(11-22-2015 02:42 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  LSU is putting all of their future dreams on landing the Florida State head coach. If they don't get him, then they are not going to land anyone that will produce better than Les Miles did during his days at LSU. I have seen how this plays out at some programs in over the last 30 years and they almost always end up the same. Notre Dame, Nebraska, Alabama, Miami, USCw, Texas, etc, have all been through this and now it LSU might be heading down that path.

I'm not sure why Jimbo would leave FSU for LSU...

(11-22-2015 03:46 PM)EvilVodka Wrote:  

(11-22-2015 02:42 PM)Nebraskafan Wrote:  LSU is putting all of their future dreams on landing the Florida State head coach. If they don't get him, then they are not going to land anyone that will produce better than Les Miles did during his days at LSU. I have seen how this plays out at some programs in over the last 30 years and they almost always end up the same. Notre Dame, Nebraska, Alabama, Miami, USCw, Texas, etc, have all been through this and now it LSU might be heading down that path.

I'm not sure why Jimbo would leave FSU for LSU...

LSU is being too emotional about all of this. Lost the 2011 title game to Alabama and have been defeated by Alabama since that game. It drives them nuts. How many other coaches can beat Saban right now? The likes of Stoops and Meyer. Neither of those coaches are going to go to LSU.

So LSU losses a few conference games and now it is the end of the world for them and they are throwing fire signs up all over the place and pushing out their winningest coach.

What they are doing is stupid. They aren't going to hire a head coach that is a proven winner over the current state of the Alabama program.

What is likely to happen with a very high degree of probability is that LSU fires Les Miles withink the next 7 days, they get turned down by Jimbo and others and hire a head coach like Fedora from UNC that has a losing record against South Carolina.

These types of fires have backfired on so many programs.

(11-22-2015 09:41 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  South Carolina just lost to The Citadel (FCS)
Vanderbilt lost to both W. Kentucky and Houston

Just an SEC East problem?

Ole Miss lost to Memphis
Arkansas lost to Toledo

What's more, LSU just lost to both Ole Miss AND Arkansas in the last 2 weeks.

No one is saying some other conference is invincible... just that the SEC is NOT all that special, either.

You got to wonder if the game against McNeese State that LSU lost to weather would have been LSU's 4th lost? McNesse State is 10-0 and going into the playoffs in FCS.

The problem is the talking heads on ESPN which is more ESECPN savoy praise the SEC schools, and tear down the other conferences. Why not make the SEC 100 teams and get over with it?

(11-22-2015 01:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If we don't expand further then Auburn and Alabama need to move to the East and Missouri and Vanderbilt to the West. Then at least maybe the two best teams would meet in the CCG instead of knocking each other off in the West.

But to your main point, we have definitely slipped. Whether that is long term, or a blip on the timeline remains to be seen.

While that might look good this year, historically speaking, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Georgia, and Florida in the same division is murder's row, and historically speaking the West would be similar to the old Big 12 North.

One thing people should pay attention to though, is by and large with the exception of UF/LSU, the two teams who play each other cross division, don't seem to be able to both be "up" at the same time. One seems to affect the other.

(11-22-2015 05:48 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(11-22-2015 01:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If we don't expand further then Auburn and Alabama need to move to the East and Missouri and Vanderbilt to the West. Then at least maybe the two best teams would meet in the CCG instead of knocking each other off in the West.

But to your main point, we have definitely slipped. Whether that is long term, or a blip on the timeline remains to be seen.

While that might look good this year, historically speaking, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Georgia, and Florida in the same division is murder's row, and historically speaking the West would be similar to the old Big 12 North.

One thing people should pay attention to though, is by and large with the exception of UF/LSU, the two teams who play each other cross division, don't seem to be able to both be "up" at the same time. One seems to affect the other.

The West teams last year lost their bowls except for Arkansas who beat Texas. The way they played in the bowls and this year? The whole SEC is over rated. I think the AAC is actually must better conference right now.

(11-22-2015 05:53 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(11-22-2015 05:48 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(11-22-2015 01:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If we don't expand further then Auburn and Alabama need to move to the East and Missouri and Vanderbilt to the West. Then at least maybe the two best teams would meet in the CCG instead of knocking each other off in the West.

But to your main point, we have definitely slipped. Whether that is long term, or a blip on the timeline remains to be seen.

While that might look good this year, historically speaking, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Georgia, and Florida in the same division is murder's row, and historically speaking the West would be similar to the old Big 12 North.

One thing people should pay attention to though, is by and large with the exception of UF/LSU, the two teams who play each other cross division, don't seem to be able to both be "up" at the same time. One seems to affect the other.

