- B/R Ticket Guide
Beyond the Hype: Judging the Pac-10 and SEC
Today's Must Reads
This article has been deleted at the request of the author.
Sports
2091 views
comments (72) write a comment »
write a new comment
about 1 year ago
More ranked teams than any other conference all-time.More bowl wins than any other conference all-time.A lead over every conference in head to head bowl matchups. The SEC has NOTHING to prove to anybody from the Pac-Ten.I heard and read this same garbage last year and what happened? The Pac-Ten fell on their faces during the bowls while the SEC won six bowl games....a record for any conference.
Keep up that California dreaming.
about 1 year ago
Actually, I'm from Oregon and the actual numbers don't back up your hype. Keep up that self-fulfilling prophecy about your mighty SEC because it is running about average, just like every season. Kind of like the SEC falling on their face in 2005.
5-5 versus-BCS teams with your best BCS victory over a highly over-rated Virginia Tech team, who is also one of the original founding members of the CFA. Much ado about nothing.
about 1 year ago
And actually the Big-East, another conference you rebuke as weak, won the bowl cup last year as they either went 5-0 or 5-1 I can't remember. I believe I've covered why the SEC, Big-12 teams and the ACC can lay claim to going to more bowl games than any other and it is simply because for nearly 20 years, the Big-10 and PAC-10 only sent their conference champion to the Rose Bowl. Next time pick up a history book a do a little reading before popping off.
about 1 year ago
As far as the PAC-10 and SEC comparison, that was not the original intent of this article, but it was edited by the editors on this site and heading was changed. I actually plan to review every BCS and Non-BCS Conference by the end of the week if my time schedule allows.
about 1 year ago
I agree that the SEC's "dirty little secret" is that they usually tend to play weaker than average teams for their non-conference games. There's no question that you're right on that one, Ben.
Can you blame them though?
Look at South Carolina. They live in a conference that beats itself up. The Gamecocks have to play at least 3 top 25 teams a year (just from the SEC East), not to mention whoever seems to fall on their schedule from the SEC West. You can usually bank on Florida, Georgia, and Tennessee to be decent (at the very least). Even now, you have Kentucky and Vanderbilt continuing to improve from year to year. Throw in at least one more decent team from the SEC West (LSU) and you have yourself a tough schedule - after only looking at 4 or 5 games. SC even still has/had Mississippi State and Arkansas on their schedule from the SEC West. All be it these two schools may be a little "down" as far as the SEC goes, they are still not pushovers, I think we should all at least consider that to be truth.
When you live in the SEC, as South Carolina does, there isn't any reason to attempt to schedule the best nonconference teams you can conjur up. Why would you want to when you already have 5 "big time" games on your schedule from inside your conference? What most SEC schools will do will be to schedule one good nonconference game (Cal for Tennessee/ West Virginia for MSU), then have "pushovers" as the other 3 games. If not, they will most likely try to schedule weaker/average schools from the big conferences like North Carolina or Clemson from the ACC (as South Carolina did).
Even though their non-conference games may be weaker in comparison to the rest of the country, I'm pretty sure we can all agree that the SEC is *clearly* the best conference top to bottom. They may not hold the best team year in and year out. They may not play the most dynamic football year in and year out. But certainly they play the in the toughest conference to survive in. I'm not sure there are any coaches out there who would like to place their team into that kind of atmosphere. Why would a Big 12 or ACC team want to leave their cozy conference to play in a conference where you can literally lose any weekend?
Even though I'm from the South, I liked this article because it is the truth. Ben did a great job of presenting facts until the bottom fifth of the article. I disagree with the Overhyped and Overrated part, but that's his opinion. Yes, the SEC gets a lot of play in the media. But 11/12 of these teams are legitimate potential bowl teams(I'm leaving out Ole Miss). That's something that no other conference can argue. Think about it - put Vandy or Mississippi State in the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, or ACC and they should be able to get into a bowl. If they are both .500 right now standing in the SEC, one would think they could take advantage of the Minnesota's and Duke's of the world.
Oregon/USC/ Arizona State, Ohio State, and Oklahoma may very well be able to beat LSU in a head to head contest. Who knows? But then again, all of those teams listed don't have to survive the weekly conference competition as LSU and the SEC does.
about 1 year ago
The best line has to be the "I thought Lou Holtz was going to swallow his tongue..." - priceless. The Big East went 5-0 last year I do believe? Great call on educating the masses on the Pac-10/ Big-10s "win the conference and go to the Rose Bowl or BUST" ways of old, there is a reason the Rose Bowl was/still is/will forever be The Granddaddy of Them All.
from about 1 year ago
The actual comment was I thought Lou Holtz was going to swallow his tongue last night as his raving commentary regarding the balance and strength of the SEC was almost orgasmic. This was edited out.
about 1 year ago
"LSU, for its part, has faced three legit foes Kentucky, Florida, and Auburn. They struggled to get two wins against them."
So when LSU played South Carolina a few weeks ago, SC was not a "legit foe"?
They played at Death Valley AT NIGHT and LSU won by single digits.
Anytime someone deliberately ignores the truth, their motive becomes suspect.
There are four (4)...count them...National Championship coaches in the SEC...three (3) are in the SEC East...no other conference in the nation matches that record. Incidently, one of the NC coaches is Steve Spurier at South Carolina, the non-legit team that almost beat LSU at home.
Ask OSU just how good the SEC is...or Clemson...or Virginia Tech...or, the list goes on...
from about 1 year ago
Anytime someone deliberately ignores the truth, their motive becomes suspect.
There are four (4)...count them...National Championship coaches in the SEC...three (3) are in the SEC East...no other conference in the nation matches that record. Incidently, one of the NC coaches is Steve Spurier at South Carolina, the non-legit team that almost beat LSU at home.
I believe this was your comment above. The PAC-10 has two national championship coaches in Erickson and Carroll and you could even stretch Bellotti into that scenario since his 2002 team was vetoed from the opportunity due to a bunch of CFA cronies.
The problem is, I can't remember the last time I've seen any of these coaches making a play in the game. What the hell does that comment have to do with anything involving the teams this year? The game is about the players. And that same Saban was at Michigan State when his Spartans came into Autzen stadium and got their ass kicked 48-14 by Akili Smith. Coaches are not Messiah's. Hell, Saban got beat by Florida State this season and barely beat Houston by 8. I don't think they are setting the world on fire.
I think you will see that South Carolina is one of those four teams who is a play or two, maybe even an injury or two from having a special season. They are not a legit national championship contender like LSU, and If I recollect, LSU had major injury problems, not to mention foul weather, when they played. I like South Carolina, but the inconsistencies of offense are a stretch to be included in the Top-10. I believe they are a year away from truly contending for the conference and national championship. And this example just shows that LSU isn't all its made out to be. Let's let the season play out before we classify teams into elite status for THIS CURRENT SEASON shall we. I could be just a wrong as you are at this point.
