The NEW Anti Pac-12, Pro SEC Propaganda Has Begun!

[FishDuck Article]

Late Kick journalist Josh Pate has been very kind to Our Beloved Ducks in some of his recent videos concerning both high school and portal recruiting.  However, he just began a new campaign, a new line of reasoning of why a Pac-12 team should always be considered inferior to a SEC team…even a SEC team with a worse record! It ...

 

The NEW Anti Pac-12, Pro SEC Propaganda Has Begun!

FISHDUCK.COM

---

Late Kick journalist Josh Pate has been very kind to Our Beloved Ducks in some of his recent videos concerning both high school and portal...

[HappyToBeADuck]

Thanks for this particular article Charles because the CFP future will be here in a blink of an eye.

 

IMHO, the selection committee is already conditioned to SEC favoritism. They have placed 2 SEC teams in the final 4 before. Leaving out champs from the PAC and ACC.

That's 50% of the CFP participants!

There is no reason to believe that the 50% ratio wont continue.

 

The committee is conditioned toward the BIG, too. tOSU  has been invited even when they werent the BIG chanps. WIth the Michigan resurgence, Penn State revival and the arrival of every year, preseason nationsl champ, USC the BIG will make their case for 4 teams, too.

 

Two thoughts on this:

 

First, the blue chip ratio arguement he makes for some teams doesnt pass the litmus test. UT, USC and OU are packed with blue chips yet they have not won their own conference for a few years. They lost to teams filled with 3 star players. In fairness, Utah took down our Ducks and usc to become PAC Champs with less blue chippers on their roster. The Trojans didnt deserve a CFP invite and their loss to Tulane proved that.

 

Coaching, both in game and player development should be rewarded...

 

Second, Non SEC and BIG teams need to win those head to head games. On field results matter. Utah needs to beat Florida. Scoreboard matters to the committee. Oregon has been lacking in their chances against the SEC. Yes, they did beat tOSU in the shoe to earn a seat at the table. But CFP deserving teams don't lose to AU, ASU, CAL and OSU.

On field results matter.............

 

The main reason the CFP is expanding to 12 is for big paydays. It also quiets down the noise from the PAC, ACC, BIG12 And G5 conference. They now have 4 seats at the table. So put up or shut up......

 

It is reasonable to think the SEC, BIG and ND will hold the other 8 spots. The CFP bias is already in place with 4 and will remain in place with 12. This will remain in place until the non chosen win those head to head matchups against the chosen.

[Chuck Duck]

As much as I dislike the SEC, he is making a valid point! However, it seems like more often than not a 9-3 SEC team loses their bowl game to an inferior team.

[Jon Joseph]

Woad Blue, good take, thank you.

 

You are spot on that before the BCS the SEC had a number of championship wins but did not dominate like it does today. Then SEC Commissioner Roy Kramer sold the idea of college football 'needing one true champion' and the BCS and taking the game nationally monetized the sport to where coaches are paid $12M a year and every SEC game including Mizzou vs South Carolina is a game like no other seen in CFB.

 

If the Committee truly values SOS when the field expands, which I question, Pate could well be wrong. And is wrong about SEC conference schedules. The SEC is, like most college conferences, top-heavy. No one, even Wildcats fans, believes that Kentucky will win n SEC championship which is one reason the SEC stayed at 8 conference games. Mark Stoops needs his bowl bonus at a time when non-playoff bowl games are becoming more irrelevant. Think we saw a lot of guys sitting out bowl games before? Wait until 2024. 

 

The SEC can spin this we are the best and we do not have to play more than 8 conference games all it wants. But what Just Means More is even more money the SEC will score from the expanded playoff. And I'm sorry but playing New Mexico State in the penultimate game of the regular season at home is nowhere close to the competition between Oregon and Oregon State and the physical drain both teams face in the 9th conference game of the season, every other year on the road. 

