# I agree with Lou Holtz on one thing ......



## Jody Hawk (Dec 2, 2007)

Gotta agree with Granny on this one. He was dead on when he said Georgia didn't deserve to play for the national title when they weren't even the eastern divisional champs, let alone SEC conference champs. I think there ought to be some kind of rule  in there that says a team must win their conference before they can be national champs.


----------



## Buford_Dawg (Dec 2, 2007)

*I think UGA is playing better than any team*

right now and could win a NC.  However, I agree with your post.  If you don't win your conference, then I don't think you should get a chance.


----------



## Lee (Dec 2, 2007)

I do think it would be interesting to do a search on this forum of posts on this forum before yesterday on how many people think the SEC champion should play for the National Title if it came down to a debate with someone in another conference.

I'm not one of those that is totally sold on the idea that UGA may not be playing for it though.


----------



## PWalls (Dec 2, 2007)

Right on spot Jody.


----------



## tcward (Dec 2, 2007)

Techies, ain't it great that you don't have to worry about your own team and where they are gonna go because you already know (toliet bowl) Furthermore, I think UGA should play LSU for the NC because the SEC is the best in the nation.


----------



## Arrow3 (Dec 2, 2007)

There have been teams in the past that didn't win their conference and still played for the NC....You don't have to win your division in baseball, NFL, or the NBA to win it all....


----------



## Jody Hawk (Dec 2, 2007)

tcward said:


> Techies, ain't it great that you don't have to worry about your own team and where they are gonna go because you already know (toliet bowl) Furthermore, I think UGA should play LSU for the NC because the SEC is the best in the nation.



I'd say the same thing if it was Tech.


----------



## DAWG1419 (Dec 2, 2007)

That's why we need a playoff cause of goof balls like ya'll thinking. Lets not think lets play the game and we will truely know. I think this and that but does it truely matter what any of us think. I think I'll take a nap and see if that helps.


----------



## Big Buck Hunter (Dec 2, 2007)

*Georgia  vs. OHio St.*

This would be a great game and Georgia should be in the BCS Championship game. Its like Coach Richt said this morning on ESPN that Ga. tied Tenn. for the eastern division, and that BCS does not recognize if a team wins its conference or not. Also if you really wanted to get technical about the whole thing you could look at Ohio St. schedule and compare it to a LSU or Georgia or USC and people would agree that they(Ohio St.) doesn't have the schedule to be there. We need a playoff. GO DAWGS!!!!!


----------



## RBoleman (Dec 2, 2007)

I think if 1 and 2 lose then 3 and 4 should move up.

that ain't hard to figure out

It's great to be a Georgia Bulldog


----------



## sbrown (Dec 2, 2007)

Arrow3 said:


> There have been teams in the past that didn't win their conference and still played for the NC....You don't have to win your division in baseball, NFL, or the NBA to win it all....



True, but those sports have a playoff system.


----------



## greene_dawg (Dec 2, 2007)

Jody - The BCS has voted on this thing and turned down the chance to insist that someone be a conf champ to get in. It is what it is. Don't get me wrong, I understand where you are coming from and I won't have any heartburn if LSU goes but there have been two other times when teams who didn't win their conference got in so it's not like this is some odd scenario.  To play devils advocate, LSU has progressively gotten worse since the VT game and UGA has gotten better and hasn't lost since the first week of October. SO is it about who "deserves" to get in or about trying to match up the two best teams in the country?


----------



## greene_dawg (Dec 2, 2007)

sbrown said:


> True, but those sports have a playoff system.



Tell that to Nebraska and Oklahoma


----------



## chadair (Dec 2, 2007)

greene_dawg said:


> Tell that to Nebraska and Oklahoma



 IF THE BCS WOULD HAVE FOLLOWED THE GUIDE LINES THEY DO NOW, THOSE TWO TEAMS WOULD HAVE NEVER MADE IT THEN.


----------



## greene_dawg (Dec 2, 2007)

The only thing that was added was quality wins right? If the BCS wanted to prevent a non champ from getting in then they could have done that. They SPECIFICALLY voted on that exact rule and the result was that you don't have to be a conf champ to play in the big game. Their intentions were quite clear.


----------



## SBG (Dec 2, 2007)

Arrow3 said:


> There have been teams in the past that didn't win their conference and still played for the NC....You don't have to win your division in baseball, NFL, or the NBA to win it all....



Great point. NCAA Basketball either. 

I think that right now, the Dawgs are probably the best team in the country. I think that the Gators are probably number two.


----------



## dale (Dec 2, 2007)

If Ohio State is in, then what team in the top 6 does not have a  arguement to be there. It will be some great games either way.I think it's another chance for the SEC to prove that they are a road most teams don't want to travel. Either way Georgia will play a top ranked team and need to be ready, it could be Huge statement for the SEC debate.Being a big Dawg fan, I really , really , really don't like Flordia, but I did enjoy the Beating Ohio State got last year, and I think they need to Admit we fight like heck against each other in the SEC , but went it comes down to it, we want the the other conferences to enjoy some of what we have week after week.


----------



## gordoshawt (Dec 2, 2007)

It is a testemant of playing in a great conference. For UGA to even be metioned in the same breath as the NC game is an honor for the SEC. UGA should make the sugar this year, but watch out next year. 

UGA staff and players needs to keep their nose clean in the offseason.


----------



## MICHAEL TAYLOR (Dec 2, 2007)

*National Champs*

GA. SHOULD PLAY OHIO STATE , WHEN IT'S ALL DONE AND SAID GA. IS PLAYING AS GOOD AS ANY OF THE TOP 5, IN OTHER SPORTS THEY THROW IN A COUPLE OF WILD CARDS WITH REGIONAL CHAMPS. THE CHAMPS ARE CHOSEN AT THE END OF THE SEASON. WHO THE BEST NOW, GA.


----------



## SE.GAcoondawg (Dec 2, 2007)

I love my dawgs and feel we are definately playing like one of the elite teams in the country.  However I tend to agree that we should take care of business at home first.  It would not bother me a bit to see LSU play OSU in the NC game.  It really doesn't matter who plays OSU the whole country is going to realize how pathetic the big 10 is.  I would love to see UGA play USC in the rose, two hot teams with alot to prove.  

What's so funny to me is most everyone jacking their jaw and so happy about a flawed system are the same ones with no dog in the fight to begin with.  Why don't you spend more time praying your team gets a decent bowl game than bashing a UGA team that is playing as good as any team in the country.  A team I might add that would represent the SEC as good as any.  

