Jump to content

Who Wins the SEC First


Lobo97

Recommended Posts

With Texas and OU set to join the SEC in '24, who do you think wins the SEC first....Texas, OU, or Texas A&M? I'm aware the answers could change after next season, but it's still an interesting question.

 

I think there are two big factors that will go into it...

How close is A&M to winning the SEC today?

How much will Texas and OU joining the conference affect all 3 teams in recruiting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ll bite. 
 

For your first point about A&M… I already know I’ll get roasted and that’s fine, but the roster is loaded. It’s got a young game changer at QB and everything from experience to depth on both sides to compete if a new scheme/playcaller have a positive effect. This isn’t a team that is not talented enough and needs years of a rebuild to get there. The talent on both sides of the ball is on campus right now and I truly believe that. So the answer is the are talent wise close enough to be any time. Coaching is a different story and we will see how Petrino changes this team. 
 

I think Texas and OU will likely see a boost. The real question is will Texas be stealing kids from A&M or will A&M keep getting their share and Texas pushes out Bama/LSU for some of their usual haul. I think a lot of that just depends on how they fair record wise when they are in. 
 

 

 

All of that to say I think it’s very hard to say because all 3 have staff issues that I think they just get out coached on a consistent enough basis to lose 2 games a year they shouldn’t regardless of talent. That can lead to some long conference title droughts. Gun to my head I’m gonna say Texas simply because you guys will roast me for saying the team coming off a 5-7 season is more talented and closer to a title. The truth is though neither of the 3 are close to being ready to knock off Georgia. 

  • Like 1
  • LOL! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, WETSU said:

I’ll bite. 
 

For your first point about A&M… I already know I’ll get roasted and that’s fine, but the roster is loaded. It’s got a young game changer at QB and everything from experience to depth on both sides to compete if a new scheme/playcaller have a positive effect. This isn’t a team that is not talented enough and needs years of a rebuild to get there. The talent on both sides of the ball is on campus right now and I truly believe that. So the answer is the are talent wise close enough to be any time. Coaching is a different story and we will see how Petrino changes this team. 
 

I think Texas and OU will likely see a boost. The real question is will Texas be stealing kids from A&M or will A&M keep getting their share and Texas pushes out Bama/LSU for some of their usual haul. I think a lot of that just depends on how they fair record wise when they are in. 
 

 

 

All of that to say I think it’s very hard to say because all 3 have staff issues that I think they just get out coached on a consistent enough basis to lose 2 games a year they shouldn’t regardless of talent. That can lead to some long conference title droughts. Gun to my head I’m gonna say Texas simply because you guys will roast me for saying the team coming off a 5-7 season is more talented and closer to a title. The truth is though neither of the 3 are close to being ready to knock off Georgia. 

This wasn't an attempt to set anyone up to 'roast' them. I truly think it's an interesting conversation.

 

I like all your points, especially the coaching. And between the three, if I had to choose which one is set up with the better coach, I'd say OU. I believe many people wanted to crucify him last season for things beyond his control. He was left with absolutely nothing! If given another 2-3 years, he'll have them turned back around. 

 

Recruiting is where I think makes the difference. When A&M moved to the SEC, it opened the door not only to a handful more top players from Texas going to A&M rather than Texas, but other schools as well. With them being back in the same conference again, I think that has big potential to hurt A&M; especially if Texas has a big year this season, and then again their first in the SEC. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lobo97 said:

With Texas and OU set to join the SEC in '24, who do you think wins the SEC first....Texas, OU, or Texas A&M? I'm aware the answers could change after next season, but it's still an interesting question.

 

I think there are two big factors that will go into it...

How close is A&M to winning the SEC today?

How much will Texas and OU joining the conference affect all 3 teams in recruiting?

I think it will be A&M.  However, the realignment of the SEC may greatly change that thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lobo97 said:

This wasn't an attempt to set anyone up to 'roast' them. I truly think it's an interesting conversation.

 

I like all your points, especially the coaching. And between the three, if I had to choose which one is set up with the better coach, I'd say OU. I believe many people wanted to crucify him last season for things beyond his control. He was left with absolutely nothing! If given another 2-3 years, he'll have them turned back around. 

 

Recruiting is where I think makes the difference. When A&M moved to the SEC, it opened the door not only to a handful more top players from Texas going to A&M rather than Texas, but other schools as well. With them being back in the same conference again, I think that has big potential to hurt A&M; especially if Texas has a big year this season, and then again their first in the SEC. 

