There was a lot of talk when Mizzou and A&M came to the party that neither would be able to compete in the S.E.C.. In large part those notions have been disproven and the two teams have settled in. That begs the question, who has done better?

Answer: Mizzou.

Mizzou was uncompetitive their first year in the conference. In most ways they proved many of the naysayers correct that they were somewhat inadequate. Most fans paid little attention to the rash of injuries which doomed the campaign.

A&M on the other hand seemed to be the opposite, employing their Heisman trophy winner for a huge win over the top team in the land and close games against other conference powers. Still, we have one huge truth to pay attention to here.

Mizzou has a two game lead in the division, something A&M has not achieved. Mizzou is likely to make it to the Championship game this year whereas A&M is almost certainly locked out. Mizzou has built a solid foundation with solid play on both sides of the ball where A&M is mostly a one man band.

For all the hype A&M has gotten thus far it's an indisputable fact that Mizzou has transitioned much better than A&M has.

What do you think? A&M or Mizzou?

They've both been equally successful, which is beneficial to the SEC in the short term. Long term however, having 8-10 competitive teams every year will cause some consternation for traditional powers. Just look at last Saturday, the number of upsets were unprecedented for the SEC. Take a look at UGA's season and there injuries, or even Mizzou from last year. If even the bad teams are still game and can wear you out, the likelihood of going undefeated in conference diminishes every year.

These negatives are something that JR and H1 have pointed out numerous times and could possibly be the impetuses for the SEC supporting a conference champ playoff model or at least expanding to 15/16. Because the SEC getting a highly ranked team into the playoff will become increasing difficult based on current trends.

IMO the SEC being more competitive is a good thing. It may hurt the perception some in the national media. But as long as the SEC wins out in OOC competition, it's not a big deal...

Missou and A&M have both done themselves proud, it is just a testament to how good the BiG 12 really was. It's a shame that Nebraska, A&M, and Missouri couldn't have stayed and kicked Texas out.

XL,

I think in the final analysis, that the former B12 was composed of incompatible parts. UT wasn't the reason the league had issues, everyone was responsible.

(10-21-2013 11:54 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  XL,

I think in the final analysis, that the former B12 was composed of incompatible parts. UT wasn't the reason the league had issues, everyone was responsible.

Unequal revenue sharing was a big issue. Additionally, UT picked a fight with Nebraska over in state recruiting laws, and started that pesky network. It was not all UT's fault but they were a major factor. If the Big Eight stayed the Big Eight, they would still probably be together.

I don't know if the Big 8 would have been able to ward off the defections of Colorado and Nebraska presuming the Pac 10 and Big 10 would still expand to 12. The Big 8 probably would have even added Utah and/or BYU at some point, and we know what happened to Utah.

(10-21-2013 12:23 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  I don't know if the Big 8 would have been able to ward off the defections of Colorado and Nebraska presuming the Pac 10 and Big 10 would still expand to 12. The Big 8 probably would have even added Utah and/or BYU at some point, and we know what happened to Utah.

They might have gone to ten or twelve by looking east instead of west.

(10-21-2013 12:03 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(10-21-2013 11:54 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  XL,

I think in the final analysis, that the former B12 was composed of incompatible parts. UT wasn't the reason the league had issues, everyone was responsible.

Unequal revenue sharing was a big issue. Additionally, UT picked a fight with Nebraska over in state recruiting laws, and started that pesky network. It was not all UT's fault but they were a major factor. If the Big Eight stayed the Big Eight, they would still probably be together.

I would contend that NU was equally as bad as UT, OU and A&M. 3rd tier revenue sharing had been implemented by the SEC for 4 years when the B12 was created. It allows the schools with large obsessive fanbases to monetize that frenzy while the 1st and 2nd tier dollars can be pooled for the conferences general health and stability. The fact that the 4 pillars of the newly formed conference eschewed this model were the seeds of its ultimate demise.

(10-21-2013 12:31 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-21-2013 12:03 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(10-21-2013 11:54 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  XL,

I think in the final analysis, that the former B12 was composed of incompatible parts. UT wasn't the reason the league had issues, everyone was responsible.

Unequal revenue sharing was a big issue. Additionally, UT picked a fight with Nebraska over in state recruiting laws, and started that pesky network. It was not all UT's fault but they were a major factor. If the Big Eight stayed the Big Eight, they would still probably be together.

