Talk To Your Kids About the SEC Myth
-
I'm a northerner who likes the Big 12. The SEC at this point and over the last 10 years is the best conference in college football.
-
I'm a northerner who likes the Big 12. The SEC at this point and over the last 10 years is the best conference in college football.
I'm a northerner who likes the Big 12. The SEC at this point and over the last 10 years is the best conference in college football.
Of course they think they are the best. They play in warm, almost perfect conditions every week.
The pac 12 atleast plays games in Washington and Oregon.
The big 12 plays games in iowa, WV, and Kansas
When did Alabama, LSU, FLA, GA, play a game that was on the road in temps below 50 degrees?
-
I'm a northerner who likes the Big 12. The SEC at this point and over the last 10 years is the best conference in college football.
Of course they think they are the best. They play in warm, almost perfect conditions every week.
The pac 12 atleast plays games in Washington and Oregon.
The big 12 plays games in iowa, WV, and Kansas
When did Alabama, LSU, FLA, GA, play a game that was on the road in temps below 50 degrees?
Of course they think they are the best. They play in warm, almost perfect conditions every week.
The pac 12 atleast plays games in Washington and Oregon.
The big 12 plays games in iowa, WV, and Kansas
When did Alabama, LSU, FLA, GA, play a game that was on the road in temps below 50 degrees?
You can argue all the odd points you want but the tale of the tape is National Championships, National Championship games, bowl records and head to head records.
-
It would be hard to argue they haven't had the most success over the last decade.
It would also be hard to argue they haven't benefited from numerous advantages
-
It would be hard to argue they haven't had the most success over the last decade.
It would also be hard to argue they haven't benefited from numerous advantages
It would be hard to argue they haven't had the most success over the last decade.
It would also be hard to argue they haven't benefited from numerous advantages
This is why this board frustrates me so much, the "but" factor. The Browns suck but, ..... . No the Browns suck, end of story, no silver lining and no qualification. The SEC is the best college football conference the last decade, no need to qualify it. On the field they are better. Have there been eras where the Big 10 & Big 8 were better, absolutely, it's ok the Big 12 and Big 10 aren't better. No one is a lesser person for cheering for their team however arguing that the SEC isn't the best is parallel to arguing the Browns are a head coach away from the Super Bowl, delusional.
-
Are either of the two things I just said incorrect?
-
Are either of the two things I just said incorrect?
There are advantages to being a top SEC football team but I don't think any of them are contrived or manufactured like many suggest. So if your suggestion is SEC teams win Championships because of a rigged system, then no I don't think you are correct.
-
I think it is a mixed bag
-
I think it is a mixed bag
Power 5 conferences get preferential treatment. I'm an Oklahoma fan and while they had a great run they weren't one of the best 4 in the country. If Iowa beat MSU they would have gotten in to the final 4 and they may not be top 10.
-
-
I'm a northerner who likes the Big 12. The SEC at this point and over the last 10 years is the best conference in college football.
I'm a northerner who likes the Big 12. The SEC at this point and over the last 10 years is the best conference in college football.
Good job! Except I don't know how you can like the Big 12. OU is cool though. Always liked them.
-
I'm a northerner who likes the Big 12. The SEC at this point and over the last 10 years is the best conference in college football.
Of course they think they are the best. They play in warm, almost perfect conditions every week.
The pac 12 atleast plays games in Washington and Oregon.
The big 12 plays games in iowa, WV, and Kansas
When did Alabama, LSU, FLA, GA, play a game that was on the road in temps below 50 degrees?
Of course they think they are the best. They play in warm, almost perfect conditions every week.
The pac 12 atleast plays games in Washington and Oregon.
The big 12 plays games in iowa, WV, and Kansas
When did Alabama, LSU, FLA, GA, play a game that was on the road in temps below 50 degrees?
So when SEC teams beat northern teams in warm conditions is it because they're more used to playing in the warmth? Is this really what we've been reduced to? I mean, Woody's argument that pretty much all the bowls are down south is actually somewhat makes sense. You blaming the weather when it's the same for both teams when they play each other is just plain weird.
-
I guess when your team is largely irrelevant on a national scale and has no hope of winning a conference championship in the next 20 years you will resort to rooting for the conference it is in.
Lol@Texas A&M
The SEC only let you join because it wanted to lure TEXAS into the conference. You suck
-
Have I even said anything to you in this entire thread? Who rattled your cage?
