John at MrSEC
- 1147 comments
- 1 likes given
- 129 likes received
Bio not provided
John at MrSEC is a moderator of:
You apparently didn't get mine because I was trying to have a little fun with how much everything would have changed.
John
You probably need to tell that to the conferences, because -- as noted above -- they're pushing those ticket guarantees lower and lower.
Thanks for reading the site,
John
I've debated that a number of times but since they use great big Roman numerals as their league logo -- it's featured prominently on the league's website, in fact -- I'm sticking with Big XII for now.
It's bad branding on the league's part. It's either the Big 12 or the Big XII and it shouldn't be both. Meaning either the domain name or the logo needs to change.
Thanks for reading the site,
John
My view is that it's one thing to play one such school per year... it's something else to play three of them in one season. Just my take.
Thanks for reading the site,
John
Whether I know your name isn't the point. For whatever reason, the vast majority of people choose to remain anonymous when leaving angry or insulting remarks in internet comment boxes. I attach my name to what I write and to what I say. Unless someone's an anonymous source helping to get a story out, I don't see much use for all the anonymity. That cloak simply allows people to be uglier than they normally would be if everyone knew who the devil they were.
Now, according to your latest comment, it seems that by agreeing to do an interview on a radio show in Kansas City I have given my stamp of approval to everything that's ever come out of the mouth of that particular show's host. In addition, I'm also apparently responsible for how other people choose to misquote or repurpose my comments after I've made them.
None of that makes very much sense, of course.
Reason One -- I'm asked by radio hosts across the country (and occasionally outside the country) to do 10- to 15-minute radio hits several times each week. (Why they ask me... I don't know. Perhaps I'm just easy to contact. Maybe they haven't been able to track you down due to the whole anonymity thing.) I think it should be obvious that I'm not actually listening to three or four hours of daily content from every show on which I appear. Therefore, it's misguided to assume that my appearance on a show is my way of validating all of a show host's previous thoughts and statements. To be clearer, I haven't a clue what TJ Carpenter says aside from the 10- to 15-minutes I spend chatting with him on air.
Put another way, I once spent five wonderful days in Stockholm but it didn't mean that I'd renounced my American citizenship and become a naturalized Swede. I simply dropped in for a visit... which is basically what I do when radio hosts call me from Kansas City, Savannah, Lexington, New York or New Zealand.
Reason Two -- I can't control how dim people misinterpret and/or misrepresent what I say on a radio show any more than I can control how dim people misinterpret and/or misrepresent what I write on this site. You say that some Big XII fans took my "all conferences would have been better off with 12 schools" comment and presented it as some sort of proof that the SEC isn't happy with Missouri.
That's absurd.
First, I don't speak for the SEC. Second, I didn't say anything close to what's been suggested. Third, other listeners have checked out the interview at the link I provided and no one else has claimed that I was insulting Missouri. Fourth, again, I'm not responsible for the remarks and reactions of dullards.
I can, however, teach you how to easily spot a dullard. Step One -- go to a sports website. Then venture into the comment section. Look for an anonymous person who consistently leaves angry comments. Those comments will usually claim that the anonymous writer's favorite school is always under attack by everyone in the media.
Once you've spotted all of that, you've found yourself a dullard.
Thanks for reading the site,
John
I chose to include Boise State as an "actual competition" team because a) they have been the most successful non-AQ team in the country and b) they've been scheduled to change conferences so many times in the last three years (AQ, non-AQ, etc) that I simply gave 'em the benefit of the doubt. Unlike the other non-AQ teams listed above, Boise State was clearly the "best of the rest" when Georgia agreed to play them.
Still, if someone wants to list BSU as "cannon fodder," that'd be fine with me. Whether they're a good program or not, UGA fans certainly weren't happy about losing to them.
Thanks again,
John
@meansonny @John at MrSEC @UtahReb
The piece focused on scheduling practices.
My response to someone who was arguing the strength and legitimacy of Louisiana Tech and other non-AQ teams was to point out that the power brokers of the football world -- fair or not -- view the big guys as BIG GUYS and the little guys as little guys. They see a clear division between the two types of teams and just about every schedule debate this offseason has focused on the number of BCS teams conferences will demand their teams play. For that reason, we assigned the term "cannon fodder" to non-AQ teams because they should be underdogs against the more monied programs, "cupcakes" for FCS teams, and "actual competition" for fellow BCS-level teams.
