TP has been realesed by the Chiefs
-
Signed by the Bengals.
-
There's no point in making new regulations until the NCAA can enforce the ones it already has on the books. That's why I say strengthen the NCAA.
"No shit the higher attended bowl games are down south. That's what happens when all of the major bowl games are down south."
The south's bowl attendance dominates the north from top to bottom. Not just in "major bowl games." So you're wrong on that. You want more and better bowl games up north? Attend the ones you already have, and it might get considered. They just added a bowl game here where I live in Austin. Why aren't they adding them up north? Oh right, people attend.
Teams go to bowl sites a week before the game. Both teams are isolated in the same ways. One team might have a few more fans, but let's not act like that trip from Wisconsin to California (a week before the game) is just neutering the team before they get there.
"Best fans... lol. Having a limited number of pro teams in the SEC area doesn't make them better fans..."
Yes it does. It makes them better college football fans. Just like you'd probably say Browns fans are better than Texans fans. Is a Texans fan gonna respond "no we're just as good of fans, we just have good college ball." That's a ridiculous argument. We're talking about CFB here. If northerners choose to allot their "fan hours" to the pro game, fine. But don't then try to tell us you're bigger college football fans than us. Just like we won't try to say we're better pro fans than you.
Bama went and plowed the only undefeated team in the country 42-14. Spare me the "they didn't deserve to be rated highly because they because teams that had reached their rankings falsely" bs. And again I ask you, should a 7-0 team not have been ranked? I doubt any other power 5 7-0 teams were in ranked that season. So you're complaining about something that, even if SEC bias didn't exist, would still occur. It sounds like you don't just want the SEC on an equal playing field, but rather you want them punished as well.
I'm fine with not ranking them preseason. Don't really care. But SOMEONE, be it official or not, is always going to rank. And the TV networks will always want to give viewers an understanding of how good the teams playing each other are. Do you suggest banning the networks from showing a ranking? Because that's the only way it would work.
Even if rankings were withheld until week 6 as you suggest, A 7-0 MISSISSIPPI STATE WOULD STILL HAVE BEEN RANKED. So Bama still would have gotten a ranked win.
A consistent theme of your argument is that you live in la la land and not the real world. I just gave two solid examples of situations where you're complaining of SEC bias with matters that would still be present whether SEC bias existed or not. It's human nature.
I do root for my team. I say "we" because it annoys you.
"But when you go into a national championship game, and the SEC school has recruited essentially a whole extra class over a 4 year period when compared to the non SEC school, that is a major advantage."
Ya don't say? So a team works within the rules to make itself as good as possible and instead of getting on that team's level, you want to bring that team down. Lame. The football teams exist to win games and entertain fans. Contrary to popular opinion, it ain't all about "developing men of character" and bla bla bla. That's just something weak teams tell themselves to excuse their lack of wind. If you can do both, great. If you can't, you should try to win.
Medical hardships are approved by the NCAA and their process is actually pretty stringent and the bar for receiving one is high. In 8 years or so of following A&M closely, we have never once gotten a medical redshirt. Not a single time. So I really have no idea what you're talking about.
Offers are rarely, if ever, pulled at the last second. I'm sure this is another claim of yours that you can't prove.
Grayshirts are within the rules. Most kids are happy for the opportunity to grayshirt because it gets them an offer they wouldn't otherwise have garnered. You can not grayshirt a kid without his consent. So if you don't like it, don't sign the LOI. If you have grayshirt offers from SEC schools then you likely have real offers from plenty of other schools.
"(Vandy is good and so is UF though)" and so is A&M, and Georgia. Alabama and Auburn are decent.
"But at every school, players get lower entrance standards."
That's true all over the country, not just the SEC. I bet Michigan has lower entrance standards for athletes than regular students. You know why? BECAUSE THE NCAA SETS ENTRANCE STANDARDS FOR ATHLETES. Just because a couple losing programs impose higher standards doesn't mean the rest of us should do it.
Funny, we call it ESiPN down here. Sip being a name for a Texas fan, and the nickname coming from the establishment of the Longhorn Network. ESPN has its tentacles all over the country. Sorry we watch more (but hey, yall have pro teams!!).
Don't really care about satellite camps. In fact I think coaches should hold combines for older guys that never went to school (thus have full eligibility). You could have former drug dealers, burger flippers, etc. be blessed with the opportunity for a chance at the NFL and a free education.
"
Can college football go back to not caring about the aggies? That would be nice"
No, it can't. Because we're in the SEC now. That was the brilliance of the move and that's why it's important the conference stays strong.
-
After all that time it took me to make my last post in response to you that's all I get? Disappointing. Oh well. Didn't expect much more from a mental midget such as yourself. But I did expect you to at least have ONE solid point. Haven't even produced that.