I think this brand of A&M is completely different than pre sec and pre Johnny A&M. Don’t get me wrong the sec card did help A&M, but I don’t think Texas having it also just guarantees recruiting to change. A&M is also still recruiting nationally extremely well and that doesn’t change much with Texas joining. I think the biggest impact will be how the other sec schools recruit Texas. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also want to point out I do not think these kids leaving to the sec was more about A&M leaving…. The truth is Texas was also just bad. It’s hard to determine if the recruits were leaving state because the sec was all of the sudden a factor (I highly doubt this. One game in the state every 2 or 4 years doesn’t just scream let me go play for an out of state sec school.) or if it was because they just didn’t have the in state option that was a no brainer. My money is on every one of the 3 having recruiting wins and losses. I don’t think Texas can replicate locking the state down the way they did 05-09 under Mack. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, WETSU said:

I also want to point out I do not think these kids leaving to the sec was more about A&M leaving…. The truth is Texas was also just bad. It’s hard to determine if the recruits were leaving state because the sec was all of the sudden a factor (I highly doubt this. One game in the state every 2 or 4 years doesn’t just scream let me go play for an out of state sec school.) or if it was because they just didn’t have the in state option that was a no brainer. My money is on every one of the 3 having recruiting wins and losses. I don’t think Texas can replicate locking the state down the way they did 05-09 under Mack. 

That comment sounds as if you think A&M changed conferences beyond 2015, lol. And I'm not saying that's the case, lol, simply that it's the way it comes across. 

 

The fact of the matter is, when it was announced that A&M was leaving the B12 (2011), Texas was only 2 years removed from a NC appearance, and 9 consecutive 10+ win seasons. They had one horrible year in '10, but then bounced back with 8 and 9 wins the following two. Point being, I don't think anyone saw coming (YET) that it would be another 9 years before they won double digit games again. I think that was proven by the fact they still closed Top 4 recruiting classes in '11 and '12.

A&M, on the other hand, hadn't had a Top 15 class in several years. The moment they made the announcement about going to the SEC, they had two top 10. I don't believe that's coincidence. Same can be said of the other schools whose Texas recruiting improved, after A&M joined the SEC. Again, I don't believe that was coincidence. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Lobo97 said:

That comment sounds as if you think A&M changed conferences beyond 2015, lol. And I'm not saying that's the case, lol, simply that it's the way it comes across. 

 

The fact of the matter is, when it was announced that A&M was leaving the B12 (2011), Texas was only 2 years removed from a NC appearance, and 9 consecutive 10+ win seasons. They had one horrible year in '10, but then bounced back with 8 and 9 wins the following two. Point being, I don't think anyone saw coming (YET) that it would be another 9 years before they won double digit games again. I think that was proven by the fact they still closed Top 4 recruiting classes in '11 and '12.

A&M, on the other hand, hadn't had a Top 15 class in several years. The moment they made the announcement about going to the SEC, they had two top 10. I don't believe that's coincidence. Same can be said of the other schools whose Texas recruiting improved, after A&M joined the SEC. Again, I don't believe that was coincidence. 

I think just as much of A&Ms boost was attributed to a charismatic Sumlin compared to a sleepy Sherman. You can likely attribute just as much of the recruiting boost to that. I mean does anyone really think a high end kid from Houston wanted to play for Sherman more than Sumlin? 

Again, there’s just so many moving parts to this I don’t think you can pinpoint just one. Since the sec move, A&M has invested over 1 billion into state of the art facilities, has prioritized recruiting and recruiting staff and put together a decent record. The difference isn’t the sec move for recruiting, it’s the approach used and the emphasis put on recruiting since the move. I don’t believe for a second kids were only playing at A&M for the sec patch and will now just magically stop and go to Texas. I think the sec is a factor, but not the deciding one for most kids. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, WETSU said:

I think just as much of A&Ms boost was attributed to a charismatic Sumlin compared to a sleepy Sherman. You can likely attribute just as much of the recruiting boost to that. I mean does anyone really think a high end kid from Houston wanted to play for Sherman more than Sumlin? 

Again, there’s just so many moving parts to this I don’t think you can pinpoint just one. Since the sec move, A&M has invested over 1 billion into state of the art facilities, has prioritized recruiting and recruiting staff and put together a decent record. The difference isn’t the sec move for recruiting, it’s the approach used and the emphasis put on recruiting since the move. I don’t believe for a second kids were only playing at A&M for the sec patch and will now just magically stop and go to Texas. I think the sec is a factor, but not the deciding one for most kids. 

If A&M was the only program impacted with a recruiting boost, then sure. They weren't, however. And again, I don't believe it was coincidence.

 

Here's the thing though, you're approaching this as if you're taking offense. There was absolutely nothing wrong with A&M's recruiting stock improving after moving to the SEC. It was an exciting thing. So I'm not sure what the problem is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Lobo97 said:

If A&M was the only program impacted with a recruiting boost, then sure. They weren't, however. And again, I don't believe it was coincidence.

 

Here's the thing though, you're approaching this as if you're taking offense. There was absolutely nothing wrong with A&M's recruiting stock improving after moving to the SEC. It was an exciting thing. So I'm not sure what the problem is. 

No I’m not offended. I just think it’s a little delusional to believe that one game in Texas every 2-4 years instantly boosted some of these schools you are talking about. I do not think it can be ignored the hype surrounding Sumlin (first black HC in the state) and Johnny (heisman winner) leading to a big surge in recruiting. All which coincide with the shift from 10 straight 10 win seasons to a more human looking Mack brown. There are MANY factors that contribute to this all of which are more than capable of seeing a rise in recruiting rankings for not just A&M but others as well.

