No disrespect

[hatvol96]

Originally posted by OldVol@Jul 12, 2005 3:24 PM
Just a look at the SEC vs. the Pac-10

Most folks just take for granted that the 05 version of an undefeated USC should automatically be ranked #1.

The hard facts are they play in a mediocre conference that has lagged far, far, far behind the SEC for decades. I see no reason for it to change now.

The SEC has winning records all-time against every major conference in the land.

But I wouldn't want anything like the facts to get in the way of some of these seasoned experts.   

From 1990-2004 the SEC has had 71 teams ranked in the top 25 of the ap poll to a measley 41 for the Pac 10.

The SEC leads, no crushes them in every category.

[snapback]112911[/snapback]​

Yeah, and Nebraska and Washington were powers in 1994. What do polls from 10+ years ago have to do with evaluating individual teams in 2005?

 

[OldVol]

Originally posted by hatvol96@Jul 12, 2005 3:41 PM
Yeah, and Nebraska and Washington were powers in 1994. What do polls from 10+ years ago have to do with evaluating individual teams in 2005?

[snapback]112915[/snapback]​

Glad you asked.

In the realm of statistical probability a quantum that maintains over a protractive period of time is most likely to repeat itself in the near future.

Now you know what the 15 year chart, and studies that engulf all-time records have to do with projecting future results.

See; we learn something new every day.

 

[hatvol96]

Originally posted by OldVol@Jul 12, 2005 4:34 PM
Glad you asked.

In the realm of statistical probability a quantum that maintains over a protractive period of time is most likely to repeat itself in the near future.

Now you know what the 15 year chart, and studies that engulf all-time records have to do with projecting future results.

See; we learn something new every day.

[snapback]112938[/snapback]​

Gee, Professor. Can we then expect the return to power of Army, Navy, and the University of Chicago? They all have lofty all-time records.

 

[milohimself]

Gee OldVol, I guess since the SEC is so strong then every team in it should be automatically entitled to an elite status above and beyond all other teams in the land.

Face facts; Auburn did not perform strong enough in the eyes of the people who decides who played in the national championship. They get no share of the national title. Tough luck, come back next season.

As much as you hate it, SEC teams have to play by the same rules as everybody else and get voted in to national title games.

 

[U-T]

Originally posted by milohimself@Jul 12, 2005 10:02 PM
Face facts; Auburn did not perform strong enough in the eyes of the people who decides who played in the national championship. They get no share of the national title. Tough luck, come back next season.

Weird, USC fans said the same thing as Auburn fans before last year....funny how no one remembers that.

2003 USC fans: BCS is BS!!!!!! Leinart wears the BCS sucks T-Shirt and all of that nonsense

2004 USC fans: Auburn should shut up. The BCS worked the way it should have worked

 

[milohimself]

I'm not even a USC fan. I actually didn't even watch that much college ball in '03.

Either way, yes, the BCS is BS. But it works the way it does right now, and everybody's just going to have to live with it until it's changed. Which hopefully will be very soon.

 

[GAVol]

The BCS may suck, but it's no worse than any other system that's ever been used. I think Penn State has been undefeated and locked out of the MNC 2 or 3 times. It's just a fact of life.

 

[OldVol]

Originally posted by milohimself@Jul 12, 2005 10:02 PM
Gee OldVol, I guess since the SEC is so strong then every team in it should be automatically entitled to an elite status above and beyond all other teams in the land.

Face facts; Auburn did not perform strong enough in the eyes of the people who decides who played in the national championship. They get no share of the national title. Tough luck, come back next season.

As much as you hate it, SEC teams have to play by the same rules as everybody else and get voted in to national title games.

[snapback]113041[/snapback]​

Wrong again, my young friend.

Auburn did NOT get to play by the same rules as Oklahoma and USC.

They were ranked high preseason. Now, what should preseason polls have to do with who plays in the NC? Absolutely nothing.

There's no doubt, that had there been no voting or preseason rankings until October that Auburn, with it's superior conference schedule, would have been ranked ahead of Oklahoma.

That, "Tough luck, come back next season" mentality is awfully cavalier when you're talking about the labor that goes into an entire football season.

