Ags Piggies make it official

Whocares,
I applaud your repeated attempts to keep this thread focused in spite of distractions. And, I agree with your point, that Ark probably made a good decision due to money and schedule. The bottom line is . . the bottom line. $50 mil.

I also agree that your schedule is brutal. Even though Bama hasn't been that good recently, if they were on Texas' schedule, we would consider it a big game. And I don't envy you playing LSU and Georgia at either location. (Please don't bring up Ole Miss again).

On the other hand, I think SEC fans in general need to wake up and realize that the SEC is not the only tough conference. Are they the toughest conference? Maybe. Probably. But if so, it's not by near the margin by which they seem to have become convinced.

A constant drumbeat of "Team X doesn't play anybody" by SEC fans has become irritating to a lot of fans from other conferences, including me.

A confession: I am a closet Tiger fan (LSU). After a 2007 surgery, I saw a therapist thrice weekly. He was a big Tiger fan, and he always wanted to talk about the SEC schedules being so tough.

I really enjoyed seeing him every week and countering his delusions of conference superiority with a rundown of who had the most teams in top 5, top 10, and top 20 that week. Care to guess how that went?

In most cases throughout the season, the Big 12 vs. SEC were neck and neck, with a one team margin either way generally for the top 20, but with the Big 12 having a lead in top 10 teams in most cases.

By the time the champ game came around, I ended up pulling against the Tigers. I'm just so tired of hearing about how the SEC is all that. The numbers just don't add up.

I know I'm alone, but I'm a big fan of the BCS system, mainly because I believe there will NEVER be a playoff. I like the fact that it QUANTIFIES that which we have relied for so long on emotion to rank. (I'm not sure what role strength of schedule plays this season; they keep changing that don't they?) I think the SEC mantra of "we're the toughest conference" is partly justified, but mainly emotional.

But at the end of the year, #1 plays #2. That's the point. By the way, USC won the BCS championship a few years ago; not LSU.

And going by that same rating system that determines #1 and #2, I think you'll also see that SEC teams and Big 12 teams are very comparable. Our teams beat each other up, too.

Damn, I'm long-winded. More to say, but . . . .
 
Fine reply, Nomad. A lot of us are tired of hearing about how the SEC is all that and a Big Gulp, too.

No doubt there are some fine teams to the south and east of us, but in case nobody's paying attention, there's a resurgence in the Big 12 North, and the South has already been good. I doubt there is more than a one or two team difference in the quantity of quality between the Big 12 and SEC. The Pac 10's had plenty of good teams for the last several years too. Really, only the Big 10 and ACC have been down.

swine fan should be happy that aggy was...ummm...misguided enough to agree to an annual game, in Dallas, against arky. It gives the hillbillies more recruiting presence in Texas than they've had since ditching the SWC. aggy gets little or nothing out of the series except money...and an annual beating in Jerryworld.
 
Nomad............
Thank you for your support of the SEC but every time you root for LSU, an Angel gets AIDS.

In all seriousness, I can't knock Texas too much. The same goes for OU. With that said, that's the Big 12 in a nut shell. Granted, Mizzou and Kansas have experienced quite a ride as of late but lets not kid ourselves. They are more than likely going to return to their losing ways as fast as they found winning ones.

Before last season, the North would beat the South in games where the opponent rhymed with Baylor and that was about the extent of the balance of power.

We could debate the intricacies all day but there is a reason the SEC leads in attendance, revenue, bowl eligible teams, and BCS success. The SEC is 11-4 in BCS games by the way, opposed to the Big 12 sitting at 6-8.

In the SEC West, Auburn, LSU, and Arkansas have rotated winning the division over the last 10 years. In the East, Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee have rotated. That is 6 teams that year in and year out fight for the conference title. Additionally, Even Bama and Miss. St. have won their division in that time span. That balance and variety of success, year in and year out, can not be matched by the Big 12. The North has variety but the variety boils down to "Who sucks the least".

At the end of the day, the Big 12 can try and come up with ways in which they compare to the SEC but I am of the opinion, and the opinion is commonplace, that the gap between the SEC and Big 12 from top to bottom is a very, very large one. The numbers just don't match up.

