To all SEC fans - Suck it.

[Slyfox696]

There is some media bias in favor of the SEC, but there is no question they have been far and away the best conference for the last decade.

Except that's not true. If the SEC was so great, how did Missouri and A&M come in and perform so well right away? I'm a Mizzou (and ND) fan and I know Missouri did the same thing in the SEC this year they did in the Big 12. If the SEC is so much better, how come Missouri did the same thing they did multiple times in the Big 12 (great record, conference championship game loss)?

It's not even really close at all. Just take a look at their bowl game record in the last decade.

SEC since 2003 60-33
Big 12 since 2003 43-42
Big 10 since 2003 32-54
ACC since 2003 41-47
Pac 12 since 2003 39-30

Yeah, I'm not real influenced by this, considering how bowl games are rarely indicative of a teams quality. There are MANY factors which go into a bowl game. For example, when was the last BCS game played above the Mason-Dixon line? How long did it take Florida State to shake off the rust last night and play like the team they really were? What was it Alabama/SEC fans claimed about their motivation against Oklahoma?

Plus if they were so overrated in the polls they'd have been playing better opponents than they should be in the bowls making that record even better.

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying here.

As of next year this all become irrelevant. The battle will be won on the field, not the sportswriters keyboards.

I wish, but with it only being four teams, expect no less than two of them to be from the SEC and wouldn't surprise me to see three of them at times.

Aww, that's so cute. They lose one championship so you now you can act like your hatred for them is actually based on something reality based. Anyone that hates the SEC is just someone who prefers to root for the underdogs. We dominated the BCS and next year we'll step up and own the play offs. That's just the way it is.

Who is "we"? Because the "SEC" didn't dominate anything, Alabama and Florida did, with a legitimate Auburn win and a irrational LSU win thrown in. And let's not even pretend like some of those appearances weren't from ridiculous and changing standards.

By the way, who roots for a conference anyways?

Fine.

Will the SEC continue to receive elevated pre-season rankings that
reinforce themselves all year, as we've had throughout the BS era?

Of course. Those self-fulfilling prophecies don't create themselves.

 

[VanceMack]

Ya'll sure do take minor league football seriously!

1-its a lot faster pace than the pros and a little less hot dogging and showing off in the college ranks and 2-Who said they were the 'minor leagues'? Id bet Bama or Florida State could take the Jaguars and maybe the Texans this year (and on any given Sunday, the J E T S)

 

[AGENT J]

Id bet Bama or Florida State could take the Jaguars and maybe the Texans this year (and on any given Sunday, the J E T S)

no no no and no

thats silly to even think about
the reality is at best SOME of those players might be able to make the pros and NONE of them have NFL expereience. The NFL teams no matter how crappy are ALL players that DID make the pros and MOST have NFL experience.

 

[VanceMack]

no no no and no

thats silly to even think about
the reality is at best SOME of those players might be able to make the pros and NONE of them have NFL expereience. The NFL teams no matter how crappy are ALL players that DID make the pros and MOST have NFL experience.

It was PROBABLY a joking comment. I dont know...PROBABLY...

 

[Heebie Jeebie]

1-its a lot faster pace than the pros and a little less hot dogging and showing off in the college ranks and 2-Who said they were the 'minor leagues'? Id bet Bama or Florida State could take the Jaguars and maybe the Texans this year (and on any given Sunday, the J E T S)

There are MAYBE 8 guys on those two teams combined who MIGHT have an NFL career. They would both lose 10 out of 10 to any NFL team.

I like minor league baseball and basket ball. I just don't see the point in getting to worked up about them.

 

[Kobie]

1-its a lot faster pace than the pros and a little less hot dogging and showing off in the college ranks and 2-Who said they were the 'minor leagues'? Id bet Bama or Florida State could take the Jaguars and maybe the Texans this year (and on any given Sunday, the J E T S)

Then you'd be absolutely, unequivocally wrong. The worst NFL team would absolutely demolish any college team. They could name the score.

Anyone who thinks a college team could sniff an NFL team's exhaust knows nothing about football.