-
ESPN is a joke. They are giving Bama credit for 16 of their claimed championships but last year only gave OSU credit for 6.
-
Congrats to Alabama. It was set up for them to win of course but they still have to win. Why not let the defending champ whose one loss was to a higher ranked team than Alabama's one loss in? Because you have to give Alabama the best chance to win this year.
-
I guess when your team is largely irrelevant on a national scale and has no hope of winning a conference championship in the next 20 years you will resort to rooting for the conference it is in.
Lol@Texas A&M
The SEC only let you join because it wanted to lure TEXAS into the conference. You suck
The SEC only let you join because it wanted to lure TEXAS into the conference. You suck
You do know of course that there is a voting block of teams that will exclude Texas from ever joining. So on this you are wrong. The SEC wanted the Texas area added to it's footprint and Texas was too snobbish to even consider requesting admittance. They wanted the PAC 12 instead so they could be in the same league with Berkeley and Stanford. The reason there is a voting block is not just to keep Texas out, but to also exclude other in state schools for SEC teams. FSU & Miami (Florida), Clemson (S.Caro.), Georgia Tech (Georgia), Louisville (Kentucky), and of course Texas (Texas A&M). It takes 2/3 of member schools to accept a new member and those 5 are the voting block that protect each other.
Additionally A&M already had a long term rivalry with Ark. and LSU (though they stopped playing us when they lost too many) so A&M was the better fit. Also the land grant schools (think agricultural & mechanical) under the Morrill Act included A&M, Ark. LSU, Tenn., Miss. St., Ga., Florida and Auburn. Texas was not formed under that act, so traditionally they do not have that common ancestry with most of the SEC.
And the last factor is that the SEC schools saw how texas poisoned the well both with the SWC and then the Big XII. They wanted no part of such selfisness. In the SEC there is equal revenue sharing and an SEC Network. They did not want a team that chased out first NU and CU, and then later Mo. and A&M with their Longhorn Network $400 mil. ESPN deal that gave $0 to the other member schools. OU tried to leave to the PAC 12 too, but refused to go when the PAC 12 would not also take their long term rival OSU. The final straw for A&M was when Texas announced they were going to air HS games of recruits they were after, later ruled unfair by the NCAA after A&M had already decided to go to the SEC.
-
The SEC only let you join because it wanted to lure TEXAS into the conference. You suck
You do know of course that there is a voting block of teams that will exclude Texas from ever joining. So on this you are wrong. The SEC wanted the Texas area added to it's footprint and Texas was too snobbish to even consider requesting admittance. They wanted the PAC 12 instead so they could be in the same league with Berkeley and Stanford. The reason there is a voting block is not just to keep Texas out, but to also exclude other in state schools for SEC teams. FSU & Miami (Florida), Clemson (S.Caro.), Georgia Tech (Georgia), Louisville (Kentucky), and of course Texas (Texas A&M). It takes 2/3 of member schools to accept a new member and those 5 are the voting block that protect each other.
Additionally A&M already had a long term rivalry with Ark. and LSU (though they stopped playing us when they lost too many) so A&M was the better fit. Also the land grant schools (think agricultural & mechanical) under the Morrill Act included A&M, Ark. LSU, Tenn., Miss. St., Ga., Florida and Auburn. Texas was not formed under that act, so traditionally they do not have that common ancestry with most of the SEC.
And the last factor is that the SEC schools saw how texas poisoned the well both with the SWC and then the Big XII. They wanted no part of such selfisness. In the SEC there is equal revenue sharing and an SEC Network. They did not want a team that chased out first NU and CU, and then later Mo. and A&M with their Longhorn Network $400 mil. ESPN deal that gave $0 to the other member schools. OU tried to leave to the PAC 12 too, but refused to go when the PAC 12 would not also take their long term rival OSU. The final straw for A&M was when Texas announced they were going to air HS games of recruits they were after, later ruled unfair by the NCAA after A&M had already decided to go to the SEC.
