Don't stick a fork in the ACC yet...

[CoalTrain]

Mizzou's record since joining the SEC:

View attachment 120534

They had one really good year recently. That's what you want?

ATM since joining the SEC:

View attachment 120535

Don't see how that's working out. Simply put, they get more money, they play a far tougher schedule than they would have.

Now do Colorado to the PAC, Nebraska, Maryland, Rutgers to the B1G. Show me one team that moved to another conference that suddenly became relevant.

Define relevant

 

[ericd7633]

Mizzou's record since joining the SEC:

View attachment 120534

They had one really good year recently. That's what you want?

ATM since joining the SEC:

View attachment 120535

Don't see how that's working out. Simply put, they get more money, they play a far tougher schedule than they would have.

Now do Colorado to the PAC, Nebraska, Maryland, Rutgers to the B1G. Show me one team that moved to another conference that suddenly became relevant.

I'd say Missouri is a better program now then when they joined. Their record is essentially the same the first 12 years in the SEC compared to the 12 years before the SEC. But they've set themselves up for the future by being in the SEC. They will be one of the teams that benefits the most from no divisions and an expanded playoff in the SEC. I think Drinkwitz is a pretty good coach, and now with NIL, they have a chance to take a couple steps up in the pecking order IMO.

 

[Deep Creek]

Now do Colorado to the PAC, Nebraska, Maryland, Rutgers to the B1G. Show me one team that moved to another conference that suddenly became relevant.

They weren't exactly setting the world on fire in their conferences before they made the move. So that really doesn't seem to matter.

 

[Wild Turkey]

I'd say Missouri is a better program now then when they joined. Their record is essentially the same the first 12 years in the SEC compared to the 12 years before the SEC. But they've set themselves up for the future by being in the SEC. They will be one of the teams that benefits the most from no divisions and an expanded playoff in the SEC. I think Drinkwitz is a pretty good coach, and now with NIL, they have a chance to take a couple steps up in the pecking order IMO.

Poop Gate set them back a few years.

 

[Deep Creek]

I'd say Missouri is a better program now then when they joined. Their record is essentially the same the first 12 years in the SEC compared to the 12 years before the SEC. But they've set themselves up for the future by being in the SEC. They will be one of the teams that benefits the most from no divisions and an expanded playoff in the SEC. I think Drinkwitz is a pretty good coach, and now with NIL, they have a chance to take a couple steps up in the pecking order IMO.

Didn’t they make the CCG in the first couple of years they were in the SEC?

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

Didn’t they make the CCG in the first couple of years they were in the SEC?

They did. They were the beneficiaries of a period of time when Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee all really sucked. Being in the east during that period of time was a huge benefit.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

Define relevant

Not that.

FWIW, let's not get too far afield from what I said ... I simply told a Clemson fan that I would careful what I wished for. It's my belief that a lot of Clemson's recent success has to do with the fact the ACC is a weak football conference. Moving to greener pastures gets you more money, but at what price? Do you think Clemson fans will be satisfied losing 3 games a year when they are used to winning the ACC and going to the CFP? There is no reason to think Clemson, who would not have been in the a 12 team CFP in 2 of the last 3 years, is going to come into the SEC/B1G and perform better.

So in the context of my post, relevant means getting into the CFP and winning from time to time. Clemson has done that in the ACC, and would likely continue to do so. I am not sure they would do that in the SEC/B1G.

I can't see that what I am typing is in any way controversial. It's not a put down of Clemson. The simple fact is that life for good teams is harder in the SEC and B1G and would be even harder if they let in FSU and Clemson. They are going from a conference they should win every year if they are as good as their fans want you to believe they are, to a conference where they will have 5-8 other teams as good if not better.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

I'd say Missouri is a better program now then when they joined. Their record is essentially the same the first 12 years in the SEC compared to the 12 years before the SEC. But they've set themselves up for the future by being in the SEC. They will be one of the teams that benefits the most from no divisions and an expanded playoff in the SEC. I think Drinkwitz is a pretty good coach, and now with NIL, they have a chance to take a couple steps up in the pecking order IMO.

