Why SEC Isn't As Great In Football As You Think

[kmwcane]

With half the conference ranked in preseason polls followed by most of the conference teeing off cupcake OOC games, by the time you hit October you have nearly every team in the conference with a fictional number next to their name come conference play time because they are all 3-1 or 4-0.

The system never allows them to move down because there's always an SEC matchup of like a #14 vs. a #6, so no matter what if the lower seed wins the shoot right up near the top and the lower seed only slightly dips because hey they lost to a ranked team. If they higher seed wins, they move up because they just defeated another SEC opponent that was ranked.

The system is completely broken, preseason rankings make it impossible for their teams to dip out of the top of the polls unless they have a total collapse like Arkansas did last year.

Then maybe you should tell the teams in other conferences to stop losing their games. Everyone wants to blame the BCS for their teams not getting in, but wouldn't they be overwhelmingly voted into the title game if they just won their schedule? Notre Dame was complete garbage last year but got a shot at the title. Why? Because they didn't lose. Stop blaming the SEC and the BCS and start blaming the fact that the Oregons, Oklahomas, USCs, and Florida States of the world keep getting tripped up by teams they have no business losing to. Why would anyone vote a team that lost to an Iowa State, Washington, Northwestern, Stanford etc. into the title game?

SEC teams lose and still get voted in, why shouldn't other conferences have the same benefit of the doubt?

 

[kmwcane]

With half the conference ranked in preseason polls followed by most of the conference teeing off cupcake OOC games, by the time you hit October you have nearly every team in the conference with a fictional number next to their name come conference play time because they are all 3-1 or 4-0.

The system never allows them to move down because there's always an SEC matchup of like a #14 vs. a #6, so no matter what if the lower seed wins the shoot right up near the top and the lower seed only slightly dips because hey they lost to a ranked team. If they higher seed wins, they move up because they just defeated another SEC opponent that was ranked.

The system is completely broken, preseason rankings make it impossible for their teams to dip out of the top of the polls unless they have a total collapse like Arkansas did last year.

This guy gets it. It's a perpetual cycle of never ending hype. Created by ESPN. And it's rather Genius because ESPN is making billions of dollars off the perception. ESPN use to use Rivals and Scout ranking of High School Athletes. They did away with that for their own rankings. It's no coincidence that ESPN recruit rankings are heavily skewed towards the South. So each year they can crown a team with a top 25 class, so their analyst can say "they have soo much talent". It's funny how 8 years ago the argument for SEC playing Cupcakes was "The SEC is too hard" yet they hadn't even started their historic run. Now it's acceptable to play 3 cupcakes a year. The SEC does not have 4 legit title contenders every year. They have 2 legit teams like everyone else, and a bunch of teams getting the benefit of the doubt. Then in October as this posted mentioned when they are 4-0 and ranked 10th we should just believe it because Buffalo and FAU are really good programs.

Auburn was ranked as high as #11 in the preseason polls in 2004. They didn't lose a single game and still got left out of the title game. Clearly an SEC bias right? People blaming the system are just grasping for straws. Auburn didn't get into the 2004 title game even though they went undefeated. Why is that? Oh. Because other teams from other conferences were undefeated as well. How about that? If another team from another conference goes undefeated just like the SEC teams, they have a shot at being ahead of the SEC schools in the BCS. Color me shocked.

Auburn was left out because they had a HORRIBLE strength of schedule. And guess what, SOS was removed from the BCS formula the very next year!

 

[Drewbie]

With half the conference ranked in preseason polls followed by most of the conference teeing off cupcake OOC games, by the time you hit October you have nearly every team in the conference with a fictional number next to their name come conference play time because they are all 3-1 or 4-0.

The system never allows them to move down because there's always an SEC matchup of like a #14 vs. a #6, so no matter what if the lower seed wins the shoot right up near the top and the lower seed only slightly dips because hey they lost to a ranked team. If they higher seed wins, they move up because they just defeated another SEC opponent that was ranked.

The system is completely broken, preseason rankings make it impossible for their teams to dip out of the top of the polls unless they have a total collapse like Arkansas did last year.