After all that time it took me to make my last post in response to you that's all I get? Disappointing. Oh well. Didn't expect much more from a mental midget such as yourself. But I did expect you to at least have ONE solid point. Haven't even produced that.
Ha! You hit the nail on the head with the 'mental midget' part!
-
There's no point in making new regulations until the NCAA can enforce the ones it already has on the books. That's why I say strengthen the NCAA.
"No shit the higher attended bowl games are down south. That's what happens when all of the major bowl games are down south."
The south's bowl attendance dominates the north from top to bottom. Not just in "major bowl games." So you're wrong on that. You want more and better bowl games up north? Attend the ones you already have, and it might get considered. They just added a bowl game here where I live in Austin. Why aren't they adding them up north? Oh right, people attend.
Teams go to bowl sites a week before the game. Both teams are isolated in the same ways. One team might have a few more fans, but let's not act like that trip from Wisconsin to California (a week before the game) is just neutering the team before they get there.
"Best fans... lol. Having a limited number of pro teams in the SEC area doesn't make them better fans..."
Yes it does. It makes them better college football fans. Just like you'd probably say Browns fans are better than Texans fans. Is a Texans fan gonna respond "no we're just as good of fans, we just have good college ball." That's a ridiculous argument. We're talking about CFB here. If northerners choose to allot their "fan hours" to the pro game, fine. But don't then try to tell us you're bigger college football fans than us. Just like we won't try to say we're better pro fans than you.
Bama went and plowed the only undefeated team in the country 42-14. Spare me the "they didn't deserve to be rated highly because they because teams that had reached their rankings falsely" bs. And again I ask you, should a 7-0 team not have been ranked? I doubt any other power 5 7-0 teams were in ranked that season. So you're complaining about something that, even if SEC bias didn't exist, would still occur. It sounds like you don't just want the SEC on an equal playing field, but rather you want them punished as well.
I'm fine with not ranking them preseason. Don't really care. But SOMEONE, be it official or not, is always going to rank. And the TV networks will always want to give viewers an understanding of how good the teams playing each other are. Do you suggest banning the networks from showing a ranking? Because that's the only way it would work.
Even if rankings were withheld until week 6 as you suggest, A 7-0 MISSISSIPPI STATE WOULD STILL HAVE BEEN RANKED. So Bama still would have gotten a ranked win.
A consistent theme of your argument is that you live in la la land and not the real world. I just gave two solid examples of situations where you're complaining of SEC bias with matters that would still be present whether SEC bias existed or not. It's human nature.
I do root for my team. I say "we" because it annoys you.
"But when you go into a national championship game, and the SEC school has recruited essentially a whole extra class over a 4 year period when compared to the non SEC school, that is a major advantage."
Ya don't say? So a team works within the rules to make itself as good as possible and instead of getting on that team's level, you want to bring that team down. Lame. The football teams exist to win games and entertain fans. Contrary to popular opinion, it ain't all about "developing men of character" and bla bla bla. That's just something weak teams tell themselves to excuse their lack of wind. If you can do both, great. If you can't, you should try to win.
Medical hardships are approved by the NCAA and their process is actually pretty stringent and the bar for receiving one is high. In 8 years or so of following A&M closely, we have never once gotten a medical redshirt. Not a single time. So I really have no idea what you're talking about.
Offers are rarely, if ever, pulled at the last second. I'm sure this is another claim of yours that you can't prove.
Grayshirts are within the rules. Most kids are happy for the opportunity to grayshirt because it gets them an offer they wouldn't otherwise have garnered. You can not grayshirt a kid without his consent. So if you don't like it, don't sign the LOI. If you have grayshirt offers from SEC schools then you likely have real offers from plenty of other schools.
"(Vandy is good and so is UF though)" and so is A&M, and Georgia. Alabama and Auburn are decent.
"But at every school, players get lower entrance standards."
That's true all over the country, not just the SEC. I bet Michigan has lower entrance standards for athletes than regular students. You know why? BECAUSE THE NCAA SETS ENTRANCE STANDARDS FOR ATHLETES. Just because a couple losing programs impose higher standards doesn't mean the rest of us should do it.
Funny, we call it ESiPN down here. Sip being a name for a Texas fan, and the nickname coming from the establishment of the Longhorn Network. ESPN has its tentacles all over the country. Sorry we watch more (but hey, yall have pro teams!!).
Don't really care about satellite camps. In fact I think coaches should hold combines for older guys that never went to school (thus have full eligibility). You could have former drug dealers, burger flippers, etc. be blessed with the opportunity for a chance at the NFL and a free education.
"
Can college football go back to not caring about the aggies? That would be nice"
No, it can't. Because we're in the SEC now. That was the brilliance of the move and that's why it's important the conference stays strong.
There's no point in making new regulations until the NCAA can enforce the ones it already has on the books. That's why I say strengthen the NCAA.
