Talk Vikes and Other MN Sports Talk Vikes and Other MN Sports

Forums  Register  Login  My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums 

Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ  Ticket List  Log Out

RE: College Football (Future Vikings!)

 
Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [The Minnesota Vikings] >> Vikes Talk >> RE: College Football (Future Vikings!) Page: <<   < prev  60 61 [62] 63 64   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: College Football (Future Vikings!) - 10/14/2014 2:32:34 PM   
drviking


Posts: 36160
Joined: 7/17/2007
From: South Dakota
Status: offline
Brad, we've been over this before.

------------------------------




_____________________________

"Only one thing left to do..."
Post #: 1526
RE: College Football (Future Vikings!) - 10/14/2014 2:35:46 PM   
Bradley H


Posts: 303
Joined: 9/9/2014
From: SoCal
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: djskillz

Brad, we've been over this before. There certainly is. Because the 8th best team in the SEC should not be compared with the 2nd best team in the Pac12 or Big10 or ACC, and vice versa. They are not even matchups to determine a better conference, especially given how small the sample size is.

And yes, they have more busts, but they also have more stars. If you took the top 8-10 teams from the SEC and the top 8-10 teams from any other conference, the same numbers would apply. The "top heavy" argument that Stoops said is a joke at this point too. There was a stat the other day that there have now been 11 SEC teams ranked in the top 5 in the country in the last 2 1/2 seasons. ELEVEN. The only ones that haven't are Vandy/UT/UK.

Not sure what you are referring to with the 2nd best team or 8th best team. In the era, USC had some dominant teams and won four games against SEC programs. LSU won five against PAC programs. The Pac 10/12 recorded zero wins against Vandy, Mississippi State, Ole Miss and Kentucky, who were perennial dogs over that span. It isn't like they were playing the cupcakes of the conference. Christ, even UCLA won three or four games and they were mediocre, at-best. In return, the SEC was beating up on Washington State, Oregon State, ASU and Arizona.

_____________________________

Defense starts at the corners!
Post #: 1527
RE: College Football (Future Vikings!) - 10/14/2014 2:40:20 PM   
djskillz


Posts: 56863
Joined: 7/17/2007
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley H

quote:

ORIGINAL: djskillz

Brad, we've been over this before. There certainly is. Because the 8th best team in the SEC should not be compared with the 2nd best team in the Pac12 or Big10 or ACC, and vice versa. They are not even matchups to determine a better conference, especially given how small the sample size is.

And yes, they have more busts, but they also have more stars. If you took the top 8-10 teams from the SEC and the top 8-10 teams from any other conference, the same numbers would apply. The "top heavy" argument that Stoops said is a joke at this point too. There was a stat the other day that there have now been 11 SEC teams ranked in the top 5 in the country in the last 2 1/2 seasons. ELEVEN. The only ones that haven't are Vandy/UT/UK.

Not sure what you are referring to with the 2nd best team or 8th best team. In the era, USC had some dominant teams and won four games against SEC programs. LSU won five against PAC programs. The Pac 10/12 recorded zero wins against Vandy, Mississippi State, Ole Miss and Kentucky, who were perennial dogs over that span. It isn't like they were playing the cupcakes of the conference. Christ, even UCLA won three or four games and they were mediocre, at-best. In return, the SEC was beating up on Washington State, Oregon State, ASU and Arizona.


We did this exercise once. I'm not going to do it again. In the vast majority of matchups it was a top 2-3 team that season in one conference playing the 7th-9th best team in the other conference, or something of the like. Almost never did you have a 2 against a 2 or even a 3 against a 5, etc. Again, it's complete apples and oranges. Conference vs. conference record when that's the setup is a terrible way of measuring. Oregon vs. Michigan State this year? Great comparison of those conferences, though it's still speaking to just 2 teams. Oregon vs. say, Arkansas this year? Not such a good/fair comparison.