 

[OldVol]

Originally posted by milohimself@Jul 12, 2005 10:27 PM
I'm not even a USC fan. I actually didn't even watch that much college ball in '03.

Either way, yes, the BCS is BS. But it works the way it does right now, and everybody's just going to have to live with it until it's changed. Which hopefully will be very soon.

[snapback]113062[/snapback]​

Which brings up a positive point.

MILO and OLVOL agree on something.

Also; news out just yesterday that the Harris poll will not use any preseason rankings. The Harris poll, which is the new partner replacing the AP, will only begin ranking in mid-September.

That's supremely more fair than basing anything on rankings that happen before a single down has been played.

 

[kiddiedoc]

Are you boys still at it? We need to get you fellas an XBox Live and let you duke it out on the field! Milo can be USC and OldVol can be Auburn. Freak could even set up a pool! It'll be great. . . .what do you say?

 

[OldVol]

Originally posted by hatvol96@Jul 12, 2005 5:23 PM
Gee, Professor. Can we then expect the return to power of Army, Navy, and the University of Chicago? They all have lofty all-time records.

[snapback]112960[/snapback]​

Nah! Army and Navy have had a 40 year bad run that messes up their numbers.

The power teams in the SEC have not had such a run.

The all-time leaders in Win % from the SEC are:

Bama #5 Listen, don't even start with Bama being down now. That just shows how young some of you are and how little you know about football. Bama won a NC in 92, so get off their backs. That's more than some other powerhouses often quoted around here have done. You know, teams like Texas, Notre Dame, Penn St., Virginia Tech, Georgia, Iowa, California.

So Bama is still an elite team and is simply suffering from probation. They will be back

#8 all time is the Big Orange
#12 is Georgia
#16 is LSU
#17 is Auburn
#19 is Florida

Wow! that's 6 SEC teams in the top 20.

The next closest conference is the Big 12 with 4 in the top 20, which is a rather late comer since Texas is one of the 4 and only joined the Big 12 in 96.

The Pac-10 only has 3: and their best is USC at 9 then Washington at 15 and ASU at 18.

So I think 6 teams top 20 all time are proof positive that no one compares to the SEC.

Oh, and guess what youngsters? Those same 6 teams are in almost everyone's top 25 for 05.

Imagine that! Greatness that endures.

 

[OldVol]

Originally posted by kiddiedoc@Jul 13, 2005 10:46 AM
Are you boys still at it?  We need to get you fellas an XBox Live and let you duke it out on the field!  Milo can be USC and OldVol can be Auburn.  Freak could even set up a pool!  It'll be great. . . .what do you say?

[snapback]113152[/snapback]​

I'm 52 and Milo's 17 and you expect me to accept an Xbox challenge.

Besides, I'm a playstation kind of guy, and only barely that. :laugh1:

 

[UTVolsFan28]

I don't mind seeing the Vols ranked high(ask Auburn what it's like to start low and never get a chance). I do think IMHO, with the new Harris deal it could prove to be a good thing for the Vols. IF, the Vols are 4-0 when the poll comes out and they are still undefeated when the 1st BCS poll comes out who's to say that Tennessee would not be at the #1 spot because of the schedule? I mean have you seen USC's? I know people say #1 has to lose to be knocked out of the top spot, but for the #2 team to have 2 wins over top 5-6 teams and USC not to have a win over a top 15 team.......makes a guy wonder....It COULD happen IMO. :rocks:

 

[milohimself]

Heh, we did agree on one thing. It's improvement!

And kiddie, you gotta know that I would take OldVol out. It's nothing personal, the man just didn't grow up with any game decks.

However, I always find our debates interesting and I'd like to continue...

Originally posted by OldVol@Jul 13, 2005 8:38 AM
Wrong again, my young friend.

Auburn did NOT get to play by the same rules as Oklahoma and USC.

They were ranked high preseason. Now, what should preseason polls have to do with who plays in the NC? Absolutely nothing.

There's no doubt, that had there been no voting or preseason rankings until October that Auburn, with it's superior conference schedule, would have been ranked ahead of Oklahoma.

That, "Tough luck, come back next season" mentality is awfully cavalier when you're talking about the labor that goes into an entire football season.

