CollegeFootballPoll.com Message Board

Okay, so after Vanderbilt, Tennessee, Missouri, and Auburn winning, we now have Ole Miss up 17-0 in Oxford against LSU. This will mean that LSU could become the fourth top 25 team in the conference to lose to a lesser-ranked team with Missouri winning with their backup QB against a traditional SEC power school.

For Georgia, their injuries couldn't have come at a worse time. They scored wins against South Carolina and LSU after dropping the road opener to Clemson and they seemed poised to go back to Atlanta, but their hopes have become completely derailed. It's a shame for Aaron Murray because his season was starting to turn into something Heisman-worthy, but now we'll never know what this team could have done at full-strength. I'm not really sure what happened to South Carolina today, didn't watch too much of that. Florida was completely overrated coming into today and, looking ahead, a 6-6 finish is fairly likely with games remaining against Georgia, South Carolina, Florida State, and Vandy. I took Florida because I've become resigned to an upstart team like Missouri getting their hopes up only to get crushed by a traditional school, but they completely dominated Florida even without James Franklin as their triggerman. With Texas A&M, it's an average team with Johnny Manziel and Mike Evans. Those two guys alone could mask a lot of deficiencies if they played for a terrible team like New Mexico State; in other words, that's all A&M has and it can win them some games, but they have absolutely no defense which will make them struggle a lot down the stretch.

I guess to sum up, it's Missouri's SEC East to lose and nobody else is even close at this point. South Carolina is probably the only team with a prayer and the only way it can happen at this point is for the Gamecocks to win in Columbia next week with Missouri also falling to A&M. Missouri isn't really a pretender since they have a very good team, but they won't stand a chance against Alabama when that time rolls around.

Georgia probably has the worst defense of any team in the nation, regardless of conference! Even with the loss of starters, they had Vandy 24-10 at one point. There is no excuse for dropping this one.

Derek wrote:Georgia probably has the worst defense of any team in the nation, regardless of conference! Even with the loss of starters, they had Vandy 24-10 at one point. There is no excuse for dropping this one.

You haven't seen Ohio State play defense. Everytime I see them take a step forward they take two steps backward. A very young Dline that looks good in spurts and lost in others. Decent LB play. Terrible secondary, which is due in part to missed assignments by the Dline. Very frustrating to have those kinds of growing pains. A few key injuries. Very tough for a defense first guy.

Even though the lost...Clowney got one of his hits in again. DANG!!

I think this is why the Falcons are playing so bad. They want the stop spot in the draft.

http://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/2013/clowney-has-another-clowney-hit-against-tennessee/

This brings up some very contentious questions that I figure asking here is probably the best, since you guys appear to value objectivity, and have a lot of knowledge. And before I start, let me say I grew up in SEC territory, so taking a cheap shot at that conference is not my intent. I genuinely want to investigate something that's been bothering me about college football.

First, as I'm sure most of you know, it's hard to read a board with Big Ten fans in which there is not at least one reference to favorable bias toward SEC that is promoted by ESPN. When asked why ESPN would do this, I've gotten the following response from many people, some who I trust: ESPN has very favorable revenue sharing contracts with the SEC, and very unfavorable ones with the Big Ten. Accordingly, it's in their interest to ensure SEC teams have prime time spots and bowl games. So, anyone here know if it's true about the favorable revenue sharing for ESPN wrt to SEC? If so, then ESPN definitely has the means, motive, and opportunity to "persuade" the rankings. So (if true) I think a better question than asking whether ESPN would do this, is to ask why wouldn't they? It's hard to believe a major corporation would refrain from using its influence (even if unethical) to pad its bottom line.

So far this year, the SEC is (I think) 7-6 against AQ teams, not bad, but clearly nothing to distinguish them from other conferences. In fact, the Big Ten, which is supposedly awful this year is (I think) 8-6 against AQ opponents, incl. that poor one between Wisconsin and AZ st., which would otherwise make it 9-5. Granted, this is not the end-all of intra-conference comparison, but it's the only objective criterion there is. Does anyone here know the Pac-12 and ACC record this year against AQ teams? It's probably better than either of the two above, and if so, that means SEC is basically dead last among the big 4 in the only intra-conference metric we have. And yet, the popular narrative is SEC is head and shoulders above anyone else. Can anyone here argue that the SEC, from top to bottom, is really better than the Pac-12?

