That'd be dope. Hopefully for SECCG we'd see a four team play off running up to it.
Top team from each pod. But that's probably adding too much to schedules. Or would it go from tiebreaks/h2h as currently does?Oklahoma and texas want in the SEC.
- Thread starter jeff2001
- Start date
Top team from each pod. But that's probably adding too much to schedules. Or would it go from tiebreaks/h2h as currently does?I believe you give conference affiliation to much credit. What has it done for USC? In Florida State’s early ACC days, they had their choice of recruits. Florida, in the SEC, got the leftovers.
FSU entering the ACC had a much stronger program/reputation that USC did entering the SEC.
Amen
I was at USC during the last ACC years and that conference can eat you know what and die as far as I’m concerned. I suspect most of those wanting a return to the ACC didn’t’ have to live with their bs. We were fighting against 4 or 5 equivalents of Texas in those days.
I believe I understate it. FSU under Bowden went through the roster they had under Bowden they got into the ACC. Once those people cycled out, the deterioration was obvious. As for us, we are just too inept to get anywhere in the SEC unless led by a hall-of-fame-level coach. The two we have had were at the end of their shelf-lives. We'll have to discover another one to break through. One like, say, Smart or Orgeron wouldn't cut it.
I’m not sure that I follow. Bowden was with Fla St. for about 20 years in the ACC, and then Fisher finished every year top 25 including a NC, except for his last year. For the last decade Clemson took over and had their choice of players while also in the ACC. Meanwhile USC found a few years of success, and most would argue that was due to the coach, not the SEC. so I still say that other than $$ payout, conference affiliation is overrated. Using USC as an example, change my mind.
If we were in the ACC at the time we had that coach...we would have been winning the conference championships, going to the big bowls and, maybe.....be where Clemson is currently sitting.
Wouldn't bother. Your mind has synthesized a conclusion just like mine has. I'm watching golf right now.
If that were true, then you proved my point that being in the SEC alone isn’t enough to attract recruits. Your statement would infer that being in the SEC is detrimental.
I totally agree that being in a particular conference is not enough to attract recruits. It is simply one selling point and definitely not the most important.
Why take in Iowa state or a third in Texas when you could get Florida state or Clemson. (I don’t see how anyone can be ok with Texas coming in and not ok with Clemson. That’s a&m’s in state rival, it’s the same with clemson and why we don’t want them.). With that said I know I will get flamed for saying it but I did.
I would hate to see clemson join the SEC, but i would not like to see University of South Carolina react like how Texas A&M is right now. Jus accept it and move on. I know once over 50 years ago clemson had an chance to leave the conference, but got cold feet and decided to stay. About 30 years ago, Florida State turned down the SEC. I do not know how both of those universities would feel about moving to SEC, but I think the clemson coach would refuse to move to the SEC. While I will acknowledge that over the last 15 years or so clemson has reached out to play SEC teams (Auburn, Texas A&M Georgia), but that is different than having to play those teams on a weekly basis. clemson joining the SEC would decrease their chances of making the college football playoffs.