[snapback]113149[/snapback]​

Don't be so sure. Oklahoma played four ranked opponnents during their schedule, same as Auburn. Then you also have Oregon and Bowling Green in the offseason schedule. Oregon may have fallen flat again, but I can guarantee you a win over a 5-6 BCS team is a whole lot better than a win over any D-IAA team. Bowling Green also pulled of an impressive 9-3 season. I simply see now way that anybody can call Auburn's schedule far superior to Oklahoma's.

USC, I believe is more debatable. I will admit, their ranking all season was basically "If they are already number one, there is no reason to take them down if they keep winning." However; They did end up playing three ranked teams and one more should-have-been ranked team. So, even while playing in the Pac-10, USC's schedule wasn't even that much worse than Auburn's.

- Auburn had four ranked opponnents (I'll count Tennessee twice here to be fair) and USC had three ranked opponnents and one more that was essentially 26th.

- Both teams had a number of gimmes. USC played Colorado State, BYU, Washington and Arizona. Auburn played Louisiana Monroe, The Citadel, Louisiana Tech and Kentucky. I'm even inclined to call Miss St. from last season a gimme.

While USC plays in the Pac-10, which is somewhat weaker than the SEC (But not by as much as you think, bub), the addition of teams like Virginia Tech and Notre Dame in the schedule made USC's schedule comparable to Auburn's.

 

[OldVol]

Originally posted by UTVolsFan28@Jul 13, 2005 11:13 AM
I don't mind seeing the Vols ranked high(ask Auburn what it's like to start low and never get a chance).  I do think IMHO, with the new Harris deal it could prove to be a good thing for the Vols.  IF, the Vols are 4-0 when the poll comes out and they are still undefeated when the 1st BCS poll comes out who's to say that Tennessee would not be at the #1 spot because of the schedule?  I mean have you seen USC's? I know people say #1 has to lose to be knocked out of the top spot, but for the #2 team to have 2 wins over top 5-6 teams and USC not to have a win over a top 15 team.......makes a guy wonder....It COULD happen  IMO. :rocks:

[snapback]113156[/snapback]​

In all fairness, if UT had wins over 2 top 10 teams and anyone else was ranked ahead of them with lesser results, then it would be the usual travesty for anyone to be ahead of them. And the same would go for anyone who had those results, if it were us, LSU, Michigan or whoever.

The time has come to stop judging a team based on what it did last season. Every team has changes each year that can affect it drastically.

USC may just find that Norm Chow has his reputation for a reason.

 

[milohimself]

Originally posted by OldVol@Jul 13, 2005 10:38 AM
In all fairness, if UT had wins over 2 top 10 teams and anyone else was ranked ahead of them with lesser results, then it would be the usual travesty for anyone to be ahead of them. And the same would go for anyone who had those results, if it were us, LSU, Michigan or whoever.

[snapback]113176[/snapback]​

I know you're going to use this one, so I'll get a response to you right now:

USC - California and Virginia Tech

Olahoma - Alright... Maybe not two top 10 ranked opponnents. You got me there.

 

[OldVol]

Originally posted by milohimself@Jul 13, 2005 12:37 PM
Heh, we did agree on one thing. It's improvement!

And kiddie, you gotta know that I would take OldVol out. It's nothing personal, the man just didn't grow up with any game decks.

However, I always find our debates interesting and I'd like to continue...
Don't be so sure. Oklahoma played four ranked opponnents during their schedule, same as Auburn. Then you also have Oregon and Bowling Green in the offseason schedule. Oregon may have fallen flat again, but I can guarantee you a win over a 5-6 BCS team is a whole lot better than a win over any D-IAA team. Bowling Green also pulled of an impressive 9-3 season. I simply see now way that anybody can call Auburn's schedule far superior to Oklahoma's.

USC, I believe is more debatable. I will admit, their ranking all season was basically "If they are already number one, there is no reason to take them down if they keep winning." However; They did end up playing three ranked teams and one more should-have-been ranked team. So, even while playing in the Pac-10, USC's schedule wasn't even that much worse than Auburn's.

- Auburn had four ranked opponnents (I'll count Tennessee twice here to be fair) and USC had three ranked opponnents and one more that was essentially 26th.

