Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Talk To Your Kids About the SEC Myth


MLD Woody

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 330
  • Created
  • Last Reply

 

I said "no one ELSE," meaning, only Miami and USC had won titles from those conferences. As opposed to the SEC having 4 different teams win them (even if none of them count, apparently, because tia can't just give credit where it's due).

Maybe I didn't follow the argument from between the two of you.....I am just stating facts.

 

For a bunch of people that don't care about which conference is best, you sure waste a lot of time debating it (in fact I can find threads started by YOU on the subject).

You are the one stuck on the subject. I simply reply to what is said basically on it. If you don't want the matter discussed STFU.

Like I said....if any other fan of any other team in the SEC thinks that they get to share in the glory of Alabama's titles....they are a fucking idiot.

Alabama won those titles. LSU won theirs. Florida won theirs. Auburn won its. No one else, just because of conference affilation gets to share another team's titles.

Do you think for one fucking moment that OSU fans give credence to the thought that Michigan fans get to share the current title. Fuck no. Fuck off Michigan fan if you think that.....and that includes Woody.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And those facts were already acknowledged by moi.

 

You are the one that has started threads on it, actually. Did I start this thread? Did an SEC fan?

I didn't start this.....not sure who did.

 

And FYI....I don't acknowledge the concept of an "SEC fan".

 

Like I said, that would be as counterintuitive as someone claiming to be an "AFC North" fan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't start this.....not sure who did.

 

And FYI....I don't acknowledge the concept of an "SEC fan".

 

Like I said, that would be as counterintuitive as someone claiming to be an "AFC North" fan.

Unless your team just sucks. Then claiming to be a fan of the conference helps. Maybe Brwosn fans should think about just becoming AFCN fans then we can claim Steeler, Raven and Bengals wins as our own. Dulls the pain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

No not you. Woody. In between making excuses for why teams' championships don't count, try actually reading the thread.

 

 

In my defense, that takes time away from forming illogical and emotionally driven arguments.

 

I will instead reject your reality and substitute my own. Good day, sir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a northerner who likes the Big 12. The SEC at this point and over the last 10 years is the best conference in college football.

 

Of course they think they are the best. They play in warm, almost perfect conditions every week.

 

The pac 12 atleast plays games in Washington and Oregon.

 

The big 12 plays games in iowa, WV, and Kansas

 

When did Alabama, LSU, FLA, GA, play a game that was on the road in temps below 50 degrees?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course they think they are the best. They play in warm, almost perfect conditions every week.

 

The pac 12 atleast plays games in Washington and Oregon.

 

The big 12 plays games in iowa, WV, and Kansas

 

When did Alabama, LSU, FLA, GA, play a game that was on the road in temps below 50 degrees?

 

 

You can argue all the odd points you want but the tale of the tape is National Championships, National Championship games, bowl records and head to head records.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be hard to argue they haven't had the most success over the last decade.

 

It would also be hard to argue they haven't benefited from numerous advantages

 

 

This is why this board frustrates me so much, the "but" factor. The Browns suck but, ..... . No the Browns suck, end of story, no silver lining and no qualification. The SEC is the best college football conference the last decade, no need to qualify it. On the field they are better. Have there been eras where the Big 10 & Big 8 were better, absolutely, it's ok the Big 12 and Big 10 aren't better. No one is a lesser person for cheering for their team however arguing that the SEC isn't the best is parallel to arguing the Browns are a head coach away from the Super Bowl, delusional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are either of the two things I just said incorrect?

 

 

There are advantages to being a top SEC football team but I don't think any of them are contrived or manufactured like many suggest. So if your suggestion is SEC teams win Championships because of a rigged system, then no I don't think you are correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is a mixed bag

 

 

Power 5 conferences get preferential treatment. I'm an Oklahoma fan and while they had a great run they weren't one of the best 4 in the country. If Iowa beat MSU they would have gotten in to the final 4 and they may not be top 10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a northerner who likes the Big 12. The SEC at this point and over the last 10 years is the best conference in college football.

 

Good job! Except I don't know how you can like the Big 12. OU is cool though. Always liked them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course they think they are the best. They play in warm, almost perfect conditions every week.

 

The pac 12 atleast plays games in Washington and Oregon.

 

The big 12 plays games in iowa, WV, and Kansas

 

When did Alabama, LSU, FLA, GA, play a game that was on the road in temps below 50 degrees?

 

So when SEC teams beat northern teams in warm conditions is it because they're more used to playing in the warmth? Is this really what we've been reduced to? I mean, Woody's argument that pretty much all the bowls are down south is actually somewhat makes sense. You blaming the weather when it's the same for both teams when they play each other is just plain weird.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess when your team is largely irrelevant on a national scale and has no hope of winning a conference championship in the next 20 years you will resort to rooting for the conference it is in.

 

Lol@Texas A&M

 

The SEC only let you join because it wanted to lure TEXAS into the conference. You suck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The SEC only let you join because it wanted to lure TEXAS into the conference. You suck

 

You do know of course that there is a voting block of teams that will exclude Texas from ever joining. So on this you are wrong. The SEC wanted the Texas area added to it's footprint and Texas was too snobbish to even consider requesting admittance. They wanted the PAC 12 instead so they could be in the same league with Berkeley and Stanford. The reason there is a voting block is not just to keep Texas out, but to also exclude other in state schools for SEC teams. FSU & Miami (Florida), Clemson (S.Caro.), Georgia Tech (Georgia), Louisville (Kentucky), and of course Texas (Texas A&M). It takes 2/3 of member schools to accept a new member and those 5 are the voting block that protect each other.