 

The Athletics' Nicole Auerbach recently pointed out that if the Committee doesn't take the number of conference games played into account something is very wrong. Not only when it comes to the SEC but also for ACC teams playing 8 conference games, at least those which do not play Notre Dame in a given season. What Michigan graduate Nicole did not note is that yes, the B1G is staying at 9 conference games but Ohio State and Michigan will not be playing Penn State every season. As of today, these are the 3 B1G teams most likely to make the playoff.

 

The good news is that we have a 12-team 'tryout' for 2 years, 2024/25 before the current media deal with ESPN expires. At that time, if the SEC and B1G put 3 teams in the field in both seasons, The ACC, B12, and Pac conferences should consider ending shoveling money in the direction of the 2 conferences that don't need it and holding their own post-season tournament. Less money? You know it but as long as the NCAA 85 scholarship cap stays in place there will be many good high school players available who do not commit to the B1G or the SEC.

 

The BCS hosed over Oregon in 2001 and USC on at least 3 occasions often in favor of an Oklahoma team that was shredded by SEC teams. So, what did the Pac do? It agreed to the BCS X 2 and further lined the SEC's pockets. This should not happen again if there is a 'Power 5' and the Power 2 don't expand to the point where all of the big-time teams are playing in the B1G or the SEC.

 

I do not agree with Pate's take but his point will likely be proved by a Committee that will slobber all over the SEC like the baseball committee just did and the B1G like the basketball committee does year after year.

 

 

[Charles Fischer]

On 6/12/2023 at 6:19 AM, Chuck Duck said:

it seems like more often than not a 9-3 SEC team loses their bowl game to an inferior team.

Like Texas Tech beating a highly ranked Ole Miss team 42-25 in their bowl game?  Look at Happy's post; TONS of schools have high BCR, but are not the best four/eight/twelve in the nation. 

 

No reward for coaching?  For player development from a hungry 3-Star into one of the nations best? 

 

(I'm looking at YOU, LaMichael James!)

 

 

[Wrathis]

Unpopular opinion incoming: To some degree Pate is right.  I don't think we can puff our collective chests out and sing about our Blue Chip Ratio and how no one without a 50% BCR has won a playoff, while simultaneously ignoring the fact that almost half their conference (SEC) is in the Top 20 of the BCR.  IF we beat USC, Utah, Washington and Oregon St, we have one win against a top 20 BCR team, no matter if they're ranked or not.  However, if LSU beats A&M, Auburn, and Florida they now own 3 wins against top 20 BCR teams.  Granted, I'd put my money on Utah to beat Florida and Oregon State to give Auburn all they wanted, but on paper Pate is right.

 

I hate the bias as much as anyone here.  I believe Utah is a better team than Florida.  I believe we beat A&M.  I believe the Fuskies  beat Auburn.  However, that's not the way it's played out on the field is it?  Florida beat Utah, Georgia stomped us but at least those purple-clad canines beat Texas, right?  I know that's just last year and years ago Utah beat 'Bama and we beat tOSU right? That's true, but I can recall us losing to Auburn and LSU as well. The only way to defeat this bias is to beat those teams on the field, especially when it counts.

 

That means it's an uphill slog through the mire of one-way home and home games at their house and bowl games that actually mean something, ie these new playoff games. That means being better against the odds. That means winning even though they have more money from ESPN to pay coaches/assistants/analysts and yes, players as well. They've built a machine with all of the financial and media backing they could ever need, and teams like Arkansas, Ole Miss, South Carolina and Kentucky will reap the benefits while contributing NOTHING to it.

 

That being said, we can do it. We have to be craftier, the way Boise St was...and we (our conference) has to maximize every opportunity we get, and they will be few and far between.  Rome wasn't built in a day and neither was their empire, but if it's going to be defeated, it's gonna have to be blatant and on their terms.  We have an uphill battle ahead, just go ahead and get dug in now...

[Charles Fischer]

On 6/12/2023 at 6:39 AM, WoadBlue said:

Oregon needs to be figuring how to make certain that between them the Big Ten and SEC cannot nearly close out everybody else.

