Is it just a coincidence that now that teams have to "earn" their way to the Championship game that the SEC isn't represented?
Maybe not, but Alabama was ranked #1 and would have been in the Championship if left to the voters. In a weak year for the SEC they would have still been in. I think bias is still helping that conference.Yep. SEC wasn't as strong this year.
Maybe not, but Alabama was ranked #1 and would have been in the Championship if left to the voters. In a weak year for the SEC they would have still been in. I think bias is still helping that conference.
"Worked"? Maybe not that strong of a sentiment but works "better" I can certainly endorse.The funny thing is if they still had the BCS National Championship Game this season I am guessing the two teams that would have been in it would had been Alabama & FSU (I just don't think they could leave out the only undefeated team in the country who also happens to be the defending National Champions) and they both lost today! So, I guess you could argue that the playoff system worked (Of course, you still might get an argument from TCU!).
Maybe not, but Alabama was ranked #1 and would have been in the Championship if left to the voters. In a weak year for the SEC they would have still been in. I think bias is still helping that conference.
I have nothing against the SEC they play outstanding football and deserve all the credit for their success, however, it was nice for my Buckeyes to defeat Alabama. Really tired of the Tide because it seems every year when the lose pundits and others want still keep them number one.
Great win for Ohio State and I am not sure they will be able to defeat a great Oregon team, but I guess I am more pleased to defeat the Crimson Tide than the SEC, however, it was a Big Day for the Big Ten yesterday as Wisconsin, Michigan State and Ohio State were all victorious and beating the SEC in two out of three of the contests which in the words of Meat Loaf ain't bad!
They better beat Oregon.
BTW, Cardale Jones needs to declare for the draft. That's one developmental prospect I'd take a shot on.
They better beat Oregon.
But isn't that the point? Alabama wasn't as good as they have been yet, there they are ranked at #1 at the end of the year and would have been in the NC if not for the playoff system. Maybe it's reasonable, but the SEC gets bias in it's favor.It was clear this year that Alabama was not as good as they have been.
There was no bias the past few years. The fact that the SEC won that long string of NCs in a row shows that playoffs or not, they would have deserved to have been there. Which teams wouldn't have made it in your opinion?
But isn't that the point? Alabama wasn't as good as they have been yet, there they are ranked at #1 at the end of the year and would have been in the NC if not for the playoff system. Maybe it's reasonable, but the SEC gets bias in it's favor.
No. That's not the point you were making.
Seems like the exact point I was making. Maybe I'm reading myself wrong.moklerman said:Maybe not, but Alabama was ranked #1 and would have been in the Championship if left to the voters. In a weak year for the SEC they would have still been in. I think bias is still helping that conference.
Seems like the exact point I was making. Maybe I'm reading myself wrong.
Is it just a coincidence that now that teams have to "earn" their way to the Championship game that the SEC isn't represented?
Why would you think that? My question doesn't contradict my implication.Or you've conveniently forgotten what else you said:
Why would you think that? My question doesn't contradict my implication.
So....you're saying there's bias for the SEC.Yes, it does. You asked if it was a coincidence. I told you yes. That is where the argument started. The clear implication there is that you don't believe it is. Which means, you believe some of the past SEC teams wouldn't have "earned" their way in. Am I misinterpreting your original question?
Is there "bias" this year? Possibly. I'm still not sold there is. Alabama beat a lot of good teams this year. Who should have been ranked above them? Oregon? Both teams had 1 loss to a ranked team and Alabama had more quality wins. FSU? A lot of people didn't think they should even be in the top 4 due to the lack of quality wins...but I could understand them being #1 since they were undefeated. Ohio State? They lost to Virginia Tech and had less quality wins.
I don't really see bias in Alabama being #1. Just a better system for determining who the best team is in a year where the SEC clearly isn't as strong as they were in the past...of course, there was no way to know that until bowl season.
So bias? Maybe unconscious...but it's easily understandable with how strong the SEC has been in the past. And I don't know that I'd call it bias.
So....you're saying there's bias for the SEC.
I think it's pretty obvious there is bias from the east coast and the SEC benefits from it in media coverage and praise. That's not to say they don't have good teams but with so much of the previous system based on opinion, it's naive to think voters weren't influenced by the SEC's reputation.