 

[AGENT J]

It was PROBABLY a joking comment. I dont know...PROBABLY...

well thinking that is DEFINITELY a joke, i know that DEFINITELY

 

[VanceMack]

There are MAYBE 8 guys on those two teams combined who MIGHT have an NFL career. They would both lose 10 out of 10 to any NFL team.

I like minor league baseball and basket ball. I just don't see the point in getting to worked up about them.

I was GOING to add a 3-about the pro salaries already paid in college with a nod to USC and some of the other programs but figured people would get the joke. Some of you guys take some of this stuff way too seriously.

 

[VanceMack]

Then you'd be absolutely, unequivocally wrong. The worst NFL team would absolutely demolish any college team. They could name the score.

Anyone who thinks a college team could sniff an NFL team's exhaust knows nothing about football.

See post 33...

 

[Anagram]

Except that's not true. If the SEC was so great, how did Missouri and A&M come in and perform so well right away? I'm a Mizzou (and ND) fan and I know Missouri did the same thing in the SEC this year they did in the Big 12. If the SEC is so much better, how come Missouri did the same thing they did multiple times in the Big 12 (great record, conference championship game loss)

The SEC aren't gods. Obviously they can be beaten. Lot's of teams would fit in just fine: USC, Florida St., Ohio St., Texas. Most conferences just don't have as many of those programs who are consistently great, (LSU, Florida, and Alabama), along with a number of other teams who are consistently very good like Arkansas, Auburn, and South Carolina. Texas A&M came in with a Heisman level quarterback, a great offensive line, and one of the most talented wide receivers out there. We'll see how well they continue to fit in without Evans, Matthews, Joeckel, and Manziel.

I'm a huge Mizzou fan too, and I'm thrilled with how well they've taken to the conference. They certainly have a lot of talent. Dorial Green Beckham is said to have the most potential at Wide Receiver since Randy Moss. Still, they didn't have to face Alabama or LSU this year and beat Florida and Georgia when they were severely depleted. Their best conference win was against no defense A&M. I'm glad they've done so well in their new conference, and Pinkel has always been a good recruiter but I'm concerned how they'll be next year and beyond.

Yeah, I'm not real influenced by this, considering how bowl games are rarely indicative of a teams quality.

Bowl Games in isolation aren't always the best indicators of a team's or a conference's quality, but when taken as a whole with a large sample size, it becomes a fairly good indication.

But for the sake of the argument overall record vs other conferences this millennium then?

SEC vs ACC 70-44
SEC vs Big 10 31-21
SEC vs Pac 12 14-13
SEC vs Big 12 28-19

 

[blackjack50]

I guess at some point someone has to get lucky. FSu sucks. They played a cake walk and will continue to do so for eternity. Can't wait to watch their tears next year as they say, "but but but we won a national championship last year."

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

I guess at some point someone has to get lucky. FSu sucks. They played a cake walk and will continue to do so for eternity. Can't wait to watch their tears next year as they say, "but but but we won a national championship last year."

FSU has the best defensive front seven Auburn played all season. However, their defensive backs seemed to be their Achilles heel as Auburn had several long throws that kept them ahead for most of the game. Even so, Auburn's Trey Mason had 195 yards rushing on the night. Auburn's special teams who had been strong all season provided several let downs Monday night. Their punter was fabulous dropping balls inside the 5 yard line for the fourth consecutive game. However, their steady kicker missed a chip shot field goal for the first time this season, which would have tied the game at the end of regulation after all scoring was over, had he hit it. Also their kick off guy didn't kick the ball through the end zone for the first time this season and FSU ran one back for a TD late in the game.

FSU 3 points better on a nutreal field after scoring the winning TD with 13 seconds left to play is a squeaker. A win, but no dominance here. The dominance was Auburn's defense when they put pressure on the Heisman Trophy QB. Why Ellis Johnson, Auburn's defensive coordinator, chose not to do that on FSU's last TD drive with 1:15 seconds left from their own 20 yard line I'll never understand.

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

To all SEC fans - Suck it.

The SEC had 4 teams finish in the final BCS top 7, so I guess you get to suck it. :boohoo:

By the way, I don't see Michigan's ranking after they got rolled by unranked Kansas State 31-14 in the Buffalo Wild Wings Bowl. I guess you get to suck it again. Enjoy!