The Oregon Brand is strong, as we are the seventh largest global audience...even ahead of Alabama, Georgia and USC.  We will fine where ever we end up...

 

 

On 6/12/2023 at 6:39 AM, WoadBlue said:

Worrying about SEC and Big Ten bought and paid for propaganda is a waste of time. 

You should, of all teams.  Don't think that tactic won't be used against the ACC teams like yours who do not have a high BCR?  It is the new narrative to put other conferences down, and North Carolina is in a much more vulnerable position than Oregon is.  Our brand is strong...

[Charles Fischer]

On 6/12/2023 at 9:20 AM, Wrathis said:

We have an uphill battle ahead, just go ahead and get dug in now...

Dan Lanning is successfully fighting that uphill battle, and I believe will deliver us to the promised land.

 

If Pate is right...then this means that the value of a team should be based entirely on ONE element; their recruiting.  How has that done for USC for 20 years?

 

No accounting for coaching?

No accounting for player development?

 

Don't get sucked into his nonsense....

[Wrathis]

On 6/12/2023 at 11:28 AM, Charles Fischer said:

No accounting for coaching?

No accounting for player development?

If SoS and record is the determining factor for playoff spots, then as you've aptly pointed out, BCR is an easily definable metric...and one with easily seen results.  This has been made abundantly clear in previous articles written and posted here. Accounting for coaching and player development is definable, albeit a bit less clearly. This is not to say anything poor about OBD, as we check the boxes (Ty Thompson, Justin Flowe etc notwithstanding). 

 

The question being, are Kalen DeBoer, Jonathon Smith and Kyle Wittingham definitively better than Sark, Freeze and Josh Heupel?  Do the mid to upper PAC Schools develop talent better than mid to upper SEC schools?

 

That being said, is a win over Oregon State better than a win over Auburn? Maybe more to the point, will a win over Texas Tech be better than a win over Texas?! Both will likely be ranked but 'Bama will be given the kudos b/c of the perception of Texas being better than Tech.  Are they though?  Last years results might beg to differ from the accepted narrative...Will it matter?  Probably not b/c Texas is a BlueBlood and has a BCR greater even than ours. That would make 'Bama's perceived win over them better than our (hopeful) win over Tech...even if Tech goes on to beat Texas again this season.

 

That doesn't make this right, it just makes it reality...and that's why I stated "we have an uphill battle ahead, just go ahead and get dug in now..."

[Steven A]

Another issue that we are always facing is based on the preseason polls.

 

Let's say 6 SEC teams in the top 20 (who have earned NOTHING yet butt media darlingship) and then those teams "cannibalize" each other, may still end up in the top 20 because they only lost to "top" 20 teams.

 

So yes, Pate's premise is off due to rankings based upon recruiting and also preseason bias.

 

 

[DUCati855]

On 6/12/2023 at 9:27 AM, cartm25 said:

My biggest issue with Pate's take is that he's hyper-focused on one factor (talent) while ignoring all the other factors listed above.

That is my only issue with Pate's opinion. He needs to recognize that talent alone does not make a TEAM. If it did USC and Texas would always be contenders. Yet, they rarely are. 

 

 

[Wrathis]

On 6/12/2023 at 12:10 PM, DUCati855 said:

If it did USC and Texas would always be contenders. Yet, they rarely are. 

Don't forget to add that A&M would have at least made the playoff by now...

[Jon Joseph]

On 6/12/2023 at 12:27 PM, cartm25 said:

As I thought about what Pate said, I understand the point he's trying to make even if the example wasn't the best.

 

First, a 7-5 SEC team may as well crawl in a hole . . . you have no place in the CFP. I don't care what your Blue Chip Ratio is. Either you haven't maximized that talent yet, or the players you recruited were grossly overrated, or you're poorly coached . . . or just crawl in a hole and try again next season.

 

A small dig at Pate is required:  An LSU team with 3-point losses to Alabama and Texas would be 10-2 . . . not 9-3.