< Message edited by djskillz -- 10/14/2014 2:42:35 PM >


_____________________________

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring."
Post #: 1528
RE: College Football (Future Vikings!) - 10/14/2014 2:45:06 PM   
McMurfy


Posts: 13792
Joined: 7/31/2007
From: Portland, Oregon
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: djskillz

Brad, we've been over this before. There certainly is. Because the 8th best team in the SEC should not be compared with the 2nd best team in the Pac12 or Big10 or ACC, and vice versa. They are not even matchups to determine a better conference, especially given how small the sample size is.

And yes, they have more busts, but they also have more stars. If you took the top 8-10 teams from the SEC and the top 8-10 teams from any other conference, the same numbers would apply. The "top heavy" argument that Stoops said is a joke at this point too. There was a stat the other day that there have now been 11 SEC teams ranked in the top 5 in the country in the last 2 1/2 seasons. ELEVEN. The only ones that haven't are Vandy/UT/UK.



And how many of those were preseason or just lost their way out of it a la South Carolina this year?
Which again was outlined pretty clearly in the article I posted.

_____________________________

The Curse of Mauer is gone!
Post #: 1529
RE: College Football (Future Vikings!) - 10/14/2014 2:50:37 PM   
Bradley H


Posts: 303
Joined: 9/9/2014
From: SoCal
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: djskillz

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley H

quote:

ORIGINAL: djskillz

Brad, we've been over this before. There certainly is. Because the 8th best team in the SEC should not be compared with the 2nd best team in the Pac12 or Big10 or ACC, and vice versa. They are not even matchups to determine a better conference, especially given how small the sample size is.

And yes, they have more busts, but they also have more stars. If you took the top 8-10 teams from the SEC and the top 8-10 teams from any other conference, the same numbers would apply. The "top heavy" argument that Stoops said is a joke at this point too. There was a stat the other day that there have now been 11 SEC teams ranked in the top 5 in the country in the last 2 1/2 seasons. ELEVEN. The only ones that haven't are Vandy/UT/UK.

Not sure what you are referring to with the 2nd best team or 8th best team. In the era, USC had some dominant teams and won four games against SEC programs. LSU won five against PAC programs. The Pac 10/12 recorded zero wins against Vandy, Mississippi State, Ole Miss and Kentucky, who were perennial dogs over that span. It isn't like they were playing the cupcakes of the conference. Christ, even UCLA won three or four games and they were mediocre, at-best. In return, the SEC was beating up on Washington State, Oregon State, ASU and Arizona.


We did this exercise once. I'm not going to do it again. In the vast majority of matchups it was a top 2-3 team that season in one conference playing the 7th-9th best team in the other conference, or something of the like. Almost never did you have a 2 against a 2 or even a 3 against a 5, etc. Again, it's complete apples and oranges. Conference vs. conference record when that's the setup is a terrible way of measuring.

Again I disagree. The BCS era lasted 16 years. It isn't as if it was a small sampling. At the end of the day, the Pac 10/12 was .500 against the vaunted SEC. It is one of the greatest untold stories in college football history. A classic case of not being able to see the forest for the trees.

Nobody disagrees that the SEC is a special football conference. Hell, I'll even go as far as to say it is the best conference in the country. However, the separation between the SEC and the Pac 10/12 has never been as far as most football fans have been led to believe.

Most of our hype and day-to-day conversation is powered by the media. The PAC games are on late and most out east never see them. Out of sight, out of mind. The very same folks that have been hyping the SEC for 15 years are the guys that had South Carolina rated No. 2 at the beginning of the season.

The problems with rankings is that they are hyperbolic in nature and start way too early, with little information.

KEY POINT HERE>>> We start every season with 5-6 SEC programs ranked in the top 15. After beating up on The Citadel, Louisiana-Lafayette and Florida International for three weeks, they are all 3-0 and now ranked in the top-10. When they finally play one-another, it is considered a good loss because they lost to a top-10 program. IN REALITY, it was the first good team they played and they lost.

