Bbradley62 Posted December 4, 2012 Report Share Posted December 4, 2012 It's quite possible the two best teams in the SEC didn't even meet in the SEC Championship game due to a somewhat arbitrary tie breaker. Arbitrary? Georgia won the game when they played head-to-head. You can't get less arbitrary than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bbradley62 Posted December 4, 2012 Report Share Posted December 4, 2012 But if I was a betting man, I would bet against the SEC team in every game and expect to come out ahead.Presumably, the same logic would have led you to the same expectation last year. Franklin American Mortgage Music City - Mississippi State -7 vs. Wake ForestAutoZone LibertyCincinnati vs. Vanderbilt -2Chick-fil-AVirginia vs. Auburn (pick em)OutbackMichigan State vs. Georgia -2Capital OneNebraska -1 vs. South CarolinaTaxslayer.com Gator BowlOhio State vs. Florida -1.5AT&T CottonKansas State vs. Arkansas -8.5I've omitted the Missouri and Texas A&M games, since they weren't yet SEC members. Also omitted the national championship game, since it was SEC vs SEC. Mississippi State 23, Wake Forest 17 Cincinnati 31, Vanderbilt 24 Auburn 43, Virginia 24 Michigan State 33, Georgia 30 South Carolina 30, Nebraska 13 Florida 24, Ohio State 17 Arkansas 29, Kansas State 16 Miss St, Vanderbilt, and Georgia bets lose whereas Auburn, South Carolina, Florida and Arkansas cover their spreads. Small sample size, I know, but it appears that you don't get rich betting against SEC, possibly because there are enough "deniers" trying to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigpenz Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 it would be nice to see some of the SEC teams have to go up north and play in some snow.the killer for alot of teams from other areas is having to go down south and getting killedfrom the humidity Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billw55 Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 Miss St, Vanderbilt, and Georgia bets lose whereas Auburn, South Carolina, Florida and Arkansas cover their spreads. Small sample size, I know, but it appears that you don't get rich betting against SEC, possibly because there are enough "deniers" trying to do so.I figured somebody would do that work for me :) There are good reasons I am not a bettor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted December 5, 2012 Report Share Posted December 5, 2012 it would be nice to see some of the SEC teams have to go up north and play in some snow.the killer for alot of teams from other areas is having to go down south and getting killedfrom the humidity My guess is this is more about the fans experience and parties and how the show looks on tv, not who gets killed or injured on the field...no one really cares. Keep in mind the big drivers here are:violencemoneygamblingparties Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billw55 Posted December 6, 2012 Report Share Posted December 6, 2012 My guess is this is more about the fans experience and parties and how the show looks on tv, not who gets killed or injured on the field...no one really cares. Keep in mind the big drivers here are:violencemoneygamblingparties... and alcohol. Perhaps not sold in the stadium (I'm not sure about this) but definitely part of the tailgating and parties. The only way to get postseason games up north is for them to start building enclosable stadiums. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjbrr Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 it would be nice to see some of the SEC teams have to go up north and play in some snow.the killer for alot of teams from other areas is having to go down south and getting killedfrom the humidity ok. ill bite. how much time have you spent in the south in sept, oct, nov? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjbrr Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 My guess is this is more about the fans experience and parties and how the show looks on tv, not who gets killed or injured on the field...no one really cares. Keep in mind the big drivers here are:violencemoneygamblingparties ... and alcohol. Perhaps not sold in the stadium (I'm not sure about this) but definitely part of the tailgating and parties. The only way to get postseason games up north is for them to start building enclosable stadiums. yeah, it has nothing to do with the fact that college football is a HUGE part of southern culture and everything to do with violence and gambling and alcohol. you guys are geniuses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLOGIC Posted December 7, 2012 Report Share Posted December 7, 2012 lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdeegan Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 :P Here in bigD we have an immensely wise local sports guru who goes by the nom de guerre of Grandpa Urine. His take is that all of the other conferences have at least a few token restrictions on the recruiting and retaining of student athletes. This is why the SEC is inherently better at fielding top level college football squads. Some examples of rules often ignored: (1) the student athlete recruit has to be able