Seriously. On the upside, this'll lead to some master-level trolling of the Agro-Americans by Steve Spurrier.
I wasn't necessarily against SEC expansion, but I was against A&M in the expansion. They're just weird. Their 1950s looking ROTC cheering section, their raising a stink about us moving their student section, their suing everything that moves regarding "The 12th Man" (don't sue me TAMU.) Gene Stallings is the only reason I semi-tolerate them. That being said, I hope they have current Ole Miss level success in the SEC.
I was about to start write more, but I decided not to for two reasons: 1. I'm an alumnus of the school that's the object of most of their obsessive goofiness, so my perspective is a bit skewed. 2. I could literally write page after page devoted to describing it. I will say that most of it originates with the Corps of Cadets. And while less than 10% of the student body belongs to the Corps, they are the most visible representatives of the student body and there is little impetus on the part of the students or alumni to change this. But whenever you see an example of Aggie goofiness -- the silly "yell leaders," the nut grabbing, the stupid hand gestures, the no walking on the grass, the saluting of a damn dog, the terrorizing of the MOB, the drawing of the swords on SMU cheerleaders -- chances are extremely good that it originated with the Corps. For the ultimate example of Corps goofiness, google "Aggie Corps jar."
Aren't you glad the SEC decided to marginally increase the ratings of their games in Houston and D/FW TV markets by bringing them in?
I'd have rather had TCU. Horned Frogs are way cooler and the last thing we needed was another team with unis in the maroon/crimson/red family in the West.
The SEC should've brought in Florida State and Clemson and called it a day. Hell, add Georgia Tech and Louisville. But that would've meant pissing off Florida, South Carolina, Georgia, and Kentucky, so that wasn't going to happen. Instead, they get two middle-of-the-pack programs from the Big 12 who will do nothing but dilute the quality of the conference.
Florida State was invited back when South Carolina and Arkansas joined, I think. They didn't want to come in at the time. Tech's got ugly history with Bama and a long memory- they'd probably stay put. What they should have done is take Clemson and South Carolina, put Tennessee in the West and leave Arkansas where they were. Quiet as it's kept, the SEC's currently relevant CFB programs (Bama, LSU) don't want any more competition. And they're not diluting anything- you're judging an entire conference on one traditional power (Bama), one resurrected former power (LSU) and two programs (UF and Auburn) whose QB play made them better than they'll be again for some time. Spurrier's gone, Tebow's gone, Urban's gone. Muschamp won't do. Cam plays on Sunday now. Nobody just reloads but Bama and LSU- Mizzou and TAMU will be fine.
Well, yeah. It's the reason why they took Mizzou and A&M, as opposed any of a number schools nearby -- like FSU or Clemson -- who actually bring a bit of national relevance to the table. And this is where you're wrong. Say what you will about Florida, Auburn, and Georgia, but even if they're not quite at the level of Bama and LSU, they still have the ability to put together a national contender once or twice a decade. That's more than A&M and Mizzou have shown. Mizzou hasn't won a conference title in football, shared or otherwise, since 1969. And A&M? Well, they won a conference title in the Big 12, but not since Texas and Oklahoma got their acts together in late '90s, and with Tech's moment of glory under the Dread Pirate Leach and with OSU's rise over the past decade, they've usually been closer to the bottom of the Big 12 than the top. In other words, both programs are the epitome of second-rate. I guess it all depends on your definition of "fine" is. Contending for national championships? LOLNO. Contending for conference championships? LOLNO. Winning a few games here and there and getting big checks to provide more content for the SEC's rights deals? Of course.
I think both Mizzou and TAMU can do what Auburn's managed, which is to have someone fall into their lap in 2010 and one great group of players in 2004. Florida won't be putting anything together with the KA Muschamp as their coach. My definition of fine is anywhere between "absolute bottom-dwelling catfish" and "not quite going to the B(C)S title game". Tennessee hasn't won its conference title since 1998. Georgia, not since 2005. It does them no good whatsoever to ge better than (insert team here____________) if they're not winning a championship poll. If Arkansas isn't going to the Dome to play the East champ, they may as well be Vanderbilt. That's what they were doing in the Big XII, by your own admission. Why not move and pretty much guarantee yourself a shot at the title on that one year out of fifty that you're good enough?