Then maybe you should tell the teams in other conferences to stop losing their games. Everyone wants to blame the BCS for their teams not getting in, but wouldn't they be overwhelmingly voted into the title game if they just won their schedule? Notre Dame was complete garbage last year but got a shot at the title. Why? Because they didn't lose. Stop blaming the SEC and the BCS and start blaming the fact that the Oregons, Oklahomas, USCs, and Florida States of the world keep getting tripped up by teams they have no business losing to. Why would anyone vote a team that lost to an Iowa State, Washington, Northwestern, Stanford etc. into the title game?

SEC teams lose and still get voted in, why shouldn't other conferences have the same benefit of the doubt?

Because most of the time it's a scenario like 2011. Bama lost the the eventual undefeated SEC champions by 3 points. Oklahoma State lost to a god-awful Iowa State team. Who would you vote in?

 

[Drewbie]

With half the conference ranked in preseason polls followed by most of the conference teeing off cupcake OOC games, by the time you hit October you have nearly every team in the conference with a fictional number next to their name come conference play time because they are all 3-1 or 4-0.

The system never allows them to move down because there's always an SEC matchup of like a #14 vs. a #6, so no matter what if the lower seed wins the shoot right up near the top and the lower seed only slightly dips because hey they lost to a ranked team. If they higher seed wins, they move up because they just defeated another SEC opponent that was ranked.

The system is completely broken, preseason rankings make it impossible for their teams to dip out of the top of the polls unless they have a total collapse like Arkansas did last year.

This guy gets it. It's a perpetual cycle of never ending hype. Created by ESPN. And it's rather Genius because ESPN is making billions of dollars off the perception. ESPN use to use Rivals and Scout ranking of High School Athletes. They did away with that for their own rankings. It's no coincidence that ESPN recruit rankings are heavily skewed towards the South. So each year they can crown a team with a top 25 class, so their analyst can say "they have soo much talent". It's funny how 8 years ago the argument for SEC playing Cupcakes was "The SEC is too hard" yet they hadn't even started their historic run. Now it's acceptable to play 3 cupcakes a year. The SEC does not have 4 legit title contenders every year. They have 2 legit teams like everyone else, and a bunch of teams getting the benefit of the doubt. Then in October as this posted mentioned when they are 4-0 and ranked 10th we should just believe it because Buffalo and FAU are really good programs.

Auburn was ranked as high as #11 in the preseason polls in 2004. They didn't lose a single game and still got left out of the title game. Clearly an SEC bias right? People blaming the system are just grasping for straws. Auburn didn't get into the 2004 title game even though they went undefeated. Why is that? Oh. Because other teams from other conferences were undefeated as well. How about that? If another team from another conference goes undefeated just like the SEC teams, they have a shot at being ahead of the SEC schools in the BCS. Color me shocked.

Auburn was left out because they had a HORRIBLE strength of schedule. And guess what, SOS was removed from the BCS formula the very next year!

Um...no. No it wasn't.

"The strength of schedule factor is the key ingredient in all of the computer polls, and I would say, the overall BCS poll as well. Why? Because the 132 year history of college football has proven to us repeatedly that teams with one or more losses on the season are indeed better than some undefeated teams that have played weaker schedules. This is the most challenging part of the formula simply because of the tremendous research that has to be done to create the end result."

That's a quote from an ESPN writer breaking down the BCS formula in October of last year.

 

[TheCaneShow]

Then maybe you should tell the teams in other conferences to stop losing their games. Everyone wants to blame the BCS for their teams not getting in, but wouldn't they be overwhelmingly voted into the title game if they just won their schedule? Notre Dame was complete garbage last year but got a shot at the title. Why? Because they didn't lose.

But that's not true according to the BCS.

1 loss USC gets jumped by 1 loss LSU at the end of the year simply because USC is punished for not having a conference championship

1 loss Michigan doesn't get into the championship game against Ohio State because "rematches are unfair to the system"

Boise State goes undefeated and doesn't go ahead of a 1 loss Florida

Utah relegated to the Sugar Bowl when 2 one loss teams played for the title?

Two loss LSU goes to the title game instead of undefeated Hawaii or 1 loss Kansas.

TCU was undefeated two straight years and didn't get a shot at the BCS Title game

Boise State again goes undefeated and doesn't get a title shot.