to read and write. (2) tenured faculty is not obligated to change the student athlete's grades upon request. (3) local law enforcement's first phone call must be to a designated university official whenever a student athlete is involved, (4) sponsors of student athletes must obey certain recruiting rules, and payments to student athletes must be in line with sports community norms. It is part of the cultural heritage of the South that most of the rules shown above, as well as many others I have not personally witnessed and hence not listed, are often ignored. The reason for all of this is something most Southerners understand in their bones, but it is darn near impossible to explain to outsiders (except, possibly in places like Northern Ireland) why it is a good thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted December 18, 2012 Report Share Posted December 18, 2012 :P Here in bigD we have an immensely wise local sports guru who goes by the nom de guerre of Grandpa Urine. His take is that all of the other conferences have at least a few token restrictions on the recruiting and retaining of student athletes. This is why they are inherently better at fielding top level college football squads. Some examples of rules often ignored: (1) the student athlete recruit has to be able to read and write. (2) tenured faculty is not obligated to change the student athlete's grades upon request. (3) local law enforcement's first phone call must be to a designated university official whenever a student athlete is involved, (4) sponsors of student athletes must obey certain recruiting rules, and payments to student athletes must be in line with sports community norms. It is part of the cultural heritage of the South that most of the rules shown above, as well as many others I have not personally witnessed and hence not listed, are often ignored. The reason for all of this is something most Southerners understand in their bones, but it is darn near impossible to explain to outsiders (except, possibly in places like Northern Ireland) why it is a good thing.For reference, see SMU/death penalty/1987 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billw55 Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 For reference, see SMU/death penalty/1987True, but the revenue then was a small fraction of what it is now. The death penalty would never happen now. Penn State didn't get it. Miami didn't get it. Doesn't take a crystal ball to see it is off the table. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjbrr Posted December 19, 2012 Report Share Posted December 19, 2012 True, but the revenue then was a small fraction of what it is now. The death penalty would never happen now. Penn State didn't get it. Miami didn't get it. Doesn't take a crystal ball to see it is off the table. the punishment pedo state received is worse than the death penalty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bbradley62 Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 the punishment pedo state received is worse than the death penaltyDisagree. SMU was barred from playing NCAA football for a full year, had all its home games cancelled for a second year, and lost 55 scholarships over 4 years. Penn State was fined a lot of money, had some past accomplishments supposedly negated, and lost 30 scholarships over 5 years. For the most part, they continue to play high-level NCAA football. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjbrr Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 So you're saying if the death penalty includes subsequent sanctions such as lost scholarships and bowl bans, it's worse than a punishment that includes lost scholarships and bowl bans but no death penalty. We may have different definitions of success at "high levels" but psu will be irrelevant for at least a decade and hopefully more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bbradley62 Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 So you're saying if the death penalty includes subsequent sanctions such as lost scholarships and bowl bans, it's worse than a punishment that includes lost scholarships and bowl bans but no death penalty. We may have different definitions of success at "high levels" but psu will be irrelevant for at least a decade and hopefully more.No, I'm saying that being told "your school cannot play any NCAA football next year" is clearly stronger than being allowed to continue to play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjbrr Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 we'll have to disagree then. death penalty would be more severe for a short period of time, but this bowl bans/lost scholarships punishment will continue to affect them for a whole decade and as a result will harm the football program more severely. the next class of students who will play on a PSU football team with the full 85 scholarships is currently in 4th grade. Perhaps the koolaid is strong enough at psu that they can find sufficient talent to win in a tough conference against opponents with more scholarships and fewer disincentives, but probably not. Also the death penalty affects other schools besides psu pretty