Good luck to all the SEC teams, I hope not one game is within two touchdowns.


----------



## Arrow3 (Dec 2, 2007)

Where's gobblingdawg and MCG when you need them??


----------



## Jody Hawk (Dec 2, 2007)

greene_dawg said:


> To play devils advocate, LSU has progressively gotten worse since the VT game and UGA has gotten better and hasn't lost since the first week of October. SO is it about who "deserves" to get in or about trying to match up the two best teams in the country?



Well, at what point in the season do you have to be on your best game to play for the national championship? Last I checked, seasons weren't broken down into halves. Championships were won throughout the season. Everyone is so quick to jump on LSU but what about the Dawgs losing to a very average South Carolina team and getting trounced by Tennessee. LSU lost two games and it took 3 overtimes in each of those games for that to happen. There's no doubt that LSU played their way in by winning the SEC Championship game. That's an extra game against a quality opponent that appears to have helped LSU's chances.


----------



## BROWNING7WSM (Dec 2, 2007)

If i was a UGA fan   I'd be more P O'd.. that OSU is making it to the NC game than UGA not making it..  How do they always sneak in, 12-0  and they shouldnt even make it then.. It should be LSU vs. Oklahoma..


----------



## Howard Roark (Dec 2, 2007)

If Georgia had taken care of business against SC there would be no debate.  I agree Jody.  I will take the season we had and not worry about playing for the NC.  I wish we could have played LSU Saturday night.


----------



## ga_game_hunter (Dec 2, 2007)

It just shows how disalusional UGA fans can be for them to actually think they have a shot to be in the NC game.  There is simply no way UGA is going to be playing for the NC.  LSU has a better record and WON the SEC but somehow you believe you should go instead.  Unbelievable.


----------



## BROWNING7WSM (Dec 2, 2007)

ga_game_hunter said:


> It just shows how dilusional UGA fans can be for them to actually think they have a shot to be in the NC game.  There is simply no way UGA is going to be playing for the NC.  LSU has a better record and WON the SEC but somehow you believe you should go instead.  Unbelievable.



Good Post !!!!!!


----------



## sbrown (Dec 2, 2007)

ga_game_hunter said:


> It just shows how disalusional UGA fans can be for them to actually think they have a shot to be in the NC game.  There is simply no way UGA is going to be playing for the NC.  LSU has a better record and WON the SEC but somehow you believe you should go instead.  Unbelievable.



I agree. As for Ohio, I don't like them either and think they kinda backed their way in as well by not having to play a conference championship game at all. At least LSU and Oklahoma put themselves back in it by earning victories over decent teams and winning their conference titles. I know it is not a rule but when it is this close in the voting and you have 2 teams from the same conference like UGA and LSU I think it has to count for something. UGA will rep. the SEC well whoever they play, I personaly don't want to see UGA or LSU play Hawaii, I would rather see USC or somebody else.


----------



## dirtroad (Dec 2, 2007)

Buford_Dawg said:


> right now and could win a NC.  However, I agree with your post.  If you don't win your conference, then I don't think you should get a chance.


Exactly.
It would be like Co-National Champions...........Worthless.


----------



## ga_game_hunter (Dec 2, 2007)

I'll rephrase myself and say not all UGA fans are disalusional.  I would much rather see them play USC as well.  It seems lately UGA plays in a bowl in which they are suppose to win.  Sort of puts then in a "no win" situation.  If they beat Hawaii then so what, if they lose to Hawaii then everyone will say how much they suck.


----------



## sbrown (Dec 2, 2007)

ga_game_hunter said:


> I'll rephrase myself and say not all UGA fans are disalusional.  I would much rather see them play USC as well.  It seems lately UGA plays in a bowl in which they are suppose to win.  Sort of puts then in a "no win" situation.  If they beat Hawaii then so what, if they lose to Hawaii then everyone will say how much they suck.



Exactly, if they don't get the NC game let em go to the Rose and beat up on USC. That game would be the next best thing and generate some interest! I don't want to see a VT rematch either.


----------



## GobblingDawg (Dec 2, 2007)

Everybody (I thought ) knows that if you are going to lose in NCAA football, it is better to lose early and finish strong which is what we did.

Like I told Brandon earlier today, there is no clear-cut answer on exactly who should play for the MNC that is why there is so much chatter, but why penalize/shaft us (UGA) because we lost the tie breaker in the SEC East and were not allowed to represent the East.  It was a TIE-BREAKER (which means we had the same conference record) that UT edged us out on.  We were co-champions of the SEC East (which is stronger than the SEC West, by the way) and finished the season as one of the two hottest teams in the country (the other being, cough-cough USC).  LSU lost just 10 days ago to an unranked Arkansas, yet we are supposed to believe that they are deserving to play for the MNC?

I would have no problem with LSU playing for the MNC is the had fewer losses than us and were ranked higher than us before the games yesterday, but to allow any team to jump a red hot UGA because they played an extra game just seems a bit unfair.

Oh well, let's see exactly how it shakes out here in a couple of hours!!


Go Dawgs and come on March,
GobblingDawg


----------



## sbrown (Dec 2, 2007)

GobblingDawg said:


> Everybody (I thought ) knows that if you are going to lose in NCAA football, it is better to lose early and finish strong which is what we did.
> 
> Like I told Brandon earlier today, there is no clear-cut answer on exactly who should play for the MNC that is why there is so much chatter, but why penalize/shaft us (UGA) because we lost the tie breaker in the SEC East and were not allowed to represent the East.  It was a TIE-BREAKER (which means we had the same conference record) that UT edged us out on.  We were co-champions of the SEC East (which is stronger than the SEC West, by the way) and finished the season as one of the two hottest teams in the country (the other being, cough-cough USC).  LSU lost just 10 days ago to an unranked Arkansas, yet we are supposed to believe that they are deserving to play for the MNC?
> 
> ...



Uh, the extra game that LSU and Oklahoma played were just little ol CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIP GAMES. That is why they should jump AHEAD of an idle Georgia team. Again, Georgia would not have been idle if they had been playing in their own championship game. Hot or not they did not play any better over the course of the season than LSU. LSU probably doesn't deserve another shot either but you sure don't if you can't make it to your own conference title game. Why is that so unreasonable?


----------



## GobblingDawg (Dec 2, 2007)

sbrown said:


> Why is that so unreasonable?



I didn't say it was unreasonable, but that it only seems a bit unfair.  We have all known over this past week that UGA was not going to the conference championship game, so with that rationale, why were we ranked ahead of LSU and OU to begin with?  Or even UT?


