Should the SEC adopt a 9 game conference schedule?

[4down20]

IF the SEC went to a 9 game schedule how would Kentucky ever make a bowl game? How would Miss St. or aTm get ranked so high? How would we get crazy high rankings for any random 6-0 SEC teams? Just go back this year and see how many trashy SEC teams got top 25 votes.

Schedule Oregon St.

 

[navamind]

No. The more OOC games the better for the sport. I wish all the conferences would go to 8 conference games.

I'd agree with this if P5 schools played each other more often.

 

[4down20]

Speaking of Oregon St, I just had a great idea.

The SEC can just invite Mercer to the conference, then we can use the excuse "Well they are in conference so we should get a free pass on their suck".

 

[DHoey]

Speaking of Oregon St, I just had a great idea.

The SEC can just invite Mercer to the conference, then we can use the excuse "Well they are in conference so we should get a free pass on their suck".

I though Mrs. st = Oregon st? Or was it Vandy? Or Kentucky? Maybe Arkansas?

I mean, Mizzou pretty watched walked into the SEC and won the East twice, so add whoever you want to and they'll hop on the SEC tit.

 

[4down20]

I though Mrs. st = Oregon st? Or was it Vandy? Or Kentucky? Maybe Arkansas?

I mean, Mizzou pretty watched walked into the SEC and won the East twice, so add whoever you want to and they'll hop on the SEC tit.

Nobody in college football sucks as much as Oregon St.

Not even Mercer.

Edit: Oh, I was off a bit I guess. Here's Sagarin since he's dumb enough to rank FCS with FBS.

#131 Oregon St
#149 Mercer

 

[DHoey]

Nobody in college football sucks as much as Oregon St.

Not even Mercer.

Except Miss st. Which is why Dan Mullen is so amazing....right?

 

[potzer25]

divisions, and eventually conferences probably, are an anachronism that will eventually go away once they find a way to make more money with out them.

 

[4down20]

Except Miss st. Which is why Dan Mullen is so amazing....right?

Ok, Oregon St = Miss St 8 years ago.

Happy?

 

[navamind]

Illinois has had a worse program than either of those two IMO, especially if you're going by the last decade or so. They've had a few good years, but never really had any sustained success. OSU had a pretty solid program under Riley and were a staple in the top 25. MSU's made eight bowls in a row now. Illinois has made it to six bowl games over the last two decades and only made it to back-to-back bowls once (2010-11).

 

[DHoey]

Illinois has had a worse program than either of those two IMO, especially if you're going by the last decade or so. They've had a few good years, but never really had any sustained success. OSU had a pretty solid program under Riley and were a staple in the top 25. MSU's made eight bowls in a row now. Illinois has made it to six bowl games over the last two decades and only made it to back-to-back bowls once (2010-11).

Yeah, but if they played a schedule like Miss st, they would probably go to a bowl at least every other year. You only have to win 2 conference games and you get Kentucky every year.

 

[trojanfan12]

No. The more OOC games the better for the sport. I wish all the conferences would go to 8 conference games.

I don't care if all conferences play 9 conference games or 8. Whichever it is though, all conferences should be playing the same number of conference games. It puts conferences that play 9 conference games at a disadvantage.

 

[navamind]

And Illinois plays in the same division as Purdue, who has arguably been worse than Kentucky over the last decade.

 

[socaljim242]

Schedule Oregon St.

Since 2000 Oregon State has finished ranked 5 times and Kentucky? Kentucky has finished ranked 0 (Nada) times since 2000. So your SEC cupcakes come with sprinkles.

 

[trojanfan12]

Speaking of Oregon St, I just had a great idea.

The SEC can just invite Mercer to the conference, then we can use the excuse "Well they are in conference so we should get a free pass on their suck".

This is pretty weak. Oregon St. doesn't have a great history, but they have had some very good teams in the past.

Having them on your schedule, there's at least a chance that they could be a decent to good team.

With teams like Mercer, you now they aren't ever going to be a threat. It's why they are scheduled.

 

[4down20]

This is pretty weak. Oregon St. doesn't have a great history, but they have had some very good teams in the past.

Having them on your schedule, there's at least a chance that they could be a decent to good team.

With teams like Mercer, you now they aren't ever going to be a threat. It's why they are scheduled.

It was hyperbole to point out the ignorance of labels like "P5" and "FCS" instead of actual team strength because Oregon St has many FCS teams ranked above it. Yet, people will trot out that Oregon St on their schedule and say "P5" so it must be quality.

But I guess I should have expected everyone to take it literally like I want the specific Oregon St team.

 

[4down20]

I don't care if all conferences play 9 conference games or 8. Whichever it is though, all conferences should be playing the same number of conference games. It puts conferences that play 9 conference games at a disadvantage.

Nobody forced you to put yourself at a disadvantage(which is greatly overstated). So why does it now need to be a rule that all play the same?

 

[4down20]

Since 2000 Oregon State has finished ranked 5 times and Kentucky? Kentucky has finished ranked 0 (Nada) times since 2000. So your SEC cupcakes come with sprinkles.

Way to miss the point....as usual.

 

[The Oldtimer]

What conference is Notre Dame in?

Isn't Notre Dame a P5 opponent? They play five games a year against ACC opponents.

 

[trojanfan12]

It was hyperbole to point out the ignorance of labels like "P5" and "FCS" instead of actual team strength because Oregon St has many FCS teams ranked above it. Yet, people will trot out that Oregon St on their schedule and say "P5" so it must be quality.

But I guess I should have expected everyone to take it literally like I want the specific Oregon St team.

No one is taking it literally. There is, however, an obvious difference between scheduling a team that actually has a chance to be good once in awhile over scheduling a team that is never going to be a threat...ever.

 

[4down20]

No one is taking it literally. There is, however, an obvious difference between scheduling a team that actually has a chance to be good once in awhile over scheduling a team that is never going to be a threat...ever.

Because looking at actual strength rather than stupid labels is too hard.