Santa, you're welcome to continue to think what you will of the SEC. And when LSU, Alabama, and Arkansas all lay the smack down on whoever they're put against (since they'd beat anyone in the nation) you can continue to think that. But you'll be wrong, just like you are now.

We'll have to see. I tend to think that championship shouldn't be about a goddamn pedigree, it should be about how a team plays in that year and that year only. You have a bunch of schools that have built their respective programs in the PR room and with a conference organ spelled ESPN. Sorry if I don't kiss the ring.

Five consecutive titles. Soon to be six. That's all that need to be said.

*needs

bull shit, only reason its going to be six is your conference and the media decided no one else deserves to have a chance. That needs to be said plenty. Also on the list is that Alabama, whose only quality out of conference win will come against a team that will be unranked by next year. No thanks, I'll sit the "defensive struggle" out this time.

*unranked by next week

I would *love* to see OSU in the title game. Too bad they lost to *Iowa State*. I want OSU in the title game because it will shut people like you up when the three SEC teams dominate the competition.

"See, this is Why the BCS system is so flawed. Stanford is Probably not going to win the pac-12 and yet all of you are rank them ahead of Oregon who beat Stanford! This is why we need a playoff! It gets too convoluted otherwise!"

You know what? You're right. Iowa State should be ranked ahead of Oklahoma State too.

"how can you possibly say that it isn't slanted toward one conference when you rank so many SEC teams in the top 25 at the beginning of the year? Even though teams like Mississippi State and Florida are exposed eventually, the fact that they played another SEC team when they were ranked highly influences the rankings and therefore the BCS. That elevates the rankings of the prevailing school, and when your schedule contains a paucity of true out of conference competition the effect is pronounced. The SEC has beat 1 team that will still be ranked at the end of this week."

lolwut

LSU beat Oregon, South Carolina beat Clemson, and Alabama beat Penn State (who, despite getting absolutely pummeled, is not dropping all the way out of the rankings).

But more to the point, the voters have started adjusting their ballots completely at the end of the year specifically to erase the influence of preseason polls on lasting perceptions of schedule strength that don't actually fit reality. Florida and MSU are not considered quality wins by anyone except the likes of Kentucky or Ole Miss (assuming, of course, that they can even beat those half-pints).

"We'll have to see. I tend to think that championship shouldn't be about a goddamn pedigree, it should be about how a team plays in that year and that year only. You have a bunch of schools that have built their respective programs in the PR room and with a conference organ spelled ESPN. Sorry if I don't kiss the ring."

Tell me who was more worthy of going in these given years:

2006: Who over Florida? Florida got in *specifically to avoid an OSU-Michigan rematch.* The only other teams in the ballpark were Wisconsin and Louisville.

2007: Who over LSU? Virginia Tech who got blown out *by LSU* to the tune of a 41-point curb-stomping? Hawaii who didn't play anyone all year? Georgia who got routed by-- oh wait Georgia's in the SEC doesn't matter? Southern Cal who lost to a 41-point underdog at home in regulation? Kansas who had a bottom-10 SOS and lost to the only good team it played all year? Oklahoma managed to choke against the likes of Colorado and Texas Tech? Missouri who just got through getting routed by OU -- twice? Or maybe West Virginia, who choked their BCS title hopes away to a sub-.500 Pitt team at home on the final weekend. Yeah, because none of these teams deserved to go over a team who beat, what, 5 ranked teams that year?

2008: Who goes over Florida? Southern Cal didn't have as impressive a resume, Texas would have been a dreaded rematch, Penn State lost to an awful Iowa team and had less-impressive wins...

2009: Name two teams that would have gone over a 13-0 Bama squad which beat multiple ranked teams, including #1 Florida in the SEC Championship.

2010: Name two teams that would deserve to go over undefeated Auburn. Oregon and TCU were the only other unbeatens and neither one played the schedule Auburn did...

