Expansion Talk 2021

[bobongo]

However, they are not a conference that is so far above any other conference that no other team has any chance of beating an SEC team.

No one has said anything of the kind. No one.

 

[bobongo]

I just checked in on this thread and I would swear we have some closet SEC fans on here. Pretty soon we will be debating the Tech vs uga series and whether to count Tech’s wins during WW II.

No, we won't.

 

[FredJacket]

I'll take... Ga Tech, Loiusville, FSU, Duke Syracuse

OVER

Arkansas, Miss St, Tenn, SC, Vandy

....see what I did there?

 

[RonJohn]

Uh huh. The stats usually go their way. Has nothing to do with hype. IIWII.

So when they lose more out of conference games by a decent margin, the stats still go their way? SEC hype will always favor the SEC even if they lose every OOC game and every bowl game. IIWII

 

[Northeast Stinger]

So I just checked the numbers and Yale and Princeton together have more National Championships than the entire SEC combined.

 

[bobongo]

So when they lose more out of conference games by a decent margin, the stats still go their way? SEC hype will always favor the SEC even if they lose every OOC game and every bowl game. IIWII

Not every year they don't. Of course not. OVERALL.

 

[bobongo]

So I just checked the numbers and Yale and Princeton together have more National Championships than the entire SEC combined.

Funny.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I was saying that in a year where the SEC loses OOC games, the SEC hype train says that OOC games don't matter and are no indication of the strength of a conference. To them, stats only matter if they paint a picture that the SEC always was, is, and always will be dominant. In a year when the SEC wins the majority of OOC games, it is definitive proof of the strength of the SEC. In a year when the SEC doesn't, it isn't a stat that anyone should ever take into account.

This is a fact. I still remember when FSU beat Auburn for the National Championship and all the Sec/ESPN talking heads said it was only natural since FSU is really an SEC team at heart and not indicative of the ACC.

You. Can’t. Make. This. $hit. Up.

 

[bobongo]

This is a fact. I still remember when FSU beat Auburn for the National Championship and all the Sec/ESPN talking heads said it was only natural since FSU is really an SEC team at heart and not indicative of the ACC.

You. Can’t. Make. This. $hit. Up.

I'm not denying the SEC has a bigger hype machine. I've heard the same thing - we all have. And I always root against them. But fact is they've still proven to be the strongest conference.
I hope that changes, but I don't see that on the horizon.

 

[RonJohn]

Not every year they don't. Of course not. OVERALL.

What? You are not responding to my post. You are responding to something imaginary.

I was not talking about the SEC. I was talking about the SEC hype train. The SEC hype train does indeed say that the SEC is the best conference every year. No matter what the stats are for that year, they claim that ONLY stats that favor the SEC count. As @Northeast Stinger said, FSU winning is an indication that the SEC is best because they are more of an SEC team than ACC. If the ACC wins rivalry weekend, it doesn't count. If the SEC wins rivalry weekend, it is proof of SEC dominance. If WF beats Ole Miss, it isn't an indication of anything because Ole Miss is a bottom feeder team. If Ole miss beats #4 Florida three weeks later, it is proof that the SEC is super strong top to bottom. Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. The only stats that matter to the SEC hype train are whatever stat in that moment that indicates SEC dominance. No other stats matter, even if they were the #1 stat three weeks ago.

 

[GoJacketsInRaleigh]

Don’t ever come here again with that mess.

Stop me?

 

[augustabuzz]

Well, when the SEC wins another one this year I guess I’ll be wrong about how strong they are - and they have 3 teams with a shot (Bama, UGA, and Texas A&M). The ACC has 1. So 11 out of the last 20 by 4 teams and 2 in a row by 2 different teams isn’t strong. I’d hate to see what you do think is strong.

And the SEC is not considered the best because ESPN puts them on TV and the pollsters rank them highly. They are strongper because they get the majority of best high school players and they attract the best coaches because they are willing to pay to be the best. We pay our coach a little over 3 million per year. Auburn just paid a high level coach 5.25 million per year. The SEC is simply willing to pay to be the best at football. Other conferences spend their money elsewhere and then fans wonder why it is how it is when it comes to football.

Listen, this is a football board not an ethics or morality board. If it were a board about strength of engineering programs and someone said GT was only strong in those fields because the pollsters (US News rankings and all other rankings) said they were and those polls tricked the public into believing it I’d point to the money GT puts into the engineering programs and I would definitely point out the scholastic ratings of the students that make up those programs (GPA, SAT, ACT). GT attracts 4 and 5 star students into their high level engineering programs because that is where the school puts their money and efforts. The SEC attracts 4 and 5 star athletes because that’s where they put their resources. Trying to say the SEC strength in football is a myth is just not being honest. That’s like UGA fans trying to tell us their enginneering programs are just as good as ours.

That's the problem. The sec hasn't won a CFP championship yet! Alabama has won and LSU has another.

 

[forensicbuzz]

Well if you want to parse it out, have at it. I doubt it will support your premise with the SEC holding a nearly two to one edge over the ACC, but go for it. I am not pushing any talking points, I am just stating facts. I always, without exception, root for any team playing against an SEC team OOC. And the other team more often than not loses.

You didn't state fact, you provided a statistic. You know what they say about statistics...Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics. The devil is in the details. I've done the analysis before. I won't do it again, but I can tell you that outside of 4 teams, the rest of the SEC have losing records in the last 20 years against P5 teams. (caveat: this was done about 5 years ago, so maybe a little bit of up or down)

 

[orientalnc]

Well, when the SEC wins another one this year I guess I’ll be wrong about how strong they are - and they have 3 teams with a shot (Bama, UGA, and Texas A&M). The ACC has 1. So 11 out of the last 20 by 4 teams and 2 in a row by 2 different teams isn’t strong. I’d hate to see what you do think is strong.

