Texas & OU to join SEC

[AUwent 3,747]

3 hours ago, ellitor said:

@Beaker That's not the long term plan on OOC games FWIW. The plan is to go down to 1 or no cupcake OOC games.

Wouldn't it be two? We NEED a few cupcake OOC games! Sorry, but all of our best seasons in the last 30 years have come when we've had a pretty manageable OOC schedule. Between 1993, 2004, 2010 and 2013, our best regular season OOC opponents were 6-7 Clemson and Wazzu.

Well, at least we'd (probably) no longer be playing a much tougher schedule than everyone else...right?

Edited August 1, 2021 by AUwent

[AURex 1,984]

5 hours ago, ellitor said:

Not sure about the PAC 12 but the BIG very well may take them because a requirement to enter the BIG is to be an AAU school on entry which Iowa St. is.

Yes, I had forgotten about ISU being an AAU member institution.

 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

3 hours ago, AUwent said:

Wouldn't it be two? We NEED a few cupcake OOC games! Sorry, but all of our best seasons in the last 30 years have come when we've had a pretty manageable OOC schedule. Between 1993, 2004, 2010 and 2013, our best regular season OOC opponents were 6-7 Clemson and Wazzu.

Well, at least we'd (probably) no longer be playing a much tougher schedule than everyone else...right?

There's no TV money in cupcake games and AU loses ticket revenue from them.  Get rid of them and you can get a whole lot more from the networks.

Also, those games blow.

If every team ends up playing 11-12 quality games per year, then us seemingly "needing" those soft games just says volumes about our program.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

5 hours ago, oracle79 said:

Why would you want tough nonconference games when you'll be playing 9 SEC games? How would that help a team, other than generating more TV money? It's not gonna help your playoff chances I wouldn't think.

Because its a hell of a lot more fun to watch

[ellitor 33,062]

5 hours ago, oracle79 said:

Why would you want tough nonconference games when you'll be playing 9 SEC games?

@oracle79 Just like everything else in this saga it's all about money. Quite a bit more money is made all around for quality OOC games. Also if the super conferences break away from the NCAA not sure cupcakes will even be an option. Lastly with a 12 or 16 team playoff likely coming there's not the relentless demand to have an unblemished record like their used to be.

5 hours ago, oracle79 said:

other than generating more TV money?

That's a huge reason for it. TV execs will push for supercon games as much as possible.

5 hours ago, oracle79 said:

It's not gonna help your playoff chances I wouldn't think.

You're thinking on a 4 team playoff model. With a 12 or 16 team model the Ws will help & the Ls won't hurt that much.

[AUwent 3,747]

1 hour ago, Brad_ATX said:

There's no TV money in cupcake games and AU loses ticket revenue from them.  Get rid of them and you can get a whole lot more from the networks.

Also, those games blow.

If every team ends up playing 11-12 quality games per year, then us seemingly "needing" those soft games just says volumes about our program.

Because of how brutal a conference this is? We CURRENTLY play one of the top five toughest schedules in the nation each year. There’s the chance for that to even out, but I have the nagging suspicion the SEC will try to screw us (see that 10 SEC game pod system that had us playing UAT, UGA, and UF every year). People are for this but then complain about how tough our schedule is. The dissonance is mind boggling.

Edited August 1, 2021 by AUwent

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

16 hours ago, AUwent said:

Because of how brutal a conference this is? We CURRENTLY play one of the top five toughest schedules in the nation each year. There’s the chance for that to even out, but I have the nagging suspicion the SEC will try to screw us (see that 10 SEC game pod system that had us playing UAT, UGA, and UF every year). People are for this but then complain about how tough our schedule is. The dissonance is mind boggling.

Wahhhhhhhh

Beat the teams in front of you.  I want the hard schedule.  Better opponents means more intriguiging games.  This is a source of entertainment.  If you want to see Louisiana-Monroe, drive across I-20.

[ellitor 33,062]

7 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Better opponents means more intriguiging game

Exactly what TV execs are thinking across the board. Everybody's schedule will be relatively difficult.

[McLoofus 35,182]

9 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Wahhhhhhhh

Beat the teams in front of you.  I want the hard schedule.  Better opponents means more intriguiging games.  This is a source of entertainment.  If you want to see Louisiana-Monroe, drive across I-20.