I would contend that NU was equally as bad as UT, OU and A&M. 3rd tier revenue sharing had been implemented by the SEC for 4 years when the B12 was created. It allows the schools with large obsessive fanbases to monetize that frenzy while the 1st and 2nd tier dollars can be pooled for the conferences general health and stability. The fact that the 4 pillars of the newly formed conference eschewed this model were the seeds of its ultimate demise.

It took an imminent conference implosion for the "Haves" to finally figure out that.

(10-21-2013 12:38 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(10-21-2013 12:31 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-21-2013 12:03 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(10-21-2013 11:54 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  XL,

I think in the final analysis, that the former B12 was composed of incompatible parts. UT wasn't the reason the league had issues, everyone was responsible.

Unequal revenue sharing was a big issue. Additionally, UT picked a fight with Nebraska over in state recruiting laws, and started that pesky network. It was not all UT's fault but they were a major factor. If the Big Eight stayed the Big Eight, they would still probably be together.

I would contend that NU was equally as bad as UT, OU and A&M. 3rd tier revenue sharing had been implemented by the SEC for 4 years when the B12 was created. It allows the schools with large obsessive fanbases to monetize that frenzy while the 1st and 2nd tier dollars can be pooled for the conferences general health and stability. The fact that the 4 pillars of the newly formed conference eschewed this model were the seeds of its ultimate demise.

It took an imminent conference implosion for the "Haves" to finally figure out that.

In time, Nebraska is going to find out they made a huge mistake. They've lost access to the most fertile recruiting ground they could tap. They'll eventually become the B1G's western version of Michigan State, minus a good basketball team...

I think the only reason Missouri seemed to be a disappointment last year was because they suffered so many injuries (like Georgia this year) and their basketball team was one and done in the tournament. I think that left many SEC fans wondering about their inclusion. But all of that was just a series of misfortunes.

A&M is solid in all areas. Even if Mizzou beats them to Atlanta, A&M has been everything the SEC could have asked for so far. Missouri's gifts to the SEC will be just as strong in the long run. Both schools got a recruiting boost in the SEC that they would otherwise not have gotten. Both are a win win. I'm just glad Mizzou is good enough and healthy enough this year to bail the SEC's bacon out of the fire on the Eastern side. What if Alabama barely beat L.S.U. and Tennessee, and just survived Auburn and then had to play a 9-3 Georgia team in the CCG? It would be possible for them to get jumped by Oregon or F.S.U., or both. If Missouri arrives in Atlanta unbeaten in is a God send for the SEC.

None of us know how this realignment business will end up, but I can only hope that #15 & #16 are as strong for the SEC as these two.

I also don't fear the conference getting stronger if we can move to a P4 situation with champions playing it off. Then the emphasis will be on winning the conference, not strutting your scores in the beauty contest and enhancing your presence by whipping up on the little sisters of the poor. I'd love to see us eventually have a 9 game conference schedule with one required game against a team from each of the other three conferences of the P4.

(10-21-2013 12:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I think the only reason Missouri seemed to be a disappointment last year was because they suffered so many injuries (like Georgia this year) and their basketball team was one and done in the tournament. I think that left many SEC fans wondering about their inclusion. But all of that was just a series of misfortunes.

A&M is solid in all areas. Even if Mizzou beats them to Atlanta, A&M has been everything the SEC could have asked for so far. Missouri's gifts to the SEC will be just as strong in the long run. Both schools got a recruiting boost in the SEC that they would otherwise not have gotten. Both are a win win. I'm just glad Mizzou is good enough and healthy enough this year to bail the SEC's bacon out of the fire on the Eastern side. What if Alabama barely beat L.S.U. and Tennessee, and just survived Auburn and then had to play a 9-3 Georgia team in the CCG? It would be possible for them to get jumped by Oregon or F.S.U., or both. If Missouri arrives in Atlanta unbeaten in is a God send for the SEC.

None of us know how this realignment business will end up, but I can only hope that #15 & #16 are as strong for the SEC as these two.

I also don't fear the conference getting stronger if we can move to a P4 situation with champions playing it off. Then the emphasis will be on winning the conference, not strutting your scores in the beauty contest and enhancing your presence by whipping up on the little sisters of the poor. I'd love to see us eventually have a 9 game conference schedule with one required game against a team from each of the other three conferences of the P4.

