- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
the big problem with the SEC and #14
Posted on 10/14/11 at 8:39 am
Posted on 10/14/11 at 8:39 am
i used the think that schools would be stampeding to join the SEC. our success as a conference in both football victories and financially is unparalleled. i'm not seeing the rush to be one of us, at least by the schools that would add a net plus to the conference. my guess is that one of our biggest problems is our mega-success on the field. i think few teams have the balls to enter our arena. we could take our top 8 teams and create 2 conferences that would be just as strong as the big 12, the pac 10, the big 10 and the acc this year. when faced with the likelyhood of facing bama, lsu, arkansas, uf, ut, uga, usce and auburn annually, i bet jimbo fischer went whining to his admin. that they don't need to switch to that conference if they want to ever win a conference title or a national title again. just sayin'.
6
Posted on 10/14/11 at 8:59 am to LSU GrandDad
you're right about FSU. They already recruit better than most of the SEC and can't win the ACC. Without systemic changes in their program, they would almost always be a 2-4 loss team in the SEC. And they know it. Since the necessary changes probably mean people currently in power being replaced, I can understand why those running the show at FSU feel just fine where they're at
fwiw, I disagree with them. To me, FSU, VT, or NCSU not wanting to move to the SEC is simply crazy. Then again, I love my team playing tough competition and I wouldn't want it any other way.
This is precisely why I respect the hell out of TAMU for making the leap
fwiw, I disagree with them. To me, FSU, VT, or NCSU not wanting to move to the SEC is simply crazy. Then again, I love my team playing tough competition and I wouldn't want it any other way.
This is precisely why I respect the hell out of TAMU for making the leap
Posted on 10/14/11 at 9:08 am to LSU GrandDad
I agree.
Think about it. Here are four theoretically possible "good-to-great" potential additions to the SEC, from a football competition standpoint:
Texas
Oklahoma
Virginia Tech
Florida State
NONE of them would likely welcome the increased competition they would face by having to compete each week against much tougher in-conference SEC foes than their current Bevo9 and ACC foes. (YET, that said, ALL of them should to some extent be concerned that they may be passed over in the future for top BCS slots in favor of SEC teams that have even one more loss, given the much tougher SEC competition.)
Here's one school that would almost certainly welcome being invited to the SEC, because its football program, stadium, fan craziness, and other factors all fit the SEC better than its current (ACC) conference:
Clemson
However, unless the SEC goes to 16 teams (which I strongly disfavor), it is highly unlikely that Clemson has a snowball's chance in hell of joining the SEC.
Think about it. Here are four theoretically possible "good-to-great" potential additions to the SEC, from a football competition standpoint:
Texas
Oklahoma
Virginia Tech
Florida State
NONE of them would likely welcome the increased competition they would face by having to compete each week against much tougher in-conference SEC foes than their current Bevo9 and ACC foes. (YET, that said, ALL of them should to some extent be concerned that they may be passed over in the future for top BCS slots in favor of SEC teams that have even one more loss, given the much tougher SEC competition.)
Here's one school that would almost certainly welcome being invited to the SEC, because its football program, stadium, fan craziness, and other factors all fit the SEC better than its current (ACC) conference:
Clemson
However, unless the SEC goes to 16 teams (which I strongly disfavor), it is highly unlikely that Clemson has a snowball's chance in hell of joining the SEC.
This post was edited on 10/14/11 at 9:12 am
Posted on 10/14/11 at 9:30 am to SportzBlogger1
Yeah but the mega conferences are supposed to push the idea of a playoff so as long as you win the conference you should be in line for a shot at the national title even with 2 or 3 losses
Posted on 10/14/11 at 9:37 am to LSU GrandDad
quote:
our success as a conference in both football victories and financially is unparalleled.
This is your mistake right there. The SEC has been home to the last 5 BCS CG and is the best overall FB conference. But the B1G does better finacially.
Posted on 10/14/11 at 9:40 am to H-Town Tiger
I think any coalition school (close to the current footprint) would jump at an invite.
Schools already in an AQ conference might want to stay where they are for various reasons--geography, money (B16 Ten), cultural fit (ACC), etc.
