CougarCorner
Sign in
Archived Topic

SEC Expansion to 16

by Mars · 6/4/2010

Advertisement
M
Mars


A recent article said that the SEC is looking at adding Texas and Texas A&M, and then 2 (if successful) or 4 (if unsuccessful) of: Florida State, Miami, Georgia Tech, and Clemson. None of the last 4 schools improve the SEC's TV markets much, but they do improve the football and basketball of one of the nation's top conferences. An athletic level which the rich, tv-heavy Big Ten can't claim to match before or after expansion.
C
Cougarbib
Yeah Mars - they are so tough down there in the SEC that Florida, with a 2010 schedule described as improved over last year in the review I just read last night, has 7 home games, 9 games all in the State of Florida and then travels to Bama once, and Tennessee (UT and Vandy) twice and that is it. If they only lose to Bama - well they are probably in the NC game against a fattened up Ohio State anyway. Every SEC team fattens up their record that way so that when they lose to each other they can claim it doesn't count becasue they are all so tough. Did I mention that their OOC games are all patsies exept 1 i.e. lower division. Maybe Florida and the other SEC teams ought to start playing home and away against teams in their same division and travel a time zone or 2 away so they have to deal with jet lag, before they claim so much supremacy.
L
Lawboy
I do not think the SEC neccesarily need to play 4 tough OOC games. I think 1 is fine, 1 average game, and 2 gimmies. And it is because the average SEC team still provides a strong challenge. I'd say that the SEC schedule is much tougher from top to bottom than about any other, and definitely tougher than the MWC. Until the bottom MWC teams improve more, it will continue to be this way.



I do wish Florida would venture out of the southeast, though. But it has been shown they do not need to to win the NC, so why would they?
C
Cougarbib
I am not suggesting that the SEC should play Texas every week for OOC. NOt even USC. Not even Arizona. Maybe they could stay in their own divisoin though, play 6 home games, and go 1 and 1 with Wyoming, Nevada, New Mexico, Hawaii, SMU, Houston, Tulsa, etc. Or if they just can't bear leaving the stae or the time zone, East Carolina, etc. It accomplishes 2 things. It maes other teams play a tougher schedule cuz they play SEC teams, which should knock out all the BSU, Utah, TCU, BYU teams from being undefeated - and prove SEC is supreme or thatit isnot. SEC does not want to play on a level field and willnot do this - otherwise they might look all too human. SEC OOC schedule in a recent article, was ranked 2nd to last of all conferences in this regard. If the bottom 4 of the MWC started playing 7 home games and rarely left the time zone, and scheduled 3 lower divisoin games, they would start to look pretty decent and then we wouldn't be beating cream puffs in Conference games, cuz thier records would be puffed up and they would look mediocre instead of horrible. PAC 10 plays a much tougher schedule than the SEC, and guess what - it makes them look weaker.
L
Lawboy
I would love for BYU to have 7 home games, wouldn't you? Only way that happens is if they schedule some dogs who want the game and payout and will come to us. And that is what Florida does because they can as the SEC schedule of teams allows them to. We already have 2-3 dogs in conference each year, so it is tougher. But if we want the tougher OOC games, we still have to go there half the time, while Florida can really call the shots because of those NC's and reputation--which they earned. So using Florida makes no sense--use Vandy or Kentucky or Miss State to make your case about the SEC, not Florida or Bama. What do those guys do?



As to your schedule argument, you just proved why the SEC plays weaker OOC games. What is their incentive to not? Currently, there is none.
Advertisement
B
BYUgrad03
I have a hard time believing that the Pac-10 overall is better than the SEC. Especially after they went 2-5 in their bowl games. The two wins were semi-close, with USC over BC, 24-13, and UCLA over Temple, 30-21. Not all that impressive if you ask me.
G
Guest
Lawboy wrote:
I do not think the SEC neccesarily need to play 4 tough OOC games. I think 1 is fine, 1 average game, and 2 gimmies. And it is because the average SEC team still provides a strong challenge. I'd say that the SEC schedule is much tougher from top to bottom than about any other, and definitely tougher than the MWC. Until the bottom MWC teams improve more, it will continue to be this way.



I do wish Florida would venture out of the southeast, though. But it has been shown they do not need to to win the NC, so why would they?


