

I then asked about someone who didn't seem to understand the difference between an undefeated Power5 champ and an unbeaten UCF.

Then posted about how I believed Wisconsin's schedule is wildly under rated or to be more accurate that people seemed to think that these other contenders had vastly superior schedules when compared to Wisconsin's. They do not.

Then someone else proposed the same 6 team playoff I had just posted about a few weeks before and I voiced my concern that a bye is far too large of an advantage.

Then I answered someone who made the claim that Wisconsin might be 9-3 and MSU/Michigan would be 7-5 in the SEC and how the SEC was superior from top to bottom, and I pointed out that Purdue pummeled Missouri AT Missouri.

Next when folks were yammering about how "the SEC doesn't travel North or West for non conference games" I stated for the record that LSU actually had traveled North and West in the last few seasons for non con match-ups.

THAT must be the "SEC argument" then?
I actually made a statement of fact concerning an SEC school?
So that means all of my previous posts are to be discounted and I am automatically lumped together with all the "SEC homers"?

Maybe you could point me to all of my "several other --- posts that seem to support the SEC argument"?

Too thoughtful

This one: I then asked about someone who didn't seem to understand the difference between an undefeated Power5 champ and an unbeaten UCF.

That was all3. And once he gets a bug up his *** about something he said and you laughed at, that bug cannot be removed. Anything you say from that point forward, he will argue against. Cuz he ain't too bright.

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/1/2017 5:51:00 PM (view original):
This one: I then asked about someone who didn't seem to understand the difference between an undefeated Power5 champ and an unbeaten UCF.

That was all3. And once he gets a bug up his *** about something he said and you laughed at, that bug cannot be removed. Anything you say from that point forward, he will argue against. Cuz he ain't too bright.

Now that's some funny sheit. Mike saying somebody likes to argue. He'll deflect and take things out of context more than anyone, just so he has something to say.
Take your stupid *ss back to your b_l retard battles.

If anyone was watching the SEC pregame show, they heard the commentators talking about the SEC being the most "demanding" conference. That is because it is regarded as the best conference by most experts. When someone posts that in this forum and you call it "utter nonsense" you have now made yourself look stupid. You may not agree that it's the best conference, but utter nonsense it is not.

To be fair, CBS is pumping their game. I bet FOX talks about the B10 being the premier conference.

BTW, and I guess maybe he has to, McShay asking Frost if he'd accepted the Nebraska job immediately after UCF's double OT win is classless. Let the man enjoy the victory.

If I had to pick, the SEC is the toughest conference, but like Mike said, CBS saying it is a bit self serving.