In addition, the smaller conferences out west are far more competitive than the Sun Belt, which is the annual punching bag for the SEC. Football is a game of attrition. When the SEC programs are resting their players for two quarters in weeks 1-3, the Pac 12 programs are playing four quarters against Boise State and Michigan State. The injuries add up over time while the SEC teams are still fresh in week eight. Lets also not forget that the SEC has some really bad football programs, historically. Vandy, Kentucky, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Arkansas and Tennessee change coaches about every two years. Ole Miss and Miss State are good this year, but how long has it been? It took A&M and Missouri all but one year to become a major player in the conference. What does that tell you? Neither one of those programs was a major player in the Big 12 for decades. I think Missouri had gone about three decades without a conference title.

< Message edited by Bradley H -- 10/14/2014 2:58:51 PM >


_____________________________

Defense starts at the corners!
Post #: 1530
RE: College Football (Future Vikings!) - 10/14/2014 2:52:10 PM   
djskillz


Posts: 56863
Joined: 7/17/2007
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: McMurfy

quote:

ORIGINAL: djskillz

Brad, we've been over this before. There certainly is. Because the 8th best team in the SEC should not be compared with the 2nd best team in the Pac12 or Big10 or ACC, and vice versa. They are not even matchups to determine a better conference, especially given how small the sample size is.

And yes, they have more busts, but they also have more stars. If you took the top 8-10 teams from the SEC and the top 8-10 teams from any other conference, the same numbers would apply. The "top heavy" argument that Stoops said is a joke at this point too. There was a stat the other day that there have now been 11 SEC teams ranked in the top 5 in the country in the last 2 1/2 seasons. ELEVEN. The only ones that haven't are Vandy/UT/UK.



And how many of those were preseason or just lost their way out of it a la South Carolina this year?
Which again was outlined pretty clearly in the article I posted.


Not many. Only a couple of them.

_____________________________

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring."
Post #: 1531
RE: College Football (Future Vikings!) - 10/14/2014 2:55:15 PM   
McMurfy


Posts: 13792
Joined: 7/31/2007
From: Portland, Oregon
Status: offline
The standard SEC argument at play here, it wasn't OUR best teams.
Yeah, because your best teams never play an out of conference road game.
And if it's a "neutral site" it's in places like Dallas(2 hours away from LSU) in LSU/Oregon or Atlanta (Georgia vs Boise State)

Again, they have great players Dustin, they certainly don't need any of the advantages outlined in the article.

I expect more of the same this year.

Playoff

Game 1 SEC 1 vs Pac-12 1

Game 2 SEC 2 vs Big -12 1

Just for good measure, matchup one will be in the Sugar Bowl(Make Oregon or whoever the road team)
and matchup 2 will be in the Rose Bowl.

Finals of course in Dallas.

Again, like Vegas, the odds are stacked to favor the house (SEC)

< Message edited by McMurfy -- 10/14/2014 2:58:54 PM >


_____________________________

The Curse of Mauer is gone!
Post #: 1532
RE: College Football (Future Vikings!) - 10/14/2014 2:56:52 PM   
djskillz


Posts: 56863
Joined: 7/17/2007
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline
I won't disagree on media coverage/late games, etc. Or even early rankings, which I think should be abolished (though the media will never let that happen). But 1) the vast majority of those 11 teams have been ranked top 5 late in the season, culminating in 7 straight national titles with 4-6 different schools from the conference involved in title games. And 2) Again, apples and oranges. It doesn't matter if it's 16 years if it's an apples and oranges comparison of comparative teams playing in those games in each one of those years.

_____________________________

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring."
Post #: 1533
RE: College Football (Future Vikings!) - 10/14/2014 2:59:00 PM   
McMurfy


Posts: 13792
Joined: 7/31/2007
From: Portland, Oregon
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: McMurfy

The standard SEC argument at play here, it wasn't OUR best teams.
Yeah, because your best teams never play an out of conference road game.
And if it's a "neutral site" it's in places like Dallas(2 hours away from LSU) in LSU/Oregon or Atlanta (Georgia vs Boise State)

Again, they have great players Dustin, they certainly don't need any of the advantages outlined in the article.

I expect more of the same this year.