After this past Saturday, I could see many in the SEC starting to move towards the idea of a conference champ system. As I mentioned in another post, its not so much the bad team aren't bad, but that they are competitive enough that they can't be overlooked. If games like UT-UGA and A&M-Auburn will become the norm, we'll definitely need 15 and 16 far sooner than anticipated.

(10-21-2013 02:10 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(10-21-2013 12:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I think the only reason Missouri seemed to be a disappointment last year was because they suffered so many injuries (like Georgia this year) and their basketball team was one and done in the tournament. I think that left many SEC fans wondering about their inclusion. But all of that was just a series of misfortunes.

A&M is solid in all areas. Even if Mizzou beats them to Atlanta, A&M has been everything the SEC could have asked for so far. Missouri's gifts to the SEC will be just as strong in the long run. Both schools got a recruiting boost in the SEC that they would otherwise not have gotten. Both are a win win. I'm just glad Mizzou is good enough and healthy enough this year to bail the SEC's bacon out of the fire on the Eastern side. What if Alabama barely beat L.S.U. and Tennessee, and just survived Auburn and then had to play a 9-3 Georgia team in the CCG? It would be possible for them to get jumped by Oregon or F.S.U., or both. If Missouri arrives in Atlanta unbeaten in is a God send for the SEC.

None of us know how this realignment business will end up, but I can only hope that #15 & #16 are as strong for the SEC as these two.

I also don't fear the conference getting stronger if we can move to a P4 situation with champions playing it off. Then the emphasis will be on winning the conference, not strutting your scores in the beauty contest and enhancing your presence by whipping up on the little sisters of the poor. I'd love to see us eventually have a 9 game conference schedule with one required game against a team from each of the other three conferences of the P4.

After this past Saturday, I could see many in the SEC starting to move towards the idea of a conference champ system. As I mentioned in another post, its not so much the bad team aren't bad, but that they are competitive enough that they can't be overlooked. If games like UT-UGA and A&M-Auburn will become the norm, we'll definitely need 15 and 16 far sooner than anticipated.

Vandiver if we can look at it as having 4 teams with a shot at a national championship rather than 1 conference representative then I think we can get more people to buy in. Right now our CCG is 2 teams vying for really just 1 playoff slot and then it's not guaranteed. If we are champions only then we have 4 conference teams vying for 1 guaranteed shot at the national championship. And with no polls, computers, or committees to steal it from them. So with 16 we can double the number of conference teams still active for the title even though the final four will only have 1 of us.

(10-21-2013 12:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I think the only reason Missouri seemed to be a disappointment last year was because they suffered so many injuries (like Georgia this year) and their basketball team was one and done in the tournament. I think that left many SEC fans wondering about their inclusion. But all of that was just a series of misfortunes.

A&M is solid in all areas. Even if Mizzou beats them to Atlanta, A&M has been everything the SEC could have asked for so far. Missouri's gifts to the SEC will be just as strong in the long run. Both schools got a recruiting boost in the SEC that they would otherwise not have gotten. Both are a win win. I'm just glad Mizzou is good enough and healthy enough this year to bail the SEC's bacon out of the fire on the Eastern side. What if Alabama barely beat L.S.U. and Tennessee, and just survived Auburn and then had to play a 9-3 Georgia team in the CCG? It would be possible for them to get jumped by Oregon or F.S.U., or both. If Missouri arrives in Atlanta unbeaten in is a God send for the SEC.

None of us know how this realignment business will end up, but I can only hope that #15 & #16 are as strong for the SEC as these two.

I also don't fear the conference getting stronger if we can move to a P4 situation with champions playing it off. Then the emphasis will be on winning the conference, not strutting your scores in the beauty contest and enhancing your presence by whipping up on the little sisters of the poor. I'd love to see us eventually have a 9 game conference schedule with one required game against a team from each of the other three conferences of the P4.

JR, you must think that either Clayton is a real sleeper or that Missou and A&M aren't worth much more than Lonnie and Mohammed.

(10-21-2013 03:56 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(10-21-2013 12:56 PM)JRsec Wrote:  I think the only reason Missouri seemed to be a disappointment last year was because they suffered so many injuries (like Georgia this year) and their basketball team was one and done in the tournament. I think that left many SEC fans wondering about their inclusion. But all of that was just a series of misfortunes.

