We've all heard the non-stop commentary regarding the SEC and the playoff over the last few days (and the last few years 
).
Like many of you, I'm not a huge SEC fan and admit my bias sometimes against them, but I also have no issue admitting they are far and away the best football conference. Yet, here's one thing I've not heard mentioned in recent conversations that I think matters:
The SEC wants to scream about how it is the toughest conference, as they should. I agree that it is the toughest conference most years. And in this version of the playoff, they are crying foul about how it's a disadvantage to them because they play a tougher schedule and beat each other up. Again, I don't disagree.
But in my opinion, if you are going to scream about the disadvantages (tougher schedules) you also have to talk about the advantages. Let's take Ole Miss. Lane cries as much as anyone about this issue related to the CFP. But let's say you give Lane the opportunity to jump ship to the ACC right now, would he take it? Heck no. You know why? Because it's better to be the in SEC. For starters, you have more money (and it's only increasing), better recruits (most want to play in the SEC), and more exposure. Ole Miss as a program has never amounted to much, but in this new world they have a legit shot to compete with the elites.
Let's look at it comparatively. Ole Miss vs. North Carolina (pick just about anyone you want from non-power 2):
In my opinion, as long as conferences exist and the playing fields remain uneven, the expectations can and should be different. If the SEC truly is tired of being at a "disadvantage" when it comes to the CFP, let's abolish the conferences all together and level the playing field for all teams. But they don't want that, because they know they have it better.
If you made it this far, let me know if you agree or if this is complete and utter nonsense. Either way, I think it is an interesting conversation when you try and remove the bias from it and see all sides. Thanks for reading.
).Like many of you, I'm not a huge SEC fan and admit my bias sometimes against them, but I also have no issue admitting they are far and away the best football conference. Yet, here's one thing I've not heard mentioned in recent conversations that I think matters:
The SEC wants to scream about how it is the toughest conference, as they should. I agree that it is the toughest conference most years. And in this version of the playoff, they are crying foul about how it's a disadvantage to them because they play a tougher schedule and beat each other up. Again, I don't disagree.
But in my opinion, if you are going to scream about the disadvantages (tougher schedules) you also have to talk about the advantages. Let's take Ole Miss. Lane cries as much as anyone about this issue related to the CFP. But let's say you give Lane the opportunity to jump ship to the ACC right now, would he take it? Heck no. You know why? Because it's better to be the in SEC. For starters, you have more money (and it's only increasing), better recruits (most want to play in the SEC), and more exposure. Ole Miss as a program has never amounted to much, but in this new world they have a legit shot to compete with the elites.
Let's look at it comparatively. Ole Miss vs. North Carolina (pick just about anyone you want from non-power 2):
- Which program has more money in this era? Ole Miss
- Which program is more attractive to recruits? Ole Miss
- Who gets more national exposure? Ole Miss
In my opinion, as long as conferences exist and the playing fields remain uneven, the expectations can and should be different. If the SEC truly is tired of being at a "disadvantage" when it comes to the CFP, let's abolish the conferences all together and level the playing field for all teams. But they don't want that, because they know they have it better.
If you made it this far, let me know if you agree or if this is complete and utter nonsense. Either way, I think it is an interesting conversation when you try and remove the bias from it and see all sides. Thanks for reading.
