David Climer: Titles can't erase SEC football's weaknesses

Oklahoma head coach Bob Stoops watches his team during the annual Oklahoma spring intra-squad NCAA college football game in Norman, Okla., Saturday, April 13, 2013. (AP Photo/Sue Ogrocki)

Oklahoma head coach Bob Stoops watches his team during the annual Oklahoma spring intra-squad NCAA college football game in Norman, Okla., Saturday, April 13, 2013. (AP Photo/Sue Ogrocki)

NASHVILLE — Bob Stoops believes the dominance of SEC football is overstated.

He considers the SEC a top-heavy conference whose bottom half is nothing special.

He thinks the perception of total SEC superiority is due to “a lot of propaganda.”

Know what? The Oklahoma coach is right.

Continue reading at The Tennessean

© 2013 govolsxtra.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

  • Discuss
  • Print

Comments » 132

dvhill100 writes:

A good link for SEC supremacy: http://www.sbnation.com/college-footb...

easleychuck writes:

Climer and Stoops are both legends in their own minds. So if Iowa State happens to beat UT or UK, then the SEC isn't very good.

Really?

CoverOrange writes:

No wonder Climer and Adams went into sports journalism.

volnbig11land writes:

ahhhhh Stoops, spoken like a true coach who has consistently underachieved.....

volnbig11land writes:

in response to volnbig11land:

ahhhhh Stoops, spoken like a true coach who has consistently underachieved.....

p.s. I wonder how ole Stoops thinks the Big 12 (that doesn't even have 12 teams) thinks his conference stacks up to the SEC?

That conference has only had one BCS championship that I can remember (could be wrong), and it that was Texas (who wouldn't even be a state if it weren't for a bunch of Volunteers!)

Stoops rep is that he consistently looses games he shouldn't. He earned that rep, the media didn't give it to him!

BluezVol writes:

I didn't notice any SEC schools wanting to leave to join the Big 12. On the other hand, Texas AM....

mlynn1 writes:

in response to billythekid:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Billy, don't be a tool, nobody likes a tool.

BruisedOrange writes:

Admittedly the bottom of the SEC has been larger (than the traditional and perennial bottom two) AND worse than usual the past 6 or so years. I blame that on loss of program stability as so many middle-tier programs have been starting-and-stopping their trains to change coach cars on the "GottaBecomeCompetitiveInThisNewEra Express."

But something tells me there's also a statistical tipping point at work here. If the top third of the conference is undefeated or one-loss in regular season matchups, aren't the middle and bottom thirds left between .500 and winless?

In the old Big-10, where typically undefeated Michigan & Ohio State met in December to decide the conference champion and Rose Bowl representative, there was a greater statistical (and practical) opportunity for the middle of the conference to finish well over .500.

Say you're the fourth best team in the SEC East--there's 3 losses. If you also play 2 of the West's top 3--that's now 5 losses in-conference. Throw in a season ticket holder pleasing non-Conference game against a national power... and your middle-of-the-pack team that would finish .750 in most conferences is a .500 team at best.

But what do I know? I'll ask my Calculus teaching friends. They'll appreciate the opportunity to use their knowledge for the good of mankind.

VOLS_SEC_RULES writes:

Dumbest article I've ever read. Amazing how people can try to spin the facts to feel better about themselves.

fearthehound writes:

Let's see, the SEC has 5 of the top 10 teams and 7 out of the top 25. The very best of the other conferences can eke out a win over the worst in the SEC. So, the SEC isn't really a dominant conference after all, since all of our teams can't beat the top 2 or 3 teams in the other conferences. Incredible logic, Climer. You're a real genius.

By the way KNS, if you're interested in keeping the riff raff out of here, billy the kid is probably either the johnny del shoffner moron or college grove billy--or both. Might as well go ahead and kill his account now.

fearthehound writes:

in response to BruisedOrange:

Admittedly the bottom of the SEC has been larger (than the traditional and perennial bottom two) AND worse than usual the past 6 or so years. I blame that on loss of program stability as so many middle-tier programs have been starting-and-stopping their trains to change coach cars on the "GottaBecomeCompetitiveInThisNewEra Express."

