T1B

(Before anyone decides to post their thoughts, take a deep breath. This isn't a hair pulling post. It's boring as fuck right now, and I want some level headed football discussion.)

It's widely agreed, both in the media and on this board, that the SEC is the top conference in college football. The gap between the SEC and #2 isn't being debated, so leave that alone. But I think it's safe to say that we all agree that the SEC is the best conference.

My question is why do we think this way?

Is it because of NFL talent? Is it because they have different teams in the hunt for the MNC on a yearly basis? Is it because of the overall strength of the conference from top to bottom?

My opinion? Coaching.

I don't think it has anything to do with the players. The head coaches in the SEC and their staffs are extreemly good and have brought some innovative styles to college football. Wheather it was SOS and the Fun 'n' Gun or Meyer and his version of the spread, the SEC seems to be a step ahead of everyone else right now.

If you look at the last few teams that have won MNC's, one thing can be tied to each one (except maybe Texas). Great coaching.

Let's start with 2000:

Oklahoma - Innovative offense under Mike Leach and a great defense led by the coaching of Bob Stoops.
Miami - NFL offense with NFL talent at each position. This wasn't great coaching under Coker, but it was under Davis. He had all of these guys playing under control and with disicipline and a purpose.
Ohio St - Tressel was the same as Davis. Disicipline, sound football
USC - See Tressel and Davis
LSU - Saban is an extreemly good fundamental football coach and he finally tapped into the local talent and had them playing extreemly well.
Texas - Possibly the lone exception. I don't think Brown is a great coach, but he had football Jesus.
Florida - Meyer took a ton of talent and put in an offense that was extreemly innovative.

Now everyone knows that there is a ton of talent for the SEC teams to pick through in their region, so recruiting at these schools is much easier at other places. But the reason why the top of the conference appears to be ahead of other teams is due to the coaches they have hired. Rarely do the teams at the top in the SEC make bad hires. If they do they don't make two bad hires in a row, and more importantly, they avoid making the disastrous hire.

LSU went from DiNardo to Saban to Miles
UF went from SOS to Zook to Meyer
Bama went from Fran to Shula to Saban
Georgia hired Richt (blanking on the dude before him)
Auburn went from Bowden to Tubberville
Tennessee has had Fulmer forever

This has kept the top of the conference pretty steady. There are ebbs and flows with these teams, but they have remained fairly consistant, with the possible exception of Bama.

And when the bottom half of the conference has had to make hires, they typically do a good job of getting a solid football coach.

Kentucky fired Morris and hired Brooks
South Carolina hired Holtz and then SOS
Ole Miss replaced Tubberville with David Cutcliffe (then made a bone head move of hiring Orgeron)
Arkansas went from Danny Ford to Houston Nutt

Vandy and Mississippi State are both pretty bad. Jackie Sherrell had some good years, and Croom may be getting them back on track.

This is what has the SEC on top of other conferences. Once the Big 10 starts hiring innovative coaches, they will start their road back to the top. But they have made some horrible hires like Bobby Williams, John L. Smith, Ron Turner, etc. The Pac 10 has had some stability in their coaches, which is why they are probably the #2 conference. The Big 12 has some good coaches, but more awful teams than other conferences. Yet one of those "awful" teams was ranked in the top 5 this year because of their coach. The ACC has made some strange moves, and the Big East is essentially a new conference.

So that's my take. It comes down to coaching, not players, not "speed", not any of that crap. Well coached players look a hell of a lot faster than poorly coached ones.

it was basically Leach's O at OU in 2000, but Leach himself was at Tech. Mangino was the OC, and Heupel called the plays at the LOS.

Jim Donnan was at UGA before Richt, IIRC.

I disagree. I think it’s all about the extremely deep talent pool down there. Seems a lot of SEC people think Miles is a mediocre coach, and that they’ve won in spite of him, not because of him. Volunteer fans wanted Fulmer gonzo about two months ago when they were 3-3. Tressel, Bielema, The Incredible Ferentz, Carr, Paterno, Zook, et al are not a bad group of coaches. Not bad enough to drag the conference down to being designated as the worst in the BCS.

