How many SEC teams would beat Notre Dame

[BirdofPrey76 0]

42-14. It's quite obvious that the Irish turned back into a pumpkin well before midnight.

[aubfaninga 16]

Well, chalk me up as a "silly" one too then. Notre Lame had no business in that game. They certainly proved they weren't a TOP 2 team in the country. Oregon would have beaten them by three touchdowns. UGA and USC1 would have beaten them too.

me "silly" too!!!

BY the rules that we (the SEC) have agreed upon concerning the BCS, Notre Dame should have been in the title game. Most SEC football fans know that the Big 10 is struggling (trying to be nice), we already knew that the Pac is and has always been a 2 trick pony and their stallion has a broke leg, and we actually gave the Big 12 too much credit (based only off bowl games).

Notre Dame did not beat Stanford in my eyes but they have the W in the record book. Good solid wins over Oklahoma and Michigan. Here is where you lose me if you think that what I saw in the NC game was a fluke.

1st off Texas A&M showed where Oklahoma stood and I believe that Alabama embarrassed Michigan.

Purdue at home by 3, BYU at home by 3, Pitt in OT at home by 3, and allowing USC to still be in the game late in the 4th qtr in the final game of the season.

Purdue had a 6-7 record and lost 58-14 in their bowl game.

BYU lost 5 games and never beat anyone with a pulse except Utah St.

Pitt was 6-7 and lost to Ole Miss 38-17

Hell, if USC had played in the Sunbelt confenernce they might not have been bowl eligible this year.

Nope, nope, nope!!! Notre Dame was undefeated and should have played in the NC. That's it!!! If I had a vote Notre Dame would be ranked 11th behind Clemson right now.

[aubfaninga 16]

Just for giggles let's swap Mizzou's schedule for Notre Dame in 2012...

W over Southeastern Louisiana

L to Georgia

W over Arizona St. (close)

L to South Carolina

W over UCF

W over Vandy (in overtime)

L to Alabama

W over kentucky

L to Florida

L to Tenn

W over Syracuse

L over Texas A&M

Imagine that! Notre Dame would have been a 6-6 team playing against Pitt in the BBVA Compass Bowl. Notre Dame wins this time by 10 points in regulation. SEC! SEC! SEC! (jk of course)

I guess the next fun question is would Auburn have more than 3 wins if they had played Notre Dames schedule?

[phillyeagle 149]

ND earned their way to the NCG by beating all of the teams in front of them. Their schedule was legit--not as tough as the SEC, but reasonable enough. There was no team more deserving to play in the NCG, including Bama. Now, once they got there, the matchup is a whole different story. ND did not prepare well, and they would have lost even if they had.

Remember that ND was the lowest-ranked 0-loss team throughout the season. So I would figure that they should be the lowest-ranked 1-loss team now, which is around 8-10 I believe.

[WarTim 3,463]

ND had no business even being there. None

[mcgufcm 4,107]

You're right. I think we should ignore every undefeated team in favor of teams with lesser accomplishments just because we think they aren't good enough. That makes perfect sense.

Also, you can't have it both ways. If Michigan sucks and Notre Dame doesn't get credit for that win, then I guess South Carolina sucks because they needed a score with 11 seconds just to get a win. I mean bowls are the best way to evaluate a team, right? I'm guessing if Carolina played in the Big 10 they would've been no better than a two loss team since they were so even with Big Blue, right? That's how it works isn't it?

[TheBlueVue 177]

You're right. I think we should ignore every undefeated team in favor of teams with lesser accomplishments just because we think they aren't good enough. That makes perfect sense.

Also, you can't have it both ways. If Michigan sucks and Notre Dame doesn't get credit for that win, then I guess South Carolina sucks because they needed a score with 11 seconds just to get a win. I mean bowls are the best way to evaluate a team, right? I'm guessing if Carolina played in the Big 10 they would've been no better than a two loss team since they were so even with Big Blue, right? That's how it works isn't it?

Obviously the BCS is not a perfect system, but, do you honestly think Notre Dame would beat Bama no matter how many times they played? I dont, in fact i dont believe they'd do one bit better regardless how many games those 2 teams played. They were vastly over matched! I think thats the point the poster was makng insofar as not deserving to be there. They essentially played a 2 game schedule..Stanford and Oklahoma. The rest were service academies, BC, Wake Forest etc etc. Seriously, I believe that ND team would've struggled putting together a .500 record had they played an SEC schedule.

[BirdofPrey76 0]

You're right. I think we should ignore every undefeated team in favor of teams with lesser accomplishments just because we think they aren't good enough. That makes perfect sense.

Also, you can't have it both ways. If Michigan sucks and Notre Dame doesn't get credit for that win, then I guess South Carolina sucks because they needed a score with 11 seconds just to get a win. I mean bowls are the best way to evaluate a team, right? I'm guessing if Carolina played in the Big 10 they would've been no better than a two loss team since they were so even with Big Blue, right? That's how it works isn't it?

