I'm not writing you off. It's just a sport where you have to earn it all. Right now, A&M looks to be a consistent 3rd or 4th best team in the SEC West.

We'll see, I like our chances a lot better than that and as you well know, nobody stays on top forever in the SEC

For the most part they have...

(10-09-2013 10:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  For the most part they have...

Mike Shula was there not that long ago. Saban is a great coach, but he's getting older and the cycles usually have to do with losing someone who has terrific organizational and instruction skills. Saban has both which is a rarer quality than we give it credit for being. Athletes like Manziel are once in a decade events. Coaches like Saban are once in 40 year events. There have only been about a dozen or a few more like him in the history of the game. Enjoy it while it lasts.

(10-09-2013 11:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-09-2013 10:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  For the most part they have...

Mike Shula was there not that long ago. Saban is a great coach, but he's getting older and the cycles usually have to do with losing someone who has terrific organizational and instruction skills. Saban has both which is a rarer quality than we give it credit for being. Athletes like Manziel are once in a decade events. Coaches like Saban are once in 40 year events. There have only been about a dozen or a few more like him in the history of the game. Enjoy it while it lasts.

Exactly. The SEC is a coaches' league:

Florida - Steve Spurrier, Ron Zook, Urban Meyer
Alabama - Gene Stallings, blahhhhhh x5, Nick Saban
LSU - the 1990's, Nick Saban, Les Miles
Tennessee - Phil Fulmer, Lane Kiffin, Derek Dooley, Butch Jones


With the exception of last season's disasters of John L. Smith and the last year of Gene Chizik, it can be argued that Arkansas and Auburn are the only schools with good to great hires each of the last three times. Arkansas had Houston Nutt, Bobby Petrino, and now Brett Bielema. Auburn had Tommy T, Gene Chizik, and now Gus Malzahn. We'll have to see how the current coaches do over the long haul, but it is looking pretty good right now. The point is that the SEC schools in the top half are so even in resources, history, access to recruits, etc., that it comes down to the details. What is a college coach? The Manager of Details.

(10-09-2013 09:30 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Hey I get it, the last thing you want is another consistent power in the SEC West.

But I wouldn't write us off just yet. We have the #1 QB recruit in the country coming in to replace Johnny so we should be OK.

And Bit,

Texas issue in recruiting is that guys like Geoff Ketchum who run the Texas Rivals recruiting sites and are big UT homers so they would rank players on their school decision rather than ability. If a 4 star kid chose A&M, he got bumped down to a 3 star and if a 3 star chose UT he got bumped to a 4 star.

The result was these vastly overrated classes which then combined with the laziness and entitlement of "you're at UT so you're too good to try and work hard and get better!"

10th, any major football schools that gets a new recruit see his status on the various recruiting sites jump up higher, while recruits to lesser favored schools see the opposite happen. That's been a fact of life that everyone has realized for a long time. Texas isn't alone in that. Most SEC schools, including Texas A&M, get the same kind of treatment...

(10-10-2013 09:52 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(10-09-2013 09:30 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Hey I get it, the last thing you want is another consistent power in the SEC West.

But I wouldn't write us off just yet. We have the #1 QB recruit in the country coming in to replace Johnny so we should be OK.

And Bit,

Texas issue in recruiting is that guys like Geoff Ketchum who run the Texas Rivals recruiting sites and are big UT homers so they would rank players on their school decision rather than ability. If a 4 star kid chose A&M, he got bumped down to a 3 star and if a 3 star chose UT he got bumped to a 4 star.

The result was these vastly overrated classes which then combined with the laziness and entitlement of "you're at UT so you're too good to try and work hard and get better!"

10th, any major football schools that gets a new recruit see his status on the various recruiting sites jump up higher, while recruits to lesser favored schools see the opposite happen. That's been a fact of life that everyone has realized for a long time. Texas isn't alone in that. Most SEC schools, including Texas A&M, get the same kind of treatment...

Im not saying its unique, just extremely pervasive when you have honest to God UT t-shirt fans running the local rankings and intentionally remolding them to have UT's class always come out on top in order to sell subscriptions to other UT t-shirt fans that tell them what they want to hear: "All is well and UT has the best of everything like always"

THAT is the problem with the UT program (and even they see it) that too much time is spent on preserving and cultivating this image of infallibility and invulnerability in recruiting and not enough time getting the actual players.

When you are more worried about spinning reality to make it look like you've never lost a recruiting battle to any other Texas team n("Mack Didn't Offer", "Not Texas Good") than on actually winning those battles, thats a big issue.

