SEC Overrated?

[Pinstripe power]

if that "proves" they're overrated, i truly hope you become a lawyer and face me in court some day...

you could just as easily look at mizzou and say the opposite... but, of course, that doesn't fit your narrative.



like i said, look at the numbers... you take out last season, and that's still 5 straight titles against the best from other conferences, all convincing wins save for the auburn title. that's still the best BCS bowl game winning % and overall victories.

we all agree the SEC isn't some other-worldly conference from top to bottom. you seem to be arguing against no one on that point. but the numbers indicate that the SEC is, in fact, the best conference in the country and has been for the better part of the past decade.

how else do you explain a team form a supposedly weaker conference coming in and instantly finding success? if the SEC is so much better, A&M should have gotten destroyed.


i never said the SEC wasnt the ebst conference, i said it gets played way to often in rankings. this team is better solely because they play in the SEC. we hear the arguement every year does a 1 lose SEC team deserve a spot over an undefeated from another conferece. you can be the best conferwence and also be overrated

[desertrat218]

if that "proves" they're overrated, i truly hope you become a lawyer and face me in court some day...

you could just as easily look at mizzou and say the opposite... but, of course, that doesn't fit your narrative.



like i said, look at the numbers... you take out last season, and that's still 5 straight titles against the best from other conferences, all convincing wins save for the auburn title. that's still the best BCS bowl game winning % and overall victories.

we all agree the SEC isn't some other-worldly conference from top to bottom. you seem to be arguing against no one on that point. but the numbers indicate that the SEC is, in fact, the best conference in the country and has been for the better part of the past decade.

Missouri hasn't won a conference football title in more than 40 years, they are right where they are expected to be. Texas A&M won the Big 12 once, way back in 1998. Apparently they are right about where they should be too, a fact that certainly does rub SEC fans the wrong way. Scheduling is the secret to SEC success, avoid going out of the region for tough non-conference games and play all your bowl games in the SEC region....basically at home. I'll be impressed when I see Florida or LSU go play in Michigan or Ohio State this time of year!

[Bravo95]

The SEC is not as deep as everyone wants to think it is.

I need to see links to these posts or screenshots or something. Where are all these people suggesting the mediocre teams would just have their way in other conferences? Because I haven't seen it. And don't say ESPN/the media.

- UGA, Bama, UF and maybe LSU are all fighting for BCS bids now.
- SC would also be there for a BCS bid, but lost their best offensive player -- still a great team when fully healthy.
- A&M put themselves on the map by knocking off the defending champs on the road and pushing some of the top dogs to the final possession, and their QB just might walk away with the Heisman.
- Tennesee, Auburn, and Arkansas were in the toilet.
- Vandy, Ole Miss, and State are solid teams who can occasionally put a scare into better teams.
- Mizzou seems to be just treading water, and now UK is trying to make their move.

That's how most SEC fans would say it is now. No one suggesting those last 8 teams would slap around some other conference as they are right now. But if they go out and win bowl games, aren't we all supposed to give them credit?

[BroadwayJoe]

how else do you explain a team form a supposedly weaker conference coming in and instantly finding success? if the SEC is so much better, A&M should have gotten destroyed.


i never said the SEC wasnt the ebst conference, i said it gets played way to often in rankings. this team is better solely because they play in the SEC. we hear the arguement every year does a 1 lose SEC team deserve a spot over an undefeated from another conferece. you can be the best conferwence and also be overrated

there are literally millions of variables that result in the outcome of a play, a game and an entire season. but since we're talking about A&M, let's look at their 3 biggest games this season: UF, LSU and bama. they lost 2 of those games. they found immediate success in the SEC, but let's not act like the steamrolled all their top competition. they beat ONE top school and lost to TWO others...

if someone - ANYONE - was making the argument that the SEC is, top to bottom, the best conference in the nation and even its worst teams are better than other conference's middling or better teams, you'd have a legitimate argument. but, as pointed out already, NO ONE is saying that (certainly not here). i really think you're arguing a non-point because you're fed up with the coverage and success of the conference over the past decade. i get that frustration, i really do... but it doesn't justify this crusade you seem to have over a non-point. it's just foolish.