- Both teams had a number of gimmes. USC played Colorado State, BYU, Washington and Arizona. Auburn played Louisiana Monroe, The Citadel, Louisiana Tech and Kentucky. I'm even inclined to call Miss St. from last season a gimme.

While USC plays in the Pac-10, which is somewhat weaker than the SEC (But not by as much as you think, bub), the addition of teams like Virginia Tech and Notre Dame in the schedule made USC's schedule comparable to Auburn's.

[snapback]113175[/snapback]​

Now we're getting somewhere.

I did a study after the season, not including bowl results. Auburn came in 2nd, well ahead of USC, but not quite as good as OK.

I compared each team's opponents.

When you compare the strength of each schedule, comparing the best opponent to the best opponent, and so on down the schedules, it was clearly OK, Auburn, and USC in that order.

Hopefully, with the new Harris poll not voting until closer to mid-season, it will eliminate some of the unfairness that is attached to pre-season hype.

Each season shoud be judged on its merits, not on the merits of the past.

 

[surrealvol]

We all know that the way things SHOULD be and the way they REALLY ARE can be very different. It's a kooky world, the world of sports, and regretfully, tradition, what you did lately (Last year...), and things of that nature always tend to carry a little too much OOMPH in the present.

However, for the most part (But not always) things seem to work their way out in the end. And that's when I want us to be there at the top. I could really care less about rankings (Unless they are way off!!&#33 until at least halfway through the season.

GO VOLS!!!

 

[OldVol]

Originally posted by milohimself@Jul 13, 2005 12:37 PM
Heh, we did agree on one thing. It's improvement!

And kiddie, you gotta know that I would take OldVol out. It's nothing personal, the man just didn't grow up with any game decks.

However, I always find our debates interesting and I'd like to continue...
Don't be so sure. Oklahoma played four ranked opponnents during their schedule, same as Auburn. Then you also have Oregon and Bowling Green in the offseason schedule. Oregon may have fallen flat again, but I can guarantee you a win over a 5-6 BCS team is a whole lot better than a win over any D-IAA team. Bowling Green also pulled of an impressive 9-3 season. I simply see now way that anybody can call Auburn's schedule far superior to Oklahoma's.

USC, I believe is more debatable. I will admit, their ranking all season was basically "If they are already number one, there is no reason to take them down if they keep winning." However; They did end up playing three ranked teams and one more should-have-been ranked team. So, even while playing in the Pac-10, USC's schedule wasn't even that much worse than Auburn's.

- Auburn had four ranked opponnents (I'll count Tennessee twice here to be fair) and USC had three ranked opponnents and one more that was essentially 26th.

- Both teams had a number of gimmes. USC played Colorado State, BYU, Washington and Arizona. Auburn played Louisiana Monroe, The Citadel, Louisiana Tech and Kentucky. I'm even inclined to call Miss St. from last season a gimme.

While USC plays in the Pac-10, which is somewhat weaker than the SEC (But not by as much as you think, bub), the addition of teams like Virginia Tech and Notre Dame in the schedule made USC's schedule comparable to Auburn's.

[snapback]113175[/snapback]​

USC played 6 teams with losing records and Auburn only played 4 with losing records. For fairness, I'll throw in Citadel, which was probably as good a team as LA Monroe or Colorado St. for that matter.

USC played 6 bowl teams in regular season while Auburn played 7 (counting UT twice, and that's fair to do).

Auburn clearly got a screw job.

While it's the system, and there's nothing can be done to reverse the unfairness of last year, we as fans can and should gripe, write letters, put up anti-BCS signs at games, threaten the mothers and children of BCS honchos; well, maybe not that last, but you get the jest of this.

Also, USC only played 3 ranked opponents in the regular season if you use the final poll as a barometer, and that's the only fair way to do it.

Auburn, played 4 games against ranked regular season opponents.

You can't count bowl teams when determining who should be in the NC game, just regular season and conference CGames.

 

[OldVol]

Originally posted by surrealvol@Jul 13, 2005 12:51 PM
We all know that the way things SHOULD be and the way they REALLY ARE can be very different.  It's a kooky world, the world of sports, and regretfully, tradition, what you did lately (Last year...), and things of that nature always tend to carry a little too much OOMPH in the present.

