~ Here's one.... What exactly has Texas done to be ranked that highly? Wouldn't that be SEC bias? I haven't gotten a single legitimate answer to that yet
@@FLA813BMO SMU blew out Pitt who was #18 at the time and their only loss is by 3 to #7 BYU. Miami loss to a mediocre GTech and should've loss to a middling Cal team.
@@lifeislikeaboxofchocolates5383if you look at their records against the P4, Indiana has not played a single team with a winning record. Their entire schedule is 18-39 against the P4 this season
@@nicholaskling2425 I agree. I did my own rankings and still felt obligated to put Texas at 3 and byu at 6. I don't think Texas stays at 3. The only safe ranking is Penn St who has cupcakes the rest of the way. No way they should ever leave 4 to go up but can go down. Indiana will have to get blown out by OSU to fall out of the playoffs and that's my problem with these rankings. I put Boise st at 7 and Indiana at 8 and make them prove it vs their first good opponent. The reason they don't put byu 3rd is because they lose their conference championship it's harder to dump them out of the playoffs same with Boise.
The deluded big 10 fans think that by them just having more programs in the running, they're going to win the championship. They don't understand that they're gonna get knocked out by whatever SEC team they play.
The SEC has been a dominant conference for sure. My only issue is that if your opponents are over ranked, then you get credit for a ‘good win’. Example? Missouri is not a top 25 team.
@@Travis89-ob5tt There 2 losses are against the only good teams they have played all year. Its really not that hard to replicate their schedule with non-sec schools.
Its always the same thing every year. All the sec teams are ranked way hi at the start of the year this way when they start playing each other then for the sec its "oh what a great win against a highly ranked team." And the sec team that loses well "oh what a close lose to a highly ranked sec team so we cant punish them toooo bad" but hey thats what the playoffs are for. Big 10 won last year but that was the first time in a minute so i would SEC is the best conference but not all the teams on that conference ahould be ranked as high as they are.
Y’all have to stop pretending like the playoff rankings have anything to do with how good the teams are. The playoff committee has already told you flat out numerous times that they do not rank teams based on on field performance. Teams are ranked based on which teams will earn the most money during a playoff game, that’s it, it’s the only thing the playoff comities considers when ranking teams and the only thing the playoff committee cares about - this is why regular season games no longer matter.
@ no, not a beauty contest, and not just for elite programs, it’s just a moneymaking scheme for college football. Schools like TCU, and Cincinatti have made it to the playoffs, not because they are elite, but because thier Cinderella “story” makes more money for college football
The B1G went 5-7 in 10 appearances in the 4 team playoff. SEC went 14-4 (not including SEC vs SEC) in 12 appearances. Why are we pretending these conferences are equals?
@@nicholaskling2425 it's the B1G attaching itself to the SEC. They have a history of doing that. We are only equal in money, they have a higher TV contract, we bring in higher revenue. There's more SEC teams ranked in the top 25 revenue producing college programs. And more SEC teams in the top of the list. The B1G loves attaching to others, remember the alliance? They attached themselves to the Pac12 & ACC just so they could cancel the original 12 team playoff expansion. All because they wanted automatic bids. They needed that against the SEC because otherwise there would have been way more SEC teams than B1G teams. The playoffs didn't expand, FSU got left out and somehow those clowns got mad at ESPN when their conference voted against expansion. The B1G then proceeds to steals 4 schools from an alliance member. They do whatever it takes to provide results in their best interest. But no, there's NO comparison. The SEC has done more in the last 5 years (winning 4 of the last 5 titles with 3 different teams) than the B1G has done in the last 25 years. That's not even including how we dominated the BCS era.
Don’t disagree about Penn state but explain how you don’t feel the exact same way about Texas because their schedule is just as weak only with a worse loss
@willstribling8775 Saying that Penn State should have fallen out of the top 12 doesn't equate to me thinking UT should be in either. Not sure where you're finding these extra ideas that I never said lol. UT hasn't proven themselves either!
Look at it like this. If Texas played in the Big 12 and lost to UGA out of conference, would they still be in the Top 5 with the same resume and roster? That should give you the answer. They still would have played OU and Michigan, and none of the other teams they have beaten are that good. Is that SEC sticker helping to boost them?
The claim at 7:10 is the PUREST kind of SEC bias: "If it were actually objective, six SEC teams would make the playoff!" FYI, bias (much like propaganda) is purest when it is unnoticeable, when it is baked into an appeal to nature, what's nature, what's "objective."
People can get mad at SEC bias bc it does exist. But it exists for a reason. SEC teams usually win the national championship, usually the sec championship game is a playoff game. The SEC has the best teams to bottom. Now that it’s a 12 team playoff there will be SEC and big 10 bias 😂. Now the big 12 and ACC gonna be mad all the time.
The irony is the ACC has the 2nd most national titles over the past 14 years or so...and all of them were wins against SEC teams in those championship games. But then when ACC teams lose to ACC teams, it's because they suck, but when Big 10 or SEC teams lose to Big 10 or SEC teams in conference play, it just shows how deep those leagues are!
@@ryuradeon Yeah… that’s the point. SEC has always been superior. They win the most and when you look at who the other conferences beat in the championship they are mainly SEC teams Auburn runner up to FSU Alabama runner up to Clemson twice Alabama and Georgia played each other twice in national champions ships
Although not directly related to poles and Chips, the SEC consistently has the most players drafted into the NFL and for years the SEC regions is largely where the talent comes from. Now that UT is in the SEC, absolutely it's the SEC regions.
It absolutely exists. That's not to say that the SEC isn't generally the best conference, because it is. Problem is that it's given the benefit of the doubt NO MATTER WHAT. The SEC hasn't give me a single reason to think they're the best conference this year. One of the leaders lost to Notre Dame. Texas hasn't played anybody. Alabama lost to a team that lost to Georgia STATE. Tennessee lost to a meh Arkansas. Auburn lost to Cal at home. Florida was dumpstered by Miami. LSU lost to a bad USC team. There is NOTHING that eludes to the SEC being the clear cut best conference this year. Last year. The SEC was meh. Champ lost two to two other power conference champs. Very underwhelming in OOC play. Was clearly behind the P12 and B1G TEN...YET, when Mizzou, FSU and Ole Miss won their *meaningless bowl games* Than suddenly SEC simps who would excuse bowl losses as "unmotivated team doesn't care", well when it was a team from their conference...well ye know....it just means mOAR. The early CFP era was another great example. The SEC was mediocre. By every measure. It was Bama, Bama and Bama. They lost ALL THREE NY6 games in 2014, two of them not particularly close. The second best team in 2015 was Ole Miss...three loss Ole Miss. 2016 was even more laughable. The SEC had to send an 8 - 4 Auburn to the Sugar Bowl, because they didn't have ANYBODY aside from Bama worthy. And all we hear are the endless excuses that excuse the SEC when it's convenient, but are irrelevant when cutting the other conferences slack. It's like preseason rankings. They mean nothing. Absolutely nothing. If you're one of those people who believe they should have any effect on end of season rankings, your close to being objectively *stupid*. Going into each season, is it wrong to assume the SEC is going to be the best conference? No! Absolutely not. The problem comes when you DECIDE they're the best conference. And that right there, is why the country is so tired of the SECs romance with mainstream media. The SEC often proves that it's worthy of "elevating" the status of team, because they prove it on the field. But sometimes like this year and the last, they don't and the talking heads refuse to drop the rhetoric. PS: *We should be putting less stock into how good a conference is than EVER before. The power conferences are composed of 16 - 18 teams in 2024. You don't even play half of your league. Each schedule needs to be looked at as individually of its conference as possible. BYU is the perfect example. The BIG XII from top to bottom is a cluster FK, but BYU steamrolled a really good K - State team and beat what is now the ACC front - runner. Caring about the conference perception is stupid because BYU isn't it's conference. It's a team with two really good wins who would UNQUESTIONABLY, ZERO DOUBT IN MY MIND, be #2 if the logo was swapped with pretty much anybody.*
(Using the same arguments types you used above.) Why is K-State a really good team if they lost to 5 loss Houston? Now, to be real I do not put stock in that logic as it just ends up all over the place. Looking for any flaw falls flat. I tend to look at meaningful wins and numbers of them, then loses and who they were too. Transitive stuff can also just get murky in general. Take Vandy. They beat Virginia Tech, who beat Georgia Tech who beat Miami. So is Vandy better than Miami? Good thing about a Playoff is we will see a lot of games play out. IMO bias is not the issue. Not punishing teams for soft schedules is. It leads to less cross play which leads to fewer data points to more accurately compare teams across the nation.
Are you familiar with the Blue Chip Ratio (BCR)? Teams on the BCR have won a title since it's creation in 2013. Which means, as it stands, only teams on that list have a real shot at winning a title. (Look up Blue Chip Ratio if you don't know what it is) In 2024 the BCR is made up of 16 teams, 16 teams with a shot at a championship. 8 of the 16 are SEC teams! That means half the SEC has the talent needed for a legit shot at winning a title. What other conference will go up against that many quality teams? Who's SOS do you think is harder? Attrition is a real thing. Objectivity if the conference that produces the most NFL talent, has the most BCR teams battle against each other... what do you think the outcome will be? The SEC is the best as far as talent, there's NO debate to be made there. The SEC is NOT perfect. It's not until you compare the SEC to everyone else when you realize there's a gap. You can claim that it's all about Alabama. But if you take Bama out, the SEC still remains to be king. I'll use the BCS as a cut off because before then champions were voted on. BCS was the start of on the field results. And since then, the SEC has been the most dominant. In the BCS era without Bama the SEC would have won 6 titles with 4 different teams. The B1G won 1. The ACC won 2 with 1 team, the Big12 won 2 with 2 different teams (they're now SEC teams), the Pac12 won 2 with 1 team. In the playoff era, without Bama the SEC won 3 with 2 different teams. The B1G won 2 with 2 different teams, the ACC won won 2 with 1 team, the Big12 won 0, the Pac12 won 0. But yet you claim the SEC was mediocre in the playoff era. That's your feelings getting in the way of logic. But even that's not an apples to apples comparison. For that, each conference will need to lose its best team. The SEC would combine for 9 titles with 5 different teams since the BCS era. The B1G without OSU would only have 1. The ACC without Clemson would have 2. The Big12 without OU won have 1. The Pac12 would have 0. You went in a rant about the pre-season polls. There was a article awhile ago about how the pre-season AP poll has been right more often than they've been wrong. Look it up for yourself. But the AP poll no longer matters in the CFP era, it's only there to provide content at this point. The problem most can't see eye to eye on is the strength of schedule (SOS). Some use math, they use the wins of your opponents to calculate the strength of schedule. So if you play teams with a weak schedule, it gives you a boost. People like to say numbers don't lie. They don't, but they can be misleading. I personally believe that SOS should be dependent on the quality of the team. A prime example that hits close to home for me personally is last years Sagarin rating. I bet money on Oregon to beat Washington both times, and as you know, they lost both times. So, in the eyes of common sense, one won think Washington was a better team than Oregon. Not according to the Sagarin ranking at the end of the year. Washington was the better team and had the better bowl victory against Texas. Whereas Oregon dismantled Liberty. But Washington ultimately lost to Michigan. Because of the idiotic way the SOS was calculated, they deemed Oregon was higher than Washington (the on field results didn't matter). That's why I think SOS calculated that way shouldn't be relied upon. However, the quality in terms of talent leans heavily towards the SEC. But we live in the NIL and portal era, so things can change swiftly. This brings me to my next point. I don't think it is only the SEC that gets the benefit of the doubt. Ohio State got it when they got into the playoffs over Penn State and the covid year when they only played 6 games. Clemson got it a lot too, when they used to get scrutinized because of their schedule. I think the benefit of the doubt goes to those who recruit well. Oregon gets it. They're usually highly ranked until they lose, knocking themselves out of the playoffs. Since recruiting is linked to the BCR, it seems they rely on the formula that's been proven to determine who's best. Simply look at the recruiting class of the upcoming 2025 class for a look at the future. They seem to reword the year-round hard work that the top programs put in. Since the SEC is ALL about recruiting, it's only right that there's the link. Nothing is stopping other programs from doing the same thing. The difference is that the SEC has been all in on football (crazy/passionate) since before football started generating high revenue. They did it before it was cool or trendy to do so. And everyone else, instead of competing and putting in the hard work, they'd rather change things to get a level playing field for everyone. Because they themselves now want to get serious about football because it's tied to a major payday.
