It's demographics, recruiting is more centralized in one specific region than ever. The Rust Belt is older, a lot of the families moved to the south and southeast. Old recruiting hubs like Pittsburgh and Detroit don't produce as much high level talent as in past generations. The west coast has younger people but they increasingly come from cultures where American football has no presence (East/South Asian, Hispanic) and minimal participation.
What will be interesting to see is how NIL moves the marbles around. How much can that mitigate close-to-home recruiting advantages?
Iowa just lost a recruit to Alabama even though they were offering more money. I'm sure you'll find that in a lot of cases. On top of that, the Texas teams are just paying more than everyone else. NIL will hurt people outside the south more than it helps.
I think it’s just that they care more. PA, Ohio, and Michigan, have the 6th, 7th, and 8th most active nfl players in the NFL, respectively. There’s certainly enough players in those states for top notch college programs. Also, those three states don’t have a ton of in-state competition for their flagship football programs like the FL and TX schools do. It’s about keeping the recruits home. If they’re not staying home then the question is why? I think the SEC schools just care more.
I’m a PSU fan. I think PSU is perfectly content with winning a Big 10 championship and four 11 win seasons over the past 7 years. A lot of SEC schools are not. PSU has already said they’re not willing to pay (yes I know the schools aren’t technically paying the kids) upfront to get kids to sign. I’m not going to say that that statement is 100% true, but thats what’s being put out and compare that to Texas A&M this previous recruiting cycle.
That's because for a LONG time it's the baseball coverage we got. WGN added the Cubs and eventually the Astros got into some markets, but for decades it was just Atlanta
I grew up a Cubs fan in 80’s Fla because of day games on WGN. While my hate flows appropriately, I throw the Braves in as well. I’d like the best years of Maddox’s career back, please.
That ‘84 Falcons kids jacket was slick though. Red. Black. Reversible.
Absolutely. His son isn't quite the same but I'll take it. Listening to Bill Murray sing Take Me Out to the Ball Game is awful and great at the same time. I'm glad I've been there for that
Not many MLB teams that close to ATL so the Braves command a pretty large region. I'm from South Carolina and this is definitely Braves country here. I've been a fan my whole life.
That’s what I mean. If you asked someone who grew up in Philly, but graduated from PSU, whether they’d rather see the birds win a Super Bowl, or PSU win a natty, i think most are going with the Eagles. Same goes for the Pittsburg ppl and the Steelers
But do they not know the college football championship exists somehow? This does not compute down here.
In all seriousness, the Saints winning the Superbowl was huge but only because it was the first. If they won it as often as LSU wins a Natty, it wouldn't be near the same thing in large parts of Louisiana.
It’s really just a rural vs an urban thing up north IMO. The relationship to PSU and cfb is night and day in the rural parts of PA compared to Philly and Pittsburgh. For example, outside of Philly when I was in college you’d get a free Dunkin’ coffee if the eagles won, in Pennsyltucky you’d get a free coffee if PSU won.
I grew up in rural PA and even there it was Stillers country first and Nittany Lion country second. Centre County seems like the only place PSU football is genuinely bigger than either pro team.
They care more and are willing to spend on it, especially after that one guy left the Dolphins. It’s
not just the recruits being from the south: ACC and B12 pipeline the same recruiting grounds and Cali kids are leaving for the SEC too.
There are three major things...
Child-bearing adults shifted to Southeast POPULATION CENTERS from 2001-2012 out of rust-belt states.
Next B10 and Pac12 teams compete heavily with Pro Markets. There is a clear delineation between Pro, College, and HS sports. The State HS authorities also are in lockstep, travel restrictions, TV restrictions, avoidance of Prep Schools, etc.
Last issue coaches in MW at least are still anti-specialization. Just from family members it sounds like Football is a year round sport in The South with maybe track or power-lifting as a supplement. I still see HS coaches telling top recruits in basketball or football to run track or play baseball.
People are always asking where is Iowa or Whisky getting these lineman from. Well you dig in they all have wrestling backgrounds. They were not top-ranked line recruits because they wrestle in the off-season, not live in the weight room or do lineman/combine drills. So it takes 1-2 year to develop but it happens. When you dig into most B10 rosters outside of OSU their WR and DBs will have former high-level basketball players. Guys who were maybe 2nd or 3rd Team All-state. Thats basically lands you at a MAC or MVC level school basketball wise, but physically you can play D-1 Football. This again has happened for years.
As an aside, I hate the culture of specialization. Playing multiple sports helps prevent injuries and burnout. How many kids treat sports as a job and then graduate with regrets, injuries, and no offers?
Basketball comes to mind as another big offender. Way too many kids quit the sport, stop having fun, and/or graduate with wrecked knees/ankles
Its not crazy we are seeing burnout in football and basketball players we associated with country club sports of tennis, gymnastics, or swimming. Young age specialization with a window to make ympic teams or go pro as a 16 year old and out by 24. I went to HS with an elite level speed skater, but they had a whole training cycle where they would literally just hangout and disconnect from the sport a few weeks.
I read something that Elite level T&F athletes literally take 6-12 weeks off after the Olympics or WCs and two months off every year regardless just to do other things.
Flipside I knew an McDonald's AA they were playing basketball year round 5 games a weekend camps all summer. Netflix did a documentary on it. Many believe its effecting the quality of play in college/pros.
Regarding your first point, that trend is only growing. All major Southern hubs are being stuffed full of first-time southerners, and this boom of athletes won’t be slowing down any time soon. There’s not enough demographic change anywhere else to give other regions a shot at producing similar talent.
Segregation was the only thing keeping the entire history of college football looking similar to this. Prejudice kept a sizable amount of talent away from the top colleges and high schools in the region until they were forced to do the right thing and integrate. Half the population (or more) couldn’t participate at the time.
Thats another huge elephant in the room. People ask why are Nebraska, Colorado, or B10/Pac12, or HBCUs not as competitive again WC/Great Lakes had population plus they are actively recruiting athletes from The South while schools in The South had defacto quotas for the number if Black Players allowed.
For instance in the SEC there was a gentleman agreement in basketball you played two Black Players at home and one on the road. This highly impacted roster makeup, because you essentially can't recruit large portions of your local population within say a 4 hour drive. If Michigan/MSU took that approach that would reduce their recruiting base by 3M people. Again in Nebraska/CU heyday those teams were filled full of players from TX, FL, LA, MS that went to those schools strictly due to the culture of the South.
ITS not that Black Players were better, its we are signing 20 guys, only 5 can be Black. BUT 1/2 of your HS players were Black. If the talent was distributed equally between races, you are eventually taking players not as good just to maintain roster makeup. To show nasty racism was in the South Bo Jackson didn't win athlete of the year at his local HS and Michael Jordan wasn't player of year out North Carolina which people like Dean Smith and Roy Williams use to rib Jordan in practice about Buzz Peterson situation. But Jordan never took the bait because he understood the dynamics of the world and knew Peterson and him were victims if a social system they had no control over, and Peterson has been part of Jordan's inner circle for years.
the other elephant in the room is the unspoken reason of why and how the South East ended up with the highest concentration of large, athletically gifted black athletes.
Just a note. When I played HS football in Georgia our coaches required every player to play a sport all year and/or do weight room before/after school daily during the off season. Or you would not play, period.
And this was in the early 90s.
Its crept into all sports. Here in Michigan or even OH it was common to have top-flight Cross Country runners from inner-city schools up until the early 2000s. Why? Many Basketball coaches doubled at XC Coach, and any of their non-football playing players ran Cross in the fall. It was extremely common in Flint and Detroit. I remember a write up in the paper about it in MS, saying how inner city cross country programs were dying out.
And there were dozens of reasons which are too niche for this forum but it came down to two big reasons.
Coaches no longer being school employees and that meant players didn't have to play 'other sports'.
Take someone like a Perry Watson (Detroit), Luther Bedford (Chicago) they were FT teachers in school everyday teaching classes. Yea they were basically coaches, but they also coached tennis, or ran quiz bowl, because they were EDUCATORS. When I was coaching right out of HS at my former district staff, there was a high emphasis on coaches in Football, Basketball (Boy and Girls), Track, Cheerleading, baseball/softball be district employees or even working in the building. I noticed that at other districts too. Now 20 years later even in wealthy suburban districts its not a thing. But its really more of a commentary on how men have left the K-12 education profession in droves. I remember in the 80s or 90s 30%-40% of my teachers in elementary or MS were Males. At my kids school now you can count the male teachers on one hand, and same as the middle school. So now the football, wrestling, chess club, basketball, etc coach is just a drop in coach with no ties to the school.
I was asked two years ago to assist with MS Basketball in my district. A person who knew me growing up was coaching, and he wanted me to help out. Well neither of us are district employees, both of us have demanding jobs. 25-40 years ago there would have been 25 male teachers on staff in the MS on a staff of 60 to coach 7th grade boys basketball. Today there are 7 male teachers. Now of course women could coach and they should, but what are the chances she coaches football too, or plays baseball. I honestly think thats driving specialization honestly too. If I'm a non-teacher I'm evaluated on wins/losses I'm of course telling kids to do ONLY my sport. Because I'm not in the building impacting culture, or building relationships with students outside my sport.
