# Why does the SEC keep running away?



## Jetjockey (Dec 2, 2014)

UGA pulled out of a home and home against Oregon.  A&M pulled out agaisnt USC, and now they refuse to play Texas.  Why are they so afraid?  I guess this article sums it up pretty well.

http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/11/19/report-sec-am-would-nix-bowl-game-vs-texas/


----------



## toyota4x4h (Dec 2, 2014)

Can't lump tennessee in there. They have consistently scheduled bigger name out of conference games.


----------



## Jetjockey (Dec 2, 2014)

toyota4x4h said:


> Can't lump tennessee in there. They have consistently scheduled bigger name out of conference games.



Ya know what.  I do give TENN credit for that.  Even though it hasn't been pretty, they have at least lined up on the field.


----------



## toyota4x4h (Dec 2, 2014)

We've had California and Oregon and this year and next Oklahoma home and away and then the battle at Bristol speedway in 2016 against the hokies. And your right lately bad results but oh well lol better than ga southern and Louisiana Monroe.


----------



## Rebel Yell (Dec 2, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> UGA pulled out of a home and home against Oregon.  A&M pulled out agaisnt USC, and now they refuse to play Texas.  Why are they so afraid?  I guess this article sums it up pretty well.
> 
> http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/11/19/report-sec-am-would-nix-bowl-game-vs-texas/



If they don't play anyone outside the conference, there's no way to accurately compare conferences.  Then they can say, "But they beat each other."

This years examples, aTm and the Mississippi schools.  Their only losses came to SEC schools, so they get credit for "good losses" (which today means more than a bad win).  Of couse their only losses came from SEC schools.  Did you see their OOC schedule?  They didn't play a team that wasn't made up of mostly blind and/or deaf orphans.  Then them losing to the other SEC West teams just proves how tough the West is.  Honestly, I think Bama is the only elite team in the entire conference.  They and LSU actually scheduled a decent OOC team.  Wisconsin is actually good, but the West Virginia game doesn't look near as impressive as it did three weeks into the season.

Every elite team playes no more than three games that they have legit chance of losing without completely imploding and just giving it away.  That is true in any conference.


----------



## elfiii (Dec 2, 2014)

> As the theory goes, A&M is the top dog in recruiting in the state of Texas and playing UT in a bowl game, with the possibility of a loss, could potentially cause damage to the Aggies on that front.



This sounds exactly like something FSU would do.


----------



## Rebel Yell (Dec 2, 2014)

elfiii said:


> This sounds exactly like something FSU would do.



We don't duck anyone.  We just don't lose.


----------



## alaustin1865 (Dec 2, 2014)

I don't even have to read your article.  It is about money.


----------



## Browning Slayer (Dec 2, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> UGA pulled out of a home and home against Oregon.  A&M pulled out agaisnt USC, and now they refuse to play Texas.  Why are they so afraid?  I guess this article sums it up pretty well.
> 
> http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/11/19/report-sec-am-would-nix-bowl-game-vs-texas/



I guess you forgot the line in the article..



> Since A&M officially left for the SEC in 2012, neither side has been inclined to reignite the rivalry with a non-conference series.



I guess you also forget to mention we just signed a deal to play Notre Dame for a home vs home..


----------



## Rebel Yell (Dec 2, 2014)

Browning Slayer said:


> I guess you forgot the line in the article..
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you also forget to mention we just signed a deal to play Notre Dame for a home vs home..



And Ole Miss opens against us in 2016.  The playoff will force teams to look outside their conferences for signature wins.


----------



## Jetjockey (Dec 2, 2014)

Browning Slayer said:


> I guess you forgot the line in the article..
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you also forget to mention we just signed a deal to play Notre Dame for a home vs home..



espn.go.com/ncf/story?storyId=11254266&src=desktop


OMG OMG OMG!  Your going to play Notre Dame?  Seriously?  The PAC-12 schedules ND every year.  This year it was Stanford, Arizona St., and USC (one of the oldest rivalries in College football).  Why did UGA pull out of the home and home vs Oregon?  And why don't they schedule USC, or UW, or Stanford?  Oh Ya, because UGA already said they won't play West of the Rockies any more because it's too far to go.  I guess that loss to Colorado, and barely beating a lousy ASU team scared them too much!


----------



## Browning Slayer (Dec 2, 2014)

Rebel Yell said:


> And Ole Miss opens against us in 2016.  The playoff will force teams to look outside their conferences for signature wins.



I would rather it be Miss State..


----------



## Browning Slayer (Dec 2, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> espn.go.com/ncf/story?storyId=11254266&src=desktop
> 
> 
> OMG OMG OMG!  Your going to play Notre Dame?  Seriously?  The PAC-12 schedules ND every year.  This year it was Stanford, Arizona St., and USC (one of the oldest rivalries in College football).  Why did UGA pull out of the home and home vs Oregon?  And why don't they schedule USC, or UW, or Stanford?  Oh Ya, because UGA already said they won't play West of the Rockies any more because it's too far to go.  I guess that loss to Colorado, and barely beating a lousy ASU team scared them too much!






> The future home-and-home series between Oregon and Georgia has been canceled by mutual agreement,



Looks pretty one sided doesn't it.. 

Oregon has never beat us! As a matter of fact we are undefeated when it comes to playing Oregon!

And ND schedules the PAC cause they have a better chance of winning than they would against an SEC team.. op2:


----------



## Rebel Yell (Dec 2, 2014)

Browning Slayer said:


> I would rather it be Miss State..



Me too, for so many reasons.  Not the least of which would getting to take a selfie holding a whooped bulldog by the mouth, and I wouldn't throw him back.


----------



## Browning Slayer (Dec 2, 2014)

Rebel Yell said:


> Me too, for so many reasons.  Not the least of which would getting to take a selfie holding a whooped bulldog by the mouth, and I wouldn't throw him back.



In the back of a van?



I would be pulling for ol Jameis in that game for the same reason!


----------



## Rebel Yell (Dec 2, 2014)

Browning Slayer said:


> In the back of a van?
> 
> 
> 
> I would be pulling for ol Jameis in that game for the same reason!