There is no way to prove that the SEC conference schedule is tougher than any other conference schedule as long as the SEC only plays each other and gimme games.



The only thing you can base that on is SOS which SEC teams will always have a strong SOS as long as reporters believe that playing another SEC team is more difficult. The fewer top teams from other conferences that any SEC team plays, the more likely that that SOS will be based solely on tradition than actual abilities. SOS is such a maddeningly circular statistic.
L
Lawboy
Well, I would just look at NC holders over the last 15 years then, and see that the SEC has had 7 of them, with 4 different teams capturing them. I would also look at bowl winning percentage as well, since bowl teams are a good indication as it is a good team vs. a good team, at worst. And once again, the SEC comes out on top.



I do think the SEC often gets too much credit because the bottom can be bad at times, but I also think that there is no denying it is the strongest conference, especially over the last 10 years, and especially at the top.
M
Mars
Lawboy wrote:
Well, I would just look at NC holders over the last 15 years then, and see that the SEC has had 7 of them, with 4 different teams capturing them. I would also look at bowl winning percentage as well, since bowl teams are a good indication as it is a good team vs. a good team, at worst. And once again, the SEC comes out on top.

And yet the MWC (plus Boise State) has a better BCS bowl winning percentage and recent overall bowl winning percentage than the SEC. MWC > SEC?



All stats are questionable. And the fact that the SEC feasts on weaker Big east, ACC, and Big Ten teams helps explain that. Seemingly frequent losses to Wyoming and blow-out butt-kicking by Utah (and a 1-point home win over Air Force) don't.
S
Schmoe
Lawboy wrote:
Well, I would just look at NC holders over the last 15 years then, and see that the SEC has had 7 of them, with 4 different teams capturing them.


All this really means is that the SEC champ won their bowl game, how many times in the last 15 years have other conference champs won their bowl games?
Advertisement
L
Lawboy
I'd put it at 50%, because typically, the conf champ is in a BCS bowl playing another conf champ, and one of them has to lose, right?
S
Schmoe
Lawboy wrote:
I'd put it at 50%, because typically, the conf champ is in a BCS bowl playing another conf champ, and one of them has to lose, right?


Yeah, ummm...I don't think you understood what I was saying. What percentage of bowl games has the MWC champ won in the conferences history? Compare that to the SEC conference in that same span, as well as the Big XII, the Big Ten, Big East, etc., etc., etc.,



Oh, and conference champs don't ALWAYS play against each other in BCS games, either, so that really doesn't work, anyway.
M
Mars
Schmoe wrote:
What percentage of bowl games has the MWC champ won in the conferences history? Compare that to the SEC conference in that same span, as well as the Big XII, the Big Ten, Big East, etc., etc., etc.,

The SWC champ lost its last 8 bowl games. Does that help?
L
Lawboy
OK, but why would you just compare the conference champ as the sample? Isn't that rather small, and does not point to depth, which was the point of the argument anyway? Overall conference performance does matter. And if you go back over 12 years, the MWC sort of sucks. It really is just the last 5-6 years, and actually the last 2 where the conference is starting to matter. Emerging for sure, but not a historical power by a long shot. Which is why the next 2 years are vital. Have to show can do it over time, not just in a short span. The SEC has done it over time the last 15 years the best.
S
Schmoe
Lawboy wrote:
OK, but why would you just compare the conference champ as the sample? Isn't that rather small, and does not point to depth, which was the point of the argument anyway? Overall conference performance does matter. And if you go back over 12 years, the MWC sort of sucks. It really is just the last 5-6 years, and actually the last 2 where the conference is starting to matter. Emerging for sure, but not a historical power by a long shot. Which is why the next 2 years are vital. Have to show can do it over time, not just in a short span. The SEC has done it over time the last 15 years the best.


Because it's the SEC conference champ who always plays in the championship game. It has nothing to do with other teams, depth, etc. It has to do with the untested perception that the SEC is the best conference and so their champ always gets put in the BCS championship game and therefore only has to win that to be crowned the champs. This was your argument, that they had won more BCS championships, but the logic is totally circular.
Advertisement
C
Cougarbib
It is circular....and the good ole boys are pretty rich and pretty smart....and the kids out west are naive enough to keep taking the bait when the good ole boys back east criticize our schedules. So instead of building up our programs and our conferrence - MWC teams cross multiple time zones, give 2 fer 1s or none fer 1s, and rollover while playing jet-lagged. Notice the MWC fares a little better when playing the PAC 10 just 1 time zone or no time zones away.