But something tells me there's also a statistical tipping point at work here. If the top third of the conference is undefeated or one-loss in regular season matchups, aren't the middle and bottom thirds left between .500 and winless?

In the old Big-10, where typically undefeated Michigan & Ohio State met in December to decide the conference champion and Rose Bowl representative, there was a greater statistical (and practical) opportunity for the middle of the conference to finish well over .500.

Say you're the fourth best team in the SEC East--there's 3 losses. If you also play 2 of the West's top 3--that's now 5 losses in-conference. Throw in a season ticket holder pleasing non-Conference game against a national power... and your middle-of-the-pack team that would finish .750 in most conferences is a .500 team at best.

But what do I know? I'll ask my Calculus teaching friends. They'll appreciate the opportunity to use their knowledge for the good of mankind.

Yeah, what he said...

CoverOrange writes:

in response to BruisedOrange:

Admittedly the bottom of the SEC has been larger (than the traditional and perennial bottom two) AND worse than usual the past 6 or so years. I blame that on loss of program stability as so many middle-tier programs have been starting-and-stopping their trains to change coach cars on the "GottaBecomeCompetitiveInThisNewEra Express."

But something tells me there's also a statistical tipping point at work here. If the top third of the conference is undefeated or one-loss in regular season matchups, aren't the middle and bottom thirds left between .500 and winless?

In the old Big-10, where typically undefeated Michigan & Ohio State met in December to decide the conference champion and Rose Bowl representative, there was a greater statistical (and practical) opportunity for the middle of the conference to finish well over .500.

Say you're the fourth best team in the SEC East--there's 3 losses. If you also play 2 of the West's top 3--that's now 5 losses in-conference. Throw in a season ticket holder pleasing non-Conference game against a national power... and your middle-of-the-pack team that would finish .750 in most conferences is a .500 team at best.

But what do I know? I'll ask my Calculus teaching friends. They'll appreciate the opportunity to use their knowledge for the good of mankind.

What took Climer an entire article to state, you disproved is less than 200 words.

+1

RockyMtnVol writes:

David, David, David, If you are only going to look at the SEC Football through rose colored........oh forget it. David is a loser, never played football and listens to a coach who has disappointed his fans, its called deflection.

SEC!! SEC! SEC!

BruisedOrange writes:

How many posters even read the article? At issue is the best conference TOP-TO-BOTTOM.

Statistically, we're not. Sagarin uses a formula that weighs the middle third more than the top or bottom. Or you can just add up the rankings and divide by the number of teams in the conference. Either way (weigh?) Big12 comes out ahead of SEC. (Oh, how the middle have fallen! But recruiting says that will change over the next 2-4 years.)

Out of curiosity I'd like to see how it comes out using power rankings. You gotta figure there should be a difference if a team's 4 losses were to Bama, A&M, LSU and South Carolina.

Has anybody seen a conference comparison based on power rankings?

nocleats writes:

The bottom of the big 12 Big 10 and Pac 12 are horrible

brokendownoldvol writes:

SO? All all 14 teams can't be in the top 10.

barefoot43 writes:

in response to billythekid:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

This article is about the SEC being dominant in football. Which in fact, it is.

Why do you constantly remark about your pathetic opinion of the state of athletics at UT no matter the content of the article? You consider your views to be superior to anyone else's and then babble on about the same old tired phooey. You change your screen name over and over again. It gets old. You are just taking up space.

Please, for the sake of decency, just quit writing on this site.

Volunatic writes:

in response to volnbig11land:

p.s. I wonder how ole Stoops thinks the Big 12 (that doesn't even have 12 teams) thinks his conference stacks up to the SEC?

That conference has only had one BCS championship that I can remember (could be wrong), and it that was Texas (who wouldn't even be a state if it weren't for a bunch of Volunteers!)

Stoops rep is that he consistently looses games he shouldn't. He earned that rep, the media didn't give it to him!