No, no they can't do that. If they could, they would've done that in the Big 12, but they didn't. You're talking about Auburn's two instances of being a national contender in the last decade. That's far more than either A&M or Mizzou can say, because Auburn, even if they're not at the same level as Bama and LSU, is still getting a higher caliber of team most years than either A&M or Mizzou. Cam Newton might've fallen into their laps in 2010, but the rest of the team was still far better than what A&M or Mizzou throws out there on a yearly basis. OK, so they'll be fine just like Ole Miss is fine. Honestly, I think that the name of the conference matters less than the name of the university in those matters. In other words, Alabama got into the big game last year because they were Alabama vs. some johnny-come-latelys from Stillwater, not because they were SEC vs. Big 12. So given all of that, I don't think that being in the SEC "guarantees" them that shot any more than being in the Big 12. If A&M or Mizzou is ever in the position of needing the pollsters to pick them over a "name brand" from another conference, being in the SEC won't help them one dadgummed bit.
Or MSU, or Kentucky, or Tennessee, or Georgia or Arkansas. Yeah. 10-2 or 11-1 going to some non B(C)S title bowl or 7-4 going to some non B(C)S title bowl... all the same. Rhiannon. Look at OU from 2003 and tell me that wasn't a classic case of football conference winning out over an academic conference. Only the AP knew what time it was, God bless 'em. But I agree to a point- OU carries more weight than Auburn, and that's why they got to play USC in 2004. I think the SEC and its fellators in the media have changed the game significantly at this point. OSU would have lost out to any SEC program decent enough to win the conference, not just Bama. As I said earlier, the blowjobbing from the media has changed the game. If Mizzou or TAMU can win the SEC they'll skate into the B(C)S title game regardless of who else is competing for that spot.
As I recall, the computer rankings carried a lot more weight in 2003 than they do now and OU got a lot more help from playing in the Big 12 than USC got from playing in a Pac-12 which was, outside of USC, pretty crappy in 2003. It depends. If it's Okie State versus, say, South Carolina, it's a push. But if it's Okie State vs. Florida or Auburn, then those programs win out because they're bigger brands. But the SEC's fellators in the media aren't a game changer because they are and will always be frontrunners and whores and their allegiances are driven by what gets them eyeballs. You as a USC fan should know that. If you don't think that those fellators' loyalties to the SEC are a mile wide and an inch deep, look how quickly the ball got rolling on a four-team playoff after Bama vs. LSU, Act 2, got the worst ratings ever for a BCS championship game. The SEC's fellators might like the SEC, but not as much as they like money, and if the SEC is costing them money... If Mizzou or A&M is up against Ohio State or Michigan or USC or Texas or Oklahoma or (God forbid) Notre Dame to get chosen to get into the BCS title game or whatever playoff gets adopted, there isn't a chance in the world that the media narrative isn't going to magically change to "You know, the SEC is down this year," especially once the current SEC-uber-alles cycle is over.