1 loss Oklahoma State doesn't get into the title game despite have a far more impressive resume than 1 loss Alabama who had already lost to LSU on their home field when suddenly rematches are ok to every SEC fangirl.

But hey, just win baby. AMIRITE?

 

[Dghustla]

With half the conference ranked in preseason polls followed by most of the conference teeing off cupcake OOC games, by the time you hit October you have nearly every team in the conference with a fictional number next to their name come conference play time because they are all 3-1 or 4-0.

The system never allows them to move down because there's always an SEC matchup of like a #14 vs. a #6, so no matter what if the lower seed wins the shoot right up near the top and the lower seed only slightly dips because hey they lost to a ranked team. If they higher seed wins, they move up because they just defeated another SEC opponent that was ranked.

The system is completely broken, preseason rankings make it impossible for their teams to dip out of the top of the polls unless they have a total collapse like Arkansas did last year.

This guy gets it. It's a perpetual cycle of never ending hype. Created by ESPN. And it's rather Genius because ESPN is making billions of dollars off the perception. ESPN use to use Rivals and Scout ranking of High School Athletes. They did away with that for their own rankings. It's no coincidence that ESPN recruit rankings are heavily skewed towards the South. So each year they can crown a team with a top 25 class, so their analyst can say "they have soo much talent". It's funny how 8 years ago the argument for SEC playing Cupcakes was "The SEC is too hard" yet they hadn't even started their historic run. Now it's acceptable to play 3 cupcakes a year. The SEC does not have 4 legit title contenders every year. They have 2 legit teams like everyone else, and a bunch of teams getting the benefit of the doubt. Then in October as this posted mentioned when they are 4-0 and ranked 10th we should just believe it because Buffalo and FAU are really good programs.

Auburn was ranked as high as #11 in the preseason polls in 2004. They didn't lose a single game and still got left out of the title game. Clearly an SEC bias right? People blaming the system are just grasping for straws. Auburn didn't get into the 2004 title game even though they went undefeated. Why is that? Oh. Because other teams from other conferences were undefeated as well. How about that? If another team from another conference goes undefeated just like the SEC teams, they have a shot at being ahead of the SEC schools in the BCS. Color me shocked.

Ahhhh going back to 04...and since then we've had multiple 1 and 2 loss SEC make it every year since. So how can you say if teams go undefeated they will make it? When you putting 2 loss teams and rematches in the BCSCG? Okie State lost to Iowa State & wasn't voted in. If Bama losses to Ole Miss this year, the voters will say it was just an off day.

 

[kmwcane]

With half the conference ranked in preseason polls followed by most of the conference teeing off cupcake OOC games, by the time you hit October you have nearly every team in the conference with a fictional number next to their name come conference play time because they are all 3-1 or 4-0.

The system never allows them to move down because there's always an SEC matchup of like a #14 vs. a #6, so no matter what if the lower seed wins the shoot right up near the top and the lower seed only slightly dips because hey they lost to a ranked team. If they higher seed wins, they move up because they just defeated another SEC opponent that was ranked.

The system is completely broken, preseason rankings make it impossible for their teams to dip out of the top of the polls unless they have a total collapse like Arkansas did last year.

Then maybe you should tell the teams in other conferences to stop losing their games. Everyone wants to blame the BCS for their teams not getting in, but wouldn't they be overwhelmingly voted into the title game if they just won their schedule? Notre Dame was complete garbage last year but got a shot at the title. Why? Because they didn't lose. Stop blaming the SEC and the BCS and start blaming the fact that the Oregons, Oklahomas, USCs, and Florida States of the world keep getting tripped up by teams they have no business losing to. Why would anyone vote a team that lost to an Iowa State, Washington, Northwestern, Stanford etc. into the title game?

SEC teams lose and still get voted in, why shouldn't other conferences have the same benefit of the doubt?

Because most of the time it's a scenario like 2011. Bama lost the the eventual undefeated SEC champions by 3 points. Oklahoma State lost to a god-awful Iowa State team. Who would you vote in?

So it only matters who you lose to, not who you beat? Got it.

 

[killa1storm]

how is this not true of other conferences though?

is the sec the only team with multiple teams who start the season in the top 25 or play ooc cupcakes? simple research shows this isn't close to true. for example the pac-12 had 5 this year in the preseason top 25, the big 10 had 5 as well, that's close to half of their teams starting in the top 25, why isn't that true of them? when they lose to each other they won't fall and if they win they'll shoot up as well, no different than the sec. seems like selective critiquing.

The voters pity the SEC losses a lot more than they do any other conference vs. conference loss, simply because of the rusty trombones they've gotten from ESPN the last couple of years.

Who do you think would land on their feet in a poll drop, South Carolina losing to Georgia or Clemson losing to Florida State?

there are plenty of examples that prove this false...the sec is the boogeyman for some of you lol. let's just use week one of this year, uga loses to a top 10 clemson team and dropped 6 spots. there are numerous examples of teams not from the sec who lost to teams outside the top 10 and didn't drop even 6 spots. so i'm gonna need to see proof of this voter pity.

the whole voter thing is overplayed anyway. for the most part, the sec has benefited from teams losing late, and late being the key word since they didn't have time to jump back in the race which allowed them to get in. auburn went undefeated and got left out. 06' uf needed usc to lose on the last weekend to get in and still barely got in over michigan because all the espn heads were calling for a rematch with the buckeyes. 07' lsu needed west virginia and a few other teams (4 total) to lose to get in, 11' bama needed oklahoma state to lose to get in, 12' bama needed both oregon and k. state to lose to get in and play notre dame. how is this proof that voters are favoring them? blame the other teams for slipping up. some of y'all are letting hate cloud the facts.

 

[LuCane]

I'm not drinking the SEC kool-aid either. They have some great teams. They've won a lot of championships in a row. They have some inherent advantages because of how the system is currently setup and how their dynamic almost forces one of their teams to be given a shot.

I think you'll see a step back from the "awe" in the coming years.

Please tell me what inherent advantages the SEC has? An undefeated SEC champion Auburn was left out of the BCS title game in 2004. The people that blame the BCS for the SEC's constant top rankings are just butthurt and looking for something to blame the SEC's streak on other than them just flat out being better teams.

Current pre-season rankings is one. Your 2004 reference is not nearly as relevant. I like how the answer to logic is "well, you're just butthurt." Sounds like you are defensive. It's is an interesting indicator itself.

 

[dfreshhookup]

Because most of the time it's a scenario like 2011. Bama lost the the eventual undefeated SEC champions by 3 points. Oklahoma State lost to a god-awful Iowa State team. Who would you vote in?

The team that didn't lose on their home field without scoring a TD to a team that was already locked into a title shot? The team with the far more impressive overall resume instead of voting based on what week the team lost their game in?

The matchup that was so bad and unwanted it was the lowest rated BCS Title game ever and literally caused the system to be blown up?

 

[Drewbie]

With half the conference ranked in preseason polls followed by most of the conference teeing off cupcake OOC games, by the time you hit October you have nearly every team in the conference with a fictional number next to their name come conference play time because they are all 3-1 or 4-0.

The system never allows them to move down because there's always an SEC matchup of like a #14 vs. a #6, so no matter what if the lower seed wins the shoot right up near the top and the lower seed only slightly dips because hey they lost to a ranked team. If they higher seed wins, they move up because they just defeated another SEC opponent that was ranked.

The system is completely broken, preseason rankings make it impossible for their teams to dip out of the top of the polls unless they have a total collapse like Arkansas did last year.

This guy gets it. It's a perpetual cycle of never ending hype. Created by ESPN. And it's rather Genius because ESPN is making billions of dollars off the perception. ESPN use to use Rivals and Scout ranking of High School Athletes. They did away with that for their own rankings. It's no coincidence that ESPN recruit rankings are heavily skewed towards the South. So each year they can crown a team with a top 25 class, so their analyst can say "they have soo much talent". It's funny how 8 years ago the argument for SEC playing Cupcakes was "The SEC is too hard" yet they hadn't even started their historic run. Now it's acceptable to play 3 cupcakes a year. The SEC does not have 4 legit title contenders every year. They have 2 legit teams like everyone else, and a bunch of teams getting the benefit of the doubt. Then in October as this posted mentioned when they are 4-0 and ranked 10th we should just believe it because Buffalo and FAU are really good programs.

