Born and raised in Memphis and a an avid Memphis fan, but graduated from Alabama and love the Crimson Tide too.
Wonder who the other 4 teams are. It is impressive regardless of conference
Which AAC program makes the most sense for P5? Memphis, Cincinnati, Houston, UCF.. depends on the year. None have distinguished these that much from the other. UCF had a chance to but fell back the last two years. Memphis made the Cotton bowl two years ago, Cincy won the league last year. None have taken command of the conference for more than a year or two. Makes it harder to pick which ones may get invited. They all are similar.
I really enjoyed the Mississippi state team two years ago, the one that best Florida State with Elijah M's walk off HR, and had no coach for awhile Let's not forget they had to play Vandy in the greatest super regional I have ever seen, with Mississippi State winning that one in 3 epic games.
The author keeps saying it's anti SEC people who use the we were not motivated line, but to be honest I hear SEC teams use it all the time. The only way to make that narrative disappear is for SEC fans to quit using it as an excuse.
In theory you have a good point, but the reality is we have had plenty of time for this to happen, and the only thing that has happened is that Clemson, Bama, Ohio St and Oklahoma have actually tightened their grip on the top spots. Also.look.at who is against expansion and who is for it. When you loom back at the message boards on here, most Alabama fans were against expansion to 12. The 4 teams I mentioned aren't in favor of it. There is a reason why they would rather keep the current system. I see the point you were trying to make, but it's one of those things that only works in theory. We would get 3 of those 4 teams every year if we did nothing. Expansion is the only way to save the sport
I think he was not saying where the games were played wasn't a big deal, just that the people who want to get to 12 are willing to give that to campus games if it means getting to 12. Schools who simply want more of a shot will initially just be happy to get in and will play anywhere. It won't be till later when they realized how much the home games will mean and then will try and change it. For now, you think UCF would care if they had to play at Georgia if they could get in? They just want in. After two years of getting destroyed at someone else's home stadium, they may then start saying let's play neutral site games. But for now, they just want in and will accept any terms to get in.
Here is where I disagree. I agree that Notre Dame didn't belong, but it's proof we need more teams not less. Notre Dame did deserve it based on resume. The problem is we all knew they were not number 4, but it's hard to argue with their record. Would Alabama have rather played Notre Dame or Florida or Oklahoma? The number 8 team is just as good and in some years better than the 4th ranked team. Teams are getting in that aren't as good as teams ranked below them, based on bias or resume. I guarantee Alabama would rather have played the 4th ranked teams vs the 7th or 8th ranked team last year if you asked them. We need the expansion for many reasons for the good of the game, and this is but one reason we need to expand.
These were two pretty close games, both well pitched by both teams, unlike most super regional games. Nice job to Vandy for beating a much tougher opponent than most people probably realize.
I never said the AAC teams were better. The OP said the SEC had a better % than anyone so I simply was pointing out the AAC had a 100% advance rate. I don't think either of their teams will win it all, but east Carolina has a a good shot at making it to the CWS I believe. I will be pulling for Ole Miss and Miss St to make it.
Yes you are correct.i still type in Big 12 every time with Nebraska. Maybe in ten more years I will get that one correct
What you said was the SEC had a higher percentage. That's the only reason I even brought it up. I said the SEC did good. People act like I was slamming the SEC. I praised Ole Miss for getting out of maybe the toughest regional. It's not a sin to say the AAC did good too.
Technically, the AAC had 100% of their teams make the Super Regionals. 2. Only one was a #1 seed however. They technically had the best performance of any multi bid conference. Over all it was a good performance from the SEC. No one expected Alabama and South Carolina to win but there was hope they could upset. Arkansas had a tough draw with the Big 12 regular season champions somehow getting sent there. Ole Miss had a very tough draw with Florida State and a ranked So Miss team. Wright State was a sleeper possibility, so UT did well. Miss St, well their region was easy in comparison, so we will see. They usually have post season magic, but holy cow, Notre Dame scored 50 runs, so idk. East Carolina vs Vandy is going to be harder than they think. The Pirates can play and have been one of the better teams in the nation, but have the ability to have a confounding loss (see their 11-1 run ruled loss to Memphis in the AAC tournament before destroying them in the rematch) My guess is the SEC get 3 teams to Omaha, which will be the best of any league yet again. Just my guess.
The SEC did good. I was hoping for more but it's about what I expected to make it to the Super Regionals. The league that really surprised me the most was the AAC. They had 100% of their teams (2) make the supers. Hope this guy gets the coach some more!
I don't think Odom was a horrible hire, nor did he do a horrible job. At the time, he was about to get the Memphis job till Missouri hired him. Memphis ended up with Norvell so not a bad thing for them. Odom is one heck of D coordinator, he even had Memphis D ranked when he was paired with Fuente. I am surprised but not shocked Fuenete is still at VA Tech. I think if they had a bigger name to replace him they would have, but they were willing to give him one more season that was non Covid with no obvious big names ready to come in.
Seems to me Ole Miss got a hard draw. Florida State and a top 20 Southern Miss team in your region is one of the hardest regions top to bottom
I have relatives in Hickory, NC and have actually been there. The article doesn't lie when they say it's a small town. But it's very nice and beautiful.
Yes and Steve Spurrier has the same philosophy with the football team, to not wear his players out in practice. Spurrier and Tanner have been a rock for SC in sports. I expect big things this next year with these two.
There’s a reason the Playoff feels more stale than the BCS, and it would (sort of) be fixed with expansion
Seeing so many of my fellow SEC fans on here try and give reasons why expanding is a bad idea, reminds me of Democrats when they say voter IDs laws are a bad idea in elections. We know why both set of people say what they say, because it helps their personal interests. The majority of SEC fans on here are against expansion, why? Don't give me some moral reason that they only want deserving teams in. The real reason is they know it won't help the SEC as much and it will help others conferences more. We have a chokehold on the playoff system as it is and we want to keep it that way. Let's just all admit the truth instead of giving all these reasons why. If these teams suck so bad that are getting in the playoffs then we know it shouldn't matter anyway, so why even worry about it and why not help out the sport if that's the case? Because we know that eventually it will help out other conferences and eventually will help level everything. It may not be overnight but there are many reasons why it will. It will help out recruiting for the schools that make the playoffs, as they will be able to recruit at a higher level once they are a playoff team. Now, you won't see these results overnight, but they will happen. There is no way that a team who makes the playoffs won't get a recruiting bump. Eventually a team will also lose to one of these undeserving teams. It may take one season it may take 10 seasons before it happened but it will happen. When it happens the second time is when things will start to really change. One time could be considered a fluke. Imagine an SEC team without the excuse of" well they just didn't want to play in this game and we're very interested" that we hear from every school after a bowl loss. This will also help out in the deserving versus best team debates that we have each year. Last year Notre Dame absolutely deserved the spot if you look at their resume only. At the same time everyone here knew they would get destroyed in the playoffs. The difference between the 5th place teams and 9th place teams in the country were not that big. If you ask Alabama who they would rather play back then, Notre Dame or Florida I guarantee they would rather play Notre Dame. Saying that these teams stink isn't always the case. It would have been a much more compelling game, which is why most Alabama fans would not want to play that game at all, and they give us reasons why we should not expand. There have been many years that the team no one wants to play is not the fourth place team but it's a 7th or 8th place team. I know last year that was the case. The bottom line is, it would help all of NCAA football, but probably not be the best thing for the SEC in the short term. But the short-sighted fans have to remember that your team may not be at the top in a few years. There's no guarantee saving will be at Alabama in 5 years and after he leaves, there's no guarantee they will continue their dynasty. There may be a time where Alabama gets in only because of the expanded playoffs. The SEC east teams should all be in favor of this because it gives them a better shot at making it. When you give your reasons why, just come clean and say you think it doesn't help the SEC therefore you are against it and not give some high horse moral reason. There is a reason most on here are against it, and whether it's subconscious or consciously, they know the truth. As fun as the last 10 years or so have been, specially as an Alabama graduate, people have to realize that outside of the SEC that college football is getting boring and very very stale. As someone else posted earlier, there has to be hope and right now there is not much hope for most of the other schools outside of about 10. It's frustrating for those teams knowing or at least feeling like they could hang with the big boys for a year when they have that special team, but won't ever get the shot because of the rules. You have to give them hope and you have to make it more compelling than the last three or four seasons have been. If not, the numbers of viewers will go down in the money won't come in like it has been. The TV deals are where so many schools get their money. We have got to keep viewers interested. People will still watch don't get me wrong for a while but if numbers keep going down over a few years, It will affect things. And lastly, if it really won't affect anything like so many say and the same teams will still win, then what harm does it do to help out everyone else and the entire sport? Are we that much of jerks where we don't want to help out the entire sport for the good of the game, if nothing is really going to change? Either we are or we really don't believe that and think that there is a possibility we will lose the string of hold that the current top teams have and that's the real reason no one wants to expand.
There’s a reason the Playoff feels more stale than the BCS, and it would (sort of) be fixed with expansion
I think you are correct in that this will give a lot of teams hope, who really don't have as much hope as they think they do. Giving these teams hope gets them excited and keeps them in the game. What many SEC fans forget is that this is for the good of the sport not for the good of the SEC. Believe It or not teams get tired of seeing the same three or four teams in it, and by giving other teams hope that they can actually make it it will open up a lot of things for fans across the country. It's amazing to me how so many in here want to not give that hope out, and just hoarded for themselves. If these undeserving teams are so bad then what harm could it do to get more involved. The truth is they selfishly just want to keep the playoff to themselves, which I understand but we are at a point where if we don't do something the whole sport will suffer
There’s a reason the Playoff feels more stale than the BCS, and it would (sort of) be fixed with expansion
100% agree. It did work and you will find teams at the top will fight very hard to keep it at 85. They know what happened when they lowered it to 85. It won't water down the game it'll level out the playing field for everyone.
First, great season by Alabama. I hate to see it end like so many have in the past, in the Sweet 16. There's an issue that few are addressing and I think for future tournaments would be a good issue to address. UCLA was not an 11 seed. They have proven that. Loyola was not an eight seed. The committee chooses to punish certain teams and give them bad seeds but the teams they are punishing are the teams they have to face like Illinois. I'm not going to really make any an excuse for Alabama because this was the sweet 16 at the first or second round. You're going to play tough teams at this point of the season so hats off to UCLA. Just looking at the seating of this year's tournament makes me shake my head as to how bad they got it wrong on some of these teams. There's always going to be an upset or one or two teams who are outliers but I think the committee should start looking at how good a team actually is versus resume for getting into the tournament and for how they seed it. Kind of reminds me of the football argument and Notre Dame getting in. We all knew Notre Dame would get blown away but because they had the resume they got in. In basketball you can be a little more lenient with 68 teams getting in. Memphis just won the NIT to destroyed the competition the last two days and many would say they were better than many of the teams that got in the tournament did they just didn't have a great resume. There are some schools that have shown their seating was low based on talent. I get the argument that you have to prove it during the year and if you don't play a lot of good teams it's hard to tell sometimes. If this was just about rankings it wouldn't matter, but some good teams have been punished by having to play a much more talented team and then they should be at that round. Illinois comes to mind as a team that suffered bc of this. I hate the Big ten so don't get me wrong, I wasn't sad they lost but UCLA obviously wasn't a bubble team based on talent. I just think there needs to be a balance between resume and how good a team is. Memphis would have made the tournament had Houston not made a half court shot against them they say. If they were good enough to be in that position at Houston, why does making a half court shot suddenly make them not worthy? It's like in college football, if a lower ranked team loses to a highly ranked team in overtime they shouldn't drop 15 spots in the poll. heck they should probably move up because they proved they were better, but yet we drop teams for things like that. It's stupid. I think sometimes we put too much on wins and losses and not how well a team actually plays. Anyway, great season again for Alabama and hopefully this isn't a one-year Wonder for them
The media like SDS says it's horrible to hire people based on looks, then will have a story saying coaches should be hired bc they are black..kind of a double standard it seems
Deion Sanders says belongings stolen from locker room during first Jackson State game, school says otherwise
Next on ESPN, how this crime affects LeBron James and his reaction
You can't go off power rankings based on recruiting. While it's a factor to consider, UCF, Cincy and Memphis all highly outperform those rankings. All three teams (these are the last G5 schools making the NY6 Bowls) would have done ok, maybe not great in P5 Conference. Memphis and UCF have both beaten SEC teams in the last 3 years. They have both lost to one. Depth and Defense is the primary issue with them. Two years ago, Memphis scored more points against Penn St than anyone did all year. They can score, but their D was erratic. When you look back in a couple of years, there will be multiple Memphis players in the NFL from that team, but not as much depth. A season has a way of wearing the depth down, hence where your rankings come into play. So I am not saying they don't matter, just they don't usually correspond accurately with good G5 teams. I will say, hearing the "we didn't care about the Bowl game argument" is a cop out when a team loses. I hear it from almost every SEC fan when their team loses.