Did the kids start leaving the state to go to Ohio st because A&M was in the sec? What about those kids that left the state to go play with Jimbo at Florida st instead of staying in Texas? A&M in the sec again? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, WETSU said:

No I’m not offended. I just think it’s a little delusional to believe that one game in Texas every 2-4 years instantly boosted some of these schools you are talking about. I do not think it can be ignored the hype surrounding Sumlin (first black HC in the state) and Johnny (heisman winner) leading to a big surge in recruiting. All which coincide with the shift from 10 straight 10 win seasons to a more human looking Mack brown. There are MANY factors that contribute to this all of which are more than capable of seeing a rise in recruiting rankings for not just A&M but others as well.

Did the kids start leaving the state to go to Ohio st because A&M was in the sec? What about those kids that left the state to go play with Jimbo at Florida st instead of staying in Texas? A&M in the sec again? 

I'm not talking about the kids that started going to schools like Ohio State, FSU, Oregon, etc. I'm talking strictly the other SEC schools, and how much their recruiting stock went up after. Yes, more Texas kids started going to other out of state schools as well....eventually. That was not immediate however. As such, you can start attributing other things, such as Texas' fall, to that. But schools like Ole Miss, LSU, Alabama, Arkansas, etc, saw their recruiting stock go up immediately, as did A&M, which is the key focus here. 

Again, when looking at just the first few years, A&M's recruiting stock did rise, as did other schools in the SEC. You can argue all day that it's 'delusional to believe one game every 2-4 years, yada yada yada', but you still can't argue against the fact that recruiting in the state of Texas DID shift those first few years. That is a fact, and again one that I don't see as coincidence. 

 

Now, in time, you saw an even bigger shift. You started seeing more kids from Texas go out of state, to other conferences. You started seeing A&M recruit better on the national scale. etc etc etc. But I'm only focusing on those first few years (literally the first 2-3). And while you can come up with any other theory you want, ie coach, Texas failure, etc, the one thing that had never happened before, was what happened when A&M moved to the SEC. To think THAT didn't create more excitement amongst recruits than anything else is what's delusional...and one that I don't understand; again, it wasn't a bad thing. It was a very awesome, exciting thing. So I still don't understand the pushback. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Lobo97 said:

That comment sounds as if you think A&M changed conferences beyond 2015, lol. And I'm not saying that's the case, lol, simply that it's the way it comes across. 

 

The fact of the matter is, when it was announced that A&M was leaving the B12 (2011), Texas was only 2 years removed from a NC appearance, and 9 consecutive 10+ win seasons. They had one horrible year in '10, but then bounced back with 8 and 9 wins the following two. Point being, I don't think anyone saw coming (YET) that it would be another 9 years before they won double digit games again. I think that was proven by the fact they still closed Top 4 recruiting classes in '11 and '12.

A&M, on the other hand, hadn't had a Top 15 class in several years. The moment they made the announcement about going to the SEC, they had two top 10. I don't believe that's coincidence. Same can be said of the other schools whose Texas recruiting improved, after A&M joined the SEC. Again, I don't believe that was coincidence. 

Just a side note.  During that time period, think of the perennial powers that fell off the map at the same exact time.  Michigan, Texas, USC, all at the same time 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lobo97 said:

If A&M was the only program impacted with a recruiting boost, then sure. They weren't, however. And again, I don't believe it was coincidence.

 

Here's the thing though, you're approaching this as if you're taking offense. There was absolutely nothing wrong with A&M's recruiting stock improving after moving to the SEC. It was an exciting thing. So I'm not sure what the problem is. 

Texas will have similar success especially the move. Add in the fact Manning will be leading ( assuming he lives up to the potential) then recruiting will sky rocket. Playoff is probably a probable possibility. Texas success will only hurt A&M . A&M needs to win and fast , or they will be a average middle of the road team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Coach Rab said:

Just a side note.  During that time period, think of the perennial powers that fell off the map at the same exact time.  Michigan, Texas, USC, all at the same time 

That’s a huge factor. 
 

A&M recruited top 10 caliber classes all throughout the late 80s and 90s. What happened in the 2000s for both A&M and Texas was not normal it was a product of Mack Brown being the best recruiter in the country for a decade. Mack slowing down led to more recruits not signing with Texas and going back to the more normal version of A&M and Texas splitting a little more in state recruits than the previous decade. 
 

This stance to me is much like Texas fans trying to get back to the Mack days. That’s impossible as it was the best decade from a wins standpoint in their history. That’s the peak not the normal. Texas will likely not get “back” to that in our lifetimes. Measuring recruiting and results based off that 2000-2010 stretch will cause lots of Texas to be disappointed for the foreseeable future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Mojo1000 said:

Texas will have similar success especially the move. Add in the fact Manning will be leading ( assuming he lives up to the potential) then recruiting will sky rocket. Playoff is probably a probable possibility. Texas success will only hurt A&M . A&M needs to win and fast , or they will be a average middle of the road team.

Like they are now? ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...