If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Lexington Herald Leader)   SEC coaches discuss why there's more cons than pros being in the NFL. "I think what has happened is that we all realized it's a lot more fun coaching in college," says Steve Spurrier   (kentucky.com) divider line 100
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

650 clicks; posted to Sports » on 12 Jul 2008 at 6:39 AM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



100 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-07-12 06:50:58 AM  
Well there's damn sure as many future cons as future pros in the SEC.
 
2008-07-12 07:16:47 AM  
That's right, Spurrier, and I'm not dating Scarlett Johanssen because I don't want to.
 
2008-07-12 08:17:29 AM  
What Spurrier means to say is that he and the rest of the coaches mentioned in the article realized they couldn't cut it in the NFL.
 
2008-07-12 08:20:52 AM  
Don't worry Spurrier. Thanks to idiots like you, Nick Saban and Bobby Petrino, the only pro job college coaches can look forward to is as Al Davis's doormat.
 
2008-07-12 09:05:17 AM  
What Steve means it's a lot easier to coach when the school's name alone gets you good players and you can schedule a bunch of patsies to boost your record.
 
2008-07-12 09:06:01 AM  
Ah, Steve Spurrier. You couldn't cut it in San Francisco in the 1970's, and it was funny to watch you crash in flames in Washington.
 
2008-07-12 09:26:22 AM  
Listening to Redskins fans whining about Spurrier is funny.

Like your idiot Danny-boy team affects his legacy at all. Real football fans don't care about your whiny little football team run by a midget with too much money and a Napoleon complex.

SEC football >>>> NFL football
 
2008-07-12 09:33:23 AM  
Confabulat

SEC football >>>> NFL football

Folks in this thread must not be SEC fans. I love the NFL, but nothing compares to an SEC game. Nothing.

/Go Gators
 
2008-07-12 09:38:20 AM  
I don't much care about the SEC, but I'd think Spurrier is right. Sure, there's a little less money in college, but the lifestyle perks are huge compared to the NFL. Also, you don't have to put up with NFL players.

/Go Blue
 
2008-07-12 09:44:21 AM  
Mentat:Don't worry Spurrier. Thanks to idiots like you, Nick Saban and Bobby Petrino,

And Pete Carroll. That dude sucks as a coach. So do Dennis Erickson, Butch Davis, Rich Brooks, and Mike Riley. Other than Jimmy Johnson, who's had success in both?

But going from the NFL to college is easy. Just ask Charlie Weis.

//Coach Brooks will do great things this fall.
 
2008-07-12 10:12:19 AM  
Gonz: Other than Jimmy Johnson, who's had success in both?


It's a short list. Barry Switzer. Don Coryell. Sid Gillman. That's about it.
 
2008-07-12 10:18:10 AM  
Pros to being in the SEC: you get to beat Ohio State in the national title game every year

Cons to being in the SEC: Your head coach must have the moral values of Al Capone

/The Big Ten is overrated
//That being said, Go Boilermakers
 
2008-07-12 10:25:49 AM  
"I think what has happened is that we all realized it's a lot more fun coaching suck at the pros since every team can pay their players like I get boosters to do in college," says Steve Spurrier

FXORD for you steve

/looking forward to SC sucking really bad this year
//bite the brim steve
 
2008-07-12 10:28:34 AM  
Q: Why is Steve Spurrier always wearing a visor?

A: To help hide his circumcision scars.

/ i think a Tennessee fan told me that
 
2008-07-12 10:38:24 AM  
tbaughm://That being said, Go Boilermakers

BTFU

Can't wait for basketball season. Football season only offers an opportunity to guess Purdue's playcalling at a high success rate from my chair.

It's equal parts fun and depressing to guess entire sequences correctly. I wonder what having Dorien Bryant move from the slot into the backfield means... could it be an option? Yes!
 
2008-07-12 11:05:30 AM  
Confabulat:Real football fans don't care about your whiny little football team run by a midget with too much money and a Napoleon complex.

Real football fans know you can't send 6 receivers deep on every play in the NFL. Hell, my toddler knows that. Not Spurrier.