Kansas State won the 2003 Big XII. Kansas. State. USC, Wazoo, Oregon or Cal would have destroyed Kansas State in 2003, but Oklahoma couldn't?? Auburn is a bigger brand only because Cam landed in their laps. Hell, Auburn IS the Texas A&M of Alabama. They're not special- they're a few miles from a program that is. Auburn just made the winning bid. Don't you get that, once you get below LSU and Bama, this stuff feeds off itself? Those same fellators are now gagging on SEC nutz and taint as the SEC whines about conference champs comprising the 4-team POS sham they're going to call a playoff. ESPN had no business even airing a request to use polls other than to ridicule it. But they did air it. They will get the nod over Ohio state because the Buckeyes are paper tigers and everyone knows it now. They'll get the nod over Michigan or USC. OU might escape unscathed. Notre Dame never redshirted Phillip Sims so AJ McCarron could ultimately become the new COTF (Coach on the Field). Former Irish QB Tony Rice never had his OL allow him to get hit like a tackling dummy in practice because of a White gf (Walter Lewis was Alabama 1982 QB). Notre Dame took Willingham (third choice, but still) even tho he didn't go to school there. Alabama, OTOH, treated alum/All-American/Bryant player/son of the ********ing team Chaplain Croom like a 'ho four times- the last hiring a traffic cone in Mike Shula to keep Croom out of Bear's office. Charlie Strong had to go to Louisville because no one in Gainesville wanted to see him kiss his White wife on the fi'ty after a win. They'd rather have a coach who sang Dixie as a member of the inbred fraternity Kappa Alpha. Notre Dame never benched their conference-winning QB (Zow) for damn near a season looking for the next COTF. Notre Dame wasn't the team whining in 1966 about losing a poll while simultaneously operating a segregationist program and "university". Notre Dame fans weren't the ones teaching their children to hate another program because they're butthurt about not being able to field an all-White team and win polls. Notre Dame fans weren't teaching their children to curse and spit at the losing Irish kids in Bryant-Denny more than a quarter-century later because they're still butthurt about not being able to field an all-White team and win polls.. Notre Dame doesn't have a history of taking Black HS QBs and turning them into DBs and WRs because the QB position was off-limits to them. Notre Dame fans didn't hurl slurs at their own Homecoming Queen in the mid-80s. Notre Dame didn't need Sam Cunningham to run around, past and over their defenses in 1970 to prove that athleticism knows no color. Notre Dame didn't tell the state's best QB prospect two seasons after Cunningham's visit that they "weren't ready" for him to play, so he'd best cross the border and start at the equally respected program there. Notre Dame didn't tell Black players in the late 70s to run out of bounds or allow themselves to be tackled on the two so a White ballcarrier could score the TD on the next play. Notre Dame fans don't poison trees. Notre Dame fans don't drop their genitals on drunk people and call it a good time. Them's the Cliff Notes, Chief. I can fill a small town's library with 5-point single-spaced text of this conference's moral shortcomings, but you get the pic. What has Notre Dame done that God ought to forbid? I think they'd talk about how great Mizzou has become, like they did AJ McCarron for those great handoffs during the B(C)S game v. LSU.
Yes, Kansas State. I don't know if you've watched college football in the last 20 years, but they've been a pretty good team*. * Offer not valid in seasons when Bill Snyder isn't the coach. Slow your roll. USC, yes. Wazoo... I can buy their beating K-State, although not destroying them. But not Oregon, who was rather ordinary. And definitely not Cal. You know how I can say "definitely not Cal"? Because K-State beat Cal that very season, 42-28, on August 23 in Kansas City. Furthermore, K-State's three regular season losses came by a combined 15 points, with two on the road in Austin and Stillwater. (The third was a home game against Marshall. Oops.) So I'm not sure where you get this idea that the 2003 K-State team was garbage or that their winning the Big 12 title was somehow proof that the Big 12 was not very good that year. (As an aside, their winning the Big 12 that year screwed Texas out of an at-large BCS berth. Texas was #5 in the nation and would've gotten a BCS at-large berth that instead went to OU. Yet another reminder that you can never count on the Sooners not to screw things up. Instead, Texas went to the Holiday Bowl, where they lost to Wazoo 28-20.) Holy crap. It's almost as if you're trying to make my case that the current system favors pedigree over actual on-the-field results. Auburn had won a national championship and had had two Heisman winners before Cam Newton was even born. They had had 16 Top Ten finishes and 10 conference championships before Cam Newton. They're not Bama, but they were a brand before Cam Newton bombed out of Florida. And they certainly don't belong in the same breath as the perpetual comic relief that are the Texas A&M Aggies. Just because the SEC happens to be right on the issue doesn't mean that agreeing with them is "gagging on SEC nutz and taint." Seriously, the conference that was most hurt by last year's BCS fiasco, the Big 12, agree with them on this. Meanwhile, I'm supposed to accept that a four-team playoff with LSU, Oklahoma State, Alabama, and Oregon is somehow inferior to one with LSU, Oklahoma State, Oregon, and Wisconsin? (If you go by last year's rankings) They killed a graduate assistant. Aside from that, they're Notre Dame and regularly indulge in the cardinal sins of greed and pride under the guise of "remaining independent... but only in football." (Oh yeah, there was whole "we don't fire coaches in the middle of their first contract... unless their name is Tyrone Willingham" thing. Willingham was not a good coach, but neither was Bob Davie.) As an alum of the school whose recent rise has been rationalized away as "Well, the SEC East is down," I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that. And seriously, the network that paid big money to carry the game was talking up one of the participants? Well, I never. Surely, as a USC fan, this must gall you to no end.