(10-09-2013 11:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-09-2013 10:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  For the most part they have...

Mike Shula was there not that long ago. Saban is a great coach, but he's getting older and the cycles usually have to do with losing someone who has terrific organizational and instruction skills. Saban has both which is a rarer quality than we give it credit for being. Athletes like Manziel are once in a decade events. Coaches like Saban are once in 40 year events. There have only been about a dozen or a few more like him in the history of the game. Enjoy it while it lasts.

Seeing this kind of success is one thing but sustained strong success in the conference is another. For the most part the same teams in the conference have been on top, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee.

(10-10-2013 10:58 AM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 09:52 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  

(10-09-2013 09:30 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Hey I get it, the last thing you want is another consistent power in the SEC West.

But I wouldn't write us off just yet. We have the #1 QB recruit in the country coming in to replace Johnny so we should be OK.

And Bit,

Texas issue in recruiting is that guys like Geoff Ketchum who run the Texas Rivals recruiting sites and are big UT homers so they would rank players on their school decision rather than ability. If a 4 star kid chose A&M, he got bumped down to a 3 star and if a 3 star chose UT he got bumped to a 4 star.

The result was these vastly overrated classes which then combined with the laziness and entitlement of "you're at UT so you're too good to try and work hard and get better!"

10th, any major football schools that gets a new recruit see his status on the various recruiting sites jump up higher, while recruits to lesser favored schools see the opposite happen. That's been a fact of life that everyone has realized for a long time. Texas isn't alone in that. Most SEC schools, including Texas A&M, get the same kind of treatment...

Im not saying its unique, just extremely pervasive when you have honest to God UT t-shirt fans running the local rankings and intentionally remolding them to have UT's class always come out on top in order to sell subscriptions to other UT t-shirt fans that tell them what they want to hear: "All is well and UT has the best of everything like always"

THAT is the problem with the UT program (and even they see it) that too much time is spent on preserving and cultivating this image of infallibility and invulnerability in recruiting and not enough time getting the actual players.

When you are more worried about spinning reality to make it look like you've never lost a recruiting battle to any other Texas team n("Mack Didn't Offer", "Not Texas Good") than on actually winning those battles, thats a big issue.

It's all part and parcel of the everything's bigger and better in Texas mentality, which exists all over the State of Texas. UT isn't alone in that respect. The Houston-TT fights we see all the time in the CR forum should have proven that long ago, and that's not the only such argument we see a good bit of...

(10-10-2013 11:48 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-09-2013 11:00 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-09-2013 10:29 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  For the most part they have...

Mike Shula was there not that long ago. Saban is a great coach, but he's getting older and the cycles usually have to do with losing someone who has terrific organizational and instruction skills. Saban has both which is a rarer quality than we give it credit for being. Athletes like Manziel are once in a decade events. Coaches like Saban are once in 40 year events. There have only been about a dozen or a few more like him in the history of the game. Enjoy it while it lasts.

Seeing this kind of success is one thing but sustained strong success in the conference is another. For the most part the same teams in the conference have been on top, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee.

Florida, L.S.U. and Auburn have won their share of division and conference titles in the past 30 years as well. Georgia not that often.

The SEC usually has up to 6 teams each year who are viable candidates to win the conference.

Compare that to the other Power conferences and almost all of them are the same one or two school who wins it every year with that one or two occasionally changing once a decade or so.

(10-10-2013 05:01 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The SEC usually has up to 6 teams each year who are viable candidates to win the conference.

Compare that to the other Power conferences and almost all of them are the same one or two school who wins it every year with that one or two occasionally changing once a decade or so.

Having a chance to win and actually winning are two different things. Since expansion in 1992, the winners of the SEC are:


Florida with a W/L record of 7/3
Bama with a W/L record of 4/4
LSU with a W/L record of 4/1
Georgia with a W/L record of 2/3
Tennessee with a W/L record of 2/3
Auburn with a W/L record of 2/2
Arkansas with a W/L record of 0/3
MSST with 1 loss
SCAR with 1 loss

Clearly, the SEC has two top teams as well, which is no different from other conferences. The distinction comes from the middle with 4 different teams having appeared in the CCG in the last 20 years. Over time, I think other conferences will achieve similar results as the round robin format has slowly disappeared.

(10-11-2013 08:43 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-10-2013 05:01 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The SEC usually has up to 6 teams each year who are viable candidates to win the conference.

Compare that to the other Power conferences and almost all of them are the same one or two school who wins it every year with that one or two occasionally changing once a decade or so.