Attendance numbers can not be debated.
Revenue can not be debated.
BCS success and Bowl eligible teams can not be debated.
The variety of teams that win their respective Divisions can not be debated.

Then of course you could discuss the incredible gap in facilities and coaching "star power", which never hurts in recruiting, but neither of those things are great arguments for a better conference. But I do believe that the facilities and magnetic draw for marquee coaches is in direct correlation of the success of the SEC.

IN 2007 ALONE.................

The SEC had five teams ranked in the top 15 of the final Associated Press poll. #1 and #2 included.

The SEC is the only league to currently have five football coaches who have won a national championship.

The SEC finished the 2007-08 bowl season with a 7-2 record. The seven wins are the most bowl victories by any conference in NCAA history.

In 2007, the SEC led all NCAA FBS conferences with a 82.4 winning percentage in non-conference games. The SEC posted a 47-10 overall non-conference mark, edging out the Big 12 Conference with a 41-15 mark.

The SEC finished the 2007 season with eight teams earning at least eight-or-more victories for the second straight season.

The SEC drew a conference record 6.6 million fans to its games in 2007, the most by any conference in NCAA history.

Individually, 7 1st team AA's, The Maxwell, The Walter Camp, The Rimington, The Doak Walker, and The Heisman

To me, the case is closed. If as you said "The numbers don't add up", well, they never will.
 
I love it when SEC types feel the need to come over here and spread their blather (or whatever it is that's being spread.). Texas is NOT SEC country, and largely, nobody here cares what SEC types think about their conference. Folks who are fans of teams east of the Sabine...enjoy your successes among yourselves, but don't come over here and bore us. You can spout stats from now until the cows come home, but you're SEC, we're not, and we're not particularly interested. Now...back to our subject....
 
Cool......

I did not bring up how incredibly awesome, super, and heavenly the SEC is. I simply attempted to explain why Texas was dropped opposed to A&M.

In response to my explanation, Nomad cordially (unlike yourself) threw up a strawman argument that the SEC isn't that much different than the Big 12.

One of your posters, a "Texas Country" poster brought up the SEC vs. Big 12 comparison.

Regardless, I listed the reasons why the Big 12 and SEC are not similar. If you do not find merit in what I said, fine. But don't try and push this off as an uninvited topic that was forced upon you.

Woo Pig Sooie
 
Your id describes what I feel about where this thread is going...make your point with somebody else...I'm outta here.
 
"Strawman argument"? That's kind of offensive, wc. Look, it's obvious that your mind won't be changed. I just wanted to open your eyes a bit.

If there have been strawman arguments made, maybe they have been by you. Attendance records? Coaching "starpower"? Facilities? Awards? None of those means diddly when discussing the relative strength of leagues, do they?

Please admit that those are a bunch of arm-waving emotional arguments.

Let's see if we can determine a more logical manner in which to compare the relative strengths.

Wait, I already did that . I referred to the existing BCS system that QUANTIFIES strength. It takes all the emotional BS and homer opinions and arm-waving out of it.

It factors in strength of schedule and won-loss records. It has a computer element and a human element. It's not perfect. Far from it. But it's a lot better than all the emotional crap we were stuck with before, and which we hear from SEC'ers today. (yeah, I know, everyone has a problem with the BCS, but at least it has more basis than rah, rah homerism BS)

That's where the numbers don't add up on your arguments. I already compared the two conferences based on who has more highly ranked teams. Guess you didn't have a well-reasoned response to that, so you went back to arm-waving.

Look at the BCS ratings for our two conferences and show me how the SEC comes out way dominant, or even ahead.

SEC is clearly strong. I wish her fans could handle that with some dignity. But your opinion that they just blow everyone else away is just your opinion. The numbers clearly don't bear that out. Get it?
 
Ok. Lets go with 2007 alone. No other year. Lets toss out all the "arm waiving" intangibles.

What more could the SEC have done to prove that it is not only better than, but much better than, the Big 12?

More than 9 Bowl eligible teams?

Better than a 7-2 Bowl record? (The best in NCAA history)

More than eight 8 win teams?