For the people crying bias who was left out? The teams with an argument are SMU, Boise st, and Texas A&M. Please explain where there's bias other than "oh no they can't have 5". There's 9 SEC teams in the top 25 nobody else has any depth at all they're just top heavy.
It's because they're all ranked high in the preseason. So when they play each other there's a ton of subjectively highly ranked matchups. So #7 must still be good because they're only losses are to #2 and #5, and they're both obviously good because they beat #7. It' like a self licking ice cream cone, and it all starts because of their inflated preseason rankings before there's any data
Despite the SEC being deeper and half of the conference is top 25, then if there is so much bias, why is the CFP only putting 1 SEC team currently in the top 6. SEC top teams are playing a much tougher schedule than those Big 10 top teams.
How the heck would South Carolina make the playoffs on a "blind" resume? You just make these ridiculous assertions and provide no evidence and then move along.
The biss is clear as day. I been following the AP poll the whole season all the SEC teams who made it through non conference games undefeated got ranked. As the season progressed every other conference teams that was winning did not get ranked only SEC teams. Thats why so many upsets happened in the SEC and other games across the country seemed unimportant. Even now SMU should be in over Ole Miss who lost twice and non conference schedule was poor. SMU only lost to BYU a non conference playoff team. SMU is undefeated in the ACC while Ole Miss got two conference losses currently. So yes the bias is very clear.
Josh, the problem with the blind resume crowd wants to look at the wind loss comb only and ignore strength of schedule. Last year was a perfect example when they’re screaming FSU was undefeated despite having one of the weakest is and all powerful football. Naturally, they’re a bunch of hypocrites because when you point out, the liberty was also undefeated, awed strength of schedule matters again.
Hey Oregon fan here. I like your show, and I def don’t have a problem with the way you cover teams. It’s your show do what you do. I’d say if asked, I really don’t have a problem w the SEC. I know they’re good. In fact, I TBH I don’t have any problems right now. life is amazing being a Duck fan🎉. But if I was to emotionally make an argument off the top of my head w/ SEC it’s that it would be cool to see them play only FBS teams out of conference, and then check in in a few years and see if that stat about scoring over 60 vs out of conference still holds. I don’t think I need any fancy data points (or maybe I do) to make an argument like playing the Fresno Sates of the world are far more dangerous than the James Madisons. You may be right I have no clue, but I guess when you asked is this a data driven argument or an emotional one? For me it’s honestly more emotional. Those non power conf teams can be bad, but they can also sneak up on upper tier teams - even good upper tier teams (because the talent gap is closer than say an fcs team ) if they don’t take the game seriously, and have a shot at knocking them off. whereas you can pretty much pencil the W with FCS. Love the show. If I’m being real - love the SEC.
no this is simple lets use texas for example only haqve played two winning teams this year but they lose to georgia and they drop two spots in the pole
There need to be more cross conference regular season games to accurately judge how good these teams are. Especially the middle of each conference. IMO when it really comes down to it the gap between mid tier teams in any of the major conferences isn't anywhere near as large as the rankings and talking heads want it to be.
The Sec plays 8 conference games, B10, B12 plays 9 conference games this is a scheduling imbalance. Half the big ten and b12 have a legit beef with the imbalance. The reasons are far greater than just one game it’s an additional power conference opponent, the ability for the sec teams to add a fourth game to cupcake city and acts as an added by week to schedule with intention. So later on teams in the sec will have 2 possibly 3 conference losses instead of 3 or 4 et cetera….
@@stingray1761 That's funny, the Big10 and B12 both had better ooc records against power conference opponents than the sec. What is it that you don't get that if you play more conference games half your teams get more conference losses. But that's out of the sec playbook and always has been. Heck they didn't even play more than 6 conference games till the 90's when they went to a 12 team conference league. Even then they still played the scheduling games.
@kevin3818 I was sort of joking, maybe it's only 11/16ths of teams that are terrible in those conferences 😂. Tell me this then. Since the SEC plays 1 more cupcake, why do they almost unanimously have stronger strength of schedule ratings?
Georgia is not top 10 and Bama has the most ranked wins in CFB. Hate them all you want and clown them for losing two games, but there are definitely better than most teams in the country and are for sure a top 10 team
I miss it, but everyone hated getting computers to tell us the same outcome we are about to experience…2 SSC teams in the NC that have already played each other.
People measure strength of schedule (SOS) differently. That's where the probing lies. That's when the numbers don't tell the REAL story. Some calculate it by the win percentage of the teams you face. But teams who have a weak schedule will skew the numbers to make it look like the SOS is better than what it actually is. An example of this is Boise State. In an article while back, ESPN ranked Boise St as one of the winningest programs. But Boise St's schedule is weak due to their conference that they're in. So a win over them would boost ant teams SOS. An example of an extreme on the opposite end is Arkansas. In 2014 the AP had 8 SEC teams ranked. By the end of the year 8 SEC teams were ranked in the top 25 of the CFP. Arkansas (who only plays 8 conference games) played ALL 8 of those teams who were ranked at the end of the season. Let's say Boise St finishes 12-1, and that Arkansas team finishes 9-3. Some people will look at the numbers and say Boise should get in over Arkansas. I strongly disagree. I measure SOS based on the quality of opponent. Playing Ohio State, and beating Ohio State means more than playing/beating Kansas. The same goes for Penn State and Syracuse, the two aren't equal. People probably tend to pick what favors their team.
Couldn’t agree more. If Notre Dame wants to stay Independent so they can handpick their schedule and make more money due to no conference or tv deal - power to them. But losing to an average Mid American team should’ve eliminated them from this conversation before it even started
The only real bias I saw this week was Texas at 3. They have the weakest resume of the top 5, and it isn"t close. Zero wins against a ranked team. No wins over a team with a winning record. No doubt they are a very good team, but they have not earned a number three ranking this year.
One thing I am looking forward to in CFP is the Head to Heads of SEC vs Big Ten.. I really hope they don't have a bunch of SEC Teams play each other in 1st Round.
I think that the a team's ranking at the time of a matchup is important and should be considered. Texas scheduled the defending champs on the road. Yes they werent as good as expected, but thats in hindsight. At the time, people legitimately thought that Michigan could/would win that game. Why is Texas being punished just because their opponents started to flame out AFTER Texas beat them?
This is a great video, one of the best breakdowns I've seen about how good teams really are. I've never cheered for an SEC team in my life, but who could argue they aren't consistently the best? It's completely asinine to think that Indiana, Penn State, SMU or BYU are somehow better than Ole Miss or Georgia
Based on resume and depth/recruiting, the CFP bias towards the Big Ten is akin to them dropping to their knees faster than a beggar hearing the faint rattling of change in a nearby pocket. The SEC has been the best at recruiting and developing talent in a diverse set of teams, unlike the Big Ten, which has been top heavy this whole season. The top Big Ten Teams do not play the same amount of talent from multiple teams like the SEC top teams do. Why is the CFP rewarding Penn State the 4th spot for losing their only ranked Conference Game? Especially when the only teams with depth comparable to the SEC in the Big Ten are Oregon, Ohio State, and Penn State themselves. Is it really fair that the Big Ten gets nods over the SEC when they objectively have a worse overall strength of Conference in comparison to the SEC. Here is some food for thought, lets say we have 4 teams. Team A, B, C, and D. Team A and Team B have 80% of their roster filled with 4 to 5 star talent while Team C and Team D have a roster filled with 2 to 3 star talent. Now, let's say that the game between Team A and Team B turns out to be a 27-24 nail bitter while Team C and Team D also have a 27-24 nail-bitter. Who do you think wins out of 10 times when Team A or Team B plays either Team C or Team D. Stats may look the same but they are deceptive. Team C and Team D would get their butts handed to them 10 times out of 10. Depth matters.
Dang you wrote a book. I am a Tennessee Fan. Yes we lost to Arkansas on the road. Our freshman QB Nico had a bad game, it happens. That’s our only loss. This year we have been letting the Defense kept us in the game. But we have been doing just what it takes to win. If we run the score up then we have a higher percentage that we have unnecessary injuries, for what style points. Our backup is better than Nico for right now. He has been with us five years. But we paid 12 million for Nico. And to some degree we’re paying the price of his inexperience. We will beat Georgia at Athens. The score will not impress anyone. A 23-20 Tennessee win. It will be us that kicks that field goal to win. Which ends Georgia’s season. We will beat Alabama and Georgia next year. See we play those two every year. But us fans want that. We win our ranking goes up. We have bragging rights. They have helped us keep our brand name up. They’re a barometer for us. Football in Tennessee is a right to passage. The games are also a family outing. Because we didn’t have pro sports until recently. We only had university sports to get behind. Because Tennessee then was poor. I am 68 years old. I have experienced my Tennessee hated on for years before the SEC took over being the best conference. That’s reevaluated year to year. But we keep it. Our recruiting is the top, but those players are not all from the south. Young men want the chance to have a pro career. The second best conference is the Big Ten. They had the Rose Bowl that SEC teams couldn’t play in. Now piss on it. We don’t want to play there. Our Stadium holds well over a 100,000 sets. We have done well with our SEC money each year. We turned things around for The Tennessee Vols. By firing the Pruitt team of coaches. We as fans wanted rid of most of his players. We hired more lawyers, then we hired a new Athletic Director. He hired Mr. White. He hired Heupel. Oh yea as fans before this happened we stood up and said no to a Penn St. coach. He was there at Penn State when that sex with boys happened There. So was he involved or did he let it go on. That’s what we told the board that Coach is going down the road. Or we refuse to go to a game or buy the merchandise. Let me tell you. That coaches job was pulled immediately. Remember Lain Kiffin. When he up and left in the night. What did the student body do at the game. I know you remember that. See we stand up. Come to a Tennessee game. You will be treated with respect. It will be a good experience where you can bring your family to even if you loose. Josh Pate comes down yearly any more. And he loves his experience every time.
Right now you have three teams that are taking up space that the SEC should be, most of there losses are conference losses. If the SEC did play each other they probably wouldn’t have any losses.
The SEC bias is based on history; not the current environment. With the transfer portal and NIL, the “blue blood” teams can no longer stockpile the talent. That has allowed other teams to excel. In 2023, the SEC had a 48% winning percentage against other Power Five teams. This is how it is going this year: LSU lost at home to a 4/5 USC team; Texas A&M barely beat Bowling Green and lost at home to Notre Dame who lost to N. Illinois; Vanderbilt lost to Georgia State but beat Alabama; Arkansas lost to an Oklahoma State team that is at the bottom of the Big 12; Tennessee lost to that same Arkansas team; Texas, one year removed from the Big 12 is leading the SEC; Texas, last year beat Alabama and had a lot more close games in the Big 12; Last year, Oklahoma (10-3) had losses to Kansas, Oklahoma State and Arizona; The year before, Oklahoma was 6/7. How many more losses would there be if the SEC played 9 conference games like the Big 10 and Big 12? The SEC should lose Committee points for scheduling their November Patsies. Lastly, in today’s world, the top teams from other conferences would not necessarily lose to the top SEC teams on a neutral field. The Committee needs to quit rating these teams based on what was!!!