Playoff

Game 1 SEC 1 vs Pac-12 1

Game 2 SEC 2 vs Big -12 1

Just for good measure, matchup one will be in the Sugar Bowl(Make Oregon or whoever the road team)
and matchup 2 will be in the Rose Bowl.

Finals of course in Dallas.

Again, like Vegas, the odds are stacked to favor the house (SEC)


_____________________________

The Curse of Mauer is gone!
Post #: 1534
RE: College Football (Future Vikings!) - 10/14/2014 2:59:36 PM   
djskillz


Posts: 56863
Joined: 7/17/2007
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: McMurfy

The standard SEC argument at play here, it wasn't OUR best teams.
Yeah, because your best teams never play an out of conference road game.
And if it's a "neutral site" it's in places like Dallas(2 hours away from LSU) in LSU/Oregon or Atlanta (Georgia vs Boise State)

Again, they have great players Dustin, they certainly don't need any of the advantages outlined in the article.

I expect more of the same this year.

Playoff

SEC 1 vs Pac-12 1

SEC 2 vs Big -12 1

Just for good measure, matchup two will be in the Rose Bowl(Make Oregon or whoever the road team)
and matchup 2 will be in the Sugar Bowl.

Finals of course in Dallas.

Again, like Vegas, the odds are stacked to favor the house (SEC)


Maybe so. But again, how do you overcome that? Bowl games are always going to be played more in the South because there's more fan support there than there is out west. And there's no changing that scheduling of non-conference games when there's so much more to lose for an SEC team right now due to the depth of their conference. That won't change until we have a vastly expanded playoff, which is probably something like 4-5 years away.

As to the matchups this year, do you not think that at least 2 of the SEC teams are as good as any of the Pac12/ACC/Big10/Big12 teams? Screw conferences. If 2 of the best 4 teams are in the SEC, they deserve to be in it. If 4 Pac12 teams are the 4 best in the country, they deserve to be in it. IMO.

< Message edited by djskillz -- 10/14/2014 3:01:10 PM >


_____________________________

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring."
Post #: 1535
RE: College Football (Future Vikings!) - 10/14/2014 3:01:44 PM   
McMurfy


Posts: 13792
Joined: 7/31/2007
From: Portland, Oregon
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: djskillz

quote:

ORIGINAL: McMurfy

The standard SEC argument at play here, it wasn't OUR best teams.
Yeah, because your best teams never play an out of conference road game.
And if it's a "neutral site" it's in places like Dallas(2 hours away from LSU) in LSU/Oregon or Atlanta (Georgia vs Boise State)

Again, they have great players Dustin, they certainly don't need any of the advantages outlined in the article.

I expect more of the same this year.

Playoff

SEC 1 vs Pac-12 1

SEC 2 vs Big -12 1

Just for good measure, matchup two will be in the Rose Bowl(Make Oregon or whoever the road team)
and matchup 2 will be in the Sugar Bowl.

Finals of course in Dallas.

Again, like Vegas, the odds are stacked to favor the house (SEC)


Maybe so. But again, how do you overcome that? Bowl games are always going to be played more in the South because there's more fan support there than there is out west. And there's no changing that scheduling of non-conference games when there's so much more to lose for an SEC team right now due to the depth of their conference. That won't change until we have a vastly expanded playoff, which is probably something like 4-5 years away.




Again, I agree. But I'm not arguing on behalf of the West, I'm arguing on behalf of everyone else outside of the SEC

_____________________________

The Curse of Mauer is gone!
Post #: 1536
RE: College Football (Future Vikings!) - 10/14/2014 3:02:35 PM   
McMurfy


Posts: 13792
Joined: 7/31/2007
From: Portland, Oregon
Status: offline
At the very least there is some acknowledgement of a possible gaming of the system at play here.

_____________________________

The Curse of Mauer is gone!
Post #: 1537
RE: College Football (Future Vikings!) - 10/14/2014 3:03:07 PM   
Bradley H


Posts: 303
Joined: 9/9/2014
From: SoCal
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: djskillz

quote:

ORIGINAL: McMurfy

quote:

ORIGINAL: djskillz

Brad, we've been over this before. There certainly is. Because the 8th best team in the SEC should not be compared with the 2nd best team in the Pac12 or Big10 or ACC, and vice versa. They are not even matchups to determine a better conference, especially given how small the sample size is.