Stoops won a national championship at Oklahoma in 2000.

maciste54 writes:

If 5,6 or 7 finish in the top 30 or so that means some of the others have to have beaten by them. The conference beats up on each other. Should they all go 11 and 1. That would be impossible. Really stupid statement and really stupid article and really stupid of Climer to agree.

fordboys12 (Inactive) writes:

All of this Stoops business is just NOISE! Hey Bob, here's a suggestion for ya; To be the man, you gotta beat the man! For the last nine out of fifteen years, the "man" has been an SEC team. Don't like it; coach your team up and come get some!

NashvillePreds writes:

David Climer is a waste of time in almost every instance that I read his drivel.

cheetah-vol writes:

I'm not sure why Stoops even brought this up. If he's trying to say the Big 12 as a whole is better or as good as the SEC, then how would he explain the following when it comes to bowl games:

The SEC had 9 teams in bowls last year and went 9-3. The Big 12 had 9 teams in bowls and went 4-5. As of 2011, the SEC is 20-9 vs. The Big 12 in bowl games.

Can't find records of regular season games, but I think you get my point.

BTW, we play at Oklahoma in 2014 and they come to Neyland in 2015. Guess Stoops has already penciled those games in as wins.

MetroplexMojo writes:

Stoops is grasping at straws here. The team that had the 6th best SEC record last year (A&M) destroyed his Sooners in the bowl game.

A team that would have been 7th (at best) in the SEC last year (Notre Dame) went to OU and whipped OU's a-s. That same ND team got destroyed by a SEC team.

At best, OU's recent teams would be in the middle of the pack in the SEC. His peer teams last year would have been Vandy and Miss State.

cheetah-vol writes:

in response to cheetah-vol:

I'm not sure why Stoops even brought this up. If he's trying to say the Big 12 as a whole is better or as good as the SEC, then how would he explain the following when it comes to bowl games:

The SEC had 9 teams in bowls last year and went 9-3. The Big 12 had 9 teams in bowls and went 4-5. As of 2011, the SEC is 20-9 vs. The Big 12 in bowl games.

Can't find records of regular season games, but I think you get my point.

BTW, we play at Oklahoma in 2014 and they come to Neyland in 2015. Guess Stoops has already penciled those games in as wins.

Whoops. I meant to write the SEC went 6-3 in bowls last year, not 9-3. Doh!

volnbig11land writes:

in response to Volunatic:

Stoops won a national championship at Oklahoma in 2000.

Thanks, I thought their might be one in there somewhere, but was too lazy to look it up and too old to remember.....

Still, his rep is that he underachieves.

Not to open a can of worms, but hey, CPF was shown the door and he won one just two years before Stoops, and Stoops is still there 5 years after CPF.

Granted, his teams haven't declined like ours did, but still, he might need to pull a rabbit out of a hat soon.

UTvols33 writes:

Edward Aschoff wrote on Stoops' comments as well and has some interesting facts for coach and Climer. Check it out:

http://espn.go.com/blog/sec/post/_/id...

Numbers don't lie!

antonio14313 writes:

with all due respect, coach stoops is an idiot. everyone knows, even non football people, that SEC football, top to bottom, is STILL the best conference in all the land. and is not overrated. hell, put kentucky (forever the bottom of the SEC) against tcu (last year's middle of the pack in the big 12) and see what happens.

and, david climer is an even bigger idiot (especially if he believes his own article), to write an article (which might have made me a bit dumber than i already am) based on what a coach in a different conference thinks about a rival conference (which may even be a recruiting ploy).

no need to get anything twisted in a bunch, or anything like that. no need to worry, the SEC is still #1. rightfully rated. deservedly ranked. no question.

go vols.

t

antonio14313 writes:

in response to BruisedOrange:

Admittedly the bottom of the SEC has been larger (than the traditional and perennial bottom two) AND worse than usual the past 6 or so years. I blame that on loss of program stability as so many middle-tier programs have been starting-and-stopping their trains to change coach cars on the "GottaBecomeCompetitiveInThisNewEra Express."

