ESPN: SEC a shell of its former self
- Thread starter jbhtexas
- Start date
1, 3, 7, 9, 11, 13, 17, 21 classes last year.
Big 12 had 8 OU ... then UT at 25.
The PAC had the 2nd best haul conference wise.
you know what would have ended the terrible conference expansion? 6/8 spots - A guarantee from each conference and the rest either Group of 5 or P5 at-large.
This is what gets me so sad. We think the Big 12 is SO tough to play in, that ISU can't get to a bowl game, yet, ahem, doesn't seem to be near as much talent in the league for us to play, so how low are we really? Would we make a bowl in the B1G, ACC, PAC 12 or SEC either?
One thing that makes the Big 12 so tough is that there are 9 games (compared to 8 in other leagues) and all of those leagues have some imbalances that allows you to avoid tough teams (see the old Big 12). Give us another cream puff and the chance to miss one of the top 2 teams in the league and it looks different.
You know what?
They already used to exist;
Rose Bowl - Pac champ, B1G champ
Orange Bowl - Big 12 champ, Big East champ
Sugar Bowl - SEC champ,ACC champ
Fiesta Bowl - At large,at large
It was so g*dd*mned simple. Play out the NYD bowls and then pick the top two to play in the NC...or don't.
they should have kept the bowl names and just had 1 v 8, 2 v 7, etc. If USC and Penn State are #1 and #2 there is no reason they should play in the Rose Bowl because of affiliations. Keep the name and make it a bracketed playoff.
It is a mixed bag now. Big 12, PAC12 and B1G are on 9 conference games. ACC and SEC decided to stay at 8 conference games.
I think it is tough for ISU because we play 10 Power 5 games a year, and like it or not, Iowa is usually a relatively strong opponent. Only leaves us the chance to schedule 2 non-con "victories". SEC can still schedule four non-con games.
The PAC 12 has had 9 conference games for much longer than the B12. Additionally, the B10 has now played 9 games for 2 years. The ACC had plans in place until they had Notre Dame get into the agreement with them but are probably going to 9 games. I think really the only hold out is the SEC. Additionally, there are becoming provisions in conferences which will preclude them from playing non-FBS teams. Also, the B10 has proposed 10 conference games for its conference teams. Not sure if that still has legs or not.
So the playing field is certainly balancing out. I think with the next round of realignment, you'll see this go to 10 or more conference games. I think there will also be scheduled cross- conference games like the NFL does as well. So, for example, the teams in the SEC East may play the teams in the P12 North this year, then next year play teams in the ACC Coastal or whatever.
To what extent did media hype play into the number of top flight recruits going to the SEC. Look back at when "SEC is the best" stuff picked up steam in 2007. I did a google search and found no articles prior to 2007 regarding the SEC being the best conference. Yes, the early years of this "streak" wasn't affected by media hype by 2009 it was almost constantly mentioned as the best conference. That affects young people who want to play for "the best." Heck during the late Danny Mac years and Paul Rhodes years we used "hey play for the Big 12" in order to convince top flight FCS talent to come to our school instead of Toledo.
I'd also argue NFL draft numbers do not = strength of conference... look at 2006, the year before this streak of 11 started... ACC had 50 people drafted compared to SEC's 36. Saying draft is a barometer of conference strength would mean that the ACC has been the 2nd best conference for 11 years in a row, I am not sure an ACC fan would even argue that.
I'd also argue NFL draft numbers do not = strength of conference... look at 2006, the year before this streak of 11 started... ACC had 50 people drafted compared to SEC's 36. Saying draft is a barometer of conference strength would mean that the ACC has been the 2nd best conference for 11 years in a row, I am not sure an ACC fan would even argue that.
The NFL is full of guys who weren't great college players, and there are scores of great college players who never sniff meaningful playing time in the NFL. It seems like that trend is increasing as well.
It's not a good barometer. If putting guys in the NFL was equivalent to college dominance, Iowa would be a national power.
It's not a good barometer. If putting guys in the NFL was equivalent to college dominance, Iowa would be a national power.
