+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: Verbal Assault Area (/forum-728.html)
+---- Thread: Rumblings in the SEC (/thread-529081.html)
Pages: 1 2
Rumblings in the SEC - Eagleweiser - 11-07-2011 09:01 AM
With the recent U Conn debacle fresh on everyone in the SEC's mind and now the very distinct possibility that the SEC might have 3 and possibly 4 teams in the BCS top 12 only to get two teams in while the east might be represented once more by a 3 or 4 loss team and possibly unranked, this might signal the offensive the SEC will take to eliminate AQ all together.
RE: Rumblings in the SEC - stever20 - 11-07-2011 09:28 AM
Have you actually looked at the Big East's standings? Cincinnati with 1 loss and ranked 23 has a 1 game lead on Louisville(with the tie breaker). They will be in the top 15 if they win out.
Heck, you could say the same thing about the SEC right now. They could easily be represented by a 4 loss Georgia team. ACC could be represented by a 9-4 Wake Forest team.
And do you REALLY think the other conferences would allow the SEC to eliminate AQ all together? I'm thinking the ACC in particular. Or the Big Ten or Pac 12- there was one year that a team won the conference ranked like 22nd. There's no chance of that.....
RE: Rumblings in the SEC - Chappy - 11-07-2011 09:29 AM
There should be no AQ's and no maximums.
RE: Rumblings in the SEC - New York Bull - 11-07-2011 09:32 AM
Chappy, if no AQs and no maximums it is just a popularity that:
LSU, Bama, Auburn, UF, OSU, Michigan, Wisc, USC, Penn St, Nebraska, etc. will never, ever lose.
At least now there is a way for non-auto bid teams to get in.
RE: Rumblings in the SEC - SowasheeEagle - 11-07-2011 09:33 AM
I had a conversation with an acquaintance who is a Associate AD at an SEC school. This is what the SEC would like to see. No AQ with a pool of teams eligible with no maximum number of teams from one conference. With similar guarantees in place for present non AQ conferences, they feel the B1G and PAC 12 would go along along with the present non AQ conferences and would give them enough votes to pass for the 2014-2017 cycle.
RE: Rumblings in the SEC - Eagleweiser - 11-07-2011 09:38 AM
Cincy is about to have to play a pissed off Mountaineer team, probably a loss in their future and U of L is not going to win out, Cincy is not going to win out and even if West Virginia does it is not a much better situation than last years U Conn fiasco. Just saying there are rumblings going on and what the SEC wants, the SEC gets, just ask ESPN.
RE: Rumblings in the SEC - Up2stuff - 11-07-2011 09:38 AM
(11-07-2011 09:28 AM)stever20 Wrote: Have you actually looked at the Big East's standings? Cincinnati with 1 loss and ranked 23 has a 1 game lead on Louisville(with the tie breaker). They will be in the top 15 if they win out.
Heck, you could say the same thing about the SEC right now. They could easily be represented by a 4 loss Georgia team. ACC could be represented by a 9-4 Wake Forest team.
And do you REALLY think the other conferences would allow the SEC to eliminate AQ all together? I'm thinking the ACC in particular. Or the Big Ten or Pac 12- there was one year that a team won the conference ranked like 22nd. There's no chance of that.....
You're wrong. No AQs and no limit is very much a part of the discussion. It's not only the SEC but also the B1G that is leaning that way. In fact it's been mentioned in enough articles I assumed everyone was aware of it. Not just writers, but quotes from the comissioners.
Don't bother asking for a liink, if your interested I'm sure you can find it yourself. I have better things to do with my time and I really don't care if anyone believes it or not. No skin off my back.
RE: Rumblings in the SEC - stever20 - 11-07-2011 09:38 AM
So let me get this straight. A team from the MWC would have a guarantee to get in the BCS if they finish high enough, but a team from the ACC would not have such a guarantee.
FAIL...
RE: Rumblings in the SEC - chess - 11-07-2011 09:58 AM
Let's see how this will work in the future... The SEC East champion will get a guaranteed spot. The SEC West champion will get a guaranteed spot. The other schools in the SEC East and SEC West will be able to earn an at-large spot up to one from each side of the conference.
That sounds like up to 4 teams to me. For what it is worth, the BCS bowls will be happy, too, because they can sell out their bowl games.
RE: Rumblings in the SEC - blunderbuss - 11-07-2011 10:01 AM
(11-07-2011 09:28 AM)stever20 Wrote: Have you actually looked at the Big East's standings? Cincinnati with 1 loss and ranked 23 has a 1 game lead on Louisville(with the tie breaker). They will be in the top 15 if they win out.
