We finally agree on something...if by "remotely close" you mean waaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyy off in the distance and barely visible.... right beside the other three.
Need to go to the SEC or B1G
- Thread starter OregonDucks
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2020
- Posts
- 1,642
- Reaction score
- 1,761
- Bookie:
- $ 1,014.00
tOSU fans are like Boise State...gonna milk that one win for 20 years.
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2020
- Posts
- 8,331
- Reaction score
- 4,738
- Bookie:
- $ 1,000.00
Boise State beat Alabama with a 3rd string QB too?
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2020
- Posts
- 1,642
- Reaction score
- 1,761
- Bookie:
- $ 1,014.00
Michigan fans gonna be like ACC fans not named Clemson...riding the coattails of their betters.
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2020
- Posts
- 8,331
- Reaction score
- 4,738
- Bookie:
- $ 1,000.00
Riding the coattails of "their betters"? I guess Michigan fans just have to hope they "get gooder".
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2020
- Posts
- 18,937
- Reaction score
- 30,807
- Bookie:
- $ 10,500.00
I wonder how the OP feels about the B12?
He should be warming up to it soon.
He should be warming up to it soon.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2020
- Posts
- 9,348
- Reaction score
- 6,832
- Bookie:
- $ 2,000.00
Funny, I have said something less aggressive on that topic in the past and now I am the greatest SEC homer.
Yeah, but your team is in the SEC. Those of us who are fans of non SEC teams can’t be accused of that.
Cold hard reality is, from a non financial and purely CFP football perspective, there isn’t much difference in the ACC, B1G, Big12 and the PAC 12. Splitting hairs if you try to claim the overall performance of teams are any better than the others. All four have had teams that have been blown out over the past 8 years.
Now if we’re talking how much money conference teams bring in, then it is the B1G and the SEC. After them we’re splitting hairs among the other three.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2020
- Posts
- 7,356
- Reaction score
- 21,807
- Bookie:
- $ 83,044.00
Why would either want Oregon?
I will answer it for you…no reason
I will answer it for you…no reason
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2020
- Posts
- 1,642
- Reaction score
- 1,761
- Bookie:
- $ 1,014.00
I'm sorry, is English a second language for you? I'll adjust.
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2020
- Posts
- 8,613
- Reaction score
- 6,969
- Bookie:
- $ 1,000.00
To the fans who look at the SEC and say it's just the top teams, all the others are no better than teams in other conferences, I get what you are saying to some degree. We do have our share of stinkers in any given year. And as I have posted many times here, I hope that NIL, transfer portal, and the CFP-12 drives some parity into CFB.
But here's the rub:
- The SEC in the last 2 decades has almost always had 3 top teams. Two teams in the BCS and CFP three times. No other conference can say that. The most NCs by a long shot. So that gets proven on the field. Do you think the results are going to be any different when we go to 12. How many years before 3 of the final 4 are SEC teams?
- The SEC has had 6 different teams win NCs since the start of the BCS era. No other conference can come close to saying that. And that goes to the idea that at any given time we may not have more than 2 or 3 really good teams, but we have the most diverse group of teams in the playoff era who have reached the top. That shows that while we cycle around - everyone always does - we are far more consistent.
- And finally, if you look at H2H , look at bowl records, etc., the SEC always comes out ahead. You can check the stats at the site below. Looking at the 90s, 00s, 10s, and 20s, the other conferences v. SEC this shows the win rate of the conference v. the SEC. That web site is awesome.
B1G - 43% win rate, way worse in bowl games
ACC - 39% win rate, about the same in bowl games
B12 - 40% win rate, a little better in bowl games
PAC - 38% win rate, 0% in bowl games
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2020
- Posts
- 9,348
- Reaction score
- 6,832
- Bookie:
- $ 2,000.00
To add to @WhosYourDawggy, every conference has power programs. These are the teams that currently or have the ability based on history to win National Titles. There is also a tier II set of teams that have a Natty but would need a lot to get back in the picture. Here would be the breakdown:
ACC: Clemson, FSU, and Miami are the "power programs". Tier II would be Georgia Tech and Virginia Tech (doesn't have natty but played in one in 1999). I would also consider Louisville, North Carolina, Syracuse, and Pittsburgh as tier II.
ACC, in reality, should be A LOT better. When the "new" ACC formed in 2004, it was expected to compete with the SEC and other leagues for dominance. The issue has been the fact that Miami (and FSU for most part) not living up to hype. Clemson emerged as a power during this span but the fact that the two Florida schools have just not been good other than FSU form 2010-2014 span has really HURT the ACC's perception. Had FSU and Miami continued their 1980s and 1990s dominance, I think the ACC would be seen very different today and wouldn't be in jeopardy of collapse. ACC has access to quality recruiting areas: Pennsylvania, Carolinas, Florida, and Georgia as well as access to some of the best markets in the Nation: Boston, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Washington, Miami, Jacksonville, Raleigh, etc.
B1G: Michigan, Ohio State, Nebraska, Penn State, USC are the "power programs". Tier II teams are Iowa, Maryland, Michigan State, UCLA, and Wisconsin.
B1G is a little overrated in my opinion. They do have one of the top programs year in and year out with Ohio State and they have Michigan. Nebraska hasn't lived up to hype similar to Miami in the ACC but, in my opinion, Nebraska could turn itself around with the right culture and coaching. Still it is hard to imagine the two team gauntlet being broken. Adding USC will help as they are the premiere program West of the Rockies. USC football reminds me of what UK is to SEC Basketball from a dominance perspective. However, I think the long road trips will make it hard for UCLA and USC.
A team that I debated about putting into Tier II was Purdue. I don't think they quite have enough to get there but they were on the cusp.
SEC: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, LSU, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas are the "power programs". Tier II teams are Arkansas, Ole Miss, and Texas A&M.
SEC just has more POWER programs than anyone else and it is only getting worse with the Oklahoma and Texas grab. Oklahoma and Texas also fit pretty well now in the SEC with Arkansas, Missouri, and Texas A&M already in the league and the regional connections of these programs to OU and Texas (along with possible connections with LSU). This is an exception to the situation in the B1G with UCLA and USC looking like they are on an island. Tennessee seemed like borderline tier II but with this 2022 season, I am even in agreement with Vol Nation or Josh Pate that perhaps Tennessee had the ability to win all along but they were just waiting on right administration and coaching. I give this similar benefit of a doubt to FSU, Miami, Nebraska, Texas, and other historic power programs who are also struggling. Even prior to Heupel, change a few games in 2015 or 2016 for Tennessee and you can see the program was never that far off.
Arkansas, Ole Miss, and Texas A&M are tier II. I had Texas A&M in first tier but the history just does not justify them as a power program even if they are recruiting and spending that way. Ole Miss hasn't been that far off at times with Kiffin and Freeze while Arkansas wasn't that far off with Bobby Petrino. Both competed for titles in the past but it would take quite a bit to get them over the hump. A team on the cusp of Tier II is South Carolina. They don't have the history but they do have the fan support and resources to get to Tier II.
The Rest: Notre Dame is definitely a Power Program. I can debate heavily on Oregon. Oregon hasn't won it all yet but they tend to fit more in Power Program than Tier II category. Oregon is probably its own special category somewhere between Power and Tier II. After that no Power Programs once OU, USC, and Texas leave.
There are some Tier II programs. They are the following: BYU, Colorado, Oklahoma State, Stanford, TCU, Utah, Washington, and West Virginia. I also debated about putting Baylor in this grouping but Baylor just doesn't have the history so they are on the cusp. You can also debate on Boise State, Cincinnati, and UCF if they are tier II. I am going with NO right now.
Basically, there just isn't much here other than Notre Dame. I still think that Oregon and Washington would be great adds for the B1G. It closes that island with the West Coast and gives them programs that can help the B1G compete more with the SEC. B1G is still top heavy right now and just doesn't matchup that well. The SEC had the advantage of getting 3 out of 4 of the Big12's top programs historically (basically eating the strongest part of the Big12). The B1G really needs to make that up by eating the strongest parts of the Pac12. Getting Oregon and Washington would ensure that the top 4 Pac12 programs are all in the B1G and would give them that Northwest Presence. I also like the B1G grabbing Stanford to get into the Northern California/San Francisco region and Stanford adds value in all sports.
I feel like the B1G wasn't aggressive enough to stay with the SEC. Adding Oregon and Washington makes the B1G more of a legit contender. The expansion has been about $$$$ and not making the league more competitive.
SEC is dominant because it has more historical power programs. With the addition of Oklahoma and Texas, it is only getting worse. The leagues outside of the SEC have always been more top heavy than the SEC which has hurt them when their premier programs are down (such as when USC is down for the Pac12). The SEC has had premier programs down like Tennessee over last 15 years or Florida over last 10 years but it hasn't hurt the SEC as much because it has so many power programs overall.
ACC: Clemson, FSU, and Miami are the "power programs". Tier II would be Georgia Tech and Virginia Tech (doesn't have natty but played in one in 1999). I would also consider Louisville, North Carolina, Syracuse, and Pittsburgh as tier II.
ACC, in reality, should be A LOT better. When the "new" ACC formed in 2004, it was expected to compete with the SEC and other leagues for dominance. The issue has been the fact that Miami (and FSU for most part) not living up to hype. Clemson emerged as a power during this span but the fact that the two Florida schools have just not been good other than FSU form 2010-2014 span has really HURT the ACC's perception. Had FSU and Miami continued their 1980s and 1990s dominance, I think the ACC would be seen very different today and wouldn't be in jeopardy of collapse. ACC has access to quality recruiting areas: Pennsylvania, Carolinas, Florida, and Georgia as well as access to some of the best markets in the Nation: Boston, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Washington, Miami, Jacksonville, Raleigh, etc.
B1G: Michigan, Ohio State, Nebraska, Penn State, USC are the "power programs". Tier II teams are Iowa, Maryland, Michigan State, UCLA, and Wisconsin.
