Talk To Your Kids About the SEC Myth
-
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?
-
I'm sure Pumpkin Eater will come up with a long, intelligent response to Ag's post, which is fully accurate, to my knowledge.
Gip, you should stop the "who cares?"-type responses to posts that are in response to another poster that brought up the topic. Maybe address it with that person instead? As to your question, those schools are founding members (or at least joined very, very early) so they joined at the same time (I think).
Browns 149, there is no money in having two schools that are very close to each other and in the same state.
Cysko, I disagree with you, however I do think Ohio State would have made a real push had they made the playoff. We saw against Michigan and Notre Dame that when they're on, they're as good as anyone. Too bad they (and the coaching staff) took the day off against MSU. I really wanted to see a rematch.
-
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.
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.
They lost to ole miss. By any logic ohio state should gave gotten the chance to defend. But like I said although it was set up for them to win they still had to win and they did. I take nothing away from them except that they beat the brakes off the second or third best team in the B1G on route to the national title and not the best.
MSU over OSU was more about what OSU did wrong that night than what MSU did right. But that's how it goes.
-
I mean except for the flukiest play I've seen all year (up until the browns kick six fiasco) MSU wouldn't have beaten Michigan and it wouldnt have mattered. Both OSU and (hate to say it) Michigan would have been better representatives to the playoffs but it is what it is.
The national title game was legit. It's the semis that I think was flawed. Again, this points to how the CFP should be at least 8 team and probably 16.
This shit ain't nothing to me, man. -
I'm sure Pumpkin Eater will come up with a long, intelligent response to Ag's post, which is fully accurate, to my knowledge.
Gip, you should stop the "who cares?"-type responses to posts that are in response to another poster that brought up the topic. Maybe address it with that person instead? As to your question, those schools are founding members (or at least joined very, very early) so they joined at the same time (I think).
Browns 149, there is no money in having two schools that are very close to each other and in the same state.
Cysko, I disagree with you, however I do think Ohio State would have made a real push had they made the playoff. We saw against Michigan and Notre Dame that when they're on, they're as good as anyone. Too bad they (and the coaching staff) took the day off against MSU. I really wanted to see a rematch.
I'm sure Pumpkin Eater will come up with a long, intelligent response to Ag's post, which is fully accurate, to my knowledge.
Gip, you should stop the "who cares?"-type responses to posts that are in response to another poster that brought up the topic. Maybe address it with that person instead? As to your question, those schools are founding members (or at least joined very, very early) so they joined at the same time (I think).
The fact that you want me to stop the "Who cares" responses wants me to give many,many more of them.
Browns 149, there is no money in having two schools that are very close to each other and in the same state.
Cysko, I disagree with you, however I do think Ohio State would have made a real push had they made the playoff. We saw against Michigan and Notre Dame that when they're on, they're as good as anyone. Too bad they (and the coaching staff) took the day off against MSU. I really wanted to see a rematch.
Who care? It didn't happen. Quit dreaming.
-
I mean except for the flukiest play I've seen all year (up until the browns kick six fiasco) MSU wouldn't have beaten Michigan and it wouldnt have mattered. Both OSU and (hate to say it) Michigan would have been better representatives to the playoffs but it is what it is.
The national title game was legit. It's the semis that I think was flawed. Again, this points to how the CFP should be at least 8 team and probably 16.
I mean except for the flukiest play I've seen all year (up until the browns kick six fiasco) MSU wouldn't have beaten Michigan and it wouldnt have mattered. Both OSU and (hate to say it) Michigan would have been better representatives to the playoffs but it is what it is.
The national title game was legit. It's the semis that I think was flawed. Again, this points to how the CFP should be at least 8 team and probably 16.
Sure. If FCS, D-II and D-III can have 16 team playoffs, why not FBS?
Oh, yea....to "preserve the integrity of the bowl system". What a laugh that is.
-
It's more to preserve the integrity of the regular season as well as the health of players that aren't getting paid from what I can tell. I can go either way.
-
It's more to preserve the integrity of the regular season as well as the health of players that aren't getting paid from what I can tell. I can go either way.
It's more to preserve the integrity of the regular season as well as the health of players that aren't getting paid from what I can tell. I can go either way.