Guys we have seen this year over year. We know the bias is baked in. Josh admitted as much in the first 2 minutes… the umbers and views dictate the product SEC is deep and runs the show. Money talks and right now the money and views is SEC heavy
SEC is COLLEGE FOOTBALL right now, then the Big10 (really medium10), and then their farm teams until NIL and transfer portal get sorted. I grew up a VT fan (Big East to ACC) then spent 8 years at NC State so I'm an ACC fan. But there is no denying that a multi-loss SEC team deserves a playoff spot over any other conference. Wish it weren't the case, but here we are, if you actually love competitive college football there is no denying it.
Hows this for a conspiracy? The playoff committee knows the sec has more fans which means more money. They probably knew what they were doing when approving a 12 game play off. Then went to certain SEC teams told them which games to win and which games to loose throughout the season to maximize SEC teams and revenue for themselves. Not that i believe this but just throwing another theory out there.
Run the Vegas numbers on big ten vs SEC and judge it off your previous video that did the same and see if you were bias or not. Would be a fun video and evident
SEC is the best conference. at the same time, there is an SEC bias. Their mid/ low tier teams are always ranked to high to start season. What would help is if they waited to do national rankings until after week 4.
Before the SEC realigned i do believe there was. Everything was "What if they played during xyz before the championship games". Before the CFP, there was no dispute hiw much They favored the SEC
This CFP ranking is pretty good. I think Miami is a little high and will eventually get hammered by SMU in the ACC championship. I also think Notre Dame is getting more credit than it deserves. If it ended today, the SEC would get 4 teams in and I have no problem with that. 5 feels like too many. The SEC is more human this year. Looking forward to seeing the playoff this year!
Danny is a clown on this….the SEC is a bloodbath absolutely loaded with good teams. They have 4-5 national championship contenders. The Big 12 has zero, The Acc has one, IF we’re generous, in a peak Miami but most likely zero. The other super conference has so many down top schools that they only have 2 natty contenders with Indiana as a maybe. He’s so absurdly biased AGAINST the SEC that he’s just trying to use 1970’s level evaluation by rote record. Despite insane disparities in competition. The reality is that the portal/nil/12 team playoff era has made the SEC even better from a depth perspective. Danny wants to use how unbelievably difficult the conference is to give them minimal representation in the playoff….a total inversion of what should actually happen. The Big 10 getting 4 teams because 5 though 18 or whatever suck while the SEC only gets 2 cause their best teams are routinely challenged by other awesome teams is indescribably dumb. His analysis is literally as follows….11-1 is better than 10-2 no matter what lol. That’s it. BYU is better than the Baltimore Ravens according to Danny Kanell. Logically he’d be forced to argue that. Here’s what it comes down to…..the SEC has been the best conference in the country for the better part of 20 years and the addition of Texas/Oklahoma plus the diffusion of talent has made the conference even better. Ironically, the SEC is now the monster he always argued they weren’t. He used to argue “it’s just Bama or just Georgia, not the SEC” or “the gap is tiny”…..now that there’s no dynastic juggernaut it actually is the whole damn conference. They have 5 national championship contenders….FIVE. They have 4-6 other good teams. The real risk for Danny is a playoff that allows 4-5 SEC teams in. If they collectively dominate along with OSU/Oregon then he has nothing to argue anymore. He can always ignore those 1-2 teams. But if say 6-8 different sec schools make the playoff in the next 3-5 years with many having success while the big 12/ACC/G5 teams get dispatched annually and it’s just SEC vs elite B1G then he’s totally fucked. The BEST part of the playoff is all the data we’re going to get. The 4 teamer confirmed the SEC was the best….this will take it to a new level. If Clemson/miami/FSU can’t figure it out soon, Danny’s entire worldview will be revealed for the fraud it always was
Josh, no other CFB expert or analysts views align with my own as much yours do which sucks for this weekend because I sense the UGA finds it way moment coming and I’m a Tenn alum. As for this issue, I believe there is a Big10 bias right now in the playoff committee. Tenn being jumped by Indiana and BYU?? UGA not in at all?? Penn St keeps moving up?? None of this was making sense until I saw Michigan AD chairs. And look at the makeup of the committee. SOS has been completely thrown out. Maybe not the elite teams in the SEC this year but you’re dead on about depth while the Big 10 is much weaker this year sans Oregon and OSU. Indiana and Penn St schedules are very weak.
When y'all going realize that it's all about the money... that's why they got teams up higher than the other ones.... because it's all about how much money they can generate off a school during the playoffs time
"You're going to end up arguing for someone like South Carolina"...well, let's see here. South Carolina is 1-3 against top 25 opponents. Their best non-conference win is a 4 point victory at home against a Sun Belt team that Virginia Tech played on the road and beat by 20. Yeah, that doesn't sound like a team that should be anywhere near the playoff. Or the Top 25, for that matter.
South Carolina has a combined 5 point loss to Alabama, and LSU, with the loss to LSU coming to down to atrocious officiating. Our biggest non conference win is against Akron, who we hung 50 on after losing to LSU. We have destroyed every team we’ve played since the Alabama game with us damn near shutting out Oklahoma in OK, throttling an in conference undefeated Texas A&M, then going on the road and beating Vanderbilt by 3+ scores. Our only real loss is to Ole Miss, and they have proven to be a legit team.
Wait wasn't Vandy ranked last week? That would put South Carolina at 2-3. Soon to be 3-3 agains Mizzou. And if Clemson can hold on to their ranking for a few more games, 4-3. Chances are, South Carolina will have played 7 ranked teams by the end of the season. Not many teams OUTSIDE of the SEC can say that.
@@ZamuraiBeKillin " damn near shutting out Oklahoma in OK, throttling an in conference undefeated Texas A&M, then going on the road and beating Vanderbilt by 3+ scores." You say this like its impressive - its really not that impressive. Youre talking about 3 teams that without you beating them are a combined 17-9. Decent - yes. Good - not really.
@@bluekeys7661 South Carolina plays 7 ranked teams ONLY IF you include teams that arent ranked anymore. Whats amazing to me is that you do this nonsense, yet teams play 7 ACTUALLY CURRENT ranked teams and get no credit for it on SOS rank, which severely calls into question the legitimacy of that metric. Your conference pumps up these rankings by preseason, and scheduling, so its really not that shocking to play 7 previously ranked teams.
I will argue the conference as a whole is overrated because of the 2 or 3 teams thats been dominant over the last 10-15 years. Missouri isn't a top 25 team but yet they're there because of the conference. Thats when the bias kicks in because if that was any team in any other conference, they'd been out after the 2nd lose
It’s a jealousy thing! The SEC is the strongest most talented conference in college football. They also beat up on each other each week. There’s no other conference that has as many great teams. No bias just fact!
Finally, someone who actually understands. Indiana, BYU, Penn st, Miami, Boise st and SMU are all noticeably worse teams than South Carolina if you actually watch the games. But because South Carolina has to go through the SEC gauntlet and had a couple close losses they are almost guaranteed to miss the playoffs, while Indiana and Penn st get to breeze by their easy schedule and almost have their spot completely locked in already. I'm not even a South Carolina fan, but they would easily win the ACC or Big 12.
@@jayboogie1295 you do realize that saying a team that is 2-4 in the SEC is bad proves nothing about how good the conference is. Also SC didn't even pay Florida so what are you even talking about. Also SMU hasn't even played Florida either. Thats gotta be the wildest stretch I've ever seen. If you're gonna make an argument at least make it partially reasonable please :)
Indiana, SMU, Miami and Boise State are really polar opposite type teams to South Carolina, so if youre comparing based on type of play scheme thats gonna immediately run into problems. SC has a good defense, but a pretty mediocre offense. Those teams listed before have good offenses but pretty mediocre defenses.
SEC bias. You're not letting the players decide who the best is. There is a committee that decides. This is where the bias comes in. Strength of schedule? THAT'S NOT SCIENCE!!! Every other football conference, high school, and even little league have a playoff system that is braketed out before the season starts. Then, you can rank any team wherever you want. The teams will win out their conferences, and the players will decide who the best is. The current format just robs players of opportunity they may feel they earned.
SEC bias starts in the preseason overrating the teams then they play nobody & beat up no each other Vandy beat Bama but loses to GA. St & barely beat Ball. St, A&M lose to ND who loss to NIU, Arkansas beat Tennessee but they loss to Oklahoma St, LSU loses to USC but because they beat a SEC team they are supposed to be good stop overrating the conference & you'll see a avg conference
all that you typed means nothing how about you try to find the teams who were left out of the top 25 that deserve to be there over the sec teams? i look forward to seeing what you come up with lol
SEC BIAS IN CFP? WE’LL KNOW ON DOWN THE ROAD IF A 2 OR 3 LOSS SEC TEAM OR TEAMS GET INTO THE PLAYOFFS. THEN “YES”! 2 LOSS ONLY IF THERE IS NO 1 LOSS SEC TEAM CONFERENCE CHAMP. 3 LOSS NO! WIN YOUR GAMES AND YOUR IN! THATS WHAT YOU’VE SAID IN THE PAST TO OTHER CONFERENCE TEAMS WHO DIDN’T GET IN BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T WIN ALL THEIR GAMES. WIN YOUR IN!
I think there might be a blue blood bias because from watching the games I think South Carolina is one of the best teams in the country and they can clearly go up against anybody. They’re a play get away from beating Alabama in Alabama. And obviously biases against them are holding them back. They played better than Georgia this year and have one more loss Yet have absolutely no chance to make the playoffs
The SEC is the most dominate conference. So if those teams are the best, they just are. And who doesn't want to play for the best. Nico iamaleava and a ton of kids that aren't from the south sure as hell will admit it's the best and they wanted to play in the SEC conference (mic drop) 🎤
Yeah Josh i usually agree with your takes but, there definitely is an SEC bias in rankings and media coverage. But you make money on their fanbases so I understand why you excuse it
Nope. ND lost to NIU and ranked ahead of Bama. Less top 25 wins. Less losses but a worse loss. That’s ND bias. There’s no worse loss in the country this year
SEC will have 6 or 7 10-2 teams The 6th team in the SEC is Bama by comparison the by far 2nd best conf Big 10 #6 team is 5-5 Michigan SC with Indiana sxhedule is undefeated and Indiana with SC schedule is 6-3 just like SC..People say the SEC overated but they only lose to each other Oregon is good but with GA schedule they have 2 loses as well
I think the main problem is the teams ranked highly in the CFP Top 25 and eventually make the playoff aren't the "most deserving" they are the "best" which some disagree with. Is a 10-2 Alabama better than an 11-1 Boise St, probably yes, but Boise has done everything they can to prove they are a top contender in the country including stick in a game with the #1 team in the country on the road, yet Boise isnt even top 10. The same can be said for some other teams. If Indiana, BYU, SMU had an SEC patch, they would be Top 5 minimum if not higher. I'm not gonna say that the Big 12 or ACC is even close to the level of the SEC, but what I will say is that conference realignment has caused this to happen. And who is at fault for that, the two conferences who keep adding more and more top tier programs, the SEC and BIG 10.