"2006: Who over Florida? Florida got in *specifically to avoid an OSU-Michigan rematch.* The only other teams in the ballpark were Wisconsin and Louisville."

If we are talking seriously and retrospectively here, can you explain to me why a 1 loss Louisville, who was 11-1, who's only loss came to a Rutgers team which was stacked with NFL talent, and who overcame RicRods spread offense that had embarrassed Georgia on their home turf in the 2005 Sugar Bowl, and who had victories over Bowl teams from the SEC the ACC and the Big 12 can only be considered as "remotely close."

Oh I forgot... Big least... got it.

I remember through that whole stretch as a Rutgers fan truly believing that Rutgers would have had no business in the championship game even if they won out (which they were a flat loss to Cincinatti and an OT loss against WVU from doing). I believed all the hype that the Big East paled in comparison and that the incredible defense and puissant offensive stars that the team had (some no names named Kenny Britt and Ray Rice) only were good because they played against Big East competition. I started questioning that when they demolished KSU in the bowl game (where KSU fans mocked the Big East and said Rutgers had no business in a bowl) and realized it was ridiculous having seen the NFL talent that came out of that team.

I dare you to place the 2006 Florida Gators team against the 2006 Rutgers Scarlet Knight team and tell me which one has proven to have superior talent

But of course the SEC PR mill churned out a championship and the Big East was panned as nothing special, a temporary renaissance if anything.

One of the reasons I see the SEC hype as just hype.

You elevate the SEC in preseason polls then call every conference win a "quality win"
+1

It is just absurd that these great questions will never be answered on the field. It is absurd that Boise state (who wants to play tough competition and has offered to play them in their stadiums) can win all their games and not have a chance to be champions. That basically means that they never had a chance, no matter what they did. Why not just play in division AA (or whatever it is called now) if you can't win.

What sport determines its "champion" by a vote of sportswriters and/or coaches that, admittedly, don't watch all the games?

I appreciate it is all about money. What is ridiculous is that everyone could make more money if these fantastic questions everyone has would be answered with a playoff which would have astronomically high ratings.

It is a broken system. All these arguments about A v. B or A beat B and lost to C are completely meaningless. The very essence of sport is that these debates are settled on the field.

Don't say, "That's too many games for these poor student athletes". The athlete part is WAY more important than the student part in the modern NCAA. Maybe not at Yale or Harvard or Norte Dame or the service academies... but that is why they get whipped regularly.

Also, even if you are so naive to believe that the "student" part matters more then you could easily just replace some early season matchups against ____ern _________ at _______ or (not actually a state) state.

Bottom line, not having a playoff is absurd and only idiots and those that are making money on the current system would disagree.

I meant Houston, not Boise State. Whoops a daisy.

The fact that their can even be an argument over the rankings means your fucking system is wrong.

there*

"If we are talking seriously and retrospectively here, can you explain to me why a 1 loss Louisville, who was 11-1, who's only loss came to a Rutgers team which was stacked with NFL talent, and who overcame RicRods spread offense that had embarrassed Georgia on their home turf in the 2005 Sugar Bowl, and who had victories over Bowl teams from the SEC the ACC and the Big 12 can only be considered as "remotely close.""

Louisville's resume:
11-1
Loss: at 10-2 Rutgers 25-28
Major Wins: vs 10-2 West Virginia 44-34, vs 8-4 South Florida 31-8

Florida's resume:
12-1
Loss: at 10-2 Auburn, 17-27
Major Wins: at 9-3 Tennessee 21-20, vs 10-2 LSU 23-10, at 8-4 Georgia 21-14, vs 10-3 Arkansas 38-28

Louisville's resume was pretty damn good and I think they were underrated that year. Haven't checked LSU's and Southern Cal's resumes, but my guess is that Louisville should have been #4 and ahead of both. That said, Florida's is better.

"Oh I forgot... Big least... got it."