This is why the NFL is so popular. Enhanced parity. Not many blowouts. Every game matters. Wins are never a given. 

 

[ellitor 33,062]

5 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

This is why the NFL is so popular. Enhanced parity. Not many blowouts. Every game matters. Wins are never a given. 

 

Part of the reason execs want to make college football more national via match ups like the NFL.

[Beaker 2,457]

I don't usually agree with @AUwent but he (or she) is spot on.    You can't line up, have the hardest sched every year with a recruiting class ranked 10-12 and beat 4 teams with better classes  on a consistent basis, or even irregular basis.

Even if you want to pick apart the word "consistent,"  I don't want to have to rely on  a season that has Cam Newton transfer in or two miracle plays, in JH.  I give Auburn and Gus a lot of credit for 2017 - that was straight up legit.  2013 and 2010, we caught lightning in a bottle and boy was it fun.  2017 ended because of attrition.  

We can sit behind our keyboards and pine for the year's where we played A-Men corner and won a bunch of SEC Championships, but fellas, how many undefeated seasons did we have?  Only Terry's first year as coach.   How many NCs did we win?   zero   And those teams had tons of great talent and All Americans.   Heard of Bo Jackson?  He played RB; how about Tracy Rocker?  David Rocker and Ron Stallworth?  Kurt Crain and  Kevin Green?  We became RB U and were one of the nastiest defenses during that era with no nattys to show for it. 

The formula to win a Natty is to win all your games or go 11-1, and to do that, you have to have some 'off weeks' where you get healthy playing some non-P5 teams where a lot of your 2nd string can develop and maybe some 3rd teamers find some snaps.  

It's all about development and pacing yourself through a crazy talented schedule.   Even Miss State can whip your butt if you don't play hard and the collisions:  dude it's like being in a car crash.  This is not like playing Kansas or Indiana...playing 9 SEC games is a crazy hard endeavor. And we better not let the conf stick us with playing any additional powerhouses "because it's a traditional rivalry."  The conf loves Auburn because we mix it up with the elites, but they don't want us to win.  I believe it (reflect back on LSU vs Auburn 2 yrs ago - holding penalties called after the first drive?  1 ).   The national media wants Auburn to get close and give them a story, but they want the flagship or blueblood programs to win.

You either want to win a natty or you want the hardest schedule in the country.   Decide, but you can't have it both ways.   Case in point: 1983  - 1 loss Auburn and we got jumped in the polls.  We had the #1 schedule in the nation in 1983.  Why did we get jumped?   Our team was pretty beat up and bruised from surviving A Men corner and didn't have a lot of gas in the tank when we beat Mich.  We won by 2 in a boring game, no sizzle or pop left in the tank.    Oh and how about 2017?   Playing and beating #1 thUGA and #1 bama back to back and then having to beat #3 thUGA again to advance to the playoffs.   We lost because we lacked depth and were pretty beat up.  Coaching was not stellar, but we were in it with 15 min left to play. (Don't turn this into a Gus thread, I dislike Gus probably more than you). 

 

Sorry for the long diatribe, but You either want to win a natty or you want the hardest schedule in the country.   I want to win the Natty, again.  There is no shame not playing thUGA, bama, UF, LSU,  every year, while replacing them with upstarts like TAMU (who have out recruited us 3 yrs in a row), and Ole Miss (who hung 45 on bama) or now TX or OU.   

We will play some SEC power in the playoffs most likely, no need in having to beat them twice. 

Edited August 2, 2021 by Beaker

[SLAG-91 1,483]

NFL-ization of college football is a bug to some, not a feature.

That's the direction it's going headlong in, so let's go all out with it, shall we?

• 17-game regular season.  You can play ALL of your rivals, plus some.
• Bring in the hashmarks closer to the center of the field.
• One 10-minute period for OT.  Regular season games can end in a tie. (Full disclosure, I loathe current college football OT).
• Two-minute warning.
• No more stopping the clock after a first down (have always thought this was dumb).

Tongue planted only somewhat in cheek on all of this...

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

15 minutes ago, SLAG-91 said:

NFL-ization of college football is a bug to some, not a feature.

