The BCS was very fair to OU and I have no reason to doubt the new system will be as well. There were 3 undefeateds in '04 from power conference, so of course there was going to be whining from the team that was left out. USC whined about the '03 season so loudly that the AP game them a consolation award. But that didn't start any Pac10/12 bias perception.
What are you trying to do? We already torched the reputation of SEC defense by sending A&M and Mizzou. I can't imagine what would happen if they had to face anymore of our mighty conference.Originally Posted by badger
I'll agree with that, but notice I said it got ramped up with the SEC being left out of 2004. I didn't say it started there. I also believe OU's benefited from the BCS in a lot of ways. No argument there. But there's no doubt that the BCS was changed several times to fit "perception". Given that the perception now is that the SEC conquers all, propagated by THE media conglomerate, there's potential for a lot of stupidity in the new "system" - a lot of stupidity that could be ruled out by simply saying that you have to win your conference to get in, plain and simple. No conference should have more than 1 team in the playoff. It should be that simple, IMO.
My main issue right now is the retarded conversations that result from those perceptions. SEC v. Big 12 doesn't matter to me. OU v. Alabama does. And when you have a commentator questioning whether a top 4 team just won by enough to elevate themselves into the playoff picture...well anyway, the point is made.
I guess I'll save my whining until the committee publishes rankings. I have no reason to believe they will have SEC bias or will be influenced by those that do. Most the members have direct or indirect ties to a school or conference and the SEC is not overly represented (just upon casual inspection). In fact, only the pac12 has 2 members currently on staff at P4 schools. It's going to be fun and I just hope OU has a big zero in the L column so we get to be in on the very heated debate.
Meh, you can call it whining if you want. I guess I don't see my statements as whining, so much as just pointing out the issues that cause the rankings to be what they are. The fact that the SEC has 7 of the top 15 doesn't bother me at all. I don't even watch enough football anymore to disagree with those rankings. Like I said earlier, as long as OU is #1 at the end, I couldn't care less what anyone else is ranked, whether it's the rest of the Big 12 or the SEC or whatever. If I'm whining about anything, it's about discussions like this one to be honest. Who needs all the drama of building resumes, which voters are in which conferences, and garbage like that? I preferred the days when teams just played each other and didn't have to worry about margin of victory and which conference is better. There's enough drama everywhere else in life...being forced to listen to it during a football game really ruins the experience, IMO. CFB used to be an escape from everyday drama. Just big fast dudes knocking heads. Now it's an extension if everyday drama - even in the NFL with all the Ray Rice/AD/Goodell crap. That's my only real "complaint".
If you want to get technical. Baton Rouge is East of the Mississippi ...lol
Like another poster said the problem I have with the SEC is how the fans think Vandy, Tennessee, Kentucky etc or better than any other conference's lower echelon of teams just becsaue there in the SEC..
All my LSU co-workers said, OU might lose against Tennessee. I asked why? Wasn't because of there QB or defense or receivers or running backs etc..
No their answer was because there in the SEC!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Really???
They didn't say much to be Monday morning, besides saying holy **** your defense is very fast and very good.
BOOMER SOONER
and GEAUX SAINTS
Honestly, I don't remember such days ever existing, but I've only been following since '71. Pre-BCS, it was very much a beauty contest of the AP and UPI polls. Conferences were locked into bowl alliances and the best teams rarely met on the field. So, the final poll might be who pounded on their underdog bowl opponent harder. There was certainly a complaint about east coast bias as that's where most the media lived and they were accused of going to bed before west coast teams played. And Bear Bryant was the master of power politics at arranging the bowls to work out nicely for 'Bama. There was no 24x7 ESPN or other cable outlet, but the material sure existed. Also, for most the 70's, the big8 was considered the badass conference because of OU and NU.I preferred the days when teams just played each other and didn't have to worry about margin of victory and which conference is better.
Well, like I said, I'm not anti-playoff, nor am I anti-BCS. The end result is better than it used to be. I think I've reasonably made my points otherwise, so I'll just chalk up any conflict there to differing perceptions.
Temujin -
There's a difference in saying "Absolutely the SEC has always been a strong power conference. But it's not always been the premier conference" and saying "they were largely irrelevant."
This will be interesting ... one thing I noticed in looking at the MNC history was a real fall off of the Big-10 starting in the 70's. In the 50's and 60's the Big-10 had a team claim an MNC 6 times. But since 1970 they have only had a team win it twice .. Michigan in 1997 and Ohio St in 2001 (Penn States and Nebraska's MNCs were all pre Big-10). Their fall off began well before the creation of ESPN and the BCS.FWIW, I don't expect the Big 10 to stay dead. They're having a rough run right now, but someone has to fall when the others rise. And they've got the money and the market power to build it back up, so it won't stay down forever. Unfortunately, it's just going to be that way for a while because of the built-in ESPN resistance.
And then look at the region of the country ... the Midwest (this will include Pitts, Notre Dames and Penn States MNCs) has 8 since 1970 while the south (including Miami and Florida St's) has 23. If you expand that to include Texas and Oklahoma (more southerly states) then the number goes up to 29. That's a huge regional difference that spans time well before the rise of ESPN.
Gig 'Em and God Bless
I'm not interested in clarifying any further. I provided the context for you to understand. If you want to understand what I'm saying then go back and read what I've already wrote. FWIW, it wasn't intended as an insult, just an example of how powerful conferences flux in strength from time to time. If you can't agree that the late 70s through the early 2000s was a relatively "down" period for the SEC as a whole, then there's really no point in continuing the discussion.
I didn't address the rest. I think what you discovered isn't a media trend as much as it is a population trend. Large recruiting centers in Michigan and Ohio have been struggling as the manufacturing industries have been tailing off. That's caused a migration of sorts to the southern states, and I think that's been going on for a while now. That population shift would also affect the shift in recruiting grounds, I imagine.
Now you're saying late 70's ... moving the bar a bit, lol. In the 1980's they were down, as was everyone else not OU or an independent. In the 50's, 60's, 70's, and 90's the SEC had 3 titles each decade. In the 80's they only had one (Georgia in 1980). The 80's were for the Independents what the past 8 or so have been for the SEC ... utter domination. Miami, Penn St., and Notre Dame combined for 6 MNCs in the 80's ... Apart from OU (85) and Georgia (80), only the ACC had any claim (Clemson in 82). Heck ... even BYU won one. So the 80's was the major hurrah of the Independents.If you can't agree that the late 70s through the early 2000s was a relatively "down" period for the SEC as a whole, then there's really no point in continuing the discussion.
Oh I agree ... demographics are a major story here ... and why the Big-10 may not make a great comeback anytime soon. They have money and power ... but on the field they have been lacking against southern schools for a long time. Population trends are definitely against them.I didn't address the rest. I think what you discovered isn't a media trend as much as it is a population trend. Large recruiting centers in Michigan and Ohio have been struggling as the manufacturing industries have been tailing off. That's caused a migration of sorts to the southern states, and I think that's been going on for a while now. That population shift would also affect the shift in recruiting grounds, I imagine.
Gig 'Em and God Bless
I personally don't count them out for the long term, but that's just me. The northeast is still a massive population center in the US. Things like poverty, etc. can move kids toward sports to get scholarships where they're not getting quality education opportunities. And there's a reason why they're called population shifts/trends - because they tend to go back/forth for various reasons. The oil booms made south more attractive, then the manufacturing bust did the opposite for the north. It's hard to determine what the next shift will be, and it might very well favor the north.
Look, we gave TCU and West Virginia a season trial period, but I think it's pretty clear that the SEC needs them more than the Big 12 does.
Let's give them a new home. If Texas A&M can go from 6-6 to beating Bammer after turning SEC, and Mizzou can go from sh!tty mcsh!t to SEC championship game after two SEC seasons, then surely TCU and WVU will be playing for the national title after a month in the SEC. Don't even finish the Big 12 regular season guys, just go SEC now
Posting Permissions