At any rate, this really began to bother me last week with the record 8 SEC teams in the top 25 because objectively, seriously, many other teams should have filled some of those spots and/or SEC teams with few exceptions clearly where ranked higher then their performance this year would warrant. Now with this week, where 5 of the top 7 SEC teams lost, teams that the popular narrative claims would beat just about anyone from other conferences, esp. the Big Ten. Most to mediocre teams that would likely have losing records in any other major conference--Ole Miss was beat up nearly as bad as Georgia and still beat LSU!. Bama clearly looks to be a top 3 team in the country, but the rest of the conference does not look so strong, both in terms of power rankings, and most definitely in terms of rankings based on performance.

It almost looks like the SEC is in the same boat as the Big Ten, only you wouldn't know it. I'd wager whatever bowl Wisconsin goes to this year, they'll win, and I would not make that claim in advance with #2/#3 in the SEC. Maybe there really is some ESPN conspiracy akin to the Emperor's new clothes, and Big Ten fans don't all have tin foil hats. And this is particularly unsettling given next years' change. I suspect some time down the road, other conferences will make better deals with ESPN. Isn't it likely that soon we will have teams picked for the national title and all other bowls in advance based on how sweet their deal is with entities that have the power to mold the public narrative, like ESPN. All it really takes then is coaches great at using the bowl month to prepare, someone like Saban.

I agree with Derek...go back to BCS 1999-2003 or back to the original--but even then, the main problem still exists: that polls are now judged based on opinion rather than performance. And any system where that's the case, the above issues cannot be avoided. Sorta ruining the CFB experience for me.

I know that ESPN promotes what they have an interest in and they can, to some extent, manufacture either demand for a product or they can give credence to a narrative. Take the NHL for instance. Before the lockout, the NHL had a TV deal with ESPN/ABC. After the lockout, ESPN/ABC tried to short them and Comcast/NBC came along with a much better deal. The NHL surely took a hit in popularity as most sports do after a lockout, but the rate at which ESPN covers the NHL is ridiculously low. It gets about as much coverage as tennis. Most casual fans think of the NHL as "irrelevant" partly because ESPN hypes up absolutely nothing about it because they have no reason to. Obviously the NHL is a regional sport, but it does have a larger following than ESPN lets on in my opinion. ESPN has pushed soccer and NASCAR extremely hard since they got the rights to them. It's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy that those have gotten higher ratings the more ESPN has pushed it because if ESPN is covering it, the sport must be really important so Joe Viewer should check it out since they get the channels on most basic packages. There's a certain give-and-take about this; they can't make people like anything because the decision is ultimately up to the consumer, but I think they play a large part in developing hype or convincing people why this or that is a big deal.

That said, ESPN and most college football audiences don't always pay attention to the deeper things at play. They'll mostly reference bowl games and national championships as evidence of this or that or the other thing which is not a nuanced way to look at things. I'm not saying we should ignore those outcomes, but you basically had Tim Tebow / Urban Meyer and Nick Saban building a dynasty in what just so happens to be the SEC. This has accounted for five national titles out of this string of seven. All you can say is that Tim Tebow / Urban Meyer and Nick Saban did great things. How the (previously) 11 other teams can take credit for that, I have no idea. There's more to a conference than just the very top of it. Even so, the SEC has probably been the best conference top-to-bottom over the last decade. What this doesn't mean is that teams like Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi State, etc. are somehow better than teams like Michigan State, Arizona, Georgia Tech, etc. People look at the conference record of those teams in a given year and assume that, even if they can't win any meaningful SEC games, that they're still better than other middle of the road teams from other conferences because the SEC is somehow on another plane compared to the B1G, Pac-12, ACC, etc.

