SEC Overrated?

[Pinstripe power]

If anything Texas A&M shows how ridiculous this notion is. Texas A&M has been in the SEC for 1 year. All their players were recruited as a member of the Big 12.

They were essentially a Big 12 team playing an SEC schedule this year and they happened to beat the SECs best (Bama) and came very close to beating the other 2.

Texas A&M has proved the SEC isn't as superior as you SECheads make them out to be.

this. not sure why all the SEC fans dismiss this like it menas nothing. A&M was in a supposedly weak conference last year, but comes into the SEC and has immedieate success and I'm sup[posed to beleive the SEC is some untouchable brutal powerhouse miles and miles ahead of every one else. they are the best, but the gap is not that far

[Catfish1314]

who cares? they didnt make the title game, so its not like their bowl game means anything. let Florida destory louisville, rack up the BCS money and call it a day

At first I thought this may be baiting.

this. not sure why all the SEC fans dismiss this like it menas nothing. A&M was in a supposedly weak conference last year, but comes into the SEC and has immedieate success and I'm sup[posed to beleive the SEC is some untouchable brutal powerhouse miles and miles ahead of every one else. they are the best, but the gap is not that far

Then I saw this and realized it's just bitterness about something.

[Jerry34]

And they are still far from being a powerhouse. Without Manziel, the Heisman winner, they would have probably had 5 losses. They are an average team that happened to end up with an outstanding player capable of carrying his team. They got lucky with the win against Bama which shot them and Manziel into the media conversation.

Well it hasn't kept everybody from talking about them like a powerhouse. But I agree with your main point. I think A&M was out classed by UF and LSU and then caught Bama in a semi trap game on the heels of their showdown with LSU.

But still the way the SEC is regarded by CFB fans and the way A&M played the last few years in the B12 I wouldn't have thought they would dominate even the middle of the pack teams in the SEC, freshman sensation QB or not.

[Pinstripe power]

At first I thought this may be baiting.



Then I saw this and realized it's just bitterness about something.

i'm not baiting. The NCAA likes to make it seem like the BCS games matter. they simply do not, so if you arent in the title game, why would a team care where they go and who they play? they already got the BCS payout, what matters in regards to the game after?


and how is stating the truth make me bitter? Texas A&M was a big12 school that went in the supossedly dominate and superior SEC and instantly found success. thats a fact, so i dont see how that makes me "bitter". That proves that the SEC is not light years ahead of everyone else. better sure, but the gap is not nearly as big as people make it out to be

[BradyIsTheMan12]

i'm not baiting. The NCAA likes to make it seem like the BCS games matter. they simply do not, so if you arent in the title game, why would a team care where they go and who they play? they already got the BCS payout, what matters in regards to the game after?

It helps legitimize your program. That's why it matters.

[Catfish1314]

i'm not baiting. The NCAA likes to make it seem like the BCS games matter. they simply do not, so if you arent in the title game, why would a team care where they go and who they play? they already got the BCS payout, what matters in regards to the game after?

Well they do matter. Appearances in BCS Bowls contribute a great deal to the perception of a given program and thus positively impact revenue, recruiting, etc. Recruiting's a biggie.

and how is stating the truth make me bitter? Texas A&M was a big12 school that went in the supossedly dominate and superior SEC and instantly found success. thats a fact, so i dont see how that makes me "bitter". That proves that the SEC is not light years ahead of everyone else. better sure, but the gap is not nearly as big as people make it out to be

I only used the word "bitter" because you and a couple of others in this forum are those who have routinely shot down or criticized the SEC every chance you've had and it's seemingly unprovoked at times.

Any rational SEC fan realizes the gap between our conference and others is nowhere near as high as entities like the media make it out to be. A team with great players can beat any other team with great players, regardless of the conference affiliation. Texas A&M has two All-American caliber offensive lineman, a Heisman Trophy-winning quarterback and they've been recruiting in arguably the hottest of all the recruiting hotbeds for as long as their program has existed. Given those circumstances, is anyone surprised they enjoyed success in their first year in the conference?

Florida and LSU outclassed Ohio State in 2006 and 2007. But '08 Florida and '09 Alabama were the two best teams in this string of SEC National Champions and a few different possessions could have resulted in Oklahoma and/or Texas winning those games instead. Oregon could very easily have beaten Auburn two years ago. Any SEC fan who's been watching realizes and appreciates how fortunate, at times, this streak has been.

[Wingman]

Well it hasn't kept everybody from talking about them like a powerhouse. But I agree with your main point. I think A&M was out classed by UF and LSU and then caught Bama in a semi trap game on the heels of their showdown with LSU.

But still the way the SEC is regarded by CFB fans and the way A&M played the last few years in the B12 I wouldn't have thought they would dominate even the middle of the pack teams in the SEC, freshman sensation QB or not.