Like I said earlier, I would think that a red hot team would be more deserving of a  MNC bid than a team that lost 10 days ago to an unranked team. 


Go Dawgs and come on March,
GobblingDawg


----------



## MudDucker (Dec 2, 2007)

ga_game_hunter said:


> It just shows how disalusional UGA fans can be for them to actually think they have a shot to be in the NC game.  There is simply no way UGA is going to be playing for the NC.  LSU has a better record and WON the SEC but somehow you believe you should go instead.  Unbelievable.



I guess you are just too smart for us poor ole Dawg Fans.  I mean they probably haven't spent more than 10-12 hours of national TV air time debating whether UGA should go.  LSU lost 2 games late in the season and did not convincing win the SEC championship.  UGA is the co-eastern division champ, but BCS doesn't require divisional or conference champs.  LSU had the ball and dropped it.  At the first of the season, I thought they were a sho in, but they underperformed.

Having said that, UGA was young this year.  At the beginning of the year, I thought they would have a really good year, but I also knew they were young and inexperienced.  Talent and a coach who woke up to his job of being a motivator is what made this a GREAT season.  Unless I am mistaken, that lose to Tennessee may be the best turning point ever in the growth of a football coach.  Mark Richt became a great coach after that game.

If we go to the Sugar Bowl and defeat the only undefeated major team in the nation, we have a claim as good as anyone's to the title.

I'm proud of the Dawgs!


----------



## greene_dawg (Dec 2, 2007)

Jody Hawk said:


> Well, at what point in the season do you have to be on your best game to play for the national championship? Last I checked, seasons weren't broken down into halves. Championships were won throughout the season. Everyone is so quick to jump on LSU but what about the Dawgs losing to a very average South Carolina team and getting trounced by Tennessee. LSU lost two games and it took 3 overtimes in each of those games for that to happen. There's no doubt that LSU played their way in by winning the SEC Championship game. That's an extra game against a quality opponent that appears to have helped LSU's chances.



I'm not saying that we should be in but what I am saying is that not winning your conference isn't an automatic deal breaker as proven in the past. As far as the season being broken up in two halves, everyone who watches CFB knows that if you are going to lose you need to do it early in most cases instead of late in the year like LSU did against Arky just last week. In this case it didn't work out in our favor and I'm cool with it. LSU deserves to go over us but the two best teams in CFB won't be playing in the CG.


----------



## LanierSpots (Dec 2, 2007)

Last year, alot of guys wanted OSU and Michigan in the big game.  All of us said Michigan should not be there if they did not win thier conf.  No different this year.  Ga should not go.  They did not win the right.   

There is a argument for every team not to go.  But, OSU and LSU is the best choice of what is left and the way the cards fell.  OSU is probally the 10th best team in the nation and will get crushed again but with the system we have, its what is right.


----------



## fishnpreacher (Dec 2, 2007)

In response to a National Championship team being a conference champ.....A team could go 11-1 (1 conference loss) and not be conference champion, at the same time another conference team could go 8-4 (4 non-conference losses) and win the conference. Where's the justice in that?
No doubt UGA is playing the best it has played in years, while other teams are struggling with injuries, fatigue, and so on.
Where do you start to sort it out?
At least NCAA basketball has a playoff system.


----------



## ga_game_hunter (Dec 2, 2007)

MudDucker said:


> I guess you are just too smart for us poor ole Dawg Fans.  I mean they probably haven't spent more than 10-12 hours of national TV air time debating whether UGA should go.



I guess I am.  I dont know what you have been watching but I just watched the bowl selection show and NOBODY thought UGA should be playing for the NC.  I think it was rather amusing when Herbstreet had to clarify he was assigned to make a case for UGA but believed LSU should be there.  The only people who thought UGA should be playing for the NC were their coaches, players, and fans.  I also found it funny how they skipped over the Sugar bowl completely when they were going over all the BCS bowls.


----------



## MudDucker (Dec 2, 2007)

ga_game_hunter said:


> I guess I am.  I dont know what you have been watching but I just watched the bowl selection show and NOBODY thought UGA should be playing for the NC.  I think it was rather amusing when Herbstreet had to clarify he was assigned to make a case for UGA but believed LSU should be there.  The only people who thought UGA should be playing for the NC were their coaches, players, and fans.  I also found it funny how they skipped over the Sugar bowl completely when they were going over all the BCS bowls.



Oh...ESPN...now thats authoritative and Herby...Miles is gone...street.  Not much there, but you don't need much...hot air makes its own way.


----------



## Buck (Nov 27, 2011)

Bump..


----------



## deerbandit (Nov 27, 2011)

I guess Alabama shouldn't be playing for it either than, but I'm sure it will be different for Saint Nick.


----------



## LanierSpots (Nov 27, 2011)

My opinion on this has not changed.


----------



## Marks500 (Nov 27, 2011)

NC game is set.. LSU vs Alabama Rematch...enough said... Maybe Alabama will bring a Kicker this game!


----------



## AccUbonD (Nov 27, 2011)

Hopefully they'll get it right and not put a match-up in the NC that has already been decided this year.


----------



## RipperIII (Nov 27, 2011)

AccUbonD said:


> Hopefully they'll get it right and not put a match-up in the NC that has already been decided this year.



"right" ...according to you?...thank GOD you don't make crucial decisions in life...


----------



## toolmkr20 (Nov 27, 2011)

Sorry Bama had their chance and blew it by missing 4 field goal attempts. I think whoever wins the SECCG should take the #1 spot and represent the SEC in the BCSCG.


----------



## Marks500 (Nov 27, 2011)

toolmkr20 said:


> Sorry Bama had their chance and blew it by missing 4 field goal attempts. I think whoever wins the SECCG should take the #1 spot and represent the SEC in the BCSCG.



LOL.. with what Resume?? Assuming you are talking about GA.


----------



## toolmkr20 (Nov 27, 2011)

Why not if we knock off #1 LSU?


----------



## Marks500 (Nov 27, 2011)

toolmkr20 said:


> Why not if we knock off #1 LSU?



Look at the Teams GA has beat and Look at the Teams Alabama has beat.And Alabama didnt exactally get stomped my LSU. I guess anything is Possible but either way LSU is in the NC game win or lose.


----------



## Les Miles (Nov 27, 2011)

toolmkr20 said:


> Why not if we knock off #1 LSU?



Georgia does not have the resume to jump 12 or 13 spots past all the other 1-loss teams just because the beat LSU in a conference championship game. The BCS just doesn't operate that way.