/introducing the "forward pass" to a bunch of people not accustomed to it doesn't mean shiat
 
OMO
2008-07-12 11:26:22 AM  
/Cue SEC conference fanbois in 3, 2, 1...
 
OMO
2008-07-12 11:28:30 AM  
grapefruitgal:CFolks in this thread must not be SEC fans. I love the NFL, but nothing compares to an SEC game. Nothing.

Colts vs. Pats

or

Ole Miss vs. Vandy

Good luck with that one.
 
2008-07-12 11:31:28 AM  
"I think what has happened is that we all realized it's a lot more fun coaching in college," says Steve Spurrier

...who then threw down his visor, cried like a biatch, peed his pants and stomped out of the interview.
 
2008-07-12 11:51:45 AM  
Like the Boobies, I read that as there are more cons than pros in the NFL. I started trying to make a list between very good players and players with arrest records.
 
2008-07-12 11:57:25 AM  
I love Spurrier, but he's full of sh*t. The SEC game isn't the same as the NFL game. Its more fast paced, exciting, and smash-mouth defense. The NFL game is about planning and proper execution. There's a place for both, but I never miss an SEC game. I try not to miss a Buccaneers game but it does happen.

/Go Gators
 
2008-07-12 12:01:27 PM  
OMO:grapefruitgal:CFolks in this thread must not be SEC fans. I love the NFL, but nothing compares to an SEC game. Nothing.

Colts vs. Pats

or

Ole Miss vs. Vandy

Good luck with that one.


So, you take the best of the NFL against the worst of the SEC. I'll take Florida vs. LSU from last year over the Colts vs. Pats from last year any day.

/Big XII fan.
//Go Buffs~
 
OMO
2008-07-12 12:03:22 PM  
M.Kishiwada:OMO:grapefruitgal:CFolks in this thread must not be SEC fans. I love the NFL, but nothing compares to an SEC game. Nothing.

Colts vs. Pats

or

Ole Miss vs. Vandy

Good luck with that one.

So, you take the best of the NFL against the worst of the SEC. I'll take Florida vs. LSU from last year over the Colts vs. Pats from last year any day.

/Big XII fan.
//Go Buffs~


Good point...it's not like the original poster said "but nothing compares to an SEC game. Nothing."
 
2008-07-12 12:05:41 PM  
OMO:grapefruitgal:CFolks in this thread must not be SEC fans. I love the NFL, but nothing compares to an SEC game. Nothing.

Colts vs. Pats

or

Ole Miss vs. Vandy

Good luck with that one.


Alabama vs. UT
Auburn vs. Alabama
UT vs. Florida
Florida vs. LSU
Georgia vs. Florida

or

San Fran vs. Falcons
Falcons vs. Houston

Good Luck with that one
 
OMO
2008-07-12 12:12:44 PM  
So I guess that old stereotype that SEC fans can't read is really true.

/Commence irrational SEC conference tongue bathing
//Cause we all know how much fun it is to root for a conference
 
2008-07-12 12:21:39 PM  
The NFL is considerably greater than the SEC because college football isn't even a legitimate sport. They make up their own schedules. They vote on who's number 1 (that's figure skating folks, not football).

And until someone goes down to Florida, picks up that National Champoionship Trophy, and drops it off in Boise I will never have any respect for college football. You can give me all the reasons in the world why you think Boise State didn't deserve it, but in any legit sport, if you win every game from opening day till the end of the post season, you're the champ. Only in college football can that be untrue.
 
2008-07-12 12:42:34 PM  
Lenny and Carl:but in any legit sport, if you win every game from opening day till the end of the post season, you're the champ. Only in college football can that be untrue.

It's untrue in college football for the reason you mention above. While teams like Hawaii last year, Boise state the year before, or Tulane in 1997 went undefeated, they did it facing much easier opponents. I'd say that Boise and Hawaii got fair treatments, since they were invited to significant bowl games. Tulane didn't get that a decade ago.