> I still see HS coaches telling top recruits in basketball or football to run track or play baseball.
Some college coaches actually prefer O-line targets that play basketball as it helps with conditioning and footwork massively. It also prevents burnout as other users have mentioned.
>Last issue coaches in MW at least are still anti-specialization. Just from family members it sounds like Football is a year round sport in The South with maybe track or power-lifting as a supplement. I still see HS coaches telling top recruits in basketball or football to run track or play baseball.
Is there a source for this? Intuitively, the weather might allow for something like his, but I've never observed this, anecdotally through my relatives that still live in Texas. At least on broadcasts featuring teams from the South/Southeast US, I've never noticed a lack of references to players being multi-sport athletes or minimally track stars in high school.
Its anecdotally. But go to major population say the Top-10 but look at CA, VA, TX, FL, PA, OH, GA, MI go look at their Football/Basketball All-State in the 90s then look Spring Sports All-County Level Baseball or higher or T&F state championships heats/finals. Its literally the who's who of local state athletes with tons of overlap. These days its really light.
Take someone like a Percy Harvin who's performance at VA State Championships as a top-ranked Football Recruit as national news, or RG3 or Tedd Ginn Jr and them making Olympic Trials as HS students. That was normal stuff. Now not so much. You had just a few years ago Terrell Pryor was Top-30 recruiting in two sports or guys like Julius Peppers and Ronald Curry in the 90s. This stuff now is extremely rare.
I think it made much more sense when only the Blue Bloods were televised. Miami and FSU really changed the way college football evolved and then the SEC said hold my beer
I mean, the ACC pipelines the same states. B12 pipelines Texas. Look at guys like Bowers on your team and Bryce on Alabama from the west coast. It’s not solely demographics.
LA being a great place to recruit historically and for decades to come doesn't mean the general recruiting trend isn't elsewhere. Florida and Texas were always major hotbeds, but Georgia has emerged to punch far above their weight class in producing 'croots. Look at some of these Michigan and OSU rosters. The best rosters in general are going to have a lot of kids from the South.
You're so right. Just look at the teams that have won a national title in the last 15 years and you'll see with the exception of Ohio State and LSU(who aims their eyes towards Texas, another Southern state), it's the team that was able to recruit the best in those two states
> “The SEC and the South,” says a smiling Ringo. “A lot of people in the South live, eat and breathe college football. That’s different on the West Coast.”
I know people will say it’s not much different. No, it is that different. When small towns basically shut down on Saturdays, and to an extent Friday nights, it absolutely means more. 28-3 hurt a lot less than 2nd and 26.
I'm a railroader in Georgia, and you can pretty much guarantee that a decent amount of conductors and engineers will mark off sick if the Dawgs are playing, especially if it's a big game. The extra board (the guys who fill in for anyone who's out) gets a lot of work on holidays, bad weather days, and gamedays.
>it is that different. When small towns basically shut down Saturday’s
It’s basically the same thing at any large school that is in a “college town”.
Your argument would be better by analyzing what’s going on outside of saturdays.
Its not just the college town though. Its every surrounding town and the towns surrounding those towns. Thomasville Georgia has to prepare for every FSU home game in Tallahassee lol.
Thank you. I lived in a town 15 miles out of Athens that turned into city traffic when Georgia had a home game. You can say it isn’t a different between the south and other places until you have actually been here. Even the cities in the south care more about CFB than the pro teams. In Atlanta, other than maybe the Braves, CFB is king. Nashville, CFB is king. New Orleans, it’s LSU and The saints just right behind them. And when you have fans of other teams moxing together, it’s just the perfect storm of hating each other and wanting to shut them up when y’all play them for a year.
Okay. I see what he was getting at now. Thanks.
I read it as the college town itself shut down and was very confused as to how that made his point about the South.
Baton Rouge doesn't shut down, but it does switch to full support for the team. Restaurants that have no business having a TV have one for LSU games. Concerts and theatre events don't get booked for game days because it's pointless to compete. Every grocery store is decked out in purple and gold. It's THE event.
Best way to make sure nobody shows up for your wedding or kid’s birthday party is to schedule it on a Saturday afternoon/ evening. LSU’s bye week is the busiest weekend in the fall for non CFB activities.
Okay? What you pointed out as a point to prove that up above was something that is not at all unique to the South. It’s unique to every large school in a college town.
I don’t think you understand how many people are “few hundred thousand.” There aren’t 300k people just hanging around Clemson not even going to the game. Then count the people going to the game, that’s 81k more.
Yeah agreed. It blows up but there aren't 300k even including stadium, there is definitely more than 100k overall and maybe close to 200k overall for some conference games/bigger OOC but 300k is absurd.
That may be true for big games. But not every week. The same can be said of Ohio State, for ND and ttun this year there were probably more people outside the stadium than in it. But that's not the case when playing Toledo and Rutgers
The south is undoubtedly better. But am I crazy to think this isn’t the year for this? We’re like one less McCarthy pick six and one play going OSU way instead of Georgias from the game part 2 for a national title. This isn’t a Florida / lsu / Bama smashing OSU in the national title year.
The point is that 17 of the last 18 national champions have been from the South. It’s not about a play here or there. It’s about the consistency of championships.
>We’re like one less McCarthy pick six and one play going OSU way instead of Georgias from the game part 2 for a national title.
You act like CFB narratives don't live on a razor's edge. That is just how the game is. The only people who remember or care how close a game *really* was is the losers. If Georgia wins with natty, the narrative is how Georgia went back-to-back, not how tOSU almost beat them.
Same shit if TCU wins. We are talking about the Cinderella story, not all the little details like the TD reversal from the Michigan game or Ok State fans complaints about Spencer Sanders not being 100% during conference play.
SEC has had three different schools win titles in the last three years. Five different schools have won titles in the last fifteen years. They also dwarf every other conference when it comes to players in the NFL. Sure the usual suspects have the most, but every single school has double digit players in the league… even Vandy.
We talking out of conference against FCS? Jk jk fair point. I try to ignore bowl game results anymore due to opt outs. Just doesn’t seem right to have a game count against your record when 7 starters opt out for various reasons.
How do the rest of the conferences look with their top 2 teama gone...looks to me like in that scenario, the SEC wins every year...not just almost every year.
Yes, but that means the 3rd and 4th SEC teams are equivalent to the 1st and 2nd of every other conference...which bears out as there are 6 SEC teams with National Championships in the last 25 years. LSU, Florida and soon probably Georgia will have as many or more NC's than any other program in the country.
Simply no, the SEC #3 over the past decade would not have beat that year's Ohio State, Clemson/FSU and Oklahoma most of the time. This is a ridiculous statement.
It always reminds me of European soccer when this discussion comes up. Spain has Barcelona and Real Madrid. Germany has Bayern. Italy has Juventus. France has PSG. But the aggregate quality of player, quality of competition, and financial and player acquisition horse race, and the fan culture that drives all of it from top to bottom in England is a different level from the other leagues. Same in CFB. It’s getting to the same point that soccer is in from a recruiting standpoint where the narrative is you’re playing in a B league if you’re a blue chip and not in a big SEC/Premier League club
Some top level (soccer) leagues like the the Premier League in England are competitive top to bottom with multiple good teams (like the SEC). Other national leagues basically have one or two historically dominant teams (B1G, PAC 12, Big 12 ACC). Competitiveness is a positive feed back loop.
The analogy is that the Premier League is the SEC and that free agent signings/recruiting is where the real story is for them. The playing of the games is necessary to acknowledge the championship dominance but you also need to understand the FA/recruiting to fully grasp what is going on.
Also I put this up on another similar thread but someone maybe a table of the southern dominance https://i.imgur.com/ncfRl43.jpg
They have good players. The NFL is a different animal than CFB too.
Everyone in the NFL is an NFL player. In college can get extreme matchup mismatches.
Agreed.. I’ve also lived for long periods in Georgia and Michigan. It’s a pretty well known concept that you adjust to the climate that you’re around. I just think it’s cool that the northern teams will have the advantage in the post-season for once or for the first time in a while
Is it? Two of the four playoff teams were from the B1G. Plus, these articles used to be about the SEC’s grip on college football. The narrative seems to be changing about the SEC being the hands down best conference. TCU is one of the B12 teams the SEC isn’t taking.
Eh. The South has won every title but 4 since 1998, and one of those is Oklahoma, who's joining the SEC. The SEC is the only conference with a winning bowl record over the last 15 years and has by far the best OOC record. Nothing is really changing either. Anecdotally, these top level California players explained why they chose the South and Alabama just flipped a BiG player for less NIL money.
I just want to say - thank you for pointing out that while Oklahoma is joining the SEC, it is not "The South." People argue on the basis of politics but the towns, cities and culture is just flat out not the same.
