|
|
Post by Bevo on Aug 12, 2023 13:21:15 GMT
Stealing this post from another board that focuses on Big 12 issues...
"I promise you, the Big 12 had other problems besides just ESPN.
For example, the last time a Big 12 team won the natty was 2005 Texas Longhorns. Before that was 2000 Oklahoma. (Don't go back to Nebraska's 1994 and 1995 nattys because they were in the Big 8 at the time.) So for the 6 seasons of 2000-2005 the Big 12 had 2 national champions -- IMHO that's pretty good. Since then, nothing.
Since 2006 (17 seasons from 2006 to 2022) the SEC has won 13 nattys, with 3 others won by ACC teams that are in the southeast footprint (Clemson twice and Florida State once). Of the past 17 seasons, the only time a non southeastern team won the natty was only once: 2014 Ohio State of the Big 10. So all of the conferences are chasing the SEC specifically, and the southeastern region in general. They all want the kind of success and money the SEC teams are enjoying, and I can't blame them."
I guess I knew this, but it's sobering to see just how one-sided things have been. I think it hasn't FELT as bad because Ohio State could easily have won one or two more. But, they didn't. ONE, in the past 17 years... not from the Southeast US. That's undeniable dominance.
|
|
|
|
Post by EvilVodka on Aug 12, 2023 15:08:13 GMT
Stealing this post from another board that focuses on Big 12 issues...
"I promise you, the Big 12 had other problems besides just ESPN.For example, the last time a Big 12 team won the natty was 2005 Texas Longhorns. Before that was 2000 Oklahoma. (Don't go back to Nebraska's 1994 and 1995 nattys because they were in the Big 8 at the time.) So for the 6 seasons of 2000-2005 the Big 12 had 2 national champions -- IMHO that's pretty good. Since then, nothing.
Since 2006 (17 seasons from 2006 to 2022) the SEC has won 13 nattys, with 3 others won by ACC teams that are in the southeast footprint (Clemson twice and Florida State once). Of the past 17 seasons, the only time a non southeastern team won the natty was only once: 2014 Ohio State of the Big 10. So all of the conferences are chasing the SEC specifically, and the southeastern region in general. They all want the kind of success and money the SEC teams are enjoying, and I can't blame them."I guess I knew this, but it's sobering to see just how one-sided things have been. I think it hasn't FELT as bad because Ohio State could easily have won one or two more. But, they didn't. ONE, in the past 17 years... not from the Southeast US. That's undeniable dominance. I question how much the postseason BCS and Playoff have led to these results...
USC had good teams in 2007 and 2008 that might have won a championship. Texas in 2008 definitely might have won it. Utah was 13-0 in 2008.
In 2010, TCU was undefeated, and Stanford and Ohio State were sitting there with 1 loss. Auburn was good, but I think they were beatable.
In 2011, Oklahoma State was left out. Doubtful if they could have beaten Alabama or LSU though
In 2014, TCU and Baylor were left out.
The problem has always been access. Would a full blown playoff from 2006 changed much? maybe a few years, but I don't think the quickest route to a championship would be perceived as solely a pathway through the SEC.
You also had the Alabama dynasty begin in 2009, and the grip Nick Saban has had on the sport has been pretty impressive. Take Alabama out of the picture, and you might have more variation between regions.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluehen on Aug 12, 2023 20:14:15 GMT
How would you fellers feel about Southeastern college aged football if there were far more stringent, serious, and strictly enforced academic standards for player eligibility ? Just asking. Would it impact that dominance ?
|
|
|
|
Post by aufan on Aug 13, 2023 18:11:18 GMT
How would you fellers feel about Southeastern college aged football if there were far more stringent, serious, and strictly enforced academic standards for player eligibility ? Just asking. Would it impact that dominance ? Are you even from the south? Kind of embarrassing that you would care about education. |
|
|
|
Post by aufan on Aug 13, 2023 18:36:41 GMT
Stealing this post from another board that focuses on Big 12 issues...
"I promise you, the Big 12 had other problems besides just ESPN.For example, the last time a Big 12 team won the natty was 2005 Texas Longhorns. Before that was 2000 Oklahoma. (Don't go back to Nebraska's 1994 and 1995 nattys because they were in the Big 8 at the time.) So for the 6 seasons of 2000-2005 the Big 12 had 2 national champions -- IMHO that's pretty good. Since then, nothing.
Since 2006 (17 seasons from 2006 to 2022) the SEC has won 13 nattys, with 3 others won by ACC teams that are in the southeast footprint (Clemson twice and Florida State once). Of the past 17 seasons, the only time a non southeastern team won the natty was only once: 2014 Ohio State of the Big 10. So all of the conferences are chasing the SEC specifically, and the southeastern region in general. They all want the kind of success and money the SEC teams are enjoying, and I can't blame them."I guess I knew this, but it's sobering to see just how one-sided things have been. I think it hasn't FELT as bad because Ohio State could easily have won one or two more. But, they didn't. ONE, in the past 17 years... not from the Southeast US. That's undeniable dominance. I question how much the postseason BCS and Playoff have led to these results...
USC had good teams in 2007 and 2008 that might have won a championship. Texas in 2008 definitely might have won it. Utah was 13-0 in 2008.
In 2010, TCU was undefeated, and Stanford and Ohio State were sitting there with 1 loss. Auburn was good, but I think they were beatable.
In 2011, Oklahoma State was left out. Doubtful if they could have beaten Alabama or LSU though
In 2014, TCU and Baylor were left out.
The problem has always been access. Would a full blown playoff from 2006 changed much? maybe a few years, but I don't think the quickest route to a championship would be perceived as solely a pathway through the SEC.
You also had the Alabama dynasty begin in 2009, and the grip Nick Saban has had on the sport has been pretty impressive. Take Alabama out of the picture, and you might have more variation between regions.
Put a four or eight team playoff starting in the 80’s, and the south/SEC wins a lot more National Championships than they already did. SEC dominance started in the 80’s, it just wasn’t recognized until much later. |
|
|
|
Post by ajbuckeye on Aug 13, 2023 20:24:14 GMT
Stealing this post from another board that focuses on Big 12 issues...
"I promise you, the Big 12 had other problems besides just ESPN.For example, the last time a Big 12 team won the natty was 2005 Texas Longhorns. Before that was 2000 Oklahoma. (Don't go back to Nebraska's 1994 and 1995 nattys because they were in the Big 8 at the time.) So for the 6 seasons of 2000-2005 the Big 12 had 2 national champions -- IMHO that's pretty good. Since then, nothing.
Since 2006 (17 seasons from 2006 to 2022) the SEC has won 13 nattys, with 3 others won by ACC teams that are in the southeast footprint (Clemson twice and Florida State once). Of the past 17 seasons, the only time a non southeastern team won the natty was only once: 2014 Ohio State of the Big 10. So all of the conferences are chasing the SEC specifically, and the southeastern region in general. They all want the kind of success and money the SEC teams are enjoying, and I can't blame them."I guess I knew this, but it's sobering to see just how one-sided things have been. I think it hasn't FELT as bad because Ohio State could easily have won one or two more. But, they didn't. ONE, in the past 17 years... not from the Southeast US. That's undeniable dominance. I question how much the postseason BCS and Playoff have led to these results...
USC had good teams in 2007 and 2008 that might have won a championship. Texas in 2008 definitely might have won it. Utah was 13-0 in 2008.
In 2010, TCU was undefeated, and Stanford and Ohio State were sitting there with 1 loss. Auburn was good, but I think they were beatable.
In 2011, Oklahoma State was left out. Doubtful if they could have beaten Alabama or LSU though
In 2014, TCU and Baylor were left out.
The problem has always been access. Would a full blown playoff from 2006 changed much? maybe a few years, but I don't think the quickest route to a championship would be perceived as solely a pathway through the SEC.
You also had the Alabama dynasty begin in 2009, and the grip Nick Saban has had on the sport has been pretty impressive. Take Alabama out of the picture, and you might have more variation between regions.
Keep in mind in 2012 Tatoo gate caused the North a guaranteed win. Looking back on what the Buckeyes did, most team would get a slap on the wrist. The Buckeyes lost a Natty. |
|
|
|
Post by ajbuckeye on Aug 13, 2023 20:25:36 GMT
I question how much the postseason BCS and Playoff have led to these results...