Nah. Big East was one of the top conferences that year. No worse than #3 behind the Big Ten and SEC. That Rutgers/Louisville/West Virginia trio was staaaaaacked

"I remember through that whole stretch as a Rutgers fan truly believing that Rutgers would have had no business in the championship game even if they won out (which they were a flat loss to Cincinatti and an OT loss against WVU from doing)."

If Rutgers wins out that year they're no worse than #3 and maybe in the title game.

"I believed all the hype that the Big East paled in comparison and that the incredible defense and puissant offensive stars that the team had (some no names named Kenny Britt and Ray Rice) only were good because they played against Big East competition. I started questioning that when they demolished KSU in the bowl game (where KSU fans mocked the Big East and said Rutgers had no business in a bowl) and realized it was ridiculous having seen the NFL talent that came out of that team."

lmao @ the retarded KSU fans you encountered. Rutgers was miles better than that pathetic DII-in-disguise school in 06 and the Big East was definitely > Big XII that year too.

"I dare you to place the 2006 Florida Gators team against the 2006 Rutgers Scarlet Knight team and tell me which one has proven to have superior talent"

QB: Chris Leak was a hoss that year and Florida's 2-headed monster with Leak and Tebow beats out Mike Teel. Teel was pretty good for his career but didn't really come on until 07
RB: Ray Rice no contest
FB: Brian Leonard no contest
WR: Percy Harvin, Andre Caldwell, Dallas Baker and Jamalle Cornelius on one team? yes please
Can't really retroactively grade the line without rewatching a bunch of games, so gonna pass there
Defense: Florida wins in scoring defense, rush defense, INTs, pass deflections and sacks. Rutgers wins pass defense and total yard defense. I think Florida's got the edge there.

"But of course the SEC PR mill churned out a championship and the Big East was panned as nothing special, a temporary renaissance if anything."

Florida easily had the second-best resume, blew out the #1 team and clearly earned its championship. The Big East has never since been as strong as it was in 2006. Mind explaining how either one of these is false?

"One of the reasons I see the SEC hype as just hype."

I'm pretty sure most rational fans, even rational SEC fans (*ahem*), understand that the SEC isn't special just because it's the SEC. The praise for it comes from its on the field performance each year. I don't even think the SEC was necessarily the best conference during the national title runs. I think it was in 06-07 and 09-10, but in 2008 the Big XII was clearly better, and every year there were a couple of other conferences who came pretty close.

"You elevate the SEC in preseason polls then call every conference win a "quality win"
+1"

no we don't

"It is just absurd that these great questions will never be answered on the field. It is absurd that [Houston] (who wants to play tough competition and has offered to play them in their stadiums) can win all their games and not have a chance to be champions. That basically means that they never had a chance, no matter what they did. Why not just play in division AA (or whatever it is called now) if you can't win."

Except that in previous years they actually DID get those games, and their performance has been mixed. They lost by 23 to Mississippi State in 2010, 15 to Texas Tech and 18 to UCLA that year and went 5-7. In 2009, they upset Oklahoma State and Texas Tech and got serious national championship hype in September and early October... then shat their chances away against UTEP, UCF and ECU. The fact is, this year, they haven't played anyone, which is why their 12-0 record isn't impressing anyone. They're not getting a title shot because their resume isn't the best despite going 12-0. Not all wins are created equal.

"What sport determines its "champion" by a vote of sportswriters and/or coaches that, admittedly, don't watch all the games?"

A sport that has to pick the top 2 teams out of 120 with a season which logistically cannot go past 13 games. It makes some degree of sense that the sport decides less on the field relative to other sports. That said, I think the system should move to more computer-influenced rankings, because the pollsters do indeed suck at what they do.

"I appreciate it is all about money. What is ridiculous is that everyone could make more money if these fantastic questions everyone has would be answered with a playoff which would have astronomically high ratings.

It is a broken system. All these arguments about A v. B or A beat B and lost to C are completely meaningless. The very essence of sport is that these debates are settled on the field."