"No shit the higher attended bowl games are down south. That's what happens when all of the major bowl games are down south."
The south's bowl attendance dominates the north from top to bottom. Not just in "major bowl games." So you're wrong on that. You want more and better bowl games up north? Attend the ones you already have, and it might get considered. They just added a bowl game here where I live in Austin. Why aren't they adding them up north? Oh right, people attend.
Teams go to bowl sites a week before the game. Both teams are isolated in the same ways. One team might have a few more fans, but let's not act like that trip from Wisconsin to California (a week before the game) is just neutering the team before they get there.
"Best fans... lol. Having a limited number of pro teams in the SEC area doesn't make them better fans..."
Yes it does. It makes them better college football fans. Just like you'd probably say Browns fans are better than Texans fans. Is a Texans fan gonna respond "no we're just as good of fans, we just have good college ball." That's a ridiculous argument. We're talking about CFB here. If northerners choose to allot their "fan hours" to the pro game, fine. But don't then try to tell us you're bigger college football fans than us. Just like we won't try to say we're better pro fans than you.
Bama went and plowed the only undefeated team in the country 42-14. Spare me the "they didn't deserve to be rated highly because they because teams that had reached their rankings falsely" bs. And again I ask you, should a 7-0 team not have been ranked? I doubt any other power 5 7-0 teams were in ranked that season. So you're complaining about something that, even if SEC bias didn't exist, would still occur. It sounds like you don't just want the SEC on an equal playing field, but rather you want them punished as well.
I'm fine with not ranking them preseason. Don't really care. But SOMEONE, be it official or not, is always going to rank. And the TV networks will always want to give viewers an understanding of how good the teams playing each other are. Do you suggest banning the networks from showing a ranking? Because that's the only way it would work.
Even if rankings were withheld until week 6 as you suggest, A 7-0 MISSISSIPPI STATE WOULD STILL HAVE BEEN RANKED. So Bama still would have gotten a ranked win.
A consistent theme of your argument is that you live in la la land and not the real world. I just gave two solid examples of situations where you're complaining of SEC bias with matters that would still be present whether SEC bias existed or not. It's human nature.
I do root for my team. I say "we" because it annoys you.
"But when you go into a national championship game, and the SEC school has recruited essentially a whole extra class over a 4 year period when compared to the non SEC school, that is a major advantage."
Ya don't say? So a team works within the rules to make itself as good as possible and instead of getting on that team's level, you want to bring that team down. Lame. The football teams exist to win games and entertain fans. Contrary to popular opinion, it ain't all about "developing men of character" and bla bla bla. That's just something weak teams tell themselves to excuse their lack of wind. If you can do both, great. If you can't, you should try to win.
Medical hardships are approved by the NCAA and their process is actually pretty stringent and the bar for receiving one is high. In 8 years or so of following A&M closely, we have never once gotten a medical redshirt. Not a single time. So I really have no idea what you're talking about.
Offers are rarely, if ever, pulled at the last second. I'm sure this is another claim of yours that you can't prove.
Grayshirts are within the rules. Most kids are happy for the opportunity to grayshirt because it gets them an offer they wouldn't otherwise have garnered. You can not grayshirt a kid without his consent. So if you don't like it, don't sign the LOI. If you have grayshirt offers from SEC schools then you likely have real offers from plenty of other schools.
"(Vandy is good and so is UF though)" and so is A&M, and Georgia. Alabama and Auburn are decent.
"But at every school, players get lower entrance standards."
That's true all over the country, not just the SEC. I bet Michigan has lower entrance standards for athletes than regular students. You know why? BECAUSE THE NCAA SETS ENTRANCE STANDARDS FOR ATHLETES. Just because a couple losing programs impose higher standards doesn't mean the rest of us should do it.
Funny, we call it ESiPN down here. Sip being a name for a Texas fan, and the nickname coming from the establishment of the Longhorn Network. ESPN has its tentacles all over the country. Sorry we watch more (but hey, yall have pro teams!!).
Don't really care about satellite camps. In fact I think coaches should hold combines for older guys that never went to school (thus have full eligibility). You could have former drug dealers, burger flippers, etc. be blessed with the opportunity for a chance at the NFL and a free education.
"
Can college football go back to not caring about the aggies? That would be nice"
No, it can't. Because we're in the SEC now. That was the brilliance of the move and that's why it's important the conference stays strong.
Also, don't forget Virginia Tech beat Ohio State during the regular season, a 'southern team'. LOL.
"You planning on having a long relationship with that glass or are you going to drink it? Drink up, man. Maybe we can get another.” - Janis Joplin, 1970. -
Why would I say Browns fans are better than Texans fans?