But something tells me there's also a statistical tipping point at work here. If the top third of the conference is undefeated or one-loss in regular season matchups, aren't the middle and bottom thirds left between .500 and winless?

In the old Big-10, where typically undefeated Michigan & Ohio State met in December to decide the conference champion and Rose Bowl representative, there was a greater statistical (and practical) opportunity for the middle of the conference to finish well over .500.

Say you're the fourth best team in the SEC East--there's 3 losses. If you also play 2 of the West's top 3--that's now 5 losses in-conference. Throw in a season ticket holder pleasing non-Conference game against a national power... and your middle-of-the-pack team that would finish .750 in most conferences is a .500 team at best.

But what do I know? I'll ask my Calculus teaching friends. They'll appreciate the opportunity to use their knowledge for the good of mankind.

exactly! nicely put. go vols.

t

BIVOLAR_BEARE writes:

in response to cheetah-vol:

I'm not sure why Stoops even brought this up. If he's trying to say the Big 12 as a whole is better or as good as the SEC, then how would he explain the following when it comes to bowl games:

The SEC had 9 teams in bowls last year and went 9-3. The Big 12 had 9 teams in bowls and went 4-5. As of 2011, the SEC is 20-9 vs. The Big 12 in bowl games.

Can't find records of regular season games, but I think you get my point.

BTW, we play at Oklahoma in 2014 and they come to Neyland in 2015. Guess Stoops has already penciled those games in as wins.

I've been following CFB for almost 50 yrs; Oklahoma aside from that win against UT in the Orange bowl during the Dickey era, have underachieved year in and year out. Arky destroyed them in the late 70's in the Orange bowl, and that 85 team (beaten like a dog by Miami at home) would have been blown away by UT if they would have played in the Sugar bowl. UT would have beaten their 2000 squad as well. The funny thing is, I'm not certain OU would have beaten UT, Mizzou, Vandy or Ole Miss last year. They certainly got their arses handed to them by a mediocre Notre Dame (at Norman) last year.

cheetah-vol writes:

Ouch! The memory of that Orange Bowl loss still stings.

Maybe Stoops is simply jealous because his brother is a head coach in the SEC and he isn't?

gillblog writes:

in response to brokendownoldvol:

SO? All all 14 teams can't be in the top 10.

Just like all 14 teams cannot be undefeated in the SEC.

I guess that's what it would take to convince Climer or Stoops the SEC really was the best from top-to-bottom. Difficult to see it happening, though....

MikeNPS writes:

in response to BIVOLAR_BEARE:

I've been following CFB for almost 50 yrs; Oklahoma aside from that win against UT in the Orange bowl during the Dickey era, have underachieved year in and year out. Arky destroyed them in the late 70's in the Orange bowl, and that 85 team (beaten like a dog by Miami at home) would have been blown away by UT if they would have played in the Sugar bowl. UT would have beaten their 2000 squad as well. The funny thing is, I'm not certain OU would have beaten UT, Mizzou, Vandy or Ole Miss last year. They certainly got their arses handed to them by a mediocre Notre Dame (at Norman) last year.

You say you are not sure OU would have beaten UT last year? Did you see that UT team? Chuckey-Doake High could have beaten the Vols last year.

BIVOLAR_BEARE writes:

in response to MikeNPS:

You say you are not sure OU would have beaten UT last year? Did you see that UT team? Chuckey-Doake High could have beaten the Vols last year.

You're a complete buffoon if you honestly believe a High School team would have beaten UT..Be gone, knave..

Samuel_L_Salma_GataBait_HowBoutDemCowboys_BlueWaffles88 writes:

Just remember Stoops, LSWHO and my Gators beat A&M last year. The same A&M that JUST DRILLED YOUR SOONERS in a bowl game. Oklahoma would barely be bowl eligible if they were in the SEC last year.

springtx_vol writes:

My add to the discussion:

I didn't go look up the numbers, but the 22 players drafted by the NFL from the "bottom" of the SEC is almost as many as any other confernce, including the top teams. Yes, the bottom of the SEC would dominate all but the best of the other conferences.

fearthehound writes:

in response to billythekid:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Let me tell you where you can shove your stupid 'squad'. The 'squad' is composed of about three mouth-breathing basement dwellers with multiple screen names. No matter what the subject of the article is, your response is always the same. You're a nasty troll, plain and simple.