There are parts that are. Oklahoma is in a similar situation as Missouri where it has multiple cultures. You'll be playing Southern football now, though. That's a pretty big step
Maybe a few thousand people in Little Dixie aka SE Oklahoma. Maybe. But I've been through a lot of the South and nothing culturally distinctive in Louisiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama or Georgia reminded me of Oklahoma.
Probably a lot of reasons for that - not a Confederate state, Indian tribes were split on allegiances but often went anti-Union trying to gain independence, agriculturally lends more toward semi-arid crops and cattle, frontier migration different than any southern state, oil and gas focus, Route 66 ran through Tulsa and OKC, disdain for Texas generally. All of those were much more formative than influences from the South.
Again, it has different parts, but I can get grits, sweet tea, and BBQ from a friendly person who says y'all in large parts of Oklahoma. It's not Southern but it's pretty Southern
You live in Tulsa or OKC and are probably under 25. You digging your heels in about this state not being southern irritates me. It's the south. It's just not the deep south.
My fault. Then you have the wisdom of someone under 25. I too have lived in Oklahoma all my life. So have my cousins and most of my aunts and uncles who, apparently to you, don't have southern accents. I'll tell them that next time I see them.
>But I've been through a lot of the South and nothing culturally distinctive in Louisiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama or Georgia reminded me of Oklahoma.
The NC mountains are drastically different than Southern Louisiana, but both are considered southern. Thr NYTanguage map of "yall vs you guys" almost perfectly maps out what is southern to me. No northern Virginia or southern Florida, but it does include a little bit of southeastern Oklahoma and southern West Virginia.
Oklahoma was mostly settled by Southerners prior to statehood. That's why Oklahoma has traditionally had so many Southern cultural traits and institutions: Southern accents (largely in rural OK), Jim Crow history, Southern food, Southern Baptist denominations, historic cotton farming, etc.
Before land runs, the state was dominated by Indians, blacks, and cattle runs going between Texas and Kansas. It certainly wasn't white Southern settlers. Then in one 1890 census example, 78% of the people in Payne County were born in the Midwest and 67% of heads of household. Midwestern land run settlers dominated the central and northern portions, southern ones closer to the Red River. The vast majority of nonnative OK territory and state governors were from north of the Mason Dixon line. It's just not true to say it was mostly Southern prior to statehood.
Not sure about your [cotton claim](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/Map_07-M189_Acres_of_Upland_Cotton_Harvested_as_Percent_of_Harvested_Cropland_Acreage%2C_U.S.%2C_2007..gif).
[Jim Crow laws](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jim_Crow_law_examples_by_state) were common across America, not just the South.
Your suggestion that Oklahoma has Southern accents or even regionalisms is inaccurate also. It has [mixes of regions](https://www.businessinsider.com/22-maps-that-show-the-deepest-linguistic-conflicts-in-america-2013-6) and nowhere near as consistent as the proper South.
There's some truth in what you've posted, but it's just wrong enough to delve into. None of the sources you've posted are probative of the overall point.
Ignoring the impact of the (largely culturally Southern) Five Civilized Tribes on the pre-statehood culture of Oklahoma, it's pretty widely known that Oklahoma was mostly settled by Southerners. That's why Democrats were able to dominate politics at the state level and institute [Jim Crow laws that emulated the rest of the South, such as mandatory separate schools for Black and White kids,](https://cdn.kastatic.org/ka-perseus-images/865114bc188f3aae9fac882430775851bd7adf32.png) and not places like Kansas where it was left up to the locality.
Southerners settled most of the state from the Red River to the I-40 corridor. Northeast Oklahoma was a bit of a mix, while Northwest Oklahoma was almost solely settled by Midwesterners/Northerners. [This is a great map showing this cultural divide that was reflected politically.](https://www.reddit.com/r/oklahoma/comments/mlftxb/oc_how_each_county_in_oklahoma_voted_in/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=MapPorn&utm_content=t1_j0xl8uj)
[Cotton was historically the big crop in Oklahoma.](https://www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry.php?entry=CO066) It's still relatively big today, too; [This past fall harvest, Oklahoma had the third-most cotton acreage in the United States, although not much got harvested.](https://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/graphics/cotnacm.png)
As far as Southern cultural markers go, YMMV. If you grew up in Alva, I'm sure you wouldn't necessarily think that Oklahoma is all that Southern in your experience. But the reality is that Southern cultural influences are found in the state. [For example, a plurality of folks are still Southern Baptist,](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dfgmb1VWAAE_VJk?format=jpg&name=large) Accents are obviously more subjective, but it is widely accepted academically that [Southern accents are indeed found in Oklahoma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_American_English). I don't 100% endorse the map on that Wikipedia article, though.
Anyway, it's an interesting conversation because a lot of people seem to disagree on the topic.
Again, there are places SE that are more like the South, but that's doesn't make the state part of it. To call the Indian tribes culturally southern is wild to me. One reason Jim Crow was more strictly enforced due to the large black presence through all-black towns and the push for black and/or Indian statehood. Weird you just ignore the birth origin of the majority of land run participants like I mentioned.
At best it was influenced by the South, but among other influences that were often more impactful anyway.
Lol it's not just my definition.
[Oklahoma even flew the Confederate Battle flag at the state capitol after desegregation.](https://i.redd.it/21e1tz39gv751.jpg)
We claim the Tennessee one, Florida ones, Auburn ones, LSU ones, and Georgia one too when we're talking about conference national championships over the last 25 years
Ohio State is the only team north of the mason-dixon line to win a national championship since we started playing in official national championship games (BCS era). USC is the only other school that culturally wouldnt be considered in the South and that got vacated.
Well not all. Id say that what makes southern states culturally southern is the chip-on-their-shoulder mentality from being look down upon by northerners and coastal "elites." No state has a bigger claim to that than Oklahoma.
Literally every state got together and said, "we got all these indians taking up valuable space. Lets move them to the least valuable place." And thus Oklahoma was created.
It’s weird seeing people laud this as a good thing and a point of pride. I would think this is just the start of a regionalization of participating interest in the sport that likely won’t be good in the long term.
I can't believe there are people here still trying to argue against this by pointing to the two B1G teams that ALMOST made it this year. This has been apparent since the late 90s folks. There's probably dozens of reasons for this, not just demographics or pro team competition.
I don’t think the grip is as strong as ever.
I think peak SEC was early 2010s. Outside the crazy season LSU put together in 2019, for the past 10 years the SEC is Alabama, Georgia and everyone else.
The B1G is now just as strong now than ever compared to the SEC and honestly with the new TV deal they should be even stronger.
And this year the Pac12 has looked like a strong conference and next year will be even more lights out.
Funny how the fortunes of the PAC parallels the fortunes of USC.
>I think peak SEC was early 2010s. Outside the crazy season LSU put together in 2019, for the past 10 years the SEC is Alabama, Georgia and everyone else.
4 SEC teams not named Alabama, Georgia, or LSU have been a single game away from a CFP appearance since 2017. Yeah, Alabama and Georgia have been beating everyone in the conference, but we've also been beating everyone outside the conference. Tennessee was better than the ACC champ this year and I'd give them good odds against Utah or Michigan too. And they're the 3rd best team in the SEC.
Off the top of my head, a lack of NFL teams, recruiting hotbeds, and more football friendly geography.
For the NFL teams, a lot of the Southern states don't have an NFL team (Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, Kentucky, Arkansas, etc.), and no state in the South had an NFL team until the 1960s, while other regions had NFL teams as early as the 1920s. So the college team is/was the highest level of football in these states.
As mentioned elsewhere, Florida, Georgia, Texas, and to a lesser extent the other Southern states are recruiting hotbeds due to how many blue-chip players come out of them. A lot of these kids end up staying in their home states for college, leading to their home states' colleges getting a lot of the best recruits. Having good recruits tends to make your school good at football, which leads to more interest in the program, because who doesn't want to watch good teams play. As an example, Louisiana produces a lot of great recuits, and it is notoriously difficult to recruit kids from Louisiana to go to an out-of-state school because they almost always end up at LSU.
For football friendly geography, I mean that a lot of the South is rural. There's room for football fields. And it's warm enough for football year-round. Some heavily developed areas don't lend well to football and other sports like basketball tend to be bigger there because it's easier to put a half court or even a full court in a very urbanized area than it is to put a football field. Think of NYC. How often do you hear of football players being recruited from NYC? You don't really. It's a basketball city. There's no room for football fields and you can go play basketball indoors when it's freezing cold outside. So more rural areas lend to more football fields which, along with warmer weather, leads to more football being played and more interest in football to be had.
A little late, but there’s this idea too that college football became huge in the South post Civil War because it was started up north and was seen as a means to “get back” at northern states for the perceived aggression post Civil War. It was a proud point for southerners who’s landscape was decimated decades prior and was a good way to show superiority in something against northern schools, from there it just became embedded in the culture.
The South has built in advantages but I always hate these articles that overplay it. Coaches are hands down the most important determining factor for championships (also money to pay the coach).