To the contrary, no one in the SECE benefits from the lack of divisions. The SECE has been far weaker that the SECW for the past 15 years.

 

[ericd7633]

Not that.

FWIW, let's not get too far afield from what I said ... I simply told a Clemson fan that I would careful what I wished for. It's my belief that a lot of Clemson's recent success has to do with the fact the ACC is a weak football conference. Moving to greener pastures gets you more money, but at what price? Do you think Clemson fans will be satisfied losing 3 games a year when they are used to winning the ACC and going to the CFP? There is no reason to think Clemson, who would not have been in the a 12 team CFP in 2 of the last 3 years, is going to come into the SEC/B1G and perform better.

So in the context of my post, relevant means getting into the CFP and winning from time to time. Clemson has done that in the ACC, and would likely continue to do so. I am not sure they would do that in the SEC/B1G.

I can't see that what I am typing is in any way controversial. It's not a put down of Clemson. The simple fact is that life for good teams is harder in the SEC and B1G and would be even harder if they let in FSU and Clemson. They are going from a conference they should win every year if they are as good as their fans want you to believe they are, to a conference where they will have 5-8 other teams as good if not better.

They've won 6 CFP games since 2014. My guess is that's only behind Bama in that timeframe. Stick those Watson and Lawrence teams in the SEC and they'd make the CFP multiple times. Yeah, the ACC was weak, but them and Bama were the dominant programs the latter part of the 2010's.

 

[Thiefery]

Not that.

FWIW, let's not get too far afield from what I said ... I simply told a Clemson fan that I would careful what I wished for. It's my belief that a lot of Clemson's recent success has to do with the fact the ACC is a weak football conference. Moving to greener pastures gets you more money, but at what price? Do you think Clemson fans will be satisfied losing 3 games a year when they are used to winning the ACC and going to the CFP? There is no reason to think Clemson, who would not have been in the a 12 team CFP in 2 of the last 3 years, is going to come into the SEC/B1G and perform better.

So in the context of my post, relevant means getting into the CFP and winning from time to time. Clemson has done that in the ACC, and would likely continue to do so. I am not sure they would do that in the SEC/B1G.

I can't see that what I am typing is in any way controversial. It's not a put down of Clemson. The simple fact is that life for good teams is harder in the SEC and B1G and would be even harder if they let in FSU and Clemson. They are going from a conference they should win every year if they are as good as their fans want you to believe they are, to a conference where they will have 5-8 other teams as good if not better.

Clemson doesn't have a program issue.. right now their biggest hurdle is their own coach. Now that Clemson has had the success that it had, I don't think they will take a backseat, they would be motivated even more to produce in either the BiG or SEC..

I also feel the BiG is probably the better fit for them.

 

[Thiefery]

They've won 6 CFP games since 2014. My guess is that's only behind Bama in that timeframe. Stick those Watson and Lawrence teams in the SEC and they'd make the CFP multiple times. Yeah, the ACC was weak, but them and Bama were the dominant programs the latter part of the 2010's.

on paper it sounds right but we know how games week in and week out don't play out on paper most of the time

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

They've won 6 CFP games since 2014. My guess is that's only behind Bama in that timeframe. Stick those Watson and Lawrence teams in the SEC and they'd make the CFP multiple times. Yeah, the ACC was weak, but them and Bama were the dominant programs the latter part of the 2010's.

But they wouldn't have gotten past Bama in the SEC in many of those years, and wouldn't have gotten past tOSU in the B1G. That's the problem when you are in the SEC in a 4 team race - you had to get past Bama/LSU/UGA and that was a lot harder than the road they had in the ACC. Never mind the wear and tear they didn't have all season in the ACC.

I can't see how what I am saying is even arguable. It's not anti-Clemson. It's clear that FSU and Clemson would almost be guaranteed to get in the CFP-12 every year in the ACC. Not so much in the SEC/B1G.