The West teams last year lost their bowls except for Arkansas who beat Texas. The way they played in the bowls and this year? The whole SEC is over rated. I think the AAC is actually must better conference right now.

I'm starting to understand your rep.

(11-22-2015 05:56 PM)hawghiggs Wrote:  

(11-22-2015 05:53 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(11-22-2015 05:48 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(11-22-2015 01:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If we don't expand further then Auburn and Alabama need to move to the East and Missouri and Vanderbilt to the West. Then at least maybe the two best teams would meet in the CCG instead of knocking each other off in the West.

But to your main point, we have definitely slipped. Whether that is long term, or a blip on the timeline remains to be seen.

While that might look good this year, historically speaking, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Georgia, and Florida in the same division is murder's row, and historically speaking the West would be similar to the old Big 12 North.

One thing people should pay attention to though, is by and large with the exception of UF/LSU, the two teams who play each other cross division, don't seem to be able to both be "up" at the same time. One seems to affect the other.

The West teams last year lost their bowls except for Arkansas who beat Texas. The way they played in the bowls and this year? The whole SEC is over rated. I think the AAC is actually must better conference right now.

I'm starting to understand your rep.

Sometimes people do not want to hear the hard truth about these things. I remember Utah blew out Alabama in the BCS bowl while Utah was in the MWC at the time. It was the same rant you hear from the talking heads back then on how great the SEC was. It has been proven on the field at times that the SEC schools lose to schools that are not in a P5 conference. The SEC are not Super Heroes who could not fail. But, they get knocked off the hill because they are just like the rest of the other schools.

(11-22-2015 05:48 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(11-22-2015 01:08 PM)JRsec Wrote:  If we don't expand further then Auburn and Alabama need to move to the East and Missouri and Vanderbilt to the West. Then at least maybe the two best teams would meet in the CCG instead of knocking each other off in the West.

But to your main point, we have definitely slipped. Whether that is long term, or a blip on the timeline remains to be seen.

While that might look good this year, historically speaking, Alabama, Auburn, Tennessee, Georgia, and Florida in the same division is murder's row, and historically speaking the West would be similar to the old Big 12 North.

One thing people should pay attention to though, is by and large with the exception of UF/LSU, the two teams who play each other cross division, don't seem to be able to both be "up" at the same time. One seems to affect the other.

I know our history, but the moves would be necessary to return traditional rivalries that were forfeited in '91. And in the end it would bring more balance. Especially if the additions in the West were Oklahoma and another power. But either way remember that the other blip that is not historically true is that Auburn and Alabama are both strong at the same time. That is an anomaly. Historically if one is up the other is down even though usually neither is way down. So adding them to the East is more likely adding a contender and a middling bowl team on most years, not two world beaters. BTW, that's the history of Florida and Georgia as well.

Fair points. Although one benefit the SEC has, is when pundits rate them, or teams they play, their "historical" rank is often cited more often then their current disposition. I point that out because if such a move were made, the west may end up getting the Big 12 North treatment for the same reasons. I personally think this is a case where the SEC, competitively speaking, if they expanded would be better off expanding with teams more like Missouri than Oklahoma, and allow the current existing powers room to breathe. JMO

(11-22-2015 06:58 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Fair points. Although one benefit the SEC has, is when pundits rate them, or teams they play, their "historical" rank is often cited more often then their current disposition. I point that out because if such a move were made, the west may end up getting the Big 12 North treatment for the same reasons. I personally think this is a case where the SEC, competitively speaking, if they expanded would be better off expanding with teams more like Missouri than Oklahoma, and allow the current existing powers room to breathe. JMO

The market model is moot for the next expansion. After markets the only other money makers are content multipliers. That's why Oklahoma is attractive to the SEC. Oklahoma vs over half of the conference would be a ratings bonanza. They add a small state, but bring DFW. So adding OU is one way to still enhance markets to some extent and yet guarantee revenues for when the models change. Content will always be rewarded.

If the states of Virginia and North Carolina are off of the menu then Oklahoma would have to be a top candidate for those reasons.

I agree that things might play out better if we had some middlers in there, but brand vs brand will be the new mantra in realignment in years to come.

(11-22-2015 07:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The market model is moot for the next expansion. After markets the only other money makers are content multipliers. That's why Oklahoma is attractive to the SEC. Oklahoma vs over half of the conference would be a ratings bonanza.

Sorry I wasn't meaning markets. I was referring to compettiive balance, which leads to...

(11-22-2015 07:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I agree that things might play out better if we had some middlers in there,

That was what I meant. A team like Missouri that, on paper, doesn't affect the power structure. Then again, Missouri won the east two straight years, so even "on paper" doesn't always work.

Note I have always thought brands were more valuable than markets, in terms of expansion.