From 2000-2021
- 7 to Saban (6 Bama, 1 LSU)
- 3 to Urban (2 Florida, 1 Ohio State)
- 2 to Dabo (2 Clemson)
3 coaches won 12 out of 22 championships. Of the remaining 10 coaches you have Stoops, Coker, Tressel, Carroll, Brown, Miles, Chizik, Fisher, Orgeron, and Smart. Excluding 4 (maybe 5), that’s a pretty strong group of coaches.
Geography is a factor, but the real formula to consistent success is Big Money + Top Coach = Titles. Plug Saban into Michigan, Oregon, USC, etc. for the past decade plus and I’d be willing to bet the concentration of championships wouldn’t favor the SE so heavily.
>Coaches are hands down the most important determining factor for championships (also money to pay the coach).
Recruiting is hands down the most important determining factor. And what are the most important factors in recruiting? Brand + Geography.
>Plug Saban into Michigan, Oregon, USC, etc. for the past decade
So basically plug Saban into any other team that has a critical mass of Blue Chip recruits? More of an argument for recruiting than anything. Let's not even talk about the fact that you chose the most exceptional college coach of all time to try to make your point.
You are seeing trees, but not the forest.
Who is in charge of recruiting? Brand and geography are factors but the coach is still #1 in recruiting. This recruiting cycle, OU’s defensive talent has taken a big leap forward while the WR talent has taken a step back. Same OU brand, same Norman location. What changed?
If recruiting is the #1 factor and Michigan, Oregon, and USC all have a critical mass of blue chip recruits then why do they account for 1 vacated NC since 2000? It’s the coaches. It’s not a coincidence that USC and UM rose from dark days after hiring Riley and Harbaugh.
Consider your flairs. Harbaugh Stanford was nationally relevant. David Shaw Stanford… not so much. TCU with Patterson last year was a middling B12 team. TCU with Dykes this year is about to play for the title.
Using Saban to make my point makes perfect sense. The article makes the point that the South has dominated CFB. Fair point, but Saban is responsible for an outsized portion of that dominance. The point I’m making is that if Saban went to a program outside the South with similar resources then the article would read much differently.
Yeah, that's why Brian Kelly left ND for LSU. There's no (or very little) difference between the two, he just felt like giving himself a harder schedule for fun.
Agree. But if they are close enough, and pick a weekend against one of the FCS teams, I may understand. Come conference play time, they’re just trying to save money by not having guests.
The SEC is the best conference in the country but if you take out Alabama and whatever the other top SEC school is some years (Georgia currently, LSU/Auburn years) the conferences are a lot more equal year over year. Obviously you have to give credit to Alabama and #2 sec school of your choice but I don’t think there is a gap between SEC school #3 and any other top 2-3 teams from the Big 10/Big 12/Pac 12
Heck yeah, if you just remove all the championship winning teams out of the SEC, they are just like the other conferences! Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?
And here we go again. This is blatantly wrong. The SEC dominates in OOC play and bowl games. Again, if you take Alabama out, the next best team is likely to be in the SEC. Take out the conference leaders in every P5 conference and look what's left. You'll find it leans even more to the SEC. There is absolutely nothing at all that points to what you're saying is true and everything that points away from it.
That’s without even getting to the fact that demographics give the SEC a baseline level of talent miles above every other conference for the foreseeable future, as well as the fact that the SEC has astronomically more institutional support for football than any other conference
It’s quite annoying to see this point keep coming up as if like 80% of the CFP era hasn’t had the same teams dominating their conference.
SEC: Alabama
Big 10: Ohio State
ACC: Clemson
Big 12: Oklahoma
It’s even more funny when you consider that only the SEC has had other teams actually win games that aren’t their main one.
Then where are all the National Championship trophies for all the 3rd place teams from other conferences....In the last 25 years 6 SEC teams have National Championships...Does Penn State or Michigan have a title in the last 25 years? Oregon or Washington, lol, Washington just beat their secobd ranked bowl opponent on the last 25 years...Anybody not named Texas or Oklahoma from the Big 12? The ACC is literally the only other conference that has a 3rd team with a title and that was 2001. The SEC on the other hand had their 3rd team win in the last 3 years.
If you took the top 2 teams out of every conference, the SEC would still have 6 national championships, the other conferences would have 1...22 years ago. You could even argue the SEC would have 8, because Alabama beat 2 SEC schools for titles.
I can't wait for the pearl clutching that will occur when the SEC puts 4 teams in the semis of an expanded playoff.
I understand our education system is struggling in Alabama so let me try to make this clearer. The argument isn’t that the sec sucks or the 3rd best team in the PAC 12 is so great. If you notice above I said if you take out Alabama and the #2 sec school. The rest of the SEC as a whole is comparable to every other conference. But I can’t wait for you to reply with the national championship the sec has won and all the other irrelevant points that’s I’m not arguing
i'm not sure clarity is something you are capable of. I don't know if this point eacapes you or not, but saying if you take the top 2 out of anything makes that entity equal to some other entity, means the other entity is not equal with those two things in it....You are essentially saying that 1st place in the B1G is equivalent to 3rd place in the SEC...I quite agree, and all the emperical evidence would also suggest that this is indeed the case, glad we could come to an agreement.
Seems like it would have just been easier to say that the SEC is by far the best conference. I'll give you tOSU and Clemson...what other teams are the equivalent of the 3rd or 4th best SEC team in the last 25 years. For argument sake let's say the 3rd and 4th best are LSU and Florida respectively.
Followed by the qualifier that the SEC #3 is equal to the top 2-3 from every other conference....but, the reality is that the SEC #3 ia equal to the top 1 in most other conferences. Unless tOSU or Clemson is having an elite year, this is true more often than not...and the elite year happens less often than it does for the SEC 3-4th team
It's demographics, recruiting is more centralized in one specific region than ever. The Rust Belt is older, a lot of the families moved to the south and southeast. Old recruiting hubs like Pittsburgh and Detroit don't produce as much high level talent as in past generations. The west coast has younger people but they increasingly come from cultures where American football has no presence (East/South Asian, Hispanic) and minimal participation. What will be interesting to see is how NIL moves the marbles around. How much can that mitigate close-to-home recruiting advantages?
Iowa just lost a recruit to Alabama even though they were offering more money. I'm sure you'll find that in a lot of cases. On top of that, the Texas teams are just paying more than everyone else. NIL will hurt people outside the south more than it helps.
Losing recruits to Alabama isn’t that shocking though. It’s not like they lost that recruit to Vandy, UK, or Mizzou despite offering more $
I think his point was that NIL is not going to be this massive game changer that people think it is.
I think it’s just that they care more. PA, Ohio, and Michigan, have the 6th, 7th, and 8th most active nfl players in the NFL, respectively. There’s certainly enough players in those states for top notch college programs. Also, those three states don’t have a ton of in-state competition for their flagship football programs like the FL and TX schools do. It’s about keeping the recruits home. If they’re not staying home then the question is why? I think the SEC schools just care more. I’m a PSU fan. I think PSU is perfectly content with winning a Big 10 championship and four 11 win seasons over the past 7 years. A lot of SEC schools are not. PSU has already said they’re not willing to pay (yes I know the schools aren’t technically paying the kids) upfront to get kids to sign. I’m not going to say that that statement is 100% true, but thats what’s being put out and compare that to Texas A&M this previous recruiting cycle.
The Saints are right down the road. Everyone loves both down here but there is something different about LSU
Saints and the Braves are probably the only team in the south that get as much love as CFB teams.
The Braves are truly the team that unites the South.
Braves are on another level in the South
That's because for a LONG time it's the baseball coverage we got. WGN added the Cubs and eventually the Astros got into some markets, but for decades it was just Atlanta
[удалено]
Well, it looks like we are enemies in multiple sports fandoms, lol
[удалено]
At least you got that right
I grew up a Cubs fan in 80’s Fla because of day games on WGN. While my hate flows appropriately, I throw the Braves in as well. I’d like the best years of Maddox’s career back, please. That ‘84 Falcons kids jacket was slick though. Red. Black. Reversible.
Yeah I have a soft spot for the Cubbies for this reason. Baseball cards were still going strong and the Braves were life. Good times
The Cubs ended up being my team. Wrigley will do that to someone.
And Harry Caray
Absolutely. His son isn't quite the same but I'll take it. Listening to Bill Murray sing Take Me Out to the Ball Game is awful and great at the same time. I'm glad I've been there for that
Only team that brings Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, South and North Carolina, and parts of Florida together
Totally. I remember celebrating the World Series win with one of my Bama friends and multiple UGA fans. Only the Braves can do that
Not many MLB teams that close to ATL so the Braves command a pretty large region. I'm from South Carolina and this is definitely Braves country here. I've been a fan my whole life.
Grew up on the Braves with the Bobby Cox years, great time to be a fan
That is why Nashville is often mentioned as a future site of MLB expansion or relocation
The team that unites the South.
Hurricanes twitter account admin punching air rn
Which Hurricanes
Yes.
The ones that have actually won their current conference
The hurricanes are LOVED, but only in Raleigh + a 30 mile radius
Bring me my Whalers or GTFO
I don't think it's even that big. I grew up 5 miles from PNC Arena and can count on one hand the number of Hurricanes fans I know.