----------



## gin house (Nov 27, 2011)

Lsu and bama are by far the two best teams in the country.  Lsu could lose in the SECCG and still go.   UGA to play in the NC???   Has anyone noticed that theyre not the highest ranked team in their own division?  The BCS is to put the two best teams in the NC game by strength of schedule and percentages.   Uga is ranked 14th in the BCS and if they did beat LSU they probably wouldnt move up but to about 10th.  Uga has no shot, ok st would be a joke playing LSU, Arky isnt quite good enough......Bama and LSU are the best two hands down.


----------



## MudDucker (Nov 28, 2011)

gin house said:


> Lsu and bama are by far the two best teams in the country.  Lsu could lose in the SECCG and still go.   UGA to play in the NC???   Has anyone noticed that theyre not the highest ranked team in their own division?  The BCS is to put the two best teams in the NC game by strength of schedule and percentages.   Uga is ranked 14th in the BCS and if they did beat LSU they probably wouldnt move up but to about 10th.  Uga has no shot, ok st would be a joke playing LSU, Arky isnt quite good enough......Bama and LSU are the best two hands down.



Yep, the gin is in the house ... or rather ... is too much of it in your belly?


----------



## bighunterjpk (Nov 28, 2011)

Les...im not totally sure anyone really knows how the bcs operates... just sayin


----------



## Madsnooker (Nov 29, 2011)

I just heard Bama has only beaten 4 teams with a winning record. Wow, is that correct?


----------



## Tvveedie (Nov 29, 2011)

gin house said:


> Lsu and bama are by far the two best teams in the country.  Lsu could lose in the SECCG and still go.   UGA to play in the NC???   Has anyone noticed that theyre not the highest ranked team in their own division?  The BCS is to put the two best teams in the NC game by strength of schedule and percentages.   Uga is ranked 14th in the BCS and if they did beat LSU they probably wouldnt move up but to about 10th.  Uga has no shot, ok st would be a joke playing LSU, Arky isnt quite good enough......Bama and LSU are the best two hands down.



How you figure?  LSU losing to UGA doesn't scream #1 for the kitties.  And they will lose.


----------



## gin house (Nov 29, 2011)

Tvveedie said:


> How you figure?  LSU losing to UGA doesn't scream #1 for the kitties.  And they will lose.



  At most they would fall to #2.  Lsu is one of two undefeated teams and the other is houston, a non bsc team.  Bank on it....Lsu/bama in the NC.


----------



## gin house (Nov 29, 2011)

MudDucker said:


> Yep, the gin is in the house ... or rather ... is too much of it in your belly?



  And youre on the forum looking for attention  What did i post that wasnt correct?  Whos hittin the bottle now   I know youre from georgia so i will try to enlighten you on what a gin house is.  It is an enclosure for a cotton gin   But i wouldnt expect any more from a georgian.


----------



## Les Miles (Nov 30, 2011)

Madsnooker said:


> I just heard Bama has only beaten 4 teams with a winning record. Wow, is that correct?



You are correct sir. Doesn't really look all that impressive after you break it down now does it? 

Kent State 5-7
Penn State 9-3
North Texas State 4-7
Arkansas 10-2
Florida 6-6
Vandy 6-6
Ole Miss 2-10
Tennessee 5-7
Miss State 6-6
Georgia Southern 9-2
Auburn 7-5


----------



## Catdaddy SC (Nov 30, 2011)

bighunterjpk said:


> Les...im not totally sure anyone really knows how the bcs operates... just sayin




Here's a Flow Chart that will help you understand it.



http://www.sportspickle.com/opinion/9020/flowchart-does-your-team-have-a-shot-at-the-bcs-title-game


----------



## gacowboy (Nov 30, 2011)

Les Miles said:


> You are correct sir. Doesn't really look all that impressive after you break it down now does it?
> 
> Kent State 5-7
> Penn State 9-3
> ...




Ouch! And Ga Southern had some success on offense didn't they?


----------



## brownceluse (Nov 30, 2011)

Les Miles said:


> You are correct sir. Doesn't really look all that impressive after you break it down now does it?
> 
> Kent State 5-7
> Penn State 9-3
> ...



I have not paid any attention to their schedule. Hmmm.


----------



## Les Miles (Nov 30, 2011)

brownceluse said:


> I have not paid any attention to their schedule. Hmmm.



Kent State, N. Texas State, Vandy, Ole Miss, Georgia Southern.

Whoo-Whee! That's some football powerhouses right there!


----------



## DDD (Nov 30, 2011)

So here is something I have not heard much disco about...

If you believe that a team has to win their conference championship to play for the National Title....

And UGA was to up and beat LSU, that would mean that LSU nor Alabama could play for the National Title.

So who would it be?  Houston and Ok. St?  Boise St. and Virginia Tech?

I not only hope that UGA beats LSU because I am a dawg, but I hope they do it to absolutely drive home the fact that the college world needs a playoff.  They do it in Baseball and Basketball its the only way to truly name a champion, especially if you have 8, 1 loss teams and of those really good one loss teams, some of them have their 1 loss in their conference championship game to a 2 loss or 3 loss team.


----------



## Jack Straw (Nov 30, 2011)

Les Miles said:


> You are correct sir. Doesn't really look all that impressive after you break it down now does it?
> 
> Kent State 5-7
> Penn State 9-3
> ...



UGA and Bama had 6 common SEC opponents and both won all 6.  UGA had SC (10-2) while Bama had Arky (10-2). Both had 2 OOC cupcakes which both won.  UGA had Boise St (11-1) while Bama had Penn St (9-3).  UGA had tech while Bama had Ga Southern.  

But Georgia had an easy schedule.  Additionally, the Dogs beat AU by a larger margin than Bama.  When UGA beat AU it meant that Auburn was just another bad team on an easy schedule, but when Bama beat them it cemented their place at #2 in the national polls.

Funny how that works.


----------



## KrazieJacket95 (Nov 30, 2011)

This is where the and 1 scenario really would be the best option.  LSU-VT or Stanford playing winner of OKie St.- Bama.


----------



## Les Miles (Nov 30, 2011)

Jack Straw said:


> UGA and Bama had 6 common SEC opponents and both won all 6.  UGA had SC (10-2) while Bama had Arky (10-2). Both had 2 OOC cupcakes which both won.  UGA had Boise St (11-1) while Bama had Penn St (9-3).  UGA had tech while Bama had Ga Southern.
> 
> But Georgia had an easy schedule.  Additionally, the Dogs beat AU by a larger margin than Bama.  When UGA beat AU it meant that Auburn was just another bad team on an easy schedule, but when Bama beat them it cemented their place at #2 in the national polls.
> 
> Funny how that works.



