Started By
Message
0
Posted on 12/11/25 at 1:46 pm to hookem2522
quote:
Texas beat Bama in 23, but we also won the Big 12 in 23.
My bad. Feels like y'all have been here longer. Maybe its because you fit in better than Aggie or Mizzou.
Posted on 12/11/25 at 1:53 pm to Darindawg
quote:
Can no one ask a real, serious question without some punk kid taking an immature shot at you? Just answer the question, if you don't know it, stfu.
What a gaping vagina.
Posted on 12/11/25 at 1:54 pm to Darindawg
quote:
I've heard Bama, Texas A&M and now Ole Miss fans making the claim their team is the 'regular season SEC champions'....huh?
What A&M fans have been saying that?
Posted on 12/11/25 at 2:33 pm to Darindawg
quote:
All of the above had 1 regular season SEC loss, so, even if it is a THING, wouldn't it be some sort of 4 way tie between them and UGA, since we only had one SEC loss as well?
Well, it was a thing before the SECCG. For example, in 1989 there was a three-way tie for the SEC title between Alabama, Auburn, and Tennessee - they had each beaten each other and were 1-1 against the other two. No tie breakers were given; the only question was which team would get the nod for the Sugar Bowl that year. Alabama went mostly because, by that point, we had gone the longest without appearing in it.
Then we had divisions so you were either called the "winner" or the "representative" of your division.
We no longer have divisions, and the tiebreakers can involve situations where the teams tied never played each other (as stated before, of the 4 teams involved, the only head-to-head regular season game was Alabama vs Georgia and Georgia vs Ole Miss.)
So should Ole Miss claim something?
If the argument is that they already lost to Georgia, then the question is why did Georgia get to be in the SECCG if they already lost to Alabama. At that point it seems like A&M should have played Alabama, if that's the argument.
Should A&M claim something?
It's not their fault the teams they were scheduled with playing were weaker.
I'm not advocating for claiming it, but I don't know what the SEC's official stance is either. Do Ole Miss and A&M get nothing because the teams they were given by the scheduling office happened to be a lot weaker? Not up to me to make that call.
Posted on 12/11/25 at 2:38 pm to Ag Zwin
quote:
Ah, another one of these.
I think it’s a valid question.
We know why that’s a thing in basketball and baseball.
Posted on 12/11/25 at 2:50 pm to DBird
Different sports treat it differently.
Every sport typically has both, football does its own thing.
Every sport typically has both, football does its own thing.
Posted on 12/11/25 at 2:55 pm to Darindawg
Haven’t heard it at all but get used to it. It’s common language amongst talking heads. You hear it all the time in ncaa bball bc it sells a more compelling story. Fans parrot what they hear media so it’ll be coming to football soon.
Posted on 12/11/25 at 2:57 pm to Darindawg
I have no idea what you are talking about unless you mean basketball.
Posted on 12/11/25 at 2:58 pm to TigerLunatik
quote:
What a gaping vagina.
That's how your wife described you when I asked her last night why she came to me.
Posted on 12/11/25 at 2:59 pm to skrayper
quote:
Well, it was a thing before the SECCG. For example, in 1989 there was a three-way tie for the SEC title between Alabama, Auburn, and Tennessee - they had each beaten each other and were 1-1 against the other two. No tie breakers were given; the only question was which team would get the nod for the Sugar Bowl that year. Alabama went mostly because, by that point, we had gone the longest without appearing in it.
Then we had divisions so you were either called the "winner" or the "representative" of your division.
We no longer have divisions, and the tiebreakers can involve situations where the teams tied never played each other (as stated before, of the 4 teams involved, the only head-to-head regular season game was Alabama vs Georgia and Georgia vs Ole Miss.)
So should Ole Miss claim something?
If the argument is that they already lost to Georgia, then the question is why did Georgia get to be in the SECCG if they already lost to Alabama. At that point it seems like A&M should have played Alabama, if that's the argument.
Should A&M claim something?
It's not their fault the teams they were scheduled with playing were weaker.
I'm not advocating for claiming it, but I don't know what the SEC's official stance is either. Do Ole Miss and A&M get nothing because the teams they were given by the scheduling office happened to be a lot weaker? Not up to me to make that call.
Yeah, but we just called them SEC championships rather than regular vs post season champions.
Seems dumb for football to me. I ain't claiming that kind of crap.
That said, it makes more sense with the current playoffs and the game itself losing it's meaning and it being best to not play in it. But that's not a good reason, at least currently, to separate them. And I'd rather restore the meaning if possible...although probably not gonna be that lucky sadly.
This post was edited on 12/11/25 at 3:00 pm
Posted on 12/11/25 at 2:59 pm to skrayper
quote:
Do Ole Miss and A&M get nothing
They get nothing.
Posted on 12/11/25 at 3:01 pm to Darindawg
Unlike most other sports there is no regular season vs post season championship in football.
Other sports (like basketball) have that but football has a single championship, the SEC championship game winner.
The SEC title has always been extremely important but the jumbo conference size and the playoff has made it lose some prestige and that i sad
Other sports (like basketball) have that but football has a single championship, the SEC championship game winner.
The SEC title has always been extremely important but the jumbo conference size and the playoff has made it lose some prestige and that i sad
Posted on 12/11/25 at 3:01 pm to 3down10
quote:
I have no idea what you are talking about unless you mean basketball.
Its definitely not been the sensible ones, like you.
Posted on 12/11/25 at 3:08 pm to Darindawg
Get any larger and the SEC is going to have to have a tournament including the top 4 teams to determine the championship. This isn't going to be a situation unique to this year.
Posted on 12/11/25 at 3:10 pm to 3down10
quote:
Yeah, but we just called them SEC championships rather than regular vs post season champions.
Seems dumb for football to me. I ain't claiming that kind of crap.
That said, it makes more sense with the current playoffs and the game itself losing it's meaning and it being best to not play in it. But that's not a good reason, at least currently, to separate them. And I'd rather restore the meaning if possible...although probably not gonna be that lucky sadly.
To clarify, I never said anyone SHOULD claim anything. It's more of a comparison from the much cleaner divisions where, even a tie, meant we were assured a head-to-head match up.
The new system brought us a 4-way tie with only two head-to-head matches. Georgia over Ole Miss is easy, as they beat them in the regular season, but Georgia over A&M was pretty much due to a scheduling quirk. That's a weird way to end a season, IMHO.
Posted on 12/11/25 at 3:13 pm to Ag Zwin
quote:
What the heck does "SEC Regular Season Champions" mean?
quote:
Ag Zwin
quote:You probably should sit this one out.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News