The ESPN propaganda machine is working overtime these days...

[Slyfox696]

I was listening to Mike and Mike on my way to work this morning and I heard something which almost made me fall out of my chair (which would have been bad because I was driving at the time). I've long held ESPN actively pushes an SEC bias, granting to them a supposed strength of schedule which simply doesn't exist. I don't think I have to go any further than Texas A&M last year and Mizzou this year to show that the SEC is not nearly as dominant as ESPN wants us to believe.

Anyways, Mike Greenberg was talking about who deserves the BCS title game and, in putting forth an argument for Auburn over Ohio State, made this statement (closely paraphrased), "How much is 1 loss really worth? Over the course of 12 months, how much is 1 loss worth?".

I was dumbfounded. How much is 1 loss worth? I guess, for ESPN, it depends on whether arguing that loss is beneficial to the SEC, because two years ago, all you heard was how important Oklahoma State's 1 loss (in overtime, after a horrific plane crash devastated the athletic community on campus) was compared to Alabama's 1 loss. Nevermind OK State's strength of schedule being better nor the fact Alabama had already lost to LSU. No, all ESPN could focus on was OK State's one loss.

I'm so sick of the SEC bias at ESPN. They have no problem making hypocrites out of themselves, as long as it is to the benefit of the SEC. When Michigan and Ohio State were #1 and #2, after Michigan lost all you heard on ESPN is that we know which team was better and you couldn't have a rematch in the national title game. Funny how so many ESPN commentators forgot that argument. When arguing an SEC team to be in the national title game over an undefeated non-power conference team, you hear about how tough the SEC conference is...until another team has a stronger strength of schedule, then it's about to whom have you lost. Of course, if you haven't lost to ANYONE (like Ohio State this year), then suddenly "how much is 1 loss really worth"?


The SEC is not the undisputed king of college football. People can talk about their 7 titles all they want, if those titles were earned because of bias which got them in the game they didn't deserve to be in the first place, I hold no legitimacy to those titles. Once again, I point you to A&M and Mizzou's immediate success in the SEC as proof the SEC is not exponentially better than the other conferences. After all, for every Alabama, you have an Arkansas. For an Auburn, you have a Kentucky.

Just because you schedule a bunch of cupcakes in the non-conference season, it doesn't make you a great conference. It sure would be nice if ESPN would quit trying to tell us it does.

 

[LoudClearVoice]

I completely agree. It's very annoying. I'm not letting ESPN off the hook BUT I think it all stems from the BCS system. The College Football Playoff (CFP) will at least make it a little more fair but again we'll still be arguing about 1 loss teams and ESPN will still be touting the SEC because teams will be vying for that last playoff spot.

What I think is really, really unfair in all this is that Ohio State is getting credit from the voters, for last season. How does being undefeated last season have anything to do with this season?

 

[Con T.]

For what it's worth, this circular rationale of thought has bitten the SEC in the butt, as well. I remember the argument for the University of Georgia Bulldogs in 2007, and how many talking heads on ESPN argued that a team that didn't win its conference has no place competing for the national title.

Fast forward to four years, to the very same year you point to, 2011. Alabama, sans a conference championship, plays (and beats) LSU, in a rematch.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your take; what I will say is that this is more a product of the national gasbaggery, that requires a hot take to keep the audience listening, watching, and ultimately making the network part of he news story, as opposed to the teams. This isn't necessarily a shared viewpoint in Bristol, but I'm sure that it behooves ESPN to move the conversation, to keep viewers watching the BCS Countdowns, the rankings revealings, essentially et. all to keep viewers glued to their product.

Now, can we all agree that Ohio State, or Auburn, whoever makes it to the title game, wants no part whatsoever of Jameis Winston, if he's allowed to play?

 

[Mighty NorCal]

The best part of all this, is none of it will matter starting next year.

Everyone will forget and discredit titles/title game spots earned on seemingly not much more then assumed reputation, after this year.

Sure its idiotic, but some measure of justice (which is likely to expand) will be upon us soon.

 

[Slyfox696]

The best part of all this, is none of it will matter starting next year.

Everyone will forget and discredit titles/title game spots earned on seemingly not much more then assumed reputation, after this year.

Sure its idiotic, but some measure of justice (which is likely to expand) will be upon us soon.

If only that were the case, but with only a 4 team playoff, conference bias will still play heavily into the equation.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

If only that were the case, but with only a 4 team playoff, conference bias will still play heavily into the equation.

It should really be five, but we have a start. Thats why I said there will be empending expansion to that number, I think we both know it.

While it will still play a role. at least there will be some measure of justice, and itll be much more proven than now....

and the titles won by the ESPNEC will fade, when we look back on the era of "well....we think these are the two best teams, because...well just because. Its close, anyway."

 

[LoudClearVoice]

The best part of all this, is none of it will matter starting next year.

Everyone will forget and discredit titles/title game spots earned on seemingly not much more then assumed reputation, after this year.

Sure its idiotic, but some measure of justice (which is likely to expand) will be upon us soon.