Obviously the BCS is not a perfect system, but, do you honestly think Notre Dame would beat Bama no matter how many times they played? I dont, in fact i dont believe they'd do one bit better regardless how many games those 2 teams played. They were vastly over matched! I think thats the point the poster was makng insofar as not deserving to be there. They essentially played a 2 game schedule..Stanford and Oklahoma. The rest were service academies, BC, Wake Forest etc etc. Seriously, I believe that ND team would've struggled putting together a .500 record had they played an SEC schedule.

Good post. This is typical of ND every year. Media hype at its best.

[auburn4ever 1,266]

Oregon or Kansas State should have played uat. I think Oregon's spead would have given uat fits and warn them down fast. Just think back to uat looked and played against Texas A&M's hurry up offense. Bammer's defense was gassed mid way through the 2nd quarter.

[mcgufcm 4,107]

Except that Oregon beat no one all year, and you've all belittled the Big 12 so it's hard to say KState deserved a seat at the big boy table.

Seriously, before KState, who was Oregon's best win? Four loss Oregon State? They played NO ONE. No one. They did not have a single marquee win all season. It's nice to say, "I think Oregon would've done better." Great. Unfortunately, we had an entire season's worth of actual on-field accomplishments to consider, and there is not an objective person in the world that thinks Oregon did more to earn a spot in that game than Notre Dame. Not one person. Notre Dame beat the team that beat Oregon, which also happened to be the only top caliber team Oregon played all season.

Or maybe it's KState, right? At least they won their conference. Who was their best win? Oh, right, it was Oklahoma. The team Notre Dame waxed on the road. Notre Dame won the game by 17. KState? 5 points. You guys love margin of victory right? But only when it works to prove your point I guess. Means nothing here, right? Okay, who else did they beat? Four loss Texas, five loss Texas Tech, and six loss TCU and WVU. Is that more impressive than Notre Dame's wins over Stanford, Michigan, BYU, and USC? Of course not. Unless you're biased against Notre Dame. And I haven't even touched the fact that, unlike Notre Dame, KState got blown out by a Baylor team that went 7-5 in the regular season. It's impossible to look at those two resumes and think KState was more deserving than Notre Dame.

Do I think Notre Dame would beat Bama? In the regular season, yeah, I could see it. Bama showed up flater and less prepared multiple times this year. But given the layoff/time to prepare, MAYBE one out of ten times. Maybe. But you know what? None of that matters. None of that has a bearing on whether ND earned their spot in the game. They did. Without question or reservation. They were the MOST deserving team in the country. Then they got beat. I think Bama would've beaten Oregon or KState or UGA as well. They won because they were the best team in football. It happens. One game doesn't change the great season Notre Dame had or the accomplishments that earned their spot in the game.

[kingfish 73]

ND not only did not have any business being in the game, they would have been a 2nd tier SEC team in 2012.

[mcgufcm 4,107]

According to two ESPN writers (Brad Edwards and Travis Haney), the playoff this year would've been: (1) ND, (2) Alabama, (3) Florida, and (4) Stanford because the committee has been told to emphasize conference champs and strength of schedule.

That means the games would've been: ND v. Stanford and Alabama v. Florida (LINK)

Likely you would've seen the same championship game. Also, given the emphasis on conference titles and SOS, KState would've been in front of Oregon as well.

[auburn4ever 1,266]

If we end 2013 at 7-5 or 8-4, I'm hoping like everything that we'll face Notre Dame in some bowl game.

[phillyeagle 149]

You're right. I think we should ignore every undefeated team in favor of teams with lesser accomplishments just because we think they aren't good enough. That makes perfect sense.

Also, you can't have it both ways. If Michigan sucks and Notre Dame doesn't get credit for that win, then I guess South Carolina sucks because they needed a score with 11 seconds just to get a win. I mean bowls are the best way to evaluate a team, right? I'm guessing if Carolina played in the Big 10 they would've been no better than a two loss team since they were so even with Big Blue, right? That's how it works isn't it?

Obviously the BCS is not a perfect system, but, do you honestly think Notre Dame would beat Bama no matter how many times they played? I dont, in fact i dont believe they'd do one bit better regardless how many games those 2 teams played. They were vastly over matched! I think thats the point the poster was makng insofar as not deserving to be there. They essentially played a 2 game schedule..Stanford and Oklahoma. The rest were service academies, BC, Wake Forest etc etc. Seriously, I believe that ND team would've struggled putting together a .500 record had they played an SEC schedule.

Good post. This is typical of ND every year. Media hype at its best.

They were the lowest ranked undefeated team all season. If 2 teams from the SEC, Big 12, or PAC 12 had gone undefeated, ND would not have gone to the NCG. In fact, ND was unranked to start the year. That's the crappiest hype machine I've ever heard of.

