Conf. Pride (1 Viewer)

[geauxboy]

I too was torn with Florida last year. No where near my fav.

If my team (LSU) isn't in the big one, then I'll root for whatever SEC team (usually) is. I get it .

 

[UGASaintsFan]

Auburn and Florida don;t bother you?

I grew up liking Florida and I dont know anyone very well that went to Auburn. Lots of friends and family at UT, Bama and LSU. Holidays are always fun around my family.

 

[BoNcHiE]

I was watching the bowl games and thought of this thread.

Heres a question for you: If the SEC wasn't so dominant would LSU be in the NCG right now? Is that proof that rooting for your conference is always a good thing?

 

[LSSpam]

"Conference pride" is about making your own school look better.

I'd rather be 3-9 in the best conference in America and pretend we could have gone 6-6 in the Big East then go 3-9 in a really crappy conference.

If you pay attention to recruiting you realize it's a significant draw as well. The exposure the SEC offers because of the perception that it has superior talent is a big talent draw in areas where other conferences are competitive (like Georgia and Florida)

Plus it really, really, really ****** people off when the SEC wins, and that makes me smile.

 

[VVextreme]

Conference pride is like your family. Sure you hate the other teams, and you can bash them. But no one else outside the family should bash them.

1. The more dominant your program is, the more money your conference shares in revenues. The SEC got two BCS bids because everyone knows how dominant this conference is. The reputation isn't just built on one year, it's built over years of dominance. Last year has absolutely nothing to do with this year, but LSU greatly benefited from Florida's slaughter of OSU last year.

2. Recruits. The greatest recruits want to play at the highest level, and that means playing quality opponents.

3. Rankings and TV spots... if the SEC starts to become the big east, our conference and our teams will start to receive less publicity, less coverage, less money, lower rankings year in and year out. etc etc etc.

There is absolutely no long-term advantage to you for having your conference teams get embarrassed in the bowl games. These games are crucial in establishing the reputation of the SEC, and consequently your individual team.

 

[jott]

I don't understand the conference obsession either. If you want to have a good football conference have a lot of teams that pour money into coaching/facilities and establish lax academic expectations for football players.

 

[NewOrleansFan]

I don't understand the conference obsession either. If you want to have a good football conference have a lot of teams that pour money into coaching/facilities and establish lax academic expectations for football players.

You must be a Notre Dame's fan.

 

[jott]

You must be a Notre Dame's fan.

Texas and Tulane fan by education.

 

[purgatorysaint]

Rugger, what's wrong with the truth.........the pac 10 is better than the sec.

 

[MLU]

I'd love to hear Loose ("the Big XII >>>>> all other conferences") Cannon's take on this.

Why?

 

[BoNcHiE]

Rugger, what's wrong with the truth.........the pac 10 is better than the sec.

The Pac 10 isn't even close to the SEC this year. You could make the case that USC is better then LSU/Georgia right now, but that still doesn't make up for the rest of the conference.

 

[lsu31always]

Rugger, what's wrong with the truth.........the pac 10 is better than the sec.

Apparently, You can't handle the truth.

 

[bop]

Rugger, what's wrong with the truth.........the pac 10 is better than the sec.

Troll. Lets look at some facts. All the facts I'm about to present take bowl games into account where available.

The average strength of schedule for all SEC teams combined was 23rd. The average strength of schedule for all pac 10 teams was 40th. The average SOS for all SEC teams that made a bowl game was 26th. For the pac 10 it was 42nd. Three SEC teams had a top ten SOS. Ole Miss (3), South Carolina (7) and Florida (8). Only one SEC team had a SOS that wasnt in the top 50, Arkansas (63). Only one pac 10 team had a top ten SOS, Washington (9). Five teams, or 50% of the conference, had a SOS that wasnt in the top 50. Cal (54), ASU (56), Stanford (57), Washington ST (61) and the mighty USC Trojans coming in at a pathetic 75th.

What this means is that the SEC teams had a much tougher road to a bowl game than the pac 10 teams. Despite the weaker schedule there are only 6 bowl eligible teams in the pac 10, tied with the Big East for least of all the BCS conferences. Except the Big East only has 8 teams so 75% of big east teams were bowl eligible compared to 60% of the pac 10. The 6 bowl eligible teams also tied the pac 10 with the powerhouse conference usa. The SEC had 10 bowl eligible teams, almost twice as many as the pac 10 and enough to fill a 10 team conference like the pac 10 with nothing but bowl eligible teams. 83.33% of SEC teams are bowl eligible.

Despite the easier schedules there are only 2 pac 10 teams in the current top 25. The SEC has 6, or 3 times more than the pac 10s 2 representatives. The pac 10 is dead last among BCS conferences in number of ranked teams and tied with the juggernaut western athletic conference.

Despite the easier schedules, 5 teams in the pac 10 finished with losing records. 5 out of ten. 50% of the conference were losers. The SEC, even though they had more teams and therefore more potential losers, only had 2 losing teams or only 16.7% of the conference.

So the pac 10 teams had far easier schedules than the SEC teams and yet the "mighty" pac 10 still had more than twice the amount of losing teams and only slightly more than half the amount of bowl eligible teams than the SEC had. Not only is the pac 10 inferior to the SEC, but they shouldnt even be in the conversation. Now do you want to bring some facts to back your wrong opinion or do you want to keep trolling?