Can't mention vans or we'll be hauled in for a Code of Conduct hearing and be faced by our accuser.


----------



## KyDawg (Dec 2, 2014)

The SEC is head and shoulders above any other conference in college football. All these threads to the contrary are good entertainment now that the season is coming to an end.


----------



## brownceluse (Dec 2, 2014)

Left coast sissys!


----------



## Georgia Hard Hunter (Dec 2, 2014)

Clemson canceled, NO RAN AN HID, a home and home series against Ole Miss for 2015 and 2016. Ole Miss replaced that game with Fla St in 2016 so I guess WE ARE STILL PLAYING NOBODY


----------



## RipperIII (Dec 2, 2014)

The schedules are put together 2-3 years in advance,...tough to determine who'll be good then.
BAMA has consistently booked tough OOC opponents to open the season with, Clemson started it when they were ranked 7th, next year it was VT another top 10 school, Michigan ranked top 5 but fell apart after BAMA crushed them, VT again ranked top 10,...WVU when scheduled was a scoring machine, then new coach, poor season, but this year they played very tough till they ran out of players/gas.
BAMA don't run.


----------



## AccUbonD (Dec 2, 2014)

RipperIII said:


> The schedules are put together 2-3 years in advance,...tough to determine who'll be good then.
> BAMA has consistently booked tough OOC opponents to open the season with, Clemson started it when they were ranked 7th, next year it was VT another top 10 school, Michigan ranked top 5 but fell apart after BAMA crushed them, VT again ranked top 10,...WVU when scheduled was a scoring machine, then new coach, poor season, but this year they played very tough till they ran out of players/gas.
> BAMA don't run.



Big difference playing out of conference opponent in Atlanta versus going out west or farther North. IMO


----------



## Jetjockey (Dec 2, 2014)

AccUbonD said:


> Big difference playing out of conference opponent in Atlanta versus going out west or farther North. IMO



Exactly!


----------



## Geffellz18 (Dec 2, 2014)

Bama- 
2015 vs Wisconsin
2016 vs USC
2017-Tbd but last i read they were negotiating FSU in the opener in Atl for the Chick fil a kickoff game.

Plus were having a tough time getting a team scheduled for the 2nd or 4th week in 2015. Put out a statement that they would take any team. None of the big boys stepped up to the plate, so either Middle Tenn or ULM stepped up for a great payday to build their program. I mean, that is why the "cupcakes" play the big boys after all. In the end it's all about the money.

Let's look at those Ducks........

2014- South Dakota???
2015- Eastern Washington
2016- UC Davis
2017- Southern Utah

Man, those are some pretty big programs they are starting off the seasons with!!!! 

I actually like watching the ducks play and think they are a great team, but EVERY fan of EVERY team has got to admit that ALL teams have weak non-confernce teams on their schedule. Its necessary to do so the smaller programs get the necessary revenue too build there programs. They dont want to end up like UAB after all.


----------



## Georgia Hard Hunter (Dec 2, 2014)

The SEC has a 8 plus 1 system in place for future scheduling, meaning that each team has 8 conference games and is required to schedule 1 game from other power 5 conferences, the Pac 12 ,Big 12, Big 10, or ACC. So I get your point about the 9th game, we are are scheduling weaker opponents


----------



## Jetjockey (Dec 2, 2014)

Georgia Hard Hunter said:


> The SEC has a 8 plus 1 system in place for future scheduling, meaning that each team has 8 conference games and is required to schedule 1 game from other power 5 conferences, the Pac 12 ,Big 12, Big 10, or ACC. So I get your point about the 9th game, we are are scheduling weaker opponents



The PAC-12 has a 9 game conference schedule, and an agreement to play the Big-10 as well.  Plus USC and Stanford have the Notre Dame rivalries.


----------



## alaustin1865 (Dec 2, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> The PAC-12 has a 9 game conference schedule, and an agreement to play the Big-10 as well.  Plus USC and Stanford have the Notre Dame rivalries.



So how is the pac-12 going to get any SEC games in that schedule either?  Could be they needed to get out too.  The reason we want ND and ND wants us is bc of money. ND was a huge rivalry for us in the 70's and 80's. Guess who both sets of alumni want to see play?  Guess who is sending a bunch of money to the two universities?


----------



## RipperIII (Dec 2, 2014)

AccUbonD said:


> Big difference playing out of conference opponent in Atlanta versus going out west or farther North. IMO



BAMA played Michigan in Dallas,...had Wisconsin signed up for Dallas as well, but Wisky pulled out...West enough for ya?


----------



## flowingwell (Dec 2, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> UGA pulled out of a home and home against Oregon.  A&M pulled out agaisnt USC, and now they refuse to play Texas.  Why are they so afraid?  I guess this article sums it up pretty well.
> 
> http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/11/19/report-sec-am-would-nix-bowl-game-vs-texas/




Man jockey you got us again!  You have been proven right time and time again.  Congrats on being the one truth seeker that has finally uncovered that the sec is playing mediocre football against mediocre competition and dodges all legit teams.  I guess we should all pack our boring 8 game schedule and bow down to the true football powers.  It is interesting though that you have also adopted the big 12 and big 10?  I guess it is the sec vs the remaining 113 teams?  I guess that speaks for itself on what it takes to make your point.  Well done again sir!


----------



## Jetjockey (Dec 2, 2014)

alaustin1865 said:


> So how is the pac-12 going to get any SEC games in that schedule either?  Could be they needed to get out too.  The reason we want ND and ND wants us is bc of money. ND was a huge rivalry for us in the 70's and 80's. Guess who both sets of alumni want to see play?  Guess who is sending a bunch of money to the two universities?



They had UGA and A&M vs Oregon and USC until UGA and A&M pulled out.


----------



## Jetjockey (Dec 2, 2014)

flowingwell said:


> Man jockey you got us again!  You have been proven right time and time again.  Congrats on being the one truth seeker that has finally uncovered that the sec is playing mediocre football against mediocre competition and dodges all legit teams.  I guess we should all pack our boring 8 game schedule and bow down to the true football powers.  It is interesting though that you have also adopted the big 12 and big 10?  I guess it is the sec vs the remaining 113 teams?  I guess that speaks for itself on what it takes to make your point.  Well done again sir!



