SEC Blue-bloods versus modern SEC teams

#51
#51
Vol865 said:
A&M was a good choice. Mizzou wasn't.
Click to expand...
Why? What does A&M have that is more "SEC" than Mizzou? Neither is in the southeast. Oklahoma and Texas are worse than Mizzou...even further. Both are much further from any centerpoint - Nashville or Atlanta.
 
#52
#52
DiderotsGhost said:
I don't like adding Texas and Oklahoma, but the SEC had no real choice. If they didn't add them, the Pac-12 would've done it in a heartbeat. It's destiny, for better or worse.

Oklahoma and Texas will have tougher schedules now, but doesn't really make a difference. You have to go through the SEC to win a national title anyway. Every year, there are 1-2 dominant SEC teams in the playoff that are the main contenders. Doesn't really change anything for them, except they get more money.

As for Miami and VT, their decline has little to do with joining the ACC. Miami's just not been willing to keep up with other programs on facilities and has a fickle fan base. VT's rise to a national title contender under Frank Beamer was miraculous to begin with; it's not really that surprising that they haven't been able to stay near the top.

All that said, I don't think any of this is good for college football. I'm still an old school guy who likes a meaningful regular season and bowl games, rather than super-leagues and playoffs. But I also think it's basically inevitable. If the SEC didn't pull the trigger, someone else would've.
Click to expand...
If this was a real league - centrally organized - then we wouldn't have this debalancing movement. It is SEC greed winning, with cfb parity and balance on the losing end.

They better create a central body like a pro league has or the SEC is just going to wreck all of this. The entire conference model is clearly awful and outdated when this sort of garbage can occur. SEC with 16 teams and 10 top-25 teams...while the "big 12" is left with 8 teams and may 1-2 top-25 teams....makes sense!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frozevol and DiderotsGhost
#53
#53
JonGrudensAgent said:
My feeling is none of the power brokers will give a damn what us commoners think if they see the opportunity for hundreds of millions more in revenue.

Kind of like the idea of adding TX and OK and cutting Missouri and Vandy myself but that won't happen.
Click to expand...
Just wait till they want to add more dominant teams and cut more and more fat and we are (possibly) not seen as the upper crust and let go. Then maybe more will begin to understand what a destructive model this is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JonGrudensAgent
#54
#54
JonGrudensAgent said:
My feeling is none of the power brokers will give a damn what us commoners think if they see the opportunity for hundreds of millions more in revenue.

Kind of like the idea of adding TX and OK and cutting Missouri and Vandy myself but that won't happen.
Click to expand...

If they could, they'd cut MSU before they cut Mizzou.

Vandy offers nothing from a TV market or athletic perspective either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JonGrudensAgent
#55
#55
Devo182 said:
Just wait till they want to add more dominant teams and cut more and more fat and we are (possibly) not seen as the upper crust and let go. Then maybe more will begin to understand what a destructive model this is.
Click to expand...

Guess Heupel and the Vols better step up their game then.

I think the rabid fan base for the Vols will buy them some equity you won't find in teams like Vandy however.
 
#57
#57
Devo182 said:
Just wait till they want to add more dominant teams and cut more and more fat and we are (possibly) not seen as the upper crust and let go. Then maybe more will begin to understand what a destructive model this is.
Click to expand...

I don't see that happening. We deliver 4 Top 100 markets. And with continued population to TN, that won't change.

They'd kick USCe, Vandy, UK, Mizzou, both MS schools, Arky, and Auburn out before they'd consider us.
 
#58
#58
JonGrudensAgent said:
Good point.

I view MSU as more traditional so I think they would get the benefit of doubt if it came to Missouri and them.
Click to expand...

True but MSU offers absolutely nothing to the conference. Lower tier academics, nothing in football, no markets not already covered.
 
#59
#59
Devo182 said:
Why? What does A&M have that is more "SEC" than Mizzou? Neither is in the southeast. Oklahoma and Texas are worse than Mizzou...even further. Both are much further from any centerpoint - Nashville or Atlanta.
Click to expand...
Bigger fanbase, better program, nicer facilities. I also consider East Texas a lot closer to being southeast than Missouri
 
#60
#60
volsknx said:
I am curious to how you, my fellow VOL, fans feel towards the last four teams to become members of our conference and, how you feel about Texas and Oklahoma joining.

Though Arkansas and USCe have been here long enough that they don’t feel (any more) as much as outsiders. Still, I don’t truly see them as SEC. I think Spurrior had USCe in the SECCG twice. Arkansas, I think, has been in it once, maybe twice. Both have been in the league almost 30 years.