Nothing that goes on this site is written with the intention of making fans angry. To be blunt that's cheap, I don't do it and I don't have any respect for anyone who does that (though some folks have gotten very rich by trolling brilliantly). No matter how I chose to break down teams for this exercise, there were going to be complaints. That goes with the territory.
Foolishly, I sometimes choose to respond to questions or positive or negative comments in these boxes. That usually leads to complaints as well.
Thanks for reading the site,
John
That's quite the impassioned argument.
But you might want to take it up with Nick Saban (who's trumpeting a world in which power conference teams play only against one another), the commissioners of the five major conferences (who are squeezing the smaller conferences out of the biggest bowls and the lion's share of new playoff money), and NCAA president Mark Emmert (who has said a division of only the power conferences could exist inside the NCAA).
Teams from smaller conferences can certainly be good. They can beat teams from bigger conferences. In fact I clearly mentioned Louisiana-Monroe's success against a pair of SEC squads at the very bottom of this story. Even an FCS team (Appy State versus Michigan, Jacksonville State versus Ole Miss) can slay a giant on occasion.
But with the difference in resources between the haves and have-nots... those non-AQ and FCS schools aren't SUPPOSED to beat teams from bigger conferences.
Which makes them -- sorry about this -- cannon fodder when taken as a whole. SEC fans expect their teams to beat teams from the MAC and Mountain West and Conference-USA. Just listen for the yelps, screams, and obscenities when they do not.
Now, if you still don't grasp all that, then I'm afraid you've failed to read the writing on the wall when it comes to a future college football world in which the big boys break away and form their own division.
Many thanks for reading the site,
John
All...
My interview with TJ Carpenter of 810 WHB in Kansas City can be found right here (at about the 25-minute mark):
http://www.stationcaster.com/player_skinned.php?s=26&c=377&f=1511001
Good luck finding something anti-Missouri in the interview. Or in the post above, for that matter.
I write AND say what I think.
I also attach my actual name to my thoughts.
John
Not everyone schedules top quality teams from outside the conference. That is the point. Saban and Slive want the SEC to have a stronger strength of schedule.
Interestingly, at the same meetings where the basketball coaches were shown how all of their schedules are interlocked, we've had football coaches say, "Hey, if you wanna challenge tough, go for it." No one is making the connection. If the playoff selection committee starts to use some strength of schedule formula as the hoops committee does, then one schoo's pansy schedule COULD and WOULD impact another school's strength of schedule.
Moving forward -- as an example -- every team in the Big Ten will play nine conference foes and one team from another power conference. They will play no FCS foes. Meanwhile, SEC teams will play eight conference foes, only about 3/4s of them will play a school from a power conference, and most will play FCS teams. To a selection committee that's guaranteed to want to get as many leagues into the playoffs as possible, it's easy to guess who'd get the nod if a Big Ten team and an SEC team were fighting for the final slot. In one league, everyone plays 10 power conference games with no FCS foes. In the other, most schools play nine power conference games and FCS foes are found almost everywhere. Advantage: Big Ten.
But apparently Nick Saban and myself are the only two to saying this. No matter. I've written on this site since 2011 that the league would go to a nine-game slate within five years. That's 2016. And this week, a number of coaches, ADs and media members all said it's inevitable that the league will go to nine by 2015 or 2016. At that point, we'll see how it works out. (We won't hold our breath expecting anyone to come back and say, "You guys called it.")
Now, all that said, if you're simply against teams playing their conference rivals, that's a different argument and I leave it to you. That's not how I think so there's no need for a discussion. That's just a matter of preference and you have a right to yours as I have a right to mine.
But if we're talking strength of schedule, the SEC needs to go to nine league games (and nix FCS foes while it's at it.)
Again, thanks for reading the site,
John
The goal would be to replace one of the current dogs (an FCS squad, for example) from a team's schedule with an additional SEC game. Kentucky would still be better for strength of schedule than Jacksonville State, for example. A win at Tennessee would have looked better on the resume last year than a home win over Georgia Southern, etc.
Thanks for reading the site,
John
Testing all of the athletes on a campus can get very expensive. So if the NCAA set a guideline, it would have to something that both the University of Florida and Howard University could afford (example). That's why it's much easier for a conference to pull off. In the SEC, everyone's going to be making a huge sum.
Thanks for reading,
John
I think you missed the point. The entire article focuses on how the SEC will respond if/when Finebaum tackles controversial topics that might not put the league or a school or a coach in the best light.
Thanks for visiting the site,
John
Correct. And you can expect the SEC office to start getting more involved with football scheduling as well. With a network to program, they're not going to want eight games featuring cupcakes all scheduled for the same day.
Thanks for reading the site,
John
You seem to think I have a problem with Paul Finebaum. I do not. But I do know that you can't read an article about him without seeing the names Legend, I-Man, Tammy and so on. They are very much part of his show. They get as much pub as he gets. And many, many, many people openly admit that they listen to the show to laugh at the crazy callers.
The only problem I have with Finebaum's show moving to the SEC Network is that millions of Americans will view folks like Harvey Updyke as being representative of the South. Having lived in the North for a while, I can guarantee you many will run with that stereotype.
As for Finebaum being national on Sirius/XM, we tackled that issue in the other article (which was linked to in the piece above). Sirius/XM has 25 million subscribers. If the SEC Network matches ESPNU in terms of cable- and satellite-penetration -- as is the stated goal -- then Finebaum's new TV show will go into 75 million households. That's apples and oranges.
Thanks for reading the site,
John
Please notice that the "smackdown" only comes when the dissent is particularly nasty. (Or when we've covered an issue umpteen times already.)
Plenty of people disagree with what's written on this site and they get no response from me. But when someone says "your facts don't support your conclusion," well that's deserves an answer.
Just my take.
Again, thanks for reading the site.
John
@ErikaSmithJones @John at MrSEC @AndrewMartin
Always good to hear from the intelligentsia.
John
Again, there is ONE school that's upset about this. Texas A&M and Carolina might feel the same way, but LSU is far and away the only school wetting its purple and gold pants over this issue.
Your post is a tad oversimplified. Auburn and Georgia is every bit as important as Tennessee and Alabama. You can bet that Arkansas and Missouri are happy to start a border war. Ole Miss and Vandy have played 86 times and in every year since 1970. While Kentucky and Mississippi State don't hate one another, you can bet they'd rather play one another than take on another big boy.
As for fairness -- there is NO such thing. Someone will always cry that a rotation gave them too many tough road games, or the other division is easier, or that they face too many teams coming off open dates. Trust me, I get crying, whining, sniffing, whimpering emails from fans complaining about fairness and conspiracy theories by the hundreds.
Regarding the facts I wrote about not supporting my conclusion -- I stated that you can't flip the schedule every other year because teams rise and fall too quickly. I then used data that showed that to be true. However, over 100 years you can absolutely predict which schools will be good and which will be bad LONG-TERM. The league wisely used 100 years of data in 1992 to align the divisions and pair up the rivals. (Arkansas and Carolina were paired in an attempt to build some sort of rivalry between the league's two newest schools and in theory there was nothing wrong with that... it just didn't work.) The majority of presidents now support keeping the rivalries alive.
I will be shocked if there is a reversal this week, but anything's possible.
Thanks for reading,
John
LSU is the ONLY school crying! Florida is OK with keeping LSU. Arkansas and Missouri are happy. Tennessee and Alabama are happy. Georgia and Auburn are happy. Kentucky and Mississippi State appear to be happy. Vanderbilt and Ole Miss are happy.
Perhaps South Carolina and Texas A&M would like to dump the system, but even their presidents sent happy tweets back and forth after word leaked last year that they would be paired.
All this talk, all this moaning, all this crying... because LSU doesn't believe it should have to play one of the traditional powers in the conference every year... when Alabama, Tennessee, Auburn, Georgia and Florida are fine with doing that very thing. And all of those schools have had their ups and downs in the last 20 years. Just like LSU which stunk for most of the 1990s.
Thanks for reading,
John