Does it strike anyone else as odd that the two teams that left the Big XII for the SEC have had historic years. Is it just coincidence that these two teams: A&M and Mizzou needed to leave the easy competition of the BIG XII and face the SUPER TOUGH competition in the SEC to have historically great years? I'll report. You can draw your own conclusions. First off. Look at Texas A&M. In their FIRST year in the SEC they did better than they did in 15 years worth of competition in the big XII. Their best season EVER in the Big XII was 1998 where they finished 11-3. Their FIRST year in the SEC they went 11-2. Their second best season EVER in the Big XII was 2010. They went 9-4. Assuming they win their bowl game this year... they'll finish 9-4. So in their two years of SEC competition they have matched their two best seasons against Big XII competition. What about Mizzou? Their best year ever in the Big XII was 2007. They went 12-2. Assuming they go 1-1 in their next 2 games... they will MATCH their best year ever. If they win their next 2 games.. They will surpass the best year they ever had in the big XII. If they LOSE the next 2 games... thats an 11-3 finish. That would still be the second best win total in the HISTORY of Mizzou football. Basically, They've accomplished the same in 2 years of SEC play as they did in the history of Big XII play. Worst case scenario... this would be their second best win total EVER in 2 years of SEC play than they've done since they started playing in 1890. So whats the point?? Leave the Big XII and join the SEC. YOU WILL REACH NEW HEIGHTS!!!
Interesting analysis. Aggy had JF so that was coincidental timing and made them much better than their norm. They would have done very well in the Big 12 last year. Mizzou is a solid team and I think would have done pretty well in the B12 this year also. The next five years or so will tell us a lot about their place in the overall SEC scheme of things.
Even with a Heisman trophy winner the best aggy could do is 3rd in the SEC west. According to Wiki, aggy is now 1-3 against their rivals since joining the SEC. Is that dominance?
aggy went 4-4 in the sec this year - & tied with vandy for 7th place. That sounds about normal to me. A one year anomaly doesn't change an entire history. HOOK 'EM, Texdoc
So in other words, Mizzou and A&M were right that the SEC was in their best interests, and everyone that said they were making a horrible decision and would be permanently irrelevant were completely wrong?
Excellent post. The Vol fan as well as the other SEC fans do not want these facts out or talked about. Just like no one talks about the dominant Bama team that needs other teams to lose to back into the MNC every year.
Most teams that run at least a decently executed version of a spread offense tend to do well in the SEC. Look at Florida with Tebow, Auburn with Newton, Mizzou, aggy, and Auburn again this year.
Hey volhorn. I ask humbly... what are your facts? All i've seen our sarcastic retorts. I started the thread to get some discussion..... Not get retorts that ignore the content. How would you explain this? Was Mizzou just super lucky to have their second greatest season since 1890? Was it just coincidence that Aggy has done more in 2 years than they did in 15 years of the big xii? How do you explain it? Please. stick with facts and not rhetoric. THANKS!
We will see how much coaching had to do with it when Manziel leaves. If it wasn't for Manziel, I don't know if aggy would've won any games this year with the defense they put on the field.