B1G is a little overrated in my opinion. They do have one of the top programs year in and year out with Ohio State and they have Michigan. Nebraska hasn't lived up to hype similar to Miami in the ACC but, in my opinion, Nebraska could turn itself around with the right culture and coaching. Still it is hard to imagine the two team gauntlet being broken. Adding USC will help as they are the premiere program West of the Rockies. USC football reminds me of what UK is to SEC Basketball from a dominance perspective. However, I think the long road trips will make it hard for UCLA and USC.
A team that I debated about putting into Tier II was Purdue. I don't think they quite have enough to get there but they were on the cusp.
SEC: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, LSU, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas are the "power programs". Tier II teams are Arkansas, Ole Miss, and Texas A&M.
SEC just has more POWER programs than anyone else and it is only getting worse with the Oklahoma and Texas grab. Oklahoma and Texas also fit pretty well now in the SEC with Arkansas, Missouri, and Texas A&M already in the league and the regional connections of these programs to OU and Texas (along with possible connections with LSU). This is an exception to the situation in the B1G with UCLA and USC looking like they are on an island. Tennessee seemed like borderline tier II but with this 2022 season, I am even in agreement with Vol Nation or Josh Pate that perhaps Tennessee had the ability to win all along but they were just waiting on right administration and coaching. I give this similar benefit of a doubt to FSU, Miami, Nebraska, Texas, and other historic power programs who are also struggling. Even prior to Heupel, change a few games in 2015 or 2016 for Tennessee and you can see the program was never that far off.
Arkansas, Ole Miss, and Texas A&M are tier II. I had Texas A&M in first tier but the history just does not justify them as a power program even if they are recruiting and spending that way. Ole Miss hasn't been that far off at times with Kiffin and Freeze while Arkansas wasn't that far off with Bobby Petrino. Both competed for titles in the past but it would take quite a bit to get them over the hump. A team on the cusp of Tier II is South Carolina. They don't have the history but they do have the fan support and resources to get to Tier II.
The Rest: Notre Dame is definitely a Power Program. I can debate heavily on Oregon. Oregon hasn't won it all yet but they tend to fit more in Power Program than Tier II category. Oregon is probably its own special category somewhere between Power and Tier II. After that no Power Programs once OU, USC, and Texas leave.
There are some Tier II programs. They are the following: BYU, Colorado, Oklahoma State, Stanford, TCU, Utah, Washington, and West Virginia. I also debated about putting Baylor in this grouping but Baylor just doesn't have the history so they are on the cusp. You can also debate on Boise State, Cincinnati, and UCF if they are tier II. I am going with NO right now.
Basically, there just isn't much here other than Notre Dame. I still think that Oregon and Washington would be great adds for the B1G. It closes that island with the West Coast and gives them programs that can help the B1G compete more with the SEC. B1G is still top heavy right now and just doesn't matchup that well. The SEC had the advantage of getting 3 out of 4 of the Big12's top programs historically (basically eating the strongest part of the Big12). The B1G really needs to make that up by eating the strongest parts of the Pac12. Getting Oregon and Washington would ensure that the top 4 Pac12 programs are all in the B1G and would give them that Northwest Presence. I also like the B1G grabbing Stanford to get into the Northern California/San Francisco region and Stanford adds value in all sports.
I feel like the B1G wasn't aggressive enough to stay with the SEC. Adding Oregon and Washington makes the B1G more of a legit contender. The expansion has been about $$$$ and not making the league more competitive.
SEC is dominant because it has more historical power programs. With the addition of Oklahoma and Texas, it is only getting worse. The leagues outside of the SEC have always been more top heavy than the SEC which has hurt them when their premier programs are down (such as when USC is down for the Pac12). The SEC has had premier programs down like Tennessee over last 15 years or Florida over last 10 years but it hasn't hurt the SEC as much because it has so many power programs overall.
Thanks for the info. I've been trying to convince him that there isn't much difference between his beloved B1G and the middling three. At least regarding the quality of football since the inception of the CFP. In fact, the ACC has a better CFP record than the almighty B1G. And all four are wwwwwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyy behind the SEC in regards to CFP performance. The above shows that. the B1G is 3% better than the Big 12, 4% better than the ACC and a whooping 5% better than the PAC 12. BFD
People talk about "The Power 2" and the "Other 3". But this only considering revenue IMHO. If you look at football performance during the CFP, it is "The Power 1" and the "Other 4".
SEC is dominant because they have the most schools in the top 15 recruiting classes each year. Until that changes, their dominance will continue. If you include Texas and Oklahoma in the SEC, the SEC has the #1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, 15, 16 and 17 ranked classes for 2023. That's 50% of the top 20 in one conference.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2020
- Posts
- 9,348
- Reaction score
- 6,832
- Bookie:
- $ 2,000.00
That is more a symptom/trait of having the most power programs. It is just just recruiting, these programs often can pay the most for coaches, have tougher home environments, more dedicated fanbases, and a success of winning.
It is like saying the reason a top car wins a race is the tires. Well, that is one but also the engine, transmission, driver, etc.
South Carolina is in that group of 10. Are they a “power” program?
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2020
- Posts
- 9,348
- Reaction score
- 6,832
- Bookie:
- $ 2,000.00
Go read my thread. South Carolina is a borderline tier II.
Also when is the last time South Carolina was in the National Title talk?