Hate the SEC

craigoscarson wrote:
. . . Ryan Sims, who was drafted here by Kansas City (another horrible pick by the CHEFS)

Reminds me of one of my favorite snickers commercials where the guy is painting the Chief's field for game day and is just finishing the end zone painting when he notices it says "CHEFS" instead of "CHIEFS". And then the catchphrase . . . "Not going anywhere for awhile? Grab a snickers."



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

The bottom, middle, and top of the SEC is much stronger than what we have in the MWC. It's just better across the board and that is obvious. I really think the SEC is the toughest conference in the country



I do agree that preseason rankings are silly, and programs that haven't earned a thing start out in the top 10 every year and eventually drop out of the rankings.



Here's the mistake that I see the BCS homers make though. They say that Utah, BYU, TCU, and Boise couldn't go undefeated with the grind and tougher schedule of a BCS conference. The problem I have with that is that NEITHER DO ANY OF THE AQ TEAMS, with the exception of top tier programs like Florida, Alabama, USC when they cheat, etc. And they only do it sometimes. And in addition to that, all of the top non AQ teams play tougher OOC schedules which makes up for it somewhat.



I can't believe I hear them saying things like "Boise St. would go 6-6 with an SEC schedule". Well they'd get 4 free wins OOC. So they'd go 2-6 in conference? Not a chance. Alabama and Florida would be the only programs that would even have a chance to beat them better than half the time. Maybe LSU, but I doubt it.



BYU, Utah, TCU, and Boise are all perennial top 25 programs period. No matter what conference they play in.

Mingjai wrote:
Yet if BYU were to play and beat Mississippi State in Starksville this year, folks here on this board would be proclaiming from the tops of the mountains a great win over a quality opponent! After all, another win over an SEC opponent would give BYU as many all time wins over SEC teams as Wyoming has had in the past 10 years.



I dislike the SEC and think that the conference isn't quite as good as the media makes it out to be. That said, I believe that the SEC is still the toughest football conference.

You're probably right, but only for the reasons dmcougar notes below your post. College football is all about perception, and taking down any SEC team counts for a lot it seems even if it's one of the fruity ones I mentioned before, which is well over half the conference. But in comparison, sure, I still think it's a stronger conference than any other. And when you look at every other major conference out there you can find plenty of soft bottom feeders that top MWC teams (and BSU) would trounce, thus putting them in the race for their respective championships every single year.

craigoscarson wrote:
My only problem with the SEC and ACC right now is the blatant win at all costs mentality down there. It's like having a bunch of mini-USCs in the entire southeast of the country.

What you said Craigo!



I hope everyone here doesn't take away from this that KYCOUG is a big SEC fan. I'm not, I grew up with the SEC and really don't like their style of football or their bravado. I've seen the corruption and have a family member that has told me about the $100 dollar hand shakes from boosters that can't be traced or proven. I just have a problem with saying they are overrated when they are undefeated in the BC$ championship games they've played in. Even in strength of the conference if you look at all bowl games they still do very well against the best of other conferences, not perfect but they win more than they loose. You can say they suck, or you don't like their style of football with it's low scores and 3 yards and a cloud of dust time possession game plans, but I don't think you can say they are overrated. If so what is your basis of proof? Of course the only real solution is a full blown playoff and I'm totally for that.



Go Cougs!



L Hatton

Louisville, KY

Raiderboy wrote:
The bottom, middle, and top of the SEC is much stronger than what we have in the MWC. It's just better across the board and that is obvious.

Yes, I believe that winning SEC would be much harder than winning the MWC, but the gap isn't as big as the media thinks it is.



Here's some proof of that:

Wyoming over Tennessee

Ole Miss losing to Jacksonville St.

Raiderboy wrote:



I can't believe I hear them saying things like "Boise St. would go 6-6 with an SEC schedule". Well they'd get 4 free wins OOC. So they'd go 2-6 in conference? Not a chance. Alabama and Florida would be the only programs that would even have a chance to beat them better than half the time. Maybe LSU, but I doubt it.

To build on the logical fallacy...why always compare the top MWC teams with Florida and Ohio State? That's not fair. Other BCS teams don't get compared that way. The difference is that if Arkansas or Syracuse has a fluke season they can make a boatload of money in the BCS whereas a top team in a non-AQ conference has no guarantee.

