• Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
New posts

BeachSiO2

Beach Fanatic
Jun 16, 2006
3,294
737
Ughx2. IMO, This will not strengthen the SEC in football and will weaken some schools due to revenue sharing.
 

hkem1

Beach Fanatic
Sep 8, 2007
350
41
Ughx2. IMO, This will not strengthen the SEC in football and will weaken some schools due to revenue sharing.

I think the SEC is just trying to help out the Big 12 by taking its mediocre teams so that the conference can replace them with more competitive teams. If you ranked the football relevance over the past 15 years (since the conference started) of the teams the Big 12 has lost this is basically what it would look like.

1. Oklahoma
2. Texas
3. Nebraska
4. Oklahoma State
5. Texas Tech
6. Colorado (Missouri and Colorado are interchangeable, but Colorado has won a conference championship, so they get the nod)
7. Missouri (0 Conference Titles)
8. Kansas State (1 Conference title, but 3 appearances)
9. Texas A&M (1 Conference title and game appearance, 13 years ago, 10 bowl appearances 9 losses)
10. Kansas (Who has actually won a BCS game, unlike the 6 teams ranked above it)
11. Baylor
12. Iowa State

So basically the Big 12 lost three teams that were in the bottom half of the conference (and Nebraska), and replaced them with TCU and West Virginia, who are a combined 3-1 in BCS games since 2004 and will probably be in the top half of the conference most years.

From a solely football point of view, the Big 12 got more competitive through this and the SEC became less competitive. For basketball fans, the Big 12 lost their two worst programs in Colorado and Nebraska, and West Virginia is better than A&M and Missouri.
 

Arkiehawg

Beach Fanatic
Jul 14, 2007
1,882
393
SoWal
Last edited:
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter