AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!
Cue the SEC fans
- Thread starter Buffnik
- Start date
No way an sec team gets in unless somebody falls up top. I expect Kstate and Oregon to finish, I think ND goes down to $c.
Notre Dame's schedule turned out to be easier than expected. Still very good. Michigan looks like they've made it back into the Top 25, Stanford's right on the edge of the Top 10, and then you've got road wins against Oklahoma and hypothetically USC. Nothing to be ashamed of.
What I'm wondering is if ND will jump to 2 if those three teams all finish undefeated. It wouldn't shock me if they did, shouldn't happen but it might. Espn dude says it won't. Hopefully USC kicks their butt so we won't have to find out.
I was referring to Duff's post knocking 77.
I'm actually more interested in the special consideration that the Domers are going to be trying to get. I heard one ND guy asking a BCS analyst why ND is sitting at 3rd, the analyst said because voters have them 3rd and that won't change unless the top two lose. The ND guy said that maybe their name could push them ahead, the analyst said he highly doubted it and that he like many others would love to see a 5 minute Lou Holtz rant on ESPN.
Let me spell it out for you since neither of seem to grasp what I was saying - the upper half of the conference is still very strong. 6 SEC teams are ranked in the top 15 of the BCS standings, that's 43% of the conference. No other conference comes close to that. And when today's rankings come out the SEC is going to have half of the top 12 teams in the BCS rankings.
And let me spell it out for you, since you don't seem to grasp why we're laughing at your statement. Ranking only the top half of a conference is pretty much the opposite of "depth". It just means the top half of the conference is strong, which may be a more defendable, and accurate assertion.
At the end of the day, 'Bama lost to a team that couldn't gain traction in the Big 12 for the last 14 years. They lost at home. I think the SEC has been the best football conference for about a decade--but I also agree with others that the gap isn't as great as many SEC fans like to think it is.
I think that's the issue I have been trying to highlight in this thread though. When you have a 14-team conference playing only eight conference games per team, teams like Alabama and Georgia can avoid tougher teams in the conference and sail through mostly unscathed. The inter-divisional games are mostly gone, so the very top teams can mostly avoid each other while getting to beat up on the very bad teams in the conference. Of the elite teams in the SEC, it appears LSU drew the short straw and pretty much had to play everyone. Seriously, go through the resumes of the elite teams in the SEC and you do not find many "signature" wins.
Unless Oregon steps on their dick, I don't think anybody hangs with them. The amount of speed they have is crazy. You get out of position one bit, it's to the house. Their D isn't great but they score so damn much, it doesn't have to be. If they get solid play on D, they are a tough out.
OK the strength of the upper half of the conference. But feel free to twist those words any way you'd like.
As for A&M being irrelevant over the past decade or so, what the hell does that have to do with anything? They're good this year, that's what matters. How relevant has KSU or ND been over the past decade before this season?
yeah, but even after an asswhooping over kentucky, you're still gonna be beat up cause those dudes are so much stronger than the rest of the country. :rolling_eyes:
First part. Jesus, sorry. Relax. You're really, really sensitive. We're not laughing at you, we're laughing because of you.
Agree on the second part. It doesn't matter, but somehow is supports our (local) collective world view that the SEC isn't quite the big, bad conference that folks from that part of the world like to believe. So, while technically it's irrelevant, don't you think it heightens the story on some level?
Fair point but it's also a team-by-team basis. UGA by far got the easiest draw and they won the East division for the 2nd year in a row not necessarily because they're a better team than South Carolina, but because they have the more favorable schedule. The SEC definitely needs to go to a 9-game conference schedule.
They're resistant for an obvious reason: That's 14 extra losses for the conference every year and this will hurt them in the rankings as well as in bowl placements.
Look at what the 9-game conference slate has done to Pac-12 teams this year. USC, UCLA, Oregon State, Washington, Arizona and Arizona State are all considered very good teams nationally if they weren't beating up on each other in conference games. At the end of the year, the Pac-12 will have 12 extra losses when compared with the SEC.
Not sure how the argument of a 9-game Pac-12 schedule can be used as an argument when they've only played 7 games so far. :huh: USC was been a big underachiever so far this year and those other teams you listed, while all pretty good teams, are nowhere close to being elite teams.
Because at the end of the year they will have extra losses. It's unavoidable. While Florida's playing UL-Lafayette this week, Oregon State is playing Stanford.
UCLA and Oregon State are nowhere near elite teams... do you consider South Carolina and Texas A&M elite?
Yes they are elite teams. They play in the SEC. Unfortunately, most of the nation won't understand how elite they are, because the SEC teams are so good they beat up on each other in conference play. This does not happen in other conferences.
Elite no, but I' put them on the next level (top 15).
That's fair.
What I wish for is that CU would be relevany in any of these conversations.
somebody
Well-Known Member
I completely understood what you were saying, hence the :rofl:. The only thing funnier than cherry picking teams and calling out their depth is attempting to defend it. :rofl2:
CU can't even spell relevant.
KSU won the Big XII in 2000 and 2003.
Edit: They also went to the Cotton Bowl last year. They got beat, but they still did very well as a conference team last year.
Last edited:
ACC did it to themselves. Florida State, Miami, Clemson and North Carolina should be elite with the way they recruit every year. Miami and UNC self-destructed.
Edit: I left out VA Tech. No explanation for that.