🏈 Here's an interesting stat regarding the SEC vs the Big1? (Big10)

[TerryP]

We all know how successful the SEC has been in BCS NC games; 7-0. We all know we've won the last five in a row.

But, did you know...

The SEC has had as many schools (four) win national championships in the past five years (Florida, LSU, Alabama and Auburn) as the Big Ten has in the 74-year history of the AP poll (Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota and Ohio State).”

 

[TerryP]

Not to seem like I'm banging on the Big10 this morning...just putting a few things in perspective, if you will.

Since 2006, no other conference has had more than two different schools play for the national title. To put the SEC's recent dominance in perspective, consider that the Big Ten has won just two championships in the past 40 years, by Michigan in '97 (shared with Nebraska) and Ohio State in '02. The SEC won its 10th in 19 years.

And, as a FWIW, just once in history has a conference won five titles in a row. Again, Big10, with Michigan and Minnesota win five straight from 1932 - 1936.

 

[lilstat]

I think this dominance from the SEC will be talked about years down the road for sure. There is no question that the SEC just doesn't lose in the big game, well not yet anyways.

My question is when does the dominance stop? I mean just look ahead to next year. We may just have another SEC team playing once again for a National Championship.

IMO, I think we win the big games because of our tough schedule we run through to make it. It is tough every week in the SEC no matter where you go and who you play. This just helps the SEC teams perform better once making it to the big games in my humble opinion.

 

[Tider27]

Ha I didn't know that, just another dominating stat for the SEC. Ho hum.

 

[BamaCore]

Haha, good stuff. I'm still amazed when I hear people tell me they think the SEC is overrated.

 

[CaptainTide]

Cool. I didn't really know that, but that's a nice stat for SEC haters.

 

[foshman]

I think this dominance from the SEC will be talked about years down the road for sure. There is no question that the SEC just doesn't lose in the big game, well not yet anyways.

My question is when does the dominance stop? I mean just look ahead to next year. We may just have another SEC team playing once again for a National Championship.

IMO, I think we win the big games because of our tough schedule we run through to make it. It is tough every week in the SEC no matter where you go and who you play. This just helps the SEC teams perform better once making it to the big games in my humble opinion.

We win in the SEC for several reasons. First I think you're correct with the schedule but I think you can go a step further. The schedule in the SEC is so difficult because of the culture in the southeast. Nowhere else, at a conference level, are so many schools so passionate about football. Passion leads to bigger budgets, fuller stadiums, and an overall more competitive environment. Second there is something to be said for population migration. A quick look at the recruiting sites will show you that the most talented states for recruits is something like this

Tier1 Florida, Texas, California

Tier2 Georgia

Tier3 Alabama, Louisiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania

So 4 of the top 8 are in the southeast and most recruits prefer to stay within driving distance of their home.

Finally the SEC is the only conference that allows programs to oversign players. Whether you agree with the practice or not it's difficult to not recognize it as a major competitive advantage for the SEC schools.

I would imagine that loophole will eventually close. Lord knows the Big Ten, Pac12, and UT are screaming bloody murder over it. They, of course, ignore that we graduate just as many of our athletes as the "good" programs in other conferences.

I wonder what the Big Ten, Pac12 and UT's excuse will be then.

 

[planomateo]

My question is when does the dominance stop? I mean just look ahead to next year. We may just have another SEC team playing once again for a National Championship.

When the SEC/NCAA bans oversigning.

 

[BamaCore]

When the SEC/NCAA bans oversigning.

This has become the age old excuse. While the SEC does get away with a little oversigning, that hardly translates into this type of dominance by one conference.

 

[planomateo]

guess it depends on where you stand on the commitment the University makes to the student - 1 year or 4 years - in terms of your comment on "a little oversigning" and how it might or might not impact a team/conference dominance.

to me there is clearly an advantage.

 

[TerryP]

When the SEC/NCAA bans oversigning.

This has become the age old excuse. While the SEC does get away with a little oversigning, that hardly translates into this type of dominance by one conference.

Age old excuse...that doesn't begin to cover my feelings on this matter.

There is only one, ONE, bottom line.

85/25.

We are no different than any other school in the nation. The SEC is no different from any conference.