And they didn't dominate middle of the pack SEC teams. As a matter of fact, they only beat 2 teams in the SEC that had records over .500 and one team that was a .500 team. Bama was their most notable win.

Thu, Aug 30 at Louisiana Tech Ppd.
Sat, Sep 8 (24) Florida L 17-20 (11-1)
Sat, Sep 15 at Southern Methodist W 48-3
Sat, Sep 22 South Carolina State W 70-14
Sat, Sep 29 Arkansas W 58-10 (4-8)
Sat, Oct 6 at Mississippi W 30-27 (6-6)
Sat, Oct 13 at Louisiana Tech W 59-57
Sat, Oct 20 (6) LSU L 19-24 (10-2)
Sat, Oct 27 at Auburn W 63-21 (3-9)
Sat, Nov 3 at (15) Mississippi State W 38-13 (8-4)
Sat, Nov 10 at (1) Alabama W 29-24 (12-1)
Sat, Nov 17 Sam Houston State W 47-28
Sat, Nov 24 Missouri W 59-29 (5-7)

[Wingman]

i'm not baiting. The NCAA likes to make it seem like the BCS games matter. they simply do not, so if you arent in the title game, why would a team care where they go and who they play? they already got the BCS payout, what matters in regards to the game after?


and how is stating the truth make me bitter? Texas A&M was a big12 school that went in the supossedly dominate and superior SEC and instantly found success. thats a fact, so i dont see how that makes me "bitter". That proves that the SEC is not light years ahead of everyone else. better sure, but the gap is not nearly as big as people make it out to be

Because the only one in this forum that ever seems to say the SEC is light years above every other conference is you.
One of the things you constantly leave out in A&M's success in the SEC is the fact that they have a Heisman Trophy winner on their team. A Heisman Trophy winner that is the difference maker on their team. A lot of teams have had Heisman Trophy winners, but all of them were not difference makers. Some that were difference makers that I recall were Bo Jackson - Auburn, Herschel Walker - Georgia, Peyton Manning - Tennessee, etc.

[Jerry34]

And they didn't dominate middle of the pack SEC teams. As a matter of fact, they only beat 2 teams in the SEC that had records over .500 and one team that was a .500 team. Bama was their most notable win.

Thu, Aug 30 at Louisiana Tech Ppd.
Sat, Sep 8 (24) Florida L 17-20 (11-1)
Sat, Sep 15 at Southern Methodist W 48-3
Sat, Sep 22 South Carolina State W 70-14
Sat, Sep 29 Arkansas W 58-10 (4-8)
Sat, Oct 6 at Mississippi W 30-27 (6-6)
Sat, Oct 13 at Louisiana Tech W 59-57
Sat, Oct 20 (6) LSU L 19-24 (10-2)
Sat, Oct 27 at Auburn W 63-21 (3-9)
Sat, Nov 3 at (15) Mississippi State W 38-13 (8-4)
Sat, Nov 10 at (1) Alabama W 29-24 (12-1)
Sat, Nov 17 Sam Houston State W 47-28
Sat, Nov 24 Missouri W 59-29 (5-7)

Because the only one in this forum that ever seems to say the SEC is light years above every other conference is you.
One of the things you constantly leave out in A&M's success in the SEC is the fact that they have a Heisman Trophy winner on their team. A Heisman Trophy winner that is the difference maker on their team. A lot of teams have had Heisman Trophy winners, but all of them were not difference makers. Some that were difference makers that I recall were Bo Jackson - Auburn, Herschel Walker - Georgia, Peyton Manning - Tennessee, etc.

The problem with the whole "A&M succeeded in the SEC because they had the Heisman Trophy winner" debate is that they played Florida and LSU close because their defense kept the scores low while Manziel struggled in those games. And as good as he was against Alabama their defense held Bama to 24 pts when they avg 38 a game. It's almost kind of weird that the only team that torched their D was Louisiana Tech.

The best Heisman difference maker in recent memory has to be Cam Newton. I remember watching Auburn squeak out a lucky win against Northwestern in their bowl the season before Newton should up there. I would have bet my house that sorry team wouldn't sniff a BCS championship in 2010. Cam was worth whatever they paid him. Also Manning didn't win the Heisman.

[Pinstripe power]

It helps legitimize your program. That's why it matters.

the particualr BCS game you go to? i don't think, any BCS game has the same effect outside of the title game. Which BCS game and who younplay doesn't mean that much. Florida should actually be happy they get louisville, because its a team they can absolutly manhandle and took better than if they got in a closer game, since perception is all you really gain from the non-title games. good match ups are for us, not the teams themselves

[Pinstripe power]

Well they do matter. Appearances in BCS Bowls contribute a great deal to the perception of a given program and thus positively impact revenue, recruiting, etc. Recruiting's a biggie.



