Good for Stoops

[miamigator]

Top Teams in the Big 12 vs SEC

Kansas St. vs. Bama
Oklahoma vs. Georgia
Texas vs. Florida
Oklahoma St. vs. Texas A&M
Baylor vs. LSU
Texas Tech vs. South Carolina
TCU vs. Vanderbilt
West Virginia vs. Mississippi St.
Iowa St. vs. Ole Miss
Kansas vs. Missouri

ACC vs. SEC

FSU vs. Alabama
Clemson vs. Georgia
North Carolina vs. Florida
Georgia Tech vs. Texas A&M
NC State vs. LSU
Va Tech vs. South Carolina
Duke vs. Vanderbilt
Wake Forest vs. Mississippi St.
Maryland vs. Ole Miss
Virginia vs. Missouri
Boston College vs. Arkansas

Obviously the first match-up doesn't include 4 other SEC teams but the SEC teams at the top have to play a conference championship while the Big 12 Champ doesn't.

Jason Kirk wrote this article on SB Nation comparing the worst teams in each conference which still had the SEC as the best.

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2013/5/7/4308512/sec-football-conferences-compared-depth

 

[killa1storm]

well that's a silly argument, what are the bottom 6 doing in any conference?

That isn't the point, the point is people believe that the SEC is some big bad conference...it isn't. It is a few schools and not the majority.

That is it. There are about 3-4 programs that do the majority of the damage, that is it.

and that is the case everywhere else, so what is the point of the argument? go conference by conference and there isn't more than 3 schools who do anything nationally on a consistent basis.

so i guess the argument boils to the sec only has 3-4 programs that dominate, great. most conferences have 1 in a given year, 2 some years. seems like a fruitless critique. thing to consider though, some of the mid-tier to bottom run sec teams have multiple national titles, like tennesee for example. how many conferences can make the same argument about their bottom tier teams?

 

[miamigator]

"What are the bottom six doing?"

That's a fair point.

Four of those bottom six did so poorly last year that their coaches got fired. The year before, two SEC coaches were canned. The year before that, it was three.

I have made this point before, it is not a conference thing. It is top heavy thing. It is Bama, LSU and a random school (sometimes UF, UGA or Ark) that rotates thing.

This extra money is not going to help the bottom feeders play the elite, it will only help the bottom feeders against OOC (which will be some crap opponent anyway).

The SEC has some of the best but it ends there, no one is scared of the bottom 6 (Miss, Miss State, Vandy, Kentucky, Missou and Auburn).

The reason why the SEC is the best conference is because a coach like Gene Chizik will be fired 2 years after winning a National Title if the team slips like Auburn did. Kentucky will pay top dollar for Mark Stoops which has already paid dividends in recruiting. Arkansas will hire the 2-time Big 10 champions coach. Tennessee will hopefully remain a clusterf***. Do you really think that if Texas has an SEC mindset they would keep Mack Brown. Only school with a laissez-faire attitude like that would be Georgia (and they don't have half the resources).

 

[miamigator]

well that's a silly argument, what are the bottom 6 doing in any conference?

That isn't the point, the point is people believe that the SEC is some big bad conference...it isn't. It is a few schools and not the majority.

That is it. There are about 3-4 programs that do the majority of the damage, that is it.

and that is the case everywhere else, so what is the point of the argument? go conference by conference and there isn't more than 3 schools who do anything nationally on a consistent basis.

so i guess the argument boils to the sec only has 3-4 programs that dominate, great. most conferences have 1 in a given year, 2 some years. seems like a fruitless critique. thing to consider though, some of the mid-tier to bottom run sec teams have multiple national titles, like tennesee for example. how many conferences can make the same argument about their bottom tier teams?

Int the past 15 Years 5 different SEC teams have the MNC. How many other conferences have more than 2?