Associated Press Top 25 Poll, Final Rankings Rank
1 Florida State (60) 14-0
2 Auburn 12-2
4 South Carolina 11-2
5 Missouri 12-2
6 Oklahoma 11-2
7 Alabama 11-2
8 Clemson 11-2
10 UCF 12-1
11 Stanford 11-3
12 Ohio State 12-2
13 Baylor 11-2
14 LSU 10-3
15 Louisville 12-1
16 UCLA 10-3
17 Oklahoma State 10-3
18 Texas A&M 9-4
19 USC 10-4
20 Notre Dame 9-4
21 Arizona State 10-4
23 Duke 10-4
24 Vanderbilt 9-4
25 Washington 9-4

 

[Slyfox696]

The SEC aren't gods. Obviously they can be beaten. Lot's of teams would fit in just fine: USC, Florida St., Ohio St., Texas. Most conferences just don't have as many of those programs who are consistently great, (LSU, Florida, and Alabama)

Big 12: Oklahoma, Texas, Oklahoma St.
Big 10: Ohio St, Michigan St., Michigan
ACC: Florida St., Clemson, Virginia Tech
Pac-12: Stanford, Oregon, USC

along with a number of other teams who are consistently very good like Arkansas, Auburn, and South Carolina.

Arkansas is not consistently good.

Big 12 had/has: Missouri, Kansas State, TCU, Texas Tech
Big 10: Iowa, Nebraska, Wiscosin
ACC: Miami, Georgia Tech
Pac-12: Arizona St.

Texas A&M came in with a Heisman level quarterback, a great offensive line, and one of the most talented wide receivers out there.

Yup, before they joined the SEC.

I'm a huge Mizzou fan too, and I'm thrilled with how well they've taken to the conference. They certainly have a lot of talent. Dorial Green Beckham is said to have the most potential at Wide Receiver since Randy Moss. Still, they didn't have to face Alabama or LSU this year and beat Florida and Georgia when they were severely depleted.

Personal pet peeve...Missouri was severely depleted last year and didn't have James Franklin for the end of the Georgia game and he was out for four games after that (including Florida).

Their best conference win was against no defense A&M. I'm glad they've done so well in their new conference, and Pinkel has always been a good recruiter but I'm concerned how they'll be next year and beyond.

The point is both A&M and Mizzou, two Big 12 teams, have come into the SEC and been at the top of their conference divisions. This makes it hard for me to buy the "SEC are (not quite) gods" argument.

Bowl Games in isolation aren't always the best indicators of a team's or a conference's quality, but when taken as a whole with a large sample size, it becomes a fairly good indication.

I disagree. How many were home games? How many were in cold weather? How many were against power conference teams? How many were against much lower ranked opponents? That goes for all conferences.

But for the sake of the argument overall record vs other conferences this millennium then?

SEC vs ACC 70-44
SEC vs Big 10 31-21
SEC vs Pac 12 14-13
SEC vs Big 12 28-19

See above.

 

[Anagram]

Big 12: Oklahoma, Texas, Oklahoma St.
Big 10: Ohio St, Michigan St., Michigan
ACC: Florida St., Clemson, Virginia Tech
Pac-12: Stanford, Oregon, USC

I wouldn't count Michigan, Michigan St., Clemson, Oklahoma St. or Stanford as consistently great teams.

Michigan's been pretty good consistently, but not great. Only 3 double digit win seasons in the last decade. Six seasons with 5 or more losses.

Michigan St. Has been thoroughly mediocre or worse this decade outside of three seasons.

Clemson has been great these last three years, but not so much before that.

Oklahoma St. only has 3 ten win seasons in the last decade.

All of them have been consistently good over the last decade, except Michigan St., but none are consistently great.

Stanford has been good since Harbaugh's last season. Before that though, not very good at all.

Arkansas is not consistently good.

Six eight plus win seasons in the last decade. A few double digit win seasons. Certainly not very good in the last two seasons though, I'll give you that.