The Big-12 already plays a 9 game conference schedule, and the Big-10 will be soon.  I applaud any conference that mans up enough to add 6 or 7 more losses across a conference instead of scheduling guaranteed wins agaisnt powder puffs.


----------



## rex upshaw (Dec 2, 2014)

You'd better not have a pac 12 team face LSU, as LSU is 22~4 vs the p12.


----------



## flowingwell (Dec 2, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> They had UGA and A&M vs Oregon and USC until UGA and A&M pulled out.



And Oregon cancelled with kstate when a date was changed.  It happens more often than you think.  Ohio st also cancelled with uga and tenn, I don't think urban was scared, I think it had more to do with scheduling.  Here is an idea, watch Washington and support your team and quit worrying about trying to prove history wrong.


----------



## alaustin1865 (Dec 3, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> They had UGA and A&M vs Oregon and USC until UGA and A&M pulled out.



We didn't do it because we were "running away" or scared.


----------



## Jetjockey (Dec 3, 2014)

I'm not the only one who thinks it!

If you have a mobile

http://m.espn.go.com/general/blogs/blogpost?blogname=pac12&id=13689&src=desktop


“We think we’re going a long way this week, try Eugene, Ore.,” [Greg] McGarity said. “That’s even further. It’s not a lot of fun when you see the itinerary when you get back into Athens at 6 a.m. on Sunday morning like will be the situation this Sunday.”


----------



## fish hawk (Dec 3, 2014)

It has become apparently apparent Jetjockey has became overly obsessed with the SEC and UGA!!!What ever point your trying to prove aint gonna be proven here.....Maybe you can go cry to some of your left coast wussies and get some validation!!!We from the south around here and your hopelessly outnumbered.
Let it go....man....Let it go!!!


----------



## Jetjockey (Dec 3, 2014)

Btw Fish.  That quote was taken just before UGA traveled to Boulder............  And LOST to Colorado!  Face it, UGA's afraid to travel out West to play.


----------



## fish hawk (Dec 3, 2014)

Traveling across the country to play a football game makes no sense at all.It's that simple!!!


----------



## rex upshaw (Dec 3, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> Btw Fish.  That quote was taken just before UGA traveled to Boulder............  And LOST to Colorado!  Face it, UGA's afraid to travel out West to play.



Has nothing to do with being afraid, but rather differing philosophies of our old and current AD.  Many schools choose to travel to various parts of the country for a specific reason and that is for exposure/recruiting.  The SEC doesn't need the exposure because the south has so many athletes to offer.

A school like Tennessee could use the exposure, as they recruit on a national level, much like ND.


----------



## Rebel Yell (Dec 3, 2014)

I know a school that hasn't been mentioned that is notorious for their OOC scheduling.  Except for a rivalry game at the end of the season, which is still played in their home state, they play nobody OOC.  This team hasn't played a regular season OOC game outside of their home state since 1991.

Can you guess who it is?


----------



## CamoDawg85 (Dec 3, 2014)

Rebel Yell said:


> I know a school that hasn't been mentioned that is notorious for their OOC scheduling.  Except for a rivalry game at the end of the season, which is still played in their home state, they play nobody OOC.  This team hasn't played a regular season OOC game outside of their home state since 1991.
> 
> Can you guess who it is?



South Cackalacky?


----------



## Rebel Yell (Dec 3, 2014)

CamoDawg85 said:


> South Cackalacky?



Nope.  Here's a hint: Their last ooc game outside the home state was loss to Donovan McNabb.


----------



## alaustin1865 (Dec 3, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> I'm not the only one who thinks it!
> 
> If you have a mobile
> 
> ...



Why would anybody want to travel to the west coast if they didn't have to?  It still has nothing to do with being scared or running from an opponent.  We did something that made sense.  I know that is hard for you to understand.


----------



## RipperIII (Dec 3, 2014)

rex upshaw said:


> Has nothing to do with being afraid, but rather differing philosophies of our old and current AD.  Many schools choose to travel to various parts of the country for a specific reason and that is for exposure/recruiting.  The SEC doesn't need the exposure because the south has so many athletes to offer.
> 
> A school like Tennessee could use the exposure, as they recruit on a national level, much like ND.



Try not to be too rational with JJ


----------



## SpotandStalk (Dec 3, 2014)

Rebel Yell said:


> Nope.  Here's a hint: Their last ooc game outside the home state was loss to Donovan McNabb.



Uf. I didn't realize it had been that long since they played OOC out of state. Wow.


----------



## Madsnooker (Dec 3, 2014)

KyDawg said:


> The SEC is head and shoulders above any other conference in college football. All these threads to the contrary are good entertainment now that the season is coming to an end.



No, they are not head and shoulders above every other conference. I do agree they sit at the top but its much closer than further apart.


----------



## Madsnooker (Dec 3, 2014)

alaustin1865 said:


> Why would anybody want to travel to the west coast if they didn't have to?  It still has nothing to do with being scared or running from an opponent.  We did something that made sense.  I know that is hard for you to understand.



Im not siding with JJ in this thread as I don't get involved with Pac12 vs SEC nonsense.

But I will say, based on what the article says, UT wants that game to happen and A&M/SEC doesn't because of potentially losing and what that would mean. Frankly, that's down right embarrassing if you ask me and is absolutely classified as scarred and running from an opponent. How could anyone read that article and come up with anything else.

Let me get this straight, the sec will pick and chose its bowl games based on what it could mean if their team loses. WOW


----------



## Rebel Yell (Dec 3, 2014)

SpotandStalk said:


> Uf. I didn't realize it had been that long since they played OOC out of state. Wow.



Yep, the cowards from Gainesville.


----------



## Jetjockey (Dec 3, 2014)

You guys keep forgetting the original point of this post. It's not just the West coast teams.  A&M is running from UT and has already said they won't play them in a bowl game.  What are they afraid of?  Why hide?  Why not show they are from the SEC and the most dominate Conference in the country and go out and kick UT's tail?............Oh I know why!  They don't want to prove they are the same old A&M that isn't even one of the best three teams in their own state, let alone their own Conference.