Having a chance to win and actually winning are two different things. Since expansion in 1992, the winners of the SEC are:


Florida with a W/L record of 7/3
Bama with a W/L record of 4/4
LSU with a W/L record of 4/1
Georgia with a W/L record of 2/3
Tennessee with a W/L record of 2/3
Auburn with a W/L record of 2/2
Arkansas with a W/L record of 0/3
MSST with 1 loss
SCAR with 1 loss

Clearly, the SEC has two top teams as well, which is no different from other conferences. The distinction comes from the middle with 4 different teams having appeared in the CCG in the last 20 years. Over time, I think other conferences will achieve similar results as the round robin format has slowly disappeared.

And those statistics reflect a 12 team SEC for all but last year. I expect that the middle participation will grow in the SEC with A&M and Missouri. It will take them a few years, but they will be there with Auburn, Arkansas, Tennessee, and L.S.U., and Georgia.

And note: those you listed are the teams that played in the CCG. On many years there were teams that tied those teams for the division, but were excluded on tie breakers. So the middle is even a bit stronger than these stats indicate.

Here's a wild thought to spur conversation or consternation. What if Oliver Luck becomes the new Texas A.D. and his first order of business is to broker Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and West Virginia to the SEC, Kansas, Kansas State, Texas Tech, and T.C.U. to the PAC.


Where oh where could He1nous be?

But seriously H1, what if in the interest of working this out Kansas goes Big 10, Texas goes ACC, Oklahoma goes SEC, and the SEC takes West Virginia (although there would be some resistance to overcome here internally), the ACC takes Baylor and Oklahoma State, and the PAC takes Texas Tech and Texas Christian. Iowa State would be there if the Big 10 needed a traveling companion, but otherwise on their own, Kansas State would be their for the PAC if they invited a fourth, but otherwise they would be on their own. (Although I think the PAC could generate some interest for KState and Iowa State with Kansas and Iowa already in the Big 10.)

While I'm sure the Longhorns will call, I think Luck stays at WVU. But whoever is the next Texas AD, conference realignment will be the number 3 priority right after finding and new FB coach and fixing the rest of the Athletic Department. Over time, I've come to the conclusion that the B12 as constituted, lacks the necessary pieces the appease the other P4 sufficiently. That's why I really like your idea of VT and NCSU to the SEC. I actually think to work for all parties, Mizzou to the B10 must be on the table as well.

SEC:
Lose - Mizzou
Add - WVU, NCSU, VT

ACC:
Lose - NCSU, VT
Add - Texas, Baylor, OKST, KSU

B1G:
Add - Mizzou, UConn

PAC:
Add - OU, TT, KU, ISU

Realignment takes a temporary hold at this point to renegotiate with FOX/ESPN as well as Gage the fan backlash from this shuffle. After reading the tea leaves, the 4 conferences decide to go to 18 with a minimum payout of $23 million for all P4 teams. This is where TCU and Cincinnati get invited back to the party.

(10-14-2013 07:20 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  While I'm sure the Longhorns will call, I think Luck stays at WVU. But whoever is the next Texas AD, conference realignment will be the number 3 priority right after finding and new FB coach and fixing the rest of the Athletic Department. Over time, I've come to the conclusion that the B12 as constituted, lacks the necessary pieces the appease the other P4 sufficiently. That's why I really like your idea of VT and NCSU to the SEC. I actually think to work for all parties, Mizzou to the B10 must be on the table as well.

SEC:
Lose - Mizzou
Add - WVU, NCSU, VT

ACC:
Lose - NCSU, VT
Add - Texas, Baylor, OKST, KSU

B1G:
Add - Mizzou, UConn

PAC:
Add - OU, TT, KU, ISU

Realignment takes a temporary hold at this point to renegotiate with FOX/ESPN as well as Gage the fan backlash from this shuffle. After reading the tea leaves, the 4 conferences decide to go to 18 with a minimum payout of $23 million for all P4 teams. This is where TCU and Cincinnati get invited back to the party.

I can play along with that scenario, but who would you choose as #17 & #18 for each conference. The reason I ask is because if for instance I was the PAC commissioner I could rest fairly well assured that Nevada or New Mexico, or San Diego State would be there if I wanted them.

In the East it's a whole different matter. Who I take at #15 & #16 would be must takes. Who I take at #17 & #18 would be those that either brought in niche markets or met another need, like academics or AAU affiliation for the SECU.

For instance does the SEC show interest in another Texas school that really wouldn't threaten A&M as 10th has suggested, and would the SEC expand into an Ohio Market with someone like Cincinnati. In your scenario ECU wouldn't be a necessary reach with N.C. State on hand.