Big 12 had/has: Missouri, Kansas State, TCU, Texas Tech
Big 10: Iowa, Nebraska, Wiscosin
ACC: Miami, Georgia Tech
Pac-12: Arizona St.

TCU has been 7-6 and 4-8 actually in the Big 12. But true, before that they were a very good team in the Mountain West.

Kansas St. in the last decade only has three seasons of eight wins or more, the last three, along with only four bowls and one bowl win. That doesn't seem consistently good.

Arizona St. had 7 or less wins seven times in the last decade, hardly consistently good.

Miami did have a really great run at the turn of the millennium, but in the last decade they have been mediocre at best.

On the other hand the SEC has:

Alabama: 7 double digit win seasons in last decade. 5 BCS bowl games. 3 National Championships.
LSU: Eight double digit win seasons. 4 BCS bowl games. 2 national championships.
Florida: Just three double digit win seasons, but 2 national championships.
Georgia: 7 double digit win seasons and a BCS bowl.
Auburn: 3 double digit win seasons. 3 BCS Bowl games. A national championship. Bowl games every season but 2.
South Carolina: 3 double digit win seasons. Eight bowl games.
Kentucky's made bowl games half the time. Vanderbilt's finished ranked the last few years. Tennessee had a nice run at the back half of the last decade.

No other conference has had that type of depth consistently.

Yup, before they joined the SEC.

Yes. A&M had a very good program before they joined the SEC and had it continue the last two years in their new conference.

Personal pet peeve...Missouri was severely depleted last year and didn't have James Franklin for the end of the Georgia game and he was out for four games after that (including Florida).

True. But Maty Mauk came in and was as good as or better than Franklin in each of the games he missed. I'm super excited to have him on the team the next three years.

The point is both A&M and Mizzou, two Big 12 teams, have come into the SEC and been at the top of their conference divisions. This makes it hard for me to buy the "SEC are (not quite) gods" argument.

It shouldn't. Two good teams coming in and doing well shouldn't be surprising. The point is that the SEC has a greater quantity of good or great teams than any other conference. They have had this consistently almost every year in the 2000s.

I disagree. How many were home games? How many were in cold weather? How many were against power conference teams? How many were against much lower ranked opponents? That goes for all conferences.

I disagree. When the sample size grows, those factors tend to balance each other out.

See above.

See above.

The fact is the SEC just has the most talent. Probably since a disproportionate amount of football talent comes from the Southeastern United States.

Just look at the last few NFL drafts.

2013: ACC-31, Big 12-22, Big East-19, Big 10-22, Pac 12-27, SEC-63.
2012: ACC-31, Big 12-24, Big East-12, Big 10-40, Pac 12-27, SEC-42.
2011: ACC-35, Big 12-29, Big East-21, Big 10-29, Pac 12-30, SEC-38.
2010: ACC-26, Big 12-31, Big East-17, Big 10-33, Pac 12-27, SEC-48.
2009: ACC-33, Big 12-26, Big East-26, Big 10-27, Pac 12-31, SEC-36.
2008: ACC-32, Big 12-28, Big East-18, Big 10-27, Pac 12-33, SEC-35.
2007: ACC-30, Big 12-27, Big East-16, Big 10-31, Pac 12-27, SEC-41.
Total in past 7 drafts: ACC-218, Big 12-197, Big East-129, Big 10-208, Pac 12-202, SEC-303.

Presumably the SEC's talent dominance continues back farther than that, but I got tired of adding them up every draft.

 

[roughdraft274]

By the way, who roots for a conference anyways?.

Who roots against a conference anyways? I'm not the one that created a thread about it...

But I root for the SEC because if my team doesn't win the championship then I'd much rather it be a team that we play. If my team is beat I'd much rather loss to the #1 team not the #2 team. Not that I physically root for the SEC like I do LSU, but at the end of the day, if they are playing another conference, I want them to win.

 

[Slyfox696]

I wouldn't count Michigan, Michigan St., Clemson, Oklahoma St. or Stanford as consistently great teams.

If you count LSU and Florida as consistently great, why not?

All of them have been consistently good over the last decade, except Michigan St., but none are consistently great.

I argue the same about LSU and Florida. I don't think I have to explain Florida and I'm not blinded to the incredibly weak out of conference schedule played by most of the SEC, including LSU.

Additionally, I'm not sure a decade is a long enough time to call "consistently great". But even if it is, there haven't really been any consistently great teams over the course of the past decade. I'd say Ohio State is the closest and Oregon is up there as well. Obviously Alabama under Saban has been very good. USC, LSU, Oklahoma have all had good rankings in the last ten years, but I don't think either LSU or Oklahoma have ever been consistently one of the top teams in the country.

Six eight plus win seasons in the last decade. A few double digit win seasons. Certainly not very good in the last two seasons though, I'll give you that.

But look who they play. It's a who's who of...who? Take 2011, for example. Arkansas was OBVIOUSLY vastly overrated, as evidenced by the beatdowns they received from both LSU and Alabama, who actually were good teams. And then look at their schedule...Missouri State was a FCS school, New Mexico went 1-11. Troy was 3-9...and those were the first three games they played. They were then destroyed by Alabama, beat a .500 team in Texas A&M, beat an average Auburn team (the year after the NC), and beat a 2 win Ole Miss. The next part of their schedule was a .500 Vanderbilt, a South Carolina team with an artificially inflated record, a 5 win Tennessee team and a .500 Miss State team before getting shelled against LSU.

That was Arkansas schedule. They weren't a great team, they were a team with a padded record. That's what the SEC has done for years now. I wouldn't be surprised if UL-Monroe and Louisiania Lafeyyete haven't played more out of conference SEC teams than any of the power conferences. Was it two or three years ago when Alabama played Georgia State towards the end of the year?

The SEC has benefitted from media bias. Preseason polls rank them high, they beat a bunch of nobodies in non-conference and then this creates the illustion of a great conference.

Alabama: 7 double digit win seasons in last decade. 5 BCS bowl games. 3 National Championships.
LSU: Eight double digit win seasons. 4 BCS bowl games. 2 national championships.
Florida: Just three double digit win seasons, but 2 national championships.

You already used these three before, you can't use them again.

Georgia: 7 double digit win seasons and a BCS bowl.

A very solid team for a very long time. No disputes.

Auburn: 3 double digit win seasons. 3 BCS Bowl games. A national championship. Bowl games every season but 2.

A shady national championship (Cam's recruitment) and a season full of miracle wins have inflated this.

South Carolina: 3 double digit win seasons. Eight bowl games.

A good team, I agree.

Kentucky's made bowl games half the time. Vanderbilt's finished ranked the last few years. Tennessee had a nice run at the back half of the last decade.

No...just no. Kentucky is terrible, Vanderbilt is average and Tennessee hasn't been relevant in years.

No other conference has had that type of depth consistently.

Every conference has that kind of depth.

I have to go now, but I'll finish responding later.

 

[Slyfox696]

Yes. A&M had a very good program before they joined the SEC and had it continue the last two years in their new conference.

If the SEC was so much better than the other conferences, as it is claimed, then A&M shouldn't have had so much success so fast.

True. But Maty Mauk came in and was as good as or better than Franklin in each of the games he missed. I'm super excited to have him on the team the next three years.

We beat South Carolina with Franklin. There's not a doubt in my mind. But I'm also looking forward to Mauk.

It shouldn't. Two good teams coming in and doing well shouldn't be surprising.

I agree, but it DOES kill the SEC argument that it's the best conference by far.

The point is that the SEC has a greater quantity of good or great teams than any other conference. They have had this consistently almost every year in the 2000s.

But they really don't. As I said in the first half of my response to you, the SEC has more overrated teams than any other conference.

I disagree. When the sample size grows, those factors tend to balance each other out.

But they don't. For example, name me the BCS game played in cold weather. You can't, because it doesn't happen.

The fact is the SEC just has the most talent.

If talent meant quality, Kentucky wouldn't have been out in the first round of the NIT last year.

Probably since a disproportionate amount of football talent comes from the Southeastern United States.

Just look at the last few NFL drafts.