USC had good teams in 2007 and 2008 that might have won a championship. Texas in 2008 definitely might have won it. Utah was 13-0 in 2008.
In 2010, TCU was undefeated, and Stanford and Ohio State were sitting there with 1 loss. Auburn was good, but I think they were beatable.
In 2011, Oklahoma State was left out. Doubtful if they could have beaten Alabama or LSU though
In 2014, TCU and Baylor were left out.
The problem has always been access. Would a full blown playoff from 2006 changed much? maybe a few years, but I don't think the quickest route to a championship would be perceived as solely a pathway through the SEC.
You also had the Alabama dynasty begin in 2009, and the grip Nick Saban has had on the sport has been pretty impressive. Take Alabama out of the picture, and you might have more variation between regions.
Put a four or eight team playoff starting in the 80’s, and the south/SEC wins a lot more National Championships than they already did. SEC dominance started in the 80’s, it just wasn’t recognized until much later. Put an 8 team playoff starting in to 00's the SEC would have a lot less. |
|
|
|
Post by bluehen on Aug 14, 2023 0:42:27 GMT
How would you fellers feel about Southeastern college aged football if there were far more stringent, serious, and strictly enforced academic standards for player eligibility ? Just asking. Would it impact that dominance ? Are you even from the south? Kind of embarrassing that you would care about education. Yeah, live in the capitol of the Confederacy but have always cared about academic integrity in intercollegiate sports, which is pretty well discarded these days. Football , for example, should be called 'College Aged Football" as it is so loosely related to post secondary education. I'm sure there are people in SEC land that really care about academic integrity too ( even at Auburn ) but just stay quiet and shake their heads....don't you think ? |
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Aug 14, 2023 2:03:44 GMT
Are you even from the south? Kind of embarrassing that you would care about education. Yeah, live in the capitol of the Confederacy but have always cared about academic integrity in intercollegiate sports, which is pretty well discarded these days. Football , for example, should be called 'College Aged Football" as it is so loosely related to post secondary education. I'm sure there are people in SEC land that really care about academic integrity too ( even at Auburn ) but just stay quiet and shake their heads....don't you think ? No. No one cares about academic integrity. The P5 is NFL minor league. Increase standards and you drive out the the talent. The NFL starts a REAL minor league, and college football becomes college baseball. Ie: a fun sport to watch for diehard fans. But, NO money, or real interest. |
|
|
|
Post by bluehen on Aug 14, 2023 9:43:55 GMT
Exactly Bevo. However, my post was a 'what if' question. What if there were serious academic standards to include scholly fb athletes ? and how would that impact this southeastern region's relative talent strength in CF ? ....not saying anything, just asking for opinions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Aug 14, 2023 15:11:21 GMT
Exactly Bevo. However, my post was a 'what if' question. What if there were serious academic standards to include scholly fb athletes ? and how would that impact this southeastern region's relative talent strength in CF ? ....not saying anything, just asking for opinions. It would probably end the SE dominance. Everyone would be equally crappy. But that’s more because the money will equal out. No one will have any. |
|
|
|
Post by bluehen on Aug 14, 2023 18:08:48 GMT
Hmmmmm, I don't know about all the $ running out. I can't see the broadcast networks completely abandoning college football just because the players would be required to be legitimate students........and the attendance - would rabid fans of those Southeastern teams quit supporting their teams just because all the players would be 'literate' at the post secondary level ?
I tend to agree that it would help level the playing field a little between those FB playing universities that still try to maintain some semblance of academic standards and those that have zero interest in 'standards'
|
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Aug 14, 2023 18:45:44 GMT
Hmmmmm, I don't know about all the $ running out. I can't see the broadcast networks completely abandoning college football just because the players would be required to be legitimate students....... The networks won't pay big money for stuff NO ONE is watching. The money will be going to NFL minor league teams. |
|
|
|
Post by aufan on Aug 14, 2023 23:03:58 GMT
Put a four or eight team playoff starting in the 80’s, and the south/SEC wins a lot more National Championships than they already did. SEC dominance started in the 80’s, it just wasn’t recognized until much later. Put an 8 team playoff starting in to 00's the SEC would have a lot less. I’d argue they’d have more. 2002, 2004, 2014 just to name a few. |
|