Auburn was ranked as high as #11 in the preseason polls in 2004. They didn't lose a single game and still got left out of the title game. Clearly an SEC bias right? People blaming the system are just grasping for straws. Auburn didn't get into the 2004 title game even though they went undefeated. Why is that? Oh. Because other teams from other conferences were undefeated as well. How about that? If another team from another conference goes undefeated just like the SEC teams, they have a shot at being ahead of the SEC schools in the BCS. Color me shocked.

Ahhhh going back to 04...and since then we've had multiple 1 and 2 loss SEC make it every year since. So how can you say if teams go undefeated they will make it? When you putting 2 loss teams and rematches in the BCSCG? Okie State lost to Iowa State & wasn't voted in. If Bama losses to Ole Miss this year, the voters will say it was just an off day.

So now that you're done with facts, you want to play the "what if" game? That's a sign that the argument is over.

 

[LuCane]

how is this not true of other conferences though?

is the sec the only team with multiple teams who start the season in the top 25 or play ooc cupcakes? simple research shows this isn't close to true. for example the pac-12 had 5 this year in the preseason top 25, the big 10 had 5 as well, that's close to half of their teams starting in the top 25, why isn't that true of them? when they lose to each other they won't fall and if they win they'll shoot up as well, no different than the sec. seems like selective critiquing.

The voters pity the SEC losses a lot more than they do any other conference vs. conference loss, simply because of the rusty trombones they've gotten from ESPN the last couple of years.

Who do you think would land on their feet in a poll drop, South Carolina losing to Georgia or Clemson losing to Florida State?

there are plenty of examples that prove this false...the sec is the boogeyman for some of you lol. let's just use week one of this year, uga loses to a top 10 clemson team and dropped 6 spots. there are numerous examples of teams not from the sec who lost to teams outside the top 10 and didn't drop even 6 spots. so i'm gonna need to see proof of this voter pity.

the whole voter thing is overplayed anyway. for the most part, the sec has benefited from teams losing which allowed them to get in. auburn went undefeated and got left out. 06' uf needed usc to lose on the last weekend to get in, 07' lsu needed west virginia and a few other teams to get in, 11' bama needed oklahoma state to lose to get in, 12' bama needed both oregon and k. state to lose to get in. how is this proof that voters are favoring them? blame the other teams for slipping up. some of y'all are letting hate cloud the facts.

If the SEC is the boogeyman for people outside of the conference, it's the "security blankie" for the mid-tier teams within it.

 

[killa1storm]

how is this not true of other conferences though?

is the sec the only team with multiple teams who start the season in the top 25 or play ooc cupcakes? simple research shows this isn't close to true. for example the pac-12 had 5 this year in the preseason top 25, the big 10 had 5 as well, that's close to half of their teams starting in the top 25, why isn't that true of them? when they lose to each other they won't fall and if they win they'll shoot up as well, no different than the sec. seems like selective critiquing.

The voters pity the SEC losses a lot more than they do any other conference vs. conference loss, simply because of the rusty trombones they've gotten from ESPN the last couple of years.

Who do you think would land on their feet in a poll drop, South Carolina losing to Georgia or Clemson losing to Florida State?

there are plenty of examples that prove this false...the sec is the boogeyman for some of you lol. let's just use week one of this year, uga loses to a top 10 clemson team and dropped 6 spots. there are numerous examples of teams not from the sec who lost to teams outside the top 10 and didn't drop even 6 spots. so i'm gonna need to see proof of this voter pity.

the whole voter thing is overplayed anyway. for the most part, the sec has benefited from teams losing which allowed them to get in. auburn went undefeated and got left out. 06' uf needed usc to lose on the last weekend to get in, 07' lsu needed west virginia and a few other teams to get in, 11' bama needed oklahoma state to lose to get in, 12' bama needed both oregon and k. state to lose to get in. how is this proof that voters are favoring them? blame the other teams for slipping up. some of y'all are letting hate cloud the facts.