But is ESPN pushing the SEC because of financial reasons? I don't know, they have pretty good contracts with other conferences and they have really pushed the Pac-12 as being a viable opponent for the SEC in the "best conference debate" this year. I think they shallowly pay attention to the national title string and it adds fuel to this narrative that floats around and they talk about it because it gets people riled up and/or interested. I think they just want ears and eyeballs.

I think that the SEC isn't as good as they have been, but they are still very good. The PAC-12 is very good. Florida State is very good. I think that is what we know for sure.

B-10 fans, especially Buckeyes, aren't used to being on the outside looking in. But that is where we are and it is hard to watch them play and argue against us being there. Ohio State has a very good offense. Heck they can change quarterbacks and not change the way they play. That part is fun. The defense is another thing. There is talent, there is speed, there is also lots of confusion. The rest of the B-10 teams are a lot like Ohio State. Big focus on offense, pitiful defensive performances. I don't see a B-10 team that can beat Oregon, Alabama, and Florida State at this point and probably at any point this year. Big 12 is the same way. Baylor looks good, but when you are in a pond of frogs the short, fat, bald guy looks good. The ACC is Florida State and Miami IMO and both are pretty good - FSU looks great too me.

As far as the ESPN bias for the SEC, it's more of ESPN promoting their contracts. The B-10 used to get lots of ESPN love, then they sold out their 2 tier games to Fox and made Disney mad. B-10 fans make it more than what it is.

Spence wrote:I think that the SEC isn't as good as they have been, but they are still very good. The PAC-12 is very good. Florida State is very good. I think that is what we know for sure.

B-10 fans, especially Buckeyes, aren't used to being on the outside looking in. But that is where we are and it is hard to watch them play and argue against us being there. Ohio State has a very good offense. Heck they can change quarterbacks and not change the way they play. That part is fun. The defense is another thing. There is talent, there is speed, there is also lots of confusion. The rest of the B-10 teams are a lot like Ohio State. Big focus on offense, pitiful defensive performances. I don't see a B-10 team that can beat Oregon, Alabama, and Florida State at this point and probably at any point this year. Big 12 is the same way. Baylor looks good, but when you are in a pond of frogs the short, fat, bald guy looks good. The ACC is Florida State and Miami IMO and both are pretty good - FSU looks great too me.

As far as the ESPN bias for the SEC, it's more of ESPN promoting their contracts. The B-10 used to get lots of ESPN love, then they sold out their 2 tier games to Fox and made Disney mad. B-10 fans make it more than what it is.

Great input. I've seen a few Ohio State games this year, including parts of today's game, and it sure does look like there are defense problems, as you say. But despite all that, you see nothing untoward in the rankings and commentary? The biggest problem I see in the B-10 right now is there is no clear #2 team, which traditionally has been OhioSt/Mich...continuing down the line, the conference looks about as good as it has in the last 5 years to me, or thereabouts, with only Purdue that anyone might truly be able to sleep on. Wisconsin is absolutely scary, but apparently not too tough to disrupt for quality teams.

I'm a skeptic by nature and tend to dislike paradigms that are overtly biased, whatever it may be. I just want to be looking in the right direction and "ESPN promoting their contracts" might be benign or might not. It looks to me like it is not, and it's uncomfortable for me to admit that because several teams I like are the beneficiary here at the expense of others.

Eric wrote:I know that ESPN promotes what they have an interest in and they can, to some extent, manufacture either demand for a product or they can give credence to a narrative. Take the NHL for instance. Before the lockout, the NHL had a TV deal with ESPN/ABC. After the lockout, ESPN/ABC tried to short them and Comcast/NBC came along with a much better deal. The NHL surely took a hit in popularity as most sports do after a lockout, but the rate at which ESPN covers the NHL is ridiculously low. It gets about as much coverage as tennis. Most casual fans think of the NHL as "irrelevant" partly because ESPN hypes up absolutely nothing about it because they have no reason to. Obviously the NHL is a regional sport, but it does have a larger following than ESPN lets on in my opinion. ESPN has pushed soccer and NASCAR extremely hard since they got the rights to them. It's kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy that those have gotten higher ratings the more ESPN has pushed it because if ESPN is covering it, the sport must be really important so Joe Viewer should check it out since they get the channels on most basic packages. There's a certain give-and-take about this; they can't make people like anything because the decision is ultimately up to the consumer, but I think they play a large part in developing hype or convincing people why this or that is a big deal.