Personally, I think if you put Oregon's offense with South Carolina's defense...wow, that's a whale of a club. And this scenario is an example of why I am not thrilled with Ohio State, but then again I wasn't thrilled with Florida last year about this time either.
from about 1 year ago
If Bellotti counts for 2002, then Tuberville counts for 2004. They cancel each other out.
about 1 year ago
Robert, you left out the part where you don't play every team in your league and to include Vandy in the upper echelon of college football is a huge stretch...one good game upset over a suspect South Carolina team doesn't exactly strike me as a great accomplishment. I gave it about the same type of reaction I did when Oregon State beat California or when Stanford beat USC (and yes, I think USC was a bit over-rated as well, but then again, they are a CFA team). When you turn the ball over 5 times, you should lose! Even if you're playing Northwestern, Duke, Stanford or Vandy. Vandy is much improved but to say they are on par with LSU, Florida, Kentucky, South Carolina or Georgia.
It's really hard for west coast enthusiasts to take Arkansas seriously. 70-14 and 50-14 pretty much sums up the strength of an Arkansas program who played in the SEC title game a year ago, especially when two teams in the PAC-10 beat USC last year.
If Vandy was as good as advertised they would be in a BCS bowl and if you look at Washington State, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington, Stanford and even California...they have a better bowl history and tradition than Vandy and have won major bowl games over traditional powers. You could say the same for Mississippi and Mississippi State. The problem many of the SEC homers make is they equate a teams history into their mindset of thinking those particular teams in this particular season are as strong as ever. Tennessee is running about equal to Michigan - they are both very average football teams this year and Michigan in particular is going to benefit from playing in an average conference this season.
I've said this many times throughout the BCS era. Every conference has two elite teams, 4 very good teams that are a play or two, and injury or two or a turnover or two from having a special season, 4 very average to poor teams, due to coaching turnover or graduation and two really awful programs due to a coach about to be fired or just poor tradition and commitment from the athletic department.
The SEC has six really good teams right now and its hard to tell which of these six will end up with the elite price tag by the end of the season. Like I stated above I did not intend for this to be a PAC-10 vs SEC comparison because I am tiring of this argument. The reason for this article was due to the Verne Lundquist comment (30-5 non-conference record) and the fact that you have to take what is said on television with a grain of salt because it is designed to sell and nothing sells hotter for the networks than SEC football. There are not too many people like me who spend about 16 hours a day during college football season devoted to college football. I love the SEC and the advantage to living on the West Coast is I get to watch all the games. Heck fire, the PAC-10 games don't even get started until the East Coast, Midwest and Big-12 games are over. My question is this...Do the fans from the Southeast and Midwest, including the East coast even watch the games or are they too drunk from tailgating to see what is actually taking place.
My good friend Spencer Graham, Now our West Coast cross checker for the Royals used to cover the Southeast. He had a hard time even getting a West Coast game on the air and the reality back there is that they think football doesn't even exist west of the Mississippi river. Yesterday, I watched the following games:
Ohio State -Michigan State
UCLA - California
Oregon - Washington
Oklahoma - Iowa State
Auburn - LSU
Kentucky - Florida
Michigan- Illinois
Notre Dame - USC
Virginia-Maryland
Penn State - Indiana
Not to mention watching
Rutgers - South Florida on Thursday and UCONN - Louisville on Friday
And I watched every pre-game show from Game day in the morning to the CBS kickoff show, to ESPN's hour long show where they cover and hours worth of action bouncing around to the updated best games of the day and finished the day with the final espn Game day show at 11 PM pacific. That's 16 hours of football. Now how many fans in SEC land actually watch that many games from around the country to actually see what is going on around the country, or are you completely passed out or asleep at 2AM Eastern?
from about 1 year ago
Yeah, I wasn't saying Vandy is as good as LSU, Florida, Kentucky...etc. But they *are* as good as advertised, which is 4-4. That's not amazing. That's not crappy. But that's bowl worthy at this point in the season. Consider that Vandy shouldve beaten Georgia (a team that you questioned whether Vandy was "on par" with), I would have to say Vanderbilt is one of those SEC teams that is good enough to beat those top tier SEC teams, just not consistently...not yet.
As far as watching how many hours of college football...I was able to watch a lot of games yesterday as well. I also was able to watch ESPN's final Gameday show. Luckily I caught the rerun of Kansas/Colorado and Maryland/Virginia early this morning (3am?).
Last night I was dying to see the Oregon/Washington game, but FSN decided to air some Ohio High School game instead. Why I would want to watch Ohio High school football is beyong me. I try to watch as much football as I possibly can. I'm not sure what your point was concerning the hours of football statement, but I'll take if for what it is.
I just think that many SEC fans are completely shut of to the rest of the country, and that's how they want it. Some of them refuse to go outside of their "comfort zone" and still think that Alabama is being coached by Coach Bryant and Auburn is coached by Coach Pat Dye. They don't want to watch USC or Cal, and want to continue to believe that every SEC team can beat any other team in the country. That thinking is based on their views on history. You are right about that. I was in a restaurant yesterday and heard some dumb Alabama fans at the bar trying to explain to some woman that the upcoming Alabama-LSU game should decide who the SEC champion will be. It's idiots like this that bring down the SEC's reputation of being complete football lovers rather than just loving just the Southern teams.
from about 1 year ago
I didn't say that Vandy was in the upper echelon of college football. And the while the Pac 10 does play every team in their league, they dont have a championship game.
SEC: 8 games + 1 "highlight game" against a top 2 team in the conference.
Pac 10: 9 games. Some hard, some decent, some average, and some absolutely pathetic.
Both champions of each conference play 9 conference games. The SEC champion will undisputably play a tougher conference schedule. That being said, that same SEC school almost always has a loss, while the Pac 10 champion has a more legit shot at running the table.
about 1 year ago
Ben, as far as scheduling is concerned, you aren't considering that SEC teams schedule with the conference championship in mind. The schedule alone is tough enough, but throw in a championship game and that 13 weeks of beatings you have to survive.
Take, for example Georgia's 2008 schedule which includes games with Tennessee, Florida, LSU, Auburn, Alabama, South Carolina, and Kentucky. That is 7 of the eight conference games. The other conference game being against a Vanderbilt team that has, in the last three years, beaten UGA, Tennessee and South Carolina and took last year's national champions to 2 OTs.
Then, add in a "weak" non-conference schedule with games against Arizona State, Georgia Tech (play them every year), and Central Michigan (2006 MAC Champions).
The remaining game is with Georgia Southern, an in-state school with many alumni ties. Georgia Southern is a traditional I-AA power and, since the games are scheduled years in advance, Georgia scheduled it knowing that it could be a potential App. State type game.
Having a Championship game in mind when you make your schedule changes your approach a little. With that kind of schedule, wouldn't it be nice to have a week were you hope to cruise to an easy win?
Versus BCS 6-4 for the Pac 10 and 5-5 for the SEC? Come on Ben, really? There are two decent wins there. Also, it looks like to me that the SEC, based on the five loses (Florida State, South Florida, Missouri, CAL, West Virginia) seems to show that the SEC isn't backing away from tough games. But lets look at those games...
