That's the one, TK.

tkihshbt wrote:

Heh, apparently this has caused some interesting discussions on the blogs I visit. Obviously I don't want the south to secede, but it is interesting how they drag the rest of the country down.

The book is a fabulous rant for those of us who feel that way.  The football chapter is less incendiary than the rest of the book, but nevertheless showed me a new way to look at the SEC, ESPN, and the BSC, as a mutually supportive commercial enterprise.  The fact that it is the SOUTH EASTERN conference that figured out how to game college football is no coincidence to Thompson, but it doesn't have to be part of the discussion to be interesting.

Eh...it just feels like it would be a really messy affair, one that would drag out for an eternity. Plus, I'm not sure who would be a part of it. The south, yes, but what about Texas? Oklahoma? Missouri? Kansas? Utah? Idaho? Montana? The Dakotas? Indiana? These are all states that aren't necessarily "south" (although I guess Texas is) but share the same cultural and economic ideals.

tkihshbt wrote:

Eh...it just feels like it would be a really messy affair, one that would drag out for an eternity. Plus, I'm not sure who would be a part of it. The south, yes, but what about Texas? Oklahoma? Missouri? Kansas? Utah? Idaho? Montana? The Dakotas? Indiana? These are all states that aren't necessarily "south" (although I guess Texas is) but share the same cultural and economic ideals.

Then you ought to read the book, TK.  And by the way, those "blogs [you] visit" sound like interesting place. 

Actually, Kansas is now the most conservative state, I think.  There's a whole book about it, "What's the Matter with Kansas?" . . . actually it's a series of books by now. But there's nothing wrong with being conservative, IMO.

The dysfunction is still old Dixie.  There's something enigmatically fucked up about being a member of a state in the region that by almost every measure sucks works than anywhere else (fattest, poorest, dumbest, etc.), be gun-clinching proud of the fact, AND demand the rest of the country follow that fucked-up model . . . or ELSE!

The argument against the SEC Conference might be a little more convincing if one of the other conferences would step up and actually win the BCS championship game.  Oregon was the only team that actually kept the championship game close.

There are quite a few Missouri fans who felt Missouri was going to pop holes in the "myth of SEC domination."  Instead, Missouri has gone from the 15th best offense in the country to the 110th best offense, and on October 22 we're still waiting on our first conference win.

I didn't consider myself as wide-eyed as many fans, but I still thought the Tigers would win 7-8 games.  As it stands, they'll be lucky to win 5.

"One that I kind think of is last year's BCS."

If Thompson is arguing that Alabama didn't deserve to be in the game because it didn't win its conference, then I would tend to agree with him.  I think Oklahoma State was #3 in the BCS last year and, IMO, deserved the opportunity to play LSU (who was #1).

But I also tend to agree that the best 2 teams in the country faced each other in the National Championship Game.

For the record, the SEC has won the last 6 National Championships.  Last year was the only year the conference had both teams in the game.  The other years were:

2010- Auburn 22, Oregon 19
2009- Alabama 37, Texas 21
2008- Florida 24, Oklahoma 14
2007- LSU 38, Ohio State 24
2006- Florida 41, Ohio State 14

Since the inception of the BCS National Championship game, the conference records in that game are:

SEC- 8-1 (only loss to another SEC team)
Big 12- 2-5
Pac 10(12)- 1-2
Big 10- 1-2
ACC- 1-2
Big East- 1-2

Based on those numbers, if there's a fraud in college football, I'd say it's the Big 12-1-1-1+1-1+1

Last edited by forsberg_us (10/22/2012 3:51 pm)

I don't remember the whole argument, but Chapter 4 is waiting there for you, if you care to take on Thompson's argument.  One thing I recall from the chapter is that in head-to-head competition during the regular season, the SEC mostly fares even-or-worse against the other big conferences.

Max wrote:

I don't remember the whole argument, but Chapter 4 is waiting there for you, if you care to take on Thompson's argument.  One thing I recall from the chapter is that in head-to-head competition during the regular season, the SEC mostly fares even-or-worse against the other big conferences.

I don't think I could improve on this response

http://atlanta.sbnation.com/2012/8/16/3246553/chuck-thompson-sec-espn-college-football-2012

artie_fufkin wrote:

forsberg_us wrote:

artie_fufkin wrote:

You SEC people are so parochial.

I don't look at Mizzou as a full blown SEC school yet.  I look at Mizzou and A&M as the ugly younger sisters who were given a forced invite to the dance.  It'll take a little while before we're recognized as truly being part of the conference.

I was kidding. I read an article a few weeks ago in which the author suggested there are going to end up being four mega-conferences - various forms of the Big 10, the SEC, the Pac 12 and the Big 12.
Which is going to really mess with my dad's head. He's still wondering why the Big 8 and the Southwest Conference don't get BCS berths.

I wasn't. Missouri has a lot of growing up to do on the football field. The spread offense is a gimmick, and Missouri is being exposed on a weekly basis. The SEC teams actually play defense. There aren't any 70-63 games. The Big 12 has become largely a glag football league with the exception of K-State and I think that's why K-State is doing so well

All in all, it was still the right move. The financial aspect of the move more than justifies the ass whoopin' Mizzou is going to take for a little bit, but they should eventually recover. Even if they struggle a bit, they should be able to recruit kids to play in the SEC. They'll have to make some new inroads in the south

I don't understand football nomenclature.

Which is going to really mess with my dad's head. He's still wondering why the Big 8 and the Southwest Conference don't get BCS berths.

My dad is quite a bit younger than your dad and he still refers to the Nationals as the Senators.

artie_fufkin wrote:

"The spread offense is a gimmick"

Yeah, but you can be competitive with a good quarterback and four guys who can catch. And you can fill the seats if you can score some points, hang around at 8-3 or 9-2 and get to a second tier bowl game every year.
But I'd like to see the spread go, only because I'm sick of watching high school games that take 3 1/2 hours because the QB's C-A-I line is 7-45-4.

You can be competitive against teams with limited athletecism. The spread, or at least Missouri's version of it relies too much on horizontal passing--bubble screens, jet sweeps and other gimmick plays designed to get the receiver/ball carrier the ball in space with a chance to make someone miss. Missouri was rarely competitive against defenses like Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas and Nebraska. The problem is the SEC teams have significantly more speed. There's a greater emphasis put on the defensive side of the ball. Plus, the 3 foot splits their lineman are playing have been an open invitation to kill the QB.

forsberg_us wrote:

Max wrote:

I don't remember the whole argument, but Chapter 4 is waiting there for you, if you care to take on Thompson's argument.  One thing I recall from the chapter is that in head-to-head competition during the regular season, the SEC mostly fares even-or-worse against the other big conferences.

I don't think I could improve on this response

http://atlanta.sbnation.com/2012/8/16/3246553/chuck-thompson-sec-espn-college-football-2012

Well, the first five sentences were pretty good:

"I am a Southerner, but I'm the first to admit that our region is not perfect. Our love for frying everything and sticking huge chunks of fatty meat in our vegetables has a certain impact. We fought a war to preserve the right to take slaves into Western territories, er, um, for states rights ... to have slaves and take them anywhere. Our politics remain deformed in all sorts of meaningful ways. We are not exactly noted for dominating the top spots in educational rankings."