The changing face of the SEC

#1
lawgator1

lawgator1

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
72,864
Likes
42,982
#1
"Nowadays it's darn near impossible to go undefeated, especially in a conference like the SEC," he said, having just removed Georgia from that list. "Auburn did it last year. The fact that they didn't play for it (a BCS championship), now that I'm in the SEC, I can't imagine that."

Urban Meyer, 10/29/05



The reality of SEC football is that it is almost impossible to envision a team running the tables. In the SEC West, it seems that LSU, Alabama, and Auburn will almost always contend. To go undefeated in the West, you have to beat the other two, plus usually at least two pretty good teams from the SEC East.

In the East, it seems like UF, Tennesse, and Georgia will almost always field pretty good teams and its tough to see one team beating the other two, plus beating two good SEC West teams.

Throw in the fact that the East has an up and coming South Carolina program and the West cna usually count on either Miss. State or Arkansas to drum up at leats one upset win, and I think Meyer is absolutely right.

Gone are the days when Herschel Walker ran roughshod over defenses and blew out teams 34-0 on his own. It is hard to imagine a receiver corps more in tune with a QB than the Gators' Wuerffel in the late 90's. Arkansas, where is that running game of the early 90's? Tennessee, what happened to that defense upon which no one could rush for more than 50 yards a game and an offense founded on crushing hits and 200 yards rushing?

I just think there's too much talent in this league, spread out over too many teams. I cannot imagine an SECE team going undefeated again. Too many tough games week in and week out to get it done.

 
#2
#2
Originally posted by lawgator1@Nov 21, 2005 4:03 PM
"Nowadays it's darn near impossible to go undefeated, especially in a conference like the SEC," he said, having just removed Georgia from that list. "Auburn did it last year. The fact that they didn't play for it (a BCS championship), now that I'm in the SEC, I can't imagine that."

Urban Meyer, 10/29/05
The reality of SEC football is that it is almost impossible to envision a team running the tables.  In the SEC West, it seems that LSU, Alabama, and Auburn will almost always contend.  To go undefeated in the West, you have to beat the other two, plus usually at least two pretty good teams from the SEC East.

In the East, it seems like UF, Tennesse, and Georgia will almost always field pretty good teams and its tough to see one team beating the other two, plus beating two good SEC West teams.

Throw in the fact that the East has an up and coming South Carolina program and the West cna usually count on either Miss. State or Arkansas to drum up at leats one upset win, and I think Meyer is absolutely right.

Gone are the days when Herschel Walker ran roughshod over defenses and blew out teams 34-0 on his own.  It is hard to imagine a receiver corps more in tune with a QB than the Gators' Wuerffel in the late 90's.  Arkansas, where is that running game of the early 90's?  Tennessee, what happened to that defense upon which no one could rush for more than 50 yards a game and an offense founded on crushing hits and 200 yards rushing?

I just think there's too much talent in this league, spread out over too many teams.  I cannot imagine an SECE team going undefeated again.  Too many tough games week in and week out to get it done.
[snapback]198841[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

It happened last year. LSU would be undefeated this year if they didn't sleepwalk through the second half against UT. Someone will do it within the next 4 years. Someone in the East will catch some breaks and get through unscathed.
 
#3
#3
Originally posted by hatvol96@Nov 21, 2005 4:07 PM
It happened last year. LSU would be undefeated this year if they didn't sleepwalk through the second half against UT. Someone will do it within the next 4 years. Someone in the East will catch some breaks and get through unscathed.
[snapback]198842[/snapback]​
Click to expand...



It did happen last year, and Auburn deserves a ton of credit for that. And, yes, LSU lost one this year.

Let me ask you, does anyone on here seriously doubt but that LSU is a better team than Tennessee? No. Clearly, LSU is much better this year.

But by how much? Can you express it in temrs of a percentage? I don't see how. Could you say that LSU wins 4 out of 5 games against UT this year and they just got caught in that fifth game?

I think that is one way to put it. But, with 5-6 teams on your schedule that are either even with you, maybe a little behind you, or just a couple that can only beat you in one out of five games, you aren't likely to go undefeated.

 
#4
#4
Originally posted by lawgator1@Nov 21, 2005 4:12 PM
It did happen last year, and Auburn deserves a ton of credit for that.  And, yes, LSU lost one this year.

Let me ask you, does anyone on here seriously doubt but that LSU is a better team than Tennessee?  No.  Clearly, LSU is much better this year.

But by how much?  Can you express it in temrs of a percentage?  I don't see how.  Could you say that LSU wins 4 out of 5 games against UT this year and they just got caught in that fifth game?

I think that is one way to put it.  But, with 5-6 teams on your schedule that are either even with you, maybe a little behind you, or just a couple that can only beat you in one out of five games, you aren't likely to go undefeated.
[snapback]198844[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

I agree it's tough to go undefeated, but not impossible. The SEC is a minefield, but it can be navigated.
 
#5
#5
I think the problem with this parity in the SEC is that it is MUCH more difficult for a team to go undefeated in the SEC, than, say, the PAC-10 or Big East. The sad fact is, the SEC will only get a team in the BCS championship once every four or five years, while the Pac-10 and Big 12 will get one in almost every year.
 
#6
#6
Originally posted by ThebigO@Nov 21, 2005 4:40 PM
I think the problem with this parity in the SEC is that it is MUCH more difficult for a team to go undefeated in the SEC, than, say, the PAC-10 or Big East.  The sad fact is, the SEC will only get a team in the BCS championship once every four or five years, while the Pac-10 and Big 12 will get one in almost every year.
[snapback]198856[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

yep, I agree.
 
#7
#7
Thats the truth and it sucks :bash:
I think a playoff would defanetly change it :idhitit:
 
#8
#8
Originally posted by ThebigO@Nov 21, 2005 1:40 PM
I think the problem with this parity in the SEC is that it is MUCH more difficult for a team to go undefeated in the SEC, than, say, the PAC-10 or Big East.  The sad fact is, the SEC will only get a team in the BCS championship once every four or five years, while the Pac-10 and Big 12 will get one in almost every year.
[snapback]198856[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Well, I think the Big East can be removed from any national championship talks for all intents and purposes. It's only a matter of time before their BCS bid is taken away, it's long overdue.

As far as the Pac-10 and every other conference, each one seems to field at the least one or two tough teams. The Pac-10 this season has Oregon, USC and UCLA and none of the teams are really bad by much of a stretch. The Big 12 is way down this season but Texas and Texas Tech are certainly two tough teams to tangle with. You have Penn State, Ohio State and a bevy of other tough teams in the Big Ten. And too many to list in the ACC.

So as far as conferences go for difficulty to get a title, would I say SEC is the toughest? Year in and year out, probably. But not by very much at all over any of the four other big conferences.

And as far as Pac-10 goes, next season the Pac-10 will be starting a round-robin schedule, with 9 conferences games in which every team will play every other one. I believe this pretty much eliminates any need to annex teams and have a conference championship.
 
#9
#9
The point is that a playoff would give the best teams a better chance of getting to the promised land. You can't just use a mathematical formula to determine strength of schedule. Its stupid.
 
#10
#10
I don't know why... But I'm starting to believe less and less little by little in the idea of having a D-IA playoff.
 
#11
#11
They already have a playoff... it's called the regular season.

Of course, that only works if only two teams end up undefeated, which looks like will happen this year.
 
#12
#12
But can you tell me that those two teams played the same quality of opponents that everyone else did? Is it a fluke that the Big 12 has a down year, and Texas goes undefeated? Didn't think so.
 
#13
#13
Originally posted by tidwell@Nov 21, 2005 6:32 PM
They already have a playoff... it's called the regular season.

Of course, that only works if only two teams end up undefeated, which looks like will happen this year.
[snapback]198968[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


Yeah, it is a playoff where some brackets are always easier than others and teams like Notre Dame get to make their own bracket.
 
#14
#14
At least with the BCS, God help me for defending it, last year we saw two undefeated teams play each other. Without the BCS last year, USC would've went to the Rose Bowl, Oklahoma to the Orange, and Auburn to the Sugar, with all three likely winning. Then what?
 
#15
#15
:lol: That's true but the BCS was abysmal last season. 3 major undefeated teams as well as Cal undeservedly getting left in the dust.

The BCS seems kind of crappy... But at the same time, it feels as if the bowl games are some sort of sacred tradition. I mean, a playoff for D-IA is definitley the most logical idea for college football but part of me believes that it does kind of piss all over tradition.
 
#16
#16
It's always hard to go undefeated in the SEC. This is nothing new. I applaud Meyer for coming off as if he just came up with whole thing though.
 
#17
#17
I'd like to see them somehow arrange the conferences to where there are 8 conference champions, and have a playoff between those teams. Seed them based on their ranking. In order to crown a conference champion, do away with a conference championship game, but do what milo said the Pac 10 is doing next year, have every team in the conference play each other throughout the season so you'll havea worthy conference champion. Do away with all non-conference games so all of the teams won't have an abnormal number of games played. Keep the bowls for after the 8 team tourney and have the championship game be that year's big BCS Bowl or whatever... and choose all of the other teams for the other bowls.

My fantasy, anyway.
 
#19
#19
Originally posted by milohimself@Nov 21, 2005 6:38 PM
:lol: That's true but the BCS was abysmal last season. 3 major undefeated teams as well as Cal undeservedly getting left in the dust.

The BCS seems kind of crappy... But at the same time, it feels as if the bowl games are some sort of sacred tradition. I mean, a playoff for D-IA is definitley the most logical idea for college football but part of me believes that it does kind of piss all over tradition.
[snapback]198977[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

But if the BCS was really about preserving tradition then the Cotton Bowl would be part of the BCS instead of a johnny come lately game like the Fiesta.
 
#20
#20
Originally posted by tidwell@Nov 21, 2005 3:43 PM
I'd like to see them somehow arrange the conferences to where there are 8 conference champions, and have a playoff between those teams.  Seed them based on their ranking.  In order to crown a conference champion, do away with a conference championship game, but do what milo said the Pac 10 is doing next year, have every team in the conference play each other throughout the season so you'll havea worthy conference champion.  Do away with all non-conference games so all of the teams won't have an abnormal number of games played.  Keep the bowls for after the 8 team tourney and have the championship game be that year's big BCS Bowl or whatever... and choose all of the other teams for the other bowls.

My fantasy, anyway.
[snapback]198984[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

There are two big, big problems with removing conference games...

1. They are generally a good barometer of conference strength.

2. It would remove some great rivalries. What about Georgia Tech vs. Georgia? Florida State vs. Florida? USC vs. Notre Dame? Virginia vs. West Virginia? The list goes on.
 
#21
#21
What did Auburn do to distinguish themselves? They changed their offensive system, fielded a heck of a defense, and converted a so so QB into an all american. In a year where other offenses have struggled, that seems to be a pretty good rebuilding plan.
 
#22
#22
Originally posted by MyBloodRunnethOrange@Nov 21, 2005 4:11 PM
But if the BCS was really about preserving tradition then the Cotton Bowl would be part of the BCS instead of a johnny come lately game like the Fiesta.
[snapback]199009[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Well that's an issue of money... And besides that, how do you think bowls have always worked? The places with the most money, best locations and biggest draw. The Fiesta Bowl is in a great winter vacation spot in the sun belt, lots of tourist options, very profitable, etc. And aside from that, the Cotton Bowl is still pretty much the most prestigious of the non-BCS bowls.
 
#23
#23
Originally posted by ThebigO@Nov 21, 2005 4:40 PM
I think the problem with this parity in the SEC is that it is MUCH more difficult for a team to go undefeated in the SEC, than, say, the PAC-10 or Big East.  The sad fact is, the SEC will only get a team in the BCS championship once every four or five years, while the Pac-10 and Big 12 will get one in almost every year.
[snapback]198856[/snapback]​
Click to expand...



Especially in the PAC-10. They have a couple of "haves" and a bunch of "have nots." Beat two good teams and keep your nose clean against the mediocre middle and you are in.
 
#24
#24
Originally posted by tidwell@Nov 21, 2005 6:35 PM
At least with the BCS, God help me for defending it, last year we saw two undefeated teams play each other.  Without the BCS last year, USC would've went to the Rose Bowl, Oklahoma to the Orange, and Auburn to the Sugar, with all three likely winning.  Then what?
[snapback]198974[/snapback]​
Click to expand...



Just because the BCS is "better" than the traditional conference tie-ins to the bowls doesn't mean it is better than a playoff system. I just don't see how people can defend anything short of true playoffs. It seems so obvious to me that having to earn it is a better system than backing into it and we've seen that with the bowls from time to time, in any scheme.
 
#25
#25
Originally posted by Orangewhiteblood@Nov 21, 2005 6:42 PM
It's always hard to go undefeated in the SEC.  This is nothing new.  I applaud Meyer for coming off as if he just came up with whole thing though.
[snapback]198983[/snapback]​
Click to expand...



In context, he was simply acknowleding his own surprise at how tough it is in this conference. He's complimenting the competition level in this conference. Give the guy a break.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top