----------



## rex upshaw (Dec 3, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> You guys keep forgetting the original point of this post. It's not just the West coast teams.  A&M is running from UT and has already said they won't play them in a bowl game.  What are they afraid of?  Why hide?  Why not show they are from the SEC and the most dominate Conference in the country and go out and kick UT's tail?............Oh I know why!  They don't want to prove they are the same old A&M that isn't even one of the best three teams in their own state, let alone their own Conference.



And your info is coming from where, a Lohgorns writer?


----------



## Jetjockey (Dec 3, 2014)

rex upshaw said:


> And your info is coming from where, a Lohgorns writer?



And the SEC COMPLETLY walking around the question!   

BTW.  I didn't know the SEC got to hand pick the teams it wanted in bowls.  That's total crap!  Why can't they man up and have normal bowl affiliation where you play in the bowl that your standings in league sends you to?


----------



## Browning Slayer (Dec 3, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> And the SEC COMPLETLY walking around the question!



JJ, did you even read the article?? 

And I quote the article.. 


> Since A&M officially left for the SEC in 2012, *neither side* has been inclined to reignite the rivalry with a non-conference series.



How is that walking around the question?


----------



## rex upshaw (Dec 3, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> And the SEC COMPLETLY walking around the question!
> 
> BTW.  I didn't know the SEC got to hand pick the teams it wanted in bowls.  That's total crap!  Why can't they man up and have normal bowl affiliation where you play in the bowl that your standings in league sends you to?



Walking around the question?  I crumpled it up and stuffed it in your face.  

I see you're still using Chip Brown (who conveniently writes for Horns Digest) as your source.


----------



## alaustin1865 (Dec 3, 2014)

Madsnooker said:


> Im not siding with JJ in this thread as I don't get involved with Pac12 vs SEC nonsense.
> 
> But I will say, based on what the article says, UT wants that game to happen and A&M/SEC doesn't because of potentially losing and what that would mean. Frankly, that's down right embarrassing if you ask me and is absolutely classified as scarred and running from an opponent. How could anyone read that article and come up with anything else.
> 
> Let me get this straight, the sec will pick and chose its bowl games based on what it could mean if their team loses. WOW



I don't care what A&M does.  I didn't get that out of the article about the GA/Oregon game.  ESPN wrote less than half a page and used one random quote from our AD.  The statement was factual.  It is tougher to fly across the country and play a game than it would be to stay in the Southeast.  IMO, I think it is a quite a stretch to use the article and what was stated as saying we are "running" from the Oregon game.


----------



## Jetjockey (Dec 3, 2014)

Browning Slayer said:


> JJ, did you even read the article??
> 
> And I quote the article..
> 
> ...



http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/03/charlie-strong-would-love-to-resume-texas-texas-am-rivalry

Texas wants the game!




rex upshaw said:


> Walking around the question?  I crumpled it up and stuffed it in your face.
> 
> I see you're still using Chip Brown (who conveniently writes for Horns Digest) as your source.



And the SEC itself!


http://www.foxsports.com/southwest/story/sec-says-no-decision-s-been-made-on-a-m-texas-bowl-111914


----------



## rex upshaw (Dec 3, 2014)

What part of "according to Horns digest" is confusing you?  Again, your source is the Longhorns writer.


----------



## hayseed_theology (Dec 3, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/03/charlie-strong-would-love-to-resume-texas-texas-am-rivalry
> 
> Texas wants the game!
> 
> ...




The first article states



> Texas A&M associate AD Jason Cook told the San Antonio Express-News the Aggies “hoped” to play UT



In the second article, one of the SEC exec's basically says it's too early to lock in that match-up, but he doesn't sound opposed to it.

The same Horns Digest article is cited AGAIN to prove the idea that the A&M doesn't want to play UT.

I think it would be great if A&M and UT played again, but I think there are plenty of other good teams for A&M to play in a bowl game.


----------



## Scott G (Dec 3, 2014)

I am pretty sure UGA was one of the few schools in the nation who were willing to open their schedule with Boise state a couple years ago. 

And I am pretty sure Clemson was pretty highly ranked the last 2 years UGA opened the year against them too.

But don't let facts get in the way JJ. Haters gon hate.


----------



## Jetjockey (Dec 3, 2014)

hayseed_theology said:


> The first article states
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's too early?  The Season is over for UT and A&M!  We know exactly where they will fall among their conferences.  That's a complete cop out!  If you can't see that, I'm embarrassed for you.



Scott G said:


> I am pretty sure UGA was one of the few schools in the nation who were willing to open their schedule with Boise state a couple years ago.
> 
> And I am pretty sure Clemson was pretty highly ranked the last 2 years UGA opened the year against them too.
> 
> But don't let facts get in the way JJ. Haters gon hate.



That was under the old AD.  Besides, how'd that Boise St. game work out for UGA?  How'd the game agaisnt Colorado work out?   UGA is afraid to go a west and play.


----------



## Scott G (Dec 3, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> That was under the old AD.  Besides, how'd that Boise St. game work out for UGA?  How'd the game agaisnt Colorado work out?   UGA is afraid to go a west and play.



This is the dumbest logic. How do the results change the fact they clearly aren't afraid to face good out of conference competition? You know, considering they DO. Derp.........


----------



## toyota4x4h (Dec 3, 2014)

I think the sec needs to get out west more..a true away game. Like cal or Oregon or any number of em. Even teams from the big 12. I know we see a few every year or so but I think it's good for football if it's an ever year thing. Kinda like a must have a game ooc with at least two teams who are able to make it to a bow game consistently. Like Kirk herbstreet said these ga southern charleston souther south Alabama games are a waste of time an just pad stats. Show it on the field if you want to get in the playoffs.


----------



## hayseed_theology (Dec 3, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> It's too early?  The Season is over for UT and A&M!  We know exactly where they will fall among their conferences.  That's a complete cop out!  If you can't see that, I'm embarrassed for you.