88 wrote:Bad coaches can take talent laden teams to great heights. And good coaches cannot make up for bad talent.

I disagree. In certain circumstances, you will see a bad coach go on a run if there is talent (Coker with Miami, Willingham with ND) for them to use for one season, maybe two. Very soon after that, you see the effects of the coaching and teams of bad coaches will rarely reach the top. And on the flip side, I think coaches can make up for bad talent. Look at Navy under Johnson, Taco Tech under Leach, Iowa under Ferentz, etc. Those coaches were getting blood from stone in some cases. Iowa had some players in 2002, but for the most part, they did not have elite talent. Or better said, they didn't have elite depth.

I think recruiting has something to do with it, but not the way most think. I think the starting 22 for most of the top teams is realitivly equal. It's the depth that makes the difference. If one guy gets tired or gets exploited, the elite teams have recruits coming off the bench that may be just as good or highly recruited. Also, with the elite teams, there is no need to play freshman unless they are a special talent. Using ND as an example, their talent was up there with a lot of teams in '05, but they lacked the coaching on defense and the depth to compete for a title. They were an OT loss to MSU and a 1/4 inch window against USC from being undefeated and playing Texas in the MNC. They would have gotten destroyed because their depth sucked and their DC was terrible.

And when it comes to recruiting, I'm not talking about top 100 lists. I'm talking about real football players, and those are a dime a dozen in the south.

Good points in this thread...

I am not so sure the talent is that different among the top 3-4 teams of each conference...where I think the SEC comes out ahead is a team like Kentucky has progressed over the last couple of years...while teams like Iowa, Purdue, Colorado, etc have fallen down or not improved...1 point...

2nd...talent is not that big of an issue in my mind...you look at OSU, PSU, Michigan, Texas, OU...they all go after the same kids as the SEC...I think in many cases it just comes down to who is ready to play and who is not...that does in a sense go back to coaching, but in some respects I think people just care more about football throughout the deep south moreso than say Indiana (in most years), Syracuse, etc...

just some more thoughts...

Jsc810 wrote:Part of the reason is that football is the biggest game in town. Compare Baton Rouge and Los Angeles, there is MUCH more to do in LA than other than football, whereas in BR, Saturdays in the fall are the highlight of the entire year. Football is religion here, nothing comes close.

I think this is a great point. If you look at Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Kentucky, etc., they aren't exactly surrounded by pro teams. UF either. Excellent point.

I think the SEC gets a lot of respect this year - because UF smoked OSU for a MNC last year. Remember a year ago, the Big 10 was getting a lot of respect. If the Big 10 shows up against the SEC this bowl season, the pendulum shifts back.

I don't think there is an a real talent disparity between the top teams of the SEC and the other "major" conferences. I think sometimes coaching plays a big role in specific team matchups - the 2003 Cap One bowl comes to mind. Auburn totally controlled PSU, because the PSU staff was in a funk, obsessed with what they couldn't do as opposed to what they could do.

good point PSU...look at last year though...

Arkansas had DMC, Jones, some very good defensive players, etc and played UF tough in the SEC Championship Game and they couldn't do much against Wisconsin, same with UT v PSU...PSU outhit them, controlled the LOS and played inspired football...

again 13-11 since BCS inception says the Big 10 and SEC are competitive against each other...again the speed argument is moot, it is not as if Ted Ginn suddenly became slow because he went to tOSU, or so and so sucks because they play in the Big 10...

I think again where the SEC gets over is the teams like South Carolina, Miss State (well at least in the late 90's and starting this year) and Arkansas usually are a little more consistent in the Win column then schools like Colorado, IU, Iowa, etc...

but again if you compared top to top...i think each conference matches up well with each other...