That said, ESPN and most college football audiences don't always pay attention to the deeper things at play. They'll mostly reference bowl games and national championships as evidence of this or that or the other thing which is not a nuanced way to look at things. I'm not saying we should ignore those outcomes, but you basically had Tim Tebow / Urban Meyer and Nick Saban building a dynasty in what just so happens to be the SEC. This has accounted for five national titles out of this string of seven. All you can say is that Tim Tebow / Urban Meyer and Nick Saban did great things. How the (previously) 11 other teams can take credit for that, I have no idea. There's more to a conference than just the very top of it. Even so, the SEC has probably been the best conference top-to-bottom over the last decade. What this doesn't mean is that teams like Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi State, etc. are somehow better than teams like Michigan State, Arizona, Georgia Tech, etc. People look at the conference record of those teams in a given year and assume that, even if they can't win any meaningful SEC games, that they're still better than other middle of the road teams from other conferences because the SEC is somehow on another plane compared to the B1G, Pac-12, ACC, etc.

But is ESPN pushing the SEC because of financial reasons? I don't know, they have pretty good contracts with other conferences and they have really pushed the Pac-12 as being a viable opponent for the SEC in the "best conference debate" this year. I think they shallowly pay attention to the national title string and it adds fuel to this narrative that floats around and they talk about it because it gets people riled up and/or interested. I think they just want ears and eyeballs.

Excellent commentary and examples. So let me ask this. Is there any competition to ESPN right now for college football? For example, could Comcast as you mentioned or Fox, like Spence noted, get contracts and start their own competing narrative? If so, then at least there's some hope, but if not, then it still looks grim to me. I know absolutely nothing about media contracts or rev shares, but pretty familiar with economics and business. And, let me say again, I agree SEC has been top-notch in the last decade, and I agree with you about Saban and Meyer, and no SEC team is to blame here. But there have also been numerous--too numerous--examples of ranking bias as well, and who might be capable of accomplishing that or benefit from it? I think the Pac-12 is better than the SEC this year, but what I think doesn't really matter. However, it's hard to explain 8 top-25 teams with the records that were posted.

I think the eight teams were justifiable at the time. I admit I had Florida higher than I should have in the poll we do here, but I was going to forgive them for losing to LSU and Miami who I had in the top 10 last week and I had Auburn near the very tail end of my poll last week. I dropped Florida and Georgia from the rankings although I struggled leaving out Georgia for Oregon State who lost to Eastern Washington to open the year, but they look like they have rebounded from that loss in a big way. Considering that Georgia is decimated by injuries right now, I decided to leave them out for the time being.

Fox, CBS, and NBC have started their own sports networks on cable. I haven't been following how well they've been doing financially or whether or not they've been good investments thus far, but my best guess would be that Fox Sports 1 has the most staying power as far as cutting into ESPN's sports hegemony is concerned. ESPN is an institution in America so it's going to take forever for it to ever be displaced, but I think Fox can be a good competitor.

One thing that has really bothered me that also plays into this "SEC plays on another plane entirely" mindset is when the media refers to a defense as "SEC-caliber". I mean, you could just call a defense "good" or "bad." I think that would suffice

How's "SEC-caliber" defense working out for them this year (See: Auburn, LSU, Georgia, Texas A&M, etc.)?

My opinion, for what it is worth. The media, whether it be ESPN, Fox, CBS etc is entertainment. At the highest levels they only care about number of viewers that allows them to charge more for advertisement, turning a profit. Nothing wrong with that, it what most every businesses do. The general fan base in SEC country is larger than most other areas, so I assume it is reasonable for them to promote those conferences. Last night 85000 at the FSU Clemson game and 20000 outside the stadium...huge.

