Who's your pick for the Football National championship?

[Turbine]

I'll give you an example. At first glance, Oregon had a huge, 40-point bowl win over an undefeated ranked team. Extremely impressive until you see that the opponent was Liberty. Liberty and Oregon are not remotely of the same caliber.

If you have to grab a different team and a diferent game to make a point about Penix in a game he didn't play in I'm not sure your point is valid.

[JAB]

Well I know they’d at least beat one time on that list. And that team just happens to have the heisman

Maybe so. And when they lose the other two games, they would end up somewhere in the bottom or just outside of the top ten, nowhere in the playoff conversation.

[cajun4life]

Maybe so. And when they lose the other two games, they would end up somewhere in the bottom or just outside of the top ten, nowhere in the playoff conversation.

Why do LSU fans always discredit other teams when they would obviously destroy LSU?

[Turbine]

Your comment presumes that there's no basis for people valuing the SEC. If Washington had to play at least three of Ole Miss, Alabama, Georgia, LSU, Missouri, and Tennessee, there is approximately a 0% chance that they go undefeated this season.

Maybe they only lose one game. Maybe they lose two. But their season would suddenly look very different.

That is a SEClusive mindset.

We don't know how Washington would have faired this year. Every year is different.

Washington once went unbeaten for 64 straight games, another time they had 40 wins in a row.

No one can say how those teams would have done, but when people hold the SEC on a pedistal they are looking at historical context not necessarily the season at hand.

[JAB]

If you have to grab a different team and a diferent game to make a point about Penix in a game he didn't play in I'm not sure your point is valid.

If your point is that, generally speaking, there are no such things as lower tiers or higher tiers except that if you beat a team you are better than them, then my point is valid.

First, beating a team doesn't mean you are better than them. Second, if you can't admit that, as a general rule, certain conferences are of a higher caliber than others (i.e. lower tiers and higher tiers) then I don't know what to tell you.

[JAB]

That is a SEClusive mindset.

We don't know how Washington would have faired this year. Every year is different.

Washington once went unbeaten for 64 straight games, another time they had 40 wins in a row.

No one can say how those teams would have done, but when people hold the SEC on a pedistal they are looking at historical context not necessarily the season at hand.

I am talking about this season

[Turbine]

If your point is that, generally speaking, there are no such things as lower tiers or higher tiers except that if you beat a team you are better than them, then my point is valid.

First, beating a team doesn't mean you are better than them. Second, if you can't admit that, as a general rule, certain conferences are of a higher caliber than others (i.e. lower tiers and higher tiers) then I don't know what to tell you.

Of course there are conferences money can buy. How do you think Liberty did what they did this year?

Now they are and outlier and thier conference had nothing to do with their success this year, but on an individual team basis they implemented the slush fund model used by certain conferences overall.

Yes there are vast diferences in how conferences opperate, but year to year you cant use conference to denegrade a particular team like Washington.

[Turbine]

I am talking about this season

You can't make a claim what Washington would have done in the SEC this season.

To do so would be SEClusive.

[Turbine]

One thing I like looking at Michigan was their slow steady climb back from mediocrity.

Their refound success wasn't overnight.

I'll leave the early season scandals for someone else.

[gridiron]

Neither Liberty or FSU are as bad as their last game, but Michigan is as good as its last few.