FLBear5630 said:
montypython said:
boykin_spaniel said:
The SEC has been around forever. They've been winning championships since inception. Mid tier teams like South Carolina sell out their stadiums nearly every week despite historical mediocrity. Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, and South Carolina lack NFL teams, heck they lack any pro teams. Tennessee and North Florida just got pro teams (historically speaking). While the "it just means more" slogan is corny at best, historically it has meant more. Some people on here judge t-shirt fans but these state universities have historically been the "pro" teams for locals. They became imbedded within their states with no Dallas Cowboys, Packers, Jets, Giants, Bears, etc to compete with.
The SEC didn't win national championships at a rate higher than other conferences until after the BCS started. Then after the BCS started (which was started by he SEC) , their win rate ballooned. They signed a huge contract with ESPN/Disney, they play and beat more cupcakes than anyone else, their bowl games are almost always near their fanbases. We are told that the invitationals are playoffs and oh by the way, the SEC should always be considered to have at least 2 teams in it. It's a system that is not doing anyone favors other than the SEC.
This article is quite old - but it is a very good one and worth a read if anyone has 5 minutes to spare.
https://www.thepostgame.com/commentary/201208/better-without-em-northern-manifesto-southern-secession-chuck-thompson-sec-bcs
SEC got better than everyone else when the Bowl System went away. When Strength of Schedule and formulas were added, it skewed toward SEC. Bama was a train wreck before that system, hell they were no different than anyone else. Than the online recruiting, BCS and a sudden lack of NCAA enforcement shot them to top. SEC is a case study in brand development and rigging the system to achieve it.
I agree. I was covering a lot of years in my post and didn't detail it as much as I should have. The sec didn't really separate from everyone else until about 2016?
I feel quite strongly that the schedule disparities is what has benefited the sec the most. Everyone else plays 9 conference games now. That tacks on a lot more losses for the conference as a whole. We started playing 9 conference games in 2011. Not only that but split divisions means you get to skip some of the tougher opponents each year.
The best way to illustrate my point is this: In 2013 we lost to ok-lite. If we had 8 conference games, we may have not even played them that year. Instead, we would have played a sam houston st type school in the early part of the year and demolished them. Meaning, we would have been undefeated that season and gone to the BCS title game.
Same thing applies to 2014. What if we had 8 conference games and didn't play WVU that year? We would have been undefeated and gone to the 4 team invitationals that year.
All it takes is that 1 extra conference game to ruin a championship invite.
I realize that may sound like a lot of what ifs, but I don't feel like I am making up stuff here. We don't know what would have happened if we got to the BCS title game in 2013, or the 'playoffs' in 2014, but I think those are game changing scenarios. If we win even 1 of those it puts the Big 12 on a much better path (i.e. respect etc).