"Leave the Big XII and join the SEC. YOU WILL REACH NEW HEIGHTS!!! " okay, i will allow it... since that is what happened
I think you have to get back to the question of why the move to the SEC in the first place? Envy, jealousy, upset over never accomplishing greatness in the shadows of Texas and Oklahoma. All emotional reasons you can name. But not a single set of solid practical reasons. Anything that can be said to favor the move, can be countered. And vice versa. It's a zero-sum game. And in the end it was a REACTION. The efforts of the two programs does prove there are no bigger boys in the SEC. It's just a strangely aligned conference that feeds off beating up on bottom tier teams and 4 patsy games, one of them the next to last game of the season for most, thereby not shipwrecking themselves late in November. And it has CBS production values. The 7 titles in a row is an alignment quantum thing that is no different than Johnny Football ending up at A&M right when the move took place. Same for Saban being at Alabama, and Les Miles at LSU, and a few years ago Urban Meyer at Florida. All happened inside a magical number of years. Like quantum shuffling, it will all even out over time. And Missouri and A&M will end up not that much different overall in major sports competition than had they stayed in the Big 12. I even think the annual matchups especially in football and basketball will be seen in hindsight to be more meaningful in the Big 12 than in the SEC. Not to mention travel will have been more conducive. The original Big 12 with Colorado, Nebraska, Missouri and A&M was an ideal conference, that I think was better overall than any SEC or Pac 10/12 or Big Ten. Emotions got the best of those programs, that and insensitive land-grabbing gold-rush mentality of ADs and college presidents feeding into the frenzy of network $$ deals. No one really had the ability to calm down and really think about what they were doing. It's the wife tired of the homelife and wanting something new. The husband wanting something more alive and hotter in his life. Kids wishing for the houses and cars of the parents of their BFFs and sidekicks. What the hell has realignment really accomplished? If you ask me, not a damn freaking thing. Shuffled dominos and cards is all that happened. Rearranged the deck. And for what? Go ahead, prove what it has accomplished. Coast to coast. All conferences. Lay it out. Show that it is THAT MUCH better ovrall. THAT MUCH. Not this or that, but massively overall worth the costs and change. Prove it. For the whole landscape. All of it. Not just Texas A&M. All of it. I just don't see it. Or, change the shape of the football. Widen the field. Allow three in motion. WTF.
The thing is, there were substantial changes made at A&M before our first football game: 1) New coach 2) New offensive system 3) One of the most talented olines in the country 4) A once in a lifetime QB talent that never played a down of Big XII football(sorta). 5) A first round pick at WR(as of now). Sherman did a decent job of recruiting players other teams in the state didn't want(Manziel, Evans) and a great oline but he never got those teams to live up to their potential, except for maybe the 2010 season. Enter Sumlin to build on that and use that talent. We were hardly a great team early on in the season when we lost to Florida and LSU but things really came together after the Ole Miss game. I felt confident that we were one of the best teams in college football at the end of the season, regardless of conference or division. We seemed to prove that when we destroyed, annihilated, or embarrassed (you choose the word that is most appropriate) the Big XII champion on a neutral field. So it is reasonable to conclude that our record might have actually been much improved if we played teams from the BigXII because there wasn't a Bama or LSU to deal with. This season was a bit of a letdown but that is because Sherman struggled to recruit quality defensive depth. Like most teams in the country, our record is propped up by our weak OOC schedule and the fact that our defense was able to keep a private school football team embarrassing us on TV. It's very possible that our coaching staff has ended the continuation of ineptitude that took place during our tenure in the Big XII instead of the SEC being as weak as you wish it were(Ole Miss says hi).
Vol horn. I was referring to your first two posts on this thread. Those were sarcastic retorts. NOT FACTS. I guess what bugs me is not the polemic that the SEC is the best and deepest conference. I don't have a problem with that argument, per se. What bugs me is this: The notion that the SEC is closer to a pro league than it is to another college conference. YES: that statement has been made during this past week by those who would have a one-loss SEC champ go over OSU. We make the fallible assumption that because kid A gets a 100 on his math test and kid B gets a 96 that kid B must be stupid and bad at math. Isn't it possible that both are smart and great at math? But that kid A is just a tad smarter? Check out Sagarin's ratings per conference. He has the SEC with a simple average rating of 79.69 He has the Pac-12 with an average of 81.20 He has the BIg 10 with an average of 75.83 He has the Big XII with an average of 75.63 He has the ACC with an average of 74.92 He has the AAC with an average of 65.87 He has the MWC with an average of 62.89The Link (he has them broken down by division--- i just put the two divisions together and averaged them) Those rankings seem to match reality. Not the current groupthink that its SEC and everyone else is horrible. I agree that the SEC is a small notch above. But lets not kid ourselves and act like the SEC is good and the big XII is the BDF conference like some of my aggy brethren would suggest. (Big Dumpster Fire)
With all the CAPS you were clearly getting something off your chest. How is asking if you feel better being sarcastic? My other retorts are still valid even if you don't want to acknowledge them. The ags finished 3rd in the west then followed that up with an average year and Auburn just beat Mizzou. How have they suddenly changed the landscape of the SEC? They havent.