That's the direction it's going headlong in, so let's go all out with it, shall we?

• 17-game regular season.  You can play ALL of your rivals, plus some.
• Bring in the hashmarks closer to the center of the field.
• One 10-minute period for OT.  Regular season games can end in a tie. (Full disclosure, I loathe current college football OT).
• Two-minute warning.
• No more stopping the clock after a first down (have always thought this was dumb).

Tongue planted only somewhat in cheek on all of this...

Outside of a 17 game schedule and the two minute warning, I am firmly OK with these changes.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

47 minutes ago, Beaker said:

I don't usually agree with @AUwent but he (or she) is spot on.    You can't line up, have the hardest sched every year with a recruiting class ranked 10-12 and beat 4 teams with better classes  on a consistent basis, or even irregular basis.

Even if you want to pick apart the word "consistent,"  I don't want to have to rely on  a season that has Cam Newton transfer in or two miracle plays, in JH.  I give Auburn and Gus a lot of credit for 2017 - that was straight up legit.  2013 and 2010, we caught lightning in a bottle and boy was it fun.  2017 ended because of attrition.  

We can sit behind our keyboards and pine for the year's where we played A-Men corner and won a bunch of SEC Championships, but fellas, how many undefeated seasons did we have?  Only Terry's first year as coach.   How many NCs did we win?   zero   And those teams had tons of great talent and All Americans.   Heard of Bo Jackson?  He played RB; how about Tracy Rocker?  David Rocker and Ron Stallworth?  Kurt Crain and  Kevin Green?  We became RB U and were one of the nastiest defenses during that era with no nattys to show for it. 

The formula to win a Natty is to win all your games or go 11-1, and to do that, you have to have some 'off weeks' where you get healthy playing some non-P5 teams where a lot of your 2nd string can develop and maybe some 3rd teamers find some snaps.  

It's all about development and pacing yourself through a crazy talented schedule.   Even Miss State can whip your butt if you don't play hard and the collisions:  dude it's like being in a car crash.  This is not like playing Kansas or Indiana...playing 9 SEC games is a crazy hard endeavor. And we better not let the conf stick us with playing any additional powerhouses "because it's a traditional rivalry."  The conf loves Auburn because we mix it up with the elites, but they don't want us to win.  I believe it (reflect back on LSU vs Auburn 2 yrs ago - holding penalties called after the first drive?  1 ).   The national media wants Auburn to get close and give them a story, but they want the flagship or blueblood programs to win.

You either want to win a natty or you want the hardest schedule in the country.   Decide, but you can't have it both ways.   Case in point: 1983  - 1 loss Auburn and we got jumped in the polls.  We had the #1 schedule in the nation in 1983.  Why did we get jumped?   Our team was pretty beat up and bruised from surviving A Men corner and didn't have a lot of gas in the tank when we beat Mich.  We won by 2 in a boring game, no sizzle or pop left in the tank.    Oh and how about 2017?   Playing and beating #1 thUGA and #1 bama back to back and then having to beat #3 thUGA again to advance to the playoffs.   We lost because we lacked depth and were pretty beat up.  Coaching was not stellar, but we were in it with 15 min left to play. (Don't turn this into a Gus thread, I dislike Gus probably more than you). 

 

Sorry for the long diatribe, but You either want to win a natty or you want the hardest schedule in the country.   I want to win the Natty, again.  There is no shame not playing thUGA, bama, UF, LSU,  every year, while replacing them with upstarts like TAMU (who have out recruited us 3 yrs in a row), and Ole Miss (who hung 45 on bama) or now TX or OU.   

We will play some SEC power in the playoffs most likely, no need in having to beat them twice. 

Read all of this and my biggest takeaway is that you're still living in a world where only a 4 team playoff exists.  12 teams or more is coming and its coming quickly.

Its soon going to be OK to go 9-3, because you still have a shot to make it in.

[Beaker 2,457]

20 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Read all of this and my biggest takeaway is that you're still living in a world where only a 4 team playoff exists.  12 teams or more is coming and its coming quickly.

Its soon going to be OK to go 9-3, because you still have a shot to make it in.

OU will rack up some losses- true.

Of course I know the playoffs are changing.   I also know teams with byes have the best shot at getting to the end.   I want Auburn to win the SEC and earn a bye.   I am not ok with just getting into the playoffs every couple of yrs.   I want a path that gives Auburn the best shot to get through the season healthy and ready, not trashed/fully spent and 'just happy to be here.'

That is how we went into the 2017 SECCG...we had zero chance of winning that game., although we played admirably. 

 

I think some of my friends here are still playing checkers while the likes of our real competition is  playing chess, as the back doors deals are made with scheduling.   

Edited August 2, 2021 by Beaker

[AUloggerhead 2,225]

2 hours ago, Beaker said:

I don't usually agree with @AUwent but he (or she) is spot on.    You can't line up, have the hardest sched every year with a recruiting class ranked 10-12 and beat 4 teams with better classes  on a consistent basis, or even irregular basis.

Even if you want to pick apart the word "consistent,"  I don't want to have to rely on  a season that has Cam Newton transfer in or two miracle plays, in JH.  I give Auburn and Gus a lot of credit for 2017 - that was straight up legit.  2013 and 2010, we caught lightning in a bottle and boy was it fun.  2017 ended because of attrition.  

We can sit behind our keyboards and pine for the year's where we played A-Men corner and won a bunch of SEC Championships, but fellas, how many undefeated seasons did we have?  Only Terry's first year as coach.   How many NCs did we win?   zero   And those teams had tons of great talent and All Americans.   Heard of Bo Jackson?  He played RB; how about Tracy Rocker?  David Rocker and Ron Stallworth?  Kurt Crain and  Kevin Green?  We became RB U and were one of the nastiest defenses during that era with no nattys to show for it. 

The formula to win a Natty is to win all your games or go 11-1, and to do that, you have to have some 'off weeks' where you get healthy playing some non-P5 teams where a lot of your 2nd string can develop and maybe some 3rd teamers find some snaps.  

It's all about development and pacing yourself through a crazy talented schedule.   Even Miss State can whip your butt if you don't play hard and the collisions:  dude it's like being in a car crash.  This is not like playing Kansas or Indiana...playing 9 SEC games is a crazy hard endeavor. And we better not let the conf stick us with playing any additional powerhouses "because it's a traditional rivalry."  The conf loves Auburn because we mix it up with the elites, but they don't want us to win.  I believe it (reflect back on LSU vs Auburn 2 yrs ago - holding penalties called after the first drive?  1 ).   The national media wants Auburn to get close and give them a story, but they want the flagship or blueblood programs to win.

You either want to win a natty or you want the hardest schedule in the country.   Decide, but you can't have it both ways.   Case in point: 1983  - 1 loss Auburn and we got jumped in the polls.  We had the #1 schedule in the nation in 1983.  Why did we get jumped?   Our team was pretty beat up and bruised from surviving A Men corner and didn't have a lot of gas in the tank when we beat Mich.  We won by 2 in a boring game, no sizzle or pop left in the tank.    Oh and how about 2017?   Playing and beating #1 thUGA and #1 bama back to back and then having to beat #3 thUGA again to advance to the playoffs.   We lost because we lacked depth and were pretty beat up.  Coaching was not stellar, but we were in it with 15 min left to play. (Don't turn this into a Gus thread, I dislike Gus probably more than you). 

 

Sorry for the long diatribe, but You either want to win a natty or you want the hardest schedule in the country.   I want to win the Natty, again.  There is no shame not playing thUGA, bama, UF, LSU,  every year, while replacing them with upstarts like TAMU (who have out recruited us 3 yrs in a row), and Ole Miss (who hung 45 on bama) or now TX or OU.   

We will play some SEC power in the playoffs most likely, no need in having to beat them twice. 

Whew!  A lot to unpack here but I'll give it a shot:  the schedule is the schedule, whether it's the toughest in the nation or a steady diet of diabetes-inducing cupcakes.  Those past examples you brought up, like the '83 team?  AU didn't win the NC that season because of having the toughest schedule.  They "lost" it because of the biased AP voters were deciding all the NCs back then -- that's how you get a #5 team jumping the #3 team when the top 2 teams lose.  Strength of schedule was only a consideration to those same AP voters when it was convenient (ref the 2004 debacle.) 