Since it's only 4 teams in the CFP, there will still be arguments about what teams get to play in the 4 team playoff. Do you have to win your conference? Will the conference title games not count in the standings? It will be a little more fair but the SEC bias will still be there people will be arguing about an SEC school with 1 loss getting a #2 seed over an undefeated team in a "weak" conference getting a #4 seed or not getting in at all.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Since it's only 4 teams in the CFP, there will still be arguments about what teams get to play in the 4 team playoff. Do you have to win your conference? Will the conference title games not count in the standings? It will be a little more fair but the SEC bias will still be there people will be arguing about an SEC school with 1 loss getting a #2 seed over an undefeated team in a "weak" conference getting a #4 seed or not getting in at all.

You decide by looking at if the bottom team has any buisness being on the same field as the top team, regardess of conference.

Since its a human comittee doing it, I dont forsee a say, undefeated Fresno State getting in over a one-loss LSU, or some such.

There will still be arguments, sure, but it wont be near the sillyness you see now.

 

[Slyfox696]

It should really be five, but we have a start. Thats why I said there will be empending expansion to that number, I think we both know it.

While it will still play a role. at least there will be some measure of justice, and itll be much more proven than now....

and the titles won by the ESPNEC will fade, when we look back on the era of "well....we think these are the two best teams, because...well just because. Its close, anyway."

I think it will eventually expand to 8, like it should be, but for now it's not and conference bias will still directly impact the title game.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

I think it will eventually expand to 8, like it should be, but for now it's not and conference bias will still directly impact the title game.

I disagree that it should be, but agree that 8 is probably were we will be in the next decade or so. By then, and certainley soon after, all of these titles earned upon things other than merit and play on the field wont matter anymore.

 

[Richard Blonoff]

Back when Sly called foul on ESPN hating on Notre Dame, I didn't agree. This time however, I'm with him. I'd say Auburn has been more lucky than good in recent weeks. Their last two games were won on late, improbable plays, over Georgia(who make me scratch my head over how they are still ranked) and Bama. I hate Ohio State, but they are undefeated in a BCS conference, there is no reason a one loss team should get the nod over an undefeated BCS conference team ever. The only reason this notion exists is due to most big media outlets, ESPN namely, consistently bringing up these BS arguments. You know if Mizzou knock off Auburn, ESPN will be talking about how they potentially deserve the title game nod over Ohio State, assuming they get past Michigan State.

Here is what I find interesting about the playoff next year. What happens when you have a situation like this year?

Lets pretend that Ohio State and Auburn both win their conference title games so the likely top three teams will be 1) FSU 2) Ohio State 3) Auburn, with the potential for Auburn to jump Ohio State due to the SEC bias, but ultimately that doesn't come into play...yet. Now Alabama is the current #4 in the country, but they won't be a conference champion. With us assuming Missouri loses, they will fall from #5, leaving Oklahoma State to move up to five(assuming that OK state beats Oklahoma to win the Big 12). Both Bama and OK St will have one loss, and Bama will have three wins over top 25 teams, and OK St will have four. Bama's loss was on a near statistically impossible last second play to the #2/3 team in the nation, OK St lost to West Virginia, a team that isn't going to a bowl. Each team played a cupcake FCS school, and each team had a mix of non conference FBS opponents. Who do you pick as the fourth team in? Do you go with Bama who will likely end up higher in the polls, or OK St who will likely end up with the conference title to their name?

As someone who is 1) An avid SEC hater and 2) A Texas fan, I would say give it to OK State, but the SEC bias is sadly a legit thing, so it doesn't solve the issue right away. Personally I'd like to see a six team playoff, with #1 and 2 getting a bye. Even then I doubt the Northern Illinois and Fresno States(despite their shootout loss Saturday) will ever get a fair shake.

On a side note, I have a lot of reasons I dislike the SEC, this one being just one of many.

 

[Richard Blonoff]

Oh man, check it out. They are already hard at work, getting the lotion on their hands for the slow jerk. It is this kind of crap that furthers my hatred of the SEC and by extension, ESPN's coverage of college football.

http://espn.go.com/college-football...a-crimson-tide-vs-auburn-tigers-worthy-sequel

 

[klunderbunker]

Watching Olbermann and Paul Finebaum is a guest. Paraphrased:

"Why are those old voters so obsessed with an undefeated team?"

The best reaction to that:

[youtube]W42iiCcFbxE[/youtube]

Did Auburn have a great season? Yes they did. Is their schedule tougher than Ohio State? (without looking) Maybe. At the end of the day though, they played a top level conference and did not lose a game. This isn't Northern Illinois playing a bunch of easy teams and winning one or two big games. Ohio State is playing a top ten team this coming weekend and if they win, I have no idea how you can argue they shouldn't make the title game.

Are Auburn and Alabama better teams? Maybe. Here's the thing though: they both lost once this year. Why should other teams suffer because people think the two SEC schools are better? If there are undefeated teams remaining, they should play for the title. It's not a perfect system, but it's the system we have now for some reason. ESPN's stance on this is head shaking.

 

[Slyfox696]

Oh man, check it out. They are already hard at work, getting the lotion on their hands for the slow jerk. It is this kind of crap that furthers my hatred of the SEC and by extension, ESPN's coverage of college football.

http://espn.go.com/college-football...a-crimson-tide-vs-auburn-tigers-worthy-sequel

I saw that last night too. I thought the timing couldn't be more perfect, in relation to my starting of this thread.