Lack of pro teams do not make SEC fans better
There is a difference between ranked and #11
You say we because, as an aggie fan, you've latched on to the SEC's relevance tit
You already admitted your team cheated and that you're fine with it. I don't expect you to understand the implications of oversigning or how it hurts the student athlete
You are saying WE, so my comments refer to the SEC. You can't then jump back and say "well A&M hasn't used medical hardships". You made this an SEC thing, I'm talking about the SEC as a whole. Saban is notorious for booting players out through this method. If SEC teams say "we", they take on all of the other schools transgressions.
Dan Mullen pulled an offer 16 days before a recruit was graduating high school this past year...
Recruits should really refrain from signing LOIs. top recruits at least. No need to get screwed by the school.
Decent... sure.
I never said you had to impose higher standards. You don't have them on regular students, no need to do it for athletes. I said only schools like NW and Stanford are really affected. Michigan has turned away for highly rated recruits for academics before, and they've signed at other D1 schools, but we aren't that affected by it.
You watch more what? You watch your governor praying for rain more?
At least you aren't flipping out about satellite camps like some other SEC fans/coaches. They only hope the players. I wouldn't be surprised if the NCAA backs the SEC and bans them though.
Everything is cyclical. The SEC is already starting their decline. If we get a competent NCAA, and they crack down on some of their antics, it might happen sooner.
-
Love VT's DC Bud Foster. A&M almost had him. Guy is a stud.
-
We average almost 80,000 people at every SEC game. Yes, we are "better fans." Get over it.
Yes, there is a difference. But Bama folks would still come away saying "we got a ranked win." Maybe you want to evaluate the records during that week and determine where exactly MSU deserved to be ranked? I mean since you're omniscient and all. I know that last year IIRC, there was only one team that made it to 7-0.
We watch more football, as reflected by the payouts for the SEC Network and our regular conference TV contract.
LOL. If satellite camps had started in the SEC you'd be complaining about it being another unfair advantage. Classic. And don't Big 10 teams set up satellite camps in the south? Almost a concession that we have the best players, but I digress.
Yes, everything is cyclical. But we're nowhere near starting our decline. Between the poverty here that helps produce great players that need football, the number of fans going to the games, the decline in interest in CFB in the rest of the country (attendance has been consistently down everywhere but the SEC), the TV markets, etc. We will be fine. Even if we don't dominate the landscape the way we did from 06-12, no conference will be able to make an even remotely legitimate case that they are better. Different conferences might say they're better at different things, but across the board the SEC will reign for awhile.
Whoops I skipped some parts. I'm not defending the SEC selectively and only defending A&M in other situations. I'm just saying that A&M has not once gotten a medical redshirt, so don't try to tell me the NCAA just gives them out like candy to SEC teams. Again, they have a high bar for it. We had a guy go down for the season in the first game of the season last year. He had transferred the year before so he hadn't played in a solid year and a half. The NCAA rejected his medical redshirt petition.
Ok you provided one example with Dan Mullen. Kudos. But he was skewered by many down here and he will suffer consequences recruiting in Texas in the future. So it all works out. It doesn't happen that often and when it does it's not that big of a deal.
I suppose bad schools shouldn't exist? Or shouldn't have football teams? I don't really see your point. But yes I will grant you that teams are benefited when their athletes are less distracted in easier classes. Life is all about trade offs. You wanna be the snooty academicians with saints on your football team, fine. We'll be the winners in football.
-
Ohio State is the National Champion.
-
I'll assume you're messing with Woody. I haven't said anything in denial of that. I like Ohio State.
-
General trolling.
-
There's no point in making new regulations until the NCAA can enforce the ones it already has on the books. That's why I say strengthen the NCAA.
"No shit the higher attended bowl games are down south. That's what happens when all of the major bowl games are down south."
The south's bowl attendance dominates the north from top to bottom. Not just in "major bowl games." So you're wrong on that. You want more and better bowl games up north? Attend the ones you already have, and it might get considered. They just added a bowl game here where I live in Austin. Why aren't they adding them up north? Oh right, people attend.
Teams go to bowl sites a week before the game. Both teams are isolated in the same ways. One team might have a few more fans, but let's not act like that trip from Wisconsin to California (a week before the game) is just neutering the team before they get there.
"Best fans... lol. Having a limited number of pro teams in the SEC area doesn't make them better fans..."
Yes it does. It makes them better college football fans. Just like you'd probably say Browns fans are better than Texans fans. Is a Texans fan gonna respond "no we're just as good of fans, we just have good college ball." That's a ridiculous argument. We're talking about CFB here. If northerners choose to allot their "fan hours" to the pro game, fine. But don't then try to tell us you're bigger college football fans than us. Just like we won't try to say we're better pro fans than you.
