Does Texas and Oklahoma to the sec actually help msu, ole miss, tenn, etc?
More parity?
Edited Bc I’m dumb.
More parity?
Edited Bc I’m dumb.
Last edited:
Reading the thread abt Riley and the SEC
- Thread starter paindonthurt_
- Start date
I think it will help SEC schools land Texas recruits that dont get offers from UT, A&M or OU and traditionally would have ended up at places like TCU, Baylor, Kansas State, etc. I think the SEC will be viewed as "the league" to play in for Texas kids now. Arkansas & Missouri will benefit the most but with Leach knowing Texas like he does it will certainly help us as well.
If that Athletic coaches' interview about recruiting in Mississippi a couple weeks ago is any indication, we've been emphasizing Texas more so Leach being here is already helping us in that regard.
Certainly seems that way for QBs & WRs (maybe some OL?), but I imagine we'll still get most of our defensive guys and RBs from MS/AL/LA.
I think the big win off the top is going to be no more SEC West and SEC Least. We'll get to see a bigger variety of opponents. We may very well still get stuck with Bama every year, but getting as many Tennessee, Missouri, Texas, and South Carolina schedule appearances as LSU, Texas A&M, OU, and Auburn will be great by itself.
This is why I hope we just have 2 permanent opponents and not those stupid pods. We will absolutely get stuck with Alabama if we do the stupid pods. I'd rather just have Ole Miss and somebody else as permanent. It won't be Alabama because they would have Tennessee and Auburn.
The best thing about Texas joining is the whining in College Station. I hope Texas only wins one game a year when they get here.
Every time we beat those butt munchers my Aggie friends have some kind of excuse to lean on and it doesn't bother them at the least because I am the only one chirping. They are the turd that never flushes in my life. I dearly look forward to them getting beat by Texas in the very near future.. I may get some Thujone coozies made and mail them to every Aggie I know.
Every time we beat those butt munchers my Aggie friends have some kind of excuse to lean on and it doesn't bother them at the least because I am the only one chirping. They are the turd that never flushes in my life. I dearly look forward to them getting beat by Texas in the very near future.. I may get some Thujone coozies made and mail them to every Aggie I know.
If there’s a scheduling system that would make it possible for the have nots to get to the SECCG without playing Bama-LSU-UGA, you can guarantee that won’t happen.
Imagine a scenario where we or Kentucky or Ole Miss are in ATL and haven’t played those three. While one of the big boys sits out. That won’t be allowed to happen.
Imagine a scenario where we or Kentucky or Ole Miss are in ATL and haven’t played those three. While one of the big boys sits out. That won’t be allowed to happen.
Something like this? You may need to check my math.
Alabama - Auburn, Tennessee
Arkansas - Texas A&M, LSU
Auburn - Alabama, Mississippi State
Florida - Georgia, South Carolina
Georgia - Florida, South Carolina
Kentucky - Tennessee, Vanderbilt
LSU - Arkansas, Ole Miss
Mississippi State - Auburn, Ole Miss
Mizzou - OU, Vanderbilt
Ole Miss - Mississippi State, LSU
OU - Texas, Mizzou
South Carolina - Georgia, Florida
Tennessee - Alabama, Kentucky
Texas - Texas A&M, OU
Texas A&M - Texas, Arkansas
Vanderbilt - Kentucky, Mizzou
Sign me up for a state schedule that looks like this:
AUB, OM, VANDY, MIZZOU, UK, USCe, TENN, ARK, and one of TEX/OU. Assuming 9 games.
AUB, OM, VANDY, MIZZOU, UK, USCe, TENN, ARK, and one of TEX/OU. Assuming 9 games.
I hope we don't ever get to 9 conference games. 8 games - no matter who you play - gives teams a much better shot at a 10+ win season.
And the goal for the SEC should be to get as many teams into a 12 team playoff as possible.
UGA's may look to be a cut above this year, but SEC teams beat up on each other enough as it is. We don't need to hurt our chances anymore. You'd also have an uneven home and away conference slate.
And the goal for the SEC should be to get as many teams into a 12 team playoff as possible.
UGA's may look to be a cut above this year, but SEC teams beat up on each other enough as it is. We don't need to hurt our chances anymore. You'd also have an uneven home and away conference slate.
Yes, similar. Auburn will want to play Georgia and Alabama, so we won't be paired with them. So South Carolina likely becomes our permanent.
Tennessee will probably need to play Vanderbilt too. Then they decide if they want to keep up the Florida rivalry, or just play Kentucky.
We have a lot of 'sorta' rivalries, so some of these schools will need to figure out if they truly want to be considered a rival, or not.
Conference championships will probably go away if the playoff is expanded. And we will likely see 9 game conference schedules at that point too.