And the SEC is not considered the best because ESPN puts them on TV and the pollsters rank them highly. They are strongper because they get the majority of best high school players and they attract the best coaches because they are willing to pay to be the best. We pay our coach a little over 3 million per year. Auburn just paid a high level coach 5.25 million per year. The SEC is simply willing to pay to be the best at football. Other conferences spend their money elsewhere and then fans wonder why it is how it is when it comes to football.

Listen, this is a football board not an ethics or morality board. If it were a board about strength of engineering programs and someone said GT was only strong in those fields because the pollsters (US News rankings and all other rankings) said they were and those polls tricked the public into believing it I’d point to the money GT puts into the engineering programs and I would definitely point out the scholastic ratings of the students that make up those programs (GPA, SAT, ACT). GT attracts 4 and 5 star students into their high level engineering programs because that is where the school puts their money and efforts. The SEC attracts 4 and 5 star athletes because that’s where they put their resources. Trying to say the SEC strength in football is a myth is just not being honest. That’s like UGA fans trying to tell us their enginneering programs are just as good as ours.

I agree with you about the facts, but I believe the willingness to spend huge amounts of money is killing college football and basketball. So, when we start arguing about what killed the sport we love, let's not forget how we got there.

 

[forensicbuzz]

I agree with you about the facts, but I believe the willingness to spend huge amounts of money is killing college football and basketball. So, when we start arguing about what killed the sport we love, let's not forget how we got there.

I don't agree about the "facts" as there are no "facts" just opinions.

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

Ron Jon,
You keep bringing up Alabama like they are the only team in the SEC who has won anything. If that were the case I’d agree with you. Just like we all know the ACC is Clemson and everyone else. But, you simply refuse to acknowledge that the SEC has won 11 of the last 20 years by 4 different teams. It’s not just Bama winning. We’ve all seen many SEC teams win Natties recently (Florida, Auburn, LSU, and Bama). Tennessee was longer ago and Jimbo has A&M as a top 10 every year just waiting for their special QB. No other conference is even close. I hate them and root against every SEC team every OOC game they play. Just because I point out in football message board that they are dominant in football doesn’t make me a bad fan. I was born into the ACC (literally in College Park, MD) and hung out at Cole Field house as a kid (my dad was a scholarship athlete at MD). Thankfully they moved south and I found GT!!

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

First I think the preseason rankings really bias teams ability to get higher in the polls and really provides a huge benefit to teams who are ranked high initially. I think that has been a huge advantage the SEC has had for years. I would much prefer there were no rankings until the first release of the playoff rankings in October. I think that would give every team a much fairer chance to be ranked based on performance of the current year's team.

Second, this major hassle regarding letting any team from any conference doesn't play out in many sports. Check out this year's MLB race. The Braves are the 6th best record in the National League (actually could be 5th depending on SD). But fan interest is really high if you can win your division. That is true of all of the pro sports where division winners get in regardless of record. No one seems to mind that, it keeps interest up and the playoffs don't always favor the best records. My take would be to have a playoff of 8 to 12 teams where some number are automatic depending on conference champions. That would also allow teams to schedule whatever teams they want to schedule out of conference because winning the conference would overcome any drop off in record. So 8 team playoffs, Power 5 (or Power 4+1) and 3 wildcats. 12 team playoffs (Power 5+ 1 Group of 5 plus 6 wildcats). That would allow no limits on a conference but ensure national representation which long-term helps college football interest nationwide.

I totally agree with all that. The polls shouldn’t start until October. And the playoffs will expand we’ll past 12 in the future because of what you said. There is interest and money in it.

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

Is it really worth continuing?

Yes, because we don’t play until next Saturday.

 

[orientalnc]

I agree with you about the facts, but I believe the willingness to spend huge amounts of money is killing college football and basketball. So, when we start arguing about what killed the sport we love, let's not forget how we got there.

I am not sure if it's because they get the best coaches or the best players, but if W/L records are the measure, the SEC has been the best for a long time.

SEC vs Other Conferences - topdan.com

Complete list of the SEC's inter-conference football games since 1998 (the BCS and playoff eras).

topdan.com

 

[SOWEGA Jacket]

When the SEC steps outside their little fiefdom, and play someone of "their caliber" outside their conference, more likely than not, they get shellacked. There's a reason uga hadn't played a game west of the Mississippi in like 50 years before they played Colorado; they didn't want the high-profile loss. Well, they got their asses handed to them. The SEC is getting better about playing the big boys, but 2/3 of their conference is horse-****, just like everyone else. LSU and Alabama haven't been afraid to step out, but everyone else is looking for the good-looking mid-level P5 win to put on their schedule. And yes, the strength of the SEC varies year to year, with some years being stronger and some years being weaker. But, that's something all conferences experience.

I get your point but come on. When was the last time GT has scheduled A regular season game west of the Mississippi? I get it. We all hate UGA. But you bring up points to try and make them look bad yet we do even less. Listen, the difference between the SEC and the ACC is simple. The 2nd tier teams in the SEC are just way better than any other conferences 2nd tier. The bottom feeders in all just suck.

1st tier - SEC (Bama), ACC (Clemson), BIG (Ohio St.).

2nd tier - SEC (UGA, Texas A&M, LSU, Florida), ACC (UNC), BIG (? maybe Penn State)

3rd tier - SEC (Auburn, Missouri), ACC (Miami, VT, maybe BC), BIG (? Northwestern, Iowa)

4th tier and below are all mediocre to garbage.