Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade
Saul Too, most of our disagreements seem to be whether a move from one of the big boy conferences to another constitutes "a step up".
In other words, from my perspective, there's no more on an advantage to be gained via the system as long as one is in one of the four conferences. The actual differences between them are minimal beyond "percetion". One can argue, correctly, the SEC is the best football conference of the four, but what advantages does the system give that?
The only other area of disagreement is in the ACC. The ACC is an example of a conference whose parts are more valuable than its whole. It is the bottom of the ACC (and that is a large grouping) that prevents either FSU or Clemson from gaining in their relative positions. When a good SEC team loses, it isn't going to fall much from the strength of its conference. When an ACC team falls, it has little hope of getting back into the conversation. FSU stands the best chance because they play a top SEC team to end the season.
You're right about not having a systemic advantage by moving from one power conference to a better power conference, but there are recruiting opportunities in the SEC that wouldn't otherwise be available. Whether or not aTm and Mizzou take advantage of them remains to be seen.
Kids want to play in the SEC. It's the big time. People talk about Mizzou getting Texas players because they want to play against schools from Texas, but they act like the same won't be true of Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and, yes, Texas now that we're in the SEC.
I don't think we really even disagree much on the ACC. They aren't great. They just don't deserve to be lumped in with the BEAST. Not yet, anyway.