Schools already in an AQ conference might want to stay where they are for various reasons--geography, money (B16 Ten), cultural fit (ACC), etc.
Posted on 10/14/11 at 10:10 am to Bestbank Tiger
I said this a long time ago. The money is ridiculously good in all the major conferences. Money alone isn't going to be much of a factor. And the increased competition makes lots of schools wary about joining the SEC.
The only chance we have of adding decent teams are picking up those that might conceivably find themselves on the outside looking in when all the conference shake-ups finally settle down.
Therefore, Missouri is the best team out there for us in that regard with WVU being a distant second. Both of those schools have a legitimate fear of being left out because of geography and a few other factors, yet both would bring something to a new conference.
After those two, we are probably looking at teams like Louisville or Cincinatti as the only schools willing to make a jump right away.
The only chance we have of adding decent teams are picking up those that might conceivably find themselves on the outside looking in when all the conference shake-ups finally settle down.
Therefore, Missouri is the best team out there for us in that regard with WVU being a distant second. Both of those schools have a legitimate fear of being left out because of geography and a few other factors, yet both would bring something to a new conference.
After those two, we are probably looking at teams like Louisville or Cincinatti as the only schools willing to make a jump right away.
Posted on 10/14/11 at 10:14 am to SportzBlogger1
quote:
Texas
Oklahoma
Virginia Tech
Florida State
While these teams wouldn't be able to win 10-12 games every year for 15 straight years anymore, I have zero doubt that they'd compete for conference championships.
Heck, I think that Oklahoma and Virginia Tech could compete for conference championships in their first year.
Posted on 10/14/11 at 10:19 am to hashtag
quote:
While these teams wouldn't be able to win 10-12 games every year for 15 straight years anymore, I have zero doubt that they'd compete for conference championships.
Heck, I think that Oklahoma and Virginia Tech could compete for conference championships in their first year.
Why go from winning a conference championship every other year or even every two years in three and getting a BCS game more less automatically, to merely competing for conference championships? All of those schools except FSU basically run their conferences completely right now. And heck, if FSU can't do it in the ACC, they can't do it in the SEC.
Posted on 10/14/11 at 10:27 am to Hawgon
quote:
Why go from winning a conference championship every other year or even every two years in three and getting a BCS game more less automatically, to merely competing for conference championships? All of those schools except FSU basically run their conferences completely right now. And heck, if FSU can't do it in the ACC, they can't do it in the SEC.
If there are 4 super conferences involved, they are all going to reduce their chances of winning anyway. Add Texas, Oklahoma, and Ok St. to the Pac 12 and you immediately have USC, Oregon, Standford, Texas, Oklahoma, and Ok St. who would compete for the title.
It doesn't matter where they go, creating 16 team conferences will make it harder on every team in those conferences. So, then the argument becomes, which one of theses conferences would you rather be in more?
Posted on 10/14/11 at 10:30 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
B1G does better finacially.
under the current scenario with their network and tv contracts they do better financially. so does notre dame (no conference, of course). however, the sec is organizing a network for their tier 3 rights as we speak and with the addition of texas a&m and one other the tv contracts going forward will equal or exceed the big 10. in the long run, i would estimate that both of these conferences will do about the same and that is a testament to the sec brands considering most of our states are pretty small.
Posted on 10/14/11 at 10:45 am to hashtag
quote:
It doesn't matter where they go, creating 16 team conferences will make it harder on every team in those conferences. So, then the argument becomes, which one of theses conferences would you rather be in more?
The conference that is easiest to win, and that is not the SEC. Would OU be the prohibitive favorite in the SEC this year? No, of course not. They would be at best, equal with Alabama and LSU and they would face significantly tougher games with Arkansas and maybe one or two other teams than they will in the Big 12 with the possible exception of the Oklahoma State game. But OU owns OSU, so I don't think they fear them at all.
Now, put OU and all those teams you just mentioned in the Pac 12. With all those teams would OU be the prohibitive favorite to win? Yep.
How about the ACC? OU would run through that conference like crap through a goose.
How about the Big 10? OU would dominate it and have one tough game with Wisconsin.