You don't think in an article about teams that outperformed their recruiting that Cincinnati doesn't deserve mentioning but are ok with Rutgers being in there? Typically the AAC champ will have played more ranked teams than the ACC champ and will have a better conference standing than the PAC 12 or even two years ago the ACC. Two years ago the AAC had 5 teams ranked at one point. Cincinnati definitely deserves to be in that article.
That last tweet was awesome. I forgot about that Heisman race. You hate to think that had something to do with it, but we are all human. Wonder if they still have any tension over that close race? If you could vote now the number three or number four players would clearly have won. Drew Brees outlasted LD so I am sure he would win it in a revote. I'm not a big fan of looking back and having an NFL career influence it though. But I do think the schools they played for had more to do with it than anything.
Most of these were from the early days. He does not get alot these days, as most are 4 and 5 stars. I think it's hard to call him the best at getting the best 3 star recruit, when he doesn't have to do it a lot. The ones who are really good at this are the group of 5 schools. Most of their classes are 3 stars, with maybe one or two 4 stars in there. Its like saying an executive chef makes the best grilled cheese sandwich bc they made a few good ones, and is better than the guys making grilled cheese sandwiches every day at a smaller restaurant. He could be the best for real at it, idk, but he doesn't have to deal with it nearly as much as most coaches, so it's harder to tell who is the best.
Does Josh Heupel’s arrival mean Harrison Bailey (or another Tennessee QB) will take off? A breakdown
The question is similar to the new england patriots question. Coach or QB? Did this guy develop these guys or did he just get lucky and look good bc he has worked with some excellent QBs? I don't know and maybe it's a mix. Those quarterbacks in the past would make anyone look good, but he also don't mess with them and regress them. I wonder what UCF fans think about him leaving. I know some were not impressed with the direction the program was going, but they didn't like their coach being plucked away either. I will give him the benefit of the doubt, but if he was really great, he would be the head coach of Oklahoma right now. I didn't think they were impressed with him as a coach, but could be wrong on what happened there that led to his being let go. Only time will tell I guess.
It would be interesting to see stats about former P5 coordinators, since the article thinks it's a safer hire. I think the AAC has had some good coaches come through, but their job their is different than at an SEC school. Developing 3 stars into great players is different than managing a team of all 4 stars and 5 stars. Expectations are different and there is less pressure in the AAC. Since Justin Fuente left Memphis for Va Tech, Memphis has been the better program and been ranked higher for most of the time. Does that mean he forgot how to coach? He was the one who turned that program from the worst program in Division 1 to what it is now. The challenges are just different, and just bc you may be good at turning one around at that level, doesn't mean you can maintain one. But on paper he looked like a great hire. He hasn't done as bad as others, but the expectations are much higher at Va Tech. At least they were. Now they are probably about equal. It's like drafting a QB. No one has figured out the "it" factor that makes someone succeed. Sometimes coaches jump at the chance and go to bad fit. Norvell waited and we shall see. His Memphis team had more talent than his Florida State team last year, so I think he has a could years before the pitchforks and torches come out. I know the AAC is tired of losing their coaches, so they would be very happy if P5 schools quit stealing them lol
The only people who don't want expansion are the ones currently controlling it and dominating it now. It is the only way to fairly achieve parity. The other ways involve punishing schools like Alabama for being great, or over rewarding teams for not being great. It won't be a quick fix either, but will happen. Some of my fellow Alabama fans can't see it's not healthy to have the current system. Bc we are almost always in it, they are short sighted and can't see this is good long term for college football. If we expanded this year,the 8th team was way better than the 4th team. It would not have been as bad a game. We need more teams on this, even if they take some lumps early on. The viewing ratings clearly show this. People outside of Alabama and Clemson and Ohio State are losing interest, but they literally will kick and scream and drag down the whole thing over playing one more game. A game they say they will blow another team out and won't be close. If all it takes to help save college football is to play one more "cupcake" game, you would think they would not care. Truth is, they know it will help and they know there is a chance they may lose that game, and don't want anyone else at the table. They like things as they are. Well Saban isn't gonna be around forever, and when that happens, if we fall off just a little bit, we may be the ones calling for expansion, if we turn into a Georgia. Just a thought