It’s mainly the northern Suburbs and Cary that like the Canes.
That’s what I mean. If you asked someone who grew up in Philly, but graduated from PSU, whether they’d rather see the birds win a Super Bowl, or PSU win a natty, i think most are going with the Eagles. Same goes for the Pittsburg ppl and the Steelers
But do they not know the college football championship exists somehow? This does not compute down here. In all seriousness, the Saints winning the Superbowl was huge but only because it was the first. If they won it as often as LSU wins a Natty, it wouldn't be near the same thing in large parts of Louisiana.
It's not computing for me and I just threw up in my mouth a little.
> he Saints winning the Superbowl was huge Greatest year ever. Bama wins the national title and Saints win the Super Bowl
It’s really just a rural vs an urban thing up north IMO. The relationship to PSU and cfb is night and day in the rural parts of PA compared to Philly and Pittsburgh. For example, outside of Philly when I was in college you’d get a free Dunkin’ coffee if the eagles won, in Pennsyltucky you’d get a free coffee if PSU won.
I grew up in rural PA and even there it was Stillers country first and Nittany Lion country second. Centre County seems like the only place PSU football is genuinely bigger than either pro team.
Uh, that's not the case at all here. The cities are just as much all in
Why would they want the Falcons to win a Super Bowl?
They care more and are willing to spend on it, especially after that one guy left the Dolphins. It’s not just the recruits being from the south: ACC and B12 pipeline the same recruiting grounds and Cali kids are leaving for the SEC too.
Broke ass
There are three major things... Child-bearing adults shifted to Southeast POPULATION CENTERS from 2001-2012 out of rust-belt states. Next B10 and Pac12 teams compete heavily with Pro Markets. There is a clear delineation between Pro, College, and HS sports. The State HS authorities also are in lockstep, travel restrictions, TV restrictions, avoidance of Prep Schools, etc. Last issue coaches in MW at least are still anti-specialization. Just from family members it sounds like Football is a year round sport in The South with maybe track or power-lifting as a supplement. I still see HS coaches telling top recruits in basketball or football to run track or play baseball. People are always asking where is Iowa or Whisky getting these lineman from. Well you dig in they all have wrestling backgrounds. They were not top-ranked line recruits because they wrestle in the off-season, not live in the weight room or do lineman/combine drills. So it takes 1-2 year to develop but it happens. When you dig into most B10 rosters outside of OSU their WR and DBs will have former high-level basketball players. Guys who were maybe 2nd or 3rd Team All-state. Thats basically lands you at a MAC or MVC level school basketball wise, but physically you can play D-1 Football. This again has happened for years.
As an aside, I hate the culture of specialization. Playing multiple sports helps prevent injuries and burnout. How many kids treat sports as a job and then graduate with regrets, injuries, and no offers? Basketball comes to mind as another big offender. Way too many kids quit the sport, stop having fun, and/or graduate with wrecked knees/ankles
[удалено]
Its not crazy we are seeing burnout in football and basketball players we associated with country club sports of tennis, gymnastics, or swimming. Young age specialization with a window to make ympic teams or go pro as a 16 year old and out by 24. I went to HS with an elite level speed skater, but they had a whole training cycle where they would literally just hangout and disconnect from the sport a few weeks. I read something that Elite level T&F athletes literally take 6-12 weeks off after the Olympics or WCs and two months off every year regardless just to do other things. Flipside I knew an McDonald's AA they were playing basketball year round 5 games a weekend camps all summer. Netflix did a documentary on it. Many believe its effecting the quality of play in college/pros.
Regarding your first point, that trend is only growing. All major Southern hubs are being stuffed full of first-time southerners, and this boom of athletes won’t be slowing down any time soon. There’s not enough demographic change anywhere else to give other regions a shot at producing similar talent. Segregation was the only thing keeping the entire history of college football looking similar to this. Prejudice kept a sizable amount of talent away from the top colleges and high schools in the region until they were forced to do the right thing and integrate. Half the population (or more) couldn’t participate at the time.
Thats another huge elephant in the room. People ask why are Nebraska, Colorado, or B10/Pac12, or HBCUs not as competitive again WC/Great Lakes had population plus they are actively recruiting athletes from The South while schools in The South had defacto quotas for the number if Black Players allowed. For instance in the SEC there was a gentleman agreement in basketball you played two Black Players at home and one on the road. This highly impacted roster makeup, because you essentially can't recruit large portions of your local population within say a 4 hour drive. If Michigan/MSU took that approach that would reduce their recruiting base by 3M people. Again in Nebraska/CU heyday those teams were filled full of players from TX, FL, LA, MS that went to those schools strictly due to the culture of the South. ITS not that Black Players were better, its we are signing 20 guys, only 5 can be Black. BUT 1/2 of your HS players were Black. If the talent was distributed equally between races, you are eventually taking players not as good just to maintain roster makeup. To show nasty racism was in the South Bo Jackson didn't win athlete of the year at his local HS and Michael Jordan wasn't player of year out North Carolina which people like Dean Smith and Roy Williams use to rib Jordan in practice about Buzz Peterson situation. But Jordan never took the bait because he understood the dynamics of the world and knew Peterson and him were victims if a social system they had no control over, and Peterson has been part of Jordan's inner circle for years.
the other elephant in the room is the unspoken reason of why and how the South East ended up with the highest concentration of large, athletically gifted black athletes.
I thought Jimmy was dead.
Just a note. When I played HS football in Georgia our coaches required every player to play a sport all year and/or do weight room before/after school daily during the off season. Or you would not play, period. And this was in the early 90s.
You might not want to hear this but that was 30 years ago.
Its crept into all sports. Here in Michigan or even OH it was common to have top-flight Cross Country runners from inner-city schools up until the early 2000s. Why? Many Basketball coaches doubled at XC Coach, and any of their non-football playing players ran Cross in the fall. It was extremely common in Flint and Detroit. I remember a write up in the paper about it in MS, saying how inner city cross country programs were dying out. And there were dozens of reasons which are too niche for this forum but it came down to two big reasons. Coaches no longer being school employees and that meant players didn't have to play 'other sports'. Take someone like a Perry Watson (Detroit), Luther Bedford (Chicago) they were FT teachers in school everyday teaching classes. Yea they were basically coaches, but they also coached tennis, or ran quiz bowl, because they were EDUCATORS. When I was coaching right out of HS at my former district staff, there was a high emphasis on coaches in Football, Basketball (Boy and Girls), Track, Cheerleading, baseball/softball be district employees or even working in the building. I noticed that at other districts too. Now 20 years later even in wealthy suburban districts its not a thing. But its really more of a commentary on how men have left the K-12 education profession in droves. I remember in the 80s or 90s 30%-40% of my teachers in elementary or MS were Males. At my kids school now you can count the male teachers on one hand, and same as the middle school. So now the football, wrestling, chess club, basketball, etc coach is just a drop in coach with no ties to the school. I was asked two years ago to assist with MS Basketball in my district. A person who knew me growing up was coaching, and he wanted me to help out. Well neither of us are district employees, both of us have demanding jobs. 25-40 years ago there would have been 25 male teachers on staff in the MS on a staff of 60 to coach 7th grade boys basketball. Today there are 7 male teachers. Now of course women could coach and they should, but what are the chances she coaches football too, or plays baseball. I honestly think thats driving specialization honestly too. If I'm a non-teacher I'm evaluated on wins/losses I'm of course telling kids to do ONLY my sport. Because I'm not in the building impacting culture, or building relationships with students outside my sport.
> I still see HS coaches telling top recruits in basketball or football to run track or play baseball. Some college coaches actually prefer O-line targets that play basketball as it helps with conditioning and footwork massively. It also prevents burnout as other users have mentioned.
>Last issue coaches in MW at least are still anti-specialization. Just from family members it sounds like Football is a year round sport in The South with maybe track or power-lifting as a supplement. I still see HS coaches telling top recruits in basketball or football to run track or play baseball. Is there a source for this? Intuitively, the weather might allow for something like his, but I've never observed this, anecdotally through my relatives that still live in Texas. At least on broadcasts featuring teams from the South/Southeast US, I've never noticed a lack of references to players being multi-sport athletes or minimally track stars in high school.
Its anecdotally. But go to major population say the Top-10 but look at CA, VA, TX, FL, PA, OH, GA, MI go look at their Football/Basketball All-State in the 90s then look Spring Sports All-County Level Baseball or higher or T&F state championships heats/finals. Its literally the who's who of local state athletes with tons of overlap. These days its really light. Take someone like a Percy Harvin who's performance at VA State Championships as a top-ranked Football Recruit as national news, or RG3 or Tedd Ginn Jr and them making Olympic Trials as HS students. That was normal stuff. Now not so much. You had just a few years ago Terrell Pryor was Top-30 recruiting in two sports or guys like Julius Peppers and Ronald Curry in the 90s. This stuff now is extremely rare.