2013: ACC-31, Big 12-22, Big East-19, Big 10-22, Pac 12-27, SEC-63.
2012: ACC-31, Big 12-24, Big East-12, Big 10-40, Pac 12-27, SEC-42.
2011: ACC-35, Big 12-29, Big East-21, Big 10-29, Pac 12-30, SEC-38.
2010: ACC-26, Big 12-31, Big East-17, Big 10-33, Pac 12-27, SEC-48.
2009: ACC-33, Big 12-26, Big East-26, Big 10-27, Pac 12-31, SEC-36.
2008: ACC-32, Big 12-28, Big East-18, Big 10-27, Pac 12-33, SEC-35.
2007: ACC-30, Big 12-27, Big East-16, Big 10-31, Pac 12-27, SEC-41.
Total in past 7 drafts: ACC-218, Big 12-197, Big East-129, Big 10-208, Pac 12-202, SEC-303.

Presumably the SEC's talent dominance continues back farther than that, but I got tired of adding them up every draft.

But we're not talking draft picks, we're talking team quality. Stanford has had 1 Top 10 recruiting class in the last 6 years, but have been to the Rose Bowl the past two years. Compare that to Texas who had the 7th best recruiting class in 2009, the 3rd best in 2010 and 2011 and the #1 class in 2012 and just fired their long-time coach after an 8-4 season.

I'm not interested in circular logic, "the SEC is great because they have great teams, and we know they have great teams because they play in a great conference". And draft picks/talent are not directly proportional to success.

Is the SEC one of the best conferences in football? Obviously. Have they been the best conference some years? Sure. Are they hands down the undisputed king of college football like is claimed? Not even close. At the end of the day, sports media (and I speak mostly of ESPN who has a significant financial interest in the SEC, a very lucrative conference) makes the SEC out to be as good as any NFL division and it's simply not true. FSU, after shaking off the obvious rust of the 1st half, pretty much did to Auburn what people thought they would, finishing the game at a score of 31-10 (last minute of 1st half and 2nd half). Oklahoma whipped Alabama up and down the field all night long, even if the score was closer than the game actually was. The SEC's biggest bowl wins came from Texas A&M and Missouri, two teams recently acquired from the Big 12. South Carolina beat a Wisconsin team whose starting quarterback left the game with an injury, LSU squeaked by an Iowa team no one thought much of, Georgia lost to Nebraska (minus Aaron Murray, a huge loss no doubt) and the other SEC bowl teams had no wins worth mentioning (Rice, Ga. Tech and Houston).

The SEC is not as great as people try to claim. It's a good conference, no doubt, but it's not untouchable like they are portrayed.

Who roots against a conference anyways?

No idea, I know I don't.

I'm not the one that created a thread about it...

The thread was to SEC fans, not against the SEC.

But I root for the SEC because if my team doesn't win the championship then I'd much rather it be a team that we play.

Why? I would NEVER want Michigan or USC to win anything as a Notre Dame fan. And, as a Mizzou fan, if Kansas were to lose every game, that would make me happy as a pig in slop. If any other team wins, then...whatever. Hell, I couldn't bring myself to root for Michigan this year, even though a Michigan win against Ohio State would have given Mizzou a chance at the national title!

It just astounds me how people are conference fans instead of team fans, at least when it comes to the SEC.

 

[roughdraft274]

Why? I would NEVER want Michigan or USC to win anything as a Notre Dame fan.

That's just idiotic to me. You'd rather be known as the team that lost to a team that isn't any good rather than a team that lost to a really good team?

I mean, if you're a notre dame fan then I understand it, you probably have forgotten what it feels like to be cheering on a good team.

 

[Anagram]

If you count LSU and Florida as consistently great, why not?

Because LSU and Florida have been consistently better than any of them.

I argue the same about LSU and Florida. I don't think I have to explain Florida and I'm not blinded to the incredibly weak out of conference schedule played by most of the SEC, including LSU.

You're just wrong here. Look at the past few seasons and see that LSU has played a pretty strong non-conference schedule most of the time, almost always including a ranked team. Sure TCU turned out pretty bad this year, but people put them at #20 to start the season. They've played Oregon, North Carolina, Virginia Tech, and Arizona St all ranked in the top 15 in the last decade, and winning all of them. I'd especially look at the 41 point beatdown of #9 Virginia Tech who went on to a BCS bowl game.

