Very interesting. For MCG, Ohio State is ranked #1 For Corey, Auburn is the top ranked SEC West Team. Sportsline Top 25
This has been out there since May 5th. I think OSU has a good chance of starting #1 in the real polls and I think Florida will start higher than #6...probably about #4.....with Georgia #2 and USC #3.
If I'm not mistaken Auburn finished the season #15 in the AP poll. This year they transitiion to the spread-option style offense they employed in their bowl win against ACC favorite Clemson last year. I think Auburn is the team to beat in the West. They had a big loss to a red-hot Georgia team at the end of last season but overall they had a good year and return 16 starters.
I think both Missouri and Kansas could be overated, Missouri opens with Illinois and plays at Neb and at Texas...could be 3 loss team before the end of Oct. They play 3 patsies after Illinois and before Neb. Kansas will get out of the gate fast playing 5 straight lame opponents, but I could easily see them losing 3 or more games the rest of the year. WVA. Inspite of their wonderful bowl win vs Oklahoma. I think the loss of Rich Rodriquez and most of his staff will impact the program and they won't be nearly the team they were the last couple of years. I don't know about Auburn, maybe they are good and maybe not...but if they are good and I'm wrong about WVA then that could be a hell of a game in Morgantown late October.
Gentlemen, Way too early to get excited about the polls! Take that to the bank from a Senior Citizen. :lol: Don
Terry, I think you are right on Kansas, they had a dream year in 07 where the stars aligned, and every bounce went their way. They are a sound team, and a good team, but not great. The law of averages is sure to catch up to them sooner or later... I'm thinking sooner. I think Mizzou is for real, but as you pointed out, their sched isn't too friendly. We'll know real quick if they can handle the pressure of having the target on their backs...
Here's a consensus top 25 from preseason publications. This is a very informative website as well for statistics, polls, etc. http://www.stassen.com/preseason/consensus/2008.html
well <t>Auburn was almost beaten at home by Kansas State. They were beaten at home by both South Florida and Mississippi State. They choked away games that they appear to have won.. That's good enough for the top 15 when you're from the SEC.<br/> <br/> The beat Clemson. Clemson is always an 'ACC favorite.' It should be noted that the ACC has also been a massive flop, especially since going to the super conference format. Another hype of substance program..</t>
I somewhat follow your logic here, Corey but not entirely. I understand that you think the SEC is overrated and that is why they always get the benefit of the doubt. You obviously think that there is an immense East Coast bias among the national media when it comes to college football. That is fair and I somewhat agree since most voters in the polls don't bother seeing the Pac-10 games. I understand that the second place Pac-10 team (and sometimes the Pac-10 champion) gets hosed when it comes to getting into the top bowl games e.g. Oregon a few years back. However, to discount the strength of the SEC as a conference when teams from the conference have won 4 BCS championships since 1998 is laughable at best, ignorant at worst. I understand your frustration and I think that the Pac-10 has been traditionally somewhat underrated but that doesn't necessarily mean that the SEC is overrated. Granted, this is true but when you have the caliber of RBs in Davis and Spiller (NFL talents) and a quality QB you should be a favorite. I certainly agree with the ACC (Another Chump Conference) being a major flop but I'm not sure what you mean by including the also in that statement because if you regard the SEC as a flop, you're dreaming.
Obviously people think Auburn has enough returning talent to compete in the SEC, especially on defense I think. If you use last years results to determine this year then Notre Dame might be projected to have a losing season. But fortunately last year is not the only factor and most of us feel Notre Dame will have a winning season this year. Seems quite a few folks also think Auburn is just outside the top 10 and a dark horse. I don't see any problem with that. I also note that S. Florida is the 2nd highest ranked Florida team.
no no no no <t>A,<br/> <br/> My contention is that the difference between the SEC and those other conference is very small, if there is much difference at all. Call it overrated, over-stated or what have you. The head to head action has shown us that, at least, the conferences are a wash....<br/> <br/> I think if you want to talk about overrated and over-hyped, this discussion begins and ends with the ACC.. at least in previous years. Saying that they beat Clemson in a bowl game just doesn't mean a whole lot to me. The talent in-state is there. Its not like Clemson hasn't been losing with great players and under-achieving recently. They've been doing this for years.<br/> <br/> Bill,<br/> <br/> My point in mentioning that was because Aquilla used last year to justify Auburn's strength. My contention was that was hardly a 15th ranked team looking at what they did on-field last year. I wasn't taking last year's numbers and saying it would apply to this year's team. You are mixing cases.<br/> <br/> Your original point was that Auburn is the highest ranked team in the West, and I countered with.. they were highly ranked last year.. so what? Aquilla chimed in by attempting to vindicate their season last year. It was a season so great that once again Tommy Tubesteak had to throw yet another coordinator under the bus to cover his own weakness. They skimmed along all year. They were beaten by teams that Terry diminished in another topic as so-so.</t>
I guess I just don't get the justification for this idea you have Corey. The SEC has handily won the last two National titles and was an all-time record of 7-2 in the bowls last year. Where does the "wash" part come in?
