Here ya go, SECFAN - Fla/Louisville

That's a complete copout.  You have stated several times in this thread that UF was overranked.  The obvious corollary of that position is that other teams should be ranked above them.

No copout and you know it.  Again when the #3 ranked team gets beaten by the #21 ranked team especially in the last game of the year, they were ranked too high.  Had Nebraska been the #3 team under similar circustances and gotten beatne with a couple of late season close calls to unranked opponents, and surrered a losss during the regular season, you and I both know the Huskers would have been out of the top 10 after that kind of bowl loss. 

Sorry, but that's not "gotcha", that's supporting your argument.  If you can't do that, then you have none.  

It is a gotcha because you are changing the parameters of the debate (by deflecting).  My sole premise was that the SEC overall was not as strong as it's been in the past.  You cannot lay a disclaimer by saying Florida's loss (the second one by the way), was just "one game" anymore than saying their "close wins" were just one game. 

If you want to discuss what the "rankings" should have been start your own thread.    
 

No copout and you know it.  Again when the #3 ranked team gets beaten by the #21 ranked team especially in the last game of the year, they were ranked too high.  Had Nebraska been the #3 team under similar circustances and gotten beatne with a couple of late season close calls to unranked opponents, and surrered a losss during the regular season, you and I both know the Huskers would have been out of the top 10 after that kind of bowl loss. 

It is a gotcha because you are changing the parameters of the debate (by deflecting).  My sole premise was that the SEC overall was not as strong as it's been in the past.  You cannot lay a disclaimer by saying Florida's loss (the second one by the way), was just "one game" anymore than saying their "close wins" were just one game. 

If you want to discuss what the "rankings" should have been start your own thread.




Right.  UF was overranked, but you can't name one team that you believe should have been ranked above them.

That is the end of any argument or point you thought you were making.  You have nothing.  

Again when the #3 ranked team gets beaten by the #21 ranked team especially in the last game of the year, they were ranked too high.


That's thp point red.  The polls are not static and change game by game.  There is a big difference being ranked based upon the body of work at any point in time and the body of work after another round of games.  The polls change every week and the change has all to do with the games played. Nothing new about that.  Its worked that way since the inception of the polls.  

FLA earned the #3 ranking based on their regular season body of work.  They did NOT earn the #3 ranking AFTER the bowl games as a result of the loss to LOUIS and they fell in the rankings.

If what you say is true, was NEB ranked too high the year they lost to MIA in the 84 Orange Bowl?   

Sorry, but that's not "gotcha", that's supporting your argument.  If you can't do that, then you have none.   

It is a gotcha because you are changing the parameters of the debate (by deflecting).  My sole premise was that the SEC overall was not as strong as it's been in the past.  You cannot lay a disclaimer by saying Florida's loss (the second one by the way), was just "one game" anymore than saying their "close wins" were just one game.  

So the SEC "OVERALL" is not as strong as it has been in the past, based upon the fact that LSU and FLA lost their bowl games?

Nevermind the fact that ALA won the BCS NC game, 3 other top 10 SEC teams won their bowl games, the SEC ended up with 5 teams ranked I the top 10 and 2 other ranked teams.  Discounting the fact the SEC added 2 teams this year, please enlighten us as to how that constitutes being down?

If you want to discuss what the "rankings" should have been start your own thread.  

You are the only one talking about rankings red.  you brought up the fact that FLA was overranked and did NOT deserve their ranking.  You are the one that brought up the fact that it is rare that 2 top 10 ranked teams lost bowl games.  You are the one that brought up the fact that FLA played close games down the stretch and that should not happen to teams ranked as high as was FLA.

On the other hand, you choose to ignore the fact that the BIG 12 co-champs got destroyed in their bowl games.

You ignore the fact that the same thing happened to ND, and now you have the audacity to interject this comment about rankings?  

You choose to ignore points others have made, and lecture us to start our own thread. 

So the SEC "OVERALL" is not as strong as it has been in the past, based upon the fact that LSU and FLA lost their bowl games?

Nevermind the fact that ALA won the BCS NC game, 3 other top 10 SEC teams won their bowl games, the SEC ended up with 5 teams ranked I the top 10 and 2 other ranked teams.  Discounting the fact the SEC added 2 teams this year, please enlighten us as to how that constitutes being down?

Come on--who gives a crap that the SEC added two teams--at the time that it happened most people thought they were both going to be patsies.  So, let's get back to reality.  From the mid 90's to the early 2000's the Big 12 had a good run.  They were the dominant conference.  And the correlation between now and then with the SEC is quite similar.   The SEC has since taken over and yet even now the erosion is starting.  You still contend that only 2 of 6 SEC teams in the top 10  lost their bowl games.  Hey I agree but that's 1/3 of the teams.  And two of the usually "dominant" teams lost to lesser/weaker teams.  Why is that so hard to accept?  I also agree that the SEC still has the best team in the country (Ala.)  That doesn't mean that overall the conference isn't down/slipping.  That's all I'm sayiing.

Come on--who gives a c*** that the SEC added two teams--at the time that it happened most people thought they were both going to be patsies.  So, let's get back to reality.

That's not the point red.  You don't get it.  Adding 2 teams gives ANY conference more chances to get MORE teams ranked.  Get it?


The SEC has since taken over and yet even now the erosion is starting.  You still contend that only 2 of 6 SEC teams in the top 10  lost their bowl games.  Hey I agree but that's 1/3 of the teams. 


Are you serious?  First, what other conference had 6 teams ranked in the top 10.  That leaves 4 teams.  ND lost.  ORE won.  STAN won.  KAN ST lost.  When the dust settled, using your logic, we can say 100% of the BIG 12 teams ranked in the top 10 LOST.  We could also say 100% of the BIG 12 teams ranked in the top 11, LOST.


And two of the usually "dominant" teams lost to lesser/weaker teams.  Why is that so hard to accept?

It is easy to accept.  That does NOT mean that the SEC is down this year as you contend.  FLA has NOT been dominant since the 2009 season. Losing bowl games equate to a conference being down, especially given the fact that 4 other top 10 SEC teams won their bowl games, including ALA winning the BCS NC game.  

Does the fact that the B1G Champ, WIS and the B1G runner-up NEB losing their bowl games, mean the entire B1G is down?

Never mind?  The B1G is down.  Maybe you are on to something.



That doesn't mean that overall the conference isn't down/slipping.  That's all I'm sayiing.



Once again, other than your convoluted logic that the SEC is down because FLA and LSU lost, how in the world is the SEC down when compared to recent years?  More teams ranked in the top 10.  7 teams ranked overall, a 6-3 bowl record.  What recent year was better to put 2012 in the down/slipping category?


 

That's not the point red.  You don't get it.  Adding 2 teams gives ANY conference more chances to get MORE teams ranked.  Get it?


That's rich.  Teams are added because of TV demographics and recruitiing demographics.  I the SEC were adding two teams for more chances at ranked teams, they would not have added TAMU or Missouri 'cause neither was ranked the year before they enetered the SEC.

Are you serious?  First, what other conference had 6 teams ranked in the top 10.  That leaves 4 teams.  ND lost.  ORE won.  STAN won.  KAN ST lost.  When the dust settled, using your logic, we can say 100% of the BIG 12 teams ranked in the top 10 LOST.  We could also say 100% of the BIG 12 teams ranked in the top 11, LOST.

You're right that did leave four teams ranked in the top 10 which is exactly what should have been even before the bowl games--Psst that's been my point all along.  And we aren't talking about the BIG or the Big 12 so don't deflect---but in case you're wondering I agree.
 

And two of the usually "dominant" teams lost to lesser/weaker teams.  Why is that so hard to accept?

It is easy to accept.  That does NOT mean that the SEC is down this year as you contend.  FLA has NOT been dominant since the 2009 season. 

Man you really love sticking your foot in your mouth.  I agree Florida hasn't been dominant since 2009 and that is exactly why they had no business being ranked #3to begin with. 

Does the fact that the B1G Champ, WIS and the B1G runner-up NEB losing their bowl games, mean the entire B1G is down?

Reality check...the answer is a  resounding YES.  See?  Some fans of other conferences can be honest about their own conference as well as thier own team.

Once again, other than your convoluted logic that the SEC is down because FLA and LSU lost, how in the world is the SEC down when compared to recent years?  

Here's the thing--If two teams going into bowl games are similarily ranked and one loses say like Ala. vs. ND--Ala. won I have no issues with that.  Same goes for TAMU vs. Oklahoma.  Similarily ranked TAMU wins.  No problemo.  Then you had the two head scratcher bowl games  Georgia vs. Nebraska & South Carolina vs. Michigan--the say what bowls.  Did anyone seriously think Michigan OR Nebraksa was going to win?  Finally you have the last two--LSU vs Clemson & Florida vs Louisville.  The first two games evenly matched (ranking wise) and the SEC thumped both opponenets.  The next two games?  Even the oddsmakers in China didn't expect Michigan or Nebraska to win.  Now, the last two games?  They should have been gimme games for the SEC and it didn't happen.  And you want to know why I think the SEC was down this year?