However, for the most part (But not always) things seem to work their way out in the end.  And that's when I want us to be there at the top.  I could really care less about rankings (Unless they are way off!!&#33 until at least halfway through the season.

GO VOLS!!!

[snapback]113187[/snapback]​

In the first few years of the BCS, things did work their way out. But even in the first year, the year we won it all, there was controversy as to which 1 loss team should play us.

We need at least an 8 team playoff to rectify this.

 

[milohimself]

Hm. Good post. I still don't see Auburn could be ranked that far ahead of USC. The way I'm viewing it, I could see how one could call Auburn's schedule superior to USC's. I figured non-con wins over ACC Champs Virginia Tech, and Notre Dame boasting wins over Michigan and Tennessee should kick USC's schedule up to at least near Auburn's level. I mean, you've got two top-ten opponnents, the same amount of so-so teams and the same amount of gimme games; The bottom-end of Auburn's schedule is way easier than USC's.

Now it mike take some pride-swallowing, but you might have to admit that despite the fact that USC is Pac-10 and despite the fact that Auburn is SEC, that USC's schedule is, when you really look at it, not that much worse than Auburn's, even possibly on the same level.

And as far as top 10 opponnents go, this has been bugging me as a Vols fan... You know Georgia finish top 10 was way too high, right? Tell me the Vol fan inside you believes that Georgia does not deserve to be Top 10 if the team that beat them for the division is not Top 10 as well.

 

[milohimself]

Originally posted by OldVol@Jul 13, 2005 10:51 AM
While it's the system, and there's nothing can be done to reverse the unfairness of last year, we as fans can and should gripe, write letters, put up anti-BCS signs at games, threaten the mothers and children of BCS honchos; well, maybe not that last, but you get the jest of this.

[snapback]113188[/snapback]​

That's how you change things! Just as long as you're not fighting to have the decision reveresed and make them give Auburn a share of the national title, like some of the crazies I've seen.

 

[OldVol]

Originally posted by milohimself@Jul 13, 2005 12:56 PM
Hm. Good post. I still don't see Auburn could be ranked that far ahead of USC. The way I'm viewing it, I could see how one could call Auburn's schedule superior to USC's. I figured non-con wins over ACC Champs Virginia Tech, and Notre Dame boasting wins over Michigan and Tennessee should kick USC's schedule up to at least near Auburn's level. I mean, you've got two top-ten opponnents, the same amount of so-so teams and the same amount of gimme games; The bottom-end of Auburn's schedule is way easier than USC's.

Now it mike take some pride-swallowing, but you might have to admit that despite the fact that USC is Pac-10 and despite the fact that Auburn is SEC, that USC's schedule is, when you really look at it, not that much worse than Auburn's, even possibly on the same level.

And as far as top 10 opponnents go, this has been bugging me as a Vols fan... You know Georgia finish top 10 was way too high, right? Tell me the Vol fan inside you believes that Georgia does not deserve to be Top 10 if the team that beat them for the division is not Top 10 as well.

[snapback]113193[/snapback]​

I've never said USC's schedlue was a lot worse, but when it comes to the NC game, it should be determined on splitting the smalles hair.

The fact is, it wasn't, and it probably won't be this year either.

The only real common sense factor in the BCS, the SOS, was removed last year.

Go figure.

 

[OldVol]

Originally posted by milohimself@Jul 13, 2005 12:58 PM
That's how you change things! Just as long as you're not fighting to have the decision reveresed and make them give Auburn a share of the national title, like some of the crazies I've seen.

[snapback]113194[/snapback]​

Tommy Tuberville ordered and gave his kids NC rings.

I don't blame him.

Since the system is so screwed up, they have as much right to claim it as anyone else.

When it isn't won on the field, no ring really matters.

 

[U-T]

Originally posted by OldVol@Jul 13, 2005 10:38 AM
Wrong again, my young friend.

Auburn did NOT get to play by the same rules as Oklahoma and USC.

They were ranked high preseason. Now, what should preseason polls have to do with who plays in the NC? Absolutely nothing.

That pretty much is my entire argument.

:rocks: