(09-20-2013 10:09 AM)bullet Wrote:  What's happening in the SEC is a historical anomaly. The gap between the top and bottom of the SEC has never been so big, meaning its easier for the top teams to have a good record. The bottom is really bad while the top is doing really good. Noone from the bottom 8 beat anyone in the top 6 last year. Typically, the SEC middle group is tougher than they have been.

If we go back seven years, here are the BCS National Champions:

2012 Alabama
2011 Alabama
2010 Auburn
2009 Alabama
2008 Florida
2007 LSU
2006 Florida

What a SECond to none "anomaly"….

(09-17-2013 10:45 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 12:07 PM)bullet Wrote:  The Big 12 could have stayed together if:
A) Colorado didn't want to go to the Pac where most of their alumni were;
B) Nebraska didn't get a better offer from the wealthy Big 10 who was looking to expand;
C) A&M had more success in the Big 12 and wasn't so desperate to try something different along with their effort to distinguish their perceptions outside of Texas from the Texas Techs and Houstons; and
D) Missouri didn't get scared because no one was interested in them in 2010 despite their pretty public begging for the Big 10.

I’m not questioning your opinion. However, there’s no way the B12 was staying together as it originally was—period. In fact, the conference is very fortunate to still be in existence. Nebraska looks lonely and out of place in the B10. It should have told the B10: “If you want me, get me another B12 conference mate.” If the B10 had any vision besides ea$tern expansion, it would have taken KU and Misso along with Nebraska. Moreover, all the academically snobbish PAC 12 had to do was take OU and OSU (the worst realignment mistake ever). TX and TT would have followed. I don’t care what Dodds said in a subsequent interview after the PAC 12 let the B12 off the hook—TX wasn’t going to the ACC because it never mentioned taking TT. The only conference willing to take TX and TT was the PAC 12. Furthermore, when the PAC 12 foolishly refused to accept a national marquee school like OU and a school with a lot of potential like OSU, SECond to none football conference should have taken both schools. All it took was for another cartel conference to make one of the aforementioned "hits" and the B12 would be dead….

Btw... A&M will probably surpass TX because it has been very competitive in the SECond to none football conference. TX recruits would rather play against the Tide, Tigers (LSU), Bulldogs (Georgia), Gators, Gamecocks, etc… than what the B12 currently offers. In fact, the way TX is currently playing, it won’t be long before A&M is the marquee school in TX….

I'm going to dispute a couple of your positions, the first being the UNL ultimatum of bring friends along. This was not a binary decision where the 'Huskers had leverage. Hold firm in the position and the B1G might have gone back to Mizzou with the offer. Rest assured they would have taken the invite, partners or not. The B1G expansion to 12 was about getting a conference championship game. It would have been less disruptive if they had taken a BE team but I'm sure there was tons of data that stated who would provide the most value.

Also, the PAC didn't want the OK schools b/c it wasn't a bet they were willing to make. You're right, the PAC would have room TT and Texas, but there was still no guarantee that they would move that way. While unlikely, the SEC could have make them an offer. The ACC could just as easily given the Longhorn a ND crack deal and taken TT as well. While the probability was remote, the mere existence of such options was too much for the PAC.

While the B12 was a loosely held together affiliation, the other conferences don't want to be caught holding the murder weapon of a peer organization. That's what made the initial PAC offer so amazing; because it would have killed the B12. Even the ACC, which has trying to strangle the life out of the BE for almost a decade, was never this blatant. My point is simply that your evaluation of conference moves is predicated on the elimination of the B12 being strategically beneficial for all when in actuality it was about using various schools the achieve tactical goals.

(09-15-2013 11:55 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Texas A&M to the SEC has changed the dynamic for both the SEC and for football in Texas.

1) Houston is now a SEC city. With A&M and LSU fans here in Houston (the biggest city in Texas and the fastest growing big city in the US), the Big XII is an increasingly distant second here. The SEC is now a strong second elsewhere in Texas. For television networks, its more than a market, its eyeballs actually watching. The SEC product is more valuable because of it. If CBS doesn't wish to pay extra for it, someone else will.