I like college football, but parity is a major issue. In the NFL, any franchise can compete. Even shiatty ones can get get better. Colleges rely upon their name recognition or luck to get good players. Teams in minor conferences can never compete. Schools like Vanderbildt or Baylor will always be the whipping boys of their respective conferences, until they wise up and leave. But then they won't ever have even the remotest chance at a championship.

College football is great, if your school is on a relatively tiny list of potential champions. All other schools just have to content themselves with winning their conference and getting their ass kicked in a no-name bowl.
 
2008-07-12 12:42:47 PM  
Lenny and Carl: I agree, until they have a playoff system college football is a joke. That year that Florida beat Ohio State, Ohio State was off for 11 weeks and then played for the national championship. What a freaking joke, it was like watching a preseason scrimmage, not a national championship game.

And look who picks who gets to go--a bunch of sportswriters. Almost every newspaper has a "you pick this weeks winner" for college football, and every week they prove that the majority of them would be better off flipping a coin than choosing the winning side. They pad their averages with the lopsided games, and are about 50/50 for the rest.

Until college football discovers that you win your games on the field and not on a piece of paper, it will always be inferior to the pro game.
 
2008-07-12 12:47:19 PM  
Kennedy311 ARE YOU DENSE???

OMO was replying to someone who said nothing in the NFL can compare to an SEC game, and OMO was proving that poster wrong. He doesn't need to justify comparing San Fran vs. Falcons or Falcons vs. Houston to any of the SEC games you listed.
 
2008-07-12 01:16:29 PM  
Sorry, I guess I just don't have a problem with Vandy vs. Ole Miss. I watch every SEC game available every weekend but rarely watch every NFL game on TV. I like the excitement of the college game better. Maybe that's because I was raised in an SEC college town only a few blocks away from The Swamp.

As for the article, Spurrier's right. There's a lot to be said for picking your players, being able to control their actions to a stronger degree, and having a dedicated off season.
 
2008-07-12 03:35:12 PM  
varmitydog:Until college football discovers that you win your games on the field and not on a piece of paper, it will always be inferior to the pro game.

Wrong. Which team had a better resume last year, New England or New York? How about in 2006, how good a team were the Steelers? A team that couldn't even win it's own division won the Superbowl? How does that make sense?
I'm a college football fan, and I have to admit that I like the BCS and the bowl systems. It makes for great stories and compelling games. I watch football to be entertained, and the BCS does a hell of a good job at that. It makes everything more emotional and more important.
Every game matters in college football. UCLA got to deny USC a chance at the championship 2 years ago. How much do you think Bruins fans celebrated and Trojan fans agonized? The NFL can't give a regular season game that is that compelling.
 
2008-07-12 04:25:02 PM  
Jomigero: The New York Giants and the Pittsburgh Steelers won their championships on the field. Makes plenty of sense to me; they proved it on the football field, they were not awarded it by idiot sportswriters and job conscious coaches shuffling papers around.

Division one college football is an elitist only system. It doesn't allow for a superior team from a lessor conference, who would be the real champion if they played, to become champion. On top of that, it allows the decisions to be made by sportswriters (whom have proven themselves to be less intelligent than the average farker) and college coaches, all of whom have a personal and professional agenda on who is chosen.

At every other level of football; high school, small college, and the pros, the champion is proven on the field of play, not on a piece of paper. The play of the college game might be more exciting and the pageantry more intense, but between the BCS, the haphazard meddling of the NCAA infractions committee, and the granting of bowl games to third rate teams, division one college football is mickey mouse.

If you are OK with bullshiat, hey, to each their own. But me, I'd like to see the games won on the field of play, not on a piece of paper.
 
2008-07-12 04:29:12 PM  
Lenny and Carl:You can give me all the reasons in the world why you think Boise State didn't deserve it,...
That is a nice way of saying, "I don't care about the schedule." When you know your own argument is bullshiat, you get a no go.

Go college football, the sort of magic that happens at a college football game can never be topped. Perhaps equaled on extremely rare occasions, but never topped.
 
2008-07-12 04:43:59 PM  
When you know your own argument is bullshiat, you get a no go.