It rules because Trix monkey says so and we all know how much cred that fellow has.
Thats what I would say if I was going to roll your thread K.

Seriously, some points could be:
A) southern kids, who are the majority playing at SEC schools , ball year round. Down here they have spring training and even Jambos in the spring in high school. Much emphasis is put on year round training as football in the south is nearly as large as the Baptist Church.
B) socio-economics? Dunno. Maybe alot of kids from areas see balling as thier ticket. There are certianly more impoverished areas in the south.
c)Soccer, ugh! Down here kids are playing soccer before they can go with out pull ups.Thus kids are indoctrinated into athletics much earlier and reap the bennifits of "earlier intervention".

Sudden Sam wrote:Why is the SEC considered the best conference?

Tan women rule. Pasty white fat chicks suck.

HO TRAIN.......ALL ABOARD..............................

It's probably neither coaching or talent, but both coaching and talent.

Some programs can excel due largely to great coaching. Others do well in spite of coaching, because the talent pool is vast. The SEC has probably the best overall combination of coaching and talent. And for this reason, the SEC is at or near the top most years.

Agreed.......both....quick look at Rivals top ten from last year.....

School TOTAL
Commits
Commits
Commits Avg Stars
Points
1 Florida 27 4 16 7 3.89 2,959
2 Southern Cal 18 6 10 2 4.22 2,761
3 Tennessee 32 5 11 15 3.63 2,726
4 LSU 26 2 19 5 3.88 2,695
5 Texas 24 2 16 5 3.79 2,562
6 South Carolina 31 1 14 13 3.42 2,190
7 Auburn 30 0 13 15 3.37 2,013
8 Notre Dame 18 1 12 4 3.72 1,932
9 Georgia 23 0 12 10 3.48 1,895
10 Alabama 25 0 10 12 3.28 1,789

That's SEVEN out of ten???? Give me a break!

Now add Miles, Saban, Tubberville, Nutt, Fulmer, Richt, Spurrier, Meyer

This thing is cyclical so watch out.....the bottom can fall out at any point.

I am one of the few that doesnt think the SEC is the best conference year in, year out. I think they have a lot of schools w/ rich traditions and big names, thus making their match ups look more credible than they might really be. I would say that their geographic location helps tremendously when it comes to recruiting and thus keeps a lot of the talent from leaving the Southeast. I would agree that they have some great college coaches in that Conference which constantly keeps them in the top 2-3 conferences Nationally every year. I dont think they were the best Conference this year as I thought it was really level across the board.

88 wrote:Ohio State, Michigan and Penn State can recruit good players to their campuses due to tradition, money and a perception that you can go to the NFL if you play well there.

The SEC plays in a much more favorable climate.

And they have that better talent because they play in warm weather.

Pardon for butchering your post 88. I don't disagree with you, but there's a different point I want to bring up as it relates to yours, and take it a bit further even if it's off topic.

You are spot on correct that most any top shelve talents ultimate goal is to get drafted into the NFL and get PAID, and that going to a warm weather climate school often provides that ample opportunity. Actually, most of this top shelve talent often starts off in a warm weather climate to begin with.

But you know what? A majority of NFL teams play in a cold weather climate. Colder than a witches teat come December. And what happens to these "studs" once they have to play in brutally cold conditions? Their balls shrink to the size of raisins in some cases.

I'll use KC's 1st draft pick out of LSU as an example. To start the season when it was relatively warm, he caught every ball thrown his way that he could get his hands on. Once it got bitter, WR Dwayne "hands of stone" Bowe can't catch a cold, much less a pass that hits him square in the numbers.

Playing in the SEC, dude probably never once played in a game when the temp was below freezing, no wonder he can't hold on to the damn ball. And not only that, but it freaking hurts more getting hit when it's cold.

So I guess my point is that if I'm an NFL GM, I think long and hard before drafting some weather pussy of a player out of the SEC or any other warm weather school. Rather, give me the players that are used to freezing their balls off from a cold climate.

It's the talent. The SEC has faster big guys. Everyone gets so worked up when it is said that the SEC is fast. It doesn't mean that other teams don't have speed. Most teams have plenty of speed at the skilled positions, the difference in the SEC is that most teams have overall team speed meaning the big guys can move. If you want proof of talent just look at the statistics of conference breakdowns of NFL players. Great players make great coaches just ask Saban.

War Wagon wrote:Playing in the SEC, dude probably never once played in a game when the temp was below freezing

What the hell are you talking about?

SEC teams play in cold climates frequently. What... do you think that SEC teams don't play any OOC games on the road against teams from cold cli...



Oh.


Sorry.

361524

88 wrote: Kerry Collins

Death be unto him

88 wrote:Joe Jurevicius

A curse on his house.

Iowa (24)

I have a strange feeling there's some jokes coming.

I'm psychic like that.

T REX wrote:Agreed.......both....quick look at Rivals top ten from last year.....

School TOTAL
Commits
Commits
Commits Avg Stars
Points
1 Florida 27 4 16 7 3.89 2,959
2 Southern Cal 18 6 10 2 4.22 2,761
3 Tennessee 32 5 11 15 3.63 2,726
4 LSU 26 2 19 5 3.88 2,695
5 Texas 24 2 16 5 3.79 2,562
6 South Carolina 31 1 14 13 3.42 2,190
7 Auburn 30 0 13 15 3.37 2,013
8 Notre Dame 18 1 12 4 3.72 1,932
9 Georgia 23 0 12 10 3.48 1,895
10 Alabama 25 0 10 12 3.28 1,789

That's SEVEN out of ten???? Give me a break!

Now add Miles, Saban, Tubberville, Nutt, Fulmer, Richt, Spurrier, Meyer

This thing is cyclical so watch out.....the bottom can fall out at any point.

(This is taken from the POV of Big 10 fan because I live in that neck of the woods. Just a disclaimer)

I see what you are saying, and I agree. Even if you throw the flawed star system out, there's no doubt in my mind that the SEC recruits very well across the board. But if you combine your point about adding those coaches with 88's post about NFL talent, you find out some interesting things.

Let's leave the top tier of each conference alone and focus on the mid to bottom tiers. In terms of NFL talent, you have:

22 - Ole Miss, Purdue
21 - Michigan State
20 - Mississippi State
19 - South Carolina
18 - Illinois
16 - Arkansas
15 - Minnesota
11 - Northwestern/Indiana
7 - Kentucky/Vandy

So (very) roughly, you could group: (1) Ole Miss and Purdue, (2) MSU and MSU, (3) South Carolina and Illinois, (4) Arkansas and Minnesota, and (5) Northwestern/IU and Kentucky/Vandy

Over the past 10 years, Ole Miss and Purdue have been fairly close. At the time, Joe Tiller was considered a very innovative coach and this was a great hire for the Big 10. Purdue went to a Rose Bowl and a few other good bowl games. Tiller is perfect at a school like Purdue. They will have a few average years, and rise up to bite people when the conditions are perfect for his team. Ole Miss was very consistant under Cutcliffe, but they decided to fire him and make a very risky hire with Orgeron. Pretty even, with the edge to Purdue.

Michigan State is team that can't find an identity. They typically have very good talent, and were starting to peak under Nick Saban. They followed his hire up with two awful hires in Bobby Williams and John L. Smith. We'll see how Dantonio does. Mississippi St. is similar to Michigan State in that they are terribly inconsistant given their talent levels. Jackie Sherrill had some very good years, followed by some bad ones. Sly Croom had some bad years, but the ship may be turning. Too close to call.

South Carolina used to be the laughing stock of not only the SEC, but of most of the country as well. Then they hired Lou Holtz, who turned the program around and had them in the top 5 at one point. That led to Spurrier, who is having success in his time there as well. Illinois is a team that is a typical bottom feeder with an occasional peak out of no where. Ron Turner had some very bad years there, but also got them to the Rose Bowl. Ron Zook started awful there, and has them in the Rose Bowl. Time will tell if Zook reverts back to his ways and if Illinois stays Illinois, but SC has the edge.