[Pinstripe power]

C'mon man, a Notre Dame fan is saying this? Whining about getting preferential treatment in BCS criteria? Seriously? You realize there are rules set up solely for the Irish to get a BCS bid, right?

I'm sure this is based on resume, but do you believe those teams jumping LSU and UGA would beat them head to head?

???

I don't get why you keep saying this. Many SEC fans said the conference is overrated this year, but this isn't the reason. A&M hit a homerun with their hire, Sumlin dominated at another school and got his dream job. Then he got a dynamic QB, much like UF with Tebow (ugh). Sumlin changed the culture. A&M previously had a reputation of a good team that always blew leads because they couldn't put together a good defense. Sumlin brought in his great offense, and built a good defense. He isn't getting enough credit.

Again, disagree. I doubt most fans of UF, Bama, or LSU would say their current team is on the level of their recent teams. And UGA had a better group in '02 and comparable ones in '05 and '07. But all of the best in the SEC this season were involved in close games, no one just went out and dominated their schedule. Hence, no great teams.

i'm not whining. I'm merely pointing out that if an SEC school is in the game every single year, they have a 50/50 chance of winning so that stat does not say as much as people make it out to be.


there are defiently teams behind LSU and gerogia that i think cna beat them. Georgia has shown nothing to indicate they can consistantly beat good teams, and as i said LSU sturggled with ****ing towson.

Texas A&m was in the big 12 last year, moved to the SEC and has thrived. that shows that the SEC is overrated if they could move form a weaker conference and find success so fast.

by top heavy i mena there are 4 to 5 teams at the top, the rest if bad to mediocre. SEC fans talk about the schedule like these good teams have brutal games eveyr weak. thats not the case. they have maybe 3 or 4 all year tops

[Pinstripe power]

I can understand the Oregon logic; however, the problem becomes Florida. Should a one loss Florida team be ranked higher than a one loss Oregon team? According to most people in this forum and the pundits, the answer is an unequivocal yes. Since Florida lost to Georgia, there is no way a one loss Georgia team gets ranked below a one loss Florida team; hence, the rankings. Florida above Oregon and Georgia above Florida. There is no other logical conclusion.

oregon has the same problem as gerogia. they played two good teams all year, and are 1-1 in those games

[BroadwayJoe]

Missouri hasn't won a conference football title in more than 40 years, they are right where they are expected to be. Texas A&M won the Big 12 once, way back in 1998. Apparently they are right about where they should be too, a fact that certainly does rub SEC fans the wrong way. Scheduling is the secret to SEC success, avoid going out of the region for tough non-conference games and play all your bowl games in the SEC region....basically at home. I'll be impressed when I see Florida or LSU go play in Michigan or Ohio State this time of year!

i was in glendale, AZ in january 2007 with a stadium full of OSU fans (at least 70%) when the gators pummeled the buckeyes 41-14.

but to your main point, people will always look at the OOC schedule and say things like you're saying. we will always retort with, "look at the overall strength of schedule when all's said and done."

when you do that, you often find SEC teams with some of the more difficult national schedules in the country. this weight you place on OOC games is foolish. it's the sum of the schedule that matters, not 1-2 games against non-conference opponents. are you impressed by the FCS schools who play 1-2 top teams every year, then play in their cupcake conferences the other 10 games? probably not...

even with BG, ULL and JSU, the gators finished with the TOUGHEST schedule in the ENTIRE country. that speaks volumes to the weight - or lack thereof - of your argument.

and we play FSU every year, btw...

[Pinstripe power]

The SEC has 6 teams in the top 10. How in the world does that make the SEC top heavy? You want to talk about top heavy conferences. Big 10 - Michigan and Ohio State, occasionally Penn State; Big 12 - Texas and Oklahoma; Pac 12 - USC and Oregon; ACC - Florida State and Virginia Tech; Independent - Notre Dame and well, noone else. These are/were the consitent powerhouses in the those conferences, so how on earth is the SEC top heavy? It seems they have a more balanced conference than most others.
The only one that I have seen in this forum that is trying to say that the SEC is light years above everyone else is you.

again, msotly because they looka t those teams and give them a boost becuase they are in the top 10. for example, if LSU ahd the same resume they have now, but were not part of the SEC, there is 0 chances of them being int he top ten.