Bama went and plowed the only undefeated team in the country 42-14. Spare me the "they didn't deserve to be rated highly because they because teams that had reached their rankings falsely" bs. And again I ask you, should a 7-0 team not have been ranked? I doubt any other power 5 7-0 teams were in ranked that season. So you're complaining about something that, even if SEC bias didn't exist, would still occur. It sounds like you don't just want the SEC on an equal playing field, but rather you want them punished as well.
I'm fine with not ranking them preseason. Don't really care. But SOMEONE, be it official or not, is always going to rank. And the TV networks will always want to give viewers an understanding of how good the teams playing each other are. Do you suggest banning the networks from showing a ranking? Because that's the only way it would work.
Even if rankings were withheld until week 6 as you suggest, A 7-0 MISSISSIPPI STATE WOULD STILL HAVE BEEN RANKED. So Bama still would have gotten a ranked win.
A consistent theme of your argument is that you live in la la land and not the real world. I just gave two solid examples of situations where you're complaining of SEC bias with matters that would still be present whether SEC bias existed or not. It's human nature.
I do root for my team. I say "we" because it annoys you.
"But when you go into a national championship game, and the SEC school has recruited essentially a whole extra class over a 4 year period when compared to the non SEC school, that is a major advantage."
Ya don't say? So a team works within the rules to make itself as good as possible and instead of getting on that team's level, you want to bring that team down. Lame. The football teams exist to win games and entertain fans. Contrary to popular opinion, it ain't all about "developing men of character" and bla bla bla. That's just something weak teams tell themselves to excuse their lack of wind. If you can do both, great. If you can't, you should try to win.
Medical hardships are approved by the NCAA and their process is actually pretty stringent and the bar for receiving one is high. In 8 years or so of following A&M closely, we have never once gotten a medical redshirt. Not a single time. So I really have no idea what you're talking about.
Offers are rarely, if ever, pulled at the last second. I'm sure this is another claim of yours that you can't prove.
Grayshirts are within the rules. Most kids are happy for the opportunity to grayshirt because it gets them an offer they wouldn't otherwise have garnered. You can not grayshirt a kid without his consent. So if you don't like it, don't sign the LOI. If you have grayshirt offers from SEC schools then you likely have real offers from plenty of other schools.
"(Vandy is good and so is UF though)" and so is A&M, and Georgia. Alabama and Auburn are decent.
"But at every school, players get lower entrance standards."
That's true all over the country, not just the SEC. I bet Michigan has lower entrance standards for athletes than regular students. You know why? BECAUSE THE NCAA SETS ENTRANCE STANDARDS FOR ATHLETES. Just because a couple losing programs impose higher standards doesn't mean the rest of us should do it.
Funny, we call it ESiPN down here. Sip being a name for a Texas fan, and the nickname coming from the establishment of the Longhorn Network. ESPN has its tentacles all over the country. Sorry we watch more (but hey, yall have pro teams!!).
Don't really care about satellite camps. In fact I think coaches should hold combines for older guys that never went to school (thus have full eligibility). You could have former drug dealers, burger flippers, etc. be blessed with the opportunity for a chance at the NFL and a free education.
"
Can college football go back to not caring about the aggies? That would be nice"
No, it can't. Because we're in the SEC now. That was the brilliance of the move and that's why it's important the conference stays strong.
Also, don't forget Virginia Tech beat Ohio State during the regular season, a 'southern team'. LOL.
Also, don't forget Virginia Tech beat Ohio State during the regular season, a 'southern team'. LOL.
NoThin
Also, don't forget Virginia Tech beat Ohio State during the regular season, a 'southern team'. L
Nothing those players on VT will ever compare to that win. Graduation, child's birth, weddings, ext. They will remember the biggest win in VT history. Let's see how VT does this year since ur only as good as your last game <<SEC fans typically conveniently forget this
-
I'm sure you didn't acknowledge as much when we won 7 straight and had the best bowl record for forever, but ok.
You better hope I don't find you cosigning Gipper's "championships won 80 years ago are important!!" theory (which I have no problem with personally but if you supported it you'd be a hypocrite).
-
We average almost 80,000 people at every SEC game. Yes, we are "better fans." Get over it.
Yes, there is a difference. But Bama folks would still come away saying "we got a ranked win." Maybe you want to evaluate the records during that week and determine where exactly MSU deserved to be ranked? I mean since you're omniscient and all. I know that last year IIRC, there was only one team that made it to 7-0.
We watch more football, as reflected by the payouts for the SEC Network and our regular conference TV contract.
LOL. If satellite camps had started in the SEC you'd be complaining about it being another unfair advantage. Classic. And don't Big 10 teams set up satellite camps in the south? Almost a concession that we have the best players, but I digress.