The article wasn't even about UT or bottom-dwellers or 1 and 7 records. It was about coaches from other conferences who are jealous of the SEC's success. Big Ten's been playing that game a long time. Climer is just a slow-thinking 'journalist' who wanted to join in.

murrayvol writes:

in response to BIVOLAR_BEARE:

You're a complete buffoon if you honestly believe a High School team would have beaten UT..Be gone, knave..

"knave" Now you don't see that on here a lot.

Way to "fart in his general direction".

antonio14313 writes:

in response to billythekid:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

...and for this fraudelant, so called self named "vol truth squad" to bash a coach BEFORE he's even coached a down of SEC football is idiotic. plan and simple. idiotic, and stupid. GO VOLS!!!

t

pcorange writes:

I think it is pretty obvious that the SEC is top-heavy. However, it seems to me that most other conferences are, too. There are teams in our bottom half that wouldn't be bottom half in any other conference.

beartn#223846 writes:

I guess you have to write something in the off season. I'm guessing the top of the SEC could finish undefeated against the bottom of the other conferences, too. Our overall bowl record holds up pretty well against everyone else. As for Stoops, since his national title, it seems like Oklahoma is picked in the top 3 every year, and falters every year. When was the last time Stoops won a big bowl game?

RealisticVol writes:

This from a coach in a 2 team conference. The same can be said for all the other non-SEC conferences.....................IF THAT!

murrayvol writes:

in response to brokendownoldvol:

SO? All all 14 teams can't be in the top 10.

But 8 or 9 of them can be in the Top 30 and often are.

OrangePride writes:

Here is the problems with both Stoops' and Climers' logic........ they look only at the numbers and not the schedules or quality of opponents played. A better barometer of overall conference strength would be their bowl records each year. In that case, the SEC has been the strongest in almost every year. When the so-called middle and lower tier teams need to play 4 and 5 nationally ranked (often top 10) teams in the nation, it is not hard to imagine a 6-6 or 7-5 season. But all of this nonsensical comparisons is a moot argument. The SEC has produced the top teams in the nation for a decade or more....end of story. You idiots want to go talk about how the bottom 4 teams are comparable to other conferences, fine. So what? And oh BTW, I don't see teams lining up to get past perennial "bottom-feeders" like Mississippi and Miss State and South Carolina on their schedules. NC State was supposed to have an ACC title contending team last year....what happened when they "fed" on the lowly Tennessee/Vanderbilt squads. Exactly. As far as my Vols are concerned......just wait Stoops/Climer, over the next three years order is about to be restored! GO VOLS!!

BIVOLAR_BEARE writes:

I believe ever since that BSU upset (of a much over-hyped Okie squad) Bob Stoops has been sensitive about the direction of the Sooners. He's definitely being passive aggressive to deflect the heat that he's really feeling in Norman. Many of the OU faithful fans/alumni were hoping he would leave this past season. Especially after losing to Notre Dame in front of a national audience at home.

OwensboroVol writes:

Climer is an idiot and Stoops refuses to return to the SEC because He knows that he couldn't compete. Some of the games the SEC has lost in recent years involved teams from the bottom half of the SEC having to play teams that finished either 1st or 2nd in their league. Also, By the time Bowl season rolls around for the SEC half your starting players are injured and out for the season or injured and playing at 50%. Very seldom does the SEC lose to other conferences during the first of the season. All I heard last year on ESPN and the other sports channel was whether the Alabama Defense could contain the Michigan Quarterback. About halfway through the 1st period that one had been answered. I suggest that Stoops stop hiding and come on over and play some of the SEC teams. I know he won't, because like Notre Dame it doesn't matter if your playing poor High School Teams as long as they win they will get into the NC game. If they played interconference games with the SEC they would be out of the NC chase before they got started. I guess what I'm saying to Stoops, is put your money where your mouth is! As far as Climer is concerned, maybe he needs to move to another newspaper outside the SEC area if he hates the conference so bad.

