SEC to play nine?
- Thread starter biteyoudawg
- Start date
i've been ashamed of our OOC lately. of course i don't think every 6-6 team should be bowling, and we should really cut out about 10-12 poulan weedeater bowls. and that our goal shouldn't be 6-6, but to be able to beat a couple of mid to lower tier bcs conference schools like GT, iowa st, arizona, kansas, syracuse, etc and actually win 8 or 9 games. yeah occasionally you catch them in a great year, but c'est la vie.
of course some of you will argue going to the pizza hut bowl with a 6-6 record builds a program, but if no 6-6 teams are going bowling, then there isn't an advantage being gained or lost. god knows how programs built back in the day when they needed 8 Ws to go bowling.
guess i just don't get some inherent level of pride out of going to any old bowl and instead actually would prefer to get some good Ws.
of course some of you will argue going to the pizza hut bowl with a 6-6 record builds a program, but if no 6-6 teams are going bowling, then there isn't an advantage being gained or lost. god knows how programs built back in the day when they needed 8 Ws to go bowling.
guess i just don't get some inherent level of pride out of going to any old bowl and instead actually would prefer to get some good Ws.
pac 12 is doing just fine and has held their own with the sec in OOC matchups and bowls over the years. and they are just starting to get their $23M checks apiece from their new tv deals, so i'd expect the conference depth to improve quickly. you can already see the money being put to use with solid hires like rich rod at arizona, leach at wazzou, and more jr at ucla.shsdawg said:
also, worth noting that when you play 9 conference games, that's 1 extra loss for half the league. couple that with always playing the toughest slate of non-conference games, and you really can't talk **** on the pac 12.
the sec homerism is really becoming too much. time for some humble pie.
Why take the risk of not going to the postseason? We have seen what wonderful luck we have against other BCS schools. Crappy bowl or good bowl. It's a bowl game and that's a step in the right direction.
season I guess. USC (the REAL one in California) is my second team. I love Pac 12 football and follow it pretty close. It's good stuff and getting betterbut at the moment it's not the SEC. The factis that right now SEC teams that do well in the league will have a really high BCS rank without playing big time outside teams. In our positionwhat we need is to consistently get to bowls. That is how you establish a base and that is how you eventually work your way into better bowls consistently. We would be stupid to make that first step harder by giving up easier winsjust to make the OOC look "better". 4-0 in non SEC games against the Little Sisters of the Poor looks a lot better than 3-1 or worse against better teams. When we start beating some of the better SEC teams on a regular basis THEN you can start looking at playing better OOC stuff. By the way: More Jr. at UCLA will FAIL, just like every other one at UCLA in the last several decades.
1 - The bowl system<div>2 - A 6 game minimum bowl eligibility requirement (with a D2 win that counts toward it)</div><div>3 - The easiest OOC schedule you can put together.</div><div>
</div><div>I do NOT want a playoff, and I don't want to see things get harder in football. Yes, for the sport in general those things might be good, but let's face it MSU will NEVER sniff a college football playoff.</div><div>
</div><div>I have a friend of mine who is a Louisville homer that makes this same argument. Says weak OOC games are bad for the sport while yes, they attempt to play BCS OOC opponents then have the easiest conference schedule imaginable. It's so damn hypocritical and blind for them to hate on MSU that way. They have no idea the odds that are stacked against us. Their little theory may work for basketball, but in football the SEC in on top and we should take full advantage. I guess these dickshits do not even care to look at SOS ratings.</div><div>
</div><div>Honestly I don't care what they think. At the end of the day, we have went to back to back bowl games. That's why we need to fight like hell to keep all this 7 game minimums and playoff talk at bay. It's not good for MSU.</div>
</div><div>I do NOT want a playoff, and I don't want to see things get harder in football. Yes, for the sport in general those things might be good, but let's face it MSU will NEVER sniff a college football playoff.</div><div>
</div><div>I have a friend of mine who is a Louisville homer that makes this same argument. Says weak OOC games are bad for the sport while yes, they attempt to play BCS OOC opponents then have the easiest conference schedule imaginable. It's so damn hypocritical and blind for them to hate on MSU that way. They have no idea the odds that are stacked against us. Their little theory may work for basketball, but in football the SEC in on top and we should take full advantage. I guess these dickshits do not even care to look at SOS ratings.</div><div>
</div><div>Honestly I don't care what they think. At the end of the day, we have went to back to back bowl games. That's why we need to fight like hell to keep all this 7 game minimums and playoff talk at bay. It's not good for MSU.</div>
I never have understood why some of our fans want to see an "interesting" OOC team. We played Bama and LSU at home last year- the two teams that played for the National Championship. We had the Egg Bowl. Heck, La Tech was a bowl team. South Carolina was a darn good team. So, we played four bowl teams at home and then the Egg Bowl and homecoming.
