Big 12 v SEC

[OklaSooners]

Iowa State beat Auburn
Texas beat Vanderbilt
OU beat Alabama
Baylor beat South Carolina

Texas Tech lost to Alsbama

In the next few weeks , there are more big 12 v SEC match ups. It will be interesting to see how it turns out.

I'm sure it was an oversight on espns part, but today after the conclusion of Texas and Iowa State, they reported the big 12 v SEC was tied at one game a piece. For some reason, I feel like if the roles were reverse, they would have accurately reported a 4 - 1 lead by the sec over the big 12

 

[okienole3]

First, the texas vanderbilt game hadnt tipped when they put up that graphic. Also, the Alabama/OU and Baylor South Carolina games were not part if the challenge. We play texas A&M and Baylor plays UK later this month as a part of the challenge.

 

[cyberthoth]

Iowa State beat Auburn
Texas beat Vanderbilt
OU beat Alabama
Baylor beat South Carolina

Texas Tech lost to Alsbama

In the next few weeks , there are more big 12 v SEC match ups. It will be interesting to see how it turns out.

I'm sure it was an oversight on espns part, but today after the conclusion of Texas and Iowa State, they reported the big 12 v SEC was tied at one game a piece. For some reason, I feel like if the roles were reverse, they would have accurately reported a 4 - 1 lead by the sec over the big 12

Do you also believe we didn't land on the moon?

Joking aside the conspiracy theory stuff is silly and it demeans OU's status as a major player in football and basketball. ESPN has humans running things and humans make mistakes, it's really that simple.

 

[okienole3]

It wasnt a mistake.

 

[MNsooner]

I think the Big 12-SEC Challenge is a planned series of games. It is possible that it is 1-1 and that 3 games (like ours against Alabama) were not a part of it. I know our Big 12-SEC Challenge is against Texas A&M. I don't think there is a conspiracy here. I think the name of the series just implied that it was all the Big 12 v SEC games when it is not.

 

[opsooner]

K-St playing Ole Miss this week. Here is how K-St is trying to tell tickets when you go to their athletic site. Pretty funny and I suspect a lot of Ole Miss opponents will be using similar tactics...

http://www.kstatesports.com/

 

[MsProudSooner]

Here's a list of the games in the Big 12 SEC Challenge from the Big 12 website:

http://www.big12sports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?ATCLID=207658760

Our game against Alabama wasn't a part of it.

 

[sperry]

Do you also believe we didn't land on the moon?

Joking aside the conspiracy theory stuff is silly and it demeans OU's status as a major player in football and basketball. ESPN has humans running things and humans make mistakes, it's really that simple.

ESPN has a major SEC bias. It doesn't really matter what the reason for it is (sincere, misplaced belief in the superiority of the conference or financial motivation or whatever), but it exists.

 

[DenverSooner]

It isn't just ESPN. Much of the nation is living is this fantasy world where athletes in the Southeast Region are considered better than other regions. Funny thing is that Missouri has very few, if any, athletes from the southeast on its football roster and they are going to win the SEC on Saturday and worse case come in second.

 

[Sawyer]

I assume those who believe in a bias would say it extends to the ratings services, as well, but Mizzou's opponents this year had three times as many 4-5 star players as Mizzou's 2007 schedule.

I don't think it's really a stretch to say there are more high-level athletes in the southeast region. Per capita, those states produce some of the most NFL talent (not exactly a bias there). Outside of Texas and perhaps Oklahoma, the Big 12 states don't exactly produce a ton of talent. Extending that to the entire midwest, you can put Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania in the conversation, but they're still lagging comparatively. It's not that athletes from the southeast are better. There are just more of them.

Mizzou's been doing pretty well for awhile now with players mostly overlooked by bigger programs, regardless of where they're from (well in this case = 9+ wins over the past seven seasons, including last year's debacle and this year's unfinished record). Pinkel looks for raw players with physical traits he can develop, and his program is pretty damn good at developing those guys. Doesn't really negate any SEC hype. We take a different approach than many teams, and we do it well.

And I should add: Mizzou playing West Virginia in the Big 12/SEC challenge is crap.

 

[sperry]

I assume those who believe in a bias would say it extends to the ratings services, as well, but Mizzou's opponents this year had three times as many 4-5 star players as Mizzou's 2007 schedule.

I don't think it's really a stretch to say there are more high-level athletes in the southeast region. Per capita, those states produce some of the most NFL talent (not exactly a bias there). Outside of Texas and perhaps Oklahoma, the Big 12 states don't exactly produce a ton of talent. Extending that to the entire midwest, you can put Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania in the conversation, but they're still lagging comparatively. It's not that athletes from the southeast are better. There are just more of them.