Mizzou and aTm have been in the league for almost a decade. I do recall a Mizzou receiver jabbering about SEC speed only for them to have a terrible first season. Granted, Mizzou did make two SeCCG appearances after that but that was when the East was down.

Other than increased TV revenue, I just don’t see how they contribute to the SEC. What are your thoughts?

As for Oklahoma and Texas, I just don’t see them being as dominant here as they are in the BIG VII. They just wont be able to run the gauntlet of a SEC schedule and hold up. Especially if they are places in the West.

How do you guys feel about the additions to the SEC in the last three decades? DO you feel as though they are SEC?
Click to expand...
Change happens. I try to roll with it.
 
#63
#63
Devo182 said:
Send them all back. Add Ga Tech and an NC school. 14 truly Southeast teams.

OR

Send them all back and let's go back to 12 teams...where we have a better chance to win a conference title at least a couple times before we all die. 16 teams with 3 teams that recruit as well or better than us (ou, tx, tamu) just makes things harder and harder.

I just want to win.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Maybe we can get enough teams to have an sec playoff system to see who plays the sec championship game.
 
#64
#64
I just don’t (feel) Texas and Oklahoma as being SEC. still doesn’t seem that aTm and Mizzou are “us”. To be honest, I still don’t feel USCe or Arky are either and they have been here almost three decades!
 
  • Like
Reactions: unfrozencvmanvol
#65
#65
Elhanan said:
Bama is a buzzsaw in itself. LSU is unpredictable and can easily become a loss for any team. Texas a&m is rising fast with elite coaching and very strong talent. UGA and Florida are always tough games. Even the middle of the pack teams can catch a big name off balance and pull off a win.

None of that is true for what use to be the Big 12. Oklahoma has dominated the league with a few other teams occasionally cycling up then right back down.

Keeping the East vs West model with moving Alabama and Auburn to the East does make it a boat load easier for both Texas and Oklahoma. Going to a 4x4 division could make the schedules more balanced across the board especially ending permanent cross division rivals and getting us all on a two year rotation. A sample SEC schedule for Oklahoma could look like this:

Oklahoma 2024
===========
@ Missouri
Arkansas
Vanderbilt
@ Texas
LSU
@ Georgia
Tennessee
@ Florida
Ole Miss

Oklahoma 2025
===========
Missouri
@ Arkansas
@ Vanderbilt
Texas a&m
@ Mississippi State
@ Kentucky
South Carolina
Auburn
@ Alabama

This could be anywhere from 6-3 to 9-0 for the Sooners in SEC play. If teams like Tennessee, Auburn, and Texas get back to their glory it could get ugly for Oklahoma real fast. Especially if those teams that cycle up occasionally like Arkansas, Ole Miss, and Mississippi State get hot at the right time.

Texas is going to struggle regardless. They are in a down cycle and going into the SEC isn't going to do them any favors until they've had time to recruit for a few years assuming they are actually back on track.
Click to expand...

I really don’t see how it could get ugly for OU even if those 3 you mentioned get back to their “glory” days. Even in their best years, Texas struggled. C’mon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kcvols1
#66
#66
OriginalCoach said:
I really don’t see how it could get ugly for OU even if those 3 you mentioned get back to their “glory” days. Even in their best years, Texas struggled. C’mon.
Click to expand...

You don’t see how having to play better teams every year could lead to more losses for Oklahoma?

I don’t really know what to say…
 
#67
#67
Elhanan said:
You don’t see how having to play better teams every year could lead to more losses for Oklahoma?

I don’t really know what to say…
Click to expand...

And Oklahoma is going to get worse because those 3 you mentioned got better or “hot”?? Puhleeeese....
 
#69
#69
Arkansas, South Carolina, Oklahoma and Texas A&M are very good cultural fits for the SEC.

Missouri and Texas are not in my opinion.
 
#70
#70
Devo182 said:
Just wait till they want to add more dominant teams and cut more and more fat and we are (possibly) not seen as the upper crust and let go. Then maybe more will begin to understand what a destructive model this is.
Click to expand...
Tennessee is never leaving the SEC much less being let go. That is crazy talk. Folks going a little overboard here. I doubt there will be little if any more expansion done in the near future. Tennessee is a major revenue producer and always has been and always will be, they aren't going anywhere!!!! GBO!!!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: kcvols1
#71
#71
OriginalCoach said:
And Oklahoma is going to get worse because those 3 you mentioned got better or “hot”?? Puhleeeese....
Click to expand...

You’re right. I’m sure they’ll never play each other and if they do Oklahoma will definitely win.

More difficult competition couldn’t possibly lead to any more losses.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top