I also agree that the bowl system is good for us and 6-6 is good for us.
And I will say that if we were USM, I would be for a tougher OOC schedule, but really Boise State has shown that they only really need to play one really tough OOC team like a Georgia and then maybe an average PAC-12 team and then they can get in the BCS.
I also agree that the bowl system is good for us and 6-6 is good for us.
And I will say that if we were USM, I would be for a tougher OOC schedule, but really Boise State has shown that they only really need to play one really tough OOC team like a Georgia and then maybe an average PAC-12 team and then they can get in the BCS.
That's the damndest part of all of it....the national media eats that Boise and TCU **** up all day, talking about how they could play with the SEC and how they deserve a shot and all that other crap....but out of the other side of the mouth talk like the SEC should toughen its own standards???<div>
</div><div>A playoff would do nothing but give the SEC more power.</div>
</div><div>A playoff would do nothing but give the SEC more power.</div>
Maybe when they actually beat us once in a game that matters. When was the last time that happened? While trying to quash the SEC-bias here, your post here comes off as a complete PAC12 homer...
Facts: Since 2007, 5 different PAC12 teams finished top 25 in the final AP poll. Only one more team than the number of independent schools from the SEC to be crowned national champions. We've had 10 different teams finish top 25 in that same time period, with Kentucky receiving votes in 07(#28 overall). 50% is not greater than 83%.
Also, this season, the PAC12 deal was worth $180mil, or $15mil/school. It's a gradual increase over the next 12 years to an average of 250mil/yr, or 20.8mil/school. Not a bad deal. It keeps them in the race. Unfortunately for them, the SEC renegotiations are already taking place.
http://outkickthecoverage...goal-its-own-network.php We are ahead, and the gap is getting wider, not narrower. Why? Because we care more. By the first year that the Pac12 makes more in tv revenue than the SEC, we will be well on our way to likely launching this. http://outkickthecoverage...network-worth-a-year.php
I agree with you about the coaching upgrades. Rodriguez and Leach are both very good hires. Both are tremendous offensive coaches, no doubt, that will give a pulse to two programs that desperately need one. Forgive me, however, if neither name strikes fear into my SEC soul, seeing how Leach's career-best team got slaughtered by OM in the 08 Cotton Bowl, while what our Bulldogs did to Rodriguez last season in the Gator Bowl is still fresh on my mind. Neither has ever shown me a dominant defensive team, or the ability to hire a dominant defensive coordinator, and until they do, I'll look forward to any possible opportunity to see them in the bowl season...
Final AP poll:
2011:
SEC: #1, #2, #5, #9, #19, #27
Pac12: #4, #6, #7
2010:
SEC: #1, #8, #10, #12, #15, #22, #31
Pac10: #3, #4
2009:
SEC: #1, #3, #17, #20, #32, #33, #39
Pac10: #11, #22, #27, #29, #36
2008:
SEC: #1, #6, #13, #14, #27
Pac10: #3, #10, #18, #26, #36
2007:
SEC: #1, #2, #12, #13, #15, #28, #31, #33
Pac10: #3, #16, #23, #25
Facts: Since 2007, 5 different PAC12 teams finished top 25 in the final AP poll. Only one more team than the number of independent schools from the SEC to be crowned national champions. We've had 10 different teams finish top 25 in that same time period, with Kentucky receiving votes in 07(#28 overall). 50% is not greater than 83%.