Arkansas has been a team that has been pretty consistant since they hired Houston Nutt. Never an awful season, and a few (at least two) where they won their division. Why Arkansas wanted to get rid of him is beyond me, but they look to be heading down the road of a disasterous hire. Minnesota is a very similar team in that Mason took over a program that was in pretty bad shape and got them turned around to a team that was always near near .500 or a few games above, with the occasional excellent season sprinkled in. Again, this may be a case of not knowing what you had until it's gone, but they got rid of Mason in favor of Tim Brewster, who it looks like will be a terrible hire. I think Arkansas would have the edge here.

In the last grouping, the Big 10 really took it in the gut. Two of the traditional "bottom feeder" teams made excellent hires in Randy Walker (Northwestern) and Terry Hoepner (IU), only to see those schools lose both coaches tragically. Walker was on the heals of Garry Barnett, and he had Northwestern always in the middle of the pack of the Big 10, with an occasional peak and Valley. Hoepner laid the ground work for this current IU team that is bowling for the first time in ages. It remains to be seen what these two new coaches can do, taking over after these two sad passings. Kentucky has a great coach in Rich Brooks who has acomplished things at Kentucky that was thought impossible or at least very difficult. They have the reputation of IU as being "the basketball school" of their conference, but he had them winning games they shouldn't and competing in every game. Vandy is "the academic school", much like Northwestern, and they aren't very good. Northwestern would have the edge over Vandy, and Kentucky over IU.

So if you look at these groupings, there have been more WTF hires by the Big 10 over the past 10 years, which has gradually seen the balance of power shift towards the SEC. In the mean time, the SEC has made some excellent hires which have made some bad teams competitive, but more importantly, have taken the top tier teams to the next level. The Big 10 hasn't made those types of moves (outside of Tressel) due in large part to longevity at their schools ('sup JoePa). Tragically, two of the excellent hires by the Big 10 have passed away.

So what does all of this mean? Fuck if I know, but it's fun as hell to talk about. I think the SEC and Big 10 are much closer than some people would have you believe ('sup Gary Danielson), if you look at a time frame longer than a year or two. As T REX said, this is very fluid and the bottom can fall out if a few bad hires are made and a few good ones are made by the other conference.

Michigan is at a very interesting cross roads. This hire could take them the way of OSU and take a team that was consistanly under achieving and put them on the next level, or it could go the way of Notre Dame and Nebraska, and put them in a tail spin for a few years which is very hard to fully recover.

I couldn't disagree more with the "Recruiting + Talent" = Championships posts in this thread. Look at the Teams with the most NFL players:
Miami 46
Ohio State 44
Florida State 41
Georgia 37
Michigan 36
Tennessee 36
Texas 32
Louisiana State 32
Florida 31
Notre Dame 30
Auburn 30

Miami and FSU at #1 and #3. Do any of you really believe that there is not NFL talent in Miami or Tallahassee right now???? We are again going to have a top recruiting class. Something line 5 top 5 classes in the last 8 years?

Recruiting top talent isn't all its added up to be...you absolutely have to have an excellent staff to discipline that talent, give it direction, and support it in an effort to win ballgames. With out good coaching, talent does not win ball games.

Then when you start losing ball games, people on ESPN start to say it is because of a talent drop off. Yeah, sure...it couldn't be because we get out coached during games, it has to be lack of talent on the football team. Not a chance.

88 wrote:Sure, if you put a moron behind the wheel you might not win. But most coaches at the D1 level are not morons. They are competent. There are a 100 D1 coaches that could pilot the USC Trojans to a 10-win season with the talent they have roaming the sidelines. Charlie Weiss could do the same thing if he had those players. As yourself this. If Pete Carroll was coaching Akron with the same players that Akron has right now, would he be competing for MNC's?