Mizzou's been doing pretty well for awhile now with players mostly overlooked by bigger programs, regardless of where they're from (well in this case = 9+ wins over the past seven seasons, including last year's debacle and this year's unfinished record). Pinkel looks for raw players with physical traits he can develop, and his program is pretty damn good at developing those guys. Doesn't really negate any SEC hype. We take a different approach than many teams, and we do it well.

And I should add: Mizzou playing West Virginia in the Big 12/SEC challenge is crap.

The thing is, all of the SEC programs have put out tons of NFL talent for a long time. The problem is, most of htose teams haven't fared very well even outside of the conference. Tennessee seems to have 2 or 3 first round picks every single year, yet is the whipping boy both in the conference outside. Same goes for places like Ole Miss (who finally is turning it around off the field), Mississippi St., Auburn except for their random ridiculous run eveyr 5 years or so.


And the SEC has a brilliant strategy as well. With their 14 team conference and 8 game conference schedule, they have essentially guaranteed that multiple teams are going to draw a cupcake schedule and end up with 10 or 11 wins. The rankings get completely inbred, so teams get credit for "top 10 or 25" wins against teams that have no business being there. Georgia and Texas A&M are STILL in the top 25 of the BCS. LSU is 15th.


Again, I don't know if the bias is a conscious thing, or it's just the media people don't realize the circularity of their logic, but it's a very real thing.

 

[scrybe]

Sawyer: I agree with you that Mizzou – and Pinkel – are doing more with less. Pinkel is obviously a good coach and MU is fortunate to have him.

However, anyone who believes that a SEC bias (media, et al) does not exist is simply kidding himself/herself.

 

[Ham]

ESPN has a major SEC bias. It doesn't really matter what the reason for it is (sincere, misplaced belief in the superiority of the conference or financial motivation or whatever), but it exists.

Right. And we're not talking about Cardinals and Rangers fans being mad that sportscenter is obsessed with the Yankees. It matters - although not in any other sport aside from college sports - because of how it affects recruiting. And it's more than obvious that the reason is $$$.

SEC fans watch the whole SEC, their ratings destroy everyone else.
Same principle as to why they talk about the Yankees and Red Sox and basically nobody else. They incessantly talk about the crap NY teams, from the Jets to the Knicks to the Mets when nobody elsewhere cares. It's just a HUGE audience. Ratings, that's all that matters and ratings = $$$.

ESPN or CNN or NBC or any other network would broadcast Al Qaeda marches if they could get good ratings for them. It's all about $$$, no conspiracy needed.

If we're talking football, the Big 12 has become a distant 5th. I look for us to expand within the next 5 months, adding UCF and someone else.

 

[DenverSooner]

I assume those who believe in a bias would say it extends to the ratings services, as well, but Mizzou's opponents this year had three times as many 4-5 star players as Mizzou's 2007 schedule.

I don't think it's really a stretch to say there are more high-level athletes in the southeast region. Per capita, those states produce some of the most NFL talent (not exactly a bias there). Outside of Texas and perhaps Oklahoma, the Big 12 states don't exactly produce a ton of talent. Extending that to the entire midwest, you can put Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania in the conversation, but they're still lagging comparatively. It's not that athletes from the southeast are better. There are just more of them.

Mizzou's been doing pretty well for awhile now with players mostly overlooked by bigger programs, regardless of where they're from (well in this case = 9+ wins over the past seven seasons, including last year's debacle and this year's unfinished record). Pinkel looks for raw players with physical traits he can develop, and his program is pretty damn good at developing those guys. Doesn't really negate any SEC hype. We take a different approach than many teams, and we do it well.

And I should add: Mizzou playing West Virginia in the Big 12/SEC challenge is crap.

I hope MIssouri wins on Saturday. I think they are going to win by 10+

 

[Sawyer]

The thing is, all of the SEC programs have put out tons of NFL talent for a long time. The problem is, most of htose teams haven't fared very well even outside of the conference. Tennessee seems to have 2 or 3 first round picks every single year, yet is the whipping boy both in the conference outside. Same goes for places like Ole Miss (who finally is turning it around off the field), Mississippi St., Auburn except for their random ridiculous run eveyr 5 years or so.


And the SEC has a brilliant strategy as well. With their 14 team conference and 8 game conference schedule, they have essentially guaranteed that multiple teams are going to draw a cupcake schedule and end up with 10 or 11 wins. The rankings get completely inbred, so teams get credit for "top 10 or 25" wins against teams that have no business being there. Georgia and Texas A&M are STILL in the top 25 of the BCS. LSU is 15th.


Again, I don't know if the bias is a conscious thing, or it's just the media people don't realize the circularity of their logic, but it's a very real thing.