You do know of course that there is a voting block of teams that will exclude Texas from ever joining. So on this you are wrong. The SEC wanted the Texas area added to it's footprint and Texas was too snobbish to even consider requesting admittance. They wanted the PAC 12 instead so they could be in the same league with Berkeley and Stanford. The reason there is a voting block is not just to keep Texas out, but to also exclude other in state schools for SEC teams. FSU & Miami (Florida), Clemson (S.Caro.), Georgia Tech (Georgia), Louisville (Kentucky), and of course Texas (Texas A&M). It takes 2/3 of member schools to accept a new member and those 5 are the voting block that protect each other.
Additionally A&M already had a long term rivalry with Ark. and LSU (though they stopped playing us when they lost too many) so A&M was the better fit. Also the land grant schools (think agricultural & mechanical) under the Morrill Act included A&M, Ark. LSU, Tenn., Miss. St., Ga., Florida and Auburn. Texas was not formed under that act, so traditionally they do not have that common ancestry with most of the SEC.
And the last factor is that the SEC schools saw how texas poisoned the well both with the SWC and then the Big XII. They wanted no part of such selfisness. In the SEC there is equal revenue sharing and an SEC Network. They did not want a team that chased out first NU and CU, and then later Mo. and A&M with their Longhorn Network $400 mil. ESPN deal that gave $0 to the other member schools. OU tried to leave to the PAC 12 too, but refused to go when the PAC 12 would not also take their long term rival OSU. The final straw for A&M was when Texas announced they were going to air HS games of recruits they were after, later ruled unfair by the NCAA after A&M had already decided to go to the SEC.
So, our main reply to this is "What the fuck ever". Though I guess one has to ask if the SEC is trying to protect a state's integrity, why then does it allow 2 schools from both Miss. and Ala.....perhaps the two smallest states in the conference?
-
Congrats to Alabama. It was set up for them to win of course but they still have to win. Why not let the defending champ whose one loss was to a higher ranked team than Alabama's one loss in? Because you have to give Alabama the best chance to win this year.
Congrats to Alabama. It was set up for them to win of course but they still have to win. Why not let the defending champ whose one loss was to a higher ranked team than Alabama's one loss in? Because you have to give Alabama the best chance to win this year.
C'mon Kid OSU lost to Michigan St at home with a backup QB. On a neutral field Alabama showed Michigan St didn't belong on the same field. Do I think Ohio State and Stanford may have put up a better fight than OU and Michigan St, probably, but Alabama this season was a great football team and deserves what they got by beating the 2nd best team in the country.
-
You do know of course that there is a voting block of teams that will exclude Texas from ever joining. So on this you are wrong. The SEC wanted the Texas area added to it's footprint and Texas was too snobbish to even consider requesting admittance. They wanted the PAC 12 instead so they could be in the same league with Berkeley and Stanford. The reason there is a voting block is not just to keep Texas out, but to also exclude other in state schools for SEC teams. FSU & Miami (Florida), Clemson (S.Caro.), Georgia Tech (Georgia), Louisville (Kentucky), and of course Texas (Texas A&M). It takes 2/3 of member schools to accept a new member and those 5 are the voting block that protect each other.
Additionally A&M already had a long term rivalry with Ark. and LSU (though they stopped playing us when they lost too many) so A&M was the better fit. Also the land grant schools (think agricultural & mechanical) under the Morrill Act included A&M, Ark. LSU, Tenn., Miss. St., Ga., Florida and Auburn. Texas was not formed under that act, so traditionally they do not have that common ancestry with most of the SEC.
And the last factor is that the SEC schools saw how texas poisoned the well both with the SWC and then the Big XII. They wanted no part of such selfisness. In the SEC there is equal revenue sharing and an SEC Network. They did not want a team that chased out first NU and CU, and then later Mo. and A&M with their Longhorn Network $400 mil. ESPN deal that gave $0 to the other member schools. OU tried to leave to the PAC 12 too, but refused to go when the PAC 12 would not also take their long term rival OSU. The final straw for A&M was when Texas announced they were going to air HS games of recruits they were after, later ruled unfair by the NCAA after A&M had already decided to go to the SEC.
So, our main reply to this is "What the fuck ever". Though I guess one has to ask if the SEC is trying to protect a state's integrity, why then does it allow 2 schools from both Miss. and Ala.....perhaps the two smallest states in the conference?
So, our main reply to this is "What the fuck ever". Though I guess one has to ask if the SEC is trying to protect a state's integrity, why then does it allow 2 schools from both Miss. and Ala.....perhaps the two smallest states in the conference?
MONEY?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login