That's possibly the dumbest interpretation of what I wrote. the operative word in my post was THINK. You can give me all the reasons you THINK Boise State doesn't deserve it. The fact that their schedule was weak doesn't automatically mean that they couldn't have beaten the top flight teams, only that they didn't.

Spare me your emotional crap about the college game. When they can pick a champ numerically, they way all legit sports do, then they can be considered legit too. Till then its just a bunch of regional nonsense for drunken hillbillies to get excited over.
 
2008-07-12 04:47:21 PM  
In terms of rivalries, there are MORE rivalries in the AFC Alone than in the SEC, and those rivalries are (IMO) bigger. I'm talking historical rivalries, not Johnny-come-lately Colts-Patriots rivalries. (save the Browns-Ravens and Colts-Ravens, for that whole "YOU TOOK OUR JERBS TEAM" business. I can compare the SEC and the AFC because they have the same number of teams.


Raiders-Broncos
Raiders-Chiefs
Raiders-Chargers
Raiders-Steelers
Broncos-Chiefs
Broncos-Chargers

Steelers-Browns
Browns-Bengals
Browns-Ravens
Ravens-Colts

Dolphins-Bills
Bills-Patriots
Bills-Jets
Patriots-Jets

13 big-time rivalries in the AFC
AFC South is full of fail. I don't count Texans-Titans because it hasn't really been much of a rivalry.

Alabama-Auburn
Arkansas-LSU
Florida-Georgia
Florida-Tennessee
Mississippi-Mississippi State

I'm not too well versed in the all-time history of LSU-Florida (remember, i'm not counting recent history, which is why i didn't count Patriots-Colts), and considering UT's domination of the Commodores, i definitely won't count UT-Vandy.

Anyone want to help me name REAL SEC rivalries?
 
2008-07-12 04:47:54 PM  
Every game matters in college football.

And Jomigero, this is the line that pisses me off more than any. It is demonstrably untrue. In the past 2 years Hawaii and Boise State went undefeated in the regular seasons while other teams with a loss played for the title. That means one team's loss was better than another team's win.

The "every game matters" line has to be retired. It has been proven untrue. Like college ball if you want, but there's no need to keep this bullshiat going any longer. At best it should be "Every game matters provided sports writers agree that it matters."
 
2008-07-12 04:51:36 PM  
Lenny and Carl


you forgot to add "and provided SEC teams provide comparisons to BCS schools in months not starting with the letter "J"

SEC against BCS Schools last year?

SEC
 
2008-07-12 04:52:15 PM  
SEC was less than .500 (stupid html didn't allow me to make the less than sign)
 
2008-07-12 04:56:45 PM  
varmitydog:Jomigero: The New York Giants and the Pittsburgh Steelers won their championships on the field. Makes plenty of sense to me; they proved it on the football field, they were not awarded it by idiot sportswriters and job conscious coaches shuffling papers around.

Division one college football is an elitist only system. It doesn't allow for a superior team from a lessor conference, who would be the real champion if they played, to become champion. On top of that, it allows the decisions to be made by sportswriters (whom have proven themselves to be less intelligent than the average farker) and college coaches, all of whom have a personal and professional agenda on who is chosen.

At every other level of football; high school, small college, and the pros, the champion is proven on the field of play, not on a piece of paper. The play of the college game might be more exciting and the pageantry more intense, but between the BCS, the haphazard meddling of the NCAA infractions committee, and the granting of bowl games to third rate teams, division one college football is mickey mouse.

If you are OK with bullshiat, hey, to each their own. But me, I'd like to see the games won on the field of play, not on a piece of paper.


Sounds like someone roots for a team in a crappy conference
 
2008-07-12 04:59:52 PM  
I gotta be honest Canuck, I'm not following you there.
 
2008-07-12 05:04:27 PM  
Lenny and Carl:The fact that their schedule was weak doesn't automatically mean that they couldn't have beaten the top flight teams, only that they didn't.

Ah, so you actually are admitting that their schedule was weak instead of just brushing over it by saying the following:

You can give me all the reasons in the world why you think Boise State didn't deserve it,

Yeah pal, their schedule also means they didn't deserve a shot compared to the resumes of the two teams that made it in.