I used last year to supplement an argument that it was not a ludicrous notion that they could be a top 10 type of team this season. The fact that they were 9-4 last season including a bowl win over Clemson and have 16 starters returning seems to justify why most teams would be considered to have a solid year coming up. While I agree that you can't make a lot of judgements based on the year past, you have to consider that when you're trying to predict how the following year may turn out. They have LSU, Tennessee, and Georgia all at home. Their toughest road games are at West Virginia, at Bama, and at Mississippi St. which I think are winnable. It all adds together to form a nice argument for Auburn being a national title contender because if they can win the SEC with 1 loss or less they will be in the discussion (and rightfully so). I think if you look at the teams that finished ranked below Auburn you may disagree (and then again, maybe not). Arizona St. (insert argument about Pac-10 getting the shaft here), Cincinnati, Michigan, Hawaii, Illinois, Clemson, Texas Tech, Oregon, Wisconsin, Oregon St.
Corey has a point about the differences among conferences being very small. I am on record stating my belief that the SEC is the strongest conference, but over time they are not that much stronger overall than the Big 10, Pac 10, Big 12, or even the ACC. "Conference strength" as the term is used tends to run in cycles, and the SEC certainly is in an "up" cycle while the Big 10, because of MI's and PSU's current woes, is down a bit. Same with the Big 12 (CO, NE, etc.), and ACC (FSU, Miami, etc.). Aquila, you tend to diminish your pro-SEC argument (as does Gator Bill) each time you make a sarcastic reference to Corey's feelings about the Pac 10. For example, an objective observer could make a legitimate case for teams like AssU, Michigan, Illinois (despite their pasting by USC in the Rose Bowl), Wisconsin, or even Texas Tech to have been equal to or ahead of Auburn in last year's final polls. What's wrong with how Corey feels about the Pac 10? What I wonder is, why does it bother you and Gator Bill to the point where the both of you tend to dismiss what I see as his credible logic based on knowledge of the game? Sure, he has his bias. My gosh, we all do! Leave it alone, for goodness sake! Those of us who have been around for a long time are very familiar with Corey's in-your-face style of debate. Heck, back in the old days (Prodigy?), I even got into some tussles with him. Eventually I realized he was a great guy with a lot of toughness and a mean streak who brings a lot of life to the discussion. My point is, if you can ignore the extraneous elements of the discussions and stick to the central points, I think you'll have more fun, especially when you argue with Corey. You obviously are a very intelligent and well-spoken/written young man who is a great addition to this forum. Learn from the mistakes that this feisty old man made early on. Don't take anything personally, especially arguments relating to the SEC. No matter what anybody says about the SEC, everyone here, especially Corey, has immense respect for the conference.
I think you will see from the following quote that I dismiss no such thing. How that dismisses Corey's argument is beyond me. I could argue quite successfully that the exact opposite is true. The problem here, as others have with MCG, is that nothing that validates the SEC is truly valid since there is an incredible East Coast/SEC bias in the media. Therefore, no AP poll is valid, no preseason publication is valid, no BCS system is valid. I get from Corey's statements that he think the whole system (and by that, I mean EVERY system) is slanted toward the SEC. You can't win in an argument with someone who has such pretenses because no amount of available facts will sway their opinion. I don't see much difference here in what Corey's argument is with what MCG's arguments are with Big 10 supporters except perhaps Corey doesn't beat the dead horse quite as hard. I have no problem with Corey as a person and I have no problem arguing about the subject matter. That's why I come here to express my opinion and gather insight from other perspectives. I have no problem with good debate.
Aquila, imo there are massive differences between the two.....MCG suggests that all other conferences should kneel at the altar of the SEC and more specifically, the Big 10 sucks and that they are unworthy competitors! Corey is not at all saying that all other conferences should kneel before the PAC10 or that any other conference sucks.....he's just suggesting - in no uncertain terms to be sure - that there is evidence to suggest that claims of SEC dominance and Big10/Pac10 suckage are spurious at best....and he's correct in that regard. Therein sits the elephant.....