It's still 85/25...and it'll remain 85/25.

 

[TerryP]

And, FWIW, those that say the SEC is the only conference that allows over-signing are simply wrong.

Just as a few examples...last year, OU had 29 commitments (Big12?), Miami had 29 (Big East)...

Granted, Ole Miss blew the door down with their numbers...but, if you take all 12 teams in the SEC and look at how many verbals they've received over the last few years you'll see that number at 25. We had what, 28 verbals last season vs Georgia only getting 23.

This "conspiracy" theory on oversigning...a load of chit.

 

[psychojoe]

I'm not sure just what is meant by "oversigning". Is it the SEC rule that allows a school to "sign" as many as 28 for a class, though only 25 for that class can be placed on scholarship for a given recruiting year? Is it a school like Alabama that apparently plans on signing 25, give or take, for this year's class, even though arithmetic tells us that right now there are 72 (or close to that number) of last year's players who have eligibility remaining, which means some manner of culling of the 72 has to occur. Is it a bad thing if we have a player who has been on scholarship four years, redshirted once, has greaduated, has his scholarship pulled? Is it bad when a player who has recurring injuries such that he can no longer compete at the level is removed from football scholarship but still has his education paid for?

Personally I think it is just the football mentality in the south that gives the SEC the advantage. Its all based on the rivalries. If your top rival is successful at a sport and gets favorable attention for it, you jump in with the money and effort needed to be competitve.

 

[TerryP]

Here's one thing that really gets me Howard. Believe you me, I've had this conversation with more than a handful of college football fans outside of the SEC.

To a fan, I've asked this question.

If you have a business and have an employee that isn't panning out what do you do? To a fan, the response was "fire them."

Now, I'm of the notion that if we have a player that isn't panning out to expectations, let's move on.

As a fan, as long as the numbers work I'm fine. The thing, seldom mentioned, is the fact those players that have moved on...majority still getting an education and some still playing.

 

[foshman]

To a fan, I've asked this question.

If you have a business and have an employee that isn't panning out what do you do? To a fan, the response was "fire them."

Now, I'm of the notion that if we have a player that isn't panning out to expectations, let's move on.

An interesting, and honest, take on the situation. I suspect Saban and many other SEC coaches feels the same way you do. It's a reasonable opinion.

Other people do not consider college athletes employees. Some coaches and institutions would prefer to accept the accountability of a player not succeeding as a failure on their part rather than holding an 18-22 year old accountable for not living up to their expectations on the field.

I can see both sides.

I don't really know what to believe in regards to the medical red shirt thing that Saban get hammered for. I don't have an informed enough opinion to really have even have an opinion.

The biggest problem I have is not that many universities (UA and AU included) that oversign do so anticipating recruits to not qualify academically. The problem arises when a kid is offered a scholarship, accepts it in good faith, and then has it rescinded -or delayed if he's a grayshirt- due to "numbers" once it's too late to sign at another school. I find that completely unfair to the recruit and I consider it unethical on the part of the coach. There are much better models for extending scholarships currently in place in universities around the country. To their credit the Big Ten schools do not grayshirt players for this reason to my knowledge because they conference and member institutions frown upon doing that.

 

[TerryP]

The Big10 isn't allowed to oversign. It's a conference rule. But, it's also a rule that means nothing. They can yell all they want about the SEC but you won't hear a peep out of them about Georgia, as example, only having 19 verbals in 2009 vs Ohio State's 25. Heck, LSU only had 24 that year.

Medical red-shirts.

There's only one situation where we've had a player that ended up getting a medical that was "curious" to me. Ezekial Knight. The thing about Zeke is he was destined to start, not cleared by the medical staff, objected to that ruling and transferred.

Other than that, I have no problems, issues, or questions about how ANY coach handles their team. That said with a caveat, mentioned earlier.

Everyone of the players (with the exception of those who lost scholly's due to crime) who have moved on from our program are still getting their education, free. They may not be playing ball. But, they are getting educated.

What more can a fan, parent, hell anyone ask?

 

[TerryP]

FWIW fosh, and I can tell you this as fact because I've talked to several parents in these situations...those players that are grey-shirted aren't surprised...they already knew it was coming.