Boise is an outlier - both in terms of being awarded based on the auto-bid G5, but also because that program has a very long history of having good to very good teams to compare for, while also making a very strong effort to play quality teams. So making an argument against Boise State is going to be historically very difficult without resulting in contradictions. Like what the arguments? - They dont schedule anyone good? - Playing at Autzen this year really debunks that, but theyve also scheduled the most top 10 ranked OOC road games the last 5 years - playing the B12, PAC, and possibly B10 champions the last 5 years. Nobody can say this. Theyve also done this for the last 20 seasons and even future OOC includes at ND, Washington, Oregon, Louisville, Iowa, and Kansas State. - Their conference isnt hard? - Boise State has applied to join a P5 conference 13 times in the last 25 years. Thats pretty damming evidence that what conference theyre in isnt really up to them. - If they played in X conference theyd lose every game? - BSU literally holds the all time NCAA record for consecutive winning seasons at 28 - the next closest G5 team is at 10, so theyre a bit of a outlier. You could also use career record where they rank 6th in th nation at 0.727 - the average G5 team is at 0.485 - thats a big difference. Not to mention they have a laundry list of P5 teams in their graveyard. Like ive seen people make the argument, well BSU is 2-6 all time vs the SEC, so they couldnt perform against SEC in any given yar. Thing is historically 7 of their 8 games vs SEC opponnents were against SEC division champs or top 15 ranked SEC teams. Not since 2000 Arkansas have they played an SEC team that werent these characteristics. So its not rally representative of the SEC to take BSU's record against that conference and say that how they would perform against the conference today.
Mote like big 10 bias. Who has Penn state beat and if they had a second lose would they drop to 12? I can't wait for the playoffs and all these big 10 teams lose. Id say that if any of them played Georgia's schedule, they'd all have 3 loses and none of the top 6 teams would beat Georgia and we're about to find out about #7
I don't understand what playing more conference games has to do with SEC bias. If you check out the recruiting rankings, the SEC has 8 teams in the top 15. There is a reason the SEC is the toughest conference. They recruit more talent than the other 3 conferences combined. This is math. This is easily checked. Is there an SEC bias? Of course there is but the bias comes from the best players in the country who want to play in the SEC. If a Podunk team wins a Podunk conference they're still Podunk. At the same time, if the best teams in the country play each other for even more games, they're still the best teams in the country. I don't see you point unless you think the best teams in the country playing each other will somehow make Podunk teams somehow better?
I mean Miami is ranked above three sec teams after losing to GT. I believe honestly the committee is only going to let the sec champion and three others in. Just by looking at the rankings of the teams
14 of the last 20 natty winners have come from the sec, I’m sorry if you’re a big 12 or acc fan shit even a big 10 fan but the sec is the best conference and always will be, also remember this comment Bama is winning it all this year
This is an easy one. Look at the the recruiting rankings for 2023 and 2024. Of the top 15 teams, 8 are from the SEC. That means more than half of the best players in the country are playing in the SEC. The rest are spread out to the other 3 conferences. Really think about his. This isn't 4,4,4,3 where the talent is spread evenly across the 4 conferences. This is 8 to the SEC and the other 7 SPREAD OUT to the other 3 conferences. If more than half of the best players in the country are playing in the SEC, that should tell you real quickly where the power is. These are numbers and numbers don't lie. Numbers don't have an agenda. Numbers don't have a bias. This isn't some conspiracy. This is reality. The SEC has more talent then the other 3 conferences combined and will therefore, have the best teams. QED
To add to that, the Blue Chip Ratio (BCR) teams have won the national championship every year since it's inception in 2013. In 2024 the BCR currently consist of 16 teams, that means 16 teams have a real shot of winning a title this year. 8 of the 16 are SEC teams. Which means half of the SEC has the ability to win it all. What other conferences has to go through that?
You assume that high recruiting out of high school = college talent. Sometimes thats true, others not. I seem to recall very recent seasons of multiple top 5 recruited teams losing at home to G5 teams. How does this happen if recruiting guarantees superior ability and likelihood to win?
@MattBuild4 I would prefer not to go back and forth in different chats to have these debates. I 100% agree that it isn't a guaranteed lock. These are young adults, balancing academics and regular life. Consistency is rare. That's what only Alabama has achieved. I feel like you're just nitpicking the system because you personally don't like it. Ok, then offer up another that's just as accurate or more. Unless you just want to complain without offering any solutions. People make a living off of trying to find the best talent. If you know of a better way, you could make a TON of money! Justin Jefferson was a 3 star of H.S. now he's one of the best WR in the NFL. Ja'Marr Chase was a 4 star. I think we both can agree they should have been 5 stars. There's a boat load of other examples.
If you rank SEC teams lower, their wins don’t look as good. It’s a self promoting philosophy the SEC has. Miami beat Florida and Texas A&M the last 2 years and the acc has a better overall record against the SEC the last few years. The SEC didn’t make the cfp final last year either. Alabama lost to Vandy who lost to GEORGIA STATE. This is why the SEC isn’t as good as they claim to be.
REAL CFP: 1 Oregon 2 Ohio St 3 Boise St 4 BYU 5 SMU 6 Indiana 7 Tennessee 8 Penn St 9 Texas 10 Army 11 Notre Dame 12 Washington St 13 Miami 14 Kansas St 15 Colorado 16 Ol' Miss 17 Alabama 18 Arizona St 19 Georgia 20 Texas A & M 21 South Carolina 22 Louisville 23 Tulane 24 Louisiana 25 Clemson Tell me about a team in SEC or any team & I'll give you any argument!
Penn State , Notre Dame and Indiana are laughable and no one in the SEC is scared of Ohio state and Oregon but to ahead, we need some easy games. They'd all be crying in the league
They might put Notre Dame in over a 2 loss Georgia because Notre Dame is better and plays better and its beared out in the stats. ND currently higher than Georgia not only in SOR, but also ESPN FPI and in literally most power ratings.
Just FYI, again, your point at the end of this video re Notre Dame is the purest form of SEC bias: it start with the premise that Georgia is better than Notre Dame, and works backwards toward the conclusion that the committee would put ND in over a better GA, never once considering that ND could just be (is) better.
12 teams and 5 are from one conference. Yeah thats good for college football. SOS has ruined college football. Why have a FBS division of football with all these conferences when in reality only 4 matter. Lets just have the 4 major conferences be thier own league and the rest can play thier own league with thier own titlle. So tired of this bullshit system. Emagine if the NFL used this garbage SOS crap.
My issue has always been that the talking points always show a bias towards the SEC, which makes clear the show or persons thought process on determining the rankings. Notice, when people talk about the SEC, they talk about their good wins and gloss over the losses. When they talk about other conferences, they talk about their losses and almost gloss over their wins. Pundits seem to always highlight how well SEC teams do compared to other teams then talk about deficiencies of other schools. I don't care about the focus on SEC teams because I think you're right, SEC viewership is much higher and you have to get eyes on videos to make money. It's just telling how people think about certain schools by the points they make about those programs when compared to other schools. I think we are all conditioned to think the SEC is the best because they have been doing well but there is a halo effect here (across football) thats hard to get away from and unsee.
Ps, I do think this show and you are one of the more objective people talking about college football and I do appreciate that by the way. I do think a lot of people have an unconscious bias towards the SEC because of what I have above, but you less than others. Thank you for being as fair as you as you are and thank you for continually striving to be a good objective analyst of the world around us.
Do you know why they do what you stated above? Have you ever asked or thought about why they give credit to some and not all? What do you think it is? I would like to know what you think before I tell you what I think.
I believe there to be bias- both logo bias and conference bias. I think I would be in favor of the blind resume… but without strength of schedule component because it is so subjective, much like rankings are subjective- both of those have bias baked into them, so it’s hard to make that a basis of your blind resume. Current example: Team “A” from Power 4 conference “Z” has an 8-1 record with the one loss being a non-conference loss to a top 10 team, and has 2 wins vs ranked teams. Team “B” from Power 4 conference “Y” has an 8-1 record with the one loss being to an in-conference top 10 team, and has 1 win vs a ranked team. Conference “Z” head-to-head against conference “Y” is 3-2 this year. Seems like team “A” should be ranked higher than team “B” in a blind resume? Team “B” is Penn State ranked #4 and team “A” is SMU ranked #14 and out of the playoff projections…. current bias on conference despite head-to-head competition this year, logo bias against a small school in comparison to a big state school with a history of benefitting of this exact bias.
Keep the show free - SUBSCRIBE to the channel! -JP
~ Here's one.... What exactly has Texas done to be ranked that highly? Wouldn't that be SEC bias?
I haven't gotten a single legitimate answer to that yet
There is actually no explanation for Miami to be ranked above SMU. Same record and SMU has the much better resume
Ole Miss fan here.....agreed 100%
Heisman bias my friend lmao they want cam in new york for the ceremony
Better resume how? Don’t repeat espn talking points either
@@FLA813BMO SMU blew out Pitt who was #18 at the time and their only loss is by 3 to #7 BYU. Miami loss to a mediocre GTech and should've loss to a middling Cal team.
Miami beat ranked Louisville and beat Florida. SMU doesn’t have any wins against an SEC team
Texas, penn state, and Indiana all have 0 ranked wins and are in the top 5. The message from the committee is to not play anyone good
Ohio State also scheduled all mac schools out of conference. I don’t understand why schools aren’t rewarded for tougher schedules in the rankings.
Dog Indiana has only played one team above .500 and that team lost to ucla last week forget talking ab ranked matchups
Conversely, Bama has 4 CFP ranked wins…there are only 3 teams with a top 10 SOS that have winning records; Bama has beat the other 2
@@lifeislikeaboxofchocolates5383if you look at their records against the P4, Indiana has not played a single team with a winning record. Their entire schedule is 18-39 against the P4 this season
Completely agree with you
What if the SEC isn’t that good? They play each other cool but that doesn’t mean they can beat everyone else outside their conference
Yep sec bias 4 of top 5 is big ten and two of them are garbage.
Indiana has not played a single team with a winning P4 record and Penn State lost to the only team with a pulse on their schedule.
@@nicholaskling2425
Texas hasn’t beat anyone either though
@@Depressednotredamefan3736 yes, but they’re the only SEC team. Most of the B1G have worse schedules than Texas
BYU has a better resume than 3 of the 5 teams ranked above them.
@@nicholaskling2425 I agree. I did my own rankings and still felt obligated to put Texas at 3 and byu at 6. I don't think Texas stays at 3. The only safe ranking is Penn St who has cupcakes the rest of the way. No way they should ever leave 4 to go up but can go down. Indiana will have to get blown out by OSU to fall out of the playoffs and that's my problem with these rankings. I put Boise st at 7 and Indiana at 8 and make them prove it vs their first good opponent. The reason they don't put byu 3rd is because they lose their conference championship it's harder to dump them out of the playoffs same with Boise.
How stupid is it that you can want a playoff expansion then complain when the best conference dominates it's spots
I wanted an expansion and these rankings make sense to me. The people who were against expansion complained it would be 7 SEC teams
The deluded big 10 fans think that by them just having more programs in the running, they're going to win the championship. They don't understand that they're gonna get knocked out by whatever SEC team they play.
We know who the SEC homer is! 🤣🤣
The SEC has been a dominant conference for sure. My only issue is that if your opponents are over ranked, then you get credit for a ‘good win’. Example? Missouri is not a top 25 team.
Exactly
@@jimford6478 they are 7-2 though hard not to have them in there with that record in the SEC
@@Travis89-ob5tt There 2 losses are against the only good teams they have played all year. Its really not that hard to replicate their schedule with non-sec schools.
@@MattBuild4 still hard to leave out any 7-2 team that's in the SEC or big 10. Who do you replace them with?
@@Travis89-ob5tt How about any of the teams with one or less losses or two or less losses and ranked wins.
Really not that hard.