Florida State v. Alabama - Fla. St. has an off week and plays Bama in "neutral" Jacksonville, Florida after Bama plays two gut-wrenching games back to back (Arkansas and Georgia).
Auburn v. South Florida - Auburn turns the ball over 5 times and loses in OT against mighty South Florida, enough said.
Missouri v. Ole Miss - Good win for a solid Missouri team. It was Ole Miss though.
Cal v. Tennessee - You got us there. Cal is better. Tennessee is unpredictable.
West Virginia v. Mississippi State - Its the worst school in Mississippi...Big win for WV against the SEC.
Thats it. I can't argue the SEC wins because none was all that great. And I will give give you the big wins over Tennessee and Michigan. But don't say that the SEC wont play tough non-conference games.
from about 1 year ago
Every example you just gave me can be used by every conference in America at every level, period. All the conference are running about average. Some are up one year and down the next. If Vandy beats South Carolina its the strength of the conference in the SEC. If Stanford or Oregon State beat USC its how shitty our conference is. Judas Priest fellas. If the SEC was so dominant you would dominate EVERY SINGLE NON CONFERENCE GAME and the fact is that you don't. You can't even win the bowl cup two seasons out of five. And yes, your BCS wins and losses are just about equal to ours in the PAC-10, not to mention the Big-East, ACC, Big-10 and Big-12.
about 1 year ago
We don't need a championship game because every team plays one another. The SEC Championship game had nothing to do with crowning a champion and every thing to do with making more money since its creation came when the college football market was near an all-time low. Think of it as a bear market situation. More proof that the SEC Championship game, or any other conference championship game for that matter, has nothing to do with crowning a champion is the fact that it doesn't even match-up the two best teams among the 12 in the conference. On most occasions, it simply matches up the best team from each division when in fact the two best teams may be lumped together within the same division.
Schedule Strength: As opposed to what USC's schedule the last several years. Last year alone they beat Nebraska (Big-12 runner up), Arkansas (SEC runner up), Notre Dame (BCS participant), not to mention Oregon, California, UCLA, Arizona State and Washington State - who all cannibalized themselves just like the SEC teams.
The game today is so much about turnovers which amplifies the parity in the game. It is truly an era where anything can happen on any given day, but in the poll system, which is amplified by the hype generated surrounding the CFA teams, anything doesn't happen. It only happens to the traditional powers, which is another factor in why the SEC is hyped so much. We have teams who created their identity when Bear Bryant, Vince Dooley and John Rodgers were walking the sideline. The game on the field opperates within the 85 scholarship era and the game off the field (the polling system) operates in an era built 25 years ago.
As far as the Georgia scenario: This is why they won't win the conference championship next year because another SEC power will only have to play about 4-5 tough games sandwiched around some DI-AA teams and they will most likely win it because they can stay healthy, which is why the PAC-10 teams don't look so good by the end of the season because they play nine conference (BCS) teams and at least 1 BCS non-conference team, and due to geography we usually have to play a solid non-BCS team like Utah, BYU, Fresno State, Hawaii or Boise State, not to mention Houston, UTEP or TCU.
I always get a kick out of SEC teams talking about how they had a hard time recovering from the beating they took last weekend (Kentucky-LSU or Auburn-LSU examples) when this is what PAC-10 teams have to go through every season. There is literally one weak game on the schedule every season, but it is also why we win more championships across the board in all sports that operate with a true playoff model because strength is forged with an iron hand and the only way to shape iron is with an intense fire. I know that is hypebole, but that is the reality of the situation in building a champion.
Oregon State baseball was the best in the country come crunch time last year because they played one of the Top schedule's in the country and they were battle tested by the end of the season, managing to stay healthy was of critical importance.
from about 1 year ago
You do need a championship game...everyone should have one. You yourself are the big "crown champions on the field" with your 32 game playoff system and book and all. Well, the SEC is in essence a playoff bracket. Round Robin play then a championship game.
What happens when there are 2, 3, or even 4 Pac 10 teams or Big Ten teams with identical records? No championship means leaving the dispute up to rankings, polls, and voters rather than letting the players leave it on the field.
Just seems a little contradicting.
The Big 12, ACC, and SEC all have a championship game at a neutral site. The Big East, Big Ten, and Pac 10 need to follow suit if they want to be considered a true champion come season's end.
And just while you want to use the Oregon State baseball reference, let's throw Florida football in there as well - after all, we are talking about football. One loss against Florida against an Ohio State who was undefeated and didnt have to play a championship game in their conference. Florida dominated. Wanna know why? Because they were battle tested, just like your Oregon State baseball team.
from about 1 year ago
SEC teams talk about how they have a hard time recovering from the beating they took last weekend is b/c they pretty much take a beating every weekend. SEC is definatly the roughest and the toughest. Most PAC-10 teams make football look cute compared to SEC football. PAC-10 usually has one good team maybe two every year and that is it, where as the SEC has many. That's why you only talked about USC's strength of schedule last year. You picked the PAC-10's best team and your comparing them to the average SEC team. When USC played Arkansas (SEC RunnerUp) McFadden(Heisman RunnerUp) was hurt. When they played Notre Dame (BCS Participant), yall got a break with a long pass play and won the game at the last second. And what exactly did LSU (Third in the SEC) do to Notre Dame when they played in the BCS bowl? Yea, It was ugly for the fighting Irish. The rest of the teams you named weren't about anything last year. SEC may not have the best team every year but they are the best conference every year.
How are you gonna say that the SEC is overrated and overhyped and yet you said that the Mountain West can compete with the Pac-10? Your just in love with west coast football. Sorry but the SEC is the best.
from about 1 year ago
Brett, because Utah (they were so bad Florida raced to hire their coach) and Boise State have both won BCS Bowl games and BYU was a national champ in the past. The Mountain West is a solid conference that is on par with the other BCS Conferences. How about Wyoming over Virginia (who is at or near the top of the ACC). Boise State is from the WAC and along with Fresno State and Hawaii can beat anyone. Ask Alabama, you barely beat Hawaii last year, by 8 I believe. There are 5 very good teams in the Mountain West and three very good teams in the WAC. If they combined conferences like I've recommended in my playoff proposal on the National Expansion Movement, it would be legit!
about 1 year ago
Last night I was dying to see the Oregon/Washington game, but FSN decided to air some Ohio High School game instead. Why I would want to watch Ohio High school football is beyong me. I try to watch as much football as I possibly can. I'm not sure what your point was concerning the hours of football statement, but I'll take if for what it is.
I just think that many SEC fans are completely shut of to the rest of the country, and that's how they want it. Some of them refuse to go outside of their "comfort zone" and still think that Alabama is being coached by Coach Bryant and Auburn is coached by Coach Pat Dye. They don't want to watch USC or Cal, and want to continue to believe that every SEC team can beat any other team in the country. That thinking is based on their views on history. You are right about that. I was in a restaurant yesterday and heard some dumb Alabama fans at the bar trying to explain to some woman that the upcoming Alabama-LSU game should decide who the SEC champion will be. It's idiots like this that bring down the SEC's reputation of being complete football lovers rather than just loving just the Southern teams.
This was Robert comment from above:
Do you think this is by design because the fact is that it is very much by design. Couple this mindset and media orchestration with the fact that 85 percent of the Harris Poll consists of voters who are connected to the South along with a College Football Association Coaching alliance that runs the coaches poll. If you've ever worked in a union, you know you don't cross it or you're career and reputation will be over. This is the whole basis of my book project, to bring this into the open so we can rethink how we should run this business because parity is going to continue to race forward and the controversy off the field is going to mask the beauty which is occurring on it.
And Robert the purpose of my comment regarding the amount of hours I spend watching college football, not just my own region, but all regions is so I don't make the same mistake many SEC fans make by being ignorant. We all want our chosen teams to win, but the beauty of competition is the excellence displayed within it, not the actual victor because champions are forgotten over time, but the life experiences last much longer. The comment wasn't made to make me sound like a know it all, it was made to demonstrate that games out here on the west coast 1) aren't on the air, and two even if they were, a large number of SEC fans wouldn't venture out of their comfort zone enough to watch it.
about 1 year ago
Robert,
USC won the championship because they beat California on the field. That is how tie breakers are broken down when there is a tie considering both teams finished at 7-2 in the conference. The difference is the SEC teams do not play every team so it is difficult to even compare this situation because its an apples to oranges conversation since we have 10 teams and you have 12. Using one paradigm to argue another is a little confusing to me.
My playoff model is an orchestrated attempt to solve this problem with the least amount of change. The true model to use is the NFL model, but it would destroy the defining aspects of college football, which is the tradition of the bowls, which is a great reward for the players since they are unpaid professionals. My playoff proposal rids us of this entire argument we are having right now because the focus would be on winning your division and working up the ladder from there without all the poll BS that is going on today. It actually encourages more inter division play through the four week brackets which would continue into bowl week. It also creates a true conference championship match-up for all conferences and then we would get to see the head-to-head match-ups with the heavy weights without any interceding accident of birth, coaching alliances, computer programs or smoke filled bowl room back door politics standing in the way of a team from earning their rightful place via the results on the field.
from about 1 year ago
I'm with you. A playoff system is the way to go.
As far as the conference championship question goes - the SEC teams don't have to play every team. Instead, they have to play every team in their division and 3 from the other division. Then, if you are the best in your division, you play the best from the other division. It fits the SEC well.
The Pac 10 might not like the championship game theory because they *do* have those bottom tier teams that are almost assuredly wins.
The SEC is a conference suited for survival. The Pac 10 is a conference suited for perfection. If the Pac 10 had 2 more teams and a conference championship game, they would eventually grow into a survival type conference - breeding even more parity.
Look at the Big Ten and pac 10 - two conferences that don't have the championship game. Both are top-heavy, and both have weak teams sitting at the bottom.
Now look at the Big 12 and the SEC. Each are a jumbled up mess of conference schedules. The SEC East is wide open with 5 teams tied with 2 conference losses and one with 3. Anyone can beat anyone, something that isn't likely said about the Pac10 and Big Ten.
about 1 year ago
Im not even gonna get into the SEC-PAC-10 argument cause i already know whos the best. I just wanted to comment on the watching football statement because I dont think yall understand football in the South. Im a Gator and truly offended someone would say we dont watch enough football. First off, Gameday starts at 10am and lasts til 12pm here. After that ESPN shows college football games normally teams from the Big 10, Big 12, or Big East. This is because its 9AM PACIFIC TIME there and yall dont play games that early, if yall want to play games that early we would be glad to watch you. Im not sure if you're aware of this, but ABC has rights to ACC, Big-10, and Big-12 games just as they do to PAC-10 games. So no matter what, if two games (example: one from the ACC and one from the Pac-10) are played at the same time ABC will show ACC since we are in that region. That means we'll get the occasional PAC-10 game on ABC only when they play an opponent from this region (example: tenn. @ cal) or a very important game to everyone (example: usc @ucla last year). CBS has rights to all SEC games and only plays SEC games. The reason yall always see our 3:30 game. And everyone knows NBC has a contract only with Notre Dame. ESPN has second choice to all these tv networks and plays games that have to deal with this region or the region unless its the 8:00 game (which normally turns out to be an SEC game anyway). By the time the 8pm game is over its about midnight. Then Gameday Final is shown. This is why you can watch games from around the nation and on the east coast we cant. Not to mention, yall have basically 10 big school teams to account for the whole west coast while we have about 30+ over here in the east. Think about stuff before you criticize people about something.
about 1 year ago
I would also like to add the reason we got the USC @UCLA game was because we have conference championship games in the SEC. So no one else is playing on the east coast except for the teams in the championship.
about 1 year ago
Anybody with a college football pulse knows that SEC defenses havn't been as good this year as in years past. However, most SEC offenses have been a bit more diverse this year with a lot of veteran quarterbacks and big play running backs scattered throughout the conference.
Mostly though, the big play pass rushers and secondaries have graduated or left early to the NFL. Most SEC offensive lines are experienced so offenses can produce a lot of big plays.
With the exception of Florida with Tebow and Georgia with Stafford, a lot of good SEC quarterbacks will be graduating at the end of this season with LSU, South Carolina, Auburn, Alabama, and Tennessee all having to replace starting seniors. Don't be surprised if next season's SEC games are more power oriented and more defense oriented.
And what gives? I've always heard that SEC teams are overrated because their offenses are so stagnant. Now it's because the defenses are too weak?
And look at teams individually. Kentucky's defense is poor but their offense is dynamic. Ditto for Florida. South Carolina's defense is much more advanced than their offense. Same for Auburn. Arkansas is a flat out bad football team that does just enough to lose each game. They have the same feel to them as Ron Zook's Florida teams did.
Is it no surprise that games involving Florida and Kentucky have high scores, games involving South Carolina and Auburn have low scores, and a team like Arkansas will score a lot against Kentucky, but not a lot vs Auburn?
As for the SEC playing weak teams, it's not necessarily a dirty little secret. People all around the nation know that the SEC does have a generally weak non-conference schedule. But where is the Pac 10's flawless non-conference record?
Oregon is a better team than Michigan, just like LSU is a better team than Va Tech. Cal is a good Pac 10 team that has a good win over Tennessee. Syracuse, Notre Dame, Colorado, and Nebraska don't count for much right now.
Of course, neither do Ok State, North Carolina, and Louisville. But why are you asserting that the SEC is an inferior conference then?
4 of the 5 teams the SEC has lost to are Top 15 teams in my estimation. With what I've seen from the teams involved, only the Alabama loss is a real disappointment considering how Alabama and FSU have looked in their other games this year.
Also, the SEC doesn't have humbling losses to Notre Dame, Cincinnati, and three MWC schools that were huge underdogs against their Pac 10 opponents (I'm not surprised TCU beat Stanford though. That isn't an upset.).