Also, this season, the PAC12 deal was worth $180mil, or $15mil/school. It's a gradual increase over the next 12 years to an average of 250mil/yr, or 20.8mil/school. Not a bad deal. It keeps them in the race. Unfortunately for them, the SEC renegotiations are already taking place.
http://outkickthecoverage...goal-its-own-network.php We are ahead, and the gap is getting wider, not narrower. Why? Because we care more. By the first year that the Pac12 makes more in tv revenue than the SEC, we will be well on our way to likely launching this. http://outkickthecoverage...network-worth-a-year.php
I agree with you about the coaching upgrades. Rodriguez and Leach are both very good hires. Both are tremendous offensive coaches, no doubt, that will give a pulse to two programs that desperately need one. Forgive me, however, if neither name strikes fear into my SEC soul, seeing how Leach's career-best team got slaughtered by OM in the 08 Cotton Bowl, while what our Bulldogs did to Rodriguez last season in the Gator Bowl is still fresh on my mind. Neither has ever shown me a dominant defensive team, or the ability to hire a dominant defensive coordinator, and until they do, I'll look forward to any possible opportunity to see them in the bowl season...
Final AP poll:
2011:
SEC: #1, #2, #5, #9, #19, #27
Pac12: #4, #6, #7
2010:
SEC: #1, #8, #10, #12, #15, #22, #31
Pac10: #3, #4
2009:
SEC: #1, #3, #17, #20, #32, #33, #39
Pac10: #11, #22, #27, #29, #36
2008:
SEC: #1, #6, #13, #14, #27
Pac10: #3, #10, #18, #26, #36
2007:
SEC: #1, #2, #12, #13, #15, #28, #31, #33
Pac10: #3, #16, #23, #25
2011 turned out to be more notable because we went to (and won) a bowl, even though in 2009 we had a better conference record and were arguably a better team. Too bad we scheduled ourselves out of a bowl game.
6 championships is cause for some humble pie...? The hell..?
Look.. I used to be all for scheduling tougher a few years ago, but thinking about it logically, we have got to build momentum up first. When you're in a division, much less a league, that has held teams ranked at 1, 2 and 3 at the same time at one point...why do you need to make it harder on yourself just to impress others that don't keep up with your program? The fact we play in the SEC is good enough for recruits as is. We don't need to make it that much harder until we know we can sustain that type of competition. We are not even close to that yet.
Look.. I used to be all for scheduling tougher a few years ago, but thinking about it logically, we have got to build momentum up first. When you're in a division, much less a league, that has held teams ranked at 1, 2 and 3 at the same time at one point...why do you need to make it harder on yourself just to impress others that don't keep up with your program? The fact we play in the SEC is good enough for recruits as is. We don't need to make it that much harder until we know we can sustain that type of competition. We are not even close to that yet.
official from the NCAA:
http://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/...dule/fbs_9games_cumm.pdf
SEC teams:
#1 LSU
#3 Auburn
#5 Alabama
#6 Tennessee
#11 Ole Miss
#15 Georgia
#22 South Carolina
#25(t) Arkansas
#25(t) Mississippi State
#30 Florida
#41 Vanderbilt
#59 Kentucky
Average SOS: 20.25
PAC12 teams:
#14 Arizona
#27 Oregon
#29 Oregon St
#33 Washington
#36 UCLA
#42 Stanford
#44 USC
#47 Arizona St
#56 California
#73 Colorado
#83 Washington St
#92 Utah
Average SOS: 48
This is why scheduling a 9th conference game in the SEC is asinine. We could only play 7 conference games and our SOS would still be as good as the PAC 12...