And yes, they have more busts, but they also have more stars. If you took the top 8-10 teams from the SEC and the top 8-10 teams from any other conference, the same numbers would apply. The "top heavy" argument that Stoops said is a joke at this point too. There was a stat the other day that there have now been 11 SEC teams ranked in the top 5 in the country in the last 2 1/2 seasons. ELEVEN. The only ones that haven't are Vandy/UT/UK.



And how many of those were preseason or just lost their way out of it a la South Carolina this year?
Which again was outlined pretty clearly in the article I posted.


Not many. Only a couple of them.

South Carolina and A&M this season are a perfect example of the major hyperbole at the beginning of the season. A&M embarrassed the Gamecocks on opening day and became the immediate darlings. In reality, South Carolina was really bad and had no business in the top-25. A&M just beat them because they were a better football team, not because they were a great football team.

_____________________________

Defense starts at the corners!
Post #: 1538
RE: College Football (Future Vikings!) - 10/14/2014 3:05:38 PM   
djskillz


Posts: 56863
Joined: 7/17/2007
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: McMurfy

At the very least there is some acknowledgement of a possible gaming of the system at play here.


I think any time you have money involved (which is almost always) there's some of that. But I don't think it proves that the SEC is overrated either.

_____________________________

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring."
Post #: 1539
RE: College Football (Future Vikings!) - 10/14/2014 3:05:43 PM   
Bradley H


Posts: 303
Joined: 9/9/2014
From: SoCal
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: McMurfy

At the very least there is some acknowledgement of a possible gaming of the system at play here.

No question about it. ESPN has an SEC channel. What are the odds they are going to pump the SEC seven days a week? Do they ever come back and say they were wrong? Hell no, they just move on to the next overhyped program.

A perfect example this season is Alabama. They have zero business in the top-15. If you watch their games, they are mediocre, at-best.

_____________________________

Defense starts at the corners!
Post #: 1540
RE: College Football (Future Vikings!) - 10/14/2014 3:06:30 PM   
djskillz


Posts: 56863
Joined: 7/17/2007
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley H

quote:

ORIGINAL: djskillz

quote:

ORIGINAL: McMurfy

quote:

ORIGINAL: djskillz

Brad, we've been over this before. There certainly is. Because the 8th best team in the SEC should not be compared with the 2nd best team in the Pac12 or Big10 or ACC, and vice versa. They are not even matchups to determine a better conference, especially given how small the sample size is.

And yes, they have more busts, but they also have more stars. If you took the top 8-10 teams from the SEC and the top 8-10 teams from any other conference, the same numbers would apply. The "top heavy" argument that Stoops said is a joke at this point too. There was a stat the other day that there have now been 11 SEC teams ranked in the top 5 in the country in the last 2 1/2 seasons. ELEVEN. The only ones that haven't are Vandy/UT/UK.



And how many of those were preseason or just lost their way out of it a la South Carolina this year?
Which again was outlined pretty clearly in the article I posted.


Not many. Only a couple of them.

South Carolina and A&M this season are a perfect example of the major hyperbole at the beginning of the season. A&M embarrassed the Gamecocks on opening day and became the immediate darlings. In reality, South Carolina was really bad and had no business in the top-25. A&M just beat them because they were a better football team, not because they were a great football team.


I agree with that. But the same could be said of Florida State. There's no way in hell Florida State has played like the best football team in the country this year, but they were ranked #1 until this past week. Notre Dame, ditto. Etc.

There shouldn't be rankings at all until 5-6 weeks in, but that's not going to change. And so failing that, your rankings are going to be based on "talent". Well, the SEC's teams have more talent (look at the recruiting rankings) than teams from other conferences, so...

_____________________________

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring."
Post #: 1541
RE: College Football (Future Vikings!) - 10/14/2014 3:06:36 PM   
Bradley H


Posts: 303
Joined: 9/9/2014
From: SoCal
Status: offline
IMO, Georgia will represent the SEC in the final four.