But, all that applies to the lower divisions......(who really are not getting paid.....unlike probably many of the FBS level players)
-
They only play 15, which is where we are now in D1. Vast majority of those kids aren't going to the NFL either.
-
They only play 15, which is where we are now in D1. Vast majority of those kids aren't going to the NFL either.
They only play 15, which is where we are now in D1. Vast majority of those kids aren't going to the NFL either.
What has that got to do with it?
If the lower levels have a 16 team playoff, then D1 can have one too. Again.....they don't because they want to preserve the bowl system......though think about it.....what exactly are they preserving? A system where now 5-7 teams make bowl games.
I would say it is all about the money....which I guess it must be. But how much money can some of these bowls bring in? Some of these lesser bowls I assume have at best half filled stadiums....and almost no TV viewership. And some of them are not really in locations that you want to spend your holidays. Boise...and The Bronx?
And why do some places feel they deserve to host 2-3 bowls? Atlanta's Georgia Dome hosts 2.
And a few others.
Too many bowls. Sorry.
-
They only play 15, which is where we are now in D1. Vast majority of those kids aren't going to the NFL either.
What has that got to do with it?
If the lower levels have a 16 team playoff, then D1 can have one too. Again.....they don't because they want to preserve the bowl system......though think about it.....what exactly are they preserving? A system where now 5-7 teams make bowl games.
I would say it is all about the money....which I guess it must be. But how much money can some of these bowls bring in? Some of these lesser bowls I assume have at best half filled stadiums....and almost no TV viewership. And some of them are not really in locations that you want to spend your holidays. Boise...and The Bronx?
And why do some places feel they deserve to host 2-3 bowls? Atlanta's Georgia Dome hosts 2.
And a few others.
Too many bowls. Sorry.
What has that got to do with it?
If the lower levels have a 16 team playoff, then D1 can have one too. Again.....they don't because they want to preserve the bowl system......though think about it.....what exactly are they preserving? A system where now 5-7 teams make bowl games.
I would say it is all about the money....which I guess it must be. But how much money can some of these bowls bring in? Some of these lesser bowls I assume have at best half filled stadiums....and almost no TV viewership. And some of them are not really in locations that you want to spend your holidays. Boise...and The Bronx?
And why do some places feel they deserve to host 2-3 bowls? Atlanta's Georgia Dome hosts 2.
And a few others.
Too many bowls. Sorry.
Don't guess, it's all about the money
-
What has that got to do with it?
If the lower levels have a 16 team playoff, then D1 can have one too. Again.....they don't because they want to preserve the bowl system......though think about it.....what exactly are they preserving? A system where now 5-7 teams make bowl games.
I would say it is all about the money....which I guess it must be. But how much money can some of these bowls bring in? Some of these lesser bowls I assume have at best half filled stadiums....and almost no TV viewership. And some of them are not really in locations that you want to spend your holidays. Boise...and The Bronx?
And why do some places feel they deserve to host 2-3 bowls? Atlanta's Georgia Dome hosts 2.
And a few others.
Too many bowls. Sorry.
Don't guess, it's all about the money
Don't guess, it's all about the money
It just seems to me that the payoff from some of those lesser bowls may not even allow the schools to break even. I mean...out of that $500,000 don't they have to transport and feed like 200 people to the bowl site.
-
Don't guess, it's all about the money
It just seems to me that the payoff from some of those lesser bowls may not even allow the schools to break even. I mean...out of that $500,000 don't they have to transport and feed like 200 people to the bowl site.
It just seems to me that the payoff from some of those lesser bowls may not even allow the schools to break even. I mean...out of that $500,000 don't they have to transport and feed like 200 people to the bowl site.
You can fly and eat pretty well for $500,000, not to mention the conference splits some money
-
It just seems to me that the payoff from some of those lesser bowls may not even allow the schools to break even. I mean...out of that $500,000 don't they have to transport and feed like 200 people to the bowl site.
You can fly and eat pretty well for $500,000, not to mention the conference splits some money
You can fly and eat pretty well for $500,000, not to mention the conference splits some money
Fly, eat, pay for hotels for that many people? Sounds break even at best to me.....unless the bowl organizers are paying those expenses, which they may be.
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