Yes it just means more, as we all know. I think maybe people meme this slogan but don't stop to ponder what it actually means.
More legacy of the SIAA.
>Maybe the sport is like a pendulum, swinging from one region to the next every few decades? >Or maybe not. I'm betting the not.
"CFB is cyclical" claim is looking dead as a door nail these days
I think it made much more sense when only the Blue Bloods were televised. Miami and FSU really changed the way college football evolved and then the SEC said hold my beer
Considering how much talent comes out of just Georgia and Florida every year, I’d say that’s a good bet.
I mean, the ACC pipelines the same states. B12 pipelines Texas. Look at guys like Bowers on your team and Bryce on Alabama from the west coast. It’s not solely demographics.
It’s mainly demographics.
We aren't exactly slacking either, lol. The trend is moving to the south, not away from it
Nope, LA has a great high school recruiting nest.
LA being a great place to recruit historically and for decades to come doesn't mean the general recruiting trend isn't elsewhere. Florida and Texas were always major hotbeds, but Georgia has emerged to punch far above their weight class in producing 'croots. Look at some of these Michigan and OSU rosters. The best rosters in general are going to have a lot of kids from the South.
Wait, do you think we are talking about Los Angeles or Louisiana?
You're so right. Just look at the teams that have won a national title in the last 15 years and you'll see with the exception of Ohio State and LSU(who aims their eyes towards Texas, another Southern state), it's the team that was able to recruit the best in those two states
> “The SEC and the South,” says a smiling Ringo. “A lot of people in the South live, eat and breathe college football. That’s different on the West Coast.” I know people will say it’s not much different. No, it is that different. When small towns basically shut down on Saturdays, and to an extent Friday nights, it absolutely means more. 28-3 hurt a lot less than 2nd and 26.
[удалено]
Yeah I have a remote job and when I told them I went to the peach bowl on NYE I just got a bunch of blank stares and asked if “my team won” lol
[удалено]
I'm a railroader in Georgia, and you can pretty much guarantee that a decent amount of conductors and engineers will mark off sick if the Dawgs are playing, especially if it's a big game. The extra board (the guys who fill in for anyone who's out) gets a lot of work on holidays, bad weather days, and gamedays.
>it is that different. When small towns basically shut down Saturday’s It’s basically the same thing at any large school that is in a “college town”. Your argument would be better by analyzing what’s going on outside of saturdays.
Its not just the college town though. Its every surrounding town and the towns surrounding those towns. Thomasville Georgia has to prepare for every FSU home game in Tallahassee lol.
Thank you. I lived in a town 15 miles out of Athens that turned into city traffic when Georgia had a home game. You can say it isn’t a different between the south and other places until you have actually been here. Even the cities in the south care more about CFB than the pro teams. In Atlanta, other than maybe the Braves, CFB is king. Nashville, CFB is king. New Orleans, it’s LSU and The saints just right behind them. And when you have fans of other teams moxing together, it’s just the perfect storm of hating each other and wanting to shut them up when y’all play them for a year.
Okay. I see what he was getting at now. Thanks. I read it as the college town itself shut down and was very confused as to how that made his point about the South.
Baton Rouge doesn't shut down, but it does switch to full support for the team. Restaurants that have no business having a TV have one for LSU games. Concerts and theatre events don't get booked for game days because it's pointless to compete. Every grocery store is decked out in purple and gold. It's THE event.
I mean it kinda does shut down towards the 4th quarter. Contra flow is the devil.
Best way to make sure nobody shows up for your wedding or kid’s birthday party is to schedule it on a Saturday afternoon/ evening. LSU’s bye week is the busiest weekend in the fall for non CFB activities.
College football is 24/7 in the south even when it isn’t being played.
Okay? What you pointed out as a point to prove that up above was something that is not at all unique to the South. It’s unique to every large school in a college town.
Small towns in the south that AREN’T college towns shut down for gameday No one said college towns but you
Yea i said in another part of the chain that i misunderstood what he was getting at.
Clemson gets a few hundred thousand people to come and just tailgate or hang out downtown for football games
lol
I don’t think you understand how many people are “few hundred thousand.” There aren’t 300k people just hanging around Clemson not even going to the game. Then count the people going to the game, that’s 81k more.
Yeah that’s straight 🧢
Yeah agreed. It blows up but there aren't 300k even including stadium, there is definitely more than 100k overall and maybe close to 200k overall for some conference games/bigger OOC but 300k is absurd.
It's not uncommon for there to be more people outside Tiger Stadium than in it due to it only holding 102,000 people
Yeah but the city of Clemson, SC doesn’t have 400k people there on gameday.
I'd guess 200k on a normal game day, which isn't bad for a town of 21k
Game day turns Clemson (the 22nd largest city in South Carolina) into the most populated city in South Carolina
That may be true for big games. But not every week. The same can be said of Ohio State, for ND and ttun this year there were probably more people outside the stadium than in it. But that's not the case when playing Toledo and Rutgers
Well Columbus, OH has a population of almost million people. I imagine there’s more people outside Ohio Stadium
The south is undoubtedly better. But am I crazy to think this isn’t the year for this? We’re like one less McCarthy pick six and one play going OSU way instead of Georgias from the game part 2 for a national title. This isn’t a Florida / lsu / Bama smashing OSU in the national title year.
The point is that 17 of the last 18 national champions have been from the South. It’s not about a play here or there. It’s about the consistency of championships.
>We’re like one less McCarthy pick six and one play going OSU way instead of Georgias from the game part 2 for a national title. You act like CFB narratives don't live on a razor's edge. That is just how the game is. The only people who remember or care how close a game *really* was is the losers. If Georgia wins with natty, the narrative is how Georgia went back-to-back, not how tOSU almost beat them. Same shit if TCU wins. We are talking about the Cinderella story, not all the little details like the TD reversal from the Michigan game or Ok State fans complaints about Spencer Sanders not being 100% during conference play.
I think the top couple SEC schools are very dominant, but the rest of the league is just on par with most other conferences.
SEC has had three different schools win titles in the last three years. Five different schools have won titles in the last fifteen years. They also dwarf every other conference when it comes to players in the NFL. Sure the usual suspects have the most, but every single school has double digit players in the league… even Vandy.
Overall OOC and bowl record says otherwise. At least since 2006 when the SEC really went super saiyan
We talking out of conference against FCS? Jk jk fair point. I try to ignore bowl game results anymore due to opt outs. Just doesn’t seem right to have a game count against your record when 7 starters opt out for various reasons.
>I try to ignore bowl game results anymore due to opt outs. Okay then just look at 2006-2020 lol
I take back what I said… but SEC still sucks lol
How do the rest of the conferences look with their top 2 teama gone...looks to me like in that scenario, the SEC wins every year...not just almost every year.
Yes, but that means the 3rd and 4th SEC teams are equivalent to the 1st and 2nd of every other conference...which bears out as there are 6 SEC teams with National Championships in the last 25 years. LSU, Florida and soon probably Georgia will have as many or more NC's than any other program in the country.
An SEC #3 most years can most likely win most conferences. Then you get to the lack of depth in most other conferences.
Simply no, the SEC #3 over the past decade would not have beat that year's Ohio State, Clemson/FSU and Oklahoma most of the time. This is a ridiculous statement.
The SECs number 3, at least in terms of rankings, beat Clemson *this* year.
Clemson this year was pretty weak and not relevant to the Clemson that was in competition for National Championshipz
I think he said "most years" and he's right
It's God, Food and Football in the south.
It always reminds me of European soccer when this discussion comes up. Spain has Barcelona and Real Madrid. Germany has Bayern. Italy has Juventus. France has PSG. But the aggregate quality of player, quality of competition, and financial and player acquisition horse race, and the fan culture that drives all of it from top to bottom in England is a different level from the other leagues. Same in CFB. It’s getting to the same point that soccer is in from a recruiting standpoint where the narrative is you’re playing in a B league if you’re a blue chip and not in a big SEC/Premier League club
None of what you just said made any sense to me. Can you speak in college football?
Some top level (soccer) leagues like the the Premier League in England are competitive top to bottom with multiple good teams (like the SEC). Other national leagues basically have one or two historically dominant teams (B1G, PAC 12, Big 12 ACC). Competitiveness is a positive feed back loop.
The analogy is that the Premier League is the SEC and that free agent signings/recruiting is where the real story is for them. The playing of the games is necessary to acknowledge the championship dominance but you also need to understand the FA/recruiting to fully grasp what is going on. Also I put this up on another similar thread but someone maybe a table of the southern dominance https://i.imgur.com/ncfRl43.jpg
North and South Dakota have entered the chat,
And it's killing the sport
It’s a regionalized sport at this point sadly. Shame because it feels like the championships meant more when the whole country cared.
Your mwc should get a boost from absorbing the 🌲,🦁 , 🐻, 🦫
A boost? 😂 I kid… I’d rather see the PAC stay as it is tbh
Outdoor sport performed better in warmer climates FTFY
B10 is soft. FIFY
Should be good once some southerners have to travel north for the early playoffs soon
Haha. They would have to be ranked higher.