Not every team can be in the SEC. If they're going to earn their way into the title game, they need to have the fewest wins with a reasonable schedule. Beating 2 top-10 teams and a bunch of other bowl teams is the toughest it could have been outside the SEC. And ND went undefeated, and were the only team to do so this year. It would have been completely unfair to leave them out of the NCG.

Now, I thought ND would lose to Bama by 3 TDs, but you know what? Every year when I do my bowl picks, there are about 10 games that look like blowouts. Then, I get 2 or 3 of those wrong. Bama vs ND was one of those games; UF vs Louisville was also. You just never know during the bowl season what might happen when the teams finally meet on the field. That's one of the things that make college football so fun to watch--the unpredictability.

[mcgufcm 4,107]

It'd be fun to play them, but there's basically no chance, right? The SEC doesn't have bowl ties to any game where ND might play. The last SEC teams to play them in bowl season are Bama (national title) and LSU (Fiesta Bowl). Takes more than 7-5 to land those games (unless you're in the Big East or something).

Serioulsly, it would be fun the play the Catholics, but it wouldn't prove anything about the 2012 season. Every year is completely and utterly distinct.

[AUgrad00 7]

You're right. I think we should ignore every undefeated team in favor of teams with lesser accomplishments just because we think they aren't good enough. That makes perfect sense.

Also, you can't have it both ways. If Michigan sucks and Notre Dame doesn't get credit for that win, then I guess South Carolina sucks because they needed a score with 11 seconds just to get a win. I mean bowls are the best way to evaluate a team, right? I'm guessing if Carolina played in the Big 10 they would've been no better than a two loss team since they were so even with Big Blue, right? That's how it works isn't it?

Wrong wrong wrong. A playoff facing the best of the best is the way to determine who is the best.

I also hate that everyone percieves if your simply undefeated your the best. F That. The NY Giants lost 7 games last year but at the end of the day they were the best team in football no question about it.

Alabama's road was EASY EASY to a championship. They took the field 14 times but only 4 of those were against anyone worth a crap. They didnt have to run the gauntlett of beating Oregon, then K State, Notre Dame then either UGA or Texas A&M to win a title.

[mcgufcm 4,107]

Well, this devolved into something other than what it was, but I disagree with the NFL system. It's fun. It's a truly enjoyable slate of games. I just don't think it defines the greatest team of a given season.

It provides the hottest team. It might even give you the team with the highest ceiling, i.e., the team with the best "A Game." But the NFL playoff unquestionably ignores two of the ways that we generally define greatness or the "best" at something: consistency and longevity.

For example, the Giants were a completely inconsistent team that proved itself incapable of playing motivated football week-in, week-out. Under the NFL playoff system, that's forgiven and completely forgotten. They unquestionably were NOT the best team in the NFL over the course of the long 16-game season, but they played their best against top competition and proved that, when motivated, they were the team with the highest ceiling. If that's how you define "best" that's okay with me. Personally, I think that's ONE factor but not the ONLY factor.

In 2007, the Giants won the Super Bowl, but in my opinion and the opinion of others, they were not the NFL's best team. That was the Patriots. The team that finished 19-1. The Giants were Super Bowl champs. No debate. And no one can take that away from them. They just weren't the best team in the NFL. That's a different statement.

I'm glad the college football playoff is four teams. The small field may exclude a worthy participant from time to time, but it will maintain the importance of consistency over a long season. The small playoff system will do a better job than the NFL playoff system (or the NBA or the new MLB system) at identifying the BEST team in college football.

Make no mistake about it, wildcards and expanded playoff fields have nothing to do with finding the best team. Those were created to increase the likelihood that a team in your market could make the playoffs. It keeps more fans engaged over the course of the season. THAT is what bigger playoff fields are about: money and popularity of the sport. Nothing else. In a playoff system focused only on identifying the best team, last year's Giants probably don't even make the field.

[C'viewTiger 242]

And just so you don't launch into the "you're crazy about the talent level!" thing. Please. Nix, Tuitt, Lewis-Moore, Teo, and Shembo are all going to have very, very long NFL careers (barring injury). At least 3 of those guys (Nix, Tuitt, and Teo) are going to be first/second round type of guys. They were loaded. They just got out-coached and out-played.

Unless you I was watching a different FL team the last 3 games of the season, I would remove them from the list. They got in a bowl but they didn't look like they belonged at all.

[gman87 405]

And just so you don't launch into the "you're crazy about the talent level!" thing. Please. Nix, Tuitt, Lewis-Moore, Teo, and Shembo are all going to have very, very long NFL careers (barring injury). At least 3 of those guys (Nix, Tuitt, and Teo) are going to be first/second round type of guys. They were loaded. They just got out-coached and out-played.