So, you tell me, if you were OU, why would you want to be in the SEC and have at least two teams that were your equal or better and several more that are close and tougher than any other teams you would face in most other conferences?
Posted on 10/14/11 at 10:55 am to hashtag
quote:
, I think that Oklahoma and Virginia Tech could compete for conference championships in their first year.
OU yes VT no way in hell esp this year.
Special teams and solid D would not be enough to win the SEC or win in the SEC week in and week out. They have basically taped out the talent pool in VA dry so you have to think why would they want the SEC and its teams to poach talent they have on lock
Posted on 10/14/11 at 11:00 am to StraightCashHomey21
quote:
OU yes VT no way in hell esp this year.
Special teams and solid D would not be enough to win the SEC or win in the SEC week in and week out.
Yeah. Because a good defense, good running game and good special teams has never been a recipe for winning the SEC.
Posted on 10/14/11 at 11:06 am to hashtag
quote:
Yeah. Because a good defense, good running game and good special teams has never been a recipe for winning the SEC
they don't have the depth on either side of the ball plain and simple they would be worn down like any other new comer to the SEC, so no they wouldn't win the conference their first year or even come close esp with their awful QB play since MV7. Going to the SEC opens up the VA recruiting to the SEC which VT has had on lock so their prize recruits will go else were.
VT has a good thing going in the ACC beat a team with comparable talent once a year then choke in a bowl game and once in the regular season
Teams like Mizzou and WVU depend heavily on out of state recruiting so the SEC would help them even more b/c the SEC isnt going to beating down the door in their backyard for recruits anyway
This post was edited on 10/14/11 at 11:09 am
Posted on 10/14/11 at 11:13 am to Hawgon
The "competition" angle is grossly over rated by fans. You will still only play 8 SEC games, maybe they go to 9, then possibly a CCG. Listing 6 or 7 strong programs is meaningless since no one will play all 7. Also it varies from year to year. This year there are 2 great teams in the SEC and that's usually the case. Tenn, UGA and UF this year would not beat OU for example. In 2008 play UF was brutal, but LSU, not so much. This year is the opposite, net effect is the same.
Posted on 10/14/11 at 11:38 am to LSU GrandDad
This is a problem, but I wouldn't call it the only problem. Why would schools want to take the hard road to get to their goal(s) when they already have a much easier plan.
Posted on 10/14/11 at 11:41 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
But the B1G does better finacially.
Not for long!
Posted on 10/14/11 at 11:47 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
The "competition" angle is grossly over rated by fans.
I don't agree.
A case in point is Arkansas. If you take the conference winning percentage the last 19 years in the SWC and compare it to the 19 years they've been in the SEC, there is better than a 30% increase in the loss column.
It's not comparing apples to apples, but it has some value.
This post was edited on 10/14/11 at 11:48 am
Posted on 10/14/11 at 12:42 pm to LSU GrandDad
quote:
we could take our top 8 teams and create 2 conferences that would be just as strong as the big 12, the pac 10, the big 10 and the acc this year
There are a few problems with this kind of logic.
For starters, you fail to realize that part of what makes the top 4 very strong is playing the bottom 8. And part of what makes the middle 4 strong is playing the bottom 4. By "strong", I'm referring to win/loss & rankings.
The SEC are also masterminds at scheduling what I call strong patsies. These are out-of-conference teams that are not as weak as the bottom feeders, but still patsies nonetheless. Games that are near-100% guaranteed wins, but make the strength of schedule look much, much better.
This may come as a surprise to you, and will probably make you angry to hear, but the middle 4 teams of the BIG XII are stronger than the middle 4 teams of the SEC, and the bottom 4 teams of the BIG XII are also stronger than the bottom 4 teams of the SEC. (Since BIG XII is 10 teams vs. SEC's 12, there is a 1-team duplicative overlap in this comparison).
It's the top-end where the SEC really shines. That no one can dispute. But let's come back down to earth a little bit and not be too cocky here. This somehow reminds me of the "Shock and Awe" statements going into the Iraq War... that everybody would be so overwhelmed by America's military might that they would just lie down and give up. We know how that worked out.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News