And who has called LSU the "UNQUESTIONED" best team in the country right now? No team is the unquestioned best, and I have Oregon ahead of LSU in my poll anyway. Teams have to be looked at individually.
But that doesn't mean that the SEC is an inferior conference to the Pac 10 or any other conference. If the Pac 10 keeps up their high level of play for another year or two, they have a wonderful chance of possibly dethroning the SEC. They need to bring up the rear, and they desperately need UCLA and Oregon State to be more consistent. But the Pac 10 is having a great year and the teams in the Pac 10 are outstanding.
You're article just seems to be bitterness directed at the SEC hype machine. Look at the specifics of EACH team in both the Pac 10 and the SEC, and then make the "SEC is inferior" thesis. You'll have a difficult time trying to justify it.
from about 1 year ago
I don't believe I have said one time that the SEC is an inferior conference. I've simply stated that the continual hype machine behind the continual thought of the SEC as the best in the land doesn't match the statistics or the history of college football. You can check the stats yourself.
You guys can go research the stats yourself. I simply responded to some misguided statistics thrown out by Verne Lundquist, whose 30-5 non conference state sounds really really impressive, until you realize 25 of the 30 wins have come against division I-AA and the weaker sisters within the non-BCS Conferences. And within the 10 games they have played against the BCS conferences, they've only won five.
In the SEC, everyone can beat everyone and the talk around the country is centered on the strength of the conference. When everyone beats everyone in the PAC-10, or the Big-12, or the ACC or the Big-East they suck. This article was edited and changed to the current title. The original article gave very little mention to comparing conferences. And once again, the dial only spins one direction for the elite teams. It doesn't spin both directions for all teams, and until we reach that point where South Florida can lose by three and Oklahoma can lose by three and there is an equal drop in the polls, this system, like the hype machine drummed up by the SEC is a fraud.
The conference is running about average to every other conference in the country. I have no bitterness towards the SEC. What I have a little bitterness towards is the CFA alliance that continues to plague the game.
about 1 year ago
I would be willing to bet the points per game average has jumped virtually across the board - not just in the SEC - this year.
Anyone remember this little rule that allows for less touchbacks, and that said rule also allows for more kickoff returns and better field position?
Yes, thats right - I'm talking about the 5 yard difference on the kickoffs. With the rule change occuring this year, it's no secret that offensive numbers have been up. The rule has certainly changed the field position game. A ball that was kicked off last year that landed 3 yards deep in the end zone would result in an offense likely starting at the 20. That same kick this year would result in a return, likely with much better field position than the 20. The rule has produced a revolving door as well...less field to travel to score = more scoring. More scoring = more kickoffs. See where I'm headed.
Just my thoughts.
-R.
about 1 year ago
Say what you want now, all that matters is how it ends up. The SEC, by far, has the most balance per conference. It is very true that SEC teams generally play cupcakes when it comes to non-conference (Tennessee is exception). However, the overall toughness of the conference itself seems to make up for that since it never seems to make a bug difference in the final rankings (exception Auburn). I think the PAC 10, this year, may be the 2nd toughest conference.
This year it seems that there is more than one team (USC) who is capable of competing for a national C'ship (Cal for a while and Oregon). This year, the PAC-10 holds the conference matchup games 1-0 (Cal vs Tennessee). However, the only thing that will matter is who ends up in the finals. I would like to see either USC or Oregon vs. LSU.
According to this site, which seems to be a week behind still, the SEC has the overall top spot with the power ratings with the PAC-10 in third.
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:CEgII9wDQB4J:hometown.aol.com/hftaut/cfbpower.htm+conference+power+rankings%3B+college+football&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us
That is all probably going to change with South Carolina losing and Kentucky losing.
about 1 year ago
You are absolutely right Brett, Darren McFadden should have been responsible for 36 points all on his own. Do you think Arkansas is the only team in the country that lost a key player. Oregon has lost 6 in the last two weeks alone. USC is still 6-1 after losing 12 starters since the beginning of the season. You can't blame injuries because football is the ultimate team game. I believe I stated that in the LSU example with South Carolina this year. LSU was very banged up for that game and still won. If Arkansas was even close to the better team 1) they wouldn't have lost by 36 and 2) they would have won. Once again the dial spins in one direction in SEC land.
about 1 year ago
Thanks anonymous. The SEC by far has the most balance and they are so good they are 5 and 5 against big time opponents. Next question. And you forgot Arizona State and I believe their coach won a couple national titles as well.
about 1 year ago
Erick, take a trip back down memory lane...oh, say about two weeks ago here on The Bleacher Report as well as every network analyst on the air waves and the sound rising above all the noise was that LSU was clearly the best. I even said it myself, until the Tulane week, when they barely led at the half.
about 1 year ago
Pretty good article here at Dawgsports.com by T. Kyle King that we should all remember during the madness of pole positioning.
about 1 year ago
At that time, they were clearly the best. Then their defensive line started getting cocky and stopped playing at a high level, and Matt Flynn's injuries started limiting his effectiveness.
And in the Pac 10, it isn't just everyone beating everyone. It's an awful Notre Dame team and some plucky but inferior WAC teams beating UCLA and the bottom feeders.
from about 1 year ago
Erick - Don't let the fact that UCLA is a schizophrenic waste bring the rest of the Pac 10 down.
about 1 year ago
Yes, the LSU Tigers are unquestionably the best team in the nation! The talent possessed by this team is unparalleled, however the offensive and defensive, and even the wide receivers' coaches are probably the worst! The team has overcome incredible diversity to remain in the elite top 5. As for the PAC 10, if it weren't for Pete Carroll, nobody would know the conference existed! As for strength of schedule, 9. Va.Tech(a rout!), Florida, South Carolina, Auburn, soon rival Alabama-not to mention the game that normally hosts two teams that are both capable of winning the National Championship, the SEC championship game! I mean are you really going to tell me you would bet me Arizona State could play on the same field as LSU or Florida, please do not kid yourself! NONE of the stronger PAC 10 teams this year have ever even come close to playing a Defense as good as LSU's, not to mention some of the other teams in the SEC!!! You should probably argue for the Big 12 or Big 10 instead!
about 1 year ago
It's called turnovers guys. When you turn it over 5 times you should lose and it doesn't matter who you play. Let the excuses roll SEC fans, let em roll. The unquestioned best team damn near lost three in a row.
about 1 year ago
This debate is silly. The SEC & PAC-10 are both loaded with good teams, but the SEC is more balanced.
Throw out all of the stats you want, but the proper way to measure success in college football is winning championships, and in this category, the SEC is a clear victor.