I am not saying the MWC is better than the PAC 10, or that the PAC 10 is better than the SEC - I am saying some of those differences are exaggerated becasue MWC and PAC 10 teams lose too many OOC games. You can't lose too many in-conference games because it ends up 500 no matter who wins them. But we lose too many OOC games and consistently give it away rolling over for money games or worse than that, taking sucker games when the good ole boys - who will not risk playing the MWC on a level playing field - call us out.



Even the SEC goes 500 in conference. But then they fatten up their records OOC with extra home games, never leaving the state, and playing lower division teams. You can't even schedule a lower division team anymore because they are all booked playing the SEC, Big 12, and Big 10 in that order.



Now - and this scares the crap out of me to say this, because MARS might agree with me on this point - u throw BSU in the mix in the MWC, and then chart the course BYU would need to survive in a typical season to even get to a BCS game, let alone a 50/50 shot at a NC win, and Florida would have an easier path to the NC game than BYU even getting a BCS Bowl bid.



Pretend BSU was in the conference this year -



BCS Bowl Opponent - Top 10 team

BSU - Top 10 team

TCU - Top 10 team

Florida State - on the road 2 time zones away

Utah - Top 25 team

UW - Heisman QB candidate and most of the team returning

Air Force - Top 30 team

Nevada

Wyoming

CSU

SDSU

UNLV

USU

New Mexico



You would actually toss out the USU or Nevada game cuz we wouldn't have 4 OOC games. And BYU would have a rough go and only by going undefeated - would BYU get a BCS bowl and if they kicked Alabama's crap like Utah did, they could get a #2 consolation prize.



Now Florida, only leaving its home field 5 times, and only leaving Florida 3 times, could lose to Alabama on the road, and as long as they beat Tennesse and Vanderbilt on the road - they are probably in the NC game playing Ohio State which is usually a gimme. Or, otherwise, Alabama with a fattened up schedule gets in the NC instead. And don't forget LSU getting in with 2 losses.



B 4 one of you points out that Ole MIss who kicked Florida's crap on their home field recently, iirc, is superior to New Mexico - they probably are - but Florida doesn't have to beat them by 50 to get into the NC game - they just have to beat them. THe real issue shouldnot be wose gimmes are easier than someone elses gimmes. It should be HOW MANY TIMES DOES A TEAM HAVE TO GO ON THE ROAD AND BEAT A TEAM THAT IS ROUGHLY THEIR EQUAL OR MAYBE EVEN SUPERIOR and especially if they have to do so jet-lagged.



So invite the Donkeys - but get a couple more decent teams ASAP and split into two divisions, and don't have the top teams all play each other until the conf championship.



U can't win an NC unless u get to play in the NC game. The field is tilted and the cards are stacked against BYU, Utah, TCU, or BSU ever having that happen. Hopefully, this will be the year.



But when u put the U, BYU, TCU, BSU, and AFA all in one conference - they will start beating each other up and nobody will be undefeated and then the MWC looks weaker - because it got tougher unless u go to 12 teams.



The SEC learned fast after they formed their "SUPER CONFERENCE". They started beating each other up and didn't look super and tems were not bowl eligible all of a sudden and nobody was going undefeated. So then the scheduling down on OOC games started and by playing a much weaker schedule OOC, the conference started looking unbeatable again.
G
GolfDiveNCougs
Cougarbib2 wrote:
It is circular....and the good ole boys are pretty rich and pretty smart....and the kids out west are naive enough to keep taking the bait when the good ole boys back east criticize our schedules. So instead of building up our programs and our conferrence - MWC teams cross multiple time zones, give 2 fer 1s or none fer 1s, and rollover while playing jet-lagged. Notice the MWC fares a little better when playing the PAC 10 just 1 time zone or no time zones away.



I am not saying the MWC is better than the PAC 10, or that the PAC 10 is better than the SEC - I am saying some of those differences are exaggerated becasue MWC and PAC 10 teams lose too many OOC games. You can't lose too many in-conference games because it ends up 500 no matter who wins them. But we lose too many OOC games and consistently give it away rolling over for money games or worse than that, taking sucker games when the good ole boys - who will not risk playing the MWC on a level playing field - call us out.