 

I find it helpful to look at extreme scenarios to hone in on making a point.

 

Let's take the opposite scenario that Pate is presenting. I think most of us would agree that a 12-0 UTSA team should not be included in the CFP. Now, I fully understand that UTSA is a G5 team, but the point I'm making in using this "silly/extreme" example is that I think all of us, to some degree, understand that there are limitations in relying solely on a W/L record to identify the best teams.

 

Factors to determine the best teams should include (but not be limited to): record, conference performance, strength of schedule, season trajectory/development/improvement (e.g. rocky start, but came together in the end; development), injuries, etc.

 

Now let's go back to Pate's example, a 9-3 LSU team with close losses to SEC elite compared to an 11-1 Oregon State team? I fully acknowledge the SEC is a class (or two) above the Pac-12 as a conference, so how about a tiered approach?

 

SEC teams: 3 strikes and you're out -------- Pac-12 teams: 2 strikes and you're out

 

If you're an SEC team with 3 losses, you've shown you couldn't beat 3 of your peers who are likely going to be in the CFP, so you lost your chance.

 

My biggest issue with Pate's take is that he's hyper-focused on one factor (talent) while ignoring all the other factors listed above.

Terrific take. 

 

A 12-0 Cincinnati did make the playoff as an AAC member and UTSA is now an AAC team. I think a 12-0 AAC member would at least have a shot at the Final 4 and if we had a 12-team field in 2022 both CUSA champ UTSA and Sun Belt champ Troy would have been in the field.

 

I don't see OR ST going 11-1 without the opportunity to win the Pac title and finishing 12-1. As SEC oriented as the playoff committee is it will not take a 9-3 or 10-2 LSU that did not win the SEC over a 12-1 Pac conference champion. 

 

In the 4 team playoff to date, it has been 2 strikes and you are out for every conference. No school with 2 losses has made the Final Four but this will obviously change when the field goes to 12 teams. With the top 6 conference champs in the field, I expect we'll see a G5 champ with 3 or even 4 losses in the field. Why it will be imperative for the at large teams to be seeded 5 through 8 and have the attendant home game. If the committee doesn't value such things as playing 9 instead of 8 conference games the SEC will place 3 teams in the field season after season.

 

As to BCR mattering over a team's record? Come On Man! Texas has had the best roster in the B12 for years. How many playoffs has TX been to? ZERO. What difference does your roster make compared to on-field results when it comes to receiving a playoff invitation? Cincinnati and TCU both made the playoff field. Neither with a BCR.

 

If the committee follows Pete's take, the playoff will be over come 2026. BTW, does the quality of the roster have anything to do with the NFL playoff? NO. But of course, the NFL playoff is, although oriented to divisions, dependent upon wins and losses. If the 12-team playoff is rigged based on roster strength simply give the SEC champ a Natty. There will be upsets in the 12-team field. The Pats undefeated in the regular season lost to a far lesser NY Giants team in the Super Bowl

 

I hope this guy's take is as bogus as the report of Pat McAfee being paid $17M a year. If not, come 2026 let the SEC hold its own playoff.

[Jon Joseph]

On 6/12/2023 at 12:58 PM, Steven A said:

Another issue that we are always facing is based on the preseason polls.

 

Let's say 6 SEC teams in the top 20 (who have earned NOTHING yet butt media darlingship) and then those teams "cannibalize" each other, may still end up in the top 20 because they only lost to "top" 20 teams.

 

So yes, Pate's premise is off due to rankings based upon recruiting and also preseason bias.

 

 

Yes, the bugaboo of preseason polls but unfortunately the pesky 1st Amendment and $ means said polls will not go away.

 

Last season the Pac finished with the same # of top 25 regular season ranked by the playoff committee as did the SEC with 6. This season at least 5 and perhaps 6 Pac-12 teams will be ranked in the AP preseason Top 25 and will play 1 more conference game than the SEC.