Yes, everything is cyclical. But we're nowhere near starting our decline. Between the poverty here that helps produce great players that need football, the number of fans going to the games, the decline in interest in CFB in the rest of the country (attendance has been consistently down everywhere but the SEC), the TV markets, etc. We will be fine. Even if we don't dominate the landscape the way we did from 06-12, no conference will be able to make an even remotely legitimate case that they are better. Different conferences might say they're better at different things, but across the board the SEC will reign for awhile.
Whoops I skipped some parts. I'm not defending the SEC selectively and only defending A&M in other situations. I'm just saying that A&M has not once gotten a medical redshirt, so don't try to tell me the NCAA just gives them out like candy to SEC teams. Again, they have a high bar for it. We had a guy go down for the season in the first game of the season last year. He had transferred the year before so he hadn't played in a solid year and a half. The NCAA rejected his medical redshirt petition.
Ok you provided one example with Dan Mullen. Kudos. But he was skewered by many down here and he will suffer consequences recruiting in Texas in the future. So it all works out. It doesn't happen that often and when it does it's not that big of a deal.
I suppose bad schools shouldn't exist? Or shouldn't have football teams? I don't really see your point. But yes I will grant you that teams are benefited when their athletes are less distracted in easier classes. Life is all about trade offs. You wanna be the snooty academicians with saints on your football team, fine. We'll be the winners in football.
We average almost 80,000 people at every SEC game. Yes, we are "better fans." Get over it.
Yes, there is a difference. But Bama folks would still come away saying "we got a ranked win." Maybe you want to evaluate the records during that week and determine where exactly MSU deserved to be ranked? I mean since you're omniscient and all. I know that last year IIRC, there was only one team that made it to 7-0.
We watch more football, as reflected by the payouts for the SEC Network and our regular conference TV contract.
LOL. If satellite camps had started in the SEC you'd be complaining about it being another unfair advantage. Classic. And don't Big 10 teams set up satellite camps in the south? Almost a concession that we have the best players, but I digress.
Yes, everything is cyclical. But we're nowhere near starting our decline. Between the poverty here that helps produce great players that need football, the number of fans going to the games, the decline in interest in CFB in the rest of the country (attendance has been consistently down everywhere but the SEC), the TV markets, etc. We will be fine. Even if we don't dominate the landscape the way we did from 06-12, no conference will be able to make an even remotely legitimate case that they are better. Different conferences might say they're better at different things, but across the board the SEC will reign for awhile.
Whoops I skipped some parts. I'm not defending the SEC selectively and only defending A&M in other situations. I'm just saying that A&M has not once gotten a medical redshirt, so don't try to tell me the NCAA just gives them out like candy to SEC teams. Again, they have a high bar for it. We had a guy go down for the season in the first game of the season last year. He had transferred the year before so he hadn't played in a solid year and a half. The NCAA rejected his medical redshirt petition.
Ok you provided one example with Dan Mullen. Kudos. But he was skewered by many down here and he will suffer consequences recruiting in Texas in the future. So it all works out. It doesn't happen that often and when it does it's not that big of a deal.
I suppose bad schools shouldn't exist? Or shouldn't have football teams? I don't really see your point. But yes I will grant you that teams are benefited when their athletes are less distracted in easier classes. Life is all about trade offs. You wanna be the snooty academicians with saints on your football team, fine. We'll be the winners in football.
Damn, you're a moron or a troll. Or both. I will make the mistake of continuing to feed the troll I guess...
You're right, the "we" thing is annoying. It is more pathetic than anything, but if you're an Aggie fan, you have to feel relevant somehow.
If being a better fan was inversely related to scientific knowledge or general literacy, than you'd be right. Other than that, no, SEC fans aren't better fans.
Oh wow, you know what I'd think about something. Great. You're wrong, but nice try. I'm for every team having satellite camps. It only helps every party involved.
A medical redshirt and a medical hardship are two very different things. I already explained this to someone a few months back
If you are going to sit here and say "We", be prepared to defend the entire conference. I don't care if A&M hasn't abused medical hardships, because other SEC schools have. If you want to just talk about A&M, don't say we.
Remind me again how no one is going to football games, when Michigan, the largest stadium in the country, has sold out for next year and has a waitlist going. I look forward to seeing all of the SECs 110,000+ attendance games...
No, you don't have to be good academically to have a good team. I never said that. If that was true, the SEC would be in big trouble. We don't have to bring up academics at all, idc. It is only a losing battle for the SEC anyway.
I want teams to play fair and win the right way. You want to ignore the best interest of the players and do whatever it takes to win. I guess that is the real difference here. If A&M actually won something, you could say the strategy worked i guess.
Troll on little SEC troll. You're nothing new. Many have come before you. Now A&M just feels like they're part of this special club. Well, it is on the decline. Any ounce of an NCAA spine would help speed up that decline, but we'll just have to wait and see. Even with the off of the field advantages, the SECs time is ending.
Better fans... hahaha. Lack of anything else doesn't make you a better fan.