Don't you think that if everyone would make more money then they'd be doing it already?

And if the purpose of the system is to select the team most deserving of a championship after 13 games to play for the championship, shouldn't it select only the top 2 and have them play, instead of allowing the 8th most deserving team a chance to wreck everything? The purpose of the BCS is to select the most meritorious team as the national champion... so unless you'd consider the New York Giants the team most deserving to be considered the champion of the 2007-08 NFL season, I'd say the BCS system, CONCEPTUALLY, makes more sense than, say, an 8- or 12-team playoff.

I emphasize conceptually, of course, because having pollsters and coaches decide is still retarded.

"Don't say, "That's too many games for these poor student athletes". The athlete part is WAY more important than the student part in the modern NCAA. Maybe not at Yale or Harvard or Norte Dame or the service academies... but that is why they get whipped regularly.

Also, even if you are so naive to believe that the "student" part matters more then you could easily just replace some early season matchups against ____ern _________ at _______ or (not actually a state) state."

Yes, let's not let student athletes have a few days to take their finals and actually, you know, focus on academics to end the semester, because they're just cogs in a financial machine for the universities and bureaucracy and an entertainment machine for us instead of human beings who have a life outside of football.

And yes, let's reduce the number of regular season games, because narrowing the samples used to differentiate the teams for playoff or bowl selection in the first place helps us resolve the matter of selecting the right teams for the playoff or bowl selection.

Both of these make so much sense.

"Bottom line, not having a playoff is absurd and only idiots and those that are making money on the current system would disagree."

What's so good about letting the 8th/12th/16th/etc. team most deserving of a title get a chance to be deemed the title winner? If the purpose of the system is to make sure the most deserving team becomes the title winner, then expanding the pool can only make the problem of selecting the most deserving team worse, not better.

"The fact that their can even be an argument over the rankings means your fucking system is wrong."

Sure. So let's take the subjective element out.

Well, you can't determine a winner by elimination if the sport only plays one game a week. That many players per team and they need a whole week to rest. Ha!

Now you're just trolling

"I dare you to place the 2006 Florida Gators team against the 2006 Rutgers Scarlet Knight team and tell me which one has proven to have superior talent"

QB: Chris Leak was a hoss that year and Florida's 2-headed monster with Leak and Tebow beats out Mike Teel. Teel was pretty good for his career but didn't really come on until 07
RB: Ray Rice no contest
FB: Brian Leonard no contest
WR: Percy Harvin, Andre Caldwell, Dallas Baker and Jamalle Cornelius on one team? yes please
Can't really retroactively grade the line without rewatching a bunch of games, so gonna pass there
Defense: Florida wins in scoring defense, rush defense, INTs, pass deflections and sacks. Rutgers wins pass defense and total yard defense. I think Florida's got the edge there."

QB- Leak and Tebow win out for sure
RB- Ray Rice no doubt
FB- Brian Leonard
WR-Percy Harvin (plays in the NFL has 174 receptions for 2117 yards career), Andre Caldwell (Plays in the NFL has 119 receptions and 1138 yards), Dallas Baker (never made it past the steelers practice squad) and Jamalle Cornelius (tossed around the league for a year before fizzling out)

against

Tiquan underwood (Played for the Pats until this week) Kenny Britt (Plays for the Titans with 101 receptions for 1750 yards despite injuries)

O-Line
Florida:
NONE of the Gators starting line are currently in the NFL or spent significant time starting
Rutgers:
Darnell Stapleton started 12 games for pittsburgh until an injury, Jeremy Zuttah currently starts for the Bucs, Cameron Stephenson bumped around to several teams until ending his career last year, Fladell was in the league for a year.

Edge Rutgers

Lets check out the defense which you gave to florida:

CBs:
Reggie Lewis played for a year in the NFL with no significant playing time, Ryan Smith bumped around a couple teams with no playing time.