 

[supacane]

The BCS caused the SEC to be where it is. After the NCAA dismantled USC it was free rein. Their top teams are better than everyone else in the country. OU had 3 or 4 shots at them and got handled every single time. They pay for better stadiums, coaches and players. Their position coaches are paid more than HC in other conferences. A defense like No'D put out last season...he would have got canned youth or no youth in the SEC...period. But what can we do but sit and make excuses and say wait till 3 years. Thats the reason they keep on winning. The will hire the best and expect the best. Stop all the **** whining. BTW the bottom 2/3 of every conference is garbage. And am sorry but their bottom teams will mud stomp Duke and WF, Washington st etc etc

 

[Consigliere]

well that's a silly argument, what are the bottom 6 doing in any conference?

That isn't the point, the point is people believe that the SEC is some big bad conference...it isn't. It is a few schools and not the majority.

That is it. There are about 3-4 programs that do the majority of the damage, that is it.

and that is the case everywhere else, so what is the point of the argument? go conference by conference and there isn't more than 3 schools who do anything nationally on a consistent basis.

so i guess the argument boils to the sec only has 3-4 programs that dominate, great. most conferences have 1 in a given year, 2 some years. seems like a fruitless critique. thing to consider though, some of the mid-tier to bottom run sec teams have multiple national titles, like tennesee for example. how many conferences can make the same argument about their bottom tier teams?

This really is not that difficult.

People (mostly because of the media) fear the SEC because they are supposed to be as a WHOLE a big and powerful conference of all-world beaters. This isn't true though, it is really only a few teams that people should "fear" and not the conference as a WHOLE.

No one is speaking about other conferences being better or more feared...the point is that it is only a few teams that should trouble opponents not the conference as a WHOLE.

 

[bacane]

The SEC is where the top talent is now, unfortunately. And it's not all at Alabama and LSU. Saw where 34% of the first 50 players in the NFL draft were from SEC schools. If you go back over the last 3 drafts, I think LSU has had 10 DBs drafted. That's ridiculous. What's happening is kids want in, they want to play in the media-hyped SEC even if it's not at Alabama. They want to play in the packed stadiums, against what is perceived to be the big boys and they want the best route to the NFL. They'll settle for Arkansas or Mississippi.

Problem is this train is down the tracks and gonna be tough to slow down. As all these guys are going into the draft and the SEC has a run on national titles, it's killing it in recruiting. Programs are re-loading with equally high-end talent.

 

[killa1storm]

well that's a silly argument, what are the bottom 6 doing in any conference?

That isn't the point, the point is people believe that the SEC is some big bad conference...it isn't. It is a few schools and not the majority.

That is it. There are about 3-4 programs that do the majority of the damage, that is it.

and that is the case everywhere else, so what is the point of the argument? go conference by conference and there isn't more than 3 schools who do anything nationally on a consistent basis.

so i guess the argument boils to the sec only has 3-4 programs that dominate, great. most conferences have 1 in a given year, 2 some years. seems like a fruitless critique. thing to consider though, some of the mid-tier to bottom run sec teams have multiple national titles, like tennesee for example. how many conferences can make the same argument about their bottom tier teams?

This really is not that difficult.

People (mostly because of the media) fear the SEC because they are supposed to be as a WHOLE a big and powerful conference of all-world beaters. This isn't true though, it is really only a few teams that people should "fear" and not the conference as a WHOLE.

No one is speaking about other conferences being better or more feared...the point is that it is only a few teams that should trouble opponents not the conference as a WHOLE.

but that wasn't stoops' argument. his argument was their teams at the top are great, but the bottom of their conference leaves a lot to be desired. he's arguing that the success at the top influence's people's perceptions of the bottom teams and therefore basically saying the conference as a whole is overrated. but his argument is silly because that is true for EVERY conference, so what is the point of making the statements when its not an sec specific thing? it would be one thing if other conferences top to bottom were stronger, but they're not, so his argument is a lot like saying 'oh that model is fine but she's not perfect!' well ok, who the **** is? she's still a model.

as far as i know, nobody is troubled by the bottom half of the conference, so there's no point in stating the obvious. if you look at the bowl matchups though for example, the sec is usually the lower seeded team. yet the 'bottom tier' teams win their share more times that not, so that critique is also a bit baseless.

 

[Consigliere]

but that wasn't stoops' argument. his argument was their teams at the top are great, but the bottom of their conference leaves a lot to be desired. he's arguing that the success at the top influence's people's perceptions of the bottom teams and therefore basically saying the conference as a whole is overrated. but his argument is silly because that is true for EVERY conference, so what is the point of making the statements when its not an sec specific thing? it would be one thing if other conferences top to bottom were stronger, but they're not, so his argument is a lot like saying 'oh that model is fine but she's not perfect!' well ok, who the **** is? she's still a model.

as far as i know, nobody is troubled by the bottom half of the conference, so there's no point in stating the obvious. if you look at the bowl matchups though for example, the sec is usually the lower seeded team. yet the 'bottom tier' teams win their share more times that not, so that critique is also a bit baseless.

While it is true that the bottom half of every conference sucks _______________ (insert ***** slang here), the argument is not wrong. It is a stupid argument but he is right, the bottom half does not do much and as such the SEC shouldn't be feared as a whole.

""So they've had the best team in college football," Stoops said. "They haven't had the whole conference. Because, again, half of 'em haven't done much at all. I'm just asking you. You tell me." "

Stoops probably makes the argument because he is sick of hearing about the SEC as a whole. That is my guess.

I agree that the bottom half of any conference is bad, I agree and that is why it is stupid. But I believe the bigger issue is the media paints this picture that the entire SEC should be feared and IMO there is no basis for this picture.

 

[OrlandoCane]

Stoops did address the bottom half of the Big 12. Towards the bottom of the article:

"What'd we (the Big 12) have, eight of 10 teams in bowl games this year? Again, you figure it all out."

That's pretty strong evidence by Stoops that the conference the Sooners play in is strong top to bottom.

 

[Port Knox]

@Killa, I think the arguement comes in when SEC schools are allowed to operate, recruit, use PED's, etc. as they **** well please, while other schools around the country are crucified, and and advertised and perceived by ESPN and Yahoo as "troubled programs". Whether its Dear Antler Spray, Cam Newton, Ole Miss's randomly monstrous recruiting class, coaches paying players being made public (Muschamp), none of it seems to matter. The SEC may have elite talent, I'm not doubting that, but it doesn't help that the NCAA keeps their foot on the rest of America's throat in the process making it easier.

 

[bacane]

Hey, let's get to point. Stoops looks like an *** *****ing about the SEC, the weather in Seattle or anything else. Few teams in the country have laid more eggs or fallen faster of late than Oklahoma. He's no longer the hot name in coaching circles. He's turning into Mack Brown-lite. ****, Muschump could leave tomorrow and Foley wouldn't hit speed dial for Coach Stoops. Certain pals in the media still blow smoke about him, but his team is no longer tops in his own state. He's no longer the best coach in Oklahoma.

 

[AsylumGodfather]

The $ec also gets to play under the media double standard. If a top tier $ec team beats a low tier $ec team it is considered by the media a quality $ec win, but let's say North Carolina would beat that same low tier $ec team no credit would be given by the media in terms of rankings because of the team being a low tier team. The media & their bias has as much to do with the $ec's perceived dominance as the NCAA letting them run unchecked. Just look at last season as an example, as there were 2 loss $ec teams in the top 10 in front of a 1 loss FSU & Clemson team that lost to each other while they were ranked highly. It's utter bull**** from the NCAA & media all at the same time

 

[UMFarArcher]

That bite on his face.

He's gonna turn. Turn to a Walker.

 

[Canes2082]

Dont forget when LSU lost 2 games and got to play Ohio State in the national title and won it!

 

[Biscuits]

"What are the bottom six doing?"

That's a fair point.