significantly, and that should be considered when weighing the efficacy of the punishments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike777 Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 we'll have to disagree then. death penalty would be more severe for a short period of time, but this bowl bans/lost scholarships punishment will continue to affect them for a whole decade and as a result will harm the football program more severely. the next class of students who will play on a PSU football team with the full 85 scholarships is currently in 4th grade. Perhaps the koolaid is strong enough at psu that they can find sufficient talent to win in a tough conference against opponents with more scholarships and fewer disincentives, but probably not. Also the death penalty affects other schools besides psu pretty significantly, and that should be considered when weighing the efficacy of the punishments. not sure what you are saying1) death pen. means no football...ok2) less than death means football...ok...3) football=many hurt many4) no football=less hurt If your vote is football and many more hurt ok.....no one really cares about hurt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billw55 Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 PSU's fans are pretty loyal. My guess is that even with extended non-winning, their revenue loss won't be as bad as you probably think. Certainly not as bad as losing two years of home games, especially in their huge stadium. Also they will continue to get the conference shares which are quite high from the Big Ten Network. As for lost scholarships: if the figures presented by others are correct, this is not such a big deal. 30 lost over 5 years, out of 85? My nickel says they stay in the top half of the conference on average. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdeegan Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 :P The Penn State vs. the SMU situation is an apple and oranges comparison. Penn State has a well-established, long-standing top flight football program with more willing sugar daddies than they need (or perhaps that should be in the past tense given the scandal). SMU, by comparison, had been a second/third tier team that became a johnny come lately first tier team when their sugar daddies became flush with oil money in the late-70's. By 1987 the oil money was gone, and the scandal had made being an SMU sugar daddy no fun at all. No basis for continuing the effort. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycroft Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 I think the big killers for PSU will be the "No bowl games for 4 years" and the "can be recruited out without a sitout time" restrictions, not necessarily the scholarships (which are just going to narrow the pool of players that can play. There is a big difference between 85 and 55 - 55 basically means that only the players actually dressing can be full ride, no reserve/redshirts). The latter has probably run its course - all the players that were going to take advantage of that have. The "no bowl games" bit will mean that the better current PSU players will have taken the escape provision, and the newer ones will look to other schools, as bowl performance (and just getting there) is rated very highly by the NFL scouts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billw55 Posted December 20, 2012 Report Share Posted December 20, 2012 ... bowl performance (and just getting there) is rated very highly by the NFL scouts.I can't imagine why this should be true. Surely scouts evaluate physical stats and skills higher than performance in a single game? Plenty of NFL players come from colleges that don't go to bowls much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted January 1, 2013 Report Share Posted January 1, 2013 UPDATE ON SEC BOWL GAMES.... THE point spreads were early ones not ones at game time as I am too lazy to check them again.. this is from earlier post in the thread, and I will update it after games are played... sec teams are in bold. SEC WINSMusic City Bowl: NC State vs Vanderbilt (-7.5), vanderbilt won 38 to 24, so by 14, easily covering.Outback Bowl: South Carolina (-7) vs. Michigan, SC won 33 to 28Capital One Bowl: Nebraska vs Georgia (-12.5), Georgia won 45 to 31 SEC LOSESChick Fil-A Bowl: Clemson vs LSU (-7), Clemson won 25 to 24Gator Bowl: Northwestern vs Mississippi State (-2.5) STILL TO PLAYCotton Bowl: Texas A&M (-6) vs OklahomaBBVA Compass Bowl Pitt versus Ole Miss (don't know it)Sugar Bowl: Florida (-15.5) vs LouisvilleBCS Championship Game: Alabama (-9.5) vs Notre Dame Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billw55 Posted January 2, 2013 Report Share Posted January 2, 2013 SEC WINS Outback Bowl: South Carolina (-7) vs. Michigan, SC won 33 to 28 That looks like an SEC loss to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtK78 Posted January 2, 2013 Report Share Posted January 2, 2013 That looks like an SEC loss to me.Michigan beat the spread. So, if you were betting on the game (against the line), Michigan was the winning side. But South Carolina won the game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.