Alright, go ahead and tell me exactly which bowl game every single bowl eligible SEC team is gonna be in... You don't know, do you?  Believe it or not, the games played this week may affect where teams end up.  It's not all set yet.  Calm down.


And how can you point to UGA scheduling western teams as proof that UGA is afraid to schedule western teams?


----------



## MCBUCK (Dec 3, 2014)

"ga southern charleston souther south Alabama games are a waste of time an just pad stats. Show it on the field if you want to get in the playoffs."

*sarcasm alert*

that's almost kind of like those San Diego State, Portland State, South Dakota State, and Wyoming games? pretty pathetic in my opinion.


----------



## Jetjockey (Dec 3, 2014)

hayseed_theology said:


> Alright, go ahead and tell me exactly which bowl game every single bowl eligible SEC team is gonna be in... You don't know, do you?  Believe it or not, the games played this week may affect where teams end up.  It's not all set yet.  Calm down.
> 
> 
> And how can you point to UGA scheduling western teams as proof that UGA is afraid to schedule western teams?



That was under the Old AD.  The Oregon game was scheduled under the old AD!  The new AD is afraid to travel west to play, and has all but said it.

We don't know where the SEC is going to play because they obviously pick and choose which teams will play where.

BTW.  We know where the PAC-12 teams are going to play for the most part because it's based on a ranking system and a pecking order, not a system based on the PAC-12 deciding which of its teams match up best with other bowl teams.


----------



## toyota4x4h (Dec 3, 2014)

Exactly all those teams are also a waste of time. Let's schedule teams just for example like say Maryland or penn st or Baylor/tcu or Washington. Just play teams that have d-1 talent not dang ol div 2 teams. That's like playing Murray county hs team lol.


----------



## elfiii (Dec 3, 2014)

Does this thread have a point? Did it ever have one?


----------



## Browning Slayer (Dec 3, 2014)

elfiii said:


> Does this thread have a point? Did it ever have one?



Does ANY of JJ's thread have a point besides "SEC Bias"???


----------



## toyota4x4h (Dec 3, 2014)

I think it's a good discussion thread. I think something should be done about the cupcakes ppl schedule. As herbstreet and Desmond Howard said teams should be penalized in the new playoff system for the div 2 teams after week 12. And I agree.


----------



## Browning Slayer (Dec 3, 2014)

toyota4x4h said:


> I think it's a good discussion thread. I think something should be done about the cupcakes ppl schedule. As herbstreet and Desmond Howard said teams should be penalized in the new playoff system for the div 2 teams after week 12. And I agree.



After week 12?? So you are okay with them scheduling 3 to start the season while other teams jump right into ranked teams?? Sorry, that is just about stupid. Shouldn't matter when or where you play them. 

As far as the CFP system, it will be decided by conference champs as it should be.

I guess you don't read much of JJ's stuff. It starts out "SEC Bias" and all of his comments surround "SEC Bias"...


----------



## fairhopebama (Dec 3, 2014)

AccUbonD said:


> Big difference playing out of conference opponent in Atlanta versus going out west or farther North. IMO



Neutral field gives no one an advantage. Many SEC teams travel to Dallas to play OOC. NC game is played on neutral field. Tickets split 50/50. Most of those games are indoors so weather not an issue.


----------



## toyota4x4h (Dec 3, 2014)

No I know he's a lefty in every sense lol. And I'm ok with week 1 and 2 cupcakes bec to me that's a scrimmage/pre season game. After that, penalty. And after week 12 more penalty.


----------



## Madsnooker (Dec 3, 2014)

alaustin1865 said:


> I don't care what A&M does.  I didn't get that out of the article about the GA/Oregon game.  ESPN wrote less than half a page and used one random quote from our AD.  The statement was factual.  It is tougher to fly across the country and play a game than it would be to stay in the Southeast.  IMO, I think it is a quite a stretch to use the article and what was stated as saying we are "running" from the Oregon game.



I was only referring to the UT/A&M game and I agree with you.


----------



## toyota4x4h (Dec 3, 2014)

And also I don't think the playoff should be based on conf champs alone..for instance if a 2 loss sec team is the conf champ they should in no way jump a 1 loss team from any other conference regardless of conf champion or not. Should be based on wins/loses.


----------



## Madsnooker (Dec 3, 2014)

elfiii said:


> Does this thread have a point? Did it ever have one?



Not sure what point it had but I did find the article enlightening and if in fact, it is true, I think the sec should be embarrassed!!! I know I would of the BIG if they did anything similar because of the perceived fallout of losing?


----------



## toyota4x4h (Dec 3, 2014)

fairhope said:


> Neutral field gives no one an advantage. Many SEC teams travel to Dallas to play OOC. NC game is played on neutral field. Tickets split 50/50. Most of those games are indoors so weather not an issue.



And I agree with accubond on this. You can't compare Uga vs Boise in the dome to ut vs Oregon AT Oregon. That is truest playing out west imo. And if you don't think traveling that far makes a diff your silly.


----------



## Madsnooker (Dec 3, 2014)

For those of you that obviously didn't even bother to read the article, below is one small segment that is just to funny regarding the big bad sec!!!!

"Citing a pair of sources close to the situation, Chip Brown of HornsDigest.com is reporting that an A&M-UT bowl game this year will not happen because “apparently the Aggies –- or perhaps the SEC on the Aggies’ behalf –- [will make] sure there will be no postseason matchup of two of college football’s most bitter divorcees.” Per the report, the SEC has made it clear to bowl games with SEC-Big 12 tie-ins that the conference “won’t support a Texas vs Texas A&M postseason matchup” because, Brown writes, “A&M has too much to lose from a potential loss.” "

Like I said, if true, the sec lost all respect in my eyes!


----------



## alaustin1865 (Dec 3, 2014)

toyota4x4h said:


> I think the sec needs to get out west more..a true away game. Like cal or Oregon or any number of em. Even teams from the big 12. I know we see a few every year or so but I think it's good for football if it's an ever year thing. Kinda like a must have a game ooc with at least two teams who are able to make it to a bow game consistently. Like Kirk herbstreet said these ga southern charleston souther south Alabama games are a waste of time an just pad stats. Show it on the field if you want to get in the playoffs.