 

The Pac has more of a chance to cannibalize itself in 2023 than does the SEC. Georgia doesn't play a team with a chance to beat it before tripping to TN in November. It will be different in the SEC W no doubt, with Bama and LSU and the other 5 SEC W teams are not layups. 

 

I expect UGA will go 12-0 and LSU and Bama 11-1 in the regular season with LSU winning in Tuscaloosa to rematch against UGA in the title game where UGA will prevail.

 

Unfortunately, FWIW, I do not see any Pac-12 team finishing with fewer than 2 losses. 

[Jon Joseph]

On 6/12/2023 at 12:58 PM, Wrathis said:

If SoS and record is the determining factor for playoff spots, then as you've aptly pointed out, BCR is an easily definable metric...and one with easily seen results.  This has been made abundantly clear in previous articles written and posted here. Accounting for coaching and player development is definable, albeit a bit less clearly. This is not to say anything poor about OBD, as we check the boxes (Ty Thompson, Justin Flowe etc notwithstanding). 

 

The question being, are Kalen DeBoer, Jonathon Smith and Kyle Wittingham definitively better than Sark, Freeze and Josh Heupel?  Do the mid to upper PAC Schools develop talent better than mid to upper SEC schools?

 

That being said, is a win over Oregon State better than a win over Auburn? Maybe more to the point, will a win over Texas Tech be better than a win over Texas?! Both will likely be ranked but 'Bama will be given the kudos b/c of the perception of Texas being better than Tech.  Are they though?  Last years results might beg to differ from the accepted narrative...Will it matter?  Probably not b/c Texas is a BlueBlood and has a BCR greater even than ours. That would make 'Bama's perceived win over them better than our (hopeful) win over Tech...even if Tech goes on to beat Texas again this season.

 

That doesn't make this right, it just makes it reality...and that's why I stated "we have an uphill battle ahead, just go ahead and get dug in now..."

Great take, But when you bring in better talent development is less important. On your list, I give J Smith the #1 ranking as being the best at coaching guys up. Then, I'd have Whit #2.

 

Sark? When has Sark ever coached guys up? UT's performance season after season despite its roster ranking is embarrassing. The 2022 UT team was more up and down than a yo-yo and lost to many teams with a far lesser roster ranking. Recruiting is a big part of the game, from both high school and the portal but one of the hardest words in the dictionary to live up to is 'potential.' 

[Wrathis]

On 6/12/2023 at 1:06 PM, Jon Joseph said:

Sark? When has Sark ever coached guys up? UT's performance season after season despite its roster ranking is embarrassing. The 2022 UT team was more up and down than a yo-yo and lost to many teams with a far lesser roster ranking. Recruiting is a big part of the game, from both high school and the portal but one of the hardest words in the dictionary to live up to is 'potential.'

I 100% agree with you on this. Texas benefits from their Blue Blood status and constant influx of talent. I intentionally put Sark in the equation b/c what we're dealing with isn't 100% in absolutes, but in degrees.  If 'Bama beats Texas, it will be considered a more "quality win" than us beating Tech...even though last season Tech beat Texas and did so with a lesser roster.  

 

On average though, the SEC will have more talented rosters and as such will have beaten more quality teams, which translate to the perception of quality wins. That's why beating Auburn carries more weight than beating Oregon State, even though I'm convinced the Beavs are a better (coached) team.  This is also why it's so important for Utah to beat Florida...because that lends merit to the fact that it's not all about BCR (even though we harp about it b/c we have a blue chip roster).

 

Simply put, BCR is only part of the equation but it's the easily definable part of it...add to that the big media money that have a vested interest in promoting their own product, it makes a very tough hill for us out west to climb.

[2002duck]

On 6/12/2023 at 6:19 AM, Chuck Duck said:

a 9-3 SEC team loses their bowl game

Well, there is something to be said about the motivation in a bowl game for a 9-3 team in a powerhouse conference.