[Pinstripe power]

there are literally millions of variables that result in the outcome of a play, a game and an entire season. but since we're talking about A&M, let's look at their 3 biggest games this season: UF, LSU and bama. they lost 2 of those games. they found immediate success in the SEC, but let's not act like the steamrolled all their top competition. they beat ONE top school and lost to TWO others...

if someone - ANYONE - was making the argument that the SEC is, top to bottom, the best conference in the nation and even its worst teams are better than other conference's middling or better teams, you'd have a legitimate argument. but, as pointed out already, NO ONE is saying that (certainly not here). i really think you're arguing a non-point because you're fed up with the coverage and success of the conference over the past decade. i get that frustration, i really do... but it doesn't justify this crusade you seem to have over a non-point. it's just foolish.

right, implying the rest of the SEC is not that good, which is where they got all there wins. Liek is said, the SEC is top heavy. They have a few good team on top, and then the coinference is no different that any other.

[BroadwayJoe]

again, msotly because they looka t those teams and give them a boost becuase they are in the top 10. for example, if LSU ahd the same resume they have now, but were not part of the SEC, there is 0 chances of them being int he top ten.

likewise, if FSU, USC, michigan and several other teams were ranked initially were they should have been, many would not have been anywhere near the top-15 all year long (some not even in the top-25).

the initial rankings are far more troublesome than the current standings... they set up teams to fail or succeed before a single snap has been played. teams get the benefit of the doubt at the onset of the season, based on past performance and hype. but the standings now more accurately reflect the teams' merits. if you're ranked #1 like USC was, then lose a bunch of games, you're going to have a much better chance to jump back into the pack, than if you were ranked low or unranked to start the season.

[BroadwayJoe]

right, implying the rest of the SEC is not that good, which is where they got all there wins. Liek is said, the SEC is top heavy. They have a few good team on top, and then the coinference is no different that any other.

you keep making these statements as if they're an absolute certainty. one indication is not concrete proof of your theory, just as mizzou's failure this season is not proof to the contrary. we can go back and forth on this all day (seems like we have for years now), but at the end of the day, the best way to measure is the bowl games... which the SEC has proven its worth in for the better part of the past decade.

again, NO ONE is saying they are loaded from top to bottom, or even top to middle...

[Pinstripe power]

we can go back and forth on this all day (seems like we have for years now), but at the end of the day, the best way to measure is the bowl games... which the SEC has proven its worth in for the better part of the past decade.

again, NO ONE is saying they are loaded from top to bottom, or even top to middle...

then why do they always get the benifit of the doubt playing the "brutal SEC scheudle"? that should basically mean they had 2 or 3 tough games tops

[desertrat218]

oregon has the same problem as gerogia. they played two good teams all year, and are 1-1 in those games

Losing by 3 points in OT to a ranked team is not comparable to getting blown out by 4 TDs to a ranked team!

[desertrat218]

i was in glendale, AZ in january 2007 with a stadium full of OSU fans (at least 70%) when the gators pummeled the buckeyes 41-14.

but to your main point, people will always look at the OOC schedule and say things like you're saying. we will always retort with, "look at the overall strength of schedule when all's said and done."

when you do that, you often find SEC teams with some of the more difficult national schedules in the country. this weight you place on OOC games is foolish. it's the sum of the schedule that matters, not 1-2 games against non-conference opponents. are you impressed by the FCS schools who play 1-2 top teams every year, then play in their cupcake conferences the other 10 games? probably not...

even with BG, ULL and JSU, the gators finished with the TOUGHEST schedule in the ENTIRE country. that speaks volumes to the weight - or lack thereof - of your argument.

and we play FSU every year, btw...

This is a broken record, come play at our house! Florida is the worst example of cowardly scheduling...how many decades has it been since they left state for a non-conference game?

[BroadwayJoe]

This is a broken record, come play at our house! Florida is the worst example of cowardly scheduling...how many decades has it been since they left state for a non-conference game?

as is the OOC argument you continue to make...

cowardly or not, we just went 11-1 with the toughest schedule in the nation. i don't really care, nor does any other UF or SEC fan, what some grumpy nebraska fan thinks of our program. if playing the toughest schedule in the country is cowardly, i'm proud to be a coward.

are you equally as proud to be the resident grumpy old man of this forum?