Comments on: Taking A Shot At SEC’s Bama, Big Ten’s Delany Hits Nebraska, Too (Oh, And We Told Ya The SEC’s Schedule Would Be Questioned)

By: safety guy

safety guy — Fri, 11 May 2012 02:58:56 +0000

Delaney is great for business. So is talk about the 4 team playoff because there is no perfect solution. I made a previous post about smart people being ignorant and the point I was trying to make was that because there are no perfect solutions, anybody can look ignorant because all plans will have huge holes in them. But I am getting resigned to the 4 team playoff but the playoff will be a complete joke if the SEC champ is not in the 4 team playoff at the expense of a undefeated Big East team (plus 3 other undefeated or 1 loss teams). It should be the best 4 teams and not the best 4 records and unfortunately the rankings place too much emphasis on record. Was Cincinnati the 3rd or 4th best team in the country when they got slaughtered by Florida. Another thing. A team that does not win their championship should only be eligible for the playoff if their conference champ is in the playoff. Last year is the perfect example. Alabama (#2) is eligible because LSU (#1) is elibible. But Stanford (#4) would not be and would be replaced by Oregon (#5) as the next seeded team. If we allow conference runner ups to have an advantage over their conference champs, what is the point of having conferences and conference championship games.

Then finally, why not do away with all the other existing bowl tie ins and have the other bowl games equalized to pair up the top 6 conferences in games against each other based on where they place in their conference standings. Mix it up where each conference is playing a game against each of the other conferences. So, you can kind of determine the strength of the conferences. Use that in a BCS formula for next seasons rankings. Not completely fair but it would add more drama to all the other bowl games. May be too tricked up like baseball all star game, but the teams would actually be playing for their conference in the bowl games and may draw more viewers. Like I said, ignorant.

By: OldArmy

OldArmy — Fri, 11 May 2012 01:00:45 +0000

Thanks Bubba, that might explain the no to A&M when we were trying to fill out our schedule for this year and next, after the announcement of admission to the SEC. Had not thought of that angle. Might not be true, but it fits.

By: Guest

Guest — Thu, 10 May 2012 20:21:09 +0000

Yeah, Delaney would love for the SEC to cannibalize itself by playing 9 conference games. There’s not many other excuses available to the other conferences for SEC domination are there? If Slive is as clever as advertised, he won’t take the bait. Anyway Bama, the team he took shots at, has played Big 10 teams the last two years and will open with one this year. See all this for what it is, desperate rationalization from a commissioner who has seen the league under his watch turn into a pucnhing bag not just for the SEC, but other conferences as well. Don’t get too emotional bout his commnents, move on, nothing to see here.

By: Bubba Gump

Bubba Gump — Thu, 10 May 2012 17:41:53 +0000

@Hogitall Considering the B12 has said no to scheduling TAMU or MU in the future, my guess is it would be an ACC vs SEC bond. Since multiple SEC east teams already have multiple ties to ACC schools this is already happening. You already have UF vs FSU, UGA vs GT, and USC vs CU as in state rivals, and numerous games played with cross state rivals already established.

By: Hogitall

Hogitall — Thu, 10 May 2012 17:10:22 +0000

I believe the SEC needs to work out a B1G/Pac12 type agreement with the B12 and ACC. The B1G and Pac12 are creating coast-to-coast coverage of their programs by playing each other. They can get the benefits of conference expansion, without actually expanding their leagues. The SEC, B12 and ACC need to work together to come up with a games package that would surpass what the B1G/Pac12 can offer. OU/LSU, Ark/WV, TX/A&M or Bama, MU/KU, TN/VT, GA/Clemson and others. This would enhance the TV packages for these conferences, and provide college football fans the best that college football has to offer.

By: JohnVol

JohnVol — Thu, 10 May 2012 16:40:37 +0000

MrSEC,

While I understand that eventually the SEC will probably go to nine league games, Delaney doesn’t have a point here.

Delaney’s argument is essentially that Big Ten teams play a tougher schedule than SEC teams because they play a ninth conference game. But the ninth conference game is against another Big Ten team! Last year Alabama, for example, had to play two top five teams…in its own division. Is Delaney really saying a Big Ten team played a harder schedule than that because they had an extra game tacked on against Illinois or Northwestern?

Last year the SEC finished with three top-five teams and a fourth in the top-ten. An eight game schedule against that kind of competition is much tougher than a nine game schedule against some combination of Indiana, Purdue, Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa, etc. Stated another way…do you think it would be tougher to beat two NFL teams or fifteen high school teams? That’s obviously an exaggeration, but Alabama had a tougher home game against LSU than Ohio State had in its nine conference opponents combined.

Staying with the Alabama theme (because as a Tennessee fan I have nothing to cheer about lately)…this year the Tide will play eight SEC games PLUS a neutral site opener vs. Michigan. After Saban beats Hoke by three touchdowns, I think Delaney should certainly reevaluate just how tough an extra Big Ten opponent is each year.

Delaney is paid handsomely by the Big Ten schools to do what’s in their best interest, so it’s perfectly reasonable and expected for him to try to preserve spots in any playoff for his league. However he is proposing idiotic and laughable ideas that sound to me like nothing more than sour grapes. The bottom line is this…the SEC champion will be in a playoff every year, and will more than likely win it. If Delaney gets his way and succeeds in only letting one SEC team in, that actually makes the path much easier.