http://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/...dule/fbs_9games_cumm.pdf
SEC teams:
#1 LSU
#3 Auburn
#5 Alabama
#6 Tennessee
#11 Ole Miss
#15 Georgia
#22 South Carolina
#25(t) Arkansas
#25(t) Mississippi State
#30 Florida
#41 Vanderbilt
#59 Kentucky
Average SOS: 20.25
PAC12 teams:
#14 Arizona
#27 Oregon
#29 Oregon St
#33 Washington
#36 UCLA
#42 Stanford
#44 USC
#47 Arizona St
#56 California
#73 Colorado
#83 Washington St
#92 Utah
Average SOS: 48
This is why scheduling a 9th conference game in the SEC is asinine. We could only play 7 conference games and our SOS would still be as good as the PAC 12...
i'm a complete pac 12 homer, yet i'm on the non-affiliated msu message board with a handle of "dawgs". the sec is just sitting mighty high on the horse right now and i don't particularly get some sense of pride watching bama and lsu win titles, while apparently some do. i want the conference on the whole to be successful, but not living in sec country really opens your eyes as to what ******** the sec fans have become. and not just the bama and lsu and florida fans, but the south carolina fans and the msu fans and the arkansas fans who act like they have some tangible pride in another bama title. <div>engie said:
</div><div>i'm not saying the sec shouldn't be cocky about winning 6 titles, i'm saying it's time they get taken down a notch because the attitude is really getting unbearable. especially the fans of the also rans talking **** on top 10 programs from other conferences like we'd be able to go to the pac 12 or big 12 and compete for a championship. i don't want msu to lose a bowl game, but i would get a kick out of it if the sec put up a 1-8 bowl record one of these years.</div><div>
</div><div>i'd like to see a playoff. i'd like to see about 10 of the meaningless bowls cut. and i'd like to see some of the better bowls that wouldn't be affiliated with some kinda playoff still have their games to reward the teams that earned the reward by winning 7 or 8 games and beating a couple decent teams.</div>
to be honest, in 10 or 20 years i don't think i'll be cherishing any 2011 memories. i'll remember 2010 though. this isn't indicative of my love for msu or football, just the facts that a 6-6 season and an ugly bowl W over a 6-6 wake forest isn't exactly something that i'll be holding on to.QuaoarsKing said:
well i can punch a lot of holes in this SoS. <div>engie said:
</div><div>first of all it's based entirely on Ws and Ls. the pac 12 inherently HAS to have at least 6 more Ls than the sec because they play 9 conference games instead of 8. if they played a 8 game schedule and replace that game with utah st or eastern washington or montana st, that's 6 more Ws. </div><div>
</div><div>second, the pac 12 plays the toughest non-conference slate pretty much every year, so that's a few more Ls. not saying the sec plays a weak non-conference slate overall, the sec is actually pretty average right there with the big 12 and the acc. the big 10 actually usually ends up with the worst non-conference slate. i always laught at the folks arguing the sec never plays anyone outside the conference. so this isn't sec hating, this is pointing out the fact that the pac 12 yearly plays the most BCS and high end non BCS non-conference games in the country. so that's a couple more Ls purely from playing a tougher non-conference slate.</div><div>
</div><div>so relying purely on Ws and Ls to illustrate SoS is quite a bit misleading given the discrepancy in scheduling thatinherentlyhappens when 120 teams play 12 games apiece.</div>
i guess my point is that you can only take "steps in the right direction" so long relying on 4 gimmes to get a bowl game. eventually we have to beat someone of substance. <div>DesotoCountyDawg said:
</div><div>if we could get our sec opener pushed back to the end of sept or early oct, i would much prefer to play a couple of gimmes but also 1 lower to mid tier bcs school in sept. it would get our guys ramped up to sec play instead of feeding them la tech and tulane and memphis and then shellshocking them with lsu or auburn early. our problem with WVU and GT was due to playing aub and lsu so early, they were pushed back to mid-season games after our guys were beaten down and had no momentum. well that and they were just better teams than the **** croom put on the field.</div><div>
</div><div>guess i'm not one for propping up the program being happy with 6-6 with 4 **** Ws and 2 Ws over the sec bottom feeders. i'd rather either step up or fall on our face.</div><div>
</div><div>sorry about the 4 straight posts, just wanted to respond to several comments and put my POV out there.</div>
a) MSU added $0 to the SEC bowl pot in 2009 with some "interesting" OOC games and a top 25 SOS
b) MSU added to the SEC bowl pot in 2010 and 2011 with cupcake OOC games and a top 25 SOS including an awesome time in Jacksonville and Nashville
a + b = who gives a 17 what any fan from any other conference says
As long as our SOS remains high, no one can really say anything. We would be stupid to change as long as we're helping our own cause.