I don't have the full head-to-head records, but in bowl games since '98, the SEC has been better than the Big 12, Big 10, Pac and ACC (the Big East has the best record; I'm going to assume that's an anomaly).

I don't think ESPN favors the SEC over teams like Notre Dame, Ohio State, Michigan (see: 2006), Oklahoma, etc. There is an SEC slant when you compare teams like Baylor or Oklahoma State to Auburn or South Carolina, perhaps.

Honestly, I feel like the SEC has better raw talent and weaker coaching (same might be true in basketball). The best every year rise to the top (both on the field and in terms of individual talent for the next level), but you also have teams like Florida (great athletes, tons of pro prospects, ****ty team).

But back to the real subject of this thread...

WVU still an upgrade?

 

[MNsooner]

I don't think ESPN favors the SEC over teams like Notre Dame, Ohio State, Michigan (see: 2006), Oklahoma, etc. There is an SEC slant when you compare teams like Baylor or Oklahoma State to Auburn or South Carolina, perhaps.

I completely agree with this. When the blue blood programs are good ESPN (and all the media) gives them lots of credit. OU has gotten more than our fair share of media love. I do think it is fair to say that bad and middling SEC teams get more credit than they deserve. I just don't think that is something OU needs to worry about. Fact is, I bet any year we go undefeated we'll play in the championship game because of our tradition.

 

[Sawyer]

Kentucky gets no credit (Tim Couch and some brief Andre Woodson love aside).

Vanderbilt gets appropriate credit.

Ole Miss and Mississippi State rarely get much credit for being good. Ole Miss with Eli probably did (justifiably). The only real attention I remember MSU ever getting was when they hired Croom.

Arkansas gets little undue credit.

A&M has been getting attention in their two years in the SEC, but that comes with having a Heisman quarterback who is one of the best players of his generation.

Mizzou got zero credit last year. We were unanimously mocked. We're still an afterthought for most now.

Alabama, Auburn, LSU and Florida tend to get a lot of attention. They've also all won national titles in recent years. I'd say that's fair.

South Carolina, Georgia and Tennessee probably get more credit than they deserve. But Spurrier is a credible name, so SC makes sense. They also have Clowney right now, who was the No. 1 recruit in the nation and has a propensity to make highlight plays (well... he made like two). Tennessee in the past couple years hasn't really drawn much attention. Georgia's the only one that gets consistent excessive credit IMO, but that happens when you average 10 wins for more than a decade.

 

[skyvue]

Georgia's the only one that gets consistent excessive credit IMO, but that happens when you average 10 wins for more than a decade.

I don't agree with this. Georgia gets treated like they're one of the big boys and they're just not. They're not bad, but they're almost never great, and I can't think of another program that gets the undeserved hype they do.

As for the rest of your post, you're just proving the point -- most of the teams in the SEC aren't that great. But the conference is hyped as if they are. If more members of the media seem to grasp that the teams you are cited are generally so-so or worse, we'd see less hype for the SEC.

But it's the conference that gets hyped, not the individual teams (outside of the top three or four).

 

[Sawyer]

I don't agree with this. Georgia gets treated like they're one of the big boys and they're just not. They're not bad, but they're almost never great, and I can't think of another program that gets the undeserved hype they do.

As for the rest of your post, you're just proving the point -- most of the teams in the SEC aren't that great. But the conference is hyped as if they are. If more members of the media seem to grasp that the teams you are cited are generally so-so or worse, we'd see less hype for the SEC.

But it's the conference that gets hyped, not the individual teams (outside of the top three or four).

The conference still has the best bowl record of all the major conferences over the past 15 years. That isn't just being propped up by 3-4 teams.

Ole Miss hammered Texas this year. If UT beats Baylor Saturday, they'll have at least a share of the Big 12 title. Ole Miss didn't even finish .500 in the SEC. Just one game, I know, but hard to say the SEC isn't better when stuff like that happens. (Another example: Mississippi State lost to OSU but held them to their lowest point total on the season; OSU puts up 40+ easily on most .500 teams in other conferences.)

 

[JBaker]

The conference still has the best bowl record of all the major conferences over the past 15 years. That isn't just being propped up by 3-4 teams.

Ole Miss hammered Texas this year. If UT beats Baylor Saturday, they'll have at least a share of the Big 12 title. Ole Miss didn't even finish .500 in the SEC. Just one game, I know, but hard to say the SEC isn't better when stuff like that happens. (Another example: Mississippi State lost to OSU but held them to their lowest point total on the season; OSU puts up 40+ easily on most .500 teams in other conferences.)

The SEC plays bowl games against the Big Ten and ACC. One against the Big 12, and none against the PAC-10. Having a good bowl record isn't that hard.