Are poll rigged? I do not think there is any evidence of that. Are they farcial, I think so. The other point is most people watching college football in the stands and on the TV have as much interests in events surrounding the game, as the game itself. And that is perfectly fine, its entertainment. There are people hungry in the world and that is another unrelated, but absolutely related subject,

donovan wrote:My opinion, for what it is worth. The media, whether it be ESPN, Fox, CBS etc is entertainment. At the highest levels they only care about number of viewers that allows them to charge more for advertisement, turning a profit. Nothing wrong with that, it what most every businesses do. The general fan base in SEC country is larger than most other areas, so I assume it is reasonable for them to promote those conferences. Last night 85000 at the FSU Clemson game and 20000 outside the stadium...huge.

Are poll rigged? I do not think there is any evidence of that. Are they farcial, I think so. The other point is most people watching college football in the stands and on the TV have as much interests in events surrounding the game, as the game itself. And that is perfectly fine, its entertainment. There are people hungry in the world and that is another unrelated, but absolutely related subject,

I don't think the coaches poll or the others are rigged. I think the coaches (or their assistants who actually vote) don't watch games). They see highlights and the local and national sports guys. As I have said in all polls, I don't think a biased positive oppion for a local team is a probably. It is the negitive opinion that hurts a team. That is what happened to Ohio State last year ( and they were a very good team last year) It is happening this year too, although, I think this year it is deserved because of the defensive woes of the team. Most coaches or voters couldn't tell you that, though. They couldn't tell you Ohio State is playing 4 teams in a row after their bye week right now either. But right or wrong the negitive opinion of the Buckeyes is deserved this year. They are not a top 3 team. Maybe not top 8.

The PAC12, sans USC, has been getting a rap for not being good for several years now. Until this year they haven't gotten the credit they deserved. The negitive bias against the PAC12 came mostly from people not seeing much news from the PAC12 until they wake up in the morning. Even last night the big dog in the conference didn't play until 10:00 EST or so. Except for the cfb crazies like me, many did not see them play. They don't get the credit they deserve. I think they are the top team in the nation. I don't think they would take Alabama or Florida State to the woodshed. They both have defenses better than most teams in the nation have seen. Bama's is young, but starting to get it together right now. Florida State's is just kicking on all cylinders right now. The Joyner kid is all world in the backfield. Both would trade punches with Oregon. I think Oregon would probably come out a head as I think they have the best QB in the nation at the moment.

So, if I'm reading the replies correctly, then the consensus is that most here accept that ESPN is doing the things noted, but it's not so disturbing to others as it is to me. I find it very questionable that the conference with one of the worst records against AQ conference opponents in 2013 is simultaneously hailed as the most dominant conference and sports a record 8 teams in the top 25. Growing up, my two favorite teams were from that conference (Florida & Georgia), so you would think I'd be thrilled by this turn of events, but I'm not.

I think it all goes back to rankings based on subjective belief to the exclusion of objective metrics. Seriously, what is so wrong about ranking team A who proved it on the field above team B who everyone knows is better? Next week more data comes in and its THAT data that should be used to adjust the rankings, not something else.

Duke, it is absolutely as disturbing to most of us as it is to you. Some accept the reality of it and point out the flaws of the past, others want to continue the involvement and excitement of College Football and so we put up with it,discuss it like we care, when in fact we loathe it. But what is really good, is the character of the people on this site and for that, we put up with each other.

I speak only for myself, but that is how I see it. Many of us have been watching football when you had to be there in the cold and the mud, and the good times. I don't particularly like watching it on TV...I much rather go and be there, but I do a lot more TV now and when it seems right, I go to the game. Have not watched as much high school since coming to Oregon, but I like High School Football. For me....as I have said ad nauseum, go back to geographical football, play bowls assigned to conferences...I would be Ok with more bowls assigned to conference and be done on January 1 and make your case at the water cooler or some remote Tavern in South Carolina where cable is still just a piece of wire.......

PS...I don't think you should be playing a World Series in the middle of Winter either....another lunacy.