I'm not sure I agree. Case in point, look what Zook did with all the talent he recruited to Florida. He was never better than 8-9 wins. USC always recruited well, yet they couldn't put it together under Tollner, Hackett, Robinson, etc.

And Akron doesn't allow coaches to compete for MNC's. If Meyer had stayed at BGSU, it wouldn't have made him any less of a coach, but he wouldn't have a ring. But if Carroll was at Akron, I bet they would be near the top of the MAC.

Cooper had all the talent in the world, yet he couldn't beat UofM. Tressell makes UofM look like Purdue. Same level of players, two totally different coaches, two totally different results.

^^^^Couldn't agree more.

It is the coaching that matters.

A good coach can't make a bad team good, but a bad coach can make a good team bad.

Look at the NFL. Every team stocked with talented players who excelled in college. What's the major difference between the top teams and the bottom feeders?

Yep, you guessed it. It's coaching.

sleeves wrote:Most teams have plenty of speed at the skilled positions, the difference in the SEC is that most teams have overall team speed meaning the big guys can move.

Let's see... at last year's NFL combine, the fastest players of the "big guy" positions:


Defensive End -- Gaines Adams, Clemson (three guys were right on his heels... one from Miami, and two from Texas)

DT -- Turk McBride, Tennessee (only 3 players went sub-5/40, the others were from the B12 and B10)

LB -- Quincy Black, New Mexico (only one other player broke 4.5, and he played at Florida International)

OL -- Allen Barbre, Missouri Southern (although with a name like Missouri SOUTHERN, they should be appearing on SEC OOC schedules soon. A total of 4 OL ran sub-5... none of them from the SEC)


TE -- Greg Olsen, Miami (and you have to scroll so far down the list to see an SEC player, it's not even worth mentioning)




So, I guess if one relies on information from SEC BSH, it might be "speed"... if you rely on actual, measurable, substantiated fact...


Not so much.


So, of 13 players at "big guy" positions who displayed superlative speed at the Combine, a grand total of one hailed from the SEC.


Any other theories you'd like to share?

Dinsdale wrote:

sleeves wrote:Most teams have plenty of speed at the skilled positions, the difference in the SEC is that most teams have overall team speed meaning the big guys can move.

Let's see... at last year's NFL combine, the fastest players of the "big guy" positions:


Defensive End -- Gaines Adams, Clemson (three guys were right on his heels... one from Miami, and two from Texas)

DT -- Turk McBride, Tennessee (only 3 players went sub-5/40, the others were from the B12 and B10)

LB -- Quincy Black, New Mexico (only one other player broke 4.5, and he played at Florida International)

OL -- Allen Barbre, Missouri Southern (although with a name like Missouri SOUTHERN, they should be appearing on SEC OOC schedules soon. A total of 4 OL ran sub-5... none of them from the SEC)


TE -- Greg Olsen, Miami (and you have to scroll so far down the list to see an SEC player, it's not even worth mentioning)




So, I guess if one relies on information from SEC BSH, it might be "speed"... if you rely on actual, measurable, substantiated fact...


Not so much.


So, of 13 players at "big guy" positions who displayed superlative speed at the Combine, a grand total of one hailed from the SEC.


Any other theories you'd like to share?

Kirk Herbsteit who is a Big Ten guy has said several times that the difference in speed between the Big Ten and the SEC is the speed of the defensive line. Maybe I wasn't clear when I said the big guys. There are 79 SEC DL in the NFL compared to 42 Big Ten DL in NFL. I know you didn't post the NFL rosters, but if you take out the kickers and punters the SEC averages almost two more players per team in the NFL.

Mace wrote:Just a quick fact to throw into the mix............

The SEC and Big Ten have had 15 head-to-head contests during the past five years and...........

Big Ten: 8 wins
SEC: 7 wins

Carry on.