Spare me your emotional crap about the college game.

Spare me your emotional crap about wanting to help out poor itty bitty schools who know what will be required of them schedule wise but only schedule one BCS opponent for a particular year even though every other school in their conference had two, save Utah State. Hey, that is exactly what Boise State did that year! Whodathunkit?

So yeah, keep up with your crying about wanting things.
 
2008-07-12 05:08:08 PM  
Lenny and Carl:And Jomigero, this is the line that pisses me off more than any. It is demonstrably untrue. In the past 2 years Hawaii and Boise State went undefeated in the regular seasons while other teams with a loss played for the title. That means one team's loss was better than another team's win. I don't care that Powerhouse U lost one game to a highly ranked opponent on the road, what matters more is that Creampuff Valley Tech went undefeated against a bunch of NAIA teams. Hooray!

Hated to do that for the first time, but I FTFY.
 
2008-07-12 05:08:19 PM  
Only_A_Lad:I'd say that Boise and Hawaii got fair treatments, since they were invited to significant bowl games. Tulane didn't get that a decade ago.

Hawaii didn't get a fair treatment, because in spite of their record, they didn't deserve to play in a BCS game. They'd have lost ANY bowl game they played off of the island (heck, they'd have certainly lost to Cal last year, barely over .500), and they played absolutely nobody worth mentioning (until they got their shiat pushed in by Georgia).
Heck, I'd argue the 2006 Hawaii team was superior.

Boise State beat a legitimate opponent or two in the regular season in 2006... they blasted a 10-win Oregon State team. And of course, we know how they did in the bowl game.

Lenny and Carl:The "every game matters" line has to be retired. It has been proven untrue. Like college ball if you want, but there's no need to keep this bullshiat going any longer. At best it should be "Every game matters provided sports writers agree that it matters."

I'm intrigued by your ideas, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
 
2008-07-12 05:09:13 PM  
WoodyHayes:Hated to do that for the first time, but I FTFY.

2006 Boise State was better than any post-2003 Ohio State team.
 
2008-07-12 05:11:19 PM  
2002-2003, that is.

But go ahead, it is fun to see tOSU have a 2007 season with a schedule that was not much better, if any better, than 2006 Boise State... and to hear about how much more awesome they were.

You know, because when I think of top-notch teams, I think of teams whose best opponent all year lost a) to a 1AA team (sort of makes fun of your whole NAIA argument), and b) was destroyed by Oregon at home.
 
2008-07-12 05:16:35 PM  
puffy999:2002-2003, that is.

But go ahead, it is fun to see tOSU have a 2007 season with a schedule that was not much better, if any better, than 2006 Boise State.


Surely you jest. They played one (OSU), perhaps two (Hawaii), teams of note. In 2006, tOSU played Texas, Penn State, Michigan, and Iowa, among others. Their schedule was MUCH more difficult.

Hell, in 2007 my (rather crappy, *sniff*) Huskies handled them easily. We went 4-9 in a real conference.
 
2008-07-12 05:22:10 PM  
puffy999:2006 Boise State was better than any post-2003 Ohio State team.

2006 Boise State was better than any post-2003 Ohio State team.

2002-2003, that is.


2003: #4. 2004: #20. 2005: #4. 2006: #2. 2007: #5.

Your blinders are showing, as evidenced by a very simply destruction in a post that precedes this one.

Look, nobody is saying 2006 Boise State was a bad team, just that they didn't deserve a BCS title shot.
 
2008-07-12 05:25:25 PM  
I really don't get all of the SEC hate here.

Tell me something: if the SEC isn't the strongest conference in the nation, which one is?
 
2008-07-12 05:27:31 PM  
WoodyHayes:

And even though our record was terrible, we gave you guys a pretty good game:)
 
2008-07-12 05:30:05 PM  
BigJake:And even though our record was terrible, we gave you guys a pretty good game:)

Aye, that they did. That Jake Locker kid scared me, sorry about the twisting of the helmet by the way.
 
Displayed 50 of 100 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report