Additionally, I'm not sure a decade is a long enough time to call "consistently great". But even if it is, there haven't really been any consistently great teams over the course of the past decade. I'd say Ohio State is the closest and Oregon is up there as well. Obviously Alabama under Saban has been very good. USC, LSU, Oklahoma have all had good rankings in the last ten years, but I don't think either LSU or Oklahoma have ever been consistently one of the top teams in the country.

The last ten years is all I'm talking about because I'm arguing that the SEC's media bias has been mostly deserved. Since the bias has mostly come up during their championship streak that would be the time to focus on.

LSU's been to three national championships, four national BCS bowl games, and has finished ranked every year in the last decade but 2008. In which year, they ended by beating #14 Georgia Tech by 35 points in Georgia. I'd say that's being consistently one of the best teams in the country.

But look who they play. It's a who's who of...who? Take 2011, for example. Arkansas was OBVIOUSLY vastly overrated, as evidenced by the beatdowns they received from both LSU and Alabama, who actually were good teams. And then look at their schedule...Missouri State was a FCS school, New Mexico went 1-11. Troy was 3-9...and those were the first three games they played. They were then destroyed by Alabama, beat a .500 team in Texas A&M, beat an average Auburn team (the year after the NC), and beat a 2 win Ole Miss. The next part of their schedule was a .500 Vanderbilt, a South Carolina team with an artificially inflated record, a 5 win Tennessee team and a .500 Miss State team before getting shelled against LSU.

I'd say Arkansas was not vastly overrated that year. Yes, they lost badly to the two national title teams, but they beat everyone else, and handily beat a top 10 Kansas St. team on a neutral site in their bowl game. I don't see why you get to just say that every SEC team has their wins inflated.

That was Arkansas schedule. They weren't a great team, they were a team with a padded record. That's what the SEC has done for years now. I wouldn't be surprised if UL-Monroe and Louisiania Lafeyyete haven't played more out of conference SEC teams than any of the power conferences. Was it two or three years ago when Alabama played Georgia State towards the end of the year?

They don't schedule any worse than other conferences. While LSU, Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, and Georgia were playing TCU, Michigan, Florida St., and Clemson (all ranked), Ohio St. had their best non-conference game being Cal at home, Oregon's Tennessee at home, Stanford's Notre Dame at home, Oklahoma St.'s Mississippi St. at a neutral site, Baylor's being Wofford, and Michigan St.'s being Notre Dame.

The SEC has benefitted from media bias. Preseason polls rank them high, they beat a bunch of nobodies in non-conference and then this creates the illustion of a great conference.

The polls are an illusion. The wins are illusions. Their records against other conferences are illusions. The bowl games are illusions. The NFL caliber talent is an illusion.

Every conference has that kind of depth.

No.
Which college football conference is really the best top to bottom? - SBNation.com

 

[Rocketman]

In addition, as a current resident of Alabama, I can't wait to get a shirt that acknowledges a non-Alabama, non-SEC team winning it all.

Wow, enjoy your moment every 8-9 years:lamo

 

[Slyfox696]

That's just idiotic to me. You'd rather be known as the team that lost to a team that isn't any good rather than a team that lost to a really good team?

You obviously don't understand the concept of rivalries.

I mean, if you're a notre dame fan then I understand it, you probably have forgotten what it feels like to be cheering on a good team.

Yeah, if only we had had a good season recently...

 

[Anagram]

That's just idiotic to me. You'd rather be known as the team that lost to a team that isn't any good rather than a team that lost to a really good team?

I mean, if you're a notre dame fan then I understand it, you probably have forgotten what it feels like to be cheering on a good team.

I agree with him. I'd rather be known as the team who lost to Kansas even if they were 1-11 than one of the teams who lost to Kansas on the way to an undefeated season. That is if we lived in some bizzaro world where Mizzou losing to Kansas was possible.

 

[roughdraft274]

You obviously don't understand the concept of rivalries.