The NC landscape has changed considerably since those years.  AP voters are still the same biased, pencil-necked geeks they always were.  The playoff, whether 4, 12 or ? now means that to win it all, a team needs to win during the regular season and then play the best teams in a 2 or 3-round playoff.  Simply put, a cupcake schedule will NOT prepare any team to win in a playoff.  Steel sharpens steel -- that's what Harsin is instilling in his team.  And that's what will prepare AU to win it all.  WDE       

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

2 hours ago, Beaker said:

OU will rack up some losses- true.

Of course I know the playoffs are changing.   I also know teams with byes have the best shot at getting to the end.   I want Auburn to win the SEC and earn a bye.   I am not ok with just getting into the playoffs every couple of yrs.   I want a path that gives Auburn the best shot to get through the season healthy and ready, not trashed/fully spent and 'just happy to be here.'

That is how we went into the 2017 SECCG...we had zero chance of winning that game., although we played admirably. 

 

I think some of my friends here are still playing checkers while the likes of our real competition is  playing chess, as the back doors deals are made with scheduling.   

Who said OU would rack up losses?

I'm saying it will be OK to go 9-3 very soon because you can still win it all.  Those cupcake games will be soon be gone the way of the do-do for everyone.  Its time to put on your big boy pants.  Lets all play 12 games of real football for a change.

You're saying checkers to chess.  I'm saying you live in an Atari world when the rest of us have moved on to PS5.

Edited August 2, 2021 by Brad_ATX

[Win4AU 4,052]

Not Oklahoma or Texas related but this has happened

[McLoofus 35,182]

17 minutes ago, Win4AU said:

Not Oklahoma or Texas related but this has happened

Cool. Sooner the better since it's happening no matter what. I'm guessing Ohio State, Michigan, Oregon, USC, etc aren't far behind. 

[Beaker 2,457]

1 hour ago, AUloggerhead said:

Whew!  A lot to unpack here but I'll give it a shot:  the schedule is the schedule, whether it's the toughest in the nation or a steady diet of diabetes-inducing cupcakes.  Those past examples you brought up, like the '83 team?  AU didn't win the NC that season because of having the toughest schedule.  They "lost" it because of the biased AP voters were deciding all the NCs back then -- that's how you get a #5 team jumping the #3 team when the top 2 teams lose.  Strength of schedule was only a consideration to those same AP voters when it was convenient (ref the 2004 debacle.) 

The NC landscape has changed considerably since those years.  AP voters are still the same biased, pencil-necked geeks they always were.  The playoff, whether 4, 12 or ? now means that to win it all, a team needs to win during the regular season and then play the best teams in a 2 or 3-round playoff.  Simply put, a cupcake schedule will NOT prepare any team to win in a playoff.  Steel sharpens steel -- that's what Harsin is instilling in his team.  And that's what will prepare AU to win it all.  WDE       

Oooh; I don't think playing any 9 game SEC schedule is cupcake.   I doubt you do, but maybe.   Not sure how you can play 9 SEC games and some easy OOC games and call it a cupcake sched.   Yes,   I agree 'steel sharpens steel,' but I hope Auburn fights tooth and nail to not let us get roped into a schedule where we play the hardest SEC sched every year and find ourselves on the bubble every year.   That very well could happen I am afraid. 

46 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Who said OU would rack up losses?

I'm saying it will be OK to go 9-3 very soon because you can still win it all.  Those cupcake games will be soon be gone the way of the do-do for everyone.  Its time to put on your big boy pants.  Lets all play 12 games of real football for a change.

You're saying checkers to chess.  I'm saying you live in an Atari world when the rest of us have moved on to PS5.

You said OU would have more losses and I said the same.  We are saying the same thing.  Going from zero to 3 losses is 'racking them up' relatively speaking.   Let's not argue semantics.  Silliness. 

Auburn has been playing big boy FB for decades and that is not going to change.  Nobody wants that to change...As I will say for the last time, there is no sense in Auburn getting wrangled into the hardest schedule of the SEC for 'tradition sake'.  This could happen because we have a dramatic history and if you are TV execs building schedules with the SEC office would you rather have Auburn or USCe  playing UF, thUGA, bama and LSU each year?  Auburn is sexy draw for ratings, the data has shown that.   

We have to have a mindset of how do we win 12 of 15 games and have gas in the tank when we have say 15 min left to play,  of the championship game (or maybe 1 min left and our opponent has the ball with heisman QB driving...).   Do we want to stumble across the finish line or  race through and grab the prize?   

 

Anyhow...good some good banter and I am sure the SEC office is inundated with programs wanting to influence the schedule process.   I hope and pray Auburn is doing the same. 

 

[Win4AU 4,052]

11 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Cool. Sooner the better since it's happening no matter what. I'm guessing Ohio State, Michigan, Oregon, USC, etc aren't far behind. 

I get the big money but I think it’d be better to have USC, Michigan, ND, Ohio State, Oregon, and maybe Penn State, Stanford, UCLA, Wisky, and a hodgepodge of other PAC 12/Big10 teams join another super conference.  That would preserve a lot of traditional rivalries as well as generate more revenue for the couple relevant Pac12 teams.  The remnants of the ACC, BIG12, Group of 5, could come up with some other conference options.  If anything you’d start to develop new powers in the left behinds.  Prime for a UCF to take off.

Edited August 2, 2021 by Win4AU

[McLoofus 35,182]

1 minute ago, Win4AU said:

I get the big money but I think it’d be better to have USC, Michigan, ND, Ohio State, Oregon, and maybe Penn State, Stanford, UCLA, Wisky, and a hodgepodge of other PAC 12/Big10 teams join another super conference.  That would preserve a lot of traditional rivalries as well as generate more revenue for the couple relevant Pac12 teams.  The remnants of the ACC, BIG12, Group of 5, could come up with some other conference options.  If anything you’d start to develop new powers in the left behinds.  Prime for a UCF to take off.

Totally agree about the remnants and a "lower division". And it makes more sense from a competitive and certainly geographic perspective for those other blueblood programs to form a different conference, but then they'd be fully admitting second-tier status and I'm not sure that would work from a business perspective. I don't know how any of this works, though. And we have to keep basketball in mind, although I'm not sure that many P5 programs outside of the southeast matter enough to warrant consideration. 

 

[Win4AU 4,052]

3 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Totally agree about the remnants and a "lower division". And it makes more sense from a competitive and certainly geographic perspective for those other blueblood programs to form a different conference, but then they'd be fully admitting second-tier status and I'm not sure that would work from a business perspective. I don't know how any of this works, though. And we have to keep basketball in mind, although I'm not sure that many P5 programs outside of the southeast matter enough to warrant consideration. 

 

I mean at this point, other than tv deals, there isn’t a reason to have conferences.  I don’t really agree with the NFL formula either because there’s really too many teams to make that work.  I think a Premier league setup is best.  Make it 40 teams in the top division, maybe 50-60 teams in the next division and the rest are a division 2 level.  If you’re in the bottom of the 40 then there’s a chance you could slip to the 2nd tier.  Share the tv money equally amongst the top division schools and a separate contract for the 2nd tier that pays out equally.  That should help create some parity.  You’d build intrigue not only for the Natty but setup a playoff system with the top 2-4 teams in the 2nd tier moving up.

[McLoofus 35,182]

3 minutes ago, Win4AU said:

I mean at this point, other than tv deals, there isn’t a reason to have conferences.  I don’t really agree with the NFL formula either because there’s really too many teams to make that work.  I think a Premier league setup is best.  Make it 40 teams in the top division, maybe 50-60 teams in the next division and the rest are a division 2 level.  If you’re in the bottom of the 40 then there’s a chance you could slip to the 2nd tier.  Share the tv money equally amongst the top division schools and a separate contract for the 2nd tier that pays out equally.  That should help create some parity.  You’d build intrigue not only for the Natty but setup a playoff system with the top 2-4 teams in the 2nd tier moving up.

I'm all for pro-rel, in every sport, lol

[augolf1716 21,096]

37 minutes ago, Win4AU said:

Not Oklahoma or Texas related but this has happened

Not saying it will not happen but those two schools don't bring as much together as UT and OU. Clemson maybe but not FSU..... jmo