2) UT has made some boneheaded decisions that have really harmed their former position as the undisputed football leader in Texas. I'm going to assume that Big XII decisions are really just UT's decisions. Letting A&M go was mistake number one (they would have stayed but for the LHN). Refusing to add Louisville along with West Virginia was mistake number two (and this was UT's decision) - if they had added Louisville, they might have gotten Notre Dame like the ACC did. Now there is no one for them to take that really helps their product. Adding TCU instead of Houston was also the wrong decision, as it added a private school (that doesn't really add a lot of fans) and it ceded Houston to the SEC. Finally, they got petty and refused to schedule A&M. So now, Texas doesn't even get to play A&M and challenge the accepted theory that the best program in Texas right now is Texas A&M. It won't look good on Thanksgiving when TAMU is playing LSU on national TV and is watched by millions and UT plays... TCU.

Missouri was a 'shift add'. Meaning that just subtract the Mizzou viewers from the Big XII and shift the to the SEC. TAMU was a game changer. Not only does the SEC get TAMU's viewers, but due to the A&M's increased competitiveness and the better matchups, it increases the number of viewers beyond simply what A&M's viewership was in the Big XII.

Louisville and Cincinnati would have been better

At the time WVU was winning more games than Ville, but looking at
the big picture the Big 12 did not do that for sure. ND doing the hybrid thing with the Big 12, no way. ACC makes more sense for that.
As a Cincy fan it would have been good to hook with WVU and Ville back in the same conference.
TCU could bolt immediately to the Big 12 and they needed that.

(09-20-2013 10:42 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(09-20-2013 10:09 AM)bullet Wrote:  What's happening in the SEC is a historical anomaly. The gap between the top and bottom of the SEC has never been so big, meaning its easier for the top teams to have a good record. The bottom is really bad while the top is doing really good. Noone from the bottom 8 beat anyone in the top 6 last year. Typically, the SEC middle group is tougher than they have been.

If we go back seven years, here are the BCS National Champions:

2012 Alabama
2011 Alabama
2010 Auburn
2009 Alabama
2008 Florida
2007 LSU
2006 Florida

What a SECond to none "anomaly"….

Saban, Miles, Meyer all either born in Ohio and played college ball in Ohio.

(09-20-2013 10:42 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(09-20-2013 10:09 AM)bullet Wrote:  What's happening in the SEC is a historical anomaly. The gap between the top and bottom of the SEC has never been so big, meaning its easier for the top teams to have a good record. The bottom is really bad while the top is doing really good. Noone from the bottom 8 beat anyone in the top 6 last year. Typically, the SEC middle group is tougher than they have been.

If we go back seven years, here are the BCS National Champions:

2012 Alabama
2011 Alabama
2010 Auburn
2009 Alabama
2008 Florida
2007 LSU
2006 Florida

What a SECond to none "anomaly"….

It is an Anomaly compared to this:
1998 Tennessee
1999 FSU
2000 Oklahoma
2001 Miami
2002 Ohio St
2003 LSU
2004 USC
2005 Texas

It is no coincidence the run of SEC dominance started when the BCS formula was changed to essentially eliminate the computers from the equation, even though the entire reason they were added was due to the perceived biases of the human polls, and using the computers to help root them out. It has no created a monster where because of said biases, SEC teams are all but guaranteed a spot in the championship game.

My comments:

(09-20-2013 10:48 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(09-17-2013 10:45 AM)Underdog Wrote:  

(09-16-2013 12:07 PM)bullet Wrote:  The Big 12 could have stayed together if:
A) Colorado didn't want to go to the Pac where most of their alumni were;
B) Nebraska didn't get a better offer from the wealthy Big 10 who was looking to expand;
C) A&M had more success in the Big 12 and wasn't so desperate to try something different along with their effort to distinguish their perceptions outside of Texas from the Texas Techs and Houstons; and
D) Missouri didn't get scared because no one was interested in them in 2010 despite their pretty public begging for the Big 10.