 

Three losses is pretty steep. I'd call that a failed season, and that goes for the Ducks in whatever conference they are playing in- unless they have a first year head coaching situation on their hands.

[spartan2785]

On 6/12/2023 at 12:12 PM, Wrathis said:

 

 

On average though, the SEC will have more talented rosters and as such will have beaten more quality teams, which translate to the perception of quality wins. That's why beating Auburn carries more weight than beating Oregon State, even though I'm convinced the Beavs are a better (coached) team.  This is also why it's so important for Utah to beat Florida...because that lends merit to the fact that it's not all about BCR (even though we harp about it b/c we have a blue chip roster).

 

Simply put, BCR is only part of the equation but it's the easily definable part of it...add to that the big media money that have a vested interest in promoting their own product, it makes a very tough hill for us out west to climb.

This is why we should always be rooting for the Pac, even UW and OSU, we have to start getting the public to respect this conference if we are going to ever get the benefit of the doubt.  Honestly the conference is more fun when multiple programs are doing well, yes we may lose a game or two more, but the wins are sweeter, and the rewards greater usually.  

[Annie]

On 6/12/2023 at 9:58 AM, Steven A said:

Another issue that we are always facing is based on the preseason polls.

 

Let's say 6 SEC teams in the top 20 (who have earned NOTHING yet butt media darlingship) and then those teams "cannibalize" each other, may still end up in the top 20 because they only lost to "top" 20 teams.

 

So yes, Pate's premise is off due to rankings based upon recruiting and also preseason bias.

 

 

And this is why I want to scream when I hear people say that the rankings at the beginning of the year don't matter, that it's only at the end of the year. But where a team is ranked at the end of the year, as you  point out, can be determined by how it and its opponents are ranked at the beginning of the year.

[spartan2785]

On 6/12/2023 at 1:40 PM, Annie said:

And this is why I want to scream when I hear people say that the rankings at the beginning of the year don't matter, that it's only at the end of the year. But where a team is ranked at the end of the year, as you  point out, can be determined by how it and its opponents are ranked at the beginning of the year.

It's how the SEC has been able to dominate the narrative, nobody cares if a team ends up at 6-6 when they started in the top 15, those teams that beat them on the way to that 6-6 record get to usually say they beat a top 25 team, then at the end of the season they'll say that they beat 8 top 25 teams, yet only 4 or them are actually worth of that title.  I see this as more of a problem with the teams in the middle, Ole Miss, Miss St., Florida, etc.

 

There have been seasons where the SEC has bombed in the bowl games, but nobody ever mentions this, but when they have a good year they'll use that to say, "well there you go, by FAR the best conference!".  Then the next year it never seems to affect the rankings unless they had a good bowl game.  

 

Pre-season rankings are a joke, they shouldn't be allowed until at least 4 weeks into the season.  

[Annie]

On 6/12/2023 at 3:16 PM, spartan2785 said:

...

 

Pre-season rankings are a joke, they shouldn't be allowed until at least 4 weeks into the season.  

I agree!

[Jon Joseph]

On 6/12/2023 at 3:44 PM, 2002duck said:

Well, there is something to be said about the motivation in a bowl game for a 9-3 team in a powerhouse conference.

 

Three losses is pretty steep. I'd call that a failed season, and that goes for the Ducks in whatever conference they are playing in- unless they have a first year head coaching situation on their hands.

I am so sick of SEC teams that lose bowl games blaming the loss on the SEC team not caring about the result because the game was meaningless.

 

Horse manure!

 

Edited June 13, 2023 by Jon Joseph

[Jon Joseph]

On 6/12/2023 at 4:40 PM, Annie said:

And this is why I want to scream when I hear people say that the rankings at the beginning of the year don't matter, that it's only at the end of the year. But where a team is ranked at the end of the year, as you  point out, can be determined by how it and its opponents are ranked at the beginning of the year.

And roster strength at year-end does not matter at all compared to a team's record.