Against:

Derrick Roberson: Played until last year, matches up with your other 2
Joe Porter: Currently plays for the Oakland Raiders
Devin McCourty: Currently a Pro Bowl Cornerback for the Patriots
Jason McCourty: Currently Part of a CB Platoon at Tenessee

Edge- Rutgers easily

Safetys:

Jordy Nelson=Courtney Greene both who start in the NFL

Linebackers- Florida easily

DLine- Its a Wash, 2 Starters for Rutgers vs. 1 starter and 2 backups for Florida

___________

When you judge by talent as seen by success in the NFL, the best and most fair judge of talent the teams are very similar. Yet you go back to 2006 and say that people will laugh at you.

"It is absurd that Boise state (who wants to play tough competition and has offered to play them in their stadiums) can win all their games and not have a chance to be champions. "

Uh. They didn't. They lost.

Also, a +1 system where you vote on the national championship contenders AFTER the BCS bowls makes a lot of sense, and does an excellent job of satisfying everyone. It makes sure that EVERYONE has to have a good performance against at least one quality opponent, and puts a lot of these issues at rest.

This year has an asterix since USC doesn't get the chance to play for the title. They would beat LSU. NCAA allows the cheaters in the SEC to get away with murder while every other program is hounded for months. Boise got three years probation for having a few prospects spend the night with current players.

"When you judge by talent as seen by success in the NFL, the best and most fair judge of talent the teams are very similar. Yet you go back to 2006 and say that people will laugh at you."

Hurr durr shows how much I know about Rutgers and Florida's actual talent. Then again, saying 06 Rutgers' talent > 06 Florida's talent doesn't affect my argument at all, so I'll just go ahead and give it to you. Florida still had the better resume, which is what mattered...

"This year has an asterix since USC doesn't get the chance to play for the title."

Uh, no. Southern Cal bought a championship, bought a bullshit "split" championship in 2003, and bought 3 straight Pac-12 titles. If you argue that the SEC gets away with stuff it shouldn't, then you argue that the season has an asterisk because cheating programs play for the title, but you don't say "LOL SEC CHEATS SO USC CAN TOO."


"They would beat LSU."

FAIL

"NCAA allows the cheaters in the SEC to get away with murder while every other program is hounded for months."

Is there anything to substantiate this, or are you just trolling? I could believe there are cheating SEC schools, but when you spout nonsense like Southern Cal being able to beat LSU this year when *Southern Cal fans* don't even agree with you it's hard to tell whether this is serious or not.

"Boise got three years probation for having a few prospects spend the night with current players."

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/story/_/id/6966240/ncaa-hands-boise-state-broncos-three-years-probation-scholarship-reduction

'The Committee on Infractions cited recruiting, impermissible housing and transportation violations in the football program during the summers of 2005 through 2009. In particular, the committee noted that the football violations occurred over a lengthy period of time and involved 63 prospective student-athletes.'

Yeah, just a sleepover between a few prospects and a few current players.

Get real...

"Uh, no. Southern Cal bought a championship, bought a bullshit "split" championship in 2003, and bought 3 straight Pac-12 titles."

Riiight. Scam Newton has his father shop him around SEC schools for 200K and Scam doesn't get touched. In Bush's case, his step-father allegedly had discussions with a family friend who had agreed to represent Bush in the NFL. USC gets the hammer, with Bush's games being vacated even prior to the alleged transgressions. Auburn gets away scot free. Scam Newton was kicked out of Florida for academic cheating, no punishment whatsoever. Your joke of an LSU program had several major violations and all they got was a self-imposed scholarship reduction. UNC wasn't forced to vacate games played by their ineligible players. Alabama received less harsh punishment when they were found to have had multiple players get paid off by boosters, including six figure payments to two key recruits. They were found to have been guilty of 10 major violations.