I’m sure Les Miles would’ve much rather played someone like Ohio State in the title game last year.

Love the site!

By: Bubba Gump

Bubba Gump — Thu, 10 May 2012 15:43:47 +0000

John, you of all people should know that when Delany says B1G he really means the Ohio State. Every time I see his quotes and exchange B1G with the Ohio State it all makes sense. Just read the paraphrased quote, and you can see why he forgot all about Nebraska and Colorado :

“I certainly wouldn’t have as much regard for Alabama as I would for someone who played eight conference games – including Indiana – in a tough conference and played a couple out-of-conference games on the road against really good opponents – Like Cal (7-6) , UAB (3-9) , UCF (5-7) , and MIAMI (4-8, the one in ohio) . If a poll doesn’t honor the Ohio State and they’re conference champions, I do (even if they are not bowl eligible) .”

It also helps Delany speak if you substitute Southern Cal for PAC, and Notre Dame for B1G, because according to this quote of his the Irish won a CCG :

“The Pac-12 is playing nine and then to go out and play a round-robin game against us, that’s 10 and some of them are going to play Notre Dame— that’s 11 difficult games. If they’re ranked fifth in the country and they won a conference championship, I think that’s quite an accomplishment.”

It really does makes his quotes and anger easier to understand. He is pissed off the Ohio State will not be in the MNC game, and even if Southern Cal makes it they will just get rolled by the Tide! Notre Dame, hah, when was the last year they were in the MNC game!

By: MoKelly

MoKelly — Thu, 10 May 2012 15:39:44 +0000

Delaney is a whinner. He knows the SEC is the superior league and that is why he has consistently beat his drum on Conference winners. He wants to push the point that “all Conferences are equal” — so the winner of the Big 10 is automatically better than any SEC team who doesn’t win their Conference. He knows that is BS but its his only option. Just look at the recent bowls — SEC vs. Big 10 — the SEC went 3-1. The best from the SEC pretty much dominated the best from the Big 10. That’s the real story — not all the Conference Champion’s talk.

By: I4Bama

I4Bama — Thu, 10 May 2012 15:11:57 +0000

You know you have them right where you want them when…

By: FallsChurchDore

FallsChurchDore — Thu, 10 May 2012 14:42:52 +0000

Wonder if Slive will do what the Big Ten did and announce a move to a 9-game schedule…5 or 6 years down the road…to both address these types of comments and leave the status quo in place for now that has worked so well for the league.

By: I4Bama

I4Bama — Thu, 10 May 2012 14:39:59 +0000

Hi Jim, Mike here.

How about our non-division winning team in a round robin against the entire Big Ten for the privilege of deciding the four team format? Next weekend good for you? Maybe we could start with Michigan.

By: John at MrSEC

John at MrSEC — Thu, 10 May 2012 14:28:09 +0000

viciousdawg…

Didn’t forget a thing. You believe the SEC is stronger and that other leagues have “patsy” games. You’re an SEC fan.

My point — quite clearly, I thought — was that most people are NOT fans of Mike Slive’s league and if given the chance to rip the SEC’s schedule, they will do so.

Sticking with an eight-game plan gives them that opportunity. What you or I or Joe SEC Fan thinks is moot. What does the rest of the country think and how do they influence voters and computer rankings? If everyone starts poking holes in the eight-game SEC schedule, that will eventually be reflected in the rankings. Just as the SEC’s perceived strength has aided it in the rankings the last few years.

Thanks for reading,
John

By: John at MrSEC

John at MrSEC — Thu, 10 May 2012 14:23:53 +0000

MiloMoon…

Fully aware of that fact. We’ve written on this site previously that every Big 10 team will still be guaranteed nine BCS-level games per year thanks to the Pac-12 agreement.

Not all SEC schools do that.

One thing that drives me nuts about this site is that if I don’t spell something out, people think I don’t know it. In reality, I figure most folks have read that 20 times on this site already.

So I can either re-write the same thing over and over and get comments about not writing anything new… or I can have people say, “you forgot…”

Thanks for reading,
John

By: MiloMoon

MiloMoon — Thu, 10 May 2012 14:11:07 +0000

The Big 10 has yet to commit to a 9 game conference schedule. Right now Delany is counting their games scheduled with the PAC as the 9th game. They have backed off the 9 game conference schedule as of right now. Many of the SEC teams schedule at least one BCS level team OOC each year. UT tries to have at least one national marquee opponent (with home and home series with OU and Neb already on the schedule). UGA has GT, UF has FSU, and USC has Clemson. LSU and Bama have both been more aggressive in scheduling the past couple of years. No one will care much about the Ole Miss and Miss St. schedules, but even they have been trying to schedule OOC foes like BYU. So I see this as a challenge to the leagues schools that if they are not going to go to 9 games, at least add one major opponent OOC each year. Now as more conferences go to 9 conference games, it will be harder to schedule the top teams for home and home series, but it can be done. I would personally like to see a BCS conference opponent than another SEC game each year. Variety is the spice of life.

By: viciousdawg

viciousdawg — Thu, 10 May 2012 14:10:07 +0000

you forget a very important point… B1G = OSU and Michigan then everyone else. B12 = Oklahoma and Texas then everyone else. Pac 12 = USC and Oregon then everyone else. for “most” years not all. So when you only have one or two good teams in a conference it doesnt compare to the SEC schedule. Most other conferences do have 6 “patsy” games built in the conference schedule.