Specifically the SEC. I just don't get it. Does it give the bottom feeders a chance to get involved? Does it make Georgia happy if Florida wins the NC? You wouldn't see me running around cheering if the Titans, Mavs, Jazz, or Cardinals win a championship. Sure, the SEC has been the best NCAAF conference for a while now, but I would never pull for a divisional foe in a big game. Maybe it's money, but as fans we do not see many of the effects that the extra money provides. And how much would that extra shared revenue help the top level teams in the big conferences? Stadium upgrades are nice, but I find it hard to believe that Alabama winning a championship puts an A&M, for example, over the top to complete some stadium renovations. Kind of a vent, but I just hate when all these idiots are yelling "S-E-C, S-E-C, S-E-C" all over TV. You do not really see it with too many other sports/conferences to my knowledge.
I think it's definitely limited to college sports in most respects (AL v. NL being the only real professional example of this). I think it's a combination of wanting to be beaten by the best and the fact that a lot of the kids are "local". It's easy for me to root for Big XII schools when they're not playing the teams I follow when the teams are full of Texas kids.
Yes - because it helps create a conference's reputation, which improves recruiting from people who want to play in the SEC, and also providing the non-NC teams the benefit of the doubt in the rankings. This year's SEC is really Alabama in Tier 2, Florida and LSU in tier 2, and a bunch of decent but not great teams. But because of their conference reputation, teams like SC and GA managed to get into the top 5, and their 1-loss teams will be given the edge by voters in any potential national championship configurations. Not as huge an issue this year, but in 2 years, when a committee is picking from 4 teams, that benefit of the doubt will be huge.
When someone in your conference wins, it helps the entire conference (more money, more exposure, etc). You can only really grouse about it if they're beating you.
^ That's a good point. I never really thought about the benefit of the mid-level teams of the conference from a "benefit of the doubt" in the rankings perspective. Perhaps consistently elite teams (LSU, Alabama, UT, OU, USC, etc.) would have less to benefit as a whole from the lesser teams as these teams consistently recruit well?
From a recruiting perspective, certainly. But from a NC perspective, I think there is a huge benefit. That one year that LSU got into the national title game with 2 losses, for example; or last year, where Alabama got a rematch over other 1-loss teams like OSU and Stanford.
As a texas fan I don't think I could any pleasure in watching OU win. Maybe SEC people are just weird.
I think you can root against your conference rival and at the same time have pride in the conference if that rival wins.
Say what you want about them, but they don't seem to have a lot of in-fighting and back-biting going on. It's the strongest, most stable conference in the NCAA for a reason.
This is exactly what brought an end to the once-glorious SWC. And almost brought an end to the Big 12. Maybe the SEC schools have enough foresight to actually understand this. Sure, they all cheat - but they don't rat each other out!
You don't remember Phillip Fulmer of Tennessee tattling on Alabama and another SEC school implicating Mississippi St in recruiting Cam Newton. Over the years, I think the SEC has had more infighting than any other conference by far.
I don't remember it because it obviously didn't amount to a hill of beans in terms of turmoil within the conference.
If other SEC teams do well it helps strength of schedule for the whole conference. That's why you root for your enemies if they're on the national stage because in the end you'd rather they win than a Big 12 school since it will help you in the end.
Define "turmoil within the conference" or "in-fighting and back-biting" that amounted to something elsewhere.
Already mentioned, but Reputation of divisions does NOT matter in pro sports. Reputation is EVERYTHING in college sports. Big market cities in pro sports matters some, but market and reputation doesnt help the Knicks go from a 7th seed by their W/L to a 4 seed based on ranking. It doesnt matter that the Rockets played in a tough division and missed the playoffs cuz of their W/L record. But that IS kinda how it works in COLLEGE. If it DID work like that in the NBA, then the Rockets would be "seeded" in the playoffs based on strength of opponent and human rankings. So there'd some rooting interest to boost the profile of their "SWC!". So there's some incentive for SEC'ers to do that (I doesnt mean that SEC boosters are NOT annoying and idiotic, but there's some validness to why its like that...)
Don't the winnings of a school in the NCG end up being divided between all the schools in the conference?
It's because of the stupid polls. If you are in a better conference, you have a claim to a higher ranking.
I think it boils down a lot to the size of the conference vs the size of a division in pro sports, what that does to your style of play, and how much more it matters to your success. In the NFL, 6 of your 16 games are in division which is not the same as in college. In college you're more apt to shape your team according to the style of play in your conference so your conference gets an identity due to that. This or that type of football is played in this conference, etc. So Georgia or LSU identifies more with Alabama football culture/style of play than they do with Michigan or UCLA or whoever.
Yes. I believe that I read that the winning school keeps 50% of the money and the rest is divided up evenly among the rest of the conference. I cannot imagine this has a meaningful impact to athletic departments as these conferences are all seen as elite regardless. As fans, I do not believe the increased money from another team winning a bowl game are even noticeable.