I will say this about the small schools.  The big schools need to include them or these small schools would not have a football program.  The majority of the money these schools use to fund their programs are from the big names schools they play.  With that being said, I think it would be better to play them first of the season.  Allow these top tier schools the opportunity to play (and pay) "preseason" games against these smaller schools and then get into the meat of your schedule and only play quality opponents.  I realize it is not a perfect solution, but I would hate to cast away the little guys entirely.


----------



## alaustin1865 (Dec 3, 2014)

Madsnooker said:


> I was only referring to the UT/A&M game and I agree with you.



No worries.


----------



## toyota4x4h (Dec 3, 2014)

alaustin1865 said:


> I will say this about the small schools.  The big schools need to include them or these small schools would not have a football program.  The majority of the money these schools use to fund their programs are from the big names schools they play.  With that being said, I think it would be better to play them first of the season.  Allow these top tier schools the opportunity to play (and pay) "preseason" games against these smaller schools and then get into the meat of your schedule and only play quality opponents.  I realize it is not a perfect solution, but I would hate to cast away the little guys entirely.


Yep this! First two weeks pre-season cupcake schools. Any afte that and your penalized in the playoff rankings. BUT that would leave the first two weeks boring lol. It's better than sittin here in mid November and seeing cupcake games imo.


----------



## alaustin1865 (Dec 3, 2014)

toyota4x4h said:


> Yep this! First two weeks pre-season cupcake schools. Any afte that and your penalized in the playoff rankings. BUT that would leave the first two weeks boring lol. It's better than sittin here in mid November and seeing cupcake games imo.



I don't think it would be boring.  I would also say not to count this against your redshirt guys either.  This way you can let your younger guys play without losing their redshirts.  I like watching the young guys play and see what the future holds.  I also liked the fact that we had two bye weeks this year.  I say put the cupcakes at the front of the season and let each team have two bye weeks for rest.


----------



## toyota4x4h (Dec 3, 2014)

That's an idea I like there. Let some of your redshirts play without penalty. We all know if they are cupcake teams they are just basically practice anyhow.


----------



## bullgator (Dec 3, 2014)

This is getting old. The SEC isn't running from anyone. To "try" to get to the strength of schedule of the SEC, teams from other conferences have to add quality OOC games.....the SEC doesn't. According to www.teamrankings.com , the SEC has 10 of the top 20 toughest schedules. The PAC has......2! This is as of today 12/3. These futile attempts are getting old.....laughable, but old.


----------



## fish hawk (Dec 3, 2014)

In reality they just might be running away.....Away from all those weirdo's on the left coast.......
I don't want to step foot in a state that would willingly vote Nancy Pelosi into office.


----------



## bullgator (Dec 3, 2014)

fish hawk said:


> In reality they just might be running away.....Away from all those weirdo's on the left coast.......
> I don't want to step foot in a state that would willingly vote Nancy Pelosi into office.



  well, there's always that!


----------



## hayseed_theology (Dec 3, 2014)

Madsnooker said:


> For those of you that obviously didn't even bother to read the article, below is one small segment that is just to funny regarding the big bad sec!!!!
> 
> "Citing a pair of sources close to the situation, Chip Brown of HornsDigest.com is reporting that an A&M-UT bowl game this year will not happen because “apparently the Aggies –- or perhaps the SEC on the Aggies’ behalf –- [will make] sure there will be no postseason matchup of two of college football’s most bitter divorcees.” Per the report, the SEC has made it clear to bowl games with SEC-Big 12 tie-ins that the conference “won’t support a Texas vs Texas A&M postseason matchup” because, Brown writes, “A&M has too much to lose from a potential loss.” "
> 
> Like I said, if true, the sec lost all respect in my eyes!



You realize that comes from a Texas Longhorn's media outlet.  "A&M has too much to lose" is a quote from the Longhorn's writer not anybody associated with A&M or even the SEC.  He's obviously pandering to the home crowd.  Believing that "A&M is too scared to play us" probably makes Texas fans feel a little better about their .500 season.


----------



## MCBUCK (Dec 3, 2014)

Chip Brown is a known Longhorn homer. He has a history of pot stirring in the Big 12 from years back. The Mizzou folks and the Aggies have zero respect for him. The Big12 folks have about as much respect for him as the SEC folks do for the AJC.


----------



## weagle (Dec 3, 2014)

Auburn scheduled K State this year and that home loss is going to keep K State out of the final four.   They probably wish they had stayed away from an SEC opponent and scheduled a directional school from out west.


----------



## Jetjockey (Dec 4, 2014)

weagle said:


> Auburn scheduled K State this year and that home loss is going to keep K State out of the final four.   They probably wish they had stayed away from an SEC opponent and scheduled a directional school from out west.



Being pummeled by TCU by 3 TD's is what's going to keep KSU out of the final 4.  That, and their game against Baylor this weekend.


Besides, didnt Mizzu lose to the WORST team In the Big-10?  I am going to laugh if that loss costs the SEC a spot in the playoff.  And they will have no one to blame but themselves.


----------



## BrotherBadger (Dec 4, 2014)

RipperIII said:


> BAMA played Michigan in Dallas,...had Wisconsin signed up for Dallas as well, but Wisky pulled out...West enough for ya?



Uhh, we're still scheduled to play Bama in Dallas next year(although we were originally asking for a home and home, but Moore/Saban didn't want any part of that).


----------



## nickel back (Dec 4, 2014)

why do yall feed him....


----------



## weagle (Dec 4, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> Being pummeled by TCU by 3 TD's is what's going to keep KSU out of the final 4.  That, and their game against Baylor this weekend.



Negative.  One loss to a top ranked team won't keep you out.  

Pay Attention and try to keep up.


----------



## Jetjockey (Dec 4, 2014)

weagle said:


> Negative.  One loss to a top ranked team won't keep you out.
> 
> Pay Attention and try to keep up.