The SEC bias is real and ESPN is pushing the narrative very hard.

Watching Olbermann and Paul Finebaum is a guest. Paraphrased:

"Why are those old voters so obsessed with an undefeated team?"

The best reaction to that:

[youtube]W42iiCcFbxE[/youtube]

Did Auburn have a great season? Yes they did. Is their schedule tougher than Ohio State? (without looking) Maybe. At the end of the day though, they played a top level conference and did not lose a game. This isn't Northern Illinois playing a bunch of easy teams and winning one or two big games. Ohio State is playing a top ten team this coming weekend and if they win, I have no idea how you can argue they shouldn't make the title game.

Are Auburn and Alabama better teams? Maybe. Here's the thing though: they both lost once this year. Why should other teams suffer because people think the two SEC schools are better? If there are undefeated teams remaining, they should play for the title. It's not a perfect system, but it's the system we have now for some reason. ESPN's stance on this is head shaking.

And here's the worst part about it...the SEC isn't really that good this year.

 

[Richard Blonoff]

The SEC really isn't as good this year as other years. I know it is easy to look at the top five and say, oh the SEC has three teams there, but teams like Louisville, UCF, Fresno State, Northern Illinois, Duke, are getting shit on in polls. Louisville started the season #9 and legit title contenders, one loss later and they are lucky to crack the top 20. The team they lost to, UCF, has one loss and have been lucky to top 15th. Duke, in the same conference as the current #1, is 10-2 and are only 20th.

This isn't 2004 when Auburn ran the table in the SEC and were on the short end of the stick, with both USC and Oklahoma being undefeated. Kinda funny in retrospect how badly Oklahoma got beaten then USC vacated the title.

My rant about the bias in the polls over, I think it is fair to say this is a down year for the SEC. Texas A&M, who still have a Hesimann trophy winning QB, are down this year, Florida was a top ten team last year, they have lost seven straight including a loss to a FCS team. Georgia, mostly due to early injuries, are down this year, South Carolina is still a good team that can't win a big game, Mississippi State and Ole Miss are as average as usual, Kentucky and Arkansas remain terrible, Tennessee remains a rebuilding program. All of that lead to Auburn, who went 3-9 and 0-8 in the SEC last year to be in the title game with Missouri, who went 5-7 and 2-6 in the SEC last year. When the two teams in your title game this year had two conference wins between them last year, you have a down conference. Do I feel bad that Alabama, a team rarely in trouble all year saw their title hopes die on a once in a decade play? About as bad as I can feel for a team going for a three peat lead by Nick Saban, but lets no pretend Ohio State played a bunch of high school teams either. Buffalo is a respectable 8-4, San Diego State is 7-5, I will give a pass on Florida A&M due to the Vanderbilt debacle, Wisconsin is 9-3 and a top 25 team, Iowa is 8-4, Penn State is 7-5, Michigan is 7-5, and Michigan State is 11-1 with the #4 defense in the nation.

 

[Fire Marshall Bill]

Lets pretend that Ohio State and Auburn both win their conference title games so the likely top three teams will be 1) FSU 2) Ohio State 3) Auburn, with the potential for Auburn to jump Ohio State due to the SEC bias, but ultimately that doesn't come into play...yet. Now Alabama is the current #4 in the country, but they won't be a conference champion. With us assuming Missouri loses, they will fall from #5, leaving Oklahoma State to move up to five(assuming that OK state beats Oklahoma to win the Big 12). Both Bama and OK St will have one loss, and Bama will have three wins over top 25 teams, and OK St will have four. Bama's loss was on a near statistically impossible last second play to the #2/3 team in the nation, OK St lost to West Virginia, a team that isn't going to a bowl. Each team played a cupcake FCS school, and each team had a mix of non conference FBS opponents. Who do you pick as the fourth team in? Do you go with Bama who will likely end up higher in the polls, or OK St who will likely end up with the conference title to their name?

This scenario is more fun if Missouri wins. Would they jump Alabama? They should. But then they'd be admitting that an essential Big 12 team just won their conference in their 2nd year. Not to mention, they beat Auburn, who beat Alabama.

Plus, if we're going to play bias off of strength of schedule only, I'd say the PAC-12 should be in this discussion way more. The SEC is going soley off reputation at this point.

 

[Slyfox696]

This scenario is more fun if Missouri wins. Would they jump Alabama? They should.

If Missouri, a 1 loss SEC team with more wins over Top 25 opponents and with a win over the team who beat Alabama, gets snubbed in favor of Alabama, then you might as well stop pretending the BCS is about finding a national champion and call it the "TV Ratings Bowl".

But then they'd be admitting that an essential Big 12 team just won their conference in their 2nd year.

It's amazing how the commentators keep talking about Auburn, as if they've already won the SEC. On one hand, I get it because Auburn is hot with two miraculous finishes and is ranked higher, but on the other hand, I cannot help but wonder if Missouri is not getting any press because they were a Big 12 team.