Mace

OK....list the match-ups not just the FACT. I'm sure getting over on Vandy or Ole Miss or Miss St is BIG TIME. BTW, this has been brought up before. The much better stat is the BOWL record of 13 wins vs 11 losses.....Big Ten over the SEC.

But alas, nevermind.....

I know in those bowl matchups (off the top of my head)

Michigan beat Bama in the 2000 Orange Bowl
LSU beat ILL in the 2002 Sugar Bowl
Michigan beat UF in the Outback Bowl
MSU beat UF in the Cap One
UF beat Iowa in the Outback
UGA beat Purdue in the Outback
Wisconsin beat Arkansas in the Cap One
Wisconsin beat Auburn in the Cap One
PSU beat Tenn in the Outback
UF beat OSU in the Title game
Iowa beat LSU in the Cap One

so those are some very good matchups...again it is not Vandy, Ole Miss type games...I know Minnesota has played Bama a couple times in the Music City and beaten them...anyway carry on...

understood Mace...I merely pointed that out at the start to give hard facts that support the divide isn't as great as SEC honk would believe...

is the SEC strong from top to bottom heck yeah...and deep...and I get to watch a lot of SEC football here in Charlotte...but head to head they have been pretty equal...the local radio hack down here will have none of that...I posed those stats to him (since he always rags the Big 10)...and instead of responding with conversation he instantly went to the well then I guess the 3 BCS Championships the SEC has won mean nothing...um that wasn't the question idiot...but that is how they (SEC HONKS) play the game...so alas...well nevermind...

carry on...

The SEC has performed terriffically in the past, and will continue to be very strong. Many of its teams, with their long-standing traditions, practically sell themselves to recruits. But the days of one or even two conferences dominating the land are completely over. If not right now, then that's what's looming in the very near future. No longer will one conference really be able to thump its chest and claim superiority on a regular basis. Instead, we'll look back and examine the conferences after each individual year, and try to nitpick and justify our reasons for why the SEC, Pac 10, Big 12, Big 10, or ACC was the strongest. Give the Big East some more time to develop, and soon it'll be a part of the conversation as well. And this is already starting to happen, whereas in past years, it was pretty much a given that the SEC was the best - no ifs, ands, or buts.

The very kids that SEC country boasts -- you know, the kids that train "all year round" -- you know, the kids that are allegedly faster, stronger, better than everybody else, are not just joining SEC forces. They're going to schools all over the country because recruiting has become so fierce as media and technology and exposure progresses. The more these things enhance, the more we'll see top notch talent spreading all over the country, representing every conference. Programs from other regions are not only getting the cream of the crop of their home-grown talent, but they're dipping into the hotbeds of the southern talent pool, and are doing it pretty well.

Believe the Heupel wrote:

War Wagon wrote:A good coach can't make a bad team good, but a bad coach can make a good team bad.

Strangely enough, this year a bad coach managed to make a mediocre team 11-2 and ranked #1 for a week.

heh, I've let that comment lay for awhile froz, but don't think I'd forgotten it. You can't talk about our coach that way. Only WE can talk about our coach that way.

And make no mistake, he's OUR damn coach. I'd heard some quiet rumors that he was on Michigans short list, but was quite relieved to him say he wasn't leaving dear old Mizzou... and I believed him.

Got to say this for the arrogant fuck, you can take him at his word, no matter how much you disagree with it.

Hell, give him a raise. He's earned it.

The SEC schedules dog shit Out of Conference games

Every year you look at the SEC OOC schedule and wonder "who the fuck are these teams?"
Whats worse is that the games vs those unknown schools are always at home sending the whole SEC in to conference play at 4-0 and they only need to win 2 conf games to go .500 and become bowl eligible.
Then you couple that with playing only part of your conference in conference play and padding the conference play with some of the worst College Football teams in College Football History like Mississippi State who in their 112th year of playing football will play in just their 13th bowl game or Vanderbilt who has played football for 117 years and has been to just 3 bowl games.
Now on top of all of that the schools are in what are statistically the nations dumbest and poorest states so their fan bases are the easiest to mislead and trick... also why they call that area the "Bible Belt." You have millions of rabid fans who have nothing else to do but sit in a deer hide with their scope aimed at the feeding station and wait for Bambi to step in to the crosshairs or blow smoke up eachothers asses about how great their states school is because it really whipped the shit out of the retard non SEC school that no one outside of the south has heard of but is also located in their state.