Tell that to Baylor!  The only reason Bama's loss doesn't looks that bad is because the rankings are a joke.  Ole Miss has lost 3 of their last 5 games, and somehow they are ranked in the top 15?  Ya, that makes sense!


----------



## Browning Slayer (Dec 4, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> Tell that to Baylor!  The only reason Bama's loss doesn't looks that bad is because the rankings are a joke.  Ole Miss has lost 3 of their last 5 games, and somehow they are ranked in the top 15?  Ya, that makes sense!



And there we go... SEC Bias... Knew it was coming!


----------



## Browning Slayer (Dec 4, 2014)

Browning Slayer said:


> Does ANY of JJ's thread have a point besides "SEC Bias"???





Browning Slayer said:


> I guess you don't read much of JJ's stuff. It starts out "SEC Bias" and all of his comments surround "SEC Bias"...





Jetjockey said:


> Tell that to Baylor!  The only reason Bama's loss doesn't looks that bad is because the rankings are a joke.  Ole Miss has lost 3 of their last 5 games, and somehow they are ranked in the top 15?  Ya, that makes sense!





Browning Slayer said:


> And there we go... SEC Bias... Knew it was coming!



JJ, you are so predictable!!!


----------



## Jetjockey (Dec 4, 2014)

Browning Slayer said:


> JJ, you are so predictable!!!



Well you explain to us why a team that has lost 3 of its last 5 games, and 3 of their last 4 agaisnt FBS schools, is ranked in the top 15?  They got beat by unranked Arkansas 30-0!...........30-0!!!!   Let that sink in!  30-0!!!!!   By an UNRANKED team!  Yet they are still in the top 15?  Why?


----------



## elfiii (Dec 4, 2014)

Madsnooker said:


> Not sure what point it had but I did find the article enlightening and if in fact, it is true, I think the sec should be embarrassed!!! I know I would of the BIG if they did anything similar because of the perceived fallout of losing?



In light of the totally goofball ranking system I can understand why no CFB team would bother risking a Top 10 ranking for the sake of playing an OOC team clear across the country just to make some homers happy.

I understand the cupcake games are for spreading the cha ching to the small fries but that has gotten out of hand and everybody is discounting them now. One cupcake game per Div 1 team per season is enough. Use the remaining games for conference play and possibly 1 mandated OOC game with a team that isn't 3,000 miles away and I'm good. Home/Home or neutral ground is fine by me.


----------



## elfiii (Dec 4, 2014)

Browning Slayer said:


> And there we go... SEC Bias... Knew it was coming!



That's not SEC bias. That's left coast inferiority complex.


----------



## Browning Slayer (Dec 4, 2014)

elfiii said:


> That's not SEC bias. That's left coast inferiority complex.


----------



## Browning Slayer (Dec 4, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> Well you explain to us why a team that has lost 3 of its last 5 games, and 3 of their last 4 agaisnt FBS schools, is ranked in the top 15?  They got beat by unranked Arkansas 30-0!...........30-0!!!!   Let that sink in!  30-0!!!!!   By an UNRANKED team!  Yet they are still in the top 15?  Why?



Why do I need to explain it to you... 

The CFP committee ranked them 12.. The AP has them at 13.. And USA today has them at 14.. 

So now the CFP committee is being Bias as well?? For being a liberal you sure do have a lot of conspiracy theories...


----------



## rex upshaw (Dec 4, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> Well you explain to us why a team that has lost 3 of its last 5 games, and 3 of their last 4 agaisnt FBS schools, is ranked in the top 15?  They got beat by unranked Arkansas 30-0!...........30-0!!!!   Let that sink in!  30-0!!!!!   By an UNRANKED team!  Yet they are still in the top 15?  Why?



JJ, please explain why so many of these committee members, who have strong ties to the p12, rank these teams as they do.   SEC bias.


----------



## DSGB (Dec 4, 2014)

bullgator said:


> This is getting old. The SEC isn't running from anyone. To "try" to get to the strength of schedule of the SEC, teams from other conferences have to add quality OOC games.....the SEC doesn't. According to www.teamrankings.com , the SEC has 10 of the top 20 toughest schedules. The PAC has......2! This is as of today 12/3. These futile attempts are getting old.....laughable, but old.


----------



## Browning Slayer (Dec 4, 2014)

bullgator said:


> This is getting old. The SEC isn't running from anyone. To "try" to get to the strength of schedule of the SEC, teams from other conferences have to add quality OOC games.....the SEC doesn't. According to www.teamrankings.com , the SEC has 10 of the top 20 toughest schedules. The PAC has......2! This is as of today 12/3. These futile attempts are getting old.....laughable, but old.





DSGB said:


>



Just MORE SEC Bias...


----------



## Rebel Yell (Dec 4, 2014)

fish hawk said:


> In reality they just might be running away.....Away from all those weirdo's on the left coast.......
> I don't want to step foot in a state that would willingly vote Nancy Pelosi into office.






bullgator said:


> well, there's always that!



What are you laughing at, Bull.  Your Go Gata doesn't _willingly _step foot in any state not named Florida.  At least not since 1991.


----------



## Jetjockey (Dec 4, 2014)

Rebel Yell said:


> What are you laughing at, Bull.  Your Go Gata doesn't _willingly _step foot in any state not named Florida.  At least not since 1991.



Well we know why Florida won't go play the PAC-12.  The last two times they did they got beat, and that was in bowl games.  The last time was a blowout!


----------



## rex upshaw (Dec 4, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> Well we know why Florida won't go play the PAC-12.  The last two times they did they got beat, and that was in bowl games.  The last time was a blowout!



Do the committee members with ties to the p12 suffer from SEC bias? op2:


----------



## Jetjockey (Dec 4, 2014)

rex upshaw said:


> Do the committee members with ties to the p12 suffer from SEC bias? op2:



I think they are the ONLY reason Oregon is even in contention.


----------



## Browning Slayer (Dec 4, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> I think they are the ONLY reason Oregon is even in contention.






You do realize Oregon is in the top 4 in ALL of the polls....


----------



## Jetjockey (Dec 4, 2014)

Browning Slayer said:


> You do realize Oregon is in the top 4 in ALL of the polls....