Sour sour grapes
b) MSU added to the SEC bowl pot in 2010 and 2011 with cupcake OOC games and a top 25 SOS including an awesome time in Jacksonville and Nashville
a + b = who gives a 17 what any fan from any other conference says
As long as our SOS remains high, no one can really say anything. We would be stupid to change as long as we're helping our own cause.
Sour sour grapes
the argument could easily be the sec benefits from perception in the human polls, which largely determine the bcs standings, and that if you add 6 more Ws to the pac 12 by simply replacing a 9th conference game with an extra gimme game for the programs, then you could be getting close to playing that type of schedule in the pac 12.<div>IBleedMaroonDawg said:
</div><div>hell, this year alone, oregon, usc, and stanford were top 10 teams, and washington could have easily been a 9 W team if (1) they played a utah st instead of a top 25 nebraska team and (2) they played a fresno st instead of USC in the 9th conference game. see how scheduling plays a role there? </div><div>
</div><div>give cal another gimme non-conference game instead of a 9th conference game and they are an 8 W team.</div><div>
</div><div>give ucla 2 more Ws, 1 for dropping texas for a gimme W, and 1 for dropping a 9th pac 12 game for a gimme.</div><div>
</div><div>give az st 2 more Ws, 1 for dropping @ill for a gimme W, and 1 for dropping a 9th pac 12 game.</div><div>
</div><div>utah is a 9 W team if they drop a 9th pac 12 game for a wac matchup too.</div><div>
</div><div>schedule easier and behind the oregon/usc/stanford trio you are looking at regular season records of:</div><div>washington 9-3</div><div>utah 9-3</div><div>cal 8-4</div><div>az st 7-5</div><div>ucla 7-5</div><div>
</div><div>give those programs the equivalent of our non-conference slate and drop a 9th conference game for a 4th gimme game and that's what the middle of the pac 12 looks like. you'd have 3 top 10 teams, and at least 2 more ranked teams and possibly a 3rd ranked team. and 2 more bowl teams.and you'd have oregon st bitching about all the top 10 and top 25 teams they played and comparing it to other conference's 6-6 programs. pac 12 measures up pretty well when you look at it that way.</div>
we shall see. i think it comes down to ucla spending the money on the program. there's no reason he couldn't be UCLA's pete carroll though. remember he was a failed ex-NFL HC that didn't exactly excite the USC fan base when he was hired.shsdawg said:
He's saying that he'd much rather go to a bowl game instead of having the hardest schedule in the NCAAs without **** to show for it. The only people that care about SOS so much right now are those outside of the SEC. They try to use it to guilt us into playing more tough OOC games. Why would we want to do that when we already have a good thing going?<div>
</div><div>Also, to another comment you made about SEC fans looking like ********...well...yea.. Every conference has fans that are ********. Why is that such a surprise? Even in SEC territory we consider each other school as ******** and look at the Pac-12 and Big-10 fans as being stuck up pricks that try to use whatever little bit they can to make us look inferior to them when they don't have **** to show for it.</div><div>
</div><div>There is a sense of pride for playing in the toughest conference in the nation because only 12 (now 14 schools) can honestly say that. Look at C-USA and USM. Don't you think they'd love to be able to brag about that? Especially since they won 11 regular season games and we went to a better bowl than them at 6-6. So don't sit there and tell me we shouldn't be able to show a little bit of pride in it. I can only speak for myself and those like me, but pride is not the same as complacence. There are those that would love to go 6-6 annually with a few 7 and 8 win seasons with the miraculous 9 and 10 win ones here and there. I'm not one of those. With that said however, I do see that currently scheduling softer and going to bowl games annually is, right now, our best bet to becomingperennialcompetitor.</div>
</div><div>Also, to another comment you made about SEC fans looking like ********...well...yea.. Every conference has fans that are ********. Why is that such a surprise? Even in SEC territory we consider each other school as ******** and look at the Pac-12 and Big-10 fans as being stuck up pricks that try to use whatever little bit they can to make us look inferior to them when they don't have **** to show for it.</div><div>