Until SEC teams start showing up in stadiums of the other major conferences teams (and Im not talking about in state games) and beating those teams, then Im not going to give the SEC any props, they have shown that when they travel out West, they arent shit.


Funny that there is this conference pride out there though, my cousins fiance is from Mississippi and went to Ole Miss, she told me that she wanted LSU to win the BCS Bowl because they are an SEC team. I didnt understand that, she once told me that when she was 6 and at a game in Baton Rouge someone poured beer on her cause she had an Ole Miss sweater on, you'd think that would make you hate them with a passion. My cousin who is also a USC fan and I both hate everyone else in the pac 10 and would never root for a rival, the inter conference alliances I have seen since talkling football on the net is baffling, its like the Muslims cheering for the Jews in a fight vs the Christians

SoCalTrjn wrote:, its like the Muslims cheering for the Jews in a fight vs the Christians

Gawd, you're fucking stupid.......no really......

If it doesn't make sense to you, there are obvious reasons....one you're NOT a cerebral person. That's just okay. You are unable to think outside the box. Okay too.

The one thing I will agree with Rex on is this stuff is cyclical...I remember a few years back the Big 10 ran roughshod through bowls...heck in what 1999 bowls they were 5-0 with 2 BCS wins I believe...and in 2000 they went like 3-2 or some shit to be like 8-2 over a 2 year period...so the Big 10, Big 12, etc have all had a day or year in the sun if you will...

this is like a broken fucking record...SEC is the best because Spencer Tillman, Kirk Herbstreit, etc say so...great...good for them and that is their opinion...again until we get some intersectional non con game in the OOC season all we have to rely on bowl season and at a minimum the Big 10 is equal to the SEC...

again just my $.02

T REX wrote:Gawd, you're fucking stupid

Why don't you try refuting some of his statements then, champ? You can't, because you have zero capacity to form an argument beyond "SHUT THE FUCK UP! THE SEC IS THE BEST! NOBODY COMES CLOSE! BODE!" No matter how detailed or specific a debate gets, that infantile bullshit is all you revert back to. It's all you're capable of. Take a look at yourself from OUR shoes, and maybe you can figure out why you're considered a joke of the highest order around here.

Thank you for the compliment!!!!

I'm considered a joke by a place that's a complete joke with no new memebership in 3-4 years.

Fucking hilarious. The more you guys use this place as a frame of reference(you are considered a joke in here) the funnier it is....like this place fucking matters????? Same shit, different year.

Wow. Even KC Paul is impressed with your I Know You Are But What Am I prowess.

T REX wrote:Thank you for the compliment!!!!

I'm considered a joke by a place that's a complete joke with no new memebership in 3-4 years.

Fucking hilarious. The more you guys use this place as a frame of reference(you are considered a joke in here) the funnier it is....like this place fucking matters????? Same shit, different year.

Yet you keep coming back like the beaten dog you are. Run along little puppy, before we have to shove your nose in your own shit again.

It seems like you take the attacks personally. It never ceases to amaze me how some message board folks think they're judged by anything other than what they post. As if there is anything else to judge you by?

Your posting "style" reflects that of a 12 year old on his fourth 2 liter of Mountain Dew, trolling AOL chat rooms looking for petty arguments. Hey, if that's your deal, fine. But for the love of GOD, man, why would you expect NOT to get taken to task for it?

wow...getting deep in here...

i still hope the Big 10 goes 3-0 this year against the SEC...