Some of the Bammers like to twist the facts to make them look good.

Moral victories...


----------



## Jack Straw (Nov 30, 2011)

KrazieJacket95 said:


> This is where the and 1 scenario really would be the best option.  LSU-VT or Stanford playing winner of OKie St.- Bama.



Honest question here.  Why?  What is the benefit of having the top 4 seeds playing vs. the top 2 seeds?  Is it just to give 3 and 4 a chance? Or to avoid a LSU/Bama rematch? If they both won against 3 & 4, you still get a rematch. Why not just go ahead and give 1 & 2 a shot at the title? 

Sincerely,
Devil's Advocate


----------



## Catdaddy SC (Nov 30, 2011)

Jack Straw said:


> Honest question here.  Why?  What is the benefit of having the top 4 seeds playing vs. the top 2 seeds?  Is it just to give 3 and 4 a chance? Or to avoid a LSU/Bama rematch? If they both won against 3 & 4, you still get a rematch. Why not just go ahead and give 1 & 2 a shot at the title?
> 
> Sincerely,
> Devil's Advocate





Good point. Also there would be alot of whining from the 5,6,7,and 8th rated teams. They would assert that they were actually #3 and #4.


Look at basketball in March when they pick the 64 teams. The sports commentators and left out coaches spend weeks crying over being 65th -70th.



The BCS works just fine and is much better than 20 years ago when a Big 10 team was going to play regardless of how well everybody else was.


----------



## RipperIII (Nov 30, 2011)

Jack Straw said:


> UGA and Bama had 6 common SEC opponents and both won all 6.  UGA had SC (10-2) while Bama had Arky (10-2). Both had 2 OOC cupcakes which both won.  UGA had Boise St (11-1) while Bama had Penn St (9-3).  UGA had tech while Bama had Ga Southern.
> 
> But Georgia had an easy schedule.  Additionally, the Dogs beat AU by a larger margin than Bama.  When UGA beat AU it meant that Auburn was just another bad team on an easy schedule, but when Bama beat them it cemented their place at #2 in the national polls.
> 
> Funny how that works.



why don't you post the margin of victory vs. MissSt and Vandy?...3 points better vs. our bitter rival at their house, yep you dawgs really showed us up...


----------



## Jack Straw (Nov 30, 2011)

RipperIII said:


> why don't you post the margin of victory vs. MissSt and Vandy?...3 points better vs. our bitter rival at their house, yep you dawgs really showed us up...



Where did I say the Dawgs showed anyone up? My point was that the talk all season has been that UGA was lucky to have an easy schedule when a simple comparison shows that the Bama schedule was just as easy.  I didn't post Miss St. or Vandy scores because they were irrelevant to my point.  The only reason I mentioned the outcome of the Auburn game was because when UGA won that game the immediate comments were that Auburn was just another bad team on the schedule.  When Bama beat them, the talking heads were quick to point out that it was proof of how good Bama is.  

By the way, Georgia beat AU by 38 points and Bama won by 28 points...that would be a *10* point difference.

Your avatar is confusing.  Did you lose a bet or something?


----------



## KrazieJacket95 (Nov 30, 2011)

Jack Straw said:


> Honest question here.  Why?  What is the benefit of having the top 4 seeds playing vs. the top 2 seeds?  Is it just to give 3 and 4 a chance? Or to avoid a LSU/Bama rematch? If they both won against 3 & 4, you still get a rematch. Why not just go ahead and give 1 & 2 a shot at the title?
> 
> Sincerely,
> Devil's Advocate



What is the point in playing the SECCG if LSU goes win or lose?

I believe BAMA and LSU are the best two in the country but don't think LSU should have to beat them AGAIN for a NC.


----------



## Hooked On Quack (Dec 1, 2011)

Tvveedie said:


> How you figure?  LSU losing to UGA doesn't scream #1 for the kitties.  And they will lose.


----------



## Jack Straw (Dec 1, 2011)

KrazieJacket95 said:


> What is the point in playing the SECCG if LSU goes win or lose?
> 
> I believe BAMA and LSU are the best two in the country but don't think LSU should have to beat them AGAIN for a NC.


 
To determine who the SEC champion is.  That is a separate issue from who the BCS champ is.


----------



## Jack Straw (Dec 1, 2011)

KrazieJacket95 said:


> What is the point in playing the SECCG if LSU goes win or lose?
> 
> I believe BAMA and LSU are the best two in the country but don't think LSU should have to beat them AGAIN for a NC.


 
If you think those are the two best, then why should they have to play an extra game, win those, and THEN face each other again?


----------



## KrazieJacket95 (Dec 1, 2011)

Jack Straw said:


> To determine who the SEC champion is.  That is a separate issue from who the BCS champ is.



In college football I simply don't agree with someone winning the championship that could not win their conference.  In baseball and basketball a team can get hot and do well in a tournament but they had to qualify to get there.  I personally believe Alabama is the number 2 team in the country but the only real qualification they have over the other top five one loss teams is they were ranked higher preseason.  

This also somewhat diminishes the regular season matchup between the schools and somewhat cheapens the Seccg but all of that for another time...

Let's say Georgia goes on to win the Seccg and BAMA wins the NC.  Alabama is now the best college footbal team in the country but not the best football team in the SEC nor the SEC west.


----------



## Les Miles (Dec 1, 2011)

KrazieJacket95 said:


> In college football I simply don't agree with someone winning the championship that could not win their conference.  In baseball and basketball a team can get hot and do well in a tournament but they had to qualify to get there.  I personally believe Alabama is the number 2 team in the country but the only real qualification they have over the other top five one loss teams is they were ranked higher preseason.
> 
> This also somewhat diminishes the regular season matchup between the schools and somewhat cheapens the Seccg but all of that for another time...
> 
> Let's say Georgia goes on to win the Seccg and BAMA wins the NC.  Alabama is now the best college footbal team in the country but not the best football team in the SEC nor the SEC west.



That's exactly what a few folks on here would have you believe...


----------



## RipperIII (Dec 1, 2011)

Jack Straw said:


> If you think those are the two best, then why should they have to play an extra game, win those, and THEN face each other again?



pretty simple...it's called "bowl season", post season or what ever season you want to call it...VT is Playing Clemson again, Aubbie played USCe twice, when you have divisional play that is the result...just own up to the fact that you can not tolerate the thought that BAMA has a legitimate shot at the NCG and your dawgs do not...had you beaten USCe at home, then you might, but you didn't.