Four of those bottom six did so poorly last year that their coaches got fired. The year before, two SEC coaches were canned. The year before that, it was three.

I have made this point before, it is not a conference thing. It is top heavy thing. It is Bama, LSU and a random school (sometimes UF, UGA or Ark) that rotates thing.

This extra money is not going to help the bottom feeders play the elite, it will only help the bottom feeders against OOC (which will be some crap opponent anyway).

The SEC has some of the best but it ends there, no one is scared of the bottom 6 (Miss, Miss State, Vandy, Kentucky, Missou and Auburn).

That article is ******* laffable, and the statement in bold is the crux. What an idiotic, irrelevant point.

Who the **** is scared of ANY conference's bottom six? Auburn, by the way, won a national title a few years ago. I'd wager Mississippi, Auburn, and MSU would no worse than average teams in any other conference, and yet that's supposed to mean that the SEC isn't dominant? ******* laffable, man. I get that they seem to have complete immunity when it comes to the NCAA right now - which is a whole other issue. But the SEC is far and away the best conference. Stoops sounds like a clown here.

 

[Biscuits]

Dont forget when LSU lost 2 games and got to play Ohio State in the national title and won it!

They didn't just win. They beat the **** out of those ****rags from up North.

And that precisely is my point. If Ohio State had been eligible this season, the Natty would have been those ****rags, and ND. Is anyone going to sit here and tell me either of those teams deserved to play for a title over Bama or UGA in 2012?

 

[FullyERicht]

Cam Newton didn't go to Auburn for its packed stadiums, or it's NFL pedigree. He went there bc they paid him.

Patrick JOHNSON didn't go to LSU bc he wanted to be in an SEC environment. They gave his daddy a job, and he became Patrick Peterson.

The SEC machine has been born of their blatant buying of players, and the NCAAs systematic dismantling of the biggest threat programs in USC and Miami.

The SEC wasn't **** before Mark Emmert took over and suddenly every SEC school is pulling in elite talent, and Miami, USC, Boise, UNC, and OSU get **** on.

And don't even get me started on the drug testing programs that exist in that conference.

 

[Consigliere]

"What are the bottom six doing?"

That's a fair point.

Four of those bottom six did so poorly last year that their coaches got fired. The year before, two SEC coaches were canned. The year before that, it was three.

I have made this point before, it is not a conference thing. It is top heavy thing. It is Bama, LSU and a random school (sometimes UF, UGA or Ark) that rotates thing.

This extra money is not going to help the bottom feeders play the elite, it will only help the bottom feeders against OOC (which will be some crap opponent anyway).

The SEC has some of the best but it ends there, no one is scared of the bottom 6 (Miss, Miss State, Vandy, Kentucky, Missou and Auburn).

That article is ****ing laffable, and the statement in bold is the crux. What an idiotic, irrelevant point.

Who the **** is scared of ANY conference's bottom six? Auburn, by the way, won a national title a few years ago. I'd wager Mississippi, Auburn, and MSU would no worse than average teams in any other conference, and yet that's supposed to mean that the SEC isn't dominant? ****ing laffable, man. I get that they seem to have complete immunity when it comes to the NCAA right now - which is a whole other issue. But the SEC is far and away the best conference. Stoops sounds like a clown here.

Those are my thoughts, I put the article in italics.

Reading comprehension.

 

[Port Knox]

Cam Newton didn't go to Auburn for its packed stadiums, or it's NFL pedigree. He went there bc they paid him.

Patrick JOHNSON didn't go to LSU bc he wanted to be in an SEC environment. They gave his daddy a job, and he became Patrick Peterson.

The SEC machine has been born of their blatant buying of players, and the NCAAs systematic dismantling of the biggest threat programs in USC and Miami.

The SEC wasn't **** before Mark Emmert took over and suddenly every SEC school is pulling in elite talent, and Miami, USC, Boise, UNC, and OSU get **** on.

And don't even get me started on the drug testing programs that exist in that conference.