Wolverine247 Board

You must not have seen Vanderbilt use that SEC speed to destroy Northwestern earlier this season, as is always the case whenever an SEC team plays a B1G team.

yea just no way to compete with the sespeed, so sick of hearin that crap

Unfortunately alot of where people are currently ranked is dependent on the pre-season polls. As long as they dont lose, they maintain their positioning. They may get jumped by a team hear or there that had a big upset of a much higher ranked team, but until they lose they will remain relative to where they started the season.

LOL...you guys didn't know that SEC 4.4 speed is faster than B1G 4.4 speed?

The top of the SEC does traditionally fare well against OOC opponents, yes. But based on current perception, you'd think the entire conference is basically the ninth division of the NFL. Arkansas, Vandy, Kentucky, Ole Miss, etc regularly prove otherwise.

As for the speed thing, there are so many factors that play a key role in who wins or loses a game. Speed is one of them, but I disagree with those that say that that's the only difference. I never played in a game, and at the end of it, thought that we won or lost because we were faster or slower. There's just so much more that goes into it that I think it's an insult to the game when people act like that's the determining factor. The SEC is clearly better, but I don't think it's just because of an advantage in speed.

Also, what is speed? Is it 40 yard dash times? 100 times? Short bursts? Change of direction? Using the term speed is incredibly vague, because there are so many different components of it. All of those are important in football, and most players are much stronger in one area than in another.

Lastly, if there is a speed advantage among the defensive front seven's in the SEC compared to the B1G, a big reason why is the teams they play against, not that the players in that region are simply faster. The B1G has traditionally played old school football, where a defensive lineman is required to change the line of scrimmage on every play, and a linebacker needs to be able to pack a serious punch when taking on blocks from a fullback. In conferences that don't feature downhill running and/or a fullback nearly as much, it makes sense that the physicality of their players isn't as big of a priority. Therefore, they can afford to be a little lighter, which makes it easier to move around.

I agree the preseason and rankings are a joke. It will carry through out this season though. If Oregon or FSU slip we will be stuck with another all SEC championship game.
I'm not sure how teams are ranked for preseason but the SEC bias is what is the joke. Georgia and USCe are ranked 5 and 6. These are two teams that to me have not proven anything to be ranked were they are. Georgia lost at home basically, in the bowl game last year. Outside of Michigan, has the SEC played anyone besides themselves this year?

oh absolutely, everyone that comes to the B1G automatically loses .3 on their 40 time and is just a slow plodder that can't compete with the big boys. If by some craziness they do then obviously there must have been somethin the sec team did wrong. Just didn't utilize all their amazing speed the right way or something, complete joke how the media protrays it.

So much of the rankings is based on perception. And right now the perception is that the SEC is great. IMO, that's appropriate...but usually only for a couple teams. It's frustrating when people simply apply that perception to the entire conference. They justify it by pointing to one or two games where a bad team (e.g. Tennessee) plays a good team close. It's really a self-perpetuating cycle. At this point, the only thing that can break it is someone else winning the MNC...that's the first step.

Too bad they won't let anyone else even try to win it.

yea that figures, if a kid commits to the sec their 40 time is .3 faster and they're awesome

Exactly.

I think A&M deserves to be on the lower end of the top 25 after this week, Sumlin has had us rolling.

I've had a generally cynical view of college football rankings, BCS system, etc. for a little while. Only been compounded by finishing the book "Death to the BCS" tonight.

I've got so many issues with polls that I could go on for a while. First, I hate that the human polls start before the season. It's obvious to everyone that human polls are affected by preseason rankings. People are resistant to changing their preconceived perceptions of teams, so if Team A is ranked high to begin with, they get a lot more benefit of the doubt. And the people rarely watch all these teams play.

The computer polls are just ludicrous. Even the guys who run them criticize them (Sagarin, for one). Just so many issues with those and the fact that the NCAA and BCS themselves don't even know how they're calculated is unacceptable.

Frankly, I'm a stats guy and I've been thinking about a crude ranking system for a while (not enough spare time to put it into motion, though). I think that in general, teams can be ranked relatively accurately using stats. Just think that the computers now do it very poorly.