Yep!  And they would still be left out of the NC under the old system!  It's kind of tough to leave them out when they have the second best loss (behind TCU) and the best win (Mich st) amongst the top 4.  Plus, their one loss was when they were missing several key players, and even then, it was a joke call that gave Arizona the win.

Tell me.  Why is Bama #1?  They aren't undefeated like Florida St?


----------



## Browning Slayer (Dec 4, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> Yep!  And they would still be left out of the NC under the old system!  It's kind of tough to leave them out when they have the second best loss (behind TCU) and the best win (Mich st) amongst the top 4.  Plus, their one loss was when they were missing several key players, and even then, it was a joke call that gave Arizona the win.
> 
> Tell me.  Why is Bama #1?  They aren't undefeated like Florida St?



The old system... But yet you make this statement...


> I think they are the ONLY reason Oregon is even in contention.


Which means you are WRONG again! All of the polls reflect them in the playoff, not just the CFP...

Ask the same question about Oregon.. Why are they #2 to an undefeated FSU...


----------



## Jetjockey (Dec 4, 2014)

Browning Slayer said:


> The old system... But yet you make this statement...
> 
> Which means you are WRONG again! All of the polls reflect them in the playoff, not just the CFP...
> 
> Ask the same question about Oregon.. Why are they #2 to an undefeated FSU...



They aren't!  And they shouldn't be in the playoff poll.  Luckily, the playoff poll is WAY better than the old system, but they still have it screwed up.  FSU should be #1 in EVERY poll!


----------



## bullgator (Dec 4, 2014)

Rebel Yell said:


> What are you laughing at, Bull.  Your Go Gata doesn't _willingly _step foot in any state not named Florida.  At least not since 1991.



What am I laughing at? Did you go to the link I provided? UFs strength of schedule (SOS) is currently ranked 15th. Why do we have to go across the country to look for quality OOC opponents? Isn't FSU a quality opponent?....I think they are. Don't worry about UFs schedule when that same link shows FSUs schedule rated.......45 th....


----------



## Rebel Yell (Dec 5, 2014)

bullgator said:


> What am I laughing at? Did you go to the link I provided? UFs strength of schedule (SOS) is currently ranked 15th. Why do we have to go across the country to look for quality OOC opponents? Isn't FSU a quality opponent?....I think they are. Don't worry about UFs schedule when that same link shows FSUs schedule rated.......45 th....



That's why I said willingly go out of state.  Fact is, you still haven't left the state for a regular season OOC conference game since HW Bush was in office.  

That SOS ranking is a little misleading.  You still only played 2 teams with less than 3 losses.  It just looks tougher, because y'all couldn't handle it.

Good luck with Al Golden 2.0


----------



## Rebel Yell (Dec 5, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> They aren't!  And they shouldn't be in the playoff poll.  Luckily, the playoff poll is WAY better than the old system, but they still have it screwed up.  FSU should be #1 in EVERY poll!



The playoff committe is a joke.  TCU shouldn't be ranked ahead of Baylor.

Let's just say that they have the top four teams correct.  Then they are completely backwards.  Look at the ranking of the team each one lost to.


----------



## bullgator (Dec 5, 2014)

Well, if I was say....FSU, who didn't play a regular season schedule that included Bama, LSU, Georgia, USCe, Mizzou, and Vandy , then I could see the need to go find some competition. 
Again, UFs schedule was rated 15 th.......FSU 45th. Why doesn't FSU schedule a tougher in- conference schedule?....answer= because they can't in the ACC.


----------



## BrotherBadger (Dec 6, 2014)

bullgator said:


> Well, if I was say....FSU, who didn't play a regular season schedule that included Bama, LSU, Georgia, USCe, Mizzou, and Vandy , then I could see the need to go find some competition.
> Again, UFs schedule was rated 15 th.......FSU 45th. Why doesn't FSU schedule a tougher in- conference schedule?....answer= because they can't in the ACC.



Oh COME ON, are you seriously trying to say playing a 6-6 South Carolina and a 3-9 Vanderbilt is tough? I'll give you everybody else you mentioned, but SC and Vandy are bad teams. Come on buddy, who you trying fool mentioning Vanderbilt? They lost to Temple and barely squeaked by Charleston Southern.


----------



## bullgator (Dec 6, 2014)

BrotherBadger said:


> Oh COME ON, are you seriously trying to say playing a 6-6 South Carolina and a 3-9 Vanderbilt is tough? I'll give you everybody else you mentioned, but SC and Vandy are bad teams. Come on buddy, who you trying fool mentioning Vanderbilt? They lost to Temple and barely squeaked by Charleston Southern.



Really? A little light hearted humor as obvious as I could make it still got by ya?......


----------



## Throwback (Dec 6, 2014)

I want Wisconsin to beat ohio state like eggs in a bowl 

T


----------



## bullgator (Dec 6, 2014)

Throwback said:


> I want Wisconsin to beat ohio state like eggs in a bowl
> 
> T



Absolutely!
Now that OSU is going to QB #3, who knows.


----------



## BrotherBadger (Dec 6, 2014)

bullgator said:


> Really? A little light hearted humor as obvious as I could make it still got by ya?......



In my defense, it was late and I was drinking.


----------



## bullgator (Dec 6, 2014)

No problem. I posted with a tongue in cheek grin anyway.

Now go spank the OSU nuts.


----------



## alaustin1865 (Dec 8, 2014)

Jetjockey said:


> Yep!  And they would still be left out of the NC under the old system!  It's kind of tough to leave them out when they have the second best loss (behind TCU) and the best win (Mich st) amongst the top 4.  Plus, their one loss was when they were missing several key players, and even then, it was a joke call that gave Arizona the win.
> 
> Tell me.  Why is Bama #1?  They aren't undefeated like Florida St?



I don't see why Michigan St. is getting so much love.  They didn't play anyone either.  Their best win was against Nebraska.  Nebraska's best win was against Miami (I guess?).  Michigan St. played two good teams and got beat down by both of them.


----------



## Throwback (Dec 31, 2016)




----------