LSU blanked Bama in Tuscaloosa early in the 2011 season and were beaten like a rented mule in the game that mattered. But I'll concede Cal. 1957 (and 1972)? Shit, Syracuse and Navy have been powers since 1957. I think you have a bias against Texas A&M They're wrong. That system still depends on polls. The conference champ system helps eliminate the idiocy of polls. {quote] I'm supposed to accept that a four-team playoff with LSU, Oklahoma State, Alabama, and Oregon is somehow inferior to one with LSU, Oklahoma State, Oregon, and Wisconsin? (If you go by last year's rankings)[/quote] You're supposed to think that maybe rewarding success on the field over success in the polls is a wise idea. Bama won a pageant and as a result got to go to the B(C)S title game. I'm supposed to think a pageant is the best way to determine who plays for a so-called championship? Sad as that was, it was accidental. Everything I listed was deliberate, institutionalized, and designed to affect more than one person. Nope. Like dozens of programs at the upper level of CFB? They never pulled out of NCAA tournaments because they feared cooties from intergrated programs. See: SEC basketball. Ultimately, they hired him- gotta start somewhere. What's more, they didn't hire a Shula to avoid him. I think the East is a joke, but South Carolina is it's best program ATM. The name Spurrier will carry some weight if the Cocks ever reach the point of national contenda.
It's probably for the best, since otherwise, I would've had to point out that Cal finished a very pedestrian 8-6, even if they did beat USC that year. My point is that Auburn was something before Cam got there. They're wrong. That system still depends on polls. The conference champ system helps eliminate the idiocy of polls. The only reason why Bama was even in a position to be a contestant in that pageant is because they had one loss all season, while Wisconsin had two. And if Michigan State had won the B1G Championship Game, they would've still had two losses. It wasn't an accident, it was negligence. The vast majority of whom don't present themselves as operating to a higher standard. If you're trying to make the case that SEC programs in general and Bama in particular have shameful histories with regard to race relations, you'll get no argument from me. My point is simply that Notre Dame is hardly the best counterexample . But not nearly enough to counterbalance the fact that they're South Carolina.
It's a pageant any time you're asking people to decide on anything. Taking the conference champs helps to cure that ailment. In a proper system, Alabama wouldn't have been part of that champs-only playoff. That's fine- the rules ought to exclude teams that cannot win their conference OR the rules ought to include enough teams to have every conference champ plus whoever we all (think we) know is the best team. There've been several pageants in the past few seasons, and last year was one of them. It's completely arguable that OSU earned the right to get their ass kicked by LSU. Duly noted. Wasn't making light of it. No, they just present themselves as Regular Folks' Schools who Hate On Big Bad Notre Dame. But no one cares what the Irish do in basketball. Hating on alleged arrogance only between August and December raises a red flag with me. It isn't that they're the best counterexample, it's that they're such a hotspot with a bunch of fans around here. Alabama fans who hate Notre Dame hate them for Parseghian going for a tie. But they have only themselves to blame for not having a team that could win polls (if that's what put ND over the top in that poll). I disagree. If Kentucky was to win the SEC, that might happen. South Carolina under Spurrier holds high enough status to get in.
1966 Alabama is the only team to ever start the season #1 and go undefeated and untied and not win the championship. Alabama's integration policies might have been indefensible, but that's just a silly statement saying it wasn't a team that could win polls considering Bama was coming off back to back championships in '64 and '65.