Its always the same thing every year. All the sec teams are ranked way hi at the start of the year this way when they start playing each other then for the sec its "oh what a great win against a highly ranked team." And the sec team that loses well "oh what a close lose to a highly ranked sec team so we cant punish them toooo bad" but hey thats what the playoffs are for. Big 10 won last year but that was the first time in a minute so i would SEC is the best conference but not all the teams on that conference ahould be ranked as high as they are.
Y’all have to stop pretending like the playoff rankings have anything to do with how good the teams are. The playoff committee has already told you flat out numerous times that they do not rank teams based on on field performance. Teams are ranked based on which teams will earn the most money during a playoff game, that’s it, it’s the only thing the playoff comities considers when ranking teams and the only thing the playoff committee cares about - this is why regular season games no longer matter.
Look at FSU last year. That is exactly what they told them. So basically the CFP has become a beauty contest for the elite programs.
@ no, not a beauty contest, and not just for elite programs, it’s just a moneymaking scheme for college football. Schools like TCU, and Cincinatti have made it to the playoffs, not because they are elite, but because thier Cinderella “story” makes more money for college football
THERE'S A CLEAR BIG 10 BIAS.... bruh... Penn should a fell outta the top 12!
Facts. Their best win is Illinois
The B1G went 5-7 in 10 appearances in the 4 team playoff. SEC went 14-4 (not including SEC vs SEC) in 12 appearances. Why are we pretending these conferences are equals?
@@nicholaskling2425 it's the B1G attaching itself to the SEC. They have a history of doing that. We are only equal in money, they have a higher TV contract, we bring in higher revenue. There's more SEC teams ranked in the top 25 revenue producing college programs. And more SEC teams in the top of the list.
The B1G loves attaching to others, remember the alliance? They attached themselves to the Pac12 & ACC just so they could cancel the original 12 team playoff expansion. All because they wanted automatic bids. They needed that against the SEC because otherwise there would have been way more SEC teams than B1G teams.
The playoffs didn't expand, FSU got left out and somehow those clowns got mad at ESPN when their conference voted against expansion. The B1G then proceeds to steals 4 schools from an alliance member. They do whatever it takes to provide results in their best interest.
But no, there's NO comparison. The SEC has done more in the last 5 years (winning 4 of the last 5 titles with 3 different teams) than the B1G has done in the last 25 years. That's not even including how we dominated the BCS era.
Don’t disagree about Penn state but explain how you don’t feel the exact same way about Texas because their schedule is just as weak only with a worse loss
@willstribling8775 Saying that Penn State should have fallen out of the top 12 doesn't equate to me thinking UT should be in either. Not sure where you're finding these extra ideas that I never said lol. UT hasn't proven themselves either!
Look at it like this. If Texas played in the Big 12 and lost to UGA out of conference, would they still be in the Top 5 with the same resume and roster?
That should give you the answer. They still would have played OU and Michigan, and none of the other teams they have beaten are that good.
Is that SEC sticker helping to boost them?
The claim at 7:10 is the PUREST kind of SEC bias: "If it were actually objective, six SEC teams would make the playoff!" FYI, bias (much like propaganda) is purest when it is unnoticeable, when it is baked into an appeal to nature, what's nature, what's "objective."
People can get mad at SEC bias bc it does exist. But it exists for a reason. SEC teams usually win the national championship, usually the sec championship game is a playoff game. The SEC has the best teams to bottom. Now that it’s a 12 team playoff there will be SEC and big 10 bias 😂. Now the big 12 and ACC gonna be mad all the time.
The irony is the ACC has the 2nd most national titles over the past 14 years or so...and all of them were wins against SEC teams in those championship games. But then when ACC teams lose to ACC teams, it's because they suck, but when Big 10 or SEC teams lose to Big 10 or SEC teams in conference play, it just shows how deep those leagues are!
@@ryuradeon Now the ACC sucks not then. But the ACC only had Clemson now that Clemson is not good the ACC is bad. FSU had 2013 that’s it
@AceWillliams and the Big 10 has had Michigan and OSU....2 titles in 14 years.
@@ryuradeon Yeah… that’s the point. SEC has always been superior.
They win the most and when you look at who the other conferences beat in the championship they are mainly SEC teams
Auburn runner up to FSU
Alabama runner up to Clemson twice
Alabama and Georgia played each other twice in national champions ships
Although not directly related to poles and Chips, the SEC consistently has the most players drafted into the NFL and for years the SEC regions is largely where the talent comes from. Now that UT is in the SEC, absolutely it's the SEC regions.
It absolutely exists. That's not to say that the SEC isn't generally the best conference, because it is. Problem is that it's given the benefit of the doubt NO MATTER WHAT.
The SEC hasn't give me a single reason to think they're the best conference this year. One of the leaders lost to Notre Dame. Texas hasn't played anybody. Alabama lost to a team that lost to Georgia STATE. Tennessee lost to a meh Arkansas. Auburn lost to Cal at home. Florida was dumpstered by Miami. LSU lost to a bad USC team. There is NOTHING that eludes to the SEC being the clear cut best conference this year.
Last year. The SEC was meh. Champ lost two to two other power conference champs. Very underwhelming in OOC play. Was clearly behind the P12 and B1G TEN...YET, when Mizzou, FSU and Ole Miss won their *meaningless bowl games* Than suddenly SEC simps who would excuse bowl losses as "unmotivated team doesn't care", well when it was a team from their conference...well ye know....it just means mOAR.
The early CFP era was another great example. The SEC was mediocre. By every measure. It was Bama, Bama and Bama. They lost ALL THREE NY6 games in 2014, two of them not particularly close. The second best team in 2015 was Ole Miss...three loss Ole Miss. 2016 was even more laughable. The SEC had to send an 8 - 4 Auburn to the Sugar Bowl, because they didn't have ANYBODY aside from Bama worthy.
And all we hear are the endless excuses that excuse the SEC when it's convenient, but are irrelevant when cutting the other conferences slack.
It's like preseason rankings. They mean nothing. Absolutely nothing. If you're one of those people who believe they should have any effect on end of season rankings, your close to being objectively *stupid*.
Going into each season, is it wrong to assume the SEC is going to be the best conference? No! Absolutely not. The problem comes when you DECIDE they're the best conference.
And that right there, is why the country is so tired of the SECs romance with mainstream media. The SEC often proves that it's worthy of "elevating" the status of team, because they prove it on the field.
But sometimes like this year and the last, they don't and the talking heads refuse to drop the rhetoric.
PS: *We should be putting less stock into how good a conference is than EVER before. The power conferences are composed of 16 - 18 teams in 2024. You don't even play half of your league. Each schedule needs to be looked at as individually of its conference as possible. BYU is the perfect example. The BIG XII from top to bottom is a cluster FK, but BYU steamrolled a really good K - State team and beat what is now the ACC front - runner. Caring about the conference perception is stupid because BYU isn't it's conference. It's a team with two really good wins who would UNQUESTIONABLY, ZERO DOUBT IN MY MIND, be #2 if the logo was swapped with pretty much anybody.*
sssshhhhhh… you’re making too much sense. The SEC zealots might not like it.
(Using the same arguments types you used above.) Why is K-State a really good team if they lost to 5 loss Houston? Now, to be real I do not put stock in that logic as it just ends up all over the place. Looking for any flaw falls flat. I tend to look at meaningful wins and numbers of them, then loses and who they were too. Transitive stuff can also just get murky in general. Take Vandy. They beat Virginia Tech, who beat Georgia Tech who beat Miami. So is Vandy better than Miami? Good thing about a Playoff is we will see a lot of games play out. IMO bias is not the issue. Not punishing teams for soft schedules is. It leads to less cross play which leads to fewer data points to more accurately compare teams across the nation.
Are you familiar with the Blue Chip Ratio (BCR)? Teams on the BCR have won a title since it's creation in 2013. Which means, as it stands, only teams on that list have a real shot at winning a title. (Look up Blue Chip Ratio if you don't know what it is)
In 2024 the BCR is made up of 16 teams, 16 teams with a shot at a championship. 8 of the 16 are SEC teams! That means half the SEC has the talent needed for a legit shot at winning a title. What other conference will go up against that many quality teams? Who's SOS do you think is harder?
Attrition is a real thing. Objectivity if the conference that produces the most NFL talent, has the most BCR teams battle against each other... what do you think the outcome will be? The SEC is the best as far as talent, there's NO debate to be made there.
The SEC is NOT perfect. It's not until you compare the SEC to everyone else when you realize there's a gap. You can claim that it's all about Alabama. But if you take Bama out, the SEC still remains to be king. I'll use the BCS as a cut off because before then champions were voted on. BCS was the start of on the field results. And since then, the SEC has been the most dominant.
In the BCS era without Bama the SEC would have won 6 titles with 4 different teams. The B1G won 1. The ACC won 2 with 1 team, the Big12 won 2 with 2 different teams (they're now SEC teams), the Pac12 won 2 with 1 team.
In the playoff era, without Bama the SEC won 3 with 2 different teams. The B1G won 2 with 2 different teams, the ACC won won 2 with 1 team, the Big12 won 0, the Pac12 won 0. But yet you claim the SEC was mediocre in the playoff era. That's your feelings getting in the way of logic.
But even that's not an apples to apples comparison. For that, each conference will need to lose its best team. The SEC would combine for 9 titles with 5 different teams since the BCS era. The B1G without OSU would only have 1. The ACC without Clemson would have 2. The Big12 without OU won have 1. The Pac12 would have 0.
You went in a rant about the pre-season polls. There was a article awhile ago about how the pre-season AP poll has been right more often than they've been wrong. Look it up for yourself. But the AP poll no longer matters in the CFP era, it's only there to provide content at this point.
The problem most can't see eye to eye on is the strength of schedule (SOS). Some use math, they use the wins of your opponents to calculate the strength of schedule. So if you play teams with a weak schedule, it gives you a boost. People like to say numbers don't lie. They don't, but they can be misleading. I personally believe that SOS should be dependent on the quality of the team.
A prime example that hits close to home for me personally is last years Sagarin rating. I bet money on Oregon to beat Washington both times, and as you know, they lost both times. So, in the eyes of common sense, one won think Washington was a better team than Oregon. Not according to the Sagarin ranking at the end of the year.
Washington was the better team and had the better bowl victory against Texas. Whereas Oregon dismantled Liberty. But Washington ultimately lost to Michigan. Because of the idiotic way the SOS was calculated, they deemed Oregon was higher than Washington (the on field results didn't matter). That's why I think SOS calculated that way shouldn't be relied upon. However, the quality in terms of talent leans heavily towards the SEC. But we live in the NIL and portal era, so things can change swiftly.
This brings me to my next point. I don't think it is only the SEC that gets the benefit of the doubt. Ohio State got it when they got into the playoffs over Penn State and the covid year when they only played 6 games. Clemson got it a lot too, when they used to get scrutinized because of their schedule. I think the benefit of the doubt goes to those who recruit well. Oregon gets it. They're usually highly ranked until they lose, knocking themselves out of the playoffs.
Since recruiting is linked to the BCR, it seems they rely on the formula that's been proven to determine who's best. Simply look at the recruiting class of the upcoming 2025 class for a look at the future. They seem to reword the year-round hard work that the top programs put in. Since the SEC is ALL about recruiting, it's only right that there's the link.
Nothing is stopping other programs from doing the same thing. The difference is that the SEC has been all in on football (crazy/passionate) since before football started generating high revenue. They did it before it was cool or trendy to do so. And everyone else, instead of competing and putting in the hard work, they'd rather change things to get a level playing field for everyone. Because they themselves now want to get serious about football because it's tied to a major payday.
@@tremoore9831it’s gonna get leveled here soon
@@caroljavalera8508 I have no clue when predicting the future.