I’m not questioning your opinion. However, there’s no way the B12 was staying together as it originally was—period. In fact, the conference is very fortunate to still be in existence. Nebraska looks lonely and out of place in the B10. It should have told the B10: “If you want me, get me another B12 conference mate.” If the B10 had any vision besides ea$tern expansion, it would have taken KU and Misso along with Nebraska. Moreover, all the academically snobbish PAC 12 had to do was take OU and OSU (the worst realignment mistake ever). TX and TT would have followed. I don’t care what Dodds said in a subsequent interview after the PAC 12 let the B12 off the hook—TX wasn’t going to the ACC because it never mentioned taking TT. The only conference willing to take TX and TT was the PAC 12. Furthermore, when the PAC 12 foolishly refused to accept a national marquee school like OU and a school with a lot of potential like OSU, SECond to none football conference should have taken both schools. All it took was for another cartel conference to make one of the aforementioned "hits" and the B12 would be dead….

Btw... A&M will probably surpass TX because it has been very competitive in the SECond to none football conference. TX recruits would rather play against the Tide, Tigers (LSU), Bulldogs (Georgia), Gators, Gamecocks, etc… than what the B12 currently offers. In fact, the way TX is currently playing, it won’t be long before A&M is the marquee school in TX….

I'm going to dispute a couple of your positions, the first being the UNL ultimatum of bring friends along. This was not a binary decision where the 'Huskers had leverage. Hold firm in the position and the B1G might have gone back to Mizzou with the offer. Rest assured they would have taken the invite, partners or not. The B1G expansion to 12 was about getting a conference championship game. It would have been less disruptive if they had taken a BE team but I'm sure there was tons of data that stated who would provide the most value.

The B10 wanted Nebraska like the PAC 12 wanted TX and the LHN (more about that below). The B10 was only interested in Nebraska. The B10 wasn’t taking Misso or even KU because it could have done so by now. Nebraska could have strongly suggested Misso and KU to see what the B10 would do. I think the B10 would have taken all three to get the school it really wanted.

Also, the PAC didn't want the OK schools b/c it wasn't a bet they were willing to make. You're right, the PAC would have room TT and Texas, but there was still no guarantee that they would move that way. While unlikely, the SEC could have make them an offer. The ACC could just as easily given the Longhorn a ND crack deal and taken TT as well. While the probability was remote, the mere existence of such options was too much for the PAC.

The PAC 12 was willing to lower its academic standards to take OU, OSU, and TT just so it could get TX and the LHN. The B10 would have done something similar to get Nebraska (if it were required, but Nebraska never made any demands). The biggest difference is that KU and Misso are AAU members and meet the B10's academic profile while three of the aforementioned schools the PAC 12 was willing to take didn’t meet its academic profile. The PAC 12 really wanted TX with the LHN, so it was willing to take the other three schools to appease TX if the LHN was also included. Consequently, Larry Scott and PAC 12 leadership said "no" to taking OU and OSU without the LHN included in the deal. The PAC 12 made the worst realignment mistake in history by a conference!!!

While the B12 was a loosely held together affiliation, the other conferences don't want to be caught holding the murder weapon of a peer organization. That's what made the initial PAC offer so amazing; because it would have killed the B12. Even the ACC, which has trying to strangle the life out of the BE for almost a decade, was never this blatant. My point is simply that your evaluation of conference moves is predicated on the elimination of the B12 being strategically beneficial for all when in actuality it was about using various schools the achieve tactical goals.

As I posted above, 'The PAC 12 was willing to lower its academic standards to take OU, OSU, and TT just so it could get TX and the LHN.' It would have killed the B12 for sure if it could get TX and the LHN. The problem was that Scott and PAC 12 leadership were unwilling to pull the trigger and severely wound the B12 by taking OU and OSU. Dodds subsequently admitted at a press conference that the B12 would have died if it had lost OU. What the PAC 12 overlooked is the fact that the only conference willing to take TT with TX was the PAC12—what an unconscionable mistake by Scott and PAC 12 leadership….

(09-20-2013 11:39 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  It is no coincidence the run of SEC dominance started when the BCS formula was changed to essentially eliminate the computers from the equation, even though the entire reason they were added was due to the perceived biases of the human polls, and using the computers to help root them out. It has no created a monster where because of said biases, SEC teams are all but guaranteed a spot in the championship game.

But they are winning that game also. I think having the right coaching staffs in place is pretty clear indicator. They are still recruiting the same territory they did 20-30 years ago.