How many SEC teams would beat Notre Dame

[TheBlueVue 177]

The Bowl participants and their respective leagues are handsomely rewarded for their participation...they are not conducted at the league's expense. If there wasn't SO MUCH money for the participants in the current arrangement, you can be sure the willingness to change it would be most assuredly there. As it is..its the college ADS and Administrators who are dictating how the collegiate post season is conducted, so, your analysis isn't that insightful there at the end.

[mcgufcm 4,107]

BlueVue, I'll tell you what I saw in Notre Dame. I saw a team play winning football week after week after week. I watched the USC game. I watched the BYU game. I watched the OU game. I watched the Stanford game. I saw a team that was consistently dominant against some pretty dang good offensive teams. You're basing your entire opinion of them on one game. I am not. I think that's the difference.

Again, if opinion is formed only by the bowl game, Florida is awful. South Carolina and Michigan are basically equal teams (giving greater weight to both Alabama and Notre Dame for beating them). MSU is a below average team in the Big 10. Ole Miss is an offensive juggernaut.

To me, it's silly to over-emphasize the importance of bowl games, even really important bowl games, in making a full evaluation of a team. Notre Dame unquestionably earned their spot in the title game, and Bama unquestionably earned their national title by beating the crap out of a deserving opponent.

[TheBlueVue 177]

BlueVue, I'll tell you what I saw in Notre Dame. I saw a team play winning football week after week after week. I watched the USC game. I watched the BYU game. I watched the OU game. I watched the Stanford game. I saw a team that was consistently dominant against some pretty dang good offensive teams. You're basing your entire opinion of them on one game. I am not. I think that's the difference.

Again, if opinion is formed only by the bowl game, Florida is awful. South Carolina and Michigan are basically equal teams (giving greater weight to both Alabama and Notre Dame for beating them). MSU is a below average team in the Big 10. Ole Miss is an offensive juggernaut.

To me, it's silly to over-emphasize the importance of bowl games, even really important bowl games, in making a full evaluation of a team. Notre Dame unquestionably earned their spot in the title game, and Bama unquestionably earned their national title by beating the crap out of a deserving opponent.

Uh, Florida was NOT playing in the BCS NC game but I do believe that both Louisville AND UF would've stomped the piss out of ND....6-6 if played a SEC schedule. Thats my story and you wont change it!

*** BYU was a 7 - 5 team that ND dominated at home by beating 17 - 14...please dude!

***Oklahoma was stomped by A&M by 4 touchdowns

Dominating? LOL Did you watch the Boston College(2-10) or Wake Forest or Purdue or the Service Academy games? LMAO

How 'bout Pitt...6 -6 team that ND dominated at home by needing 3 OTs to beat them..or Miami another 7 - 5 team that barely beat Duke

[mcgufcm 4,107]

Holding BYU to 14 and Oklahoma to 13 and Miami to 3 and Stanford to 13. Yes, Notre Dame was consistently dominant on the defensive side of the ball.

The Pitt game was an anomaly. Are you measuring LSU by the 12-10 win against the worst Auburn team in 50 years? Are you measuring A&M by their narrow escape against La Tech? UF gets a pass for being blowout by Louisville? South Carolina isn't measured by its narrow win against horrible Tennessee?

Of course not. You're biased against Notre Dame. That's the only way to defend your position, and that's fine. I'm just pointing out the clear double standards. Any narrow win against an average team is proof that ND sucks. Any narrow win against an average (or in some cases drastically below average) team means nothing for a good SEC team. Got it. Getting blown out in a bowl game means ND sucks. Getting blown out in a bowl game has no bearing on the quality of the SEC team. Check.

You can claim they'd be 6-6 in SEC. No one can ever prove you wrong, and you can never prove you're right. It's a comfortable place to make undebatable claims. What you cannot do, is point to ANY TEAM in ANY CONFERENCE that had a better resume than Notre Dame at the end of the regular season. That's why they deserved to play for the title.

[kingfish 73]

Georgia and LSU both were better teams without question than ND and were more deserving of the title game to name two.

[mcgufcm 4,107]

Based on what? Elite losses?

LSU's elite wins (9-win or Top 15 teams): Texas A&M (10-2) and South Carolina (10-2)

LSU's bowl eligible wins: MSU (8-4), Washington (7-5), and Ole Miss (6-6)

LSU's losses: Alabama and Florida

Georgia's elite wins: Florida (11-1)

Georgia's bowl eligible wins: Vanderbilt (8-4), Georgia Tech (6-7 before bowl season), and Ole Miss (6-6)

Georgia's losses: South Carolina and Alabama

Notre Dame's elite wins: Stanford (11-2) and Oklahoma (10-2)

Notre Dame's bowl eligible wins: Michigan (8-4), BYU (7-5), USC (7-5), Miami (7-5), Michigan State (6-6), Pitt (6-6), and Purdue (6-6)

Notre Dame's losses: none

Yeah, I can see how UGA and LSU had better resumes... now where is that yellow font when you need it?