I'm more curious to see what we do in the meantime.
if the SEC gives an option, State needs to ask for Vandy and Missouri or USC as permanent opponents. No sarcastericks
I think it works better with 3 permanent rivals:
| Rival 1 | Rival 2 | Rival 3 | |
| Alabama | Auburn | Tennessee | Texas A&M |
| Arkansas | Mizzou | OU | Texas |
| Auburn | Alabama | Georgia | Mississippi State |
| Florida | Georgia | Kentucky | LSU |
| Georgia | Florida | Auburn | South Carolina |
| Kentucky | Tennessee | Florida | Mississippi State |
| LSU | Texas A&M | Ole Miss | Florida |
| Mississippi State | Ole Miss | Kentucky | Auburn |
| Mizzou | Arkansas | South Carolina | OU |
| Ole Miss | Mississippi State | LSU | Vanderbilt |
| OU | Texas | Arkansas | Mizzou |
| South Carolina | Vanderbilt | Mizzou | Georgia |
| Tennessee | Kentucky | Alabama | Vanderbilt |
| Texas | OU | Texas A&M | Arkansas |
| Texas A&M | LSU | Texas | Alabama |
| Vanderbilt | South Carolina | Ole Miss | Tennessee |
<colgroup><col width="124" span="2" style="width: 93pt;"><col width="108" style="width: 81pt;"><col width="124" style="width: 93pt;"></colgroup><tbody>
</tbody>
Number of wins / losses only is a completely outdated way of looking at teams. ESPN forecasts that a 2-loss Alabama still has a 46% chance of making the 4-team playoff this year even if chalk holds elsewhere. 2-loss SEC teams get viewed more favorably than many 1-loss teams from other Power 5 conferences, as well as undefeated mid majors as it is. You go to 9 SEC games, and that will be even more pronounced.
There’s enough analytics out there that prove the SEC is, by a wide *** margin, the best conference in the country. Going to 9 SEC games is not going to hurt the conference. Not one bit. The CFP committee knows how to judge the actual quality of the teams without simply dumbing it down to just the W-L record.
I could see that. I don't know if A&M and Arkansas are willing to give up the Jerry Jones Classic at AT&T Stadium though.
It's set to expire in 2025 I think, both programs would rather it be on campus at this point.
Name a year that they screwed it up?
The evidence is already out there. In 2017 they had a two loss Auburn ranked ahead of 4 one-loss Power 5 teams and 1 unbeaten Power 5 team heading into championship weekend. And two of those 4 one-loss teams were other SEC schools. They know how to reward teams that play a difficult schedule.
Last edited:
But why take the chance? As long as the SEC is getting teams into the playoffs regularly, and getting multiple teams in when it's deserved, why change from the current 8-game format? Maybe going to 9 games would hurt the SEC's chances and maybe it wouldn't. But I don't think there's any credible argument it would help its chances (strength of schedules are already through the roof, so improving them a little wouldn't help much if any).
I can't. I was kidding in my Darth Vadar voice.
The committee has done a good job in the four team playoff format. In a 12 team play-off - three to four teams should be SEC teams each and every year. I'd hate to see the fact that we beat up on each other being used against us should the committee develop a bias against the best football conference in the nation.
The committee has done a good job in the four team playoff format. In a 12 team play-off - three to four teams should be SEC teams each and every year. I'd hate to see the fact that we beat up on each other being used against us should the committee develop a bias against the best football conference in the nation.
"They are the turd that never flushes in my life." .............. Thanks for the LOL. I am sure I'll use that quote with regard to something soon.
I just hope he comes up with something better than the big M with eyes. They are hilarious.
View attachment 23159
1) Because it really isn’t a chance at all. Only once in a blue moon will it work out to where a contending Alabama, LSU, or A&M has a 9th game against a contending Georgia, or a contending Auburn gets a 9th game against a contending Florida. That’s the whole extent of possible scenarios of CFP hopeful teams beating each other up in the current format. And those contests are going to help the winner immensely while not affecting the loser at all if they run the table elsewhere. Alabama getting a 9th game against Vanderbilt or South Carolina, or Georgia getting one against Arkansas or Ole Miss isn’t going to be any more of a risk than the other teams already on the schedule, including the non conference Power 5.
2) The playoff is expanding sooner rather than later, rendering the results of those contests less severe for the loser. 12 teams could be a reality by 2025….and the additional revenue numbers being discussed makes that almost a foregone conclusion that it will happen sooner rather than later. Current estimates have the 16-team SEC getting an additional $21 million per school per year from a 12-team playoff, with other Power 5 conference schools also getting an 8-figure bump per year. So yeah, it’s 100% going to happen.
3) Because it’s worth a 17 ton more in TV revenue by replacing ****** games vs the Northwestern States of the world with SEC vs. SEC contests that are actually marketable. No, it’s not a 1-1 swap but you’re going to see more viewers for a single SEC vs SEC contest than you would see for 4-5 contests of SEC vs. G5 / FCS patsy combined.
4) It’s more cost avoidance for individual schools, which equals more money, because they don’t have to write as many 7-figure checks for these buy-a-win patsy games.
All of the above is why every educated college football pundit there is has said that the SEC is going to a 9-game schedule.
Last edited:
14-15 - Got it right.
15-16 - Got it wrong. Iowa should have gotten in over Oklahoma. Iowa's only loss was in the Big Ten Championship. OU was basically rewarded for not playing in a CG and had a loss to a ****** Texas team.