Count up the championships over the last 20 years and you see the Pac-10 has two teams (Washington, USC) that have won a national title and the SEC has four (Alabama, Florida, Tennessee, LSU). If I was biased, I could even throw in Auburn's 2004 season.
about 1 year ago
Well as long as we are throwing in teams, you could include Washington in 2001, since they beat Miami, who beat Florida State that year and you could have included Oregon in 2002 since they were much better than Nebraska. I don't tend to throw out national championships into this argument because the championship is perhaps just as fictional now as it ever has been. By the way, the all time series between the SEC and PAC--10 is 10-10, but I'm sorry real stats are ridiculous in this silly argument.
about 1 year ago
Err Ben that stat is misleading, that is from 1990 onward. Adding in the recent stuff the actual stat comes to 59-37-5 with the SEC in the lead. So while your stats are real....that isn't the "all time" record.
about 1 year ago
We are talking 85 scholarship era baby.
about 1 year ago
I guess I'll throw in one more stat. Here is a list of all time NC's.
* Big 12 (16)
* SEC -- (15)
* Big Ten -- (13)
* ACC -- (9)
* Pac-10 -- (4)
* Big East -- (3)
This is taken from 1936 onward using the AP Poll as the one giving the NC prior to 1998 when the BCS was started. Taking things into account USC accounts for 50% of the Pac-10's NC holdings.
about 1 year ago
Yeah, and thus not all time.
about 1 year ago
Unlike Auburn, Washington & Oregon did not go undefeated. Kind of hard to say they were left out after losing.
You don't count championships because they don't support your arguments. The rest of the world considers them pretty important.
What is this 10-10 all-time series record you are referring to?
If Oregon plays for and wins the BCS title this year, will you celebrate it winning a championship in a system you hate?
P.S. The Mountain West a strong conference? Are you serious?
about 1 year ago
Just because Utah had one good year and a good coach doesn't make them good now. If Utah was so good then Urban Meyer wouldn't have left them to go win a chamionship at Florida. Every coach has to start somewhere. Steve Spurrier started his career at Duke. That doesn't make Duke a good team now just b/c a good coach coached their early in his career. And there are not 5 very good teams in the Mountain West. There isn't one very good team in the Mountain West.
Wyoming did have a good win agains Virginia. But the ACC isn't as competitive as it has been in the recent past now that Florida State and Miami aren't that great anymore. Virgina may be 4-0 in the conference but they haven't played anyone in their conference yet. Their four wins come from Duke, North Carolina, Maryland, and Georgia Tech. That may be a tough basketball schedule but not football. Wyoming also got beat by New Mexico and Air Force.
How can you say that Fresno State and Hawaii can beat anyone when they haven't beaten anybody.
Fresno State gave Texas A&M a good game. They got spanked by Oregon. But besides those two teams they haven't played anyone. Their wins are against Sac St., La Tech, Nevada, Idaho, and San Jose St. So don't say that Fresno State can beat anyone when they haven't beaten anybody.
As for Hawaii they haven't played any competion either. They have played N Colorado, La Tech, UNLV, C Southern, Idaho, Utah St., and San Jose St. So again, lets not say that they can beat anyone when they haven't beaten anybody. And the only reason that Hawaii was able to keep that game against Alabama close is because Alabama lost their entire defense to the NFL. And Alabama didn't even do good in the SEC that year anyways. I believe they went 3-5 in the SEC that year.
about 1 year ago
Just because Utah had one good year and a good coach doesn't make them good now. If Utah was so good then Urban Meyer wouldn't have left them to go win a chamionship at Florida. Every coach has to start somewhere. Steve Spurrier started his career at Duke. That doesn't make Duke a good team now just b/c a good coach coached their early in his career. And there are not 5 very good teams in the Mountain West. There isn't one very good team in the Mountain West.
Wyoming did have a good win agains Virginia. But the ACC isn't as competitive as it has been in the recent past now that Florida State and Miami aren't that great anymore. Virgina may be 4-0 in the conference but they haven't played anyone in their conference yet. Their four wins come from Duke, North Carolina, Maryland, and Georgia Tech. That may be a tough basketball schedule but not football. Wyoming also got beat by New Mexico and Air Force.
How can you say that Fresno State and Hawaii can beat anyone when they haven't beaten anybody.
Fresno State gave Texas A&M a good game. They got spanked by Oregon. But besides those two teams they haven't played anyone. Their wins are against Sac St., La Tech, Nevada, Idaho, and San Jose St. So don't say that Fresno State can beat anyone when they haven't beaten anybody.
As for Hawaii they haven't played any competion either. They have played N Colorado, La Tech, UNLV, C Southern, Idaho, Utah St., and San Jose St. So again, lets not say that they can beat anyone when they haven't beaten anybody. And the only reason that Hawaii was able to keep that game against Alabama close is because Alabama lost their entire defense to the NFL. And Alabama didn't even do good in the SEC that year anyways. I believe they went 3-5 in the SEC that year.
about 1 year ago
Kind of like this year when no one in the SEC is undefeated. Your pumping a two loss Florida team for the national title. It doesn't get any more ridiculous than that. Yes I am serious about the Mountain West, should be a BCS Conference with Utah, BYU, TCU, New Mexico and Air Force. Keep it coming, I want to get all the bogus excuses out on the table. And I don't think that stat is accurate since USC has won two national titles this decade. Of course, when you have a CFA alliance in the polls, especially since 1984, the championships are as mythical now as they were then. There has never been a true championship crowned in college football -ever!
about 1 year ago
Oh so now the ACC isn't competitive...they beat Alabama! Fresno State is a lot better than Tulane, S. Miss, Western Carolina, Wofford. You guys have them on the docket every year. Nevada almost beat Miami in last years bowl game. Alabama beat Hawaii last year by 8 at home and were beaten a few years ago by the Rainbows in Hawaii. So 8 points is enough to keep these teams out of the BCS? So then I guess the SEC isn't that good if Alabama went 3-5 now are they. Penn State beat Tennessee in the bowl game, Wisconsin beat Arkansas. It seems everyone outside the SEC doesn't have that hard of a time beating your teams and everyone inside your conference has a hard time beating each other. I don't see the superior strength in that. In 1940 I could buy gas for two bits, today that doesn't buy me anything. Spewing out stats outside of the 85 scholarship era is like comparing Babe Ruth to todays players. It's an apples and oranges argument and doesn't fit the equation. Like trying to drive a square peg through a round hole.
about 1 year ago
Pac-10 Bowl Record
YEAR RECORD
2001 2-3
2002 2-5
2003 4-2
2004 3-2
2005 3-2
2006 3-3
Total 17-17
Mountain West Bowl Record
YEAR RECORD
2001 2-1
2002 0-3
2003 1-2
2004 2-1
2005 2-2
2006 3-1
Total 10-10
Wac Bowl Record
YEAR RECORD
2001 0-2
2002 2-1
2003 3-0
2004 2-1
2005 1-2
2006 3-1
Total 11-7
SEC Bowl Record
YEAR RECORD
2001 5-3
2002 3-4
2003 5-2
2004 3-3
2005 3-3
2006 6-3
Total 25-18
Numbers speak for themselves. SEC is better sorry. 9 SEC teams went to a bowl last year. Everyone on here thinks ur dumb except for you. Do you even read what you write? You just said that the SEC isn't that good b/c alabama got beat by Florida State. Alabama is a middle of the road SEC team and that's only one game.