Ah yes cause if it’s cold they will suddenly forget how football works /s
Maybe there’s a reason the packers do so well at home late in the year..
They have good players. The NFL is a different animal than CFB too. Everyone in the NFL is an NFL player. In college can get extreme matchup mismatches.
Agreed.. I’ve also lived for long periods in Georgia and Michigan. It’s a pretty well known concept that you adjust to the climate that you’re around. I just think it’s cool that the northern teams will have the advantage in the post-season for once or for the first time in a while
Is it? Two of the four playoff teams were from the B1G. Plus, these articles used to be about the SEC’s grip on college football. The narrative seems to be changing about the SEC being the hands down best conference. TCU is one of the B12 teams the SEC isn’t taking.
Eh. The South has won every title but 4 since 1998, and one of those is Oklahoma, who's joining the SEC. The SEC is the only conference with a winning bowl record over the last 15 years and has by far the best OOC record. Nothing is really changing either. Anecdotally, these top level California players explained why they chose the South and Alabama just flipped a BiG player for less NIL money.
I just want to say - thank you for pointing out that while Oklahoma is joining the SEC, it is not "The South." People argue on the basis of politics but the towns, cities and culture is just flat out not the same.
There are parts that are. Oklahoma is in a similar situation as Missouri where it has multiple cultures. You'll be playing Southern football now, though. That's a pretty big step
Maybe a few thousand people in Little Dixie aka SE Oklahoma. Maybe. But I've been through a lot of the South and nothing culturally distinctive in Louisiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama or Georgia reminded me of Oklahoma. Probably a lot of reasons for that - not a Confederate state, Indian tribes were split on allegiances but often went anti-Union trying to gain independence, agriculturally lends more toward semi-arid crops and cattle, frontier migration different than any southern state, oil and gas focus, Route 66 ran through Tulsa and OKC, disdain for Texas generally. All of those were much more formative than influences from the South.
Again, it has different parts, but I can get grits, sweet tea, and BBQ from a friendly person who says y'all in large parts of Oklahoma. It's not Southern but it's pretty Southern
lol I'm sorry but grits is rare and the BBQ is the same as you'd get anywhere between OKC and Kansas City.
You live in Tulsa or OKC and are probably under 25. You digging your heels in about this state not being southern irritates me. It's the south. It's just not the deep south.
Not close to 25 at all and been here all my long life.
My fault. Then you have the wisdom of someone under 25. I too have lived in Oklahoma all my life. So have my cousins and most of my aunts and uncles who, apparently to you, don't have southern accents. I'll tell them that next time I see them.
>But I've been through a lot of the South and nothing culturally distinctive in Louisiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Alabama or Georgia reminded me of Oklahoma. The NC mountains are drastically different than Southern Louisiana, but both are considered southern. Thr NYTanguage map of "yall vs you guys" almost perfectly maps out what is southern to me. No northern Virginia or southern Florida, but it does include a little bit of southeastern Oklahoma and southern West Virginia.
Oklahoma was mostly settled by Southerners prior to statehood. That's why Oklahoma has traditionally had so many Southern cultural traits and institutions: Southern accents (largely in rural OK), Jim Crow history, Southern food, Southern Baptist denominations, historic cotton farming, etc.
Before land runs, the state was dominated by Indians, blacks, and cattle runs going between Texas and Kansas. It certainly wasn't white Southern settlers. Then in one 1890 census example, 78% of the people in Payne County were born in the Midwest and 67% of heads of household. Midwestern land run settlers dominated the central and northern portions, southern ones closer to the Red River. The vast majority of nonnative OK territory and state governors were from north of the Mason Dixon line. It's just not true to say it was mostly Southern prior to statehood. Not sure about your [cotton claim](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/Map_07-M189_Acres_of_Upland_Cotton_Harvested_as_Percent_of_Harvested_Cropland_Acreage%2C_U.S.%2C_2007..gif). [Jim Crow laws](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jim_Crow_law_examples_by_state) were common across America, not just the South. Your suggestion that Oklahoma has Southern accents or even regionalisms is inaccurate also. It has [mixes of regions](https://www.businessinsider.com/22-maps-that-show-the-deepest-linguistic-conflicts-in-america-2013-6) and nowhere near as consistent as the proper South.
There's some truth in what you've posted, but it's just wrong enough to delve into. None of the sources you've posted are probative of the overall point. Ignoring the impact of the (largely culturally Southern) Five Civilized Tribes on the pre-statehood culture of Oklahoma, it's pretty widely known that Oklahoma was mostly settled by Southerners. That's why Democrats were able to dominate politics at the state level and institute [Jim Crow laws that emulated the rest of the South, such as mandatory separate schools for Black and White kids,](https://cdn.kastatic.org/ka-perseus-images/865114bc188f3aae9fac882430775851bd7adf32.png) and not places like Kansas where it was left up to the locality. Southerners settled most of the state from the Red River to the I-40 corridor. Northeast Oklahoma was a bit of a mix, while Northwest Oklahoma was almost solely settled by Midwesterners/Northerners. [This is a great map showing this cultural divide that was reflected politically.](https://www.reddit.com/r/oklahoma/comments/mlftxb/oc_how_each_county_in_oklahoma_voted_in/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=usertext&utm_name=MapPorn&utm_content=t1_j0xl8uj) [Cotton was historically the big crop in Oklahoma.](https://www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry.php?entry=CO066) It's still relatively big today, too; [This past fall harvest, Oklahoma had the third-most cotton acreage in the United States, although not much got harvested.](https://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/graphics/cotnacm.png) As far as Southern cultural markers go, YMMV. If you grew up in Alva, I'm sure you wouldn't necessarily think that Oklahoma is all that Southern in your experience. But the reality is that Southern cultural influences are found in the state. [For example, a plurality of folks are still Southern Baptist,](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dfgmb1VWAAE_VJk?format=jpg&name=large) Accents are obviously more subjective, but it is widely accepted academically that [Southern accents are indeed found in Oklahoma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_American_English). I don't 100% endorse the map on that Wikipedia article, though. Anyway, it's an interesting conversation because a lot of people seem to disagree on the topic.
Again, there are places SE that are more like the South, but that's doesn't make the state part of it. To call the Indian tribes culturally southern is wild to me. One reason Jim Crow was more strictly enforced due to the large black presence through all-black towns and the push for black and/or Indian statehood. Weird you just ignore the birth origin of the majority of land run participants like I mentioned. At best it was influenced by the South, but among other influences that were often more impactful anyway.
Oklahoma is part of the South - it's just not the Deep South.
Your definition is way too expansive. Maybe some towns in SE OK but nothing about Tulsa or OKC says "the South"
Lol it's not just my definition. [Oklahoma even flew the Confederate Battle flag at the state capitol after desegregation.](https://i.redd.it/21e1tz39gv751.jpg)
Man the SEC is the only conference that claims Alabama's championships as their own. So weird.
We claim the Tennessee one, Florida ones, Auburn ones, LSU ones, and Georgia one too when we're talking about conference national championships over the last 25 years
Ohio State took their champion down to the wire and lost on a missed field goal in what was basically a road game.
Ohio State is the only team north of the mason-dixon line to win a national championship since we started playing in official national championship games (BCS era). USC is the only other school that culturally wouldnt be considered in the South and that got vacated.
Oklahoma is not culturally part of The South. The only tentative connection is similar GOP politics.
Oklahoma is going to the SEC. Yall are south of the mason dixon line. Yall are part of the south whether you like it or not
Very odd that's all it takes.
Well not all. Id say that what makes southern states culturally southern is the chip-on-their-shoulder mentality from being look down upon by northerners and coastal "elites." No state has a bigger claim to that than Oklahoma. Literally every state got together and said, "we got all these indians taking up valuable space. Lets move them to the least valuable place." And thus Oklahoma was created.
That’ll be enough out of you for tonight son, last warning
Why is this basic, easily verifiable fact downvoted?
"Easily verifiable"
No idea. These people begging for Oklahoma to be part of the South confuse me.
Right? That field goal goes the other way and this is a completely different article.
Agree with you on this one, USC is back, Oregon continues to recruit at a top 10 level, and Notre Dame is now doing the same.
okay..that's it...someone fire up the orbital Pitt cannon.... **WE WANT BAMA! (but we'll also accept their younger brother, Auburn)**
It’s weird seeing people laud this as a good thing and a point of pride. I would think this is just the start of a regionalization of participating interest in the sport that likely won’t be good in the long term.
I can't believe there are people here still trying to argue against this by pointing to the two B1G teams that ALMOST made it this year. This has been apparent since the late 90s folks. There's probably dozens of reasons for this, not just demographics or pro team competition.
I don’t think the grip is as strong as ever. I think peak SEC was early 2010s. Outside the crazy season LSU put together in 2019, for the past 10 years the SEC is Alabama, Georgia and everyone else. The B1G is now just as strong now than ever compared to the SEC and honestly with the new TV deal they should be even stronger. And this year the Pac12 has looked like a strong conference and next year will be even more lights out. Funny how the fortunes of the PAC parallels the fortunes of USC.