[TheBlueVue 177]

Based on what? Elite losses?

LSU's elite wins (9-win or Top 15 teams): Texas A&M (10-2) and South Carolina (10-2)

LSU's bowl eligible wins: MSU (8-4), Washington (7-5), and Ole Miss (6-6)

LSU's losses: Alabama and Florida

Georgia's elite wins: Florida (11-1)

Georgia's bowl eligible wins: Vanderbilt (8-4), Georgia Tech (6-7 before bowl season), and Ole Miss (6-6)

Georgia's losses: South Carolina and Alabama

Notre Dame's elite wins: Stanford (11-2) and Oklahoma (10-2)

Notre Dame's bowl eligible wins: Michigan (8-4), BYU (7-5), USC (7-5), Miami (7-5), Michigan State (6-6), Pitt (6-6), and Purdue (6-6)

Notre Dame's losses: none

Yeah, I can see how UGA and LSU had better resumes... now where is that yellow font when you need it?

Based on what? Elite losses?

LSU's elite wins (9-win or Top 15 teams): Texas A&M (10-2) and South Carolina (10-2)

LSU's bowl eligible wins: MSU (8-4), Washington (7-5), and Ole Miss (6-6)

LSU's losses: Alabama and Florida

Georgia's elite wins: Florida (11-1)

Georgia's bowl eligible wins: Vanderbilt (8-4), Georgia Tech (6-7 before bowl season), and Ole Miss (6-6)

Georgia's losses: South Carolina and Alabama

Notre Dame's elite wins: Stanford (11-2) and Oklahoma (10-2)

Notre Dame's bowl eligible wins: Michigan (8-4), BYU (7-5), USC (7-5), Miami (7-5), Michigan State (6-6), Pitt (6-6), and Purdue (6-6)

Notre Dame's losses: none

Yeah, I can see how UGA and LSU had better resumes... now where is that yellow font when you need it?

None of that stuff matters. Notre Dame was pathetic, is pathetic and based on their play didn't deserved to be in that BCS NC game. Texas A & M woud've crushed them into oblivion as would LSU andUGa.....I think Vanderbilt waxes their ass and theres no doubt in my mind that Florida would crush them. Ole Miss and MSU would probably beat them and probably Arkansas would too. So, in my mind Notre Dame would've been about the 9th best team in the SEC. Forget about their resume..its a paper lion. Once you study their schedule and see what a bunch of patsies that they squeaked by against at home, no less, most rational fans see through the hype. You're either Catholic or a closet ND fan or both..not that theres anything wrong with that but please give it a rest. They SUCK!

[mcgufcm 4,107]

WHY PLAY THE F'ING GAMES IF YOU DON'T THINK THE ACTUAL SEASON MATTERS!!!!!!!!

For the record, I was raised Baptist, was confirmed Methodist, did mission work for a non-denominational organization, and am now a member of a Presbyterian church. I'm basically anything except a Catholic, and I've never really cared about ND.

I just can't stand the whole mindset that says, at the end of the season, the "eye test" matters more than what has actually happened! It's absurd. The nonsense you're using to argue against Notre Dame is the ENTIRE reason Auburn was excluded in 2004. The ENTIRE reason. People thought Oklahoma and USC "looked" better, and it didn't matter than Auburn had more solid wins. Irrelevant. Looks are all that matter, right?

At the end of the season, the ONLY THING that matters is what a team has actually done. Period. I don't care if A&M could beat ND. I only care if A&M accomplished more (past tense). If not, screw 'em. Win more games. Notre Dame had the best resume in college football going into the bowl season. Any argument to the contrary is really just silly bias.

[TheBlueVue 177]

WHY PLAY THE F'ING GAMES IF YOU DON'T THINK THE ACTUAL SEASON MATTERS!!!!!!!!

For the record, I was raised Baptist, was confirmed Methodist, did mission work for a non-denominational organization, and am now a member of a Presbyterian church. I'm basically anything except a Catholic, and I've never really cared about ND.