OrangePride writes:

And one more thing there Mr. Stoops.....in a few years you will be coming here to Knoxville for one of those "tomato can/patsy" games against Tennessee. So y'all just come waltzing in here with that W already chalked into your win list. Yes sir, you keep preaching this nonsense and do that because you are going to be in for one almighty shock when you get into Neyland Stadium!!

BIVOLAR_BEARE writes:

in response to OrangePride:

Here is the problems with both Stoops' and Climers' logic........ they look only at the numbers and not the schedules or quality of opponents played. A better barometer of overall conference strength would be their bowl records each year. In that case, the SEC has been the strongest in almost every year. When the so-called middle and lower tier teams need to play 4 and 5 nationally ranked (often top 10) teams in the nation, it is not hard to imagine a 6-6 or 7-5 season. But all of this nonsensical comparisons is a moot argument. The SEC has produced the top teams in the nation for a decade or more....end of story. You idiots want to go talk about how the bottom 4 teams are comparable to other conferences, fine. So what? And oh BTW, I don't see teams lining up to get past perennial "bottom-feeders" like Mississippi and Miss State and South Carolina on their schedules. NC State was supposed to have an ACC title contending team last year....what happened when they "fed" on the lowly Tennessee/Vanderbilt squads. Exactly. As far as my Vols are concerned......just wait Stoops/Climer, over the next three years order is about to be restored! GO VOLS!!

Good post, but I disagree about bowls as long as they are only playing one game of relevance each year. Who cares who wins the weedeater bowl or the compusa bowl?? Only the lower ranked team like LaTech or Ball State would consider that an achievement against other D1 schools. If you really want to see who is the best, look at the bottom tier of the Big 12 and compare them to the bottom tier of the SEC. I have no doubt that even Kentucky would smoke Kansas in FB. That's where you can see how much better the SEC is. If UT or Vandy had played the same schedule as Kansas they would have been playing on NYD at least.

FREOVOL writes:

If you are receiving unwanted text messages from myknoxnews@knoxnews.com you have to go to this website: myknoxnews.com
Then enter the code they send to your cell.
Then go to the bottom of the page and click "unsubscribe".
Texting "stop" does not do the trick, unfortunately they will not fix their erroneous information in their text messages.

orangecountyvols writes:

Antonio,

Hello there friend.

Since I don't read the kid's posts, I did in fact see your comments to him, since I can certainly trust you, along with the other Vol fans on whom we can depend.

Did you ever by chance watch the wrestling on t.v.? We are talking about guys like "the big show, John Cena, The "Rock", Riback etc.

The reason I bring this up is because there is this group of 3 who call thesmselves "the Shield."

It's all fake, and these 3 guys are fakes, just as the fake twosome here on GoVolsXtra are fakes!

Anyway, not a lot of credibility in anything Climer says. We might be able to add Stoops also. BTW, in a couple of years, the Vols are due to play Oklahoma. Maybe Stoops will be there ........maybe not !

CroKev writes:

I think Stoops is a great coach but since the NC in 2000 (which, it needs to be pointed out, was only his second season at OU so he did it with someone else's recruits) he has underachieved. Now, he's been in more NC games than anyone else as of late but he usually gets whacked in those games. His vaunted offences were held in check by both LSU and UF this past decade as well as USC. I think he's now runner-up in his own state with the advent of Ok. State.

Something tells me that soon we'll be hearing the same from Urban Cryer in the Big 10. OSU plays absolutely nobody this upcoming season (Wisc. has a new coach; UM lost Bryant; their OOC schedule is pathetic). OSU is in the NC game by default against a 1-loss Bama or Oregon team and will get shellacked. Anyway, I'll hang up and listen...

Want to participate in the conversation? Become a subscriber today. Subscribers can read and comment on any story, anytime. Non-subscribers will only be able to view comments on select stories.

Features