Looks like Big 10 Bias to me....... They play cupcakes and all get ranked in the top 5...
For the people crying bias who was left out? The teams with an argument are SMU, Boise st, and Texas A&M. Please explain where there's bias other than "oh no they can't have 5". There's 9 SEC teams in the top 25 nobody else has any depth at all they're just top heavy.
With UGA on the bubble.
It's because they're all ranked high in the preseason. So when they play each other there's a ton of subjectively highly ranked matchups. So #7 must still be good because they're only losses are to #2 and #5, and they're both obviously good because they beat #7. It' like a self licking ice cream cone, and it all starts because of their inflated preseason rankings before there's any data
Despite the SEC being deeper and half of the conference is top 25, then if there is so much bias, why is the CFP only putting 1 SEC team currently in the top 6. SEC top teams are playing a much tougher schedule than those Big 10 top teams.
How the heck would South Carolina make the playoffs on a "blind" resume? You just make these ridiculous assertions and provide no evidence and then move along.
Texas is the most overated as usual. They have only beat one team with a winning record this year (Vandy), and they stuggled against them.
The biss is clear as day. I been following the AP poll the whole season all the SEC teams who made it through non conference games undefeated got ranked. As the season progressed every other conference teams that was winning did not get ranked only SEC teams. Thats why so many upsets happened in the SEC and other games across the country seemed unimportant. Even now SMU should be in over Ole Miss who lost twice and non conference schedule was poor. SMU only lost to BYU a non conference playoff team. SMU is undefeated in the ACC while Ole Miss got two conference losses currently. So yes the bias is very clear.
A game between Ole Miss and SMU, who do you think will come out on top?
Pate, you are KILLING IT. SEC Pate for President ;)
Josh, the problem with the blind resume crowd wants to look at the wind loss comb only and ignore strength of schedule. Last year was a perfect example when they’re screaming FSU was undefeated despite having one of the weakest is and all powerful football. Naturally, they’re a bunch of hypocrites because when you point out, the liberty was also undefeated, awed strength of schedule matters again.
Hey Oregon fan here. I like your show, and I def don’t have a problem with the way you cover teams. It’s your show do what you do. I’d say if asked, I really don’t have a problem w the SEC. I know they’re good. In fact, I TBH I don’t have any problems right now. life is amazing being a Duck fan🎉. But if I was to emotionally make an argument off the top of my head w/ SEC it’s that it would be cool to see them play only FBS teams out of conference, and then check in in a few years and see if that stat about scoring over 60 vs out of conference still holds. I don’t think I need any fancy data points (or maybe I do) to make an argument like playing the Fresno Sates of the world are far more dangerous than the James Madisons. You may be right I have no clue, but I guess when you asked is this a data driven argument or an emotional one? For me it’s honestly more emotional. Those non power conf teams can be bad, but they can also sneak up on upper tier teams - even good upper tier teams (because the talent gap is closer than say an fcs team ) if they don’t take the game seriously, and have a shot at knocking them off. whereas you can pretty much pencil the W with FCS. Love the show. If I’m being real - love the SEC.
Your continued use of Danny Kannell's full name kills me 😂
no this is simple lets use texas for example only haqve played two winning teams this year but they lose to georgia and they drop two spots in the pole
There need to be more cross conference regular season games to accurately judge how good these teams are. Especially the middle of each conference. IMO when it really comes down to it the gap between mid tier teams in any of the major conferences isn't anywhere near as large as the rankings and talking heads want it to be.
Bias is inevitable but Missouri isn’t a top 50 team. They play bad teams close and get embarrassed and disrespected by good teams.
The Sec plays 8 conference games, B10, B12 plays 9 conference games this is a scheduling imbalance. Half the big ten and b12 have a legit beef with the imbalance. The reasons are far greater than just one game it’s an additional power conference opponent, the ability for the sec teams to add a fourth game to cupcake city and acts as an added by week to schedule with intention.
So later on teams in the sec will have 2 possibly 3 conference losses instead of 3 or 4 et cetera….
Yeah but 3/4s of the big 10 are garbage lol
@@stingray1761 That's funny, the Big10 and B12 both had better ooc records against power conference opponents than the sec. What is it that you don't get that if you play more conference games half your teams get more conference losses. But that's out of the sec playbook and always has been. Heck they didn't even play more than 6 conference games till the 90's when they went to a 12 team conference league. Even then they still played the scheduling games.
@kevin3818 I was sort of joking, maybe it's only 11/16ths of teams that are terrible in those conferences 😂. Tell me this then. Since the SEC plays 1 more cupcake, why do they almost unanimously have stronger strength of schedule ratings?
I think it's Alabama and Georgia bias, both have 2 losses but still top 10 teams. I'm not surprised they are both not top 5 still.
Georgia is not top 10 and Bama has the most ranked wins in CFB. Hate them all you want and clown them for losing two games, but there are definitely better than most teams in the country and are for sure a top 10 team
At least with the BCS, strength of schedule mattered. Guess computers ARE smarter than us
I miss it, but everyone hated getting computers to tell us the same outcome we are about to experience…2 SSC teams in the NC that have already played each other.
People measure strength of schedule (SOS) differently. That's where the probing lies. That's when the numbers don't tell the REAL story.
Some calculate it by the win percentage of the teams you face. But teams who have a weak schedule will skew the numbers to make it look like the SOS is better than what it actually is.
An example of this is Boise State. In an article while back, ESPN ranked Boise St as one of the winningest programs. But Boise St's schedule is weak due to their conference that they're in. So a win over them would boost ant teams SOS.
An example of an extreme on the opposite end is Arkansas. In 2014 the AP had 8 SEC teams ranked. By the end of the year 8 SEC teams were ranked in the top 25 of the CFP. Arkansas (who only plays 8 conference games) played ALL 8 of those teams who were ranked at the end of the season.
Let's say Boise St finishes 12-1, and that Arkansas team finishes 9-3. Some people will look at the numbers and say Boise should get in over Arkansas. I strongly disagree.
I measure SOS based on the quality of opponent. Playing Ohio State, and beating Ohio State means more than playing/beating Kansas. The same goes for Penn State and Syracuse, the two aren't equal.
People probably tend to pick what favors their team.
Josh went "A few Good Men " on us. I want answers. Good one
Couldn’t agree more. If Notre Dame wants to stay Independent so they can handpick their schedule and make more money due to no conference or tv deal - power to them. But losing to an average Mid American team should’ve eliminated them from this conversation before it even started
We can all rivist this at the end of the year when we see who the champion is. If its a multiple loss SEC team or a 1 or undefeated other conference.
The only real bias I saw this week was Texas at 3. They have the weakest resume of the top 5, and it isn"t close. Zero wins against a ranked team. No wins over a team with a winning record. No doubt they are a very good team, but they have not earned a number three ranking this year.
No wins over a team with a winning record? Go fact check that because thats wrong 💀
One thing I am looking forward to in CFP is the Head to Heads of SEC vs Big Ten.. I really hope they don't have a bunch of SEC Teams play each other in 1st Round.
I think that the a team's ranking at the time of a matchup is important and should be considered. Texas scheduled the defending champs on the road. Yes they werent as good as expected, but thats in hindsight. At the time, people legitimately thought that Michigan could/would win that game. Why is Texas being punished just because their opponents started to flame out AFTER Texas beat them?
This is a great video, one of the best breakdowns I've seen about how good teams really are. I've never cheered for an SEC team in my life, but who could argue they aren't consistently the best? It's completely asinine to think that Indiana, Penn State, SMU or BYU are somehow better than Ole Miss or Georgia
This is on point Josh
Based on resume and depth/recruiting, the CFP bias towards the Big Ten is akin to them dropping to their knees faster than a beggar hearing the faint rattling of change in a nearby pocket. The SEC has been the best at recruiting and developing talent in a diverse set of teams, unlike the Big Ten, which has been top heavy this whole season. The top Big Ten Teams do not play the same amount of talent from multiple teams like the SEC top teams do. Why is the CFP rewarding Penn State the 4th spot for losing their only ranked Conference Game? Especially when the only teams with depth comparable to the SEC in the Big Ten are Oregon, Ohio State, and Penn State themselves. Is it really fair that the Big Ten gets nods over the SEC when they objectively have a worse overall strength of Conference in comparison to the SEC.
Here is some food for thought, lets say we have 4 teams. Team A, B, C, and D. Team A and Team B have 80% of their roster filled with 4 to 5 star talent while Team C and Team D have a roster filled with 2 to 3 star talent. Now, let's say that the game between Team A and Team B turns out to be a 27-24 nail bitter while Team C and Team D also have a 27-24 nail-bitter. Who do you think wins out of 10 times when Team A or Team B plays either Team C or Team D. Stats may look the same but they are deceptive. Team C and Team D would get their butts handed to them 10 times out of 10. Depth matters.
Dang you wrote a book. I am a Tennessee Fan. Yes we lost to Arkansas on the road. Our freshman QB Nico had a bad game, it happens. That’s our only loss. This year we have been letting the Defense kept us in the game. But we have been doing just what it takes to win. If we run the score up then we have a higher percentage that we have unnecessary injuries, for what style points. Our backup is better than Nico for right now. He has been with us five years. But we paid 12 million for Nico. And to some degree we’re paying the price of his inexperience. We will beat Georgia at Athens. The score will not impress anyone. A 23-20 Tennessee win. It will be us that kicks that field goal to win. Which ends Georgia’s season. We will beat Alabama and Georgia next year. See we play those two every year. But us fans want that. We win our ranking goes up. We have bragging rights. They have helped us keep our brand name up. They’re a barometer for us. Football in Tennessee is a right to passage. The games are also a family outing. Because we didn’t have pro sports until recently. We only had university sports to get behind. Because Tennessee then was poor. I am 68 years old. I have experienced my Tennessee hated on for years before the SEC took over being the best conference. That’s reevaluated year to year. But we keep it. Our recruiting is the top, but those players are not all from the south. Young men want the chance to have a pro career. The second best conference is the Big Ten. They had the Rose Bowl that SEC teams couldn’t play in. Now piss on it. We don’t want to play there. Our Stadium holds well over a 100,000 sets. We have done well with our SEC money each year. We turned things around for The Tennessee Vols. By firing the Pruitt team of coaches. We as fans wanted rid of most of his players. We hired more lawyers, then we hired a new Athletic Director. He hired Mr. White. He hired Heupel. Oh yea as fans before this happened we stood up and said no to a Penn St. coach. He was there at Penn State when that sex with boys happened There. So was he involved or did he let it go on. That’s what we told the board that Coach is going down the road. Or we refuse to go to a game or buy the merchandise. Let me tell you. That coaches job was pulled immediately. Remember Lain Kiffin. When he up and left in the night. What did the student body do at the game. I know you remember that. See we stand up. Come to a Tennessee game. You will be treated with respect. It will be a good experience where you can bring your family to even if you loose. Josh Pate comes down yearly any more. And he loves his experience every time.
Right now you have three teams that are taking up space that the SEC should be, most of there losses are conference losses. If the SEC did play each other they probably wouldn’t have any losses.
The SEC bias is based on history; not the current environment. With the transfer portal and NIL, the “blue blood” teams can no longer stockpile the talent. That has allowed other teams to excel. In 2023, the SEC had a 48% winning percentage against other Power Five teams. This is how it is going this year:
LSU lost at home to a 4/5 USC team;
Texas A&M barely beat Bowling Green and lost at home to Notre Dame who lost to N. Illinois;
Vanderbilt lost to Georgia State but beat Alabama;
Arkansas lost to an Oklahoma State team that is at the bottom of the Big 12;
Tennessee lost to that same Arkansas team;
Texas, one year removed from the Big 12 is leading the SEC;
Texas, last year beat Alabama and had a lot more close games in the Big 12;
Last year, Oklahoma (10-3) had losses to Kansas, Oklahoma State and Arizona;
The year before, Oklahoma was 6/7.