If the SEC is the boogeyman for people outside of the conference, it's the "security blankie" for the mid-tier teams within it.

ok i guess. people concern themselves with that argument, i don't. i have said already that the argument is bunk, once you get past the few top teams, the rest of the conference is trash...and that is true for every conference. the only difference is the sec's top 4 is usually better than teams of other conference on average...at least in the last decade or so.

i'm not an 'sec' guy anyway. i argue points that i think are wrong, but for the most part i hope they all get their asses kicked, especially uga. i'm concerned with uf and uf only.

 

[kmwcane]

With half the conference ranked in preseason polls followed by most of the conference teeing off cupcake OOC games, by the time you hit October you have nearly every team in the conference with a fictional number next to their name come conference play time because they are all 3-1 or 4-0.

The system never allows them to move down because there's always an SEC matchup of like a #14 vs. a #6, so no matter what if the lower seed wins the shoot right up near the top and the lower seed only slightly dips because hey they lost to a ranked team. If they higher seed wins, they move up because they just defeated another SEC opponent that was ranked.

The system is completely broken, preseason rankings make it impossible for their teams to dip out of the top of the polls unless they have a total collapse like Arkansas did last year.

This guy gets it. It's a perpetual cycle of never ending hype. Created by ESPN. And it's rather Genius because ESPN is making billions of dollars off the perception. ESPN use to use Rivals and Scout ranking of High School Athletes. They did away with that for their own rankings. It's no coincidence that ESPN recruit rankings are heavily skewed towards the South. So each year they can crown a team with a top 25 class, so their analyst can say "they have soo much talent". It's funny how 8 years ago the argument for SEC playing Cupcakes was "The SEC is too hard" yet they hadn't even started their historic run. Now it's acceptable to play 3 cupcakes a year. The SEC does not have 4 legit title contenders every year. They have 2 legit teams like everyone else, and a bunch of teams getting the benefit of the doubt. Then in October as this posted mentioned when they are 4-0 and ranked 10th we should just believe it because Buffalo and FAU are really good programs.

Auburn was ranked as high as #11 in the preseason polls in 2004. They didn't lose a single game and still got left out of the title game. Clearly an SEC bias right? People blaming the system are just grasping for straws. Auburn didn't get into the 2004 title game even though they went undefeated. Why is that? Oh. Because other teams from other conferences were undefeated as well. How about that? If another team from another conference goes undefeated just like the SEC teams, they have a shot at being ahead of the SEC schools in the BCS. Color me shocked.

Auburn was left out because they had a HORRIBLE strength of schedule. And guess what, SOS was removed from the BCS formula the very next year!

Um...no. No it wasn't.

"The strength of schedule factor is the key ingredient in all of the computer polls, and I would say, the overall BCS poll as well. Why? Because the 132 year history of college football has proven to us repeatedly that teams with one or more losses on the season are indeed better than some undefeated teams that have played weaker schedules. This is the most challenging part of the formula simply because of the tremendous research that has to be done to create the end result."

That's a quote from an ESPN writer breaking down the BCS formula in October of last year.

Ummm, yes it was. SOS was a stand alone component and was removed from the BCS formula. One of many tweaks made over the years.

 

[TRock305]

All I know is the SEC was a mediocre conference for a long time when Miami was good and then something happened ... ESPN Game Day started playing country music as its theme, as if to equate college football and the south; ESPN and SEC enter into mutually beneficial financial arrangement; the pollsters started voting 5 SEC teams in top 10 in every preseason poll as a matter of course; and Miami got mired in an outrageously long NCAA investigation (while the NCAA was run by an SEC guy). College football needs a Miami resurgence to end this SEC B.S. And it would help if ESPN would stop with the country music themes...

 

[Big Sky Cane]

Well I don't think you'd have many people say outright that the SEC is not the best conference. I think what gets in most peoples craw is the gap is not as wide as the media would like you to believe. That is my belief anyway.

In the truest market place known to evaluate college talent is the NFL.

NFL pro bowl 2013 had 26 from SEC, 19 from ACC, 16 Big Ten, 15 Pac 10, 13 Big XII.

NFL roster breakdown (as of June of this year) SEC 32%, PAC 12 28%, Big 10 27%, ACC 26%, Big XII 23%. http://i.imgur.com/9yisEdG.jpg

I know that doesn't judge "teams", however, it is as good a measure of talent as you'll ever get.