Heck, you could say the same thing about the SEC right now. They could easily be represented by a 4 loss Georgia team. ACC could be represented by a 9-4 Wake Forest team.
And do you REALLY think the other conferences would allow the SEC to eliminate AQ all together? I'm thinking the ACC in particular. Or the Big Ten or Pac 12- there was one year that a team won the conference ranked like 22nd. There's no chance of that.....
Yes. I believe that even If for no other reason than the SEC WILL fill up the BCS bowl stadiums and make those bowls a lot of money. The ACC and BE (save a couple of teams) clearly don't care about traveling to their bowl games. However, there are a lot more arguments for the SEC getting multiple bids. They are far and away the best league in the country year after year. When the SEC can put 3 or 4 teams in the top 12 and the Big East (or even ACC) can barely put multiple teams in the top 25, there is something severely screwed up with the system.
All this combined with the political pressure I wouldn't be surprised at all to see AQ disappear completely and the BCS become matchups of the top 12. That's probably the way it should be and then the rest of the schools hold their normal bowl tie ins. The BCS bowl tie ins can even remain in place for the most part or they can just declare the Sugar an additional BCS bowl.
RE: Rumblings in the SEC - Maize - 11-07-2011 10:19 AM
(11-07-2011 09:38 AM)Eagleweiser Wrote: Cincy is about to have to play a pissed off Mountaineer team, probably a loss in their future and U of L is not going to win out, Cincy is not going to win out and even if West Virginia does it is not a much better situation than last years U Conn fiasco. Just saying there are rumblings going on and what the SEC wants, the SEC gets, just ask ESPN.
You know more times than not the conference that has sent 4 loss schools to a BCS Bowl game is the ACC not the BIG EAST. You know the league that has only won 1 BCS Bowl Game since.
Also, right now Cincinnati is the best team in the BIG EAST and that game is in Cincinnati. UC by 7.
RE: Rumblings in the SEC - Blackman - 11-07-2011 10:35 AM
(11-07-2011 09:28 AM)stever20 Wrote: Have you actually looked at the Big East's standings? Cincinnati with 1 loss and ranked 23 has a 1 game lead on Louisville(with the tie breaker). They will be in the top 15 if they win out.
Yeah but that one loss was a 22 point loss to a bottom tier SEC team in Tennessee. That has got to be a large part of the SEC's argument.
RE: Rumblings in the SEC - curtis0620 - 11-07-2011 10:38 AM
Sorry, but except for LSU and Alabama, the rest of the SEC is garbage.
RE: Rumblings in the SEC - mavblues - 11-07-2011 10:40 AM
(11-07-2011 09:01 AM)Eagleweiser Wrote: With the recent U Conn debacle fresh on everyone in the SEC's mind and now the very distinct possibility that the SEC might have 3 and possibly 4 teams in the BCS top 12 only to get two teams in while the east might be represented once more by a 3 or 4 loss team and possibly unranked, this might signal the offensive the SEC will take to eliminate AQ all together.
"UConn fiasco"? Tough talk, coming from an SMU fan.
Final Sagarin Football Ratings:
2010: UCONN-56 SMU-83
2009: UCONN-28 SMU-65
2008: UCONN-40 SMU-149
2007: UCONN-39 SMU-169
Frankly, it's taking me too long to scroll down the list to find SMU each year.
BTW, you do realize that UConn has only been playing D-1 football for a decade, right? Two time co-conference champion in its six years in the conference.
UCONN was also 7th in overall athletic dept strength in men's sports for last year (Capital One Cup), and 17th in women's. SMU was 58th in men's, and unranked in women's.
It's OK, little boy. Daddy has noticed you. Now you and your school can go back to irrelevance.
RE: Rumblings in the SEC - Eagleweiser - 11-07-2011 10:45 AM
Arkansas, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida and for that matter Mississippi State could dominate the least even before its current members leave and adding the proposed additions. SEC teams are pompous and their conference tends to be as well, but to call them garbage as far as talent and production shows your complete ability to be a big LEAST homer, a Pitt homer or just not educated in football what so ever.
RE: Rumblings in the SEC - Eagleweiser - 11-07-2011 10:46 AM
Hell, add Vandy to the mix, I think they would only suffer a couple of losses in the LEAST, Tennessee as well, they put a whipping on your current conference leader, I would even go as far as to say Mississippi would have a winning record this year in the least and that is saying a lot.