I just can't stand the whole mindset that says, at the end of the season, the "eye test" matters more than what has actually happened! It's absurd. The nonsense you're using to argue against Notre Dame is the ENTIRE reason Auburn was excluded in 2004. The ENTIRE reason. People thought Oklahoma and USC "looked" better, and it didn't matter than Auburn had more solid wins. Irrelevant. Looks are all that matter, right?

At the end of the season, the ONLY THING that matters is what a team has actually done. Period. I don't care if A&M could beat ND. I only care if A&M accomplished more (past tense). If not, screw 'em. Win more games. Notre Dame had the best resume in college football going into the bowl season. Any argument to the contrary is really just silly bias.

WHY PLAY THE F'ING GAMES IF YOU DON'T THINK THE ACTUAL SEASON MATTERS!!!!!!!!

For the record, I was raised Baptist, was confirmed Methodist, did mission work for a non-denominational organization, and am now a member of a Presbyterian church. I'm basically anything except a Catholic, and I've never really cared about ND.

I just can't stand the whole mindset that says, at the end of the season, the "eye test" matters more than what has actually happened! It's absurd. The nonsense you're using to argue against Notre Dame is the ENTIRE reason Auburn was excluded in 2004. The ENTIRE reason. People thought Oklahoma and USC "looked" better, and it didn't matter than Auburn had more solid wins. Irrelevant. Looks are all that matter, right?

At the end of the season, the ONLY THING that matters is what a team has actually done. Period. I don't care if A&M could beat ND. I only care if A&M accomplished more (past tense). If not, screw 'em. Win more games. Notre Dame had the best resume in college football going into the bowl season. Any argument to the contrary is really just silly bias.

probably a pretty good reason nobody won more games because not everybody got to play the weak ass line up of opponents Notre Dame played..many of which Notre Dame was blind lucky to beat. Like the big ole come from behind 3OT victory AT HOME over 6 -6 Pitt who Ole Miss waxed in their Bowl game.

[kingfish 73]

Georgia and LSU both were better teams without question than ND and were more deserving of the title game to name two.

I inadvertently left off TAM.

[mcgufcm 4,107]

A&M elite wins: Alabama and La Tech (no bowl game due to athletic department incompetence)

A&M bowl eligible wins: MSU (8-4) and Ole Miss (6-6)

A&M losses: Florida and LSU

Again, basically impossible to say that resume stacks up to Notre Dame's.

Okay, I'm good here. I've proven my point. BlueVue has resorted to "they play a weak schedule!" even though they had the same number (or more) elite wins as any SEC team, and he used my favorite "they're bad because I saw them play one game and I say they're bad" argument. Meanwhile kingfish is proposing the SEC be the only conference invited to the title game and suggesting that teams with demonstrably inferior resumes were, in fact, more deserving. Likely based on the same "because I think they look good" argument as BlueVue. Nothing more to be gained so I'm out.

[kingfish 73]

A&M elite wins: Alabama and La Tech (no bowl game due to athletic department incompetence)

A&M bowl eligible wins: MSU (8-4) and Ole Miss (6-6)

A&M losses: Florida and LSU

Again, basically impossible to say that resume stacks up to Notre Dame's.

Okay, I'm good here. I've proven my point. BlueVue has resorted to "they play a weak schedule!" even though they had the same number (or more) elite wins as any SEC team, and he used my favorite "they're bad because I saw them play one game and I say they're bad" argument. Meanwhile kingfish is proposing the SEC be the only conference invited to the title game and suggesting that teams with demonstrably inferior resumes were, in fact, more deserving. Likely based on the same "because I think they look good" argument as BlueVue. Nothing more to be gained so I'm out.

Basically having wins over recognizably weaker opponents with winning records does NOT constitute a quality win in my book. It is a far better win to beat TAM, LSU, or GA with losses on their records than to beat other teams who have established their records against greatly inferior opposition.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Good thing you gave up on trying to defend the indefensible which is...Notre dame was an over hype paper lion who was lucky as hayul to beat half the patsies on their schedule.6 -6 at best if the played an SEC schedule

[jj3jordan 2,125]

If Notre Dame played 8 regular season SEC games, they would be 5-3 at best. And if they had to every year it would go downhill from there.

[IronMan70 3,315]

After watching the BCS game last night, I believe the top six teams in the SEC would beat. What say you?

How many SEC teams would beat Notre Dame ? All of them.

[AUgrad00 7]

WHY PLAY THE F'ING GAMES IF YOU DON'T THINK THE ACTUAL SEASON MATTERS!!!!!!!!

For the record, I was raised Baptist, was confirmed Methodist, did mission work for a non-denominational organization, and am now a member of a Presbyterian church. I'm basically anything except a Catholic, and I've never really cared about ND.

I just can't stand the whole mindset that says, at the end of the season, the "eye test" matters more than what has actually happened! It's absurd. The nonsense you're using to argue against Notre Dame is the ENTIRE reason Auburn was excluded in 2004. The ENTIRE reason. People thought Oklahoma and USC "looked" better, and it didn't matter than Auburn had more solid wins. Irrelevant. Looks are all that matter, right?

At the end of the season, the ONLY THING that matters is what a team has actually done. Period. I don't care if A&M could beat ND. I only care if A&M accomplished more (past tense). If not, screw 'em. Win more games. Notre Dame had the best resume in college football going into the bowl season. Any argument to the contrary is really just silly bias.

I dont get this post at all. Just because Notre Dame was undefeated does NOT make them better then Texas A&M. Again we reward record not merit. The assumption that a team is undefeated thus that makes them the best team is simply crap.

As for the eye test there is one way to get rid of the damn eye test go do what the NFL does. That is the best solution.

This is the biggest problem with college football we continue to argue on the best solution but nobody wants to embrace a solution that remove's human bias.

The NFL has it right. Oh and for you myopians out there screaming about college football bowl games the NFL playoffs absolutely have crapped on the bowl season. Yes that Denver v Baltimore game was more entertaining then the Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl game.

[phillyeagle 149]

Good thing you gave up on trying to defend the indefensible which is...Notre dame was an over hype paper lion who was lucky as hayul to beat half the patsies on their schedule.6 -6 at best if the played an SEC schedule

Dude, you're the one making that argument. Nice to hear that you know it's indefensible.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Good thing you gave up on trying to defend the indefensible which is...Notre dame was an over hype paper lion who was lucky as hayul to beat half the patsies on their schedule.6 -6 at best if the played an SEC schedule

Dude, you're the one making that argument. Nice to hear that you know it's indefensible.

After watching Alabama utterly dismantle a vastly out manned Notre Dame team....theres really no argument to make other then arguing that probably 9 SEC teams could've and would've beaten those over rated imposters.

[phillyeagle 149]

Good thing you gave up on trying to defend the indefensible which is...Notre dame was an over hype paper lion who was lucky as hayul to beat half the patsies on their schedule.6 -6 at best if the played an SEC schedule

Dude, you're the one making that argument. Nice to hear that you know it's indefensible.

After watching Alabama utterly dismantle a vastly out manned Notre Dame team....theres really no argument to make other then arguing that probably 9 SEC teams could've and would've beaten those over rated imposters.

That day, sure. But you're trying to project ND's worst performance onto the rest of their season, and it doesn't fit with what they accomplished throughout the year. How many teams would have beat UF on Jan. 2? Or UGA on Oct. 6?

[TheBlueVue 177]

Good thing you gave up on trying to defend the indefensible which is...Notre dame was an over hype paper lion who was lucky as hayul to beat half the patsies on their schedule.6 -6 at best if the played an SEC schedule

Dude, you're the one making that argument. Nice to hear that you know it's indefensible.

After watching Alabama utterly dismantle a vastly out manned Notre Dame team....theres really no argument to make other then arguing that probably 9 SEC teams could've and would've beaten those over rated imposters.

That day, sure. But you're trying to project ND's worst performance onto the rest of their season, and it doesn't fit with what they accomplished throughout the year. How many teams would have beat UF on Jan. 2? Or UGA on Oct. 6?

They accomplished what throughout the season? Sure, they had a couple quality wins but the rest of their schedule is full of nobodies most of which they got past by very close margins. Look, i dont think they were that good...you obviously do...no harm there just a difference of opinion. They had to come from way back at home to beat a 6 - 6 Pitt team in 3OTs...Ole Miss beat then like they caught 'em stealing something. Racking up wins against BYU, the Service Academies, BC, Wake Forest, Purdue does not make a team great. Go ahead and throw out the USC card...but dont forget that Georgia Tech rolled them and showed what they were made of..or OU who A&M just absolutely gutter stomped..so in the end you end up with a win over Stanfard...well hayul, no other team in America would've gotten the run out of that win like Notre Dame did but everyone saw what they had when the chips were on the table and it wasn't much...oh and to your question...neither UGa nor UF were playing in the NC game but I can guarantee you this...had they been there they wouldn't have gotten punked the way the Irish did

[aubfaninga 16]

I can say without a shadow of a doubt that I know of at least 1 SEC that would beat Notre Dame.

How has this thread survived so long on the Auburn football page?

[phillyeagle 149]

Good thing you gave up on trying to defend the indefensible which is...Notre dame was an over hype paper lion who was lucky as hayul to beat half the patsies on their schedule.6 -6 at best if the played an SEC schedule

Dude, you're the one making that argument. Nice to hear that you know it's indefensible.

After watching Alabama utterly dismantle a vastly out manned Notre Dame team....theres really no argument to make other then arguing that probably 9 SEC teams could've and would've beaten those over rated imposters.

That day, sure. But you're trying to project ND's worst performance onto the rest of their season, and it doesn't fit with what they accomplished throughout the year. How many teams would have beat UF on Jan. 2? Or UGA on Oct. 6?

They accomplished what throughout the season? Sure, they had a couple quality wins but the rest of their schedule is full of nobodies most of which they got past by very close margins. Look, i dont think they were that good...you obviously do...no harm there just a difference of opinion. They had to come from way back at home to beat a 6 - 6 Pitt team in 3OTs...Ole Miss beat then like they caught 'em stealing something. Racking up wins against BYU, the Service Academies, BC, Wake Forest, Purdue does not make a team great. Go ahead and throw out the USC card...but dont forget that Georgia Tech rolled them and showed what they were made of..or OU who A&M just absolutely gutter stomped..so in the end you end up with a win over Stanfard...well hayul, no other team in America would've gotten the run out of that win like Notre Dame did but everyone saw what they had when the chips were on the table and it wasn't much...oh and to your question...neither UGa nor UF were playing in the NC game but I can guarantee you this...had they been there they wouldn't have gotten punked the way the Irish did

UF got punked by Louisville on Jan 2. UGA got punked by USCe on Oct 6. ND was a top 10-15 team that had the ball bounce the right way for them to win all their games. They were overmatched against Bama, but they underperformed on top of it and got themselves blown out. They picked a bad time to play their worst game, but if you saw them play during the season you would know that they had a very good team that would have been competitive (but still likely lost, of course) if they played up to par.

Your 6-6 argument Is ridiculous--if they played like they did in the NCG for their whole season, they would have gone 6-6 against their own schedule.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Good thing you gave up on trying to defend the indefensible which is...Notre dame was an over hype paper lion who was lucky as hayul to beat half the patsies on their schedule.6 -6 at best if the played an SEC schedule

Dude, you're the one making that argument. Nice to hear that you know it's indefensible.

After watching Alabama utterly dismantle a vastly out manned Notre Dame team....theres really no argument to make other then arguing that probably 9 SEC teams could've and would've beaten those over rated imposters.

That day, sure. But you're trying to project ND's worst performance onto the rest of their season, and it doesn't fit with what they accomplished throughout the year. How many teams would have beat UF on Jan. 2? Or UGA on Oct. 6?

They accomplished what throughout the season? Sure, they had a couple quality wins but the rest of their schedule is full of nobodies most of which they got past by very close margins. Look, i dont think they were that good...you obviously do...no harm there just a difference of opinion. They had to come from way back at home to beat a 6 - 6 Pitt team in 3OTs...Ole Miss beat then like they caught 'em stealing something. Racking up wins against BYU, the Service Academies, BC, Wake Forest, Purdue does not make a team great. Go ahead and throw out the USC card...but dont forget that Georgia Tech rolled them and showed what they were made of..or OU who A&M just absolutely gutter stomped..so in the end you end up with a win over Stanfard...well hayul, no other team in America would've gotten the run out of that win like Notre Dame did but everyone saw what they had when the chips were on the table and it wasn't much...oh and to your question...neither UGa nor UF were playing in the NC game but I can guarantee you this...had they been there they wouldn't have gotten punked the way the Irish did

UF got punked by Louisville on Jan 2. UGA got punked by USCe on Oct 6. ND was a top 10-15 team that had the ball bounce the right way for them to win all their games. They were overmatched against Bama, but they underperformed on top of it and got themselves blown out. They picked a bad time to play their worst game, but if you saw them play during the season you would know that they had a very good team that would have been competitive (but still likely lost, of course) if they played up to par.

Your 6-6 argument Is ridiculous--if they played like they did in the NCG for their whole season, they would have gone 6-6 against their own schedule.

Excuse me but the fact IS..they did play like they did against Bama on multiple occasions. The difference was it was against titans like Pitt and BYU etc etc. What you saw against Alabama was what they were and you'd be wise to recognize that the biggest reason for Notre Dame looking so badly in the BCS NC game was ALABAMA. A decent team doesn't need 3 OTs to beat Pitt in South Bend..or barely get past a 7 - 5 BYU team 17 - 14 in South Bend. Your arguments are all based on them beating a bunch of pathetic programs, which they did....BARELY!