 

[WhosYourDawggy]

Clemson doesn't have a program issue.. right now their biggest hurdle is their own coach. Now that Clemson has had the success that it had, I don't think they will take a backseat, they would be motivated even more to produce in either the BiG or SEC..

I also feel the BiG is probably the better fit for them.

I agree with that ... Dabo is committing career suicide. Those championships are a long way away from the current reality. His insistence on not changing would crush him in the SEC/B1G.

 

[Thiefery]

I agree with that ... Dabo is committing career suicide. Those championships are a long way away from the current reality. His insistence on not changing would crush him in the SEC/B1G.

at some point this season or after the season if they don't make the CFP (again) a donor is going to have to step in and say..we know you don't like it.. but we are shooting ourselves in the foot

 

[ericd7633]

To the contrary, no one in the SECE benefits from the lack of divisions. The SECE has been far weaker that the SECW for the past 15 years.

Getting UGA off the yearly schedule is a huge benefit to Missouri. Getting rid of divisions hurts UGA because they've been the dominate SECE program the last 7 seasons. But for everyone else it gets basically a guaranteed loss of the schedule.

 

[ericd7633]

on paper it sounds right but we know how games week in and week out don't play out on paper most of the time

You're either an elite team or not, regardless of schedule. They went 2-2 in the CFP against the SEC Champion. They had elite QB play and NFL guys all over the field.

 

[ericd7633]

But they wouldn't have gotten past Bama in the SEC in many of those years, and wouldn't have gotten past tOSU in the B1G. That's the problem when you are in the SEC in a 4 team race - you had to get past Bama/LSU/UGA and that was a lot harder than the road they had in the ACC. Never mind the wear and tear they didn't have all season in the ACC.

I can't see how what I am saying is even arguable. It's not anti-Clemson. It's clear that FSU and Clemson would almost be guaranteed to get in the CFP-12 every year in the ACC. Not so much in the SEC/B1G.

The one year they won the title, they literally beat OSU, and then Bama. And then beat by 28 in the title game two years later. You'd have more of an argument if you were talking about OU or ND.

Yeah, this version of Clemson would have more difficulty getting into the CFP, but not their elite teams.

 

[ralphiewvu]

Not that.

FWIW, let's not get too far afield from what I said ... I simply told a Clemson fan that I would careful what I wished for. It's my belief that a lot of Clemson's recent success has to do with the fact the ACC is a weak football conference. Moving to greener pastures gets you more money, but at what price? Do you think Clemson fans will be satisfied losing 3 games a year when they are used to winning the ACC and going to the CFP? There is no reason to think Clemson, who would not have been in the a 12 team CFP in 2 of the last 3 years, is going to come into the SEC/B1G and perform better.

So in the context of my post, relevant means getting into the CFP and winning from time to time. Clemson has done that in the ACC, and would likely continue to do so. I am not sure they would do that in the SEC/B1G.

I can't see that what I am typing is in any way controversial. It's not a put down of Clemson. The simple fact is that life for good teams is harder in the SEC and B1G and would be even harder if they let in FSU and Clemson. They are going from a conference they should win every year if they are as good as their fans want you to believe they are, to a conference where they will have 5-8 other teams as good if not better.

I understand what you mean but at the end of the day any team outside the P2 is taking a P2 invite and all that money as they should. Especially since it's now legal for schools to pay players. The cost of wins some seasons is a small price to pay to remain relevant. I'm serious when I say I'd rather be 9-3 with an SEC schedule (and that conference payout) then 11-1 in the B12 (and that conference payout).

 

[Thiefery]

You're either an elite team or not, regardless of schedule. They went 2-2 in the CFP against the SEC Champion. They had elite QB play and NFL guys all over the field.

didn't they go to death vs Syracruse too?

 

[ericd7633]

didn't they go to death vs Syracruse too?

If you're saying they lost/struggled against Cuse, they most definitely did. They also beat Bama by 28, and took down OSU twice in the CFP. And that 2019 OSU team was insane.