Texas school textbooks don't have better english content because their science and history sections are lacking...
-
I'm really curious how you define the "goodness" of fans. Apparently putting butts in the seats doesn't work. You mention Michigan. Well obviously I'm aware Michigan puts 110K in the stadium every week. The Big 10's average is 70K per game, which is actually much better than I thought (and I already said earlier I think the Big 10 is the second best conference structurally). Ours is 78. More stadium expansion has occurred in SEC stadiums. We have better fans. The Big 10 is a 3-team wonder while the SEC is 8-deep in power programs (A&M, LSU, Auburn, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, Tennessee).
"If being a better fan was inversely related to scientific knowledge or general literacy, than you'd be right. Other than that, no, SEC fans aren't better fans."
This kinda thing passes for legitimate debate for you?
I'd have to look up the definition of "medical hardships," but be forewarned, it will probably end badly for you, like many of the other "factual" statements you've thrown out.
I would love to hear why you think we're declining. Because we've only won 7 of the last 9 national championships instead of 9 straight? We still have the largest TV markets, the most money, and the best players. And of course the most committed fans AS A CONFERENCE (read: Michigan alone might have better fans than anyone in the SEC, and that means jack to our debate).
I bet you actually think you wouldn't have lost 42-14 to Alabama in 2012 if the game had been played up north. Lol
-
Well by that standard we're blowing everyone away
-
As far as I can tell, "medical hardships" refer to players kicked off the team for "medical reasons" but are allowed to stay at the school.
Scholarships are only granted year to year. They are contingent on a variety of things that basically get to be made up by the head coach granting said scholarships. When a player has failed to meet those requirements, their scholarship can be pulled.
Some SEC coaches (and as far as I can tell it's really only Nick Saban, ultimate SEC haters boogeyman) grant a player a medical hardship instead of pulling their scholarship outright. This way, they still get all of the money they would have otherwise gotten as a football player and they get to stay in school.
I suppose your solution is to make it so that the scholarship is pulled altogether and the kids can no longer afford school? Yet another example of you living in la la land and not the real world. Saban is actually being generous.
What Saban does by having 90-95 players on scholarship from signing day to the first game (85 is the limit during the season) is foster competition because 5-10 players know they will be "cut." It works tremendously well. Granting the hardship allows them to stay in school instead of being screwed.
I know I've debated with many Aggies the fact that Sumlin only has some 78 or 80 guys on scholarship right now, despite being thin at LB and CB. You are effectively imposing NCAA scholarship limits on yourself. It makes no sense. You should always be as close to the 85 as possible and yeah, I think it's smart to be over it when you can so guys work harder to make it. At Alabama, when they don't make it, I'm sure he talks to them and attempts to get them to transfer elsewhere. If that doesn't work, he gives them the medical hardship. What's the big deal?
I have no sympathy for guys taking up roster spots buried on the depth chart once they're in their third year. I had a friend that was forced out of Ohio State when Urban Meyer came because Coach Meyer felt he was doing that very thing. It's a smart thing to do.
-
Oh god, you were arguing with me about medical hardships and you didn't even understand what they were. If that isn't representative of everything you've posted, I'm not sure what is...
No you idiot, I wouldn't prefer them getting kicked off of the team all together. I'd prefer players not getting kicked off of the team in the first place...
The B1G provides 4 year scholarships as a standard. The SEC has no such rule because coaches objected. Coaches were against it because it would prevent them from cutting players. Forcing a medical hardship on them, which essentially ends their football career, is their way to cut dead weight.
You can't jump back and forth between beating your SEC chest and then only commenting on A&M when it suits you. If you are going to be an SEC dick, and ride the dicks of successful teams in the conference, then you are going to have to defend for them too.
Last I checked they were still student athletes, not professionals. It isn't ethical to start cutting kids and ruining careers.
I am not defining the "goodness" of anything. You are the one claiming SEC fans are "Better". I have disagreed. That doesn't mean I think B1G fans are better.
You're counting UF in your 8 deep? How have they been recently? What are the 3 teams you count in the B1G?
We're way past a "legitimate" debate buddy. If that was true, this would have been over a while ago. Generally, those that toot the SEC horn are not ones to win a debate on the matter.
And again, you didn't even know what a medical hardship was, but you thought it would end poorly for me, haha. How about you get a grasp on what you're trolling about first?
I'm not trying to debate anything for the B1G. Idc about being a "conference fan". I am more than happy being a fan and alum of one of the most storied programs in the country. I don't need to curl up against Bama to feel some self worth. It is like Texas and OU were being mean to you so went you to join another club with some older kids. "You're stupid Texas! My friend Bama will beat you up!"
No, I don't think that. Bama was a much better team than us, and we most likely would have lost no matter where we played.