A&M is solid in all areas. Even if Mizzou beats them to Atlanta, A&M has been everything the SEC could have asked for so far. Missouri's gifts to the SEC will be just as strong in the long run. Both schools got a recruiting boost in the SEC that they would otherwise not have gotten. Both are a win win. I'm just glad Mizzou is good enough and healthy enough this year to bail the SEC's bacon out of the fire on the Eastern side. What if Alabama barely beat L.S.U. and Tennessee, and just survived Auburn and then had to play a 9-3 Georgia team in the CCG? It would be possible for them to get jumped by Oregon or F.S.U., or both. If Missouri arrives in Atlanta unbeaten in is a God send for the SEC.

None of us know how this realignment business will end up, but I can only hope that #15 & #16 are as strong for the SEC as these two.

I also don't fear the conference getting stronger if we can move to a P4 situation with champions playing it off. Then the emphasis will be on winning the conference, not strutting your scores in the beauty contest and enhancing your presence by whipping up on the little sisters of the poor. I'd love to see us eventually have a 9 game conference schedule with one required game against a team from each of the other three conferences of the P4.

JR, you must think that either Clayton is a real sleeper or that Missou and A&M aren't worth much more than Lonnie and Mohammed.

It's just that Clayton's sister is really really hot.

I like your idea of playing 9 conference games with the 3 OOC games played against other P4 teams. This would eliminate the "complaints" of Clemson, Florida State, etc., plus guarantee good intersectional match-ups.

Anyone who has seen our recruiting classes for 2014 and 2015 knows were gonna be a player in the SEC.

BTW This includes just yesterday when we had the #1 players in Texas for both 2014 and 2015 Myles Garrett and Daylon Mack (both D players thankfully) commit to A&M

I know Dixie really wants to see us drop off and not be another annual challenge for Bama, but as long as we are the only game in TX selling the SEC, our recruiting will make us a contender.

(10-22-2013 04:14 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Anyone who has seen our recruiting classes for 2014 and 2015 knows were gonna be a player in the SEC.

BTW This includes just yesterday when we had the #1 players in Texas for both 2014 and 2015 Myles Garrett and Daylon Mack (both D players thankfully) commit to A&M

I know Dixie really wants to see us drop off and not be another annual challenge for Bama, but as long as we are the only game in TX selling the SEC, our recruiting will make us a contender.

To be quite honest, I don't really care what A&M does. Failure has been the norm thus far.

The point is that for all the hype we've seen not many saw Mizzou ultimately making a stronger transition, which they have, or will rather if they make the SEC Championship game.

Also, few people saw Mizzou being able to put together a complete and competitive team. Mizzou is strong on both sides of the ball. Meanwhile, A&M is bad on defense and a one man band on offense.

The reality versus expectations between the two teams is really pretty interesting.

BTW, being in Texas is no huge advantage to you. All it means is the very best can go to Alabama, Florida, LSU, Auburn, and Georgia and compete for national titles while still getting to do some playing in Texas in front of their family and friends. That's a pretty good sell for those other programs.

(10-22-2013 06:20 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(10-22-2013 04:14 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  Anyone who has seen our recruiting classes for 2014 and 2015 knows were gonna be a player in the SEC.

BTW This includes just yesterday when we had the #1 players in Texas for both 2014 and 2015 Myles Garrett and Daylon Mack (both D players thankfully) commit to A&M

I know Dixie really wants to see us drop off and not be another annual challenge for Bama, but as long as we are the only game in TX selling the SEC, our recruiting will make us a contender.

To be quite honest, I don't really care what A&M does. Failure has been the norm thus far.

The point is that for all the hype we've seen not many saw Mizzou ultimately making a stronger transition, which they have, or will rather if they make the SEC Championship game.

Also, few people saw Mizzou being able to put together a complete and competitive team. Mizzou is strong on both sides of the ball. Meanwhile, A&M is bad on defense and a one man band on offense.

The reality versus expectations between the two teams is really pretty interesting.

BTW, being in Texas is no huge advantage to you. All it means is the very best can go to Alabama, Florida, LSU, Auburn, and Georgia and compete for national titles while still getting to do some playing in Texas in front of their family and friends. That's a pretty good sell for those other programs.

Texas kids would rather stay in Texas and play SEC schools. Bulls eye is on UT.