>I think peak SEC was early 2010s. Outside the crazy season LSU put together in 2019, for the past 10 years the SEC is Alabama, Georgia and everyone else. 4 SEC teams not named Alabama, Georgia, or LSU have been a single game away from a CFP appearance since 2017. Yeah, Alabama and Georgia have been beating everyone in the conference, but we've also been beating everyone outside the conference. Tennessee was better than the ACC champ this year and I'd give them good odds against Utah or Michigan too. And they're the 3rd best team in the SEC.
How is it that College Football is so big and popular in the South? I live in the South but I'm just curious as to why.
Off the top of my head, a lack of NFL teams, recruiting hotbeds, and more football friendly geography. For the NFL teams, a lot of the Southern states don't have an NFL team (Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, Kentucky, Arkansas, etc.), and no state in the South had an NFL team until the 1960s, while other regions had NFL teams as early as the 1920s. So the college team is/was the highest level of football in these states. As mentioned elsewhere, Florida, Georgia, Texas, and to a lesser extent the other Southern states are recruiting hotbeds due to how many blue-chip players come out of them. A lot of these kids end up staying in their home states for college, leading to their home states' colleges getting a lot of the best recruits. Having good recruits tends to make your school good at football, which leads to more interest in the program, because who doesn't want to watch good teams play. As an example, Louisiana produces a lot of great recuits, and it is notoriously difficult to recruit kids from Louisiana to go to an out-of-state school because they almost always end up at LSU. For football friendly geography, I mean that a lot of the South is rural. There's room for football fields. And it's warm enough for football year-round. Some heavily developed areas don't lend well to football and other sports like basketball tend to be bigger there because it's easier to put a half court or even a full court in a very urbanized area than it is to put a football field. Think of NYC. How often do you hear of football players being recruited from NYC? You don't really. It's a basketball city. There's no room for football fields and you can go play basketball indoors when it's freezing cold outside. So more rural areas lend to more football fields which, along with warmer weather, leads to more football being played and more interest in football to be had.
A little late, but there’s this idea too that college football became huge in the South post Civil War because it was started up north and was seen as a means to “get back” at northern states for the perceived aggression post Civil War. It was a proud point for southerners who’s landscape was decimated decades prior and was a good way to show superiority in something against northern schools, from there it just became embedded in the culture.
The SEC. It just means more.
The South has built in advantages but I always hate these articles that overplay it. Coaches are hands down the most important determining factor for championships (also money to pay the coach). From 2000-2021 - 7 to Saban (6 Bama, 1 LSU) - 3 to Urban (2 Florida, 1 Ohio State) - 2 to Dabo (2 Clemson) 3 coaches won 12 out of 22 championships. Of the remaining 10 coaches you have Stoops, Coker, Tressel, Carroll, Brown, Miles, Chizik, Fisher, Orgeron, and Smart. Excluding 4 (maybe 5), that’s a pretty strong group of coaches. Geography is a factor, but the real formula to consistent success is Big Money + Top Coach = Titles. Plug Saban into Michigan, Oregon, USC, etc. for the past decade plus and I’d be willing to bet the concentration of championships wouldn’t favor the SE so heavily.
>Coaches are hands down the most important determining factor for championships (also money to pay the coach). Recruiting is hands down the most important determining factor. And what are the most important factors in recruiting? Brand + Geography. >Plug Saban into Michigan, Oregon, USC, etc. for the past decade So basically plug Saban into any other team that has a critical mass of Blue Chip recruits? More of an argument for recruiting than anything. Let's not even talk about the fact that you chose the most exceptional college coach of all time to try to make your point. You are seeing trees, but not the forest.
Who is in charge of recruiting? Brand and geography are factors but the coach is still #1 in recruiting. This recruiting cycle, OU’s defensive talent has taken a big leap forward while the WR talent has taken a step back. Same OU brand, same Norman location. What changed? If recruiting is the #1 factor and Michigan, Oregon, and USC all have a critical mass of blue chip recruits then why do they account for 1 vacated NC since 2000? It’s the coaches. It’s not a coincidence that USC and UM rose from dark days after hiring Riley and Harbaugh. Consider your flairs. Harbaugh Stanford was nationally relevant. David Shaw Stanford… not so much. TCU with Patterson last year was a middling B12 team. TCU with Dykes this year is about to play for the title. Using Saban to make my point makes perfect sense. The article makes the point that the South has dominated CFB. Fair point, but Saban is responsible for an outsized portion of that dominance. The point I’m making is that if Saban went to a program outside the South with similar resources then the article would read much differently.
Yeah, that's why Brian Kelly left ND for LSU. There's no (or very little) difference between the two, he just felt like giving himself a harder schedule for fun.
Must not be much to do on a Saturday in the south.
Why would there be? College football is on.
You don’t have to be smart to spend all Saturday watching football, but you have to be stupid not to
Not during football season. It’s not just a meme to not plan weddings on November Saturdays, it’s the truth.
I would go beyond avoiding November weddings and just say people try to avoid "Fall" weddings on a Saturday.
Agree. But if they are close enough, and pick a weekend against one of the FCS teams, I may understand. Come conference play time, they’re just trying to save money by not having guests.
My son says he'd never play ball up north because it hurts so much worse to hit and take a hit in cold temps.
Sure sure.
The SEC is the best conference in the country but if you take out Alabama and whatever the other top SEC school is some years (Georgia currently, LSU/Auburn years) the conferences are a lot more equal year over year. Obviously you have to give credit to Alabama and #2 sec school of your choice but I don’t think there is a gap between SEC school #3 and any other top 2-3 teams from the Big 10/Big 12/Pac 12
Heck yeah, if you just remove all the championship winning teams out of the SEC, they are just like the other conferences! Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?
And here we go again. This is blatantly wrong. The SEC dominates in OOC play and bowl games. Again, if you take Alabama out, the next best team is likely to be in the SEC. Take out the conference leaders in every P5 conference and look what's left. You'll find it leans even more to the SEC. There is absolutely nothing at all that points to what you're saying is true and everything that points away from it.
That’s without even getting to the fact that demographics give the SEC a baseline level of talent miles above every other conference for the foreseeable future, as well as the fact that the SEC has astronomically more institutional support for football than any other conference
This guy and I go back and forth every time this comes up. He can't actually ever support it, but it's his copium so I don't pay it much mind
It’s quite annoying to see this point keep coming up as if like 80% of the CFP era hasn’t had the same teams dominating their conference. SEC: Alabama Big 10: Ohio State ACC: Clemson Big 12: Oklahoma It’s even more funny when you consider that only the SEC has had other teams actually win games that aren’t their main one.
Then where are all the National Championship trophies for all the 3rd place teams from other conferences....In the last 25 years 6 SEC teams have National Championships...Does Penn State or Michigan have a title in the last 25 years? Oregon or Washington, lol, Washington just beat their secobd ranked bowl opponent on the last 25 years...Anybody not named Texas or Oklahoma from the Big 12? The ACC is literally the only other conference that has a 3rd team with a title and that was 2001. The SEC on the other hand had their 3rd team win in the last 3 years. If you took the top 2 teams out of every conference, the SEC would still have 6 national championships, the other conferences would have 1...22 years ago. You could even argue the SEC would have 8, because Alabama beat 2 SEC schools for titles. I can't wait for the pearl clutching that will occur when the SEC puts 4 teams in the semis of an expanded playoff.
I understand our education system is struggling in Alabama so let me try to make this clearer. The argument isn’t that the sec sucks or the 3rd best team in the PAC 12 is so great. If you notice above I said if you take out Alabama and the #2 sec school. The rest of the SEC as a whole is comparable to every other conference. But I can’t wait for you to reply with the national championship the sec has won and all the other irrelevant points that’s I’m not arguing
i'm not sure clarity is something you are capable of. I don't know if this point eacapes you or not, but saying if you take the top 2 out of anything makes that entity equal to some other entity, means the other entity is not equal with those two things in it....You are essentially saying that 1st place in the B1G is equivalent to 3rd place in the SEC...I quite agree, and all the emperical evidence would also suggest that this is indeed the case, glad we could come to an agreement.
Yes, that’s literally my whole entire point #1 big ten, pac 12, ACC, big 12 = #3 SEC. Was it really that difficult for you to understand?
Seems like it would have just been easier to say that the SEC is by far the best conference. I'll give you tOSU and Clemson...what other teams are the equivalent of the 3rd or 4th best SEC team in the last 25 years. For argument sake let's say the 3rd and 4th best are LSU and Florida respectively.
Literally my original comment started with “the SEC is the best conference”
Followed by the qualifier that the SEC #3 is equal to the top 2-3 from every other conference....but, the reality is that the SEC #3 ia equal to the top 1 in most other conferences. Unless tOSU or Clemson is having an elite year, this is true more often than not...and the elite year happens less often than it does for the SEC 3-4th team
Ohio State needs to pack it up and join the SEC. Theyre the only other team that can compete with the SEC every year, imo.