----------



## sandhillmike (Dec 1, 2011)

In 1996 the 2 best teams in the country were Florida and Florida State. The Noles beat us in the regular season and we beat them for the National Championship. That's just the way it goes some times.


----------



## Jay Hughes (Dec 1, 2011)

Unfortunately the SEC doesn't match the two best teams in the conference and the BCS is structured to match the two best teams.

If the two best teams in the SEC met, then it would be LSU vs Bama with the winner moving on to the MNC game.

Also, don't forget that UGA didn't have to play the top 3 teams in the SEC which would have give them 3 more losses.


----------



## Danuwoa (Dec 1, 2011)

I will say that I agree with Jack's premise.  Why is nobody talking aobut Alabama's "cup cake schedule"?  They played LSU, but the rest of their schedule looks like UGA's.  But I don't see anybody else saying a word about that.  Hypocrisy my friends.  Hypocrisy.


----------



## DSGB (Dec 1, 2011)

Jay Hughes said:


> Also, don't forget that UGA didn't have to play the top 3 teams in the SEC which would have give them 3 more losses.



And you know that for a fact?


----------



## Jay Hughes (Dec 1, 2011)

DSGB said:


> And you know that for a fact?



Don't kid yourself. You know its the truth.


----------



## Danuwoa (Dec 1, 2011)

Jay Hughes said:


> Don't kid yourself. You know its the truth.



No we don't.  You don't either.  You can't have an inforumed opinion on something that never happened.


----------



## Nitram4891 (Dec 1, 2011)

South GA Dawg said:


> No we don't.  You don't either.  You can't have an inforumed opinion on something that never happened.



You can have an informed opinion, Vegas does it every day, and does a pretty good job at it.  Odds are, UGA gets losses out of those games.  Can't say they would lose all 3 for a fact, but we will at least find out about one of them Saturday!


----------



## fairhopebama (Dec 1, 2011)

Talk about schedules all you want, but as pointed out in another thread, post or forum,  of UGA's opponents only 2 are ranked in the polls and wouldn't you know it, those two are the two that UGA lost to.


----------



## Les Miles (Dec 1, 2011)

South GA Dawg said:


> I will say that I agree with Jack's premise.  Why is nobody talking aobut Alabama's "cup cake schedule"?  They played LSU, but the rest of their schedule looks like UGA's.  But I don't see anybody else saying a word about that.  Hypocrisy my friends.  Hypocrisy.



That's a pretty weak schedule if you ask me... 

Kent State 5-7
Penn State 9-3
North Texas State 4-7
Arkansas 10-2
Florida 6-6
Vandy 6-6
Ole Miss 2-10
Tennessee 5-7
Miss State 6-6
Georgia Southern 9-2
Auburn 7-5


----------



## RipperIII (Dec 1, 2011)

South GA Dawg said:


> I will say that I agree with Jack's premise.  Why is nobody talking aobut Alabama's "cup cake schedule"?  They played LSU, but the rest of their schedule looks like UGA's.  But I don't see anybody else saying a word about that.  Hypocrisy my friends.  Hypocrisy.



BAMA went to PennSt ...pre Sandusky...Bosie came to Atlanta,, people forget UF was stomping on opponents before BAMA crushed their star QB and start RB...BAMA softened them up for everyone else.

BAMA's schedule was not brutal,...but it was more challenging than UGA's, and aside from the obvious LSU game, no other game has even been remotely close.


----------



## Danuwoa (Dec 1, 2011)

RipperIII said:


> BAMA went to PennSt ...pre Sandusky...Bosie came to Atlanta,, people forget UF was stomping on opponents before BAMA crushed their star QB and start RB...BAMA softened them up for everyone else.
> 
> BAMA's schedule was not brutal,...but it was more challenging than UGA's, and aside from the obvious LSU game, no other game has even been remotely close.



I just don't think their schedule is all that impressive.  Ours isn't either.  And I think if you play in the SEC and have a strong record, that's enough.  But this notion that Alabama's schedule is lots tougher than ours, I just don't buy it.

It doesn't matter.  Alabama is on the list of schools that the sports media and casual fans like because they are football brand name.  Once you achieve that status, you've pretty much got it for life and go to the head of the line whether youd deserve it or not.  Not saying Alabama doesn't deserve their ranking.  I'm talking about things like Notre Dame being ranked preseason every year when they haven't mattered for years.

And I think Alabama takes credit that they should not take by saying that they are the reason that Florida is not the same old Florida this year.  The urban meyer soap operea makes it obvious that the problems at Florida are deeper than not having John Brantley all season.

Strange to me that beating Auburn mattered until UGA did it.

All I'm saying is, there is a short list of programs; Alabama, Florida, Florida State, Ohio State, Oklahoma, USC (trojans), Penn State, Notre Dame that are on the favorites list.  They get the benefit of every single doubt whether they should or not.  That's just how it is.  And until there is a playoff, it will always be that way.  We hear every preseason, "This is Notre Dame's year.  They're back."  Really?  People like what they are familiar with.  So you have people acting as if UGA is nothing because of our schedule while acting as if Alabama is pefectly legit despite their schedule.  I think alabama is a very good team.  But the schedule nonsense is just that.


----------



## Jack Straw (Dec 1, 2011)

RipperIII said:


> pretty simple...it's called "bowl season", post season or what ever season you want to call it...VT is Playing Clemson again, Aubbie played USCe twice, when you have divisional play that is the result...just own up to the fact that you can not tolerate the thought that BAMA has a legitimate shot at the NCG and your dawgs do not...had you beaten USCe at home, then you might, but you didn't.




Care to point out where I said anything along those lines?  Go ahead - use my words against me. Show me and everyone else here how I think Bama shouldn't have a shot at the MNC and how it bothers me that UGA doesn't.  

As a matter of fact, I think LSU and Bama should play for the MNC regardless of what happens Saturday night in Atlanta.  In fact, what I hope happens is that the Dogs win the SEC and then LSU and Bama play for the BCS championship.  I love the idea of three SEC teams in the BCS bowls with the two non-SEC champs playing for the title, especially when they are two teams of LSU/Bama caliber. 

If you would just go back and read my post, you will see that I was simply comparing the two schedules and how those schedules are handled by the talking heads. If Bama is going to get credit for winning against their schedule (as they should), then so should Georgia. 

Now start quoting me as evidence against me.


----------



## fairhopebama (Dec 1, 2011)

Combined records for Bama's, LSU's and UGA opponents; Bama's opponents 81-61, LSU 82-60, UGA-76-66. enough said, that is all.


----------



## Jack Straw (Dec 1, 2011)

KrazieJacket95 said:


> In college football I simply don't agree with someone winning the championship that could not win their conference.  In baseball and basketball a team can get hot and do well in a tournament but they had to qualify to get there.  I personally believe Alabama is the number 2 team in the country but the only real qualification they have over the other top five one loss teams is they were ranked higher preseason.
> 
> This also somewhat diminishes the regular season matchup between the schools and somewhat cheapens the Seccg but all of that for another time...
> 
> Let's say Georgia goes on to win the Seccg and BAMA wins the NC.  Alabama is now the best college footbal team in the country but not the best football team in the SEC nor the SEC west.



You will have to explain how it cheapens the SECCG; I don't see it that way at all.  The conference championships are totally separate from the BCS, unless you already think of the conference championship games as a system of playoffs...which they are not.


----------



## Danuwoa (Dec 1, 2011)

No.  That is not all.


----------



## fairhopebama (Dec 1, 2011)

and for the record, there have been superbowls, NCAA basketball championships, MLB world series games played by teams that probably didn't win their conference or division and ended up winning it all.


----------



## fairhopebama (Dec 1, 2011)

just sayin.....


----------



## Danuwoa (Dec 1, 2011)

Just more proof that we need a playoff.  Then nothing is decided by opinion and perception.  It is all settled on the field and there can be no excuses and people and college football taste makers don't have a chance to screw it up.


----------



## RipperIII (Dec 1, 2011)

South GA Dawg said:


> I just don't think their schedule is all that impressive.  Ours isn't either.  And I think if you play in the SEC and have a strong record, that's enough.  But this notion that Alabama's schedule is lots tougher than ours, I just don't buy it.
> 
> It doesn't matter.  Alabama is on the list of schools that the sports media and casual fans like because they are football brand name.  Once you achieve that status, you've pretty much got it for life and go to the head of the line whether youd deserve it or not.  Not saying Alabama doesn't deserve their ranking.  I'm talking about things like Notre Dame being ranked preseason every year when they haven't mattered for years.
> 
> ...



I've always said that UGA had a "favorable" schedule this season...tough games at home, weak divisional opponents and not playing the top 3 western opponents.
I've never said that I didn't think UGA was good, to the contrary, I've been saying the last few weeks that I've been impressed with their level of play, but not having played a quality opponent in the last half of the season, I'm not sure how good they are.
I said in an earlier post that I don't know if UGA could beat ARKY, still don't, but we'll see Saturday just what UGA brings...like I said before, I think the dawgs have a chance, and I've stated the pro's and con's.
The only reason the Aubbie win may have gotten more press for BAMA is because it was the "iron bowl" at their house...which I think is totally irrelevant, let's face it Aubbie is not very good this season.


----------



## fairhopebama (Dec 1, 2011)

Not sure I have seen a playoff system that would work well in college football. I am sure one exist but I haven't seen one that would be fair for all. I think that SOS which is what seems to be causing the battles here would have to come into play along with conferences which would create new problems.


----------



## Danuwoa (Dec 1, 2011)

RipperIII said:


> I've always said that UGA had a "favorable" schedule this season...tough games at home, weak divisional opponents and not playing the top 3 western opponents.
> I've never said that I didn't think UGA was good, to the contrary, I've been saying the last few weeks that I've been impressed with their level of play, but not having played a quality opponent in the last half of the season, I'm not sure how good they are.
> I said in an earlier post that I don't know if UGA could beat ARKY, still don't, but we'll see Saturday just what UGA brings...like I said before, I think the dawgs have a chance, and I've stated the pro's and con's.
> The only reason the Aubbie win may have gotten more press for BAMA is because it was the "iron bowl" at their house...which I think is totally irrelevant, let's face it Aubbie is not very good this season.



I agree with that.  We have our chance this Saturday to hush up all the "who have they played" talk.


----------



## Catdaddy SC (Dec 1, 2011)

South GA Dawg said:


> Just more proof that we need a playoff.  Then nothing is decided by opinion and perception.  It is all settled on the field and there can be no excuses and people and college football taste makers don't have a chance to screw it up.




You've got a playoff this weekend for a shot at a BCS game.

The BCS has taken alot of the political manipulating out of the equation. The two best teams will play for the national championship this year. They just happen to be from the same division, in the same conference.


----------



## Danuwoa (Dec 1, 2011)

Catdaddy SC said:


> You've got a playoff this weekend for a shot at a BCS game.
> 
> The BCS has taken alot of the political manipulating out of the equation. The two best teams will play for the national championship this year. They just happen to be from the same division, in the same conference.



A true playoff would be better in my opinion.  We will eventually see one.


----------



## tjl1388 (Dec 1, 2011)

I personally think it should be Ok. St. that plays the Tigers should everyone win out.

They would be 4-0 vs. Top 25 team and their lone loss was on the road vs. Alabama's being at home.

Their can be argument for either team, Ala. or Ok. St., I just think that Ala. had their shot.

Time for T Boone's boys to have a shot.


----------



## steeleagle (Dec 1, 2011)

Jody Hawk said:


> Gotta agree with Granny on this one. He was dead on when he said Georgia didn't deserve to play for the national title when they weren't even the eastern divisional champs, let alone SEC conference champs. I think there ought to be some kind of rule  in there that says a team must win their conference before they can be national champs.



IMO, this type of thinking is so absurd that I can't even wrap my head around it.  In college baseball, college basketball, NFL, NBA, hockey, FCS football, teams win the NC all the time without winning their conference.  How can one even come close to conceiving such a silly rule?


----------



## KrazieJacket95 (Dec 1, 2011)

Jack Straw said:


> You will have to explain how it cheapens the SECCG; I don't see it that way at all.  The conference championships are totally separate from the BCS, unless you already think of the conference championship games as a system of playoffs...which they are not.



If LSU plays lights out but loses a couple of players that costs them the NC you will see it.  NFL teams sit players all the time because they have the division locked up.  What is more valuable SEC Champions or National Champions?


----------



## DSGB (Dec 1, 2011)

Jay Hughes said:


> Don't kid yourself. You know its the truth.



Nope, sorry. The TRUTH is they never played each other. We will have our chance against LSU Saturday in the SECCG. As to who would win against the other two is pure speculation. Yes, Bama and Arky would both be favored heavily, but any given Saturday.......Look at the 2009 Sugar Bowl as a great example.