(11-22-2015 07:33 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(11-22-2015 07:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The market model is moot for the next expansion. After markets the only other money makers are content multipliers. That's why Oklahoma is attractive to the SEC. Oklahoma vs over half of the conference would be a ratings bonanza.

Sorry I wasn't meaning markets. I was referring to compettiive balance, which leads to...

(11-22-2015 07:11 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I agree that things might play out better if we had some middlers in there,

That was what I meant. A team like Missouri that, on paper, doesn't affect the power structure. Then again, Missouri won the east two straight years, so even "on paper" doesn't always work.

Note I have always thought brands were more valuable than markets, in terms of expansion.

I knew you weren't referring to markets. My point is that brands will be essential. They get to be brands by being very competitive regularly. I mentioned markets because the only way to really get bang for the buck out of the middlers is to add markets. So if brands are the goal then filling those slots with schools that are not annually competitive accomplishes little financially without a market. It might make the home brands look better, but that's not what's going to land the larger check the conference wants.

Someone does not like my sarcasm post.

SEC Football is ACC basketball in the late 2000s.

The ACC road the coattails of the UNC/Duke Championships in 2009 and 2010, but anyone looking closely enough knew there wasn't much depth, and that the conference had declined overall.

Right now the SEC is Alabama, and well Alabama.

Even as far back as 2012 the signs were, the best SEC teams weren't heads and shoulders above the rest of the country, but Alabama's national title masked it.

Louisville and Clemson knocked top 10 SEC teams in bowls.

The SEC's 0-5 Big 6 bowl results the last two years.

The problem is the SEC's team's getting artificially inflated by the polls.

That's what frustrates fans around the rest of the country.

Look at Alabama in vacuum and remove SEC. They have 1 win over a ranked team, and a home loss to a team that lost to Memphis.

Put Alabama in the Big 10, ACC, Big 10 and they are around 7.

The SEC has the best record against P5 competition this year.

The 3 worst teams in the SEC (South Carolina, Mizzou, and Auburn) all have out of conference wins against solid opponents (UNC, BYU, and Louisville).

The SEC only has 2 losses against unranked OOC opponents, and one of those was Western Kentucky (who is getting votes). If that doesn't tell you that most SEC teams are quality opponents, I don't know what does.

(11-22-2015 05:53 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  The West teams last year lost their bowls except for Arkansas who beat Texas. The way they played in the bowls and this year? The whole SEC is over rated. I think the AAC is actually must better conference right now.

You're nuts. There's no equivalent to Alabama in the AAC (this season or long term) and there's a sharp dropoff in the AAC below the top 4, South Florida's recent surge notwithstanding. And there's a very sharp drop off from once you get past UConn/Tulsa.

The SEC is the best as I stated in the OP but I say again it's not so tough that we should just assume who does well in it is better than everyone else.

Even mighty Alabama has proven vulnerable at times.

If McElwain lost his team Saturday, FSU might lay 50+ on the Gators and win by 40. It would be fitting for the SEC East champion.

(11-22-2015 02:22 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Can we finally end the narrative that the SEC is so much further ahead and better than everyone else? They're lucky some teams escaped in OT as opposed to suffering, at best, losses that would have gotten their coaches fired.

It's still the best conference, especially the West where everyone is good but that's about it.

That myth was dispelled when Auburn lost to FSU. The SEC had a nice 7-8 year run that was preceded by a similar run by the B1G. While it appears that a coaching turnover is underway within the conference, I'd contend the real issue is the recent dearth of serviceable QB's. I don't think many SEC schools want to go full spread offense, but it the face of what the High Schools are providing, there might not be much choice.

(11-23-2015 12:53 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  The SEC has the best record against P5 competition this year.

The 3 worst teams in the SEC (South Carolina, Mizzou, and Auburn) all have out of conference wins against solid opponents (UNC, BYU, and Louisville).

The SEC only has 2 losses against unranked OOC opponents, and one of those was Western Kentucky (who is getting votes). If that doesn't tell you that most SEC teams are quality opponents, I don't know what does.

Ah the old our worst teams are better than your worst teams argument.

Just because Georgia Tech beat Florida State doesn't mean the Jackets are good this year same goes for Nebraska beating Michigan State.

You've left out Vanderbilt and Kentucky. The average to poor football teams in the SEC are deeper than you wrote. Throw in Arkansas too with their loss to Toledo without their best player and to a bad Texas Tech team.

The SEC isn't awful, but it has declined - that's unmistakable.

It is not the conference it was 4 or 5 years ago.

That's actually part of the problem. The SEC has believed their own hype so much despite every advantage in college athletics, has fallen back to the pack somewhat.

It's just another conference now with 1 really good team.