Even the SEC goes 500 in conference. But then they fatten up their records OOC with extra home games, never leaving the state, and playing lower division teams. You can't even schedule a lower division team anymore because they are all booked playing the SEC, Big 12, and Big 10 in that order.



Now - and this scares the crap out of me to say this, because MARS might agree with me on this point - u throw BSU in the mix in the MWC, and then chart the course BYU would need to survive in a typical season to even get to a BCS game, let alone a 50/50 shot at a NC win, and Florida would have an easier path to the NC game than BYU even getting a BCS Bowl bid.



Pretend BSU was in the conference this year -



BCS Bowl Opponent - Top 10 team

BSU - Top 10 team

TCU - Top 10 team

Florida State - on the road 2 time zones away

Utah - Top 25 team

UW - Heisman QB candidate and most of the team returning

Air Force - Top 30 team

Nevada

Wyoming

CSU

SDSU

UNLV

USU

New Mexico



You would actually toss out the USU or Nevada game cuz we wouldn't have 4 OOC games. And BYU would have a rough go and only by going undefeated - would BYU get a BCS bowl and if they kicked Alabama's crap like Utah did, they could get a #2 consolation prize.



Now Florida, only leaving its home field 5 times, and only leaving Florida 3 times, could lose to Alabama on the road, and as long as they beat Tennesse and Vanderbilt on the road - they are probably in the NC game playing Ohio State which is usually a gimme. Or, otherwise, Alabama with a fattened up schedule gets in the NC instead. And don't forget LSU getting in with 2 losses.



B 4 one of you points out that Ole MIss who kicked Florida's crap on their home field recently, iirc, is superior to New Mexico - they probably are - but Florida doesn't have to beat them by 50 to get into the NC game - they just have to beat them. THe real issue shouldnot be wose gimmes are easier than someone elses gimmes. It should be HOW MANY TIMES DOES A TEAM HAVE TO GO ON THE ROAD AND BEAT A TEAM THAT IS ROUGHLY THEIR EQUAL OR MAYBE EVEN SUPERIOR and especially if they have to do so jet-lagged.



So invite the Donkeys - but get a couple more decent teams ASAP and split into two divisions, and don't have the top teams all play each other until the conf championship.



U can't win an NC unless u get to play in the NC game. The field is tilted and the cards are stacked against BYU, Utah, TCU, or BSU ever having that happen. Hopefully, this will be the year.



But when u put the U, BYU, TCU, BSU, and AFA all in one conference - they will start beating each other up and nobody will be undefeated and then the MWC looks weaker - because it got tougher unless u go to 12 teams.



The SEC learned fast after they formed their "SUPER CONFERENCE". They started beating each other up and didn't look super and tems were not bowl eligible all of a sudden and nobody was going undefeated. So then the scheduling down on OOC games started and by playing a much weaker schedule OOC, the conference started looking unbeatable again.

Quoted, in entirety, for PROFOUND Truth.



I've been thinking these exact thoughts from DAY ONE. Thank you for assembling them so completely!



Our "bottom dwellers" don't lose a STEP to the big boy bottom dwellers. Wyoming AT Tennessee is just one of many games that proves it! The only reason Wyoming is often 4-8 and Tennesse is 8-4 is that Wyoming MUST go out and get 4 tough non-con games, not only for perception, but the MONEY TOO!!! (with as piss-poor as the MTN contract is, YES they need to augment their income) ... and likely loses all of them, then goes .500 in conference. Tennessee, on the other hand, schedules CRAP for non-cons, ALL at home, rakes in hand-over-fist on home ticket sales (and gives a measly 10-15% to the gracious weakling loser), wins all of them, then goes .500 in conference. Two teams that, if the playing field is leveled, would be in a coin-flip matchup. Yet one is dragging a decent conference down because they consitently go 4-8/5-7, and one is considered a "tough" opponent and good win for the eventual SEC champion NC game shoo-in. RIIIIGHT.



Nail On The Head, bib, Nail On The Head.
M
Mars


Bib's right about the SEC. But the Big Ten does it even one step better. With 11 teams instead of 12, you skip the championship game, and you skip one extra loss that one of your top 2 teams would have to suffer. Thus, you get situations like the call for an Ohio State-Michigan national championship. When in reality, both got blasted by their eventual bowl partners.
This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.