Top to bottom, the SEC is the best league. I do not even think it is debatable. Having said that, the gap between the SEC and other leagues is not as big as many seem to claim. It just isn't. But the depth of the SEC really is better than any other league, and the SEC also regularly puts out more NFL talent than any other league, so it shows they have depth of good, talented players. I think only the ACC comes close with NFL draft picks.



The issue with the SEC though, is perception. If MWC teams scheduled like SEC teams in OOC games, the league rating would go way up because the wins would as well. Problem is, MWC teams can not afford to do that, and they need to go on the road for pay day games and get beat more as a result, while SEC teams all get pay day games at home.



I think Mack Brown hit the nail on the head this week when he said the BCS as currently put together gives disincentive to have a tough strength of schedule, unlike in hoops, since it is not part of the BCS numbers. Change that, and I'd be curious to see the results. I think it goes back to 15 years ago, and we see the SEC lose more games.

craigoscarson wrote:
KyCoug is right, the Big 10 is the most overrated and bloated conference of them all, but for the most part, they've managed to keep their noses clean (til Rich Rod left West Virginia and Kelvin Sampson joined Indiana hoops)

As the board's resident Big Ten apologist, I appreciate this. My experience doing grad work at a Big Ten school and living in the conference footprint, I can say that compared to the SEC, Big Ten schools care about their reputations as much as their athletics, so the institutions for the most part will not turn a blind eye to cheating.



While I think the Big Ten is somewhat overrated, sometimes I have a hard time deciding whether the conference is overrated on one hand or simply overhyped, but I think the two concepts are overlapping, but not contiguous. There's a lot of tradition in the conference, with core teams (Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Northwestern, Purdue, Indiana, and Iowa) being members of the conference from before 1900. We talk a lot about the tradition and pageantry as Notre Dame games--Big Ten football games are a similar experience (though the fans might not always be a pleasant at the ND fans). People in the Upper Midwest pay attention to their Big Ten teams and the schools draw a lot of students, fans, and alumni to their games. Big Ten football generates a lot of interest, and college football media obliges by provide a lot of coverage of the Big Ten (like the SEC).



Ohio State and Michigan are generally overrated, but I'm not sure if the rest of the conference is in general. Last year, the top 4 teams--Ohio State, Iowa, Penn State, and Wisconsin--won bowl games that were more-or-less away games against higher-ranked opponents.



One final thing, though somewhat unrelated. To the extent that stadium size is an indicator of interest in the school's football program, I think it's interesting to note where LES would rank if BYU were a member of another conference (based on realigned conferences).



SEC: LES would be #10 (ahead of Ole Miss, Miss State, Vandy)

Big Ten: LES would be #9 (ahead of Purdue, Indiana, Minnesota, Northwestern)

Big 12: LES would be #5 (ahead of Texas Tech, Ok State, Iowa State, K State, Kansas, Baylor)

Pac Ten: LES would be #6 (ahead of Arizona, Oregon, Colorado, Stanford, Oregon State, Utah, Wazzu)

ACC: LES would be #5 (ahead of Virginia, North Carolina, NC State, Georgia Tech, Maryland, BC, Duke, Wake Forest)

Big East: LES would be #3 (ahead of West Virginia, Louisville, Rutgers, Syracuse, UConn, Cincy)



To me, that is at least an indicator that SEC and Big Ten teams are capable of attracting a lot of people to watch their football games. Where people are interested, media hype will follow...

How about attendance as opposed to stadium size, a much better indicator.

Schmoe wrote:
How about attendance as opposed to stadium size, a much better indicator.

Doesn't change much in terms of SEC or Big Ten...



In 2009 (taking into account realignment as above), BYU would have been #10 in the SEC and #8 in the Big Ten. Compared to the other conferences, BYU fares much better--#4 in the Big 12, Pac 10, and ACC, and #1 in the Big East.



Average attendance, 2009 (not taking into account recent realignment):



SEC: 76,288

Big Ten: 71,269

BYU: 64,236

Big 12: 62,875

Pac 10: 54,186

ACC: 51,249

Big East: 44,804

MWC: 33,202



At first blush, taking into account realignment hurts the Pac 10's attendance, because CU and Utah were both near or below the average. It helps the Big 10 as Nebraska was above the average. It's ambiguous for the Big 12 with Nebraska above and CU below the average--someone is welcome to do the actual calculations.