Here is where the SEC is dominating the rest of college football and that is the Defensive line. They currently have 50 Dlinemen in the league. ACC is a distant second with 33. http://collegefootball.ap.org/content/sec-dominating-nfl-roster-spots-defensive-line-0

 

[LuCane]

how is this not true of other conferences though?

is the sec the only team with multiple teams who start the season in the top 25 or play ooc cupcakes? simple research shows this isn't close to true. for example the pac-12 had 5 this year in the preseason top 25, the big 10 had 5 as well, that's close to half of their teams starting in the top 25, why isn't that true of them? when they lose to each other they won't fall and if they win they'll shoot up as well, no different than the sec. seems like selective critiquing.

The voters pity the SEC losses a lot more than they do any other conference vs. conference loss, simply because of the rusty trombones they've gotten from ESPN the last couple of years.

Who do you think would land on their feet in a poll drop, South Carolina losing to Georgia or Clemson losing to Florida State?

there are plenty of examples that prove this false...the sec is the boogeyman for some of you lol. let's just use week one of this year, uga loses to a top 10 clemson team and dropped 6 spots. there are numerous examples of teams not from the sec who lost to teams outside the top 10 and didn't drop even 6 spots. so i'm gonna need to see proof of this voter pity.

the whole voter thing is overplayed anyway. for the most part, the sec has benefited from teams losing which allowed them to get in. auburn went undefeated and got left out. 06' uf needed usc to lose on the last weekend to get in, 07' lsu needed west virginia and a few other teams to get in, 11' bama needed oklahoma state to lose to get in, 12' bama needed both oregon and k. state to lose to get in. how is this proof that voters are favoring them? blame the other teams for slipping up. some of y'all are letting hate cloud the facts.

If the SEC is the boogeyman for people outside of the conference, it's the "security blankie" for the mid-tier teams within it.

ok i guess. people concern themselves with that argument, i don't. i have said already that the argument is bunk, once you get past the few top teams, the rest of the conference is trash...and that is true for every conference. the only difference is the sec's top 4 is usually better than teams of other conference on average...at least in the last decade or so.

i'm not an 'sec' guy anyway. i argue points that i think are wrong, but for the most part i hope they all get their asses kicked, especially uga. i'm concerned with uf and uf only.

Preaching to the choir. My statement in this thread revolved around one point: I'm just not buying that exceptionally better football is being played throughout (from top to middle to bottom) the SEC conference.

 

[killa1storm]

Well I don't think you'd have many people say outright that the SEC is not the best conference. I think what gets in most peoples craw is the gap is not as wide as the media would like you to believe. That is my belief anyway.

In the truest market place known to evaluate college talent is the NFL.

NFL pro bowl 2013 had 26 from SEC, 19 from ACC, 16 Big Ten, 15 Pac 10, 13 Big XII.

NFL roster breakdown (as of June of this year) SEC 32%, PAC 12 28%, Big 10 27%, ACC 26%, Big XII 23%. http://i.imgur.com/9yisEdG.jpg

I know that doesn't judge "teams", however, it is as good a measure of talent as you'll ever get.

Here is where the SEC is dominating the rest of college football and that is the Defensive line. They currently have 50 Dlinemen in the league. ACC is a distant second with 33. http://collegefootball.ap.org/content/sec-dominating-nfl-roster-spots-defensive-line-0

very fair and balanced post.

i can agree with this. it's even reflected in the nfl players...look at how many sec players were drafted compared to other conferences this past draft.

were i not a fan of an sec school it would definitely get on my nerves, **** a good bit of it already does. i do think they're better but the gap isn't nearly as wide as some would have you believe. but like i said in another post it wasn't always that way. just a few years ago the big 12, pac 12, and big 10 were all the rage...this is cyclical.

 

[kmwcane]

Preaching to the choir. My statement in this thread revolved around one point: I'm just not buying that exceptionally better football is being played throughout (from top to middle to bottom) the SEC conference.

My sentiments exactly.

 

[4Canes]

This is the point those defending the SEC seem to not get. No one is saying that the SEC is not a strong conference, it is...at the top, but it is the same as every other conference after that. Problem is the entire conference gets labeled "toughest" when its not valid. When the questions start popping up about, a two loss SEC team vs an undefeated in so and so bowl, that's a problem.