Aw man, and I like Vanderbilt too.

Well Auburn just beat the shiat out of Virginia.

Big 12's having a pretty good bowl year so far, just sayin'.

Adolf Oliver Nipples: 2wolves: You should be very proud of your unpaid NFL farm teams.

Unpaid? Right.

Dude, SEC players make more than you do.

They do seem to drive really nice cars in tuscaloosa. I've been working my ass off for years & still can't afford the kind of vehicles some of the Tide players roll in.

Sick Old Farker: Adolf Oliver Nipples: 2wolves: You should be very proud of your unpaid NFL farm teams.

Unpaid? Right.

Dude, SEC players make more than you do.

They do seem to drive really nice cars in tuscaloosa. I've been working my ass off for years & still can't afford the kind of vehicles some of the Tide players roll in.

Here's the difference, however. They own those cars about as much as you do. Once their playing days are over, they will have to return it & drive a hyundai or a kia like so many of us.

/drives a 2008 Hyundai tiburon

Our poor black kids are better at football than your poor black kids! Yeeehaww.

Can the mods just condense the threads down to one "Duuuurrrrh, told you SEC sucks" thread instead of one when/if more SEC teams lose?

Your conference hate is just as pathetic as the morons chanting "SEC, SEC, SEC" at games.

Vandy is there to keep up the conference GPA.

35 Bowl Games seems way to many. UCLA played a Bowl Game today and their record before the game even started was 6-7.

You can't have teams that are 6-5, 6-6, 6-7 playing Bowl Games. Cut the number of Bowls to 20. It's hard to argue that after about the top 40 teams there are many programs deserving to play in a Bowl in any given year.

This must be in error, I have been assured that even the worst SEC team can beat an NFL team without breaking a sweat. Don't worry, they will fix the score to properly reflect the fact that Vanderbuilt was giving up touchdowns as charity.

devioustrevor: 35 Bowl Games seems way to many. UCLA played a Bowl Game today and their record before the game even started was 6-7.

UCLA had to play an extra game against Oregon for farks sake. It's hardly as if that extra loss came from a nobody team. They would have been bowl eligible but for the wierdness in the PAC-12 putting them in the conference championship game. That said, they shouldn't have applied for the bowl waiver. That team had no business trying extend their season in light of all the suck.

devioustrevor: You can't have teams that are 6-5, 6-6, 6-7 playing Bowl Games

Actually UCLA had to get a waiver to play in a bowl game. The normal minimum record is 6-6 and nominally you can't have a losing record, which is why UCLA needed the waiver.

I'm a casual fan of Cinci and was glad to see them win. I was, however, unhappy to see Vandy lose because the perennial bottom-of-the-barrel SEC team is now the rallying cry for every dumbass like Subtard with irrational SEC hate.

Vanderbilt is the nerdy kid the jock frat lets in to do everyone's homework

devioustrevor: 35 Bowl Games seems way to many. UCLA played a Bowl Game today and their record before the game even started was 6-7.

You can't have teams that are 6-5, 6-6, 6-7 playing Bowl Games. Cut the number of Bowls to 20. It's hard to argue that after about the top 40 teams there are many programs deserving to play in a Bowl in any given year.

Who cares? Why should we limit the number of bowl games? Are we being forced to watch them? The kids get to go to someplace different. They fans and alumni get a little vacation.

Why do you have to drain the fun out of everything?

Picking Vandy as an exemplar of the SEC is like picking Ohio State as an exemplar of the Big Ten.

Maybe they should have gone with the C-USA champion instead of jumping for their alternate tie in for the 9th best team in a conference.

12349876: Well Auburn just beat the shiat out of Virginia.

You mean Auburn's special teams beat the shiat out of Virginia. Jesus Christ, I ain't ever seen such a disparity in special teams before, that was all 16 points of the difference between 'em.

Chupacabra Sandwich: Komplex: devioustrevor: 35 Bowl Games seems way to many. UCLA played a Bowl Game today and their record before the game even started was 6-7.