----------



## Jay Hughes (Dec 1, 2011)

DSGB said:


> Nope, sorry. The TRUTH is they never played each other. We will have our chance against LSU Saturday in the SECCG. As to who would win against the other two is pure speculation. Yes, Bama and Arky would both be favored heavily, but any given Saturday.......Look at the 2009 Sugar Bowl as a great example.



I don't disagree with that....


----------



## Madsnooker (Dec 1, 2011)

Catdaddy SC said:


> The BCS works just fine and is much better than 20 years ago when a Big 10 team was going to play regardless of how well everybody else was.




Please clarify.


----------



## Madsnooker (Dec 1, 2011)

DSGB said:


> Nope, sorry. The TRUTH is they never played each other. We will have our chance against LSU Saturday in the SECCG. As to who would win against the other two is pure speculation. Yes, Bama and Arky would both be favored heavily, but any given Saturday.......Look at the 2009 Sugar Bowl as a great example.



This is why anybody that says there is no way a team could lose to another must not watch much college football. As much as I think LSU will roll Ga, if UGA won, it wouldn't surprise me at all. 

I think LSU is a great team, BUT, I have also watched WV, which is not good, go up and down the field to the point LSU players started getting "hurt" to/which slowed things down just as I did when they played Oregon. UGA's defense is way better than WV or Oregon and their offense is capable.


----------



## Jack Straw (Dec 1, 2011)

KrazieJacket95 said:


> If LSU plays lights out but loses a couple of players that costs them the NC you will see it.  NFL teams sit players all the time because they have the division locked up.  What is more valuable SEC Champions or National Champions?



Easy - SEC Champions.  That is the cake with icing. Bowl wins and NC wins are just fillers to an already successful season. I do recognize NC's and grant teams their status as such, but it is still a somewhat mythical title. 

I like college football just the way it is with all the controversy and endless discussion; it adds to the season. There is just no way for 120 teams to play a 12 game season and come out with with a true  national champ. If I wanted a sterilized playoff system I would watch NFL or FCS teams.


----------



## Jack Straw (Dec 2, 2011)

KrazieJacket95 said:


> If LSU plays lights out but loses a couple of players that costs them the NC you will see it.  NFL teams sit players all the time because they have the division locked up.  What is more valuable SEC Champions or National Champions?



Even if I put more  value on the NC, this still does not explain how the SECCG is cheapened. The SECCG is the East winner vs the West winner. It just so happens that the second place team in the West is ranked higher than the best of the East and it also just so happens that 1&2 in the West are 1&2 in the nation.  

Injuries happen in football, how on earth does that cheapen a game?


----------



## KrazieJacket95 (Dec 2, 2011)

There are likely a number of LSU fans that would accept a loss to Georgia if it guaranteed them the NC trophy.  Of course the way the two have played I could understand them being cocky and saying they would win both games anyway.  The SEC championship is nothing to scoff at but there are not many when given the choice would choose it over a NC.  Sure points to you being unique... in some fashion or another.


----------



## Les Miles (Dec 2, 2011)

Jack Straw said:


> KrazieJacket95 said:
> 
> 
> > What is more valuable SEC Champions or National Champions?
> ...



Are you high? I'm sure if you asked the Georgia Bulldawg fans on here if they'd rather have a SEC title over a BCS National Championship title that 99% of them would choose the latter over the former. That doesn't cheapen the achievement of winning a SEC title but the ultimate end goal for Mark Richt and his team is to win it all and play for a BSC title.... not just the Sugar Bowl.


----------



## Jack Straw (Dec 2, 2011)

KrazieJacket95 said:


> Sure points to you being unique... in some fashion or another.



My wife says something similar, but it sounds a lot nicer the way you say it.


----------



## Jack Straw (Dec 2, 2011)

Les Miles said:


> Are you high? I'm sure if you asked the Georgia Bulldawg fans on here if they'd rather have a SEC title over a BCS National Championship title that 99% of them would choose the latter over the former. That doesn't cheapen the achievement of winning a SEC title but the ultimate end goal for Mark Richt and his team is to win it all and play for a BSC title.... not just the Sugar Bowl.




Of course the ultimate goal is to win the SEC and then the NC.  I was asked which is more valuable and I think winning the SEC is more valuable because it is the best conference and it can be won without opinion polls.  As such it can't be cheapened by the MNC.  On the other hand, the national title can be cheapened. Let's say UGA wins the SEC...whether LSU or Bama wins the BCS it will always be said that neither was able to win their conference.  That asterisk will be even bigger if Bama wins because the teams will have split their two games.  I don't mean to imply that the SEC title is _vastly_ more valuable than a NC, but the two are separate entities. The SEC is the diamond and the NC is the ring it can be placed in.  The diamond may not be perfect, but  the flaws are pretty well concealed and won't be noticed.  You put that diamond in a gold setting and you can display it to the whole nation.  However, gold rings get scratches and dings.  In this case those flaws come in the form of opinion polls and the money/political factor of the bowl system.

And no, I'm not high...but the weekend is young.


----------



## KrazieJacket95 (Dec 2, 2011)

Jack Straw said:


> Of course the ultimate goal is to win the SEC and then the NC.  I was asked which is more valuable and I think winning the SEC is more valuable because it is the best conference and it can be won without opinion polls.  As such it can't be cheapened by the MNC.  On the other hand, the national title can be cheapened. Let's say UGA wins the SEC...whether LSU or Bama wins the BCS it will always be said that neither was able to win their conference.  That asterisk will be even bigger if Bama wins because the teams will have split their two games.  I don't mean to imply that the SEC title is _vastly_ more valuable than a NC, but the two are separate entities. The SEC is the diamond and the NC is the ring it can be placed in.  The diamond may not be perfect, but  the flaws are pretty well concealed and won't be noticed.  You put that diamond in a gold setting and you can display it to the whole nation.  However, gold rings get scratches and dings.  In this case those flaws come in the form of opinion polls and the money/political factor of the bowl system.
> 
> And no, I'm not high...but the weekend is young.




I am going to say that I completely disagree with every aspect of your opinion......but that doesn't make it any worse than mine.


----------



## Jack Straw (Dec 2, 2011)

KrazieJacket95 said:


> I am going to say that I completely disagree with every aspect of your opinion......but that doesn't make it any worse than mine.



Well if I have a yella jacket in complete disagreement with me about football then I must be doing something right!


----------



## hawg dawg (Dec 2, 2011)

Playing for the SEC title you play against 11 teams. Playing for the National title you play against 119 teams. The SEC is by far the best conference but the National Title is the title of ALL conferences.


----------