[Jon Joseph]

On 6/12/2023 at 3:12 PM, Wrathis said:

I 100% agree with you on this. Texas benefits from their Blue Blood status and constant influx of talent. I intentionally put Sark in the equation b/c what we're dealing with isn't 100% in absolutes, but in degrees.  If 'Bama beats Texas, it will be considered a more "quality win" than us beating Tech...even though last season Tech beat Texas and did so with a lesser roster.  

 

On average though, the SEC will have more talented rosters and as such will have beaten more quality teams, which translate to the perception of quality wins. That's why beating Auburn carries more weight than beating Oregon State, even though I'm convinced the Beavs are a better (coached) team.  This is also why it's so important for Utah to beat Florida...because that lends merit to the fact that it's not all about BCR (even though we harp about it b/c we have a blue chip roster).

 

Simply put, BCR is only part of the equation but it's the easily definable part of it...add to that the big media money that have a vested interest in promoting their own product, it makes a very tough hill for us out west to climb.

If Texas has Blue Blood based on results since the beginning of the BCS and BCS X 2,  then so do many of the teams with similar results. Oregon and UW have made the 4 team playoff field. Texas?

 

Texas is Blue Blood only in the mind of UT boosters and fans.

[Wrathis]

On 6/12/2023 at 8:53 PM, Jon Joseph said:

If Texas has Blue Blood based on results since the beginning of the BCS and BCS X 2,  then so do many of the teams with similar results.

I wish this were true, I really do...I've had the blue-blood argument more times than I can count. There are benefits associated with having earned that status that aren't necessarily deserved. One of those is the benefit of the doubt...we see this annually with Texas, Notre Dame and USC starting the season ranked, giving them a leg up that they don't deserve. What sucks is that we don't have it even though for almost the last 20 years we've been better than those teams. What's interesting though is that it seems that teams can lose that status. Minnesota, Georgia Tech and Nebraska are 3 that immediately come to mind...

 

So while everyone seems to define it differently, below is the definition I use that seems to resonate with most rational people that are talking about a "blue-blood" of college football...and until we work our way into that conversation, we won't garner the respect or benefits (deserved or otherwise) that we think we've earned.

 

College Football Blue-blood - A team that has won multiple national titles under different head coaches.

     *Once attained, there is a certain amount of annual financial investment and recruiting prowess that must be consistent year over year for this status to be maintained.*

Edited June 13, 2023 by Wrathis

[1Funduck]

I fully understand that Elite Players, 4* and up is indicative of a high quality team. I'm also clearly aware that it takes an avalanche of Elite Players to play in the playoffs and make 'That Run'.

 

However, I'm left wondering, yes Pate said Oregon State, if Oregon State isn't deserving of that entry card if the have a 11-1 season over an SEC team with a 9-3 season?

 

Glad Pate brought this up. Florida had 45 'Elite' recruits sign with them over the last 4 years. Oregon State?????? 0-!!! Yep, thats right....$0-!!!!

 

December 17th of 2022 was a beautiful glimpse into your 'Perceived' roster still has to show up. Your 'Players' may be 'Elite' but your team is trash. 

 

30-3....Scoreboard!!

 

That score truly did not even share the true story. That game was a bottom beating. Top to Bottom....beating!

 

45 elite players to ZERO elite players. 

 

So, tell me, does the SEC need to be coddled for a gauntlet of games?

 

I have a different take on that. Your conference record is your play in season. Think of it as a field of 32. The best in the conference play each other to 'Prove' their worthiness of a playoff bid. The B1G proves it with their conference playoff, So does the PAC. 

 

It's pure garbage that you need 12 teams toms in a playoff. Really? That would mean there is a path to 3 teams from 1 conference playing in the playoffs? Whats the Conference Championship game for then? The NFL, doesn't have a conference championship game to enter the playoffs. The Con Terence Championahip Game IS a PART of the Playoffs!!!