I think T.C.U. in your scenario is still available and might make a decent 17 or 18 for the SEC since the bring the DFW market. Cincinnati is competitive in all the major sports and gives you a niche market you don't have in a large state. Personally I would favor T.C.U. in this scenario but would be split over the Cincinnati question. At some point we might want a Gulf coast Florida school like USF.

(10-10-2013 05:01 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  The SEC usually has up to 6 teams each year who are viable candidates to win the conference.

Compare that to the other Power conferences and almost all of them are the same one or two school who wins it every year with that one or two occasionally changing once a decade or so.

Since 2000 the following teams have won at least a share of the Big Ten title:

Michigan
Northwestern
Purdue
Illinois
Iowa
Ohio State
Michigan State
Wisconsin

Granted, Ohio State and Wisconsin have taken all but 1 since 2005.

Not all schools are created equal and not all conference place the big points in the same order of priority.

It's not just shifting of teams around there is a reason behind each and every invite.

What do I think the SEC wants? Historically academic schools in the South with decent to above average athletic programs. If it isn't that I would guess its highly unlikely the SEC is interested.

(10-14-2013 09:37 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Not all schools are created equal and not all conference place the big points in the same order of priority.

It's not just shifting of teams around there is a reason behind each and every invite.

What do I think the SEC wants? Historically academic schools in the South with decent to above average athletic programs. If it isn't that I would guess its highly unlikely the SEC is interested.

We are complete agreement on this. Right now the most perfect expansion possible is OU & UT, and if Aggie is inconsolable, OU & KU.

I've laid out on numerous occasions why I think that the Arkansas add was a bridge to Texas in 1992 and why A&M & Mizzou were terrific in their own right, but also made OU have to consider a more natural fit with the SEC should the Big 12 blow up. Obviously North Carolina and Virginia would be a major coup. I just think it becomes easier to get North Carolina and Virginia if you already have Texas and Oklahoma.

The home run scenario is to add those last 4 and break into 3 balanced, regional divisions of 6 each and have 3 divisional champs and the remaining team with the best record to comprise the conference championship playoff with one game in the West for exposure and one game in the East with the CCG staying in Atlanta, or alternating between Atlanta and Dallas.

But, Vandiver's presentation has merit for 1 very big reason. If any conference lands both Texas and OU the other's are not going to cooperate to absorb the Big 12 remnants so that one walks away with the jewels. So compromise might lead to something like he has listed.

The dissolution of the Big 12 adds that share of the playoff revenue back to the portions received by the other 4 conferences. That's going to be a little over a million per team for the remaining conferences. That's a pretty good reason to cooperate more than would normally be expected.

(10-14-2013 10:02 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(10-14-2013 09:37 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Not all schools are created equal and not all conference place the big points in the same order of priority.

It's not just shifting of teams around there is a reason behind each and every invite.

What do I think the SEC wants? Historically academic schools in the South with decent to above average athletic programs. If it isn't that I would guess its highly unlikely the SEC is interested.

We are complete agreement on this. Right now the most perfect expansion possible is OU & UT, and if Aggie is inconsolable, OU & KU.

I've laid out on numerous occasions why I think that the Arkansas add was a bridge to Texas in 1992 and why A&M & Mizzou were terrific in their own right, but also made OU have to consider a more natural fit with the SEC should the Big 12 blow up. Obviously North Carolina and Virginia would be a major coup. I just think it becomes easier to get North Carolina and Virginia if you already have Texas and Oklahoma.

The home run scenario is to add those last 4 and break into 3 balanced, regional divisions of 6 each and have 3 divisional champs and the remaining team with the best record to comprise the conference championship playoff with one game in the West for exposure and one game in the East with the CCG staying in Atlanta, or alternating between Atlanta and Dallas.

But, Vandiver's presentation has merit for 1 very big reason. If any conference lands both Texas and OU the other's are not going to cooperate to absorb the Big 12 remnants so that one walks away with the jewels. So compromise might lead to something like he has listed.

The dissolution of the Big 12 adds that share of the playoff revenue back to the portions received by the other 4 conferences. That's going to be a little over a million per team for the remaining conferences. That's a pretty good reason to cooperate more than would normally be expected.

I'm not sold on the Big12 going the way of the dodo. That's to say that even if there is a change I don't think those programs find their way to the SEC.

College football fans love their regional identity and throwing those traditional powers into the SEC is unlikely to satisfy their fans, or ours.

That's the bow of a greater argument against super conferences in general I suppose.