_____________________________

Defense starts at the corners!
Post #: 1542
RE: College Football (Future Vikings!) - 10/14/2014 3:08:20 PM   
McMurfy


Posts: 13792
Joined: 7/31/2007
From: Portland, Oregon
Status: offline
Dustin,
please explain to me how Texas A&M and Missouri,
Two teams who rarely if ever competed in the Big8/12 suddenly found so much immediate success in the SEC, other than by mere participation in it and of course one finally decent QB

_____________________________

The Curse of Mauer is gone!
Post #: 1543
RE: College Football (Future Vikings!) - 10/14/2014 3:08:47 PM   
Bradley H


Posts: 303
Joined: 9/9/2014
From: SoCal
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: djskillz

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley H

quote:

ORIGINAL: djskillz

quote:

ORIGINAL: McMurfy

quote:

ORIGINAL: djskillz

Brad, we've been over this before. There certainly is. Because the 8th best team in the SEC should not be compared with the 2nd best team in the Pac12 or Big10 or ACC, and vice versa. They are not even matchups to determine a better conference, especially given how small the sample size is.

And yes, they have more busts, but they also have more stars. If you took the top 8-10 teams from the SEC and the top 8-10 teams from any other conference, the same numbers would apply. The "top heavy" argument that Stoops said is a joke at this point too. There was a stat the other day that there have now been 11 SEC teams ranked in the top 5 in the country in the last 2 1/2 seasons. ELEVEN. The only ones that haven't are Vandy/UT/UK.



And how many of those were preseason or just lost their way out of it a la South Carolina this year?
Which again was outlined pretty clearly in the article I posted.


Not many. Only a couple of them.

South Carolina and A&M this season are a perfect example of the major hyperbole at the beginning of the season. A&M embarrassed the Gamecocks on opening day and became the immediate darlings. In reality, South Carolina was really bad and had no business in the top-25. A&M just beat them because they were a better football team, not because they were a great football team.


I agree with that. But the same could be said of Florida State. There's no way in hell Florida State has played like the best football team in the country this year, but they were ranked #1 until this past week. Notre Dame, ditto. Etc.

There shouldn't be rankings at all until 5-6 weeks in, but that's not going to change.

For the most part I would agree. They haven't played well, but they did beat Clemson and Oklahoma State, who are decent teams.

_____________________________

Defense starts at the corners!
Post #: 1544
RE: College Football (Future Vikings!) - 10/14/2014 3:09:26 PM   
djskillz


Posts: 56863
Joined: 7/17/2007
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley H

IMO, Georgia will represent the SEC in the final four.


Certainly possible. They have by far the easiest schedule road to get there (just Auburn to go, at home) vs. the what the top 4 SEC teams have to face. I think it's going to hurt them if they play in the title game and lose though. I expect the winner of the SEC title game and the "3rd" team (the best team not to make the title game) will end up in the final 4 from the SEC. The team that loses the SEC title game will have a "late loss" and will find themselves out of it.

< Message edited by djskillz -- 10/14/2014 3:14:27 PM >


_____________________________

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring."
Post #: 1545
RE: College Football (Future Vikings!) - 10/14/2014 3:12:12 PM   
djskillz


Posts: 56863
Joined: 7/17/2007
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: McMurfy

Dustin,
please explain to me how Texas A&M and Missouri,
Two teams who rarely if ever competed in the Big8/12 suddenly found so much immediate success in the SEC, other than by mere participation in it and of course one finally decent QB


A&M was on the rise anyway. I would say it coincided with their massive improvements in recruiting, Texas' step back, and Kevin Sumlin, who is a hell of a coach. And that rise has continued with more media, money, and facility improvements. People point to Manziel, but look at their talent the last couple years. They've had 4 guys drafted above Manziel in the last 2 years. More of the top players are wanting to play in the SEC because of the success. Again, it's a vicious cycle that is only widening the gap between the SEC and other conferences right now. Each year the distance grows.