More than a 47-10 record against OOC teams?

More than five teams in the final AP top 15?

More than #1 & #2? Maybe #1, #2, #3, #4, #5?

More than another National Championship?

More than 2 BCS wins?

What more could the SEC have done? I believe as much as one conference can trump another, the SEC has done it.

No one compares.

Furthermore, while I do agree that attendance, facilities, revenue, "marquee coaches", and individual accolades such as the Heisman, 7 1st team AA's, the Walter Camp, the Maxwell, the Rimington, and the Doak Walker are not in and of themselves grounds for claiming the best conference, they do add icing to the cake so to speak.
 
deadhorse.gif
soapbox.gif
 
Are you reading, or better yet, comprehending anything posted on this page?

There is not a measurable manner in which the Big 12 is not only inferior, bur far inferior, to the SEC.
 
No balls, huh?
Just won't look at the RPI, the only truly objective measure.
I guess that tells us more than all your arm-waving.
Game-set-match.
c ya
 
Whocares,
Just curious--why is it that you go back and edit almost every post you enter?

In any event, you just keep making claims like "far inferior to the SEC" when the very team you claim allegiance to got DESTROYED by a Big 12 team in their bowl game. EMBARASSED. BEATEN DOWN. Take your pick. And if that won't dissuade you from making such erroneous claims, then take a peak at the box score from the barn burner between Alabama and Louisiana Monroe.

Is the SEC currently the best conference top to bottom? Sure. But that is by no means a yearly thing. Nor are they "far" superior to the Big 12. You are not on a WAC board here, so slow your roll and go try to prove your relevance elsewhere.
hookem.gif


***edited by whocares
 
Why do I edit my posts? Really? That is some how a relevant question in a debate of conference superiority? Honestly?
If you must know, I often reread my posts and either want to add something or I see an error in my grammar. Nothing more, nothing less.

As far as my team, it wouldn't matter if it were Vandy, Florida, Ole Miss, Austin Community College, Texas State, Oregon, Penn St. , or Colorado. The school I graduated from makes no difference.

Honestly, I have no idea why I continue to whip a dead horse or debate something that is accepted as truth by the majority of college football fans.

Now, if you wish to review the FACTS I have listed on behalf of the SEC and debate their merit, fine. But you will be among a slim minority that believes the Big 12 measures up to the SEC.

(I'll make sure and edit this one too)
 
Did you actually read this thread?

"The SEC had five teams ranked in the top 15 of the final Associated Press poll. #1 and #2 included.

The SEC is the only league to currently have five football coaches who have won a national championship.

The SEC finished the 2007-08 bowl season with a 7-2 record. The seven wins are the most bowl victories by any conference in NCAA history.

In 2007, the SEC led all NCAA FBS conferences with a 82.4 winning percentage in non-conference games. The SEC posted a 47-10 overall non-conference mark, edging out the Big 12 Conference with a 41-15 mark.

The SEC finished the 2007 season with eight teams earning at least eight-or-more victories for the second straight season."


I also shared that 8 teams have played for the SEC title over the last 10 years.

Does the SEC have elite teams at the top? Sure. But the stats I have reposted for your viewing pleasure hopefully will help you comprehend the difference between the Big 12 and the SEC.
 
To summarize: The SEC is the best football conference in the nation (usually), and often it is by a sizable margin.

Can't really dispute that, but I, along with many others, get tired of hearing it. I think that's where this is probably heading.
 
Well heck, if the SEC is that much better than all of the rest of us, maybe we should give up intercollegiate football and take up another sport. Jai Lai anyone?
 
whocares has to argue for sec being better than the Big12 because he will never win an argument regarding arky being a more premier program than Texas.

just so you know, I didn't read much of this thread.
hookem.gif
 
Our of curiosity, discounting bowl games, how many top ten programs did SEC teams play on the road the past two years and what was their record?
 
I cannot wait to beat arkansas again this year. When we win that will be 2 in a row over Arkansas. The only other team we have played from the SEC was LSU in the Cotton bowl in 2002 I believe...and yes, we won.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top