I only used the word "bitter" because you and a couple of others in this forum are those who have routinely shot down or criticized the SEC every chance you've had and it's seemingly unprovoked at times.

Any rational SEC fan realizes the gap between our conference and others is nowhere near as high as entities like the media make it out to be. A team with great players can beat any other team with great players, regardless of the conference affiliation. Texas A&M has two All-American caliber offensive lineman, a Heisman Trophy-winning quarterback and they've been recruiting in arguably the hottest of all the recruiting hotbeds for as long as their program has existed. Given those circumstances, is anyone surprised they enjoyed success in their first year in the conference?

Florida and LSU outclassed Ohio State in 2006 and 2007. But '08 Florida and '09 Alabama were the two best teams in this string of SEC National Champions and a few different possessions could have resulted in Oklahoma and/or Texas winning those games instead. Oregon could very easily have beaten Auburn two years ago. Any SEC fan who's been watching realizes and appreciates how fortunate, at times, this streak has been.

right going to a BCS game helps the perception. who you play and which one you go to though doesn't really amtter.



i dont critize the SEC except for that one statement that they are not as good as people say. i agree they are the best conference, but they are not light years ahead.

[Pinstripe power]

Because the only one in this forum that ever seems to say the SEC is light years above every other conference is you.
One of the things you constantly leave out in A&M's success in the SEC is the fact that they have a Heisman Trophy winner on their team. A Heisman Trophy winner that is the difference maker on their team. A lot of teams have had Heisman Trophy winners, but all of them were not difference makers. Some that were difference makers that I recall were Bo Jackson - Auburn, Herschel Walker - Georgia, Peyton Manning - Tennessee, etc.

the arguement does a 1 loss SEC school deserve to go to the title game over an undefeated non-SEC school comes up every single year basically. clearly others think there is a huge gap there to say somethign that stupid


the heisman is a joke award. how can you without a doubt say manziel didnt get extra support for being on an SEC team? you can't. everyone knows how you team fairs ahs something to do with your heisman candiacy, the award is basically meaningless at this point

[Wingman]

The problem with the whole "A&M succeeded in the SEC because they had the Heisman Trophy winner" debate is that they played Florida and LSU close because their defense kept the scores low while Manziel struggled in those games. And as good as he was against Alabama their defense held Bama to 24 pts when they avg 38 a game. It's almost kind of weird that the only team that torched their D was Louisiana Tech.

The best Heisman difference maker in recent memory has to be Cam Newton. I remember watching Auburn squeak out a lucky win against Northwestern in their bowl the season before Newton should up there. I would have bet my house that sorry team wouldn't sniff a BCS championship in 2010. Cam was worth whatever they paid him. Also Manning didn't win the Heisman.

Didn't mention Newton because I couldn't stand him and his arrogance while he was at Auburn, but I do agree he was worth what they paid him. My bad with Manning.
The point I'm trying to make about A&M is that people say they were a mediocre in the Big 12 and came into the SEC and are an instant success. The only reason, IMO, they were as successful as they were is because of Manziel. Take Manziel off the team and they lose to Bama, Lousiana Tech, and Mississippi which would make them a 5 loss team. Now put A&M back in the Big 12 for this season and they are possibly the conference title winner, or at the minimum in the #2 slot. What does that say about the Big 12? A&M is #5 in the SEC and would be #1, or 2 in the Big 12.

[Pinstripe power]

Didn't mention Newton because I couldn't stand him and his arrogance while he was at Auburn, but I do agree he was worth what they paid him. My bad with Manning.
The point I'm trying to make about A&M is that people say they were a mediocre in the Big 12 and came into the SEC and are an instant success. The only reason, IMO, they were as successful as they were is because of Manziel. Take Manziel off the team and they lose to Bama, Lousiana Tech, and Mississippi which would make them a 5 loss team. Now put A&M back in the Big 12 for this season and they are possibly the conference title winner, or at the minimum in the #2 slot. What does that say about the Big 12? A&M is #5 in the SEC and would be #1, or 2 in the Big 12.

you're probably right. but the gap between teams and conference cant be that big if one player comes in and instantly turns it around. no matter how good that one player is

[Wingman]

you're probably right. but the gap between teams and conference cant be that big if one player comes in and instantly turns it around. no matter how good that one player is

Maybe. But I can remember Auburn being a pretty crappy team and then Pat Dye recruited this player named Bo Jackson and he had an immediate impact for the Tigers.
Perhaps you remember a player named Joe Montana? I would say one player can come in and have a huge impact on a team. That player can be the difference between a team having a winning season, or a mediocre season.