 

Additionally A&M already had a long term rivalry with Ark. and LSU (though they stopped playing us when they lost too many) so A&M was the better fit. Also the land grant schools (think agricultural & mechanical) under the Morrill Act included A&M, Ark. LSU, Tenn., Miss. St., Ga., Florida and Auburn. Texas was not formed under that act, so traditionally they do not have that common ancestry with most of the SEC.

 

And the last factor is that the SEC schools saw how texas poisoned the well both with the SWC and then the Big XII. They wanted no part of such selfisness. In the SEC there is equal revenue sharing and an SEC Network. They did not want a team that chased out first NU and CU, and then later Mo. and A&M with their Longhorn Network $400 mil. ESPN deal that gave $0 to the other member schools. OU tried to leave to the PAC 12 too, but refused to go when the PAC 12 would not also take their long term rival OSU. The final straw for A&M was when Texas announced they were going to air HS games of recruits they were after, later ruled unfair by the NCAA after A&M had already decided to go to the SEC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

You do know of course that there is a voting block of teams that will exclude Texas from ever joining. So on this you are wrong. The SEC wanted the Texas area added to it's footprint and Texas was too snobbish to even consider requesting admittance. They wanted the PAC 12 instead so they could be in the same league with Berkeley and Stanford. The reason there is a voting block is not just to keep Texas out, but to also exclude other in state schools for SEC teams. FSU & Miami (Florida), Clemson (S.Caro.), Georgia Tech (Georgia), Louisville (Kentucky), and of course Texas (Texas A&M). It takes 2/3 of member schools to accept a new member and those 5 are the voting block that protect each other.

 

Additionally A&M already had a long term rivalry with Ark. and LSU (though they stopped playing us when they lost too many) so A&M was the better fit. Also the land grant schools (think agricultural & mechanical) under the Morrill Act included A&M, Ark. LSU, Tenn., Miss. St., Ga., Florida and Auburn. Texas was not formed under that act, so traditionally they do not have that common ancestry with most of the SEC.

 

And the last factor is that the SEC schools saw how texas poisoned the well both with the SWC and then the Big XII. They wanted no part of such selfisness. In the SEC there is equal revenue sharing and an SEC Network. They did not want a team that chased out first NU and CU, and then later Mo. and A&M with their Longhorn Network $400 mil. ESPN deal that gave $0 to the other member schools. OU tried to leave to the PAC 12 too, but refused to go when the PAC 12 would not also take their long term rival OSU. The final straw for A&M was when Texas announced they were going to air HS games of recruits they were after, later ruled unfair by the NCAA after A&M had already decided to go to the SEC.

So, our main reply to this is "What the fuck ever". Though I guess one has to ask if the SEC is trying to protect a state's integrity, why then does it allow 2 schools from both Miss. and Ala.....perhaps the two smallest states in the conference?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congrats to Alabama. It was set up for them to win of course but they still have to win. Why not let the defending champ whose one loss was to a higher ranked team than Alabama's one loss in? Because you have to give Alabama the best chance to win this year.

 

 

C'mon Kid OSU lost to Michigan St at home with a backup QB. On a neutral field Alabama showed Michigan St didn't belong on the same field. Do I think Ohio State and Stanford may have put up a better fight than OU and Michigan St, probably, but Alabama this season was a great football team and deserves what they got by beating the 2nd best team in the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, our main reply to this is "What the fuck ever". Though I guess one has to ask if the SEC is trying to protect a state's integrity, why then does it allow 2 schools from both Miss. and Ala.....perhaps the two smallest states in the conference?

MONEY?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure Pumpkin Eater will come up with a long, intelligent response to Ag's post, which is fully accurate, to my knowledge.

 

Gip, you should stop the "who cares?"-type responses to posts that are in response to another poster that brought up the topic. Maybe address it with that person instead? As to your question, those schools are founding members (or at least joined very, very early) so they joined at the same time (I think).

 

Browns 149, there is no money in having two schools that are very close to each other and in the same state.

 

Cysko, I disagree with you, however I do think Ohio State would have made a real push had they made the playoff. We saw against Michigan and Notre Dame that when they're on, they're as good as anyone. Too bad they (and the coaching staff) took the day off against MSU. I really wanted to see a rematch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

C'mon Kid OSU lost to Michigan St at home with a backup QB. On a neutral field Alabama showed Michigan St didn't belong on the same field. Do I think Ohio State and Stanford may have put up a better fight than OU and Michigan St, probably, but Alabama this season was a great football team and deserves what they got by beating the 2nd best team in the country.

They lost to ole miss. By any logic ohio state should gave gotten the chance to defend. But like I said although it was set up for them to win they still had to win and they did. I take nothing away from them except that they beat the brakes off the second or third best team in the B1G on route to the national title and not the best.

 

MSU over OSU was more about what OSU did wrong that night than what MSU did right. But that's how it goes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean except for the flukiest play I've seen all year (up until the browns kick six fiasco) MSU wouldn't have beaten Michigan and it wouldnt have mattered. Both OSU and (hate to say it) Michigan would have been better representatives to the playoffs but it is what it is.

 

The national title game was legit. It's the semis that I think was flawed. Again, this points to how the CFP should be at least 8 team and probably 16.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...