The front 7 doesn't mean jack if you can't cover anybody....and they couldn't.

[Dual-Threat Rigby 8,852]

A Florida/ND game score would be

ND - 13 UF - 6

[TheBlueVue 177]

I tell you what, I dont see any of the guys mentioned as being great NFL players. They ALL got eaten alive by Alabama and when they were in posiiton to make a play they could not make it...period. Notre Dames front seven is arguably the most over rated bunch Ive ever seen.

[doc4aday 1,887]

Saban had way too much time to put together a game plan. However, with that being said, I think GA, LSU, TAMU & USC would have done the deed as well. ND did win some quality wins in 2012, but overall, there were many SEC teams that would have given ND fits. Anyhow, no one knows, and that is the fun in speculating!

[mcgufcm 4,107]

Is the question could have or would have? I'll agree that all the top tier SEC teams could have beaten ND. I just don't think all of those teams would have beaten them. I maintain that's a team that would've been in the one- or two-loss crowd that included six SEC teams. None of those teams were capable of running the table against the SEC elite.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Is the question could have or would have? I'll agree that all the top tier SEC teams could have beaten ND. I just don't think all of those teams would have beaten them. I maintain that's a team that would've been in the one- or two-loss crowd that included six SEC teams. None of those teams were capable of running the table against the SEC elite.

Well we see things from a vastly different perspective. I dont know what you saw in ND because I watched that game and I personally didn't see much. They had a wonderful year playing Purdue, Boston College, Wake Forest, the Service Academies and did, on top of that, muster a couple quality wins.....even categorizing Oklahoma in the quality win group looks kinda funny after watching A&M romp them by 4 touchdowns. Honestly, I do not believe they'd do much better than 6 - 6 or 7 - 5 if they played an SEC schedule.

[AUgrad00 7]

Well, this devolved into something other than what it was, but I disagree with the NFL system. It's fun. It's a truly enjoyable slate of games. I just don't think it defines the greatest team of a given season.

It provides the hottest team. It might even give you the team with the highest ceiling, i.e., the team with the best "A Game." But the NFL playoff unquestionably ignores two of the ways that we generally define greatness or the "best" at something: consistency and longevity.

For example, the Giants were a completely inconsistent team that proved itself incapable of playing motivated football week-in, week-out. Under the NFL playoff system, that's forgiven and completely forgotten. They unquestionably were NOT the best team in the NFL over the course of the long 16-game season, but they played their best against top competition and proved that, when motivated, they were the team with the highest ceiling. If that's how you define "best" that's okay with me. Personally, I think that's ONE factor but not the ONLY factor.

In 2007, the Giants won the Super Bowl, but in my opinion and the opinion of others, they were not the NFL's best team. That was the Patriots. The team that finished 19-1. The Giants were Super Bowl champs. No debate. And no one can take that away from them. They just weren't the best team in the NFL. That's a different statement.

I'm glad the college football playoff is four teams. The small field may exclude a worthy participant from time to time, but it will maintain the importance of consistency over a long season. The small playoff system will do a better job than the NFL playoff system (or the NBA or the new MLB system) at identifying the BEST team in college football.

Make no mistake about it, wildcards and expanded playoff fields have nothing to do with finding the best team. Those were created to increase the likelihood that a team in your market could make the playoffs. It keeps more fans engaged over the course of the season. THAT is what bigger playoff fields are about: money and popularity of the sport. Nothing else. In a playoff system focused only on identifying the best team, last year's Giants probably don't even make the field.

Good post very good post but we can disagree a little. To me what I find so rewarding about the NFL is the FINALITY of the champion. At the end of the NFL season you never hear any debate or dispute. The team that won the Super Bowl is the best team in Football.

That said the following is why I like the NFL better:

1) The absensce of human bias. Opinion means nothing in the NFL. It carries weight in college. I hate that. A buddy told me you can "just tell" who the best team in college is. Again that is subjective. I dont want subjective I want absolutes.

2) A preset formula in determining who participates in the post season. You may be in week 10 in college have one loss and you have no idea what has to happen to get into the BCS title game. I hate that. In the NFL before you start week 1 you can tell your team hey guys if we win our division we get the opportunity to play to go to the Super Bowl. This is where I wish college had auto bids. Whether your in the Big East, the Mac or the SEC coaches could tell their guys hey guys if we win our conference we can play for a national title. Thats a hell of a lot better.

3) Location of games. The NFL doesnt outsource its postseason. They play games in home stadiums. Why the hell we cant play the post season on campus no freakin idea.

4) No Bowl games. If someone takes a step back the idea of a sports league ending the season with teams competing in exhibition games being held by third party business profiting at the expense of the league makes no sense. Yet we accept this in college on the name of "tradition". Outside of the Rose Bowl which is run by the Big Ten and Pac 10 if all Bowl games were abolished I wouldnt shed a tear.