USC didn't buy shit. USC wasn't involved with the Bush infractions. Neither were any boosters. Bush did not attend USC because of payments. The payments, rather, were inducements to get Bush to *leave* USC. The NCAA made the asinine conclusion that Bush's job which was approved by the NCAA at the time he had it constituted an "illegal benefit" after they suddenly decided to call Bush's employer a "booster". Why the fuck USC lost 30 scholarships because of the independent actions of one player is beyond me, especially since the alleged payments didn't even benefit USC to begin with.

"but when you spout nonsense like Southern Cal being able to beat LSU this year when *Southern Cal fans* don't even agree with you it's hard to tell whether this is serious or not.
"

USC just smashed a team playing in the Pac-12 title game 50-0. USC has a better QB and receivers than anybody LSU has played against. Certainly LSU struggled (or didn't impress) against the one quality QB they played all season - Geno Smith.

And before you point out that UNC isn't in the SEC. I'm aware. The double standard extends to all southern schools, where if you're not cheating you're apparently not trying.

"Riiight. Scam Newton has his father shop him around SEC schools for 200K and Scam doesn't get touched. In Bush's case, his step-father allegedly had discussions with a family friend who had agreed to represent Bush in the NFL. USC gets the hammer, with Bush's games being vacated even prior to the alleged transgressions. Auburn gets away scot free. Scam Newton was kicked out of Florida for academic cheating, no punishment whatsoever."

There's certainly an argument that Southern Cal's punishments were excessive, but per the NCAA's established rules it's on Southern Cal to ensure shit like this doesn't happen:

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/09/sports/la-sp-usc-20100610

'The NCAA investigation began in March 2006, when reports surfaced that Bush's mother, brother and stepfather had lived in a San Diego-area home that was owned by a would-be marketer who planned to be part of a group that represented Bush when he turned pro.

The Mayo inquiry began in May 2008 after a former associate told ESPN that Mayo received cash and other benefits from Rodney Guillory, an event promoter who helped guide Mayo to USC.'

Come to USC, and we'll give you cash and your family a house and we'll get you an agent before you even leave school!

Meanwhile, as for Auburn:

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7093495/ncaa-finds-no-major-violations-auburn-regarding-cam-newton

There's a distinct difference in these cases. Bush and his family actually *received* improper benefits. Newton and his family, as best the NCAA could find, did not. His dad shopped him out, and whether or not he knew about it is up for debate; officially he didn't, but I'd agree that it's hard to believe he wouldn't know. In any case, his skills were apparently shopped out to MISSISSIPPI STATE and not Auburn, so of course Auburn is cleared.

"Your joke of an LSU program had several major violations and all they got was a self-imposed scholarship reduction."

http://www.nola.com/lsu/index.ssf/2011/07/lsu_football_major_recruiting.html

You know why we got such fewer penalties? The guy who was recruited illegally never played a down for LSU. It was kinda similar to USC's case in that an individual actor for LSU assisted a player in getting improper benefits...

except where USC turned a blind eye to it while their player, who btw won the Heisman and a national title for USC, LSU didn't let him play a down, dismissed him and imposed penalties on itself. USC did none of these and rode their illegal player to the height of college football. Of course LSU got lighter punishments than USC...

"UNC wasn't forced to vacate games played by their ineligible players."

Not part of the SEC.

"Alabama received less harsh punishment when they were found to have had multiple players get paid off by boosters, including six figure payments to two key recruits. They were found to have been guilty of 10 major violations."

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/2002-02-01-alabama-violations.htm

They were an inch away from the death penalty. They got worse punishments than USC did.

"USC didn't buy shit. USC wasn't involved with the Bush infractions. Neither were any boosters. Bush did not attend USC because of payments. The payments, rather, were inducements to get Bush to *leave* USC. The NCAA made the asinine conclusion that Bush's job which was approved by the NCAA at the time he had it constituted an "illegal benefit" after they suddenly decided to call Bush's employer a "booster". Why the fuck USC lost 30 scholarships because of the independent actions of one player is beyond me, especially since the alleged payments didn't even benefit USC to begin with."