And i didn't say that they weren't competitve. I just said that they weren't competitive as they have been in the past when Florida State and Miami were PowerHouses. So quit changing my words just to make an argument.
about 1 year ago
Okay so the SEC went 6-3 in bowls last year...what did the Pac-10 do oh wait they went 3-3.
about 1 year ago
Pac-10 Bowl Record
YEAR RECORD
2001 2-3
2002 2-5
2003 4-2
2004 3-2
2005 3-2
2006 3-3
Total 17-17
Mountain West Bowl Record
YEAR RECORD
2001 2-1
2002 0-3
2003 1-2
2004 2-1
2005 2-2
2006 3-1
Total 10-10
Wac Bowl Record
YEAR RECORD
2001 0-2
2002 2-1
2003 3-0
2004 2-1
2005 1-2
2006 3-1
Total 11-7
SEC Bowl Record
YEAR RECORD
2001 5-3
2002 3-4
2003 5-2
2004 3-3
2005 3-3
2006 6-3
Total 25-18
Numbers speak for themselves. SEC is better sorry. 9 SEC teams went to a bowl last year. Everyone on here thinks ur dumb except for you. Do you even read what you write? You just said that the SEC isn't that good b/c alabama got beat by Florida State. Alabama is a middle of the road SEC team and that's only one game.
And i didn't say that they weren't competitve. I just said that they weren't competitive as they have been in the past when Florida State and Miami were PowerHouses. So quit changing my words just to make an argument.
about 1 year ago
So, what did the SEC do the year before? And what did The Big-East do last year besides win the bowl cup and beat your conference champion in your own backyard the year before in the Sugar. Not changing your words at all you said exactly what I reiterated. and Brett, I do believe I am much more intelligent than you in relation to sports because I've got two degree's have played both college and professional sports and now scout professionally. Please give me something besides I'm dumb because I'm far from it. Judging by your response, your not very far from the playground with these recess type of reactions. The SEC is over-rated and you can ask any scout of any sport professionally.
about 1 year ago
To Ben:
Interesting article Ben, it's certainly generating a lot of conversation.
To everyone arguing:
I find it amusing that people continue to sling mud over which conference is better. No matter how many ways an opinion is phrased, it remains an opinion. You can't make a completely solid argument that will sway all who read to your opinion. It just never happens. Many people posting here should realize that an opinion is just an opinion, discuss your opinions in whatever way you would like. But please, stop acting like your words are the gospel truth and the words of others are garbage.
about 1 year ago
You did change my words. Go back and look. I said that the ACC is not as competitive now that Florida State and Miami are not PowerHouses like they were a few years ago. And in your reply you said that I said that they weren't competitive at all. So therefor you clearly changed my words just so you can make an argument. And then you said "they beat alabama" they didn't beat alabama. Florida State beat a middle of the road alabama team. The big east did have an amazing year last year. But that's not something that happens to often.
Big Ten Bowl Record
YEAR RECORD
2001 2-0
2002 1-1
2003 0-2
2004 1-3
2005 1-3
2006 5-0
Total 10-9
about 1 year ago
The SEC is the best conference. Ben, what sport do you scout for? Sometimes it looks like you don't scout football. You do have a few valid points....but your conclusion that the SEC isnt the best is wrong. It's kind of like saying 2+2 doesn't equal 4...IT DOES!!!!! The SEC is the best conference.
about 1 year ago
Slight difference, while there is mathematical proof that 2+2=4, I will repeat what Leon said in saying that there is no unit of measure as to who the best conference is, only opinion.
If someone argues that the SEC is the best conference, I will certainly accept that argument as being possible. If someone argues that the Pac 10 is the best conference, I will accept that argument as well.
I personally think that it doesn't make a bit of difference. At the end of the season, two teams will be chosen to go to the national title game, and most likely not everyone will agree.
Not every year are we gonna have a USC-Texas where literally every voter has the teams 1-2. Someone is going to be disappointed, and people with bias are gonna help make that decision.
It is what it is.
about 1 year ago
You are right Jared. My opinion is that the SEC is the best.
about 1 year ago
There will most likely never be a season where one conference wins out against all other teams outside of that said conference, just as there will probably never be a decade where one conference wins 10/10 national championships.
That being said, this argument is getting to a point where it's a little ridiculous. Ben was simply stating that the SEC is overhyped in his opinion. Others, including myself, commented on the article. I was agreeing with Ben on the principle that the SEC is overhyped by the media as the "best conference". While I believe that, I also believe that the SEC is the most competetive conference top to bottom, as I was stating near the top of the comments section.
Will we ever have a conference that is completely dominant enough to be universally recognized as the "best conference in college football"? Probably not.
Just my thoughts
-R.
about 1 year ago
His profile says that he scouts for the Kansas City Royals
about 1 year ago
"With losses to South Florida, West Virginia, Missouri, Florida State, and California and with no truly elite team emerging from conference play what exactly is all the hubbub about?"
idk if you have been paying attention to college football at all recently...but all of those losses are to pretty good teams (with the exclusion of FSU)
with the argument on which is a better conference, which is one based primarily on opinion, you also need to lok at depth, match up team for team, and guess which conference would come out with more victories.
and if you say the pac-10, you truly are insane
about 1 year ago
Well then I guess if South Florida, West Virginia, Missouri, Florida State and California are all pretty good teams, doesn't that make the SEC pretty average? I mean after all the SEC is the best you know. And once again, for the last time, this article was edited by the Bleacher Report and I did not make reference to a conference comparison. The whole gist of the article was to show to over-rated statement of being 30-5 in the non-conference games, when the reality of it is your five and five against meaningful foes. And if the SEC can only beat five of the ten pretty good teams - in your own words (Brett are you listening) - then where is the strength in that. SEC fans can sure dish it but they can't take it. And if you think I'm a PAC-10 homer I called out the PAC-10 last week in a recent article stating, would the real PAC-10 please stand up because I can't tell if were really good or really bad. I guess we are running about average, kind of like the SEC.
about 1 year ago
Sorry about the typo's...we really need to be able to edit our comments on this site!
about 1 year ago
Jared,
Great point...It is what it is, which pretty much sums up the whole system in college football and this is exactly why the BCS needs to be changed, because the games are played by one set of criteria on the field and the best is determined by a completely different and woefully invalid system off of it.
about 1 year ago
''Well then I guess if South Florida, West Virginia, Missouri, Florida State and California are all pretty good teams, doesn't that make the SEC pretty average?"
If those losses makes the SEC pretty average, then I guess with losses to Utah, ND, Cincy, TCU, BYU, New Mexico, Ohio State, & Wisconsin would that make the Pac-10 less that average.
