I don't know. Were you arguing for the sake of arguing in your response to Midnighter (which I agree with)?
Should OSU turn down B1G Title Game appearance?
- Thread starter Mister Magoo
- Start date
Texas’ best win is Michigan. Georgia’s is….Texas? Bama has some legit wins but lost to Vanderbilt. Georgia beat Kentucky by 1. Ole Miss lost to unranked LSU. Don’t drink the koolaid; they’re no more deserving than anyone else. They also only play 8 conference games.
SEC non-conference schedule stacked with UTEP, UMass, and Wofford this weekend too.
Last edited:
Where you been? I watched our Bs get embarrassed in Dallas the other nightSorry for hiatus. I’m not in jail
Hear me out.
Buckeyes play IU and Michigan the next two weeks. Let’s say they win both. Why risk another GM to get 1 seed?
If they get 1 seed they prob have to play Bama/ND winner and Oregon to get to title game.
If they get 5 seed, they would get Boise St at home, BYU and Oregon to get to title game. Which road is more difficult?
OSU has to play the game but the wrinkle you propose is a good one. I kind of thought same thing when we lost to them. We avoid extra game and still host a home playoff game (hopefuly). In many ways the bye is not really worth it.
BTW, jail is easy... it's prison that sucks
You can play that game with every conference. Ohio State's best win is Penn State and who is Penn State's best win? Washington? And Oregon's best win is Ohio State, but they only beat Wisconsin and Boise by 3.
Everyones non-con is mostly junk.
You missed the part where Georgia crushed Clemson and Alabama dismantled Wisconsin.
Which bubble team are you putting in over, say, Georgia, Texas, Ole Miss, Alabama. Colorado? Clemson? A potential 2-loss SMU?
Losses matter. So should number of conference games. Giving the SEC a pass based on pointless preseason rankings is exactly what they want.
Last edited:
I'm not giving the SEC a pass on anything. I'm simply looking at the highest rated playoff teams and it so happens that I think they have 4-5 teams that are good enough. The B10 also has 4 very eligible teams.
Again, which bubble team do you put in over Alabama, Georgia, Ole Miss, Texas?
I would love to see Army get in as a conference champ, but they would be a 17 point underdog to any of those teams on a neutral. And if you want to use the 'who have they played' like you did with the SEC: Lehigh, FAU, Rice, Temple, Tulsa, UAB, ECU, Air Force and N Texas.
SMU is the best of the teams listed and would be 10-14 point underdogs to those SEC teams. They beat Nevada by 5. They already lost to BYU, so...
No (rational) person cares how many "conference games" you play. Would the MAC be a better conference if they each played 11 conference games?
(Rational) people care how many good teams you play.
The quality of teams you play is determined (in addition to OOC games) largely by the depth of quality in the conference.
Both the ACC and Big10 suffer from the same malady - severe quality dilution through expansion to include less-than-top level programs. And the ACC wasn't all that much to begin with.
(The Big12 is a marginally upgraded and glorified G5 conference)
In the expansion craze:
The ACC added (to a mediocre conference): SMU, Cal, and Stanford. Only the once-per-generation good year from SMU keeps that from being a 100% dilution. So diluted that their top 3 teams (the only ranked teams) - have not played each other even one time. More bad teams - more of the schedule for the good teams that is "meh"
The Big10 added (to a strong conference): Nebraska, Maryland, Rutgers, UCLA, USC, Oregon, and Washington. Only one of those is a ranked team (a very good ranked team) - and the two you might have reasonably expected to add quality value, but didn't, are USC and Nebraska - USC has been hot and cold for the last decade (so there remains reasonable hope)., and Nebraska hasn't been high quality in 20 years (and doesn't look to be making any progress at all at the moment). All the others just dilute quality and create a lot of lousy games for the top teams (which is why you have PSU and Indiana combining for a 19-1 record, without a single victory over a ranked team).
I think one can excuse the Big10 for adding Nebraska - given their very high level history - but the Big10 would be much, much more competitive is they had taken a hard pass on Rutgers and Maryland, and said no thanks to UCLA and Washington (even though they just had there once in a generation year last year). The quality level would have been increased both by simply not having the lousy teams, and (maybe more importantly) not having their good teams play so many games against the lousy additions.
Meanwhile, the SEC (to an already strong conference) added: TAMU, Mizzou, Texas and Oklahoma - 2 highly ranked teams, one marginal top 25, and one (recent) powerhouse that is having a down year.... with no flotsam diluting the competition.
It is not smoke and mirrors. It is considered and intentional actions to either degrade conference depth and quality, or to enhance quality.
The SEC chose the latter.
The Big 10 chose the former.
The ACC (and Big12) was kind of left without any great options.
Which will turn out better in the long run? Who knows - but my money would be on the best future belonging to the conference(s) with the highest priority on quality.
(Rational) people care how many good teams you play.
The quality of teams you play is determined (in addition to OOC games) largely by the depth of quality in the conference.
Both the ACC and Big10 suffer from the same malady - severe quality dilution through expansion to include less-than-top level programs. And the ACC wasn't all that much to begin with.
(The Big12 is a marginally upgraded and glorified G5 conference)
In the expansion craze:
The ACC added (to a mediocre conference): SMU, Cal, and Stanford. Only the once-per-generation good year from SMU keeps that from being a 100% dilution. So diluted that their top 3 teams (the only ranked teams) - have not played each other even one time. More bad teams - more of the schedule for the good teams that is "meh"
The Big10 added (to a strong conference): Nebraska, Maryland, Rutgers, UCLA, USC, Oregon, and Washington. Only one of those is a ranked team (a very good ranked team) - and the two you might have reasonably expected to add quality value, but didn't, are USC and Nebraska - USC has been hot and cold for the last decade (so there remains reasonable hope)., and Nebraska hasn't been high quality in 20 years (and doesn't look to be making any progress at all at the moment). All the others just dilute quality and create a lot of lousy games for the top teams (which is why you have PSU and Indiana combining for a 19-1 record, without a single victory over a ranked team).
I think one can excuse the Big10 for adding Nebraska - given their very high level history - but the Big10 would be much, much more competitive is they had taken a hard pass on Rutgers and Maryland, and said no thanks to UCLA and Washington (even though they just had there once in a generation year last year). The quality level would have been increased both by simply not having the lousy teams, and (maybe more importantly) not having their good teams play so many games against the lousy additions.
Meanwhile, the SEC (to an already strong conference) added: TAMU, Mizzou, Texas and Oklahoma - 2 highly ranked teams, one marginal top 25, and one (recent) powerhouse that is having a down year.... with no flotsam diluting the competition.
It is not smoke and mirrors. It is considered and intentional actions to either degrade conference depth and quality, or to enhance quality.
The SEC chose the latter.
The Big 10 chose the former.
The ACC (and Big12) was kind of left without any great options.
Which will turn out better in the long run? Who knows - but my money would be on the best future belonging to the conference(s) with the highest priority on quality.
Last edited:
Latest posts
Get unlimited access today.