How many more losses would there be if the SEC played 9 conference games like the Big 10 and Big 12? The SEC should lose Committee points for scheduling their November Patsies. Lastly, in today’s world, the top teams from other conferences would not necessarily lose to the top SEC teams on a neutral field. The Committee needs to quit rating these teams based on what was!!!
Blind resume theory is flawed because the strength of schedule is set off those logos
Is it illegal to have as many SEC teams ranked as much as the BIG 10?
Guys we have seen this year over year. We know the bias is baked in. Josh admitted as much in the first 2 minutes… the umbers and views dictate the product SEC is deep and runs the show. Money talks and right now the money and views is SEC heavy
SEC is COLLEGE FOOTBALL right now, then the Big10 (really medium10), and then their farm teams until NIL and transfer portal get sorted. I grew up a VT fan (Big East to ACC) then spent 8 years at NC State so I'm an ACC fan. But there is no denying that a multi-loss SEC team deserves a playoff spot over any other conference. Wish it weren't the case, but here we are, if you actually love competitive college football there is no denying it.
Hows this for a conspiracy? The playoff committee knows the sec has more fans which means more money. They probably knew what they were doing when approving a 12 game play off. Then went to certain SEC teams told them which games to win and which games to loose throughout the season to maximize SEC teams and revenue for themselves. Not that i believe this but just throwing another theory out there.
Run the Vegas numbers on big ten vs SEC and judge it off your previous video that did the same and see if you were bias or not. Would be a fun video and evident
Honestly, last year the big 12 and pac 12 had deeper conferences!!! It’s facts too.
We'll see how it all works out. SEC vs big10
SEC is the best conference. at the same time, there is an SEC bias. Their mid/ low tier teams are always ranked to high to start season.
What would help is if they waited to do national rankings until after week 4.
Well I think that who ever runs the best will be the team that wins it all
Before the SEC realigned i do believe there was. Everything was "What if they played during xyz before the championship games". Before the CFP, there was no dispute hiw much They favored the SEC
SEC is bias because they are the best teams. Many in the top ten until we start beating each other as the season goes on.
This CFP ranking is pretty good. I think Miami is a little high and will eventually get hammered by SMU in the ACC championship. I also think Notre Dame is getting more credit than it deserves. If it ended today, the SEC would get 4 teams in and I have no problem with that. 5 feels like too many. The SEC is more human this year. Looking forward to seeing the playoff this year!
Oh yeah those 4 out of 5 in the top 5 sec teams in the top 5 prove that bias…. Wait that’s the big 10.
Danny is a clown on this….the SEC is a bloodbath absolutely loaded with good teams. They have 4-5 national championship contenders. The Big 12 has zero, The Acc has one, IF we’re generous, in a peak Miami but most likely zero. The other super conference has so many down top schools that they only have 2 natty contenders with Indiana as a maybe. He’s so absurdly biased AGAINST the SEC that he’s just trying to use 1970’s level evaluation by rote record. Despite insane disparities in competition. The reality is that the portal/nil/12 team playoff era has made the SEC even better from a depth perspective. Danny wants to use how unbelievably difficult the conference is to give them minimal representation in the playoff….a total inversion of what should actually happen. The Big 10 getting 4 teams because 5 though 18 or whatever suck while the SEC only gets 2 cause their best teams are routinely challenged by other awesome teams is indescribably dumb. His analysis is literally as follows….11-1 is better than 10-2 no matter what lol. That’s it. BYU is better than the Baltimore Ravens according to Danny Kanell. Logically he’d be forced to argue that. Here’s what it comes down to…..the SEC has been the best conference in the country for the better part of 20 years and the addition of Texas/Oklahoma plus the diffusion of talent has made the conference even better. Ironically, the SEC is now the monster he always argued they weren’t. He used to argue “it’s just Bama or just Georgia, not the SEC” or “the gap is tiny”…..now that there’s no dynastic juggernaut it actually is the whole damn conference. They have 5 national championship contenders….FIVE. They have 4-6 other good teams. The real risk for Danny is a playoff that allows 4-5 SEC teams in. If they collectively dominate along with OSU/Oregon then he has nothing to argue anymore. He can always ignore those 1-2 teams. But if say 6-8 different sec schools make the playoff in the next 3-5 years with many having success while the big 12/ACC/G5 teams get dispatched annually and it’s just SEC vs elite B1G then he’s totally fucked. The BEST part of the playoff is all the data we’re going to get. The 4 teamer confirmed the SEC was the best….this will take it to a new level. If Clemson/miami/FSU can’t figure it out soon, Danny’s entire worldview will be revealed for the fraud it always was
Josh, no other CFB expert or analysts views align with my own as much yours do which sucks for this weekend because I sense the UGA finds it way moment coming and I’m a Tenn alum. As for this issue, I believe there is a Big10 bias right now in the playoff committee. Tenn being jumped by Indiana and BYU?? UGA not in at all?? Penn St keeps moving up?? None of this was making sense until I saw Michigan AD chairs. And look at the makeup of the committee. SOS has been completely thrown out. Maybe not the elite teams in the SEC this year but you’re dead on about depth while the Big 10 is much weaker this year sans Oregon and OSU. Indiana and Penn St schedules are very weak.
If SEC fans had their way I can definitely see 8 SEC teams making it. Ohio state, Oregon, Miami, and Colorado would make it out of fairness 😂
The South produce the most talented players. What part of that equation do people not understand.
There is an anti sec bias, the fact that Indiana and Penn state are above Georgia,bama,miss and Tennessee proves that
Why should u put a 2 loss team ahead of a undefeated p4 team? Anything you say about Penn Stare can be said for Texas.
@ I would if that 2 loss team lost on 2 toward games against unranked teams, and the undefeated teams haven’t played ranked teams
When y'all going realize that it's all about the money... that's why they got teams up higher than the other ones.... because it's all about how much money they can generate off a school during the playoffs time
I guess they changed the meaning of the word bias then 😒
"You're going to end up arguing for someone like South Carolina"...well, let's see here. South Carolina is 1-3 against top 25 opponents. Their best non-conference win is a 4 point victory at home against a Sun Belt team that Virginia Tech played on the road and beat by 20. Yeah, that doesn't sound like a team that should be anywhere near the playoff. Or the Top 25, for that matter.
South Carolina has a combined 5 point loss to Alabama, and LSU, with the loss to LSU coming to down to atrocious officiating. Our biggest non conference win is against Akron, who we hung 50 on after losing to LSU. We have destroyed every team we’ve played since the Alabama game with us damn near shutting out Oklahoma in OK, throttling an in conference undefeated Texas A&M, then going on the road and beating Vanderbilt by 3+ scores. Our only real loss is to Ole Miss, and they have proven to be a legit team.
@@ZamuraiBeKillin I didn't say "biggest" non-conference win, I said "best." Scoring 50 on Akron doesn't impress anyone. Rutgers scored 49 on them.
Wait wasn't Vandy ranked last week? That would put South Carolina at 2-3. Soon to be 3-3 agains Mizzou. And if Clemson can hold on to their ranking for a few more games, 4-3.
Chances are, South Carolina will have played 7 ranked teams by the end of the season. Not many teams OUTSIDE of the SEC can say that.
@@ZamuraiBeKillin " damn near shutting out Oklahoma in OK, throttling an in conference undefeated Texas A&M, then going on the road and beating Vanderbilt by 3+ scores." You say this like its impressive - its really not that impressive. Youre talking about 3 teams that without you beating them are a combined 17-9. Decent - yes. Good - not really.
@@bluekeys7661 South Carolina plays 7 ranked teams ONLY IF you include teams that arent ranked anymore. Whats amazing to me is that you do this nonsense, yet teams play 7 ACTUALLY CURRENT ranked teams and get no credit for it on SOS rank, which severely calls into question the legitimacy of that metric.
Your conference pumps up these rankings by preseason, and scheduling, so its really not that shocking to play 7 previously ranked teams.
I will argue the conference as a whole is overrated because of the 2 or 3 teams thats been dominant over the last 10-15 years. Missouri isn't a top 25 team but yet they're there because of the conference. Thats when the bias kicks in because if that was any team in any other conference, they'd been out after the 2nd lose
It’s a jealousy thing! The SEC is the strongest most talented conference in college football. They also beat up on each other each week. There’s no other conference that has as many great teams. No bias just fact!
I would put 6 SEC teams. 4 other conference champs, and extra big 10 team and Notre dame
Finally, someone who actually understands. Indiana, BYU, Penn st, Miami, Boise st and SMU are all noticeably worse teams than South Carolina if you actually watch the games. But because South Carolina has to go through the SEC gauntlet and had a couple close losses they are almost guaranteed to miss the playoffs, while Indiana and Penn st get to breeze by their easy schedule and almost have their spot completely locked in already. I'm not even a South Carolina fan, but they would easily win the ACC or Big 12.
Fun fact, South Carolina's only conference win is when they were in the ACC. 😆
🤣🤣 Yall have been saying this forever.
South Carolina isn’t even close to as good as SMU or Miami. Sec isn’t a gauntlet. Miami BLEW OUT Florida. The sec is overrated and always has been.
@@jayboogie1295 you do realize that saying a team that is 2-4 in the SEC is bad proves nothing about how good the conference is. Also SC didn't even pay Florida so what are you even talking about. Also SMU hasn't even played Florida either. Thats gotta be the wildest stretch I've ever seen. If you're gonna make an argument at least make it partially reasonable please :)
Indiana, SMU, Miami and Boise State are really polar opposite type teams to South Carolina, so if youre comparing based on type of play scheme thats gonna immediately run into problems. SC has a good defense, but a pretty mediocre offense. Those teams listed before have good offenses but pretty mediocre defenses.
SEC bias. You're not letting the players decide who the best is. There is a committee that decides.
This is where the bias comes in. Strength of schedule? THAT'S NOT SCIENCE!!!
Every other football conference, high school, and even little league have a playoff system that is braketed out before the season starts.
Then, you can rank any team wherever you want. The teams will win out their conferences, and the players will decide who the best is.
The current format just robs players of opportunity they may feel they earned.
SEC bias starts in the preseason overrating the teams then they play nobody & beat up no each other Vandy beat Bama but loses to GA. St & barely beat Ball. St, A&M lose to ND who loss to NIU, Arkansas beat Tennessee but they loss to Oklahoma St, LSU loses to USC but because they beat a SEC team they are supposed to be good stop overrating the conference & you'll see a avg conference
all that you typed means nothing how about you try to find the teams who were left out of the top 25 that deserve to be there over the sec teams? i look forward to seeing what you come up with lol
SEC BIAS IN CFP? WE’LL KNOW ON DOWN THE ROAD IF A 2 OR 3 LOSS SEC TEAM OR TEAMS GET INTO THE PLAYOFFS. THEN “YES”! 2 LOSS ONLY IF THERE IS NO 1 LOSS SEC TEAM CONFERENCE CHAMP. 3 LOSS NO! WIN YOUR GAMES AND YOUR IN! THATS WHAT YOU’VE SAID IN THE PAST TO OTHER CONFERENCE TEAMS WHO DIDN’T GET IN BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T WIN ALL THEIR GAMES. WIN YOUR IN!
I'm here for the Vandy king.
It's Vander-Pimp.