Drop the double standard, dude. I know you hate everything about the South for no justifiable reason, but you're clamoring for the SEC schools to get punished like USC did for lesser* violations and then saying USC should have been let off the hook.

*: not referring to Alabama, which got greater punishments for greater infractions

"USC just smashed a team playing in the Pac-12 title game 50-0. USC has a better QB and receivers than anybody LSU has played against. Certainly LSU struggled (or didn't impress) against the one quality QB they played all season - Geno Smith."

God, your ignorance is astounding. LSU literally JUST got through beating a team with an offense as talented as USC at QB and WR by 24 . The defense just held a thousand-yard receiver to 2 catches for 27 yards.

And there's superstar talent everywhere. I would be confident putting money down that everyone getting significant playing time on the defensive line and in the secondary, assuming their careers don't go down the drain or they get hurt or something, will be in the NFL in some capacity.

Finally the fact that you think Geno fucking Smith is better than Darron Thomas and Tyler Wilson says miles about your (lack of) understanding of college football. You say they "didn't impress" even though they beat WVU by 26 on the road, and you've kept the one good number he had all game around as though it proves LSU's defense is suspect.

Smith: 38/65, 463 yards, 58.5%, 2 TDs, 2 INTs, 7.1ypa, 122.3 rating

Yeah, 463 yards... against a prevent defensive scheme which is designed to give up yards but not allow points. Considering WVU had 21, and LSU had 47, I'd say that worked pretty well. And on 65 attempts? His 7.1ypa is a whole 1.2ypa behind his season average, a 15% dropoff. Season high in INTs, season low in passer rating. That ain't strugglin'.

"And before you point out that UNC isn't in the SEC. I'm aware. The double standard extends to all southern schools, where if you're not cheating you're apparently not trying."

And now you're just being a moron. You start by going "SEC SCHOOLS GET UNFAIR ADVANTAGE IN VIOLATION BAAAAWW" and then, realizing your case is bunk, sneak in an ACC school and go "NCAA WUBS THE SOUTH AND ITS NOT FAIR BAAAAW," in the process completing undoing the fact that you were arguing about the SEC, not the South, in the first place.

Seriously, why in the world are you so envious of the SOUTH, for the love of God, that you hold this unjustifiable vendetta against them in literally the only thing they gave going for them? It just blows my mind that you'd go to such lengths to try and make the SEC this evil monster when it's clearly not just to hate on one of the most unfortunate accidents to ever grace Western history.

"Seriously, why in the world are you so envious of the SOUTH, for the love of God, that you hold this unjustifiable vendetta against them in literally the only thing they gave going for them?"

Oh cry me a fucking river with the southern grievance routine. Yours is the region that preaches personal responsibility and how you're morally superior and more fiscally responsible than the rest of us, but but when it comes down it you just want a pity party and give a bunch of excuses for why you are the way you are.

"There's certainly an argument that Southern Cal's punishments were excessive, but per the NCAA's established rules it's on Southern Cal to ensure shit like this doesn't happen:"

Really, that's the best you can do? "Per the NCAA rules"? That's why USC got the closest thing to the death penalty that has been imposed on any school and yet SEC schools get away with cheating over and over again?

"Come to USC, and we'll give you cash and your family a house and we'll get you an agent before you even leave school!"

Where was Bush given cash and a house by USC or by anybody related to USC? Or is Mayo the reason why they received the post-season bans and the 30 scholarship reduction? Except those penalties applied to the football program, not the basketball. Get your story straight.

"They got worse punishments than USC did."

And you call me ignorant? You lost any credibility on this, homer.

Alabama had boosters pay multiple players hundreds of thousands of dollars. That is far worse than anything that is alleged Bush did (which the Bush shit is based on a load of hearsay crap anyway). Alabama was on probation when they paid off recruits 6 figures to come to Bama. Alabama lost 21 scholarships. USC lost 30. Nobody from USC or associated with USC paid anything to Bush, and they got a 30 scholarship reduction and a two-year bowl ban. How the fuck is that fair? And how is that not a double standard favoring the oh so oppressed South?

Here is what Alabama did, just so it's clear:

"A recruit, identified in news reports and Kenny Smith, and his parents were given $20,000 in cash, lodging, and entertainment by two Crimson Tide boosters beginning in 1995. The first payment of $10,000 was made in $100 bills delivered in a grocery bag. Smith signed with Alabama but couldn’t been academic requirements.

-An Alabama booster previously identified as Logan Young of Memphis, Tenn., gave cash to a high school coach who was seeking $100,000 cash and two sport-utility vehicles in exchange for directing star recruit Albert Means to Alabama.

-An assistant coach, former recruiting coordinator Ronnie Cottrell, received two loans totaling $56,600 from Young in violation of NCAA rules. The loan was not repaid until the case became known.

-Two boosters involved in repeated rules violations were know to the Alabama staff, coaches and fans and were often seen at the team hotel during road games.

-A recruit, identified previously as Travis Carroll, was given the use of a car in 1999 for agreeing to attend Alabama. The car was repossessed when Carroll transferred to Florida."

Compare that to what Bush did, then say with a straight face that the same rules apply.

"Yeah, 463 yards... against a prevent defensive scheme which is designed to give up yards but not allow points."

Oh I get it, when your defense gets torched for 463 yards, it's the scheme. But when you hold a receiver to 27 yards, it's because you're so awesome. Whatever argument suits you at whatever moment.

"Season high in INTs, season low in passer rating. That ain't strugglin'."

I see. So it's standard for LSU's defense to give up an obscene amount of yards. That's how great it is. Smith has the 18th best passer rating in the country, whilst Wilson has the 25th. But wait, Wilson played against great defenses like Texas A & M and Missouri State, whereas Smith played against the "Big Least", right.

Darren Thomas is a running QB. He's lucky if he throws 20 passes a game. It's not the same type of offense. You should know this, since you know everything about college ball.

"You know why we got such fewer penalties? The guy who was recruited illegally never played a down for LSU. It was kinda similar to USC's case in that an individual actor for LSU assisted a player in getting improper benefits...

except where USC turned a blind eye to it while their player, who btw won the Heisman and a national title for USC, LSU didn't let him play a down, dismissed him and imposed penalties on itself. USC did none of these and rode their illegal player to the height of college football. Of course LSU got lighter punishments than USC..."

The alleged violations began to occur well into the 2004 season (again as inducements to get Bush to leave for the NFL early), yet USC was forced to vacate the entire season. That's complete rubbish and you know it. What evidence do you have that anybody at USC knew of what Bush's family was doing? None.

"There's a distinct difference in these cases. Bush and his family actually *received* improper benefits. Newton and his family, as best the NCAA could find, did not. His dad shopped him out, and whether or not he knew about it is up for debate; officially he didn't, but I'd agree that it's hard to believe he wouldn't know. In any case, his skills were apparently shopped out to MISSISSIPPI STATE and not Auburn, so of course Auburn is cleared."

Right, of course Auburn is cleared. I like how you make up shit about USC paying football players to come to USC, when that clearly didn't happen. The benefits were between a potential NFL agent and the player, had nothing to do with Bush coming to USC and were in fact inducements to leave USC. And you're saying the big difference is money didn't actually change hands, but the fact that somebody is shopping a player around to various schools isn't a problem, doesn't make that player ineligible.

Yeah the big difference is this, in one case you have a player whose family is soliciting payments to play for whatever SEC school pays the most, which actually involves inducements to come play for a school, in the other case you have an NFL agent, completely independent of the school, giving a family benefits well after the player had ever committed to the school.