Missouri found some initial success with an experienced team, and now have dropped off considerably towards the bottom of the conference.

_____________________________

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring."
Post #: 1546
RE: College Football (Future Vikings!) - 10/14/2014 3:12:25 PM   
Bradley H


Posts: 303
Joined: 9/9/2014
From: SoCal
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: McMurfy

Dustin,
please explain to me how Texas A&M and Missouri,
Two teams who rarely if ever competed in the Big8/12 suddenly found so much immediate success in the SEC, other than by mere participation in it and of course one finally decent QB

Part of the problem is that the SEC East is not very good, which Missouri capitalized on.

In terms of A&M, going to the SEC gave them some huge recruiting advantages in the state of Texas. What has happened to the University of Texas? They are now a below average program. It was a brilliant move by A&M and I expect to see them be very competitive in the future in the SEC. Why? Because kids from the state of Texas want to play against Alabama, LSU, Florida, Georgia, etc... instead of Baylor, TCU, West Virginia, Kansas and Iowa State.

_____________________________

Defense starts at the corners!
Post #: 1547
RE: College Football (Future Vikings!) - 10/14/2014 3:13:38 PM   
djskillz


Posts: 56863
Joined: 7/17/2007
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline
Brad beat me to it and we agree.



_____________________________

"People ask me what I do in winter when there's no baseball. I'll tell you what I do. I stare out the window and wait for spring."
Post #: 1548
RE: College Football (Future Vikings!) - 10/14/2014 3:17:25 PM   
McMurfy


Posts: 13792
Joined: 7/31/2007
From: Portland, Oregon
Status: offline
Yeah, I get that, but success was immediate and recruiting usually isn't.
Put Texas in the SEC this year and they not only would have started in the Top 10, they also would have competed and likely knocked off an SEC West Power team.

_____________________________

The Curse of Mauer is gone!
Post #: 1549
RE: College Football (Future Vikings!) - 10/14/2014 3:20:48 PM   
McMurfy


Posts: 13792
Joined: 7/31/2007
From: Portland, Oregon
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: djskillz

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley H

quote:

ORIGINAL: djskillz

quote:

ORIGINAL: McMurfy

quote:

ORIGINAL: djskillz

Brad, we've been over this before. There certainly is. Because the 8th best team in the SEC should not be compared with the 2nd best team in the Pac12 or Big10 or ACC, and vice versa. They are not even matchups to determine a better conference, especially given how small the sample size is.

And yes, they have more busts, but they also have more stars. If you took the top 8-10 teams from the SEC and the top 8-10 teams from any other conference, the same numbers would apply. The "top heavy" argument that Stoops said is a joke at this point too. There was a stat the other day that there have now been 11 SEC teams ranked in the top 5 in the country in the last 2 1/2 seasons. ELEVEN. The only ones that haven't are Vandy/UT/UK.



And how many of those were preseason or just lost their way out of it a la South Carolina this year?
Which again was outlined pretty clearly in the article I posted.


Not many. Only a couple of them.

South Carolina and A&M this season are a perfect example of the major hyperbole at the beginning of the season. A&M embarrassed the Gamecocks on opening day and became the immediate darlings. In reality, South Carolina was really bad and had no business in the top-25. A&M just beat them because they were a better football team, not because they were a great football team.


I agree with that. But the same could be said of Florida State. There's no way in hell Florida State has played like the best football team in the country this year, but they were ranked #1 until this past week. Notre Dame, ditto. Etc.

There shouldn't be rankings at all until 5-6 weeks in, but that's not going to change. And so failing that, your rankings are going to be based on "talent". Well, the SEC's teams have more talent (look at the recruiting rankings) than teams from other conferences, so...




I think when you are the defending champion, undefeated and have returned some key players, a benefit of the doubt is deserved.

_____________________________

The Curse of Mauer is gone!
Post #: 1550
Page:   <<   < prev  60 61 [62] 63 64   next >   >>
All Forums >> [The Minnesota Vikings] >> Vikes Talk >> RE: College Football (Future Vikings!) Page: <<   < prev  60 61 [62] 63 64   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode