Conference argument

[CrimsonChampion]

I need comeback material from some of you smarter Sooners out there. I'm sick of hearing, "It won't surprise me if OU gets to the title game since they don't play anyone, it's such an easy schedule."

"After the Texas ballgame it's a cakewalk."

I know their hatred for OU makes them more likely to find things to yap about, but the pac 10 is what I call weak. usc had all those good seasons and NEVER ONCE did i hear THEY DON'T PLAY ANYONE, except maybe from me.

Coach Switzer said in his book that a super conference would be a huge mistake, which is what the sec is. I think OU, tEXAS, and suc are, or have been, better than all of the sec teams, but i don't see any of them running the table in that conference, it would happen eventually with OU, just be a little harder. Anyway, you have some of the premier teams in the sec and we'll probably hardly ever see any of them in the national title game just because they all kick each others asses up and down the field all season.

I do think the Big 12 needs to improve, and I believe it will. When OU, texass, Nebraska, Colorodo, aTm, & K-State can live up to their expectations, the Big 12 is without a doubt the premier football conference.

Anyway, just a little more offseason chatter.


BOOMER

[JohnnyMack]

Smarter?

I'm a borderline retard.

Where's my crash helmet?

[soonerboy_odanorth]

I think OU, tEXAS, and suc are, or have been, better than all of the sec teams...

Sure, not counting this one little particular Sugar Bowl game... yeah... you betcha...

And I'm absolutely positively sure that if Auburn had played USC in the Orange Bowl they would have been beaten waaaaayyyyy worse than we were.....

Look, I wear the Crimson glasses as bad as anyone... but we need to collectively get a grip around here.

Some people around here are sounding very TFRW (The Fake Roy Williams)....

"They're not better than us... they're just not...."

Even before expansion, the SEC was and always will be year-in and year-out the toughest conference. Sure you can toss out four teams: Vandy, Kentucky, Ole Miss and Miss. State. After that you HAVE to have it absolutely buckled down every single week. I'll give you that we could compete, and that there is not a team that we couldn't beat. But there are several teams that could return the favor to us, and with gusto. I'll remind you how hard we had to fight against a Bama team that was no better than middle of their conference. And that was when we supposedly fielded a couple of the better teams in Sooners history.

There is one time in the last 10 years where you could legitimately say the Big XII top to bottom was better than the SEC, and that was 2000. That year you had us, Texas, Nebraska, and K-State all vying for a national championship. A&M had a strong club, Tech was coming on, and Colorado was still playing pretty darn good football.

And, uh, in case you haven't noticed, OUr record against the Pac-10 the last 3 years isn't anything to write home about. The Pac-10 this year stands to be every bit as good as the Big XII. They have as many quality teams bunched at the top of their conference, and their bottom-feeders, Washington and Stanford, are probably better ballclubs than what we are featuring at the bottom of the Big XII standings.

[RedstickSooner]

The sugar bowl could've gone either way. Yeah, we lost - but we sure weren't blown out of the water. In spite of it being a home game for LSU, only some truly bone-headed play calling, and a quarterback with enough injuries it sounded like someone had dropped the boy out of a plane without a parachute, kept us from winning.

The SEC is a great conference, but for whatever reason, when they play outside their conference they tend to phone it in. Which is probably why so many SEC teams schedule such laughable patsies for their OOC games -- they make K-State seem brave.

Until the SEC can make the extra effort to play well against non-SEC foes, they'll continue to marginalize their own importance on the national stage. Knowing that they *should* be great doesn't really stack up against proven performance. The simple fact of the matter is, the winner of the OU-Tejas game -- a Big-12 matchup -- has played for the National Championship 3 years running, and a Big-12 team has played for the National Championship, what, 5 of the last 7 years?

No other conference even comes close.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Dude, the Big 12 has gotten so bad that Texas won the conference title in 2005 with Mack Brown on the sideline! Face it, there's no way to defend the Big 12 at this point.

[NormanPride]

Dude, the Big 12 has gotten so bad that Texas won the conference title in 2005 with Mack Brown on the sideline! Face it, there's no way to defend the Big 12 at this point.

This man has it correct.

[CatfishSooner]

SEC = over rated

[Luthor]

Although I aint no sooner this argument can't be left alone. Any puke10 fan need only look at the past several years of their 2nd best team (whomever, pick one) for the truth about that patsy league. They rack up 10 wins against teams like the Stanford Christmas Trees or the Cal-Tech Dopers only to get jail house be-otch slapped in their bowl games. History indicates that 10 wins in the fudge-pak10 is worth about 7 wins in any other league.

[Collier11]

If you need a comeback just tell whoever that as bad as the big12 is, we have produced 1 of the teams in the natl title game 5 out of 6 years and won 2 titles in this decade which is more than the Acc(1), and more than the sec(1), if those other conferences are sooo good then obviously the measure of how good they are is not based on national titles

[Collier11]

also more than then big 10(1)

[XingTheRubicon]

The BIG 8 plus 4 and the Pac 10 suck as a whole.

I'd list it like this with 100 being the best score for toughness of a conference.

SEC - 97
BIG 10 - 68
ACC - 51
BIG 8+4 - 43
PAC 10 - 9
BIG EAST - 4


The SEC is unexplainable when it comes to playing on the road, and the programs 6-9 deep in the top 25 almost every year.

The Sec's 7th best team could kick the sh*t out of our 3rd best.


I would actually like the SEC if Arkinsaw wasn't a member. Those people should just be put to sleep.

[Collier11]

Im not arguing that the SEC is superior, but when it all comes down to it look who has more natl tite appearances and more natl title wins...THE BIG 12, and thats pretty much all that matters. Also, saying the sec is that much better is rediculous...Better? Yes, that much, NO

[lufkinaggie07]

Colleir, I couldnt' agree more, the Big 12 consistantly puts a team in the National Title game. It's almost a gaurantee that if you win the Big 12 you are going to be playing for the National Title. The Big 12 is down because A&M and Nebraska aren't playing the way many would hope them to be playing now. Texas and OU have carried this conference over the past couple of years, it's time for Nebraska and A&M to step up to the table and compete with Texas and OU. Without OU and Texas over the past 5 seasons the Big 12 would be a mediocre conference, hopefully other teams will step up to the plate.

[Vaevictis]

The Sec's 7th best team could kick the sh*t out of our 3rd best.

Last year, 13-10, their 2nd/3rd/4th (depending on what you're looking at) best, our 2nd/3rd (depending on what you're looking at).

That doesn't look like a total wood-shedding to me.

[RooseveltRoughRider]

The SEC's 7th best team would beat Texas Tech or Oklahoma?

I think Not...

[Jason White's Third Knee]

LSU 7-1
Auburn 7-1
Georgia 6-2
Alabama 6-2
S. Carolina 5-3
Florida 5-3
Vanderbilt 3-5
Tennessee 3-5
Kentucky 2-6
Arkansas 2-6
Miss. State 1-7
Ole Miss 1-7

[Jason White's Third Knee]

To say that K-state, Colorado, OU, Texas, TT, aTm, and Nebraksa couldn't hang with these guys is absurd. This is just a case of short term memory. I suspect all of these teams will rise again.

Georgia has been picked to win year after year and they end up being totally average. Tenn took last year off. Bama has been up and down. S Carolina is just coming on to the radar screen. Vandy is Baylor. Kentucky has been anything since Mumme left. Ark is on it's wa y down. Miss and Ole Miss haven't been very tough lately. LSU had to beat us to win the NC. Auburn has been good lately.

All of this SEC pumping is just that. When you look at them closely, they aren't much different than a typical Big XII.

[Jello Biafra]

Smarter?

I'm a borderline retard.

Where's my crash helmet?


my name's arthur......

i can count to batatoe.......

[soonerboy_odanorth]

Iowa State challenged for the Big XII North title last year. Colorado won it. Would either of those teams have finished even in the top 3 of either the SEC West or East? Not a chance.

The original argument was that OU/BigXII teams do make more title game appearances largely because there is a better chance of them making it through the relatively weaker Big XII conference schedule unscathed. (And it was asked of the board to come up with a counter-argument.)

You guys arguing that the Big XII is superior because it has made more title games than SEC teams doesn't debunk the original argument! Rather, it supports it. Everybody here thinks the Pac 10 is weak. Ok, let's just accept that on face value. But the Pac 10 has sent a representative to the title game the last two years. So for the last two years the Pac 10 has been superior to the SEC... or the Big XII? No way.

I guess what I'm saying is there isn't a great comeback for that argument. It can rightfully be made by certain folks (not the Pac-10, btw). And if you look at it objectively, the SEC year-in and year-out is much more of a minefield than any other conference. That's not to say that they aren't overrated sometimes. They are. But let's not puff our chests out too much on that subject when it takes us double overtime to beat Baylor (ahem).

The point that needs to be emphasized to these clowns that are in your face, CrimsonChampion, is that all it takes is one game. And in any one game we can and regularly do beat anyone and everyone. And that if them crying themselves to sleep at night repeating over and over "our conference is better, our conference is better" helps them get through their miserable non-championship winning lives, well power to 'em.

[Quack 10]

The SEC is unexplainable when it comes to playing on the road,

What the hell does that mean?

[snp]

Tell your friend that we apolegize for the rest of the conference sucking. It's not our fault, and we can't share any of our players. Sorry.

[XingTheRubicon]

What the hell does that mean?

On the road in conference,



This year, LSU is @FLA, @TENN, @ARKIE (LR), and @AUBURN

This year, OU is @MIZZOU, @ATM, @BAYLOR, and @OSU


I can see their argument.




odanorth nailed it, but this might help as well..

[goingoneight]

Dude, the Big 12 has gotten so bad that Texas won the conference title in 2005 with Mack Brown on the sideline! Face it, there's no way to defend the Big 12 at this point.

Take Pete Carroll OUt of the PAC 10 and what do you have? The Mountain-West Conference. They only care about football when they're falling behind other schools numbers badly.

[Collier11]

Iowa State challenged for the Big XII North title last year. Colorado won it. Would either of those teams have finished even in the top 3 of either the SEC West or East? Not a chance.

The original argument was that OU/BigXII teams do make more title game appearances largely because there is a better chance of them making it through the relatively weaker Big XII conference schedule unscathed. (And it was asked of the board to come up with a counter-argument.)

You guys arguing that the Big XII is superior because it has made more title games than SEC teams doesn't debunk the original argument! Rather, it supports it. Everybody here thinks the Pac 10 is weak. Ok, let's just accept that on face value. But the Pac 10 has sent a representative to the title game the last two years. So for the last two years the Pac 10 has been superior to the SEC... or the Big XII? No way.

I guess what I'm saying is there isn't a great comeback for that argument. It can rightfully be made by certain folks (not the Pac-10, btw). And if you look at it objectively, the SEC year-in and year-out is much more of a minefield than any other conference. That's not to say that they aren't overrated sometimes. They are. But let's not puff our chests out too much on that subject when it takes us double overtime to beat Baylor (ahem).

The point that needs to be emphasized to these clowns that are in your face, CrimsonChampion, is that all it takes is one game. And in any one game we can and regularly do beat anyone and everyone. And that if them crying themselves to sleep at night repeating over and over "our conference is better, our conference is better" helps them get through their miserable non-championship winning lives, well power to 'em.


Im pretty sure that NO one said that the big 12 is a better conf than the sec, all we are saying is that if the sec is SO much better as some are saying then why arent more teams from the SEC playing for natl titles. Last time I checked, that wasnt the case, the sec may be a better conference but their BEST teams arent better than the big 12's on a consistent basis...that is the argument

[Jason White's Third Knee]

Iowa State challenged for the Big XII North title last year. Colorado won it. Would either of those teams have finished even in the top 3 of either the SEC West or East? Not a chance.

The original argument was that OU/BigXII teams do make more title game appearances largely because there is a better chance of them making it through the relatively weaker Big XII conference schedule unscathed. (And it was asked of the board to come up with a counter-argument.)

You guys arguing that the Big XII is superior because it has made more title games than SEC teams doesn't debunk the original argument! Rather, it supports it. Everybody here thinks the Pac 10 is weak. Ok, let's just accept that on face value. But the Pac 10 has sent a representative to the title game the last two years. So for the last two years the Pac 10 has been superior to the SEC... or the Big XII? No way.

I guess what I'm saying is there isn't a great comeback for that argument. It can rightfully be made by certain folks (not the Pac-10, btw). And if you look at it objectively, the SEC year-in and year-out is much more of a minefield than any other conference. That's not to say that they aren't overrated sometimes. They are. But let's not puff our chests out too much on that subject when it takes us double overtime to beat Baylor (ahem).

The point that needs to be emphasized to these clowns that are in your face, CrimsonChampion, is that all it takes is one game. And in any one game we can and regularly do beat anyone and everyone. And that if them crying themselves to sleep at night repeating over and over "our conference is better, our conference is better" helps them get through their miserable non-championship winning lives, well power to 'em.


But are we talking about last year or a typical year? If we are talking about last year and how we were baffled by Baylor's triksy offense, then the Vanderbuilt team from last year turn's a good deal of the SEC in to bitches.

A typical year in the Big XII is no different than a typical year in the SEC. I am aware that K-State sucks. Normally they are a real pain in the ***. Nebraska is a top tier program. Texas is a top tier program. aTm is a great program. Oklahoma is top tier. TT is tough as hell. Stop me when I don't make sense.

[SoonerJedi]

Last year the SEC wasn’t all that good. Everyone is predicting a better year this year but it banks mainly on;

1. Whether Auburn has drastically improved,
2. Alabama wasn’t a fluke thing last year
3. Ignoring that Tennessee is awful.
4. Imagining that Arkansas is going to turn thing around.
5. Assuming that South Carolina and Vandy weren’t a product of playing in a down year for the conference.


I think the SEC is probably a better conference than everyone else, but right now they are getting way over-hyped. They are not as head-and-shoulders over everyone as the Big12 was in 2000 (Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas State, Nebraska) or 2001 (Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado, Nebraska).


The collapse of the Big12 North has deteriorated the opinion of the Big12. Even when Texas, Oklahoma, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, and Oklahoma State all were playing well two years ago, the Big12 did not get respect because they North didn’t have anyone who could compete. There are four SEC teams that could win the Big12 North - LSU, Florida, Auburn and Georgia. I think Nebraska is better than any of the others however.

[soonerboy_odanorth]

This...


all we are saying is that if the sec is SO much better as some are saying then why arent more teams from the SEC playing for natl titles.

is a completely separate argument from this...


Last time I checked, that wasnt the case, the sec may be a better conference but their BEST teams arent better than the big 12's on a consistent basis...that is the argument

In the first, the reason has already been explained. They are a top heavy conference, and it makes it that much more difficult for them to get through the season undefeated, giving them as a conference fewer opportunities.

In the second, I can listen to that argument. Texas and Oklahoma the last 6 years (Nebraska in 2000/2001) have been the equal of any top team from ANY conference including the SEC. But we've had more national championship game opportunities because we, on the whole, have been able to compile cleaner records through conference play.

But as for the "short term memory" regarding the strength of our conference... I like to think it's my LONG term memory I'm relying on.

Don't look now folks, but K-State is goin' bye-bye. I DON'T think they could hang in the SEC. I don't think they are going to hang so well in the Big XII. They will never again be as atrocious as they were prior to Snyder, but I think it will be a very long time again before they make meaningful national noise. We don't know what we're going to get with Prince, but Snyder didn't exactly leave a full cupboard. Nobody said much positive about their recruiting this year other than stealing the QB recruit from NU.

Nor am I convinced Nebraska is on the right track. Their recruiting took a step back last year (John Blake got lazy?, surely not), after a great year the year before. And Callahan is a time bomb of a personality. If he doesn't keep it together and the program goes meltdown mode it might be a while before the Huskers are ready to play nasty again. (Don't get me wrong... they will eventually 'cause they will hang Pedersen and Callahan if they don't get it together.)

I like ISU, and I like McCarney... but I think they're a bit of smoke-n-mirrors thanks to a weakened North. Mizzou... ugh. Kansas... mystery, but mostly ugh.

I think the best hope for the Big XII as a conference to strenghten back up to the 2000-2001 level is Dan Hawkins at CU and for Fran to pull it together at aTm. And he might this year... unless he is very stupid and does NOT give the ball 20-25 times a game to Javorskie Lane. Tombs all over again... except maybe faster.

And then of course there is us'n OUrselves. Wouldn't hurt conference image if we escape out of Autzen with a win and turn around an give Texas another beat down....

But I suppose I've digressed...

[Jason White's Third Knee]

This...



is a completely separate argument from this...



In the first, the reason has already been explained. They are a top heavy conference, and it makes it that much more difficult for them to get through the season undefeated, giving them as a conference fewer opportunities.

In the second, I can listen to that argument. Texas and Oklahoma the last 6 years (Nebraska in 2000/2001) have been the equal of any top team from ANY conference including the SEC. But we've had more national championship game opportunities because we, on the whole, have been able to compile cleaner records through conference play.

But as for the "short term memory" regarding the strength of our conference... I like to think it's my LONG term memory I'm relying on.

Don't look now folks, but K-State is goin' bye-bye. I DON'T think they could hang in the SEC. I don't think they are going to hang so well in the Big XII. They will never again be as atrocious as they were prior to Snyder, but I think it will be a very long time again before they make meaningful national noise. We don't know what we're going to get with Prince, but Snyder didn't exactly leave a full cupboard. Nobody said much positive about their recruiting this year other than stealing the QB recruit from NU.

Nor am I convinced Nebraska is on the right track. Their recruiting took a step back last year (John Blake got lazy?, surely not), after a great year the year before. And Callahan is a time bomb of a personality. If he doesn't keep it together and the program goes meltdown mode it might be a while before the Huskers are ready to play nasty again. (Don't get me wrong... they will eventually 'cause they will hang Pedersen and Callahan if they don't get it together.)

I like ISU, and I like McCarney... but I think they're a bit of smoke-n-mirrors thanks to a weakened North. Mizzou... ugh. Kansas... mystery, but mostly ugh.

I think the best hope for the Big XII as a conference to strenghten back up to the 2000-2001 level is Dan Hawkins at CU and for Fran to pull it together at aTm. And he might this year... unless he is very stupid and does NOT give the ball 20-25 times a game to Javorskie Lane. Tombs all over again... except maybe faster.

And then of course there is us'n OUrselves. Wouldn't hurt conference image if we escape out of Autzen with a win and turn around an give Texas another beat down....

But I suppose I've digressed...

Interestingly, I agree with everything that you said with regard to the Big XII teams. I guess i just don't think as highly of the SEC teams as you do. LSU has been decent for a few years, but before that they were nothing. Bama is a roller coaster. Georgia is a classic underacheiver. Florida has it's moments. They look a lot like the Big XII south opponants. aTm, Colorado, K-State and Nebraska are not their usual selves and that makes the conference weak, but all of this it over the last few years.

[Collier11]

I agree that those were two seperate arguments, I was a little drunk when I wrote them...but the point is, that on a consistent basis, I dont see the sec being that much better than the big 12. Look at the big 12 from 2000-2003, you cant tell me the sec was better, maybe equal. Ill agree that the past couple of years the big 12 has been way down, but many are saying the big 12 could be back this year or next to being #1 or 2, its just a cycle as with all other conferences