RE: Rumblings in the SEC - mlb - 11-07-2011 10:48 AM
Moved. This is only here to create problems.
RE: Rumblings in the SEC - Inigo - 11-07-2011 10:48 AM
(11-07-2011 10:40 AM)mavblues Wrote:(11-07-2011 09:01 AM)Eagleweiser Wrote: With the recent U Conn debacle fresh on everyone in the SEC's mind and now the very distinct possibility that the SEC might have 3 and possibly 4 teams in the BCS top 12 only to get two teams in while the east might be represented once more by a 3 or 4 loss team and possibly unranked, this might signal the offensive the SEC will take to eliminate AQ all together.
"UConn fiasco"? Tough talk, coming from an SMU fan.
Final Sagarin Football Ratings:
2010: UCONN-56 SMU-83
2009: UCONN-28 SMU-65
2008: UCONN-40 SMU-149
2007: UCONN-39 SMU-169
Frankly, it's taking me too long to scroll down the list to find SMU each year.
BTW, you do realize that UConn has only been playing D-1 football for a decade, right? Two time co-conference champion in its six years in the conference.
UCONN was also 7th in overall athletic dept strength in men's sports for last year (Capital One Cup), and 17th in women's. SMU was 58th in men's, and unranked in women's.
It's OK, little boy. Daddy has noticed you. Now you and your school can go back to irrelevance.
Eagleweiser is a Southern Miss fan, not an SMU fan. Southern Miss is USM, and they've been very good in football for a long time. They are the team that deserves to be in an AQ conference based on their success on the field, but they are held back by their small media market.
SMU is Southern Methodist, and they've only been decent again for the last couple of years after getting June Jones. They are the ones rumored to be joining the Big East.
RE: Rumblings in the SEC - Attackcoog - 11-07-2011 10:49 AM
(11-07-2011 10:01 AM)NoQuarter08 Wrote:(11-07-2011 09:28 AM)stever20 Wrote: Have you actually looked at the Big East's standings? Cincinnati with 1 loss and ranked 23 has a 1 game lead on Louisville(with the tie breaker). They will be in the top 15 if they win out.
Heck, you could say the same thing about the SEC right now. They could easily be represented by a 4 loss Georgia team. ACC could be represented by a 9-4 Wake Forest team.
And do you REALLY think the other conferences would allow the SEC to eliminate AQ all together? I'm thinking the ACC in particular. Or the Big Ten or Pac 12- there was one year that a team won the conference ranked like 22nd. There's no chance of that.....
Yes. I believe that even If for no other reason than the SEC WILL fill up the BCS bowl stadiums and make those bowls a lot of money. The ACC and BE (save a couple of teams) clearly don't care about traveling to their bowl games. However, there are a lot more arguments for the SEC getting multiple bids. They are far and away the best league in the country year after year. When the SEC can put 3 or 4 teams in the top 12 and the Big East (or even ACC) can barely put multiple teams in the top 25, there is something severely screwed up with the system.
All this combined with the political pressure I wouldn't be surprised at all to see AQ disappear completely and the BCS become matchups of the top 12. That's probably the way it should be and then the rest of the schools hold their normal bowl tie ins. The BCS bowl tie ins can even remain in place for the most part or they can just declare the Sugar an additional BCS bowl.
You understand, of course, that the bowls always make money. The teams involved have to purchase a set number of tickets at full face value, guaranteeing that the bowls make money. Its not the bowls who lose money, its the schools that lose. Most schools lose money going to a bowl game, they often even lose when they go the big BCS bowls. One school recently lost 2.9 million dollars going to a BCS bowl. The AQ is the main thing that sets the 6 major conferences apart from everyone else. It permanantly locks in a huge recruiting and TV contract advantage....they arent giving that up. They will add an extra bowl, probably the Jerry Bowl, and eliminate the "2-per conference rule". Those 4-loss AQ type teams will get the extra bowl and higher ranked runner up's in stronger conferences will get the better games.
RE: Rumblings in the SEC - esayem - 11-07-2011 10:50 AM
(11-07-2011 10:40 AM)mavblues Wrote: BTW, you do realize that UConn has only been playing D-1 football for a decade, right? Two time co-conference champion in its six years in the conference.
Actually UConn has been playing D-1 football since 1978, but as a UConn fan I can understand you completely ignoring your football program until it joined the Big East. :spongebob: