He offended the Football gods, obviously.

Most teams in the SEC could beat OSU. Vanderbilt could do it.

Now you're just getting too cocky.

Funny because the SEC got taken to the woodshed by quality ooc opponents. I have no idea ho dipplayer believes that he can make this judgement.

Sources? Or is this a second year of the laughably silly "My Rutgers team beat Arkansas even though Arkansas is trash therefore all of the SEC is terrible" tripe

Why the fuck do I have to provide the sources? I will though so perhaps I can break through the echo chamber that is southern football talk.

Lsu, a-m, Alabama, auburn, arkansas

Wins
Bama Vs 8-4 hokies
Georgia vs ga tech (needed double ot to beat a 7-4 acc)
Sc vs nc, Clemson, ucf (by 3)
Ol miss vs Texas

Loss
Arkansas vs rutgers
Florida vs fsu, ga southern, Miami
Tennessee vs Oregon
Georgia vs Clemson
Ky vs Louisville, and western ky
Miss st vs ok st

___________________

Explain to me how this possibly justifies giving the sec special treatment?

The only team that did anything of any significance out of the conference is South Carolina. Yet south Carolina's success can easily be countered with Florida (ranked 10 pre season!) struggles. Yet several sec schools lost big games out of conference including Georgia, Tennessee who was obliterated by oregon, and miss st. Yes auburn al and lsu did not lose any out of conference games but only Alabama was even tested.

So, again we have to rely on the media who tells us how good the sec is. The media that ranked Florida 10th pre season. The argument that a one loss sec team should make it into the national title game over an undefeated big conference team without playing any out of conference challenges is that "there are no off weeks in the sec" and all teams are of high quality. This is not the case anymore. The west is better no doubt, but arkansas is horrible and the Mississippian are middling programs.

Is it a feat to win the west, yes.

Is it a big enough feat to excuse not scheduling any out of conference challenges and still jump an undefeated (for 2 seasons mind you) team to play in the national championship? Absolutely not and the fact you claim it does just shows your bias.

Where are your sources?

A hypothetical 12-1 Auburn would have beaten:

11-1 Alabama
11-2 Missouri
8-4 Georgia
8-4 Texas A&M

And lost to 9-3 LSU.

A hypothetical 13-0 Ohio State team would have beaten:

11-2 Michigan State
9-3 Wisconsin
8-4 Iowa

I think going 4-1 against Alabama, Georgia, LSU, Missouri and Texas A&M is more impressive than going 3-0 against Iowa, Michigan State and Wisconsin.

It isn't about the SEC getting "favorable treatment," it's about an Auburn team that's proven more with a tougher schedule getting the nod over an Ohio State team that looks poised to repeat Notre Dame's terrible performance in the national championship last year.

As far as the SEC's OOC slate (which is what I said "sources?" to)... you said the SEC "got taken to the woodshed" out of conference. The SEC went 47-9 out of conference. Framing that as "taken to the woodshed" is pretty hilariously disingenuous. Against BCS teams the SEC went 10-7. Not superb by any stretch, but last I checked, a necessary prerequisite of being "taken to the woodshed" is losing. 10-7 is winning. You're cherry-picking your examples big time to make it look worse than it is.

Why? Why is it more impressive? Because YOU say so? Because the auburn that only beat a 6-6 (3-5) PAC 12 team by a td says so? Because an LSU team that made a game of it with a shitty arkansas team and a shitty tcu team says so? Do we have to accept your prognosis of the sec and its relative strength because, quite obviously, it is not supported by the results of its out of conference schedules. All you have are the names and reputations of schools sprinkled with the breathless proclamations of the media who make money televising sec games.

I said they got taken to the woodshed against quality opponents. Are you seriously going to characterize there 47-9 record came against quality opponents. The sec schedules almost exclusively cupcakes as any true analysis would take into account. I did not cherry pick a thing. I considered a "quality win" a win against a team in a bcs conference over .500 in conference (again in your rush to spin this you neglected the fact that the sec schedules the tints of the bcs conferences). I did not cherry pick and was completely thorough in my listing. You are the ones posting jacked up stats (knowingly or unknowingly) to support your position.

*schedules the runts of big conferences

Bottom line, anyone who says the SEC should get preferential treatment because of its relative strength needs to be able to show that it is truly relatively stronger.

The out of conference results clearly do not support that beyond a reasonable doubt.

It's more impressive because those five teams have better records and there are five of them instead of three. There's nothing "jacked up" about that. It doesn't have anything to do with name recognition; it's numbers.

Meanwhile, while accusing me of posting "jacked up stats" "in [a] rush to spin this," you yourself are being so overtly disingenuous that it's almost impossible to believe you're unaware of it. You're giving the least charitable analysis possible of what Auburn opponents you care to look at -- cherry-picking, as I said before -- while not looking at any of Ohio State's games or opponents. OSU has had close calls against bad teams as well, notably 5-7 Northwestern and 7-5 Michigan, but you conveniently disregard these in your analysis.

And you talk about the SEC doing poorly against "quality opponents," while not defining precisely what that means, and then you accuse me of bias when I decide to include all relevant data instead of attempting to follow your unstated cherry-picked games -- cherry-picked, because in your rush to find every single SEC failure you can, you didn't stop to consider the reverse of your own argument against me: the overwhelming majority of the losses you cited came from SEC teams who were outmatched. By your own criterion, eight of the nine losses you cited were from teams who would not qualify as "quality opponents." The only fair comparison under your criterion -- quality opponents vs quality opponents -- yields... an SEC record of 6-1 (all of the wins you listed, and Georgia's loss to Clemson as the sole loss). So by your own criterion your position is still complete nonsense.

You've got an absurd anti-SEC bias that is clouding your judgment and rendering you unable to analyze this situation coherently or rationally. There's a good case to be made for Ohio State going over Auburn, but you're not making it.

As it stands now, Overrated State will get to the BCS championship if they can beat the Spartans. IF.

Yup. And it wouldn't be a terrible decision or anything. Ohio State is certainly a worthy team. I just think Auburn's impressed more, even with the ugly showing against LSU.

All relevent data? How are sec games against Austin peay relevant you dolt? How about sec games against Indiana? Those were your "relevant" stats. Honestly. Meanwhile I also included sec wins even if the sec team was not a "quality opponent." My intent was never to make a record, it was to include the results of all relevant games. I went through every fucking sec game, I still have no idea why my games which followed a solid criteria were "cherry picked."

Sec is again overrated, and yes I will say so until they are no longer overrated . But the way they played this year the bowl season should make my point for me shortly.

It's just a game... Geez...

Yeah mr. "The mods are hitler" has a right to toss cold water on any conversation. Honestly draug go fuck yourself. Not for your comment, just in general.

FSU will murder Overrated State in the championship game. Nobody will watch after the first quarter.

Meanwhile, with luck the Sugar Bowl will be a rematch of Auburn and Alabama. Ratings will be through the roof, and the Tide will crush the Tigers, just like LSU a few years ago.

"Meanwhile I also included sec wins even if the sec team was not a "quality opponent.""

No, you didn't. The wins you included were directly limited to what you defined as "quality opponents" -- as they would be, according to your criterion. Looking at your criterion the SEC is 6-1 in the OOC games that tell us how strong it is. That isn't "being taken to the woodshed."

You don't have an argument to back up your wild claims or jerkish attitude. Not sure why you even bothered to respond if all you were going to do is be indignant without conceding that you were by your own apparent standard wrong.

What are you even talking about? I, again, included all games that fit the criteria of quality teams. Who is 6-1? Where did you even get that number from? I do have an argument. If you are trying to argue that only quality sec teams should be included then you clearly don't seen to understand that the very reason the sec gets this preferential treatment in the first place is that ALL SEC teams are supposed to be quality and as a result a 1 loss SEC team can jump an undefeated team. Why would I only include quality SEC teams when I am trying to disprove that? The one flaw I have is that I included losses to non-quality opponents as well (rutgers, ga southern, etc.). This may be against the "model" but they are hardly irrelevant. But, then again, unlike you who is pointing to this unexplained 6-1 number like it is some kind of smoking gun, i never once claimed inwas trying to put together some record, only list all the relevent games. myargument is that the sec did not have a season to justify jumping another team from an undefeated conference. You don't agree with my argument and you do it by raving I "cherry picked games" when I clearly did not. You don't have to like the way I collected information but I did not cherry pick a thing.

Now the way to do this, if you cared, is to claim I missed out on some relevant games (be specific please) or included non-relevant games (be specific please) and tell me why these were relevant or not relevant to the SECs out of conference performance and the relative strength of the SEC to the rest of college football.

The SEC went 11-7 vs. BCS AQ conferences. If we throw in Florida's loss to Georgia Southern and Kentucky's loss to Western Kentucky, that makes it 11-9. That's not a great record, but, by my count the Big-10 went 9-8 against BCS Conferences/Notre Dame, plus Iowa's loss to Northern Illinois, Indiana's loss to Navy, and Purdue's loss to Northern Illinois, which makes it 9-11. Foolishly, the AAC still counts as AQ, and I am not going to go back and count out those wins.

To put it another, total non-con win vs. Automatic Qualifiers (including Notre Dame) gives the SEC the lead vs the Big 10, by my count, at 11 to 9. Total conference losses also benefit the SEC at 7 losses versus 11 for the Big 10.

Maybe the SEC plays an easier non-con schedule, but the SEC still has more wins against roughly equal caliber team (AQs) and fewer losses against non-conference teams.

The SEC has three teams at least -- Auburn, Missouri, and Alabama -- which would be favored to win the Big-10 this season. South Carolina and LSU might also have a good shot. I'd give any of the five at least 50-50 odds against either Michigan State or Ohio State (or, uh, Wisconsin? Not a lot of quality Big 10 depth). I'd give Auburn, Missouri, and especially Alabama at least 50-50 odds to beat both MSU and OSU. Heck, before the wheels fell off for very different reasons, either Texas A&M or Georgia might have been the best team in the Big 10. The Big XII, which is two teams smaller than the Big 10 right now, is still a deeper and stronger conference than the Big 10.

That said, even as a big Auburn fan I do not think Auburn (which would beat Ohio State about four out of five times) should play for the national title over an undefeated Ohio State. Undefeated conferences champions should take precedence. This is why I did not think Alabama should play in the rematch in 2011, despite thinking them the best team in the country at that time. Bowl bids should not done by power poll.