Bob Stoops: SEC dominance is part propaganda

[MC KAos]

The more teams you have in a conference, the more likely the bottom teams will not be so good.

There's a big difference between 14 and 10 teams.
And before anyone says, "well that gives the SEC more chances to have more top 10 teams" consider how rare it is to even have one or two of those type teams....let alone 5 different teams that have won BCS titles.

On average, if you have more teams, your bottom is worse, because only so many teams can fit into the top 10 or 20. There are still another 100 slots available for rest of the teams, like Kansas or Kentucky.

I know we are in Big 12 country so if anyone would ever support this "my bottom dwellers are better than yours" stuff it would be here.
The Big 12 is plenty good. But I thnk if line up team 1 through 10 in each conference you would usually have a mismatch favoring the SEC.

I aslo disagree that the if you omit the bottom team from each conferecne, that the Big 12 bottom feeders would easily beat those in the SEC. It'd be a toss-up most years.

In gerneral, the top 10 SEC programs (not just last year)

Alabama
LSU
Florida
Georgia
Auburn
Texas AM
Tennessee
Arkansas
South Carolina
Missouri

I don't see iowa St, Baylor, Kansas, Tx tech easily beating any of those team year in and year out. The games would be much better if you added the 11th-14th teams: Ol Miss, Miss St, Vandy, Kentucky. But that is reaching past the top 10.

But that argument goes both ways, it's also easier to have great teams with that many at the top. Those 4 bad SEC teams you listed are all original SEC teams, if you wanna take the new teams out of the equation

 

[DFWJC]

But that argument goes both ways, it's also easier to have great teams with that many at the top. Those 4 bad SEC teams you listed are all original SEC teams, if you wanna take the new teams out of the equation

Its way harder to have great teams than to have mediocre teams.
It does not fully go both ways.


Plus, we are talking about the conferences as they are right now. So Texas AM is in the SEC.

If you want to remove the new teams, I guess we could remove A&M and Missouri, but we'd also have to remove TCU and West Virginia.

Anyway, the Big 12 is plenty good.
I'm certainly one of the fans out there hoping someone else wins a BCS title besides an SEC team. I'm sick of them...plus they are getting very arrogant.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Its way harder to have great teams than to have mediocre teams.
It does not fully go both ways.


Plus, we are talking about the conferences as they are right now. So Texas AM is in the SEC.

If you want to remove the new teams, I guess we could remove A&M and Missouri, but we'd also have to remove TCU and West Virginia.

Anyway, the Big 12 is plenty good.
I'm certainly one of the fans out there hoping someone else wins a BCS title besides an SEC team. I'm sick of them...plus they are getting very arrogant.

I don't agree with this. It's way easier to have great teams in a conference then it is to have decent teams at the bottom. To be good top to bottom, that means that all of the teams must be recruiting, investing in the program, bringing in good coaching and doing a good job scheduling. It's easier, IMO, to have 3 or 4 good teams then it is to have decent quality top to bottom. JMO

 

[DFWJC]

I don't agree with this. It's way easier to have great teams in a conference then it is to have decent teams at the bottom. To be good top to bottom, that means that all of the teams must be recruiting, investing in the program, bringing in good coaching and doing a good job scheduling. It's easier, IMO, to have 3 or 4 good teams then it is to have decent quality top to bottom. JMO

Not exactly arguing the same point.

Anyway, imo, the smaller the conference, the easier it is to have decent (not great) teams top to bottom.

Anyway, historically (not just recently), it's not like Kansas, Iowa St, or Baylor have been world beaters either.

I'm not here to bash the Big 12 anyway.