I think there might be a blue blood bias because from watching the games I think South Carolina is one of the best teams in the country and they can clearly go up against anybody. They’re a play get away from beating Alabama in Alabama. And obviously biases against them are holding them back. They played better than Georgia this year and have one more loss Yet have absolutely no chance to make the playoffs
The SEC is the most dominate conference. So if those teams are the best, they just are. And who doesn't want to play for the best. Nico iamaleava and a ton of kids that aren't from the south sure as hell will admit it's the best and they wanted to play in the SEC conference (mic drop) 🎤
4 Big 10 teams 4 SEC teams 2 big 12 teams the ACC champion and Boise State. With an undefeated Army team on the outside looking in.
Saragin, SP+ … all have more SEC teams up top.
Yeah Josh i usually agree with your takes but, there definitely is an SEC bias in rankings and media coverage. But you make money on their fanbases so I understand why you excuse it
Nope. ND lost to NIU and ranked ahead of Bama. Less top 25 wins. Less losses but a worse loss. That’s ND bias. There’s no worse loss in the country this year
SEC will have 6 or 7 10-2 teams The 6th team in the SEC is Bama by comparison the by far 2nd best conf Big 10 #6 team is 5-5 Michigan SC with Indiana sxhedule is undefeated and Indiana with SC schedule is 6-3 just like SC..People say the SEC overated but they only lose to each other Oregon is good but with GA schedule they have 2 loses as well
ND beat the #2 SEC team and they don't get the respect for that
I think the main problem is the teams ranked highly in the CFP Top 25 and eventually make the playoff aren't the "most deserving" they are the "best" which some disagree with. Is a 10-2 Alabama better than an 11-1 Boise St, probably yes, but Boise has done everything they can to prove they are a top contender in the country including stick in a game with the #1 team in the country on the road, yet Boise isnt even top 10. The same can be said for some other teams. If Indiana, BYU, SMU had an SEC patch, they would be Top 5 minimum if not higher. I'm not gonna say that the Big 12 or ACC is even close to the level of the SEC, but what I will say is that conference realignment has caused this to happen. And who is at fault for that, the two conferences who keep adding more and more top tier programs, the SEC and BIG 10.
Boise is an outlier - both in terms of being awarded based on the auto-bid G5, but also because that program has a very long history of having good to very good teams to compare for, while also making a very strong effort to play quality teams. So making an argument against Boise State is going to be historically very difficult without resulting in contradictions.
Like what the arguments?
- They dont schedule anyone good? - Playing at Autzen this year really debunks that, but theyve also scheduled the most top 10 ranked OOC road games the last 5 years - playing the B12, PAC, and possibly B10 champions the last 5 years. Nobody can say this. Theyve also done this for the last 20 seasons and even future OOC includes at ND, Washington, Oregon, Louisville, Iowa, and Kansas State.
- Their conference isnt hard? - Boise State has applied to join a P5 conference 13 times in the last 25 years. Thats pretty damming evidence that what conference theyre in isnt really up to them.
- If they played in X conference theyd lose every game? - BSU literally holds the all time NCAA record for consecutive winning seasons at 28 - the next closest G5 team is at 10, so theyre a bit of a outlier. You could also use career record where they rank 6th in th nation at 0.727 - the average G5 team is at 0.485 - thats a big difference. Not to mention they have a laundry list of P5 teams in their graveyard.
Like ive seen people make the argument, well BSU is 2-6 all time vs the SEC, so they couldnt perform against SEC in any given yar. Thing is historically 7 of their 8 games vs SEC opponnents were against SEC division champs or top 15 ranked SEC teams. Not since 2000 Arkansas have they played an SEC team that werent these characteristics. So its not rally representative of the SEC to take BSU's record against that conference and say that how they would perform against the conference today.
Mote like big 10 bias. Who has Penn state beat and if they had a second lose would they drop to 12? I can't wait for the playoffs and all these big 10 teams lose. Id say that if any of them played Georgia's schedule, they'd all have 3 loses and none of the top 6 teams would beat Georgia and we're about to find out about #7
have the SEC play 9 confrence games like every one else
Have the other conferences have better talent like nobody else and see how they like playing 9 conference games. Clown comment
the other conferences dont go 8 deep with good teams
Buhahahahahahaha
I don't understand what playing more conference games has to do with SEC bias. If you check out the recruiting rankings, the SEC has 8 teams in the top 15. There is a reason the SEC is the toughest conference. They recruit more talent than the other 3 conferences combined. This is math. This is easily checked. Is there an SEC bias? Of course there is but the bias comes from the best players in the country who want to play in the SEC. If a Podunk team wins a Podunk conference they're still Podunk. At the same time, if the best teams in the country play each other for even more games, they're still the best teams in the country. I don't see you point unless you think the best teams in the country playing each other will somehow make Podunk teams somehow better?
@@synitarthrax5618look at the nfl draft past 17 years too lol all the talent is in the sec
I mean Miami is ranked above three sec teams after losing to GT. I believe honestly the committee is only going to let the sec champion and three others in. Just by looking at the rankings of the teams
Do you think Miami is beating UGA on a neutral field? Not a chance
Miami lost to an unranked gt, Vanderbilt was ranked, South Carolina was ranked, can’t even compare
14 of the last 20 natty winners have come from the sec, I’m sorry if you’re a big 12 or acc fan shit even a big 10 fan but the sec is the best conference and always will be, also remember this comment Bama is winning it all this year
Yes Oregon is number 1 they should get huge attention
If Alabama was the 5th team you are damn rigjt they would put a 5th sec team in. Ridiculous
This is an easy one. Look at the the recruiting rankings for 2023 and 2024. Of the top 15 teams, 8 are from the SEC. That means more than half of the best players in the country are playing in the SEC. The rest are spread out to the other 3 conferences. Really think about his. This isn't 4,4,4,3 where the talent is spread evenly across the 4 conferences. This is 8 to the SEC and the other 7 SPREAD OUT to the other 3 conferences. If more than half of the best players in the country are playing in the SEC, that should tell you real quickly where the power is. These are numbers and numbers don't lie. Numbers don't have an agenda. Numbers don't have a bias. This isn't some conspiracy. This is reality. The SEC has more talent then the other 3 conferences combined and will therefore, have the best teams. QED
To add to that, the Blue Chip Ratio (BCR) teams have won the national championship every year since it's inception in 2013.
In 2024 the BCR currently consist of 16 teams, that means 16 teams have a real shot of winning a title this year. 8 of the 16 are SEC teams. Which means half of the SEC has the ability to win it all.
What other conferences has to go through that?
I get that but clearly Georgia has the talent and they can't get it together. Zero confidence in that offense.
You assume that high recruiting out of high school = college talent. Sometimes thats true, others not. I seem to recall very recent seasons of multiple top 5 recruited teams losing at home to G5 teams. How does this happen if recruiting guarantees superior ability and likelihood to win?
@MattBuild4 I would prefer not to go back and forth in different chats to have these debates.
I 100% agree that it isn't a guaranteed lock. These are young adults, balancing academics and regular life. Consistency is rare. That's what only Alabama has achieved.
I feel like you're just nitpicking the system because you personally don't like it. Ok, then offer up another that's just as accurate or more. Unless you just want to complain without offering any solutions.
People make a living off of trying to find the best talent. If you know of a better way, you could make a TON of money!
Justin Jefferson was a 3 star of H.S. now he's one of the best WR in the NFL. Ja'Marr Chase was a 4 star. I think we both can agree they should have been 5 stars. There's a boat load of other examples.
@@tremoore9831 Well my comment wasnt even to you otherwise you would have seen the @tre like is in this comment.
If you rank SEC teams lower, their wins don’t look as good. It’s a self promoting philosophy the SEC has. Miami beat Florida and Texas A&M the last 2 years and the acc has a better overall record against the SEC the last few years. The SEC didn’t make the cfp final last year either. Alabama lost to Vandy who lost to GEORGIA STATE. This is why the SEC isn’t as good as they claim to be.
Kennel is reliving his glory days.😂
REAL CFP: 1 Oregon 2 Ohio St 3 Boise St 4 BYU 5 SMU 6 Indiana 7 Tennessee 8 Penn St 9 Texas 10 Army 11 Notre Dame 12 Washington St 13 Miami 14 Kansas St 15 Colorado 16 Ol' Miss 17 Alabama 18 Arizona St 19 Georgia 20 Texas A & M 21 South Carolina 22 Louisville 23 Tulane 24 Louisiana 25 Clemson
Tell me about a team in SEC or any team & I'll give you any argument!
Penn State , Notre Dame and Indiana are laughable and no one in the SEC is scared of Ohio state and Oregon but to ahead, we need some easy games. They'd all be crying in the league
Texas A&M isn’t laughing.
Notre Dame beat A&M @ A&M so that would make them better correct or do games not matter?
Josh always has an excuse for SEC teams
They might put Notre Dame in over a 2 loss Georgia because Notre Dame is better and plays better and its beared out in the stats. ND currently higher than Georgia not only in SOR, but also ESPN FPI and in literally most power ratings.
Just FYI, again, your point at the end of this video re Notre Dame is the purest form of SEC bias: it start with the premise that Georgia is better than Notre Dame, and works backwards toward the conclusion that the committee would put ND in over a better GA, never once considering that ND could just be (is) better.
12 teams and 5 are from one conference. Yeah thats good for college football. SOS has ruined college football. Why have a FBS division of football with all these conferences when in reality only 4 matter. Lets just have the 4 major conferences be thier own league and the rest can play thier own league with thier own titlle. So tired of this bullshit system. Emagine if the NFL used this garbage SOS crap.
My issue has always been that the talking points always show a bias towards the SEC, which makes clear the show or persons thought process on determining the rankings. Notice, when people talk about the SEC, they talk about their good wins and gloss over the losses. When they talk about other conferences, they talk about their losses and almost gloss over their wins. Pundits seem to always highlight how well SEC teams do compared to other teams then talk about deficiencies of other schools. I don't care about the focus on SEC teams because I think you're right, SEC viewership is much higher and you have to get eyes on videos to make money. It's just telling how people think about certain schools by the points they make about those programs when compared to other schools. I think we are all conditioned to think the SEC is the best because they have been doing well but there is a halo effect here (across football) thats hard to get away from and unsee.
Ps, I do think this show and you are one of the more objective people talking about college football and I do appreciate that by the way. I do think a lot of people have an unconscious bias towards the SEC because of what I have above, but you less than others. Thank you for being as fair as you as you are and thank you for continually striving to be a good objective analyst of the world around us.
Do you know why they do what you stated above? Have you ever asked or thought about why they give credit to some and not all? What do you think it is?
I would like to know what you think before I tell you what I think.
@@tremoore9831 enlighten me...
sec is tough but thats their fault they no longer have a dominate 2 team league but a group of good but none dominate week to week teams
Or the commissioners will remember that ND played TAMU and beat them... Anti SEC bias? Srsly?
I believe there to be bias- both logo bias and conference bias. I think I would be in favor of the blind resume… but without strength of schedule component because it is so subjective, much like rankings are subjective- both of those have bias baked into them, so it’s hard to make that a basis of your blind resume. Current example: Team “A” from Power 4 conference “Z” has an 8-1 record with the one loss being a non-conference loss to a top 10 team, and has 2 wins vs ranked teams. Team “B” from Power 4 conference “Y” has an 8-1 record with the one loss being to an in-conference top 10 team, and has 1 win vs a ranked team. Conference “Z” head-to-head against conference “Y” is 3-2 this year. Seems like team “A” should be ranked higher than team “B” in a blind resume? Team “B” is Penn State ranked #4 and team “A” is SMU ranked #14 and out of the playoff projections…. current bias on conference despite head-to-head competition this year, logo bias against a small school in comparison to a big state school with a history of benefitting of this exact bias.
I think most people agree PSU is overrated, they haven't beaten anyone of note.