 

Win Your Division and that's your ticket into the playoffs. Sure, you have wildcards, but, win your division and you're in. It's sickening that opinions bring teams to the playoffs and not 'ScoreBoards'. What's the point in playing the games if a group of people say those games don't matter? Why do you play...at all?

 

SCOREBOARD......30-3

 

[Wrathis]

On 6/13/2023 at 8:23 PM, 1Funduck said:

It's pure garbage that you need 12 teams toms in a playoff. Really? That would mean there is a path to 3 teams from 1 conference playing in the playoffs? Whats the Conference Championship game for then? The NFL, doesn't have a conference championship game to enter the playoffs. The Con Terence Championahip Game IS a PART of the Playoffs!!!

Well stated. In moving to a 12 team playoff they've shown their hand, and we've all been awakened to what's wagging the dog...MONEY.  A six team playoff was all that was needed, each power 5 champion and one group of 5...however, that leaves at least 1 SEC/B1G team out in the cold and with Georgia's rise over 'Bama and Michigan rising up over tOSU, we can't have Saban and Ryan Day sitting at home now can we?!

 

Understand, this wasn't about finding a true champion or even parity (although it's been sold that way), it's about dollars pure and simple...and it's ruining the sport we love

[LuckeyDuck]

The selection committee might consider that some of us stop watching the games, when our team, (Who else ?) is no longer in contention.

I'll watch if the Pac has a team in the mix as well but once that's gone, I wont go out of my way to sit in front of the screen. I'll hear about it ...

[Jon Joseph]

On 6/14/2023 at 9:59 AM, LuckeyDuck said:

The selection committee might consider that some of us stop watching the games, when our team, (Who else ?) is no longer in contention.

I'll watch if the Pac has a team in the mix as well but once that's gone, I wont go out of my way to sit in front of the screen. I'll hear about it ...

Why the field is now at 12 and may well go to 16 come 2026? The powers that be even in the SEC know that the playoff has to draw far more national interest. Especially with the playoff media deal with ESPN coming to an end after the 2025 season.

[Jon Joseph]

On 6/14/2023 at 9:26 AM, Wrathis said:

Well stated. In moving to a 12 team playoff they've shown their hand, and we've all been awakened to what's wagging the dog...MONEY.  A six team playoff was all that was needed, each power 5 champion and one group of 5...however, that leaves at least 1 SEC/B1G team out in the cold and with Georgia's rise over 'Bama and Michigan rising up over tOSU, we can't have Saban and Ryan Day sitting at home now can we?!

 

Understand, this wasn't about finding a true champion or even parity (although it's been sold that way), it's about dollars pure and simple...and it's ruining the sport we love

Great and spot-on take but the old bowl days were gone when the BCS showed up. More money for athletic departments that spent it on facilities and coaching salaries with the players' now getting a piece of the pie.

 

A 12-team field will dwarf the number of relatively few who watched UGA destroy TCU last season.

 

In my mind, the question for the B1G and the SEC come 2026 is whether we would make more money expanding to 20 to 24 teams each and conducting our own playoff shown only on our respective networks or pay for view streamed. 

[Jon Joseph]

No sport in the world limits its playoff field to 3% of the contenders based on regular season results. How often do number one pro and college seeds win titles? The Bruins set a record for regular season points and lost in the first round of the Stanley Cup.  Oregon as a big-time underdog just traveled to Nashville and won the regional over highly ranked home team Vanderbilt. Oregon would not have been in the mix in a four-team field.

 

Come 2024 we will see 1st round upsets of teams ranked 5-8 and playing at home. And we certainly will see 2nd round upsets in round 2 when the highest-seeded 4 conference champions are likely to be dogs against lower-seeded but better teams. If I have a beef with the 2024/25 playoff model it is with the top 4 ranked conference champs receiving 1st round byes instead of the top 4 seeded teams. The second beef is Notre Dame being playoff qualified with only playing 12 regular season games.

 

The expanded playoff will IMO, certainly be more fun than the one-off BCS and the BCS x 2. And will draw far more eyeballs.