Ducks Attack Message Board Forum

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr- ... 21063.html

I'm sure most of y'all may agree

However, c'mon man! Is he really making the argument that the Big 12 is a better conference than they SEC!

My only argument is that you don't play 9 conference games and most sec fans try to appeal to emotion rather than acknowledge that the extra conference game would bring some of this "mystique" down.

Duck07 wrote:My only argument is that you don't play 9 conference games and most sec fans try to appeal to emotion rather than acknowledge that the extra conference game would bring some of this "mystique" down.

Fair enough there, there is actually a lot of chatter now about going to a 9 conference schedule. I really don’t think it would change much to be honest with you…at least not as much as people think. I mean maybe if Alabama played Florida or South Carolina last year they would have lost, but I doubt it. No one else in the East would of beat them.

Bud Lee wrote:

Duck07 wrote:My only argument is that you don't play 9 conference games and most sec fans try to appeal to emotion rather than acknowledge that the extra conference game would bring some of this "mystique" down.

Fair enough there, there is actually a lot of chatter now about going to a 9 conference schedule. I really don’t think it would change much to be honest with you…at least not as much as people think. I mean maybe if Alabama played Florida or South Carolina last year they would have lost, but I doubt it. No one else in the East would of beat them.

Probably true, but there would be 7 guaranteed additional losses by SEC teams per year. Thus, weakening the conference wide strength argument. It takes some mediocre teams and makes them look softer. A softer slate = a handful of top teams, a few good ones, a few bad ones, like most other major conferences. That's why everyone complains about it.

ncduck wrote:

Bud Lee wrote:

Duck07 wrote:My only argument is that you don't play 9 conference games and most sec fans try to appeal to emotion rather than acknowledge that the extra conference game would bring some of this "mystique" down.

Fair enough there, there is actually a lot of chatter now about going to a 9 conference schedule. I really don’t think it would change much to be honest with you…at least not as much as people think. I mean maybe if Alabama played Florida or South Carolina last year they would have lost, but I doubt it. No one else in the East would of beat them.

Probably true, but there would be 7 guaranteed additional losses by SEC teams per year. Thus, weakening the conference wide strength argument. It takes some mediocre teams and makes them look softer. A softer slate = a handful of top teams, a few good ones, a few bad ones, like most other major conferences. That's why everyone complains about it.

There you go again trying to apply logic to the argument.

ncduck wrote:

Bud Lee wrote:

Duck07 wrote:My only argument is that you don't play 9 conference games and most sec fans try to appeal to emotion rather than acknowledge that the extra conference game would bring some of this "mystique" down.

Fair enough there, there is actually a lot of chatter now about going to a 9 conference schedule. I really don’t think it would change much to be honest with you…at least not as much as people think. I mean maybe if Alabama played Florida or South Carolina last year they would have lost, but I doubt it. No one else in the East would of beat them.

Probably true, but there would be 7 guaranteed additional losses by SEC teams per year. Thus, weakening the conference wide strength argument. It takes some mediocre teams and makes them look softer. A softer slate = a handful of top teams, a few good ones, a few bad ones, like most other major conferences. That's why everyone complains about it.

Agreed, it would be 7 more losses spread out among 14 schools and I don’t see it changing much of anything. What…maybe one or two less teams make it to a bowl? They ones on top would still win out.

Agreed Bud, the top two or three teams would still be top in the country. But maybe a little more battered , ie a few more injuries. And the rankings of the mid teams would drop, plus the low end teams would take their place like the rest of ours being home with less revenue in bowl season. It is only fair. The love fest would ease. But Bama and LSU and one or two others would be still be up there every year.

I don't think anyone would rationally argue the top tier SEC teams don't constitute a majority of the nation's elite teams. That being said, I do think Coach Stoops has a point as to the drop off on the back end of the conference. I don't always buy the argument that the "depth of the conference" is so vastly superior to everyone else.

Stoops is a tool. Guess he forgot to mention that Kansas didn't win a conference game, and only 4 out of the 10 teams in the conference finished with a winning conference record. Plus, making a bowl game doesn't mean you had a good season. IMO, finishing 7-6 isn't impressive.

I hate the stoops as much as anyone, but to play devils advocate here, Texas A&M didn't exactly light up the big 12 the last decade. Then they transfer to the SEC and become a top 10 team.

buckmarkduck wrote:I hate the stoops as much as anyone, but to play devils advocate here, Texas A&M didn't exactly light up the big 12 the last decade. Then they transfer to the SEC and become a top 10 team.

buckmarkduck wrote:I hate the stoops as much as anyone, but to play devils advocate here, Texas A&M didn't exactly light up the big 12 the last decade. Then they transfer to the SEC and become a top 10 team.

They didn't exactly have two first round offensive linemen blocking for a very special Heisman quarter back that had a breakout year. They would have gone undefeated in the Big 12 this year in my opinion.

Now they might not of “lighten things up"…but…here is a look at the past 8 years in the Big 12-

2011: Lost 6 Games in the regular season, 5 in conference games (2 lost in OT) and 1 against a SEC opponent, won their bowl game against a Big 10 opponent.

2010: lost 3 games in the regular season, 2 in conference games and 1 against SEC opponent finished the regular season ranked 15th lost to SEC opponent in the Bowl.

2009: Lost 6 games all in the regular season, 5 in conference games and 1 against SEC, lost in their bowl game against an SEC opponent.

2008: Lost 8 games in the regular season, 6 of those were in conference games, 2 (Miami and Arkansas State) OOC opponents.

2007: Lost 5 games in the regular season, 4 of those were in conference and 1 (Miami) OOC. Lost to a big 10 opponent in Bowl.

2006: Lost 3 games in the regular season, all 3 of those were in conference, finished the season ranked 21st before losing their bowl game against Cal.

2005: Lost 6 games , all but 1 lost (Clemson) was against a in conference opponent.

2004: Lost 4 games, all but 1 lost (Utah) was to an in conference opponent. Finished the regular season ranked 22nd, and lost to an SEC opponent (Tenn) in their Bowl.

So, did they "light it up" , No, but they were a competitive middle of the road team not .

Now, if you are going to say "Look at how well A&M did in the SEC" one most also say "look at how BAD Mizzou did." Mizzou went 2-6 in conference this year. They beat Kentucky, (who everyone beats) and almost lost to Tenn in overtime. Unlike A&M, they DID light things up in the Big 12. Since 2006 they had 3 10+ win seasons, Finished 2nd in the North division of the Big 12 twice, finished first in the North and went to the championship game twice, and finished the season ranked in the BCS top 25 one of which they were ranked 4th in the nation.