Started By
Message
re: The SEC dominance is hurting college football overall
Posted on 10/5/14 at 1:34 pm to td01241
Posted on 10/5/14 at 1:34 pm to td01241
if one or the other can finish off the season with only 1 or 2 losses and keep their head coach i think one of em can make something that will last.
i dont think the sipp is big enough for 2 perennial top flight teams.
lsu should be ashamed, twice the population and no one in state to recruit against. imagine if one of the mississippi schools could get something going.
i dont think the sipp is big enough for 2 perennial top flight teams.
lsu should be ashamed, twice the population and no one in state to recruit against. imagine if one of the mississippi schools could get something going.
This post was edited on 10/5/14 at 1:35 pm
0
Posted on 10/5/14 at 1:34 pm to PrivatePublic
quote:
Football in the south is doing just fine. frick the rest of you.
^^^^THIS
Posted on 10/5/14 at 1:34 pm to Ross
quote:
nobody here gives a single frick if Notre Dame or Michigan or Ohio State are ever good again. We don't care about your teams except to laugh at your ineptitude.
fricking THIS.
Posted on 10/5/14 at 1:35 pm to bucknut
quote:
Especially having historically bad programs from small markets like the Mississippi schools ranked so high. College Football is in a decline and the only way the rest of the country will start watching again is once the historically top programs like tOSU, Michigan, USC, Penn State, etc are back in the top 10.
has-been
n.
a person or thing that is no longer effective, successful, popular, etc.
This post was edited on 10/5/14 at 1:47 pm
Posted on 10/5/14 at 1:36 pm to bucknut
It's not our fault the rest of the country can't keep up
Posted on 10/5/14 at 1:37 pm to bucknut
There's always soccer...
Posted on 10/5/14 at 1:37 pm to GatorReb
The Big 10 at least took a great step forward by putting teams in divisions that geographically makes sense. I still could not tell you who is in what division in the ACC, and I'm pretty sure 95% of the fans outside of the ACC would not be able to tell you either. SEC packs in ratings week after week even in those markets outside of the SEC because:
1. The quality of the football is the best.
2. The fans and the teams seem to give a frick.
3. 98% of the time, the teams are wearing their traditional jerseys and helmets, so that you don't have to spend the first 5 minutes of watching to determine which team is which team.
4. The division alignment outside of Missouri makes sense.
These things are cyclical and SEC won't be top dog forever, but teams like Michigan, Texas, Oklahoma, USC outside of the SEC need to get their shite together. Looks like Notre Dame might do OK this year.
1. The quality of the football is the best.
2. The fans and the teams seem to give a frick.
3. 98% of the time, the teams are wearing their traditional jerseys and helmets, so that you don't have to spend the first 5 minutes of watching to determine which team is which team.
4. The division alignment outside of Missouri makes sense.
These things are cyclical and SEC won't be top dog forever, but teams like Michigan, Texas, Oklahoma, USC outside of the SEC need to get their shite together. Looks like Notre Dame might do OK this year.
Posted on 10/5/14 at 1:41 pm to Weagle25
The OP's idea that SEC dominance is hurting anyone other than the B1G is what's most hilarious of all.
Posted on 10/5/14 at 1:44 pm to bucknut
can't tell if serious...
[insert joker face here]
Posted on 10/5/14 at 1:46 pm to bucknut
quote:
historically bad programs from small markets like the Mississippi schools
Posted on 10/5/14 at 1:46 pm to bucknut
quote:
Especially having historically bad programs from small markets like the Mississippi schools ranked so high
Come beat us then, bitch. We made Urban cry once, we'll gladly do it again.
Posted on 10/5/14 at 1:50 pm to wareagle7298
I used to buy the "things are cyclical" argument but the demographics and money seem to argue differently. SEC schools on average, spend way more on coaching and facilities than other conferences and that isn't likely to change. We also have a much larger percentage of the athletically inclined in our footprint than other conferences.
Posted on 10/5/14 at 1:52 pm to bucknut
This thread.. again
Posted on 10/5/14 at 1:54 pm to bucknut
Posted on 10/5/14 at 1:55 pm to cyde
I knew that bitch OP wouldn't return. It's how things work with B10 people. Talk big and then disappear when they get dominated by the SEC.
Posted on 10/5/14 at 1:55 pm to KSGamecock
quote:
The idea that Michigan was 'dominant' at any point outside of a couple outlying years since the Fielding Yost era ninety years ago is one of the biggest jokes in all of CFB.
Win % would beg to differ.
Win pct is misleading for two reasons:
1) the rest of the Big 10 sucked arse for decades, greatly inflating that win pct. From the late 1960s through the end of the 1970s, when they were racking up all those wins, name 5 teams in that conference historically as competitive as Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Tennessee, and Georgia.
2) for decades, due to Big 10 rules, the runner up in the Big 10 had to sit at home during bowl season instead of going and getting their arse kicked by a team from a power conference.
Posted on 10/5/14 at 1:57 pm to KSGamecock
quote:
I used to buy the "things are cyclical" argument but the demographics and money seem to argue differently. SEC schools on average, spend way more on coaching and facilities than other conferences and that isn't likely to change. We also have a much larger percentage of the athletically inclined in our footprint than other conferences.
Not to mention the fact that it may not be that easy recruiting kids to arse freezing weather for four or five months a year. After having lived for a couple of years in a place where there's snow on the ground from late October until late March, I understand that better now.
Posted on 10/5/14 at 2:00 pm to RockyMtnTigerWDE
quote:
I knew that bitch OP wouldn't return. It's how things work with B10 people. Talk big and then disappear when they get dominated by the SEC.
I know right? Typical.
Posted on 10/5/14 at 2:13 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:
Not to mention the fact that it may not be that easy recruiting kids to arse freezing weather for four or five months a year. After having lived for a couple of years in a place where there's snow on the ground from late October until late March, I understand that better now.
But the temperature differences between the north and south have always existed, that's not new and doesn't explain the disparity between the SEC and the rest of the country that began widening a decade or so ago. What caused that disparity to form? Not entirely sure but I think it's probably a combination of:
1. Money. SEC schools began spending more and more on coaching and what not while other schools reigned in that spending at the behest of their academic establishments, this is especially the case in the B1G where the rest of the university howls when their schools' AD's try to bump up salaries.
2. Changes in scholarship rules. Nebraska is a perfect example of this. Why were they so dominant back in the day? Because they were willing to accept "partial qualifiers", hook them up with scholarships (often not for football) and throw together a 200 player football team. Now that it's no longer allowed they have to focus on getting 80 guys who will pan out instead of any odd 200 and only needing 10% to amount to something. This applies to everyone but it's harder for NU to get 80 "right guys" in their backyard than it is for Alabama.
This post was edited on 10/5/14 at 2:17 pm
Posted on 10/5/14 at 2:14 pm to bucknut
quote:
Especially having historically bad programs from small markets like the Mississippi schools ranked so high. College Football is in a decline and the only way the rest of the country will start watching again is once the historically top programs like tOSU, Michigan, USC, Penn State, etc are back in the top 10.
Maybe y'all should get better at football.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News