</div><div>There is a sense of pride for playing in the toughest conference in the nation because only 12 (now 14 schools) can honestly say that. Look at C-USA and USM. Don't you think they'd love to be able to brag about that? Especially since they won 11 regular season games and we went to a better bowl than them at 6-6. So don't sit there and tell me we shouldn't be able to show a little bit of pride in it. I can only speak for myself and those like me, but pride is not the same as complacence. There are those that would love to go 6-6 annually with a few 7 and 8 win seasons with the miraculous 9 and 10 win ones here and there. I'm not one of those. With that said however, I do see that currently scheduling softer and going to bowl games annually is, right now, our best bet to becomingperennialcompetitor.</div>
another knock against a potentially permanent 8 game sec schedule is that if they sec maintains a permanent inter-divisional rival for each program to maintain the bama-tenn, uga-aub, fla-lsu, etc games, and we only rotate 1 inter-divisional opponent every 2 years, we will go 10 years between playing eastern division teams. that's not a conference, that's a loose affiliation.
make it a 9 game schedule with 1 permanent inter-divisional "rival" and 2 rotating opponents every 2 years, and you only go 4 years between seeing eastern division programs. that's more like it imo.
make it a 9 game schedule with 1 permanent inter-divisional "rival" and 2 rotating opponents every 2 years, and you only go 4 years between seeing eastern division programs. that's more like it imo.
nothing is stopping the PAC from switching to 8 games. Perhaps the SEC people are smarter than they are. The one thing you can't argue down is that the SEC has won 6 straight MNCs with FOUR different teams. My opinion as a SEC person who is an avid fan of the PAC is that the main difference between them and the SEC right now is defence. They play decent offence but their defences with one exception aren't that great. That one exception will be a MNC contender next year because of it. The thing that's going to hurt them in the BCS though is their weak (relative to the SEC)PAC conference schedule. They always have a tough OOC one. Then again they'll probably blow one gimme inexplicably and with it blow any chance of getting in the big game. They lost several title shots like that under Carroll.
Once again, the SEC dominated the bowls this year, despite the fact it most of those games were played against teams that finished higher in their conferences than the SEC team finished in its conference. This happens pretty much EVERY year and it isn't just strength at the top with the 6 straight national champions. It's throughout the entire conference. Hell, even Tennessee which finished 2-6 in the SEC managed to beat a BCS conference co-champion this year.</p>
How is 6 BCS championships in 6 years and an overall percentage of 65.5% in those years just perception? The worst record in that year was just .500 and that only happened once. How is that just perception?
no, i pointed out how playing 9 conference games and a tough non-conference game can totally swing how one views a conference from the outside. look at the records of the pac 12 schools i posted if they dropped a 9th conference game for an easy W and, where applicable dropped a tough ooc matchup for an easy one. now obviously some teams wouldn't necessarily drop an L in reality cause not everyone would be guaranteed to drop a inter-divisional L, they might drop a W, which would be replaced with an easy W. but for hypothetical sake. <div>Incognegro said:
</div><div>also, arizona could get to 6-6 if they dropped okie st and a 9th conference game for easy Ws too.</div><div>
</div><div>so they point was to illustrate how much yall are letting records skew to perception of the conference instead of analytically figuring out what those teams would look like with the equivalent of msu's non-conference schedule. the pac 12 isn't the sec, not arguing that, but it's not some weakling just bitching about the 9 conference games thing, they have a point, and the point is in the numbers. </div>