Losing BYU and Utah (both above the MWC average) and gaining BSU, Fresno State, and Nevada (all at or below the MWC average) unambiguously hurts the MWC. Their average attendance in the 2012 may be in the 25,000 range.

BYULV wrote:

. . . Ryan Sims, who was drafted here by Kansas City (another horrible pick by the CHEFS)

Reminds me of one of my favorite snickers commercials where the guy is painting the Chief's field for game day and is just finishing the end zone painting when he notices it says "CHEFS" instead of "CHIEFS". And then the catchphrase . . . "Not going anywhere for awhile? Grab a snickers."



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Nothing about this organization has been good. The "chefs" has become a euphomism in KC about how bad they are and have been.

As some of you know my wife was a KC Chiefs cheerleader for several years and while going to the games was fun (they were actually competitive with Priest Holmes and Dick Vermeil) but their upper management made bonehead mistake after mistake, including giving idiots like Larry Johnson and Greg Wesley monster deal the years before they get kicked off the team and then treating class acts like John Tait like dirt.

I have never rooted for my hometown team and never will; I just have a bad taste in my mouth from it. If you call them the "chefs" here in KC, it's because you're literally poking fun at their decades of failure.

Now that Carl Peterson is gone, hasn't that helped cut down on the crap deals though> He really killed the Chefs during his tenure. He was the reason Tait left, and LJ got overpaid, right? In fact, Tony Gonzalez had this to say about CP.

When asked for his feelings on Peterson, Gonzalez interjected prior Chiefs players who had battled with Peterson, saying, “I’m not the first guy that’s felt like he’s been wronged around here. Ask Jared Allen. Ask a lot of guys. Ask John Tait."



I;d have thought the day he got canned would be grounds for a parade in KC. He rarely won squat and kept a job 20 years. Amazing, really.

Lawboy wrote:
Now that Carl Peterson is gone, hasn't that helped cut down on the crap deals though> He really killed the Chefs during his tenure. He was the reason Tait left, and LJ got overpaid, right? In fact, Tony Gonzalez had this to say about CP.

When asked for his feelings on Peterson, Gonzalez interjected prior Chiefs players who had battled with Peterson, saying, “I’m not the first guy that’s felt like he’s been wronged around here. Ask Jared Allen. Ask a lot of guys. Ask John Tait."



I;d have thought the day he got canned would be grounds for a parade in KC. He rarely won squat and kept a job 20 years. Amazing, really.

You can't draft guys (the chiefs have drafted 9 defensive lineman in the 1st round this decade; all suck)like Eric Downing, Junior Siavii, Ryan Sims, Glenn Dorsey and Tyson Jackson and watch all of them fail and have a good team. Peterson signed off on all of them but Jackson.



Peterson did the one thing he needed to keep seats in the stands and Lamar Hunt happy. He made money for them and managed 8-8 types of seasons. All you have to do is win that much to keep selling out Arrowhead stadium, at least until the last few years; now you cant' give away a ticket to a crappy game like the Browns, etc.



Every year since Peterson took the reigns, they'd go out and find overpriced big name free agents to keep the fans happy. Steve Deberg, Joe Montana, Steve Bono, Dick Vermeil, etc.

The problem was that Peterson would always run the good ones out of town, like John Tait, Jared Allen, and Tony Gonzalez.



Kansas City is a great sports town when they're winning and an awful one when we're not; but during the Chiefs good years, it became almost a right of passage for the richest in the city to have season tickets; and Leawood, Kansas has the highest accessible average income in the united states, so they've never had trouble making money; until the last couple years when even the most hard core fan finally caught on.



The NFL is a no brainer business. It's so hot right now that even Craig Thompson could manage a franchise in the black.



One of my very 1st Chiefs games was the day that Steve Young and the 49ers came into Arrowhead and faced Joe Montana and KC. Steve had a very bad day. Derrick Thomas had a very good one.



I do have to say that while I'm a lifelong Cowboys fan, that Arrowhead stadium is the biggest party and loudest stadium I have ever seen when the Chiefs are actually competitive; and I've been to a dozen NFL stadiums and dozens of other college and pro venues. Nothing comes close when the Chiefs are good... course that's a distant memory now.