And what scouts say that SEC players are overrated. Is that just this year or are they always overrated?
about 1 year ago
But I'm not the one hyping the PAC-10 as the best conference like everyone else is hyping the SEC. I called the PAC-10 out last week Brett. Tell you what, instead of grandstanding everyone why don't you write us a series of articles stating your case. You think Utah, TCU, BYU and New Mexico...not to mention Cincinnati and Notre Dame suck. State your case bro...write us an article...lets see what you know about the WAC or the Mountain West or the Big-East. Please give us something besides your homer view on the SEC. And you need to address this question to the editor of this article, not me because it was never intended to come off as a PAC-10 / SEC Debate. Is was meant to show you that your BCS records is worse than the PAC-10 yet all you folks jack each other off about how the SEC is clearly the best. Five and Five is not clearly the best. My guess is that you haven't even read most of the articles on this site, not to mention of the comments and the article within this segment. Step up the plate bro, the forum is yours. Spend a little time formulating your thoughts and have at it. Of course, in looking at your profile, you haven't written a single article Brett and the only comments you've written is your pro SEC take. Take at stab at both sides of the issue and look at the games across a period of time, specifically within the BCS era, and give us your superior knowledge.
I thought the most intelligent statement written thus far regarding this whole argument was written by Robert:
"Even though I'm from the South, I liked this article because it is the truth. Ben did a great job of presenting facts until the bottom fifth of the article. I disagree with the Overhyped and Overrated part, but that's his opinion. Yes, the SEC gets a lot of play in the media. But 11/12 of these teams are legitimate potential bowl teams(I'm leaving out Ole Miss). That's something that no other conference can argue. Think about it - put Vandy or Mississippi State in the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, or ACC and they should be able to get into a bowl. If they are both .500 right now standing in the SEC, one would think they could take advantage of the Minnesota's and Duke's of the world."
The majority of the time, most SEC fans will not watch anything but an SEC game.
At its not the players we think are over-rated, its the mega hype surrounding the conference, which gets re-run over and over (I swear I'm watching Happy Days re-runs from the 70's) every season just so the southern fried folks, who deem football equal to religion, can feel good about themselves, so they can feel like the are superior to others, kind of like another movement we had about 30 years ago called the civil rights movement where this region thought a black man was equal to an animal.
from about 1 year ago
to add to my statement that Ben just cited I would like to point out those teams that are NOT from the SEC that arent even getting as much play as auburn is (auburn has played tough tough teams, but still...c'mon, let's be objective SEC fans): kansas, uconn, boise state, and virginia to name a few. Yes, all of these teams have played weaker schedules as compared to almost all SEC teams. But if you win, you win. Who knows if they can keep it up? But for now, these teams should be getting AT LEAST the same amount of press as a 4-3 Auburn team.
That being said - I like Auburn. I like watching them get attention despite barely being over .500. But, for the sake of this article and for the sake of journalism, I must say that the few teams that I listed above aren't getting their fair share of attention based on Wins and Losses.
-R.
SEC fans can send their hate mail to my soon-to-be buddy Kodi Burns. He will answer my phone calls.
about 1 year ago
First of all bro, I don't write. And it's not so much the article that i'm arguing about but most of your comments. And how you seem to reword my words to make arguments.
One of them you said "I've simply stated that the continual hype machine behind the continual thought of the SEC as the best in the land doesn't match the statistics or the history of college football. You can check the stats yourself."
So I and others go ahead and get some stats out and you argue with them.
Well, Anyways... Here's another one for you.
Highest Winning Percentages By Conference
Conference
Percentage (Record)
Mountain West
1.000 (1-0)
WAC
1.000 (1-0)
Southeastern
.692 (9-4)
Pacific-10
.636 (7-4)
Big East
.556 (5-4)
Big Ten
.533 (8-7)
Big 12
.417 (5-7)
Atlantic Coast
.111 (1-8)
Independents
.000 (0-3)
And please don't say that the WAC and Mountain West are good b/c they have a perfect record.
about 1 year ago
Those are BCS All-Time Conference Records
about 1 year ago
Yes, I've seen those and those are the statistics at the beginning of the season for I have already written and article on this subject in my blog regarding the PAC-10 preview for this season. I believe the gist of my conversation in that article was Wow - earth shattering...a two game difference from 7-4 to 9-4. Boy, I can really read a lot into that considering the CFA alliance in the poll system protects all the traditional powers in the game that created their identity within the non-85 scholarship era, and it is auspicious to me considering that Washington, Oregon and California were barred from BCS events by the same CFA alliance I am alluding to now, and the same one that is protecting Oklahoma, the SEC, Ohio State, Michigan, USC and Texas (Notre Dame in years past) in the current poll.
All of your arguments pertain to what has happened in the past and we can't ever move the game forward because mind sets like your own can't see the tree's through the forest that todays game is an even slate on the field - backed up by the fact that within the last four and a half years alone:
Utah has defeated the following BCS teams:
-UCLA (44-6) (2007) - Lost to Oregon State 24-7
-Arizona (27-24) (2005)
-Georgia Tech (2005 38-10 in bowl game) (lost 2 UNC 31-17)
-Texas A&M (41-21) (2004)
-Arizona (23-6) (2004)
-North Carolina (46-16) (2004)
-Pittsburgh (35-7) Big East Conference Champion (thats four BCS Conference teams in one season)
-California (31-24) (2003)
-Oregon (17-3) (2003) (Lost to Texas A&M 28-26)
Recap: 9-3 vs BCS Conference teams in the last 4 years alone.
TCU has defeated the following BCS Teams:
-Baylor (27-0) (2007) - Lost to Texas 34-13,
-Stanford (38-36) (2007)
-Texas Tech (12-3) (2006)
-Baylor (17-7) (2006)
-Oklahoma (17-10) (2005)
-Iowa State (27-24) (2005 Houston Bowl)
-Northwestern (48-45) (2004)
-Lost to Texas Tech (70-35), South Florida (45-44), Cincinnati (21-10) and Louisville (55-28)
Recap: 7-5 vs BCS Conference teams in the last 4 years alone.
BYU has defeated the following BCS Teams:
-Arizona (20-7) (2007) - Lost to UCLA (27-17)
-Oregon (38-8)(2006) - Lost to Boston College (30-23) and Arizona (16-13)
-Lost to Boston College (20-3) and California (35-28 in Vegas Bowl)
-Notre Dame (20-17) (2004) - Lost to Stanford (37-10) an USC (42-10)
-Georgia Tech (24-13) - Lost to Stanford (18-14) and USC (35-18) and Notre Dame (33-14)
Recap: 4-10 vs BCS Conference teams in the last 4 years alone. This program has won a national championship and competed in a bowl alliance game - defeating Texas A&M (Top-5 team) in the 1996 Cotton Bowl and I believe in 1998 was 12-2 and voted out of the BCS games despite a #6 national ranking. I believe I also wrote an article in my blog regarding Lavell Edwards letter to congress in the 2004 BCS hearings. Bronco Mendenhall is a close personal friend of mine as we attended OSU together and graduated in the same school - Exercise and Sport Science. He has that program back on its way up despite the gross unfairness of the BCS recru