You can't have teams that are 6-5, 6-6, 6-7 playing Bowl Games. Cut the number of Bowls to 20. It's hard to argue that after about the top 40 teams there are many programs deserving to play in a Bowl in any given year.

Who cares? Why should we limit the number of bowl games? Are we being forced to watch them? The kids get to go to someplace different. They fans and alumni get a little vacation.

Why do you have to drain the fun out of everything?

This. Why the hell does anyone care? I love watching football. 35 games involving two .500 plus teams is heaven. I can't imagine a football "fan" complaining that there are "too many" bowl games.

I think there are three problems with all the bowl games:
1) They're running out of decent names for bowl games - half of them now are just corporate sponsor names.
2) Some of them are played in bad locations, like the New Era Pinstripe Bowl in Yankee Stadium (football in a baseball stadium is never that good), or the Famous Idaho Potato Bowl played in Boise, Idaho.
3) Apparently the networks don't care about the games either - only 4 of the 35 bowl games are NOT on ESPN, ESPN2 or ESPNU. Most people do have cable now, unlike 10-15 years ago, but its still a little ridiculous. I guess the advantage is that there are basically never 2 games on at the same time, and the main networks are more focused on NFL games anyway.

All that being said, all of the schools involved in a bowl game do get bonus money paid to the school, so it is to their benefit to have more bowl games available.

UNC_Samurai: Maybe they should have gone with the C-USA champion instead of jumping for their alternate tie in for the 9th best team in a conference.

Well nobody from that school would have showed up.

ragekage: 12349876: Well Auburn just beat the shiat out of Virginia.

You mean Auburn's special teams beat the shiat out of Virginia. Jesus Christ, I ain't ever seen such a disparity in special teams before, that was all 16 points of the difference between 'em.

Yeah the game wasnt nearly that close, I really wanted Virginny to win this one

LeafyGreens: Picking Vandy as an exemplar of the SEC is like picking Ohio State as an exemplar of the Big Ten.

...you aren't due in hell until the Yankees win the pennant!

Rising_Zan_Samurai_Gunman: Chupacabra Sandwich: Komplex: devioustrevor: 35 Bowl Games seems way to many. UCLA played a Bowl Game today and their record before the game even started was 6-7.

You can't have teams that are 6-5, 6-6, 6-7 playing Bowl Games. Cut the number of Bowls to 20. It's hard to argue that after about the top 40 teams there are many programs deserving to play in a Bowl in any given year.

Who cares? Why should we limit the number of bowl games? Are we being forced to watch them? The kids get to go to someplace different. They fans and alumni get a little vacation.

Why do you have to drain the fun out of everything?

This. Why the hell does anyone care? I love watching football. 35 games involving two .500 plus teams is heaven. I can't imagine a football "fan" complaining that there are "too many" bowl games.

I think there are three problems with all the bowl games:
1) They're running out of decent names for bowl games - half of them now are just corporate sponsor names.
2) Some of them are played in bad locations, like the New Era Pinstripe Bowl in Yankee Stadium (football in a baseball stadium is never that good), or the Famous Idaho Potato Bowl played in Boise, Idaho.
3) Apparently the networks don't care about the games either - only 4 of the 35 bowl games are NOT on ESPN, ESPN2 or ESPNU. Most people do have cable now, unlike 10-15 years ago, but its still a little ridiculous. I guess the advantage is that there are basically never 2 games on at the same time, and the main networks are more focused on NFL games anyway.

All that being said, all of the schools involved in a bowl game do get bonus money paid to the school, so it is to their benefit to have more bowl games available.

Actually for a lot of the minor bowl games, the schools actually lose money going to them. They just consider it such an advantage to get the extra practices/some recruiting exposure, that they consider it somewhat worthwhile. But if the bowl field is that diluted, what recruiting exposure are they really getting?

McManus_brothers: LeafyGreens: Picking Vandy as an exemplar of the SEC is like picking Ohio State Illinois as an exemplar of the Big Ten.

FTFY. Usually inept, with the occasional decent year? This works much better.

Eh for football I'd choose northwestern (it's a lot more like Vandy in both size, academics, etc.), though they aren't as full of fail when it comes to basketball.

Vandy has more money than all of the other SEC schools put together. The school
administration just doesn't want to compete.

The 4th best team in the sec east almost beat a big east co-champion

duckpoopy: The 4th best team in the sec east almost beat a big east co-champion

duckpoopy: The 4th best team in the sec east almost beat a big east co-champion

lolwut? Vandy's 7th, at best, behind LSU, Bama, Arkansas, Auburn, SC, and GA.

duckpoopy: The 4th best team in the sec east almost beat a big east co-champion

4th best? They were something like 2-6 in conference. If anything, a conference doormat losing byjust 1 score to a conference power is yet even more proof to how good/superior SEC foootball is.

cendojr: duckpoopy: The 4th best team in the sec east almost beat a big east co-champion

lolwut? Vandy's 7th, at best, behind LSU, Bama, Arkansas, Auburn, SC, and GA.

Aren't LSU, Bama, Arkansas and Auburn all in the SEC WEST?

Great game last night, although Im questioning playing collaros the whole game. He played decent for 6 weeks after a broken ankle, but he wasn't nearly as mobile as he usually is.

Do the Mizzou and Texas A&M wins count for the SEC or Big 12?

lajotu: cendojr: duckpoopy: The 4th best team in the sec east almost beat a big east co-champion

lolwut? Vandy's 7th, at best, behind LSU, Bama, Arkansas, Auburn, SC, and GA.

Aren't LSU, Bama, Arkansas and Auburn all in the SEC WEST?

uksocal: Rising_Zan_Samurai_Gunman: Chupacabra Sandwich: Komplex: devioustrevor: 35 Bowl Games seems way to many. UCLA played a Bowl Game today and their record before the game even started was 6-7.

You can't have teams that are 6-5, 6-6, 6-7 playing Bowl Games. Cut the number of Bowls to 20. It's hard to argue that after about the top 40 teams there are many programs deserving to play in a Bowl in any given year.

Who cares? Why should we limit the number of bowl games? Are we being forced to watch them? The kids get to go to someplace different. They fans and alumni get a little vacation.

Why do you have to drain the fun out of everything?

This. Why the hell does anyone care? I love watching football. 35 games involving two .500 plus teams is heaven. I can't imagine a football "fan" complaining that there are "too many" bowl games.

I think there are three problems with all the bowl games:
1) They're running out of decent names for bowl games - half of them now are just corporate sponsor names.
2) Some of them are played in bad locations, like the New Era Pinstripe Bowl in Yankee Stadium (football in a baseball stadium is never that good), or the Famous Idaho Potato Bowl played in Boise, Idaho.
3) Apparently the networks don't care about the games either - only 4 of the 35 bowl games are NOT on ESPN, ESPN2 or ESPNU. Most people do have cable now, unlike 10-15 years ago, but its still a little ridiculous. I guess the advantage is that there are basically never 2 games on at the same time, and the main networks are more focused on NFL games anyway.

All that being said, all of the schools involved in a bowl game do get bonus money paid to the school, so it is to their benefit to have more bowl games available.

Actually for a lot of the minor bowl games, the schools actually lose money going to them. They just consider it such an advantage to get the extra practices/some recruiting exposure, that they consider it somewhat worthwhile. But if the bowl field is th ...

Hell, that goes most of the bowls, period. The Sugar Bowl, for example, has an 18 mil. total payout, but both of the schools involved are on the hook for like 15k tickets each, at a face-value of up to 250 dollars each. Add on to that the fact that the Sugar Bowl sure as hell isn't going to pay for your team's lodging (though they will require you to stay at a specific hotel for a specific number of days), and that the conferences all have revenue-sharing arrangements wherein the biggest bowl payouts get divvied up throughout the conferences, and any team--even those playing for the NC--is lucky to even break even.

uksocal: Rising_Zan_Samurai_Gunman: Chupacabra Sandwich: Komplex: devioustrevor: 35 Bowl Games seems way to many. UCLA played a Bowl Game today and their record before the game even started was 6-7.

You can't have teams that are 6-5, 6-6, 6-7 playing Bowl Games. Cut the number of Bowls to 20. It's hard to argue that after about the top 40 teams there are many programs deserving to play in a Bowl in any given year.

Who cares? Why should we limit the number of bowl games? Are we being forced to watch them? The kids get to go to someplace different. They fans and alumni get a little vacation.

Why do you have to drain the fun out of everything?

This. Why the hell does anyone care? I love watching football. 35 games involving two .500 plus teams is heaven. I can't imagine a football "fan" complaining that there are "too many" bowl games.

I think there are three problems with all the bowl games:
1) They're running out of decent names for bowl games - half of them now are just corporate sponsor names.
2) Some of them are played in bad locations, like the New Era Pinstripe Bowl in Yankee Stadium (football in a baseball stadium is never that good), or the Famous Idaho Potato Bowl played in Boise, Idaho.
3) Apparently the networks don't care about the games either - only 4 of the 35 bowl games are NOT on ESPN, ESPN2 or ESPNU. Most people do have cable now, unlike 10-15 years ago, but its still a little ridiculous. I guess the advantage is that there are basically never 2 games on at the same time, and the main networks are more focused on NFL games anyway.

All that being said, all of the schools involved in a bowl game do get bonus money paid to the school, so it is to their benefit to have more bowl games available.

Actually for a lot of the minor bowl games, the schools actually lose money going to them. They just consider it such an advantage to get the extra practices/some recruiting exposure, that they consider it somewhat worthwhile. But if the bowl field is th ...

My biggest objection to the bowl system is the bowl organizations that run them. It's one of the sleaziest institutions on earth, and they're walking away with millions of dollars every year that rightfully belong to colleges and universities. They buy off college presidents, ADs, and politicians (see: Sugar Bowl, Fiesta Bowl). The select schools to play in games knowing they won't turn down the chance at exposure on national TV, then sticking them with ticket allotments causing them to lose money.

I really wouldn't care how many bowls there were if we had some kind of a playoff. But these games, all but one of which are irrelevant to crowning a champion, are glorified out-of-conference games staged by bowl organizations that leech off the sport. Heck, most of the recent bowls were added just so ESPN could fill 3.5 hours of programming.

If you want to go on thinking bowls are an honor for teams and a reward for teams, that's fine. I think a better reward for players and fans would be to adopt a 16-team playoff with home sites for the higher seeds through the first three rounds, then a neutral-site championship game in some exotic locale.

And I don't watch most of the lesser bowl games, but some of us want a postseason with a little bit of integrity. I think college football deserves more than taking 70/120 teams and shipping them off to the likes of Boise, ID and Yankee Stadium in the middle of winter just so a bowl organization and ESPN can make a little $$$ off the sport.

TheGreatGazoo: Do the Mizzou and Texas A&M wins count for the SEC or Big 12?

In my world, they count for both.

In the semantic world of conference alignment, they count for the Big XII-2-2+1, since the two schools' moves don't take effect until July 1.

/work at one, went to the other
//SECRULZOMG

Vanderbilt's loss in a bowl game clearly means that LSU shouldn't be the #1 ranked team in the country.

Aar1012: Cheops: Vanderbilt's loss in a bowl game clearly means that LSU shouldn't be the #1 ranked team in the country.

What about that 'tough' SEC schedule that all SEC teams face?

You're absolutely correct. SEC teams just pencil in victories. It's all the other conferences that face REAL competition.

The time of possession and total yards were about even. Vandy had one more turnover and lost by one score. That strongly suggests that the teams are about even and from there one can conjecture that were Cincy in the SEC they'd be slightly better than Vandy, which is middle to low end of the pack. But in the Big East Cincy is second best. For the record I am a Hurricanes fan. We suck and so does the ACC so this isn't unadulterated SEC love from a fan of an SEC team. The SEC is just better than most other conferences right now. I wish it weren't so. I am an SEC hater, but more than that I am a fan of logic.

Tennessee is probably the worst team in the SEC right now, and they obliterated Cinci earlier in the year. No need to even discuss a fairly close Vandy game.