Yea, rivalry means that when your team plays that team, you want yours to win. It doesn't mean that you want them to become a ****ty team. It's the same for a team that your team beat. Wouldn't you want them to go on and have a good season so that when you say you beat them it actually looks like an accomplishment? I want my team to be known for playing quality opponents so that we get better rankings, better bowl games and better recruits. That's more important to me than being able to say "well we lost to them but at least they aren't any good!"

Yeah, if only we had had a good season recently...

A lucky season doesn't denote a good team...

 

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

If the SEC was so much better than the other conferences, as it is claimed, then A&M shouldn't have had so much success so fast.

Illogical contention.

We beat South Carolina with Franklin. There's not a doubt in my mind. But I'm also looking forward to Mauk.

That's funny. You related to Gipper? If Mizzou is so good then why were they trounced by Auburn in the SEC championship game? They gave up 545 yards rushing, 450 before contact. That means they were being blown off the line of scrimmage.The same defense that allowed 120 ypg rushing all season.

I agree, but it DOES kill the SEC argument that it's the best conference by far.

.
You deny stats and facts just like all the other naysayers.

But they really don't. As I said in the first half of my response to you, the SEC has more overrated teams than any other conference.

Opinion is not fact.

But they don't. For example, name me the BCS game played in cold weather. You can't, because it doesn't happen.

So? The game isn't about playing against the elements. Its about who the best team is, period. Want to see teams playing against the elements then mabey you should watch an outdoor ice hockey game.

But we're not talking draft picks, we're talking team quality. Stanford has had 1 Top 10 recruiting class in the last 6 years, but have been to the Rose Bowl the past two years. Compare that to Texas who had the 7th best recruiting class in 2009, the 3rd best in 2010 and 2011 and the #1 class in 2012 and just fired their long-time coach after an 8-4 season.

I thought the discussion was about the best conference? The best conference has the best players, as measured in part by who is chosen in the NFL draft.

I'm not interested in circular logic, "the SEC is great because they have great teams, and we know they have great teams because they play in a great conference". And draft picks/talent are not directly proportional to success.

Yes, draft picks are an indicator of conference strength. Would you rather watch South Alabama play U.T. San Antonio or LSU play Georgia?

Is the SEC one of the best conferences in football? Obviously. Have they been the best conference some years? Sure. Are they hands down the undisputed king of college football like is claimed? Not even close. At the end of the day, sports media (and I speak mostly of ESPN who has a significant financial interest in the SEC, a very lucrative conference) makes the SEC out to be as good as any NFL division and it's simply not true. FSU, after shaking off the obvious rust of the 1st half, pretty much did to Auburn what people thought they would, finishing the game at a score of 31-10 (last minute of 1st half and 2nd half). Oklahoma whipped Alabama up and down the field all night long, even if the score was closer than the game actually was. The SEC's biggest bowl wins came from Texas A&M and Missouri, two teams recently acquired from the Big 12. South Carolina beat a Wisconsin team whose starting quarterback left the game with an injury, LSU squeaked by an Iowa team no one thought much of, Georgia lost to Nebraska (minus Aaron Murray, a huge loss no doubt) and the other SEC bowl teams had no wins worth mentioning (Rice, Ga. Tech and Houston).

The SEC is not as great as people try to claim. It's a good conference, no doubt, but it's not untouchable like they are portrayed.

FSU shaking off the rust? Its more like they were getting their butts kicked. Using your logic then Auburn beat FSU 21-10 in the first half while sacking the Heisman trophy winner at least 4 times. Some here including you imply Auburn was blown out but in case you didn't watch the game they took the lead with just over a minute to play and they lost by 3 points.


2013-14 Conference Bowl Records

Sun Belt
2-0
Southeastern
7-3
Pac-12
6-3
Independents
2-1
Big 12
3-3
Conference USA
3-3
Mountain West
3-3
Atlantic Coast
5-6
American Ath.
2-3
Big Ten
2-5
Mid-American
0-5

2013-14 Conference Bowl Records | Fox News

Look at those cold weather teams the BIg 10 and MAC, they really sucked this past bowl season.

It just astounds me how people are conference fans instead of team fans, at least when it comes to the SEC.

What astounds me is the people who deny the statistics and facts that prove the SEC is the best conference in College football during the BCS era.