16-17 - Got it wrong. Penn State should have gotten in over Ohio State. Penn State was the Big Ten Champs and Ohio State didn't even win its division.
17-18 - Ohio State or Wisconsin should have gotten in over Alabama. Wisconsin's only loss that year was in the Big Ten Championship, Ohio State won the Big Ten, and Alabama didn't even win its own division.
18-19 - Not as egregious, but you could make the argument that Ohio State should have gotten in over Notre Dame. Ohio State won the Big Ten, but had a loss to a mediocre Purdue team. Notre Dame, like UCF, had a cake walk schedule and barely eeked by in a lot of games on that schedule.
19-20 - Got it right, but the records made it easy.
20-21 - Got it wrong. I know it was a weird year, but Texas A&M should have gotten in over Ohio State and their piddly 6 wins.
Dawg, coming in strong with the big picture analysis. I stand corrected. They have not done as good a job as I thought. Time for the Force Choke.
15-16 - You’re saying the B1G should have gotten 2 teams in. Gross. That Iowa team didn’t play Ohio State or Michigan in the regular season, and lost to Michigan State. Those 4 were the top end teams in the B1G that year….and Iowa didn’t beat any of the other 3. No signature wins, no undefeated season, no conference championship, no strength of schedule. They literally checked zero out of 4 boxes. And they went on to prove they were a fraud when they got their asses handed to them by Stanford in Pasadena.
16-17 - Penn State lost by 39 damn points to Michigan. A 9-3 Michigan, not even an elite team. Automatic disqualifier. They also lost to an unranked Pitt. Nobody was hyping them for the playoff that year….not a soul.
17-18 - Seriously? Alabama won the whole 17ing thing. You can’t make an argument that they shouldn’t have been in. Wisconsin and Ohio State were again benefactors of weak as hell B1G scheduling.
0 for 3 there….that’s as far as I care to look back on it. I somewhat agree about A&M over Ohio State last year, but as you said it was a weird year. And gun to my head, I would pick that Ohio State team to beat A&M.
16-17 - Penn State lost by 39 damn points to Michigan. A 9-3 Michigan, not even an elite team. Automatic disqualifier. They also lost to an unranked Pitt. Nobody was hyping them for the playoff that year….not a soul.
17-18 - Seriously? Alabama won the whole 17ing thing. You can’t make an argument that they shouldn’t have been in. Wisconsin and Ohio State were again benefactors of weak as hell B1G scheduling.
0 for 3 there….that’s as far as I care to look back on it. I somewhat agree about A&M over Ohio State last year, but as you said it was a weird year. And gun to my head, I would pick that Ohio State team to beat A&M.
You're 100% right. They have just done what AP voters have done all those years. Any 4 nimrods could have come up with the playoffs that the committee has.
This line of thinking needs to be bred out of the human race.
Repeat - it doesn't matter what you think.....it's about what they did ON THE FIELD.
OK. On the field, A&M got curbstomped by Alabama, who would have been their opponent in Game 1. Notre Dame didn’t play Alabama. Ohio State proved their worthiness against Clemson (on the field), in spite of the 6 game situation. Any other brain busters, Captain Dipshit?
Last edited:
Who cares? They had the 4th best resume.
Ohio State doesn't matter. They shouldn't have gotten in. The national championship doesn't crown the 'best' team, in any sport. They crown the champion, and the champion is who wins it on the field.
You don't know much about sports, but you're pretty decent at childish insults that affect no one.
Last edited:
Since you'll play the entire conference every two years, my guess is that we'll have Bama or UGA on the schedule every year in an alternating way.
That said, I'd sign up right now for having Bama & UGA on the schedule in the same year & then every other year neither are on the schuduele
That said, I'd sign up right now for having Bama & UGA on the schedule in the same year & then every other year neither are on the schuduele
You’re about the biggest hypocrite on this board. All of your names have waxed poetic about how Bama shouldn’t have gotten another shot against LSU in 2011, and shouldn’t get another shot against UGA if they lose. Now you’re saying A&M deserved another shot against Bama after not only losing, but getting absolutely obliterated by them in the regular season. Comical. And by the way, I agreed with OP about them potentially getting snubbed, yet you still decided to spew your ********.
And furthermore, the stated goal at the top of the CFP’s very mission statement is how to select the four BEST teams for the college football playoff. Its plastered right at the top of their website. Not the teams that won the most games, not the teams that are most “deserving”, not the head to head winner of single regular season matchups…. it’s the best teams. Full stop. You’re arguing about “champion” vs. “best team”? Take it up with the committee. Their job is to pick the 4 best teams, and let them duke it out. My *** who “knows nothing about sports” can at least complete a basic google search to confirm facts before I spew ******** that isn’t true like you do….so take a lap.
Last edited:
Part of the reason to increase the number of SEC games is for ESPN and the TV contract. Nobody wants to watch Bama play the Citadel or A&M play Prairie View. Or State pound Tennessee State. Lower viewership less advertising dollars Yada Yada. Personally I love watching us beat the brakes off lower teams but ESPN wants more big name games