-
And yet you were responding to what I was saying about medical redshirts, and then didn't take the two seconds to explain what they were. If my lack of knowledge about some minute tool used for cutting players is "representative of everything I've posted," then surely you being wrong about the conference unequally enforcing its rules, your Mississippi State theory, your beliefs on bowl game attendance, etc. is the same for you. You haven't exactly had solid command of the facts.
I'm not going back and forth between defending A&M and defending the SEC. As a knowledgeable A&M fan, that is the team I can best comment on and I can use our experiences to reasonably grasp that of others (such as the NCAA having a high bar for medical redshirts, though that point is now moot).
Yet by your own standards, invoking the B1G's scholarship policy must mean you are "jumping back and forth between beating your B1G chest and then only commenting on Michigan when it suits you." I realize that's not what you're doing. So realize what I'm doing when I bring up A&M.
"I am not defining the "goodness" of anything. You are the one claiming SEC fans are "Better". I have disagreed. That doesn't mean I think B1G fans are better."
I actually said we had the best fans. Logically, you denying that means you think another conference has the best fans. So argue for one or stop saying we don't have the best fans. Again, individual schools might have better fans, but no conference top to bottom even comes close. You can ignorantly keep spouting "not having pro teams doesn't make you a better fan," and "being a bunch of dumb rednecks doesn't make you better fans," yet I'm not allowed to ask you what DOES make a better fan? Don't make assertions you can't back up.
No coach would use the medical hardship until they've first asked the kid if he's willing to transfer. So no, his football career is NOT "ended." And surely the B1G still has standards by which players can be kicked off the team. I could complain that those are too low just as you complain "not performing" is too low, right?
So in the same thread you go from advocating that players make money on their likeness to lamenting the fact that they're more and more treated as professionals instead of student athletes. Ok big guy.
We're arguing about which conference is the best and why, yet anytime I criticize the conference I assume you think is the best, you say "I'm not defending the Big 10." Ok, well which is the best, and why? Even if you're only willing to say "the SEC is the best, BUT only because of cheating," then at least do that so we can move on. Arguing that it's not by far the best conference over the last 10 years is based in very little fact and is generally quite futile.
Not counting UF as a power program would be as idiotic as me not counting Michigan as a power program. If you put 75,000 butts in seats consistently, recruit well consistently (over 10 years), are in a talent-laden area, and/or have strong history in the last 25 years, you're a power program. Even if we were judging by your standard, a team with two national championships in the last 9 years isn't a "power program"? Yeah. Ok.
I count Michigan, Ohio State, and Penn State, obviously. There is not enough talent in the area to sustain other programs on any sort of consistent basis. Sure, you can get the Gary Patterson at TCU kind of guys here and there that can win with less like Dantonio, but that doesn't alone make you a power program.
No the debate is still mostly legitimate, despite your ad hominem attacks, name calling, and general lack of class. And you've been losing from the moment you proved you had a fact blatantly wrong. You're going to try to hang your hat on the fact I didn't know what the obscure "medical hardship" was, as if it matters. I think readers will realize you are the one short on knowledge here. Plus, we're all still a little unsure of what you're even arguing.
At least you can concede that the SEC is the "older kids" of college football. Couldnt agree more.
-
A.Let's make things clear.....a lot of the SEC teams look so good because of the cupcake non-conference schedules.
Also....the SEC was far from the best conference this past year despite some teams having gawdy early season records (see A Above). Their record in bowl games wasn't so hot. And, in this last draft, the Pac12 had more higher players drafted than the SEC.....because apparently it had more talent
A. That's not clear nor is it accurate. We look good because we had the best bowl record almost a decade running and because we just won 7 straight crystal balls. Among other things.
B. It had more upperclassmen talent, yes. Totally granted. We'll see how they do next year. IMO the SEC is slowly moving toward much more of a college basketballish "rent a player" model. No redshirts, three years for everyone, if you haven't proved yourself within two years you transfer.
But regardless, you mention our apparently lousy bowl record last year when we were only #2 in the bowl standings, as opposed to our usual #1. Oh, whatever will we do with such a failure.
A. That's not clear nor is it accurate. We look good because we had the best bowl record almost a decade running and because we just won 7 straight crystal balls. Among other things.
I don't know about the bowl thing.....but you had specific teams win those titles. One or two great teams doesn't not a good conference make. If that were the case then it could be argued that the Big Ten is the best conference because it now holds the title.
B. It had more upperclassmen talent, yes. Totally granted. We'll see how they do next year. IMO the SEC is slowly moving toward much more of a college basketballish "rent a player" model. No redshirts, three years for everyone, if you haven't proved yourself within two years you transfer.
But regardless, you mention our apparently lousy bowl record last year when we were only #2 in the bowl standings, as opposed to our usual #1. Oh, whatever will we do with such a failure.
I don't think it was that good. Show us the record.
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