When we’re evaluating the SEC, let’s not overlook Mississippi State losing to Division I-AA, University of Fucking Maine.
Yeah, the same Mississippi State that Florida lost to.
I’m not talking about hockey.
Southern will be a Division 1-A team one day, don’t doubt that. The Ga/GA Southern game has potential for a decent rivalry once the GSU makes Div 1-A and has more experience under their belt. GA didn’t play Southern because it would be an easy win. Southern is taking the steps to go from Div 1-AA to Div 1-A.
You say in one breath that the SEC teams don’t suck, but the rest of your statements indicate that you do kinda think they suck:
It seems to me, and I could be wrong, that your opinion is that the SEC plays division games so much because they are afraid to play other, “better” teams in the other conferences.
On preview: DID someone say that Auburn deserves a shot simply because they are in the SEC? I don’t remember seeing that, please correct me if I just missed it.
It was obvious that he read part of it. But I don’t see how he could have posted this: “Auburn took on a Division 1-AA school and chickened out against playing another BCS school.” If he had bothered to comprehend the whole thing.
By Neurotic: If the SEC wants to complain that the current system sucks and a playoff is needed, I support that. If Auburn wants to complain that they deserve it over USC or Oklahoma because those two struggled against teams more often than Auburn, that’s a reasonable argument. But they don’t get to complain that they deserve a title shot over the other undefeated BCS teams simply because they come out of the SEC."
I don’t think you can find where I, personally, claimed that Auburn deserved to be in the BCS game simply because they play in the SEC. Others here have come pretty close to claiming that, though.
Somewhere earlier in this thread I stated that I didn’t give too much of a damn about who played for the BCS trophy. If Auburn can beat Virginia Tech and finish 13-0 I’ll be delighted with this season.
The BCS was supposed to provide a clear National Champion and take the popularity contest aspect out of things. Slowly over the years factors have been removed from the BCS formula until we’re right back with a popularity contest.
Without the BCS, this year’s bowl games would have been something like: USC/Michigan, Auburn/Texas, Oklahoma/California and Utah/Virginia Tech. If all the undefeateds won out, there would have been a controversy. We’ve still got a controversy, with, as a whole, worse games.
Rationalize much?
southern much?
Very Southern!
Well, when that day comes, I’ll stop saying that Georgia Southern doesn’t help the SEC’s cause when it wants to claim that it’s the hands down toughest conference.
You mean Division 1-AA games? The only other reason to play them would be to build an in-state rivalry if a team is soon to be Division 1-A or something. Or to help an old assistant’s team to get some national exposure, which happens in NCAA basketball quite frequently.
As for them afraid to play other, better conferences? Yeah, I think there’s some of that. Look at last year’s SEC. They played 15 games against non-conference BCS teams and got absolutely dusted, compiling an 4-11 record. They notice that an easy schedule doesn’t stop LSU from playing for the championship, not even playing against a Div 1-AA team. It’s even more advantageous now, since SoS has been eliminated as a factor. So why not just play easy teams and not risk losing, knowing if you compile a good conference record, you’ll get ranked highly simply off of the conference’s rep.
That’s how I read the OP.
Pacers/Pistons
John from Mars has a really good point concerning the media’s love affair with USC as exemplified in the very different ways that USC/UCLA and Bama/Auburn were dealt with . . . Auburn should have done more . . . SC was in a rivalry . … horseshit!
I do agree that the SEC has not done all that it can to maintian its reputation. It’s one thing to have a Vandy and a Kentucky, but to have a Vandy, a Kentucky, a Miss. State and an Ole Miss, well you’re not doing any thing for your conference strength argument. But why all the hate from the West Coast? Part of the SEC’s strength argument is that, if you’re Florida for example, you play two in-conference in-division games against teams that in any given year have a good shot of beating you (Ga and Tenn). You also play an LSU and Arkansas, then FSU (non-conf.). Year in and year out, you play three maybe four top twenty conference games. Are they always the best (top five teams)? No. But a top twenty team has a helluva a lot better chance of sneaking up on you than a shit bag nothing program.
I think a playoff is necessary to prevent the argument taking place. It’s curious to USC fans deriding the SEC for riding a reputation when reputation (pre-season polls) is a major factor in USC’s current rank.
I think the west coast is still jealous that Valdosta is widely regarded as the best HS program despite De La Salle’s last five years (did I just bring up high school football?)
Yes, you did, from out of nowhere, and with absolutely no relation whatsoever to the debate, and how can you be jealous of something you’ve never heard of over something you don’t care about?
(And it was De La Salle’s last 15 years.)
Because we’re annoyed with the assumption that the SEC is the toughest conference, even though the SEC teams duck out of scheduling games against teams from other major conferences. And when they do end up playing them, they don’t tend do that well. The past two seasons, the SEC is 8-15 vs. the other BCS conferences.
Then, we have to ask ourselves, why are they top 20 teams? Is it because they distinguish themselves outside their conference against tough opponents? Sometimes, certainly. The last couple seasons, I’d say no. Take Tennessee, for instance. The last three seasons, the only major conference teams they’ve played is Notre Dame (lost both times), Miami (lost) and Rutgers (which they won). And they’ve lost their last two bowl games, as well - to Clemson and Maryland. They only seem to be able to rack up an impressive record against second-tier non-conference opponents and in-conference games.
Or take a look at Florida. This is what they’ve done the past three season as far as non-SEC major conference teams: Florida State 3 times (won once, lost twice), Miami twice (lost both times). They’ve lost their last two bowl games, as well, against Iowa and Michigan.
Can’t say anything about Georgia the past few years. They’ve talked the talk and walked the walk.
So, some of the teams (Florida and Tennessee) that people keep talking about as being the reason that the SEC is so much better than the other conferences, can’t beat good teams from other major conferences. But they kept being used as evidence that the tough in-conference schedule is what keeps the SEC on top.
I think you’re overestimating how many people have heard about Valdosta. You’re certainly overestimating how many people care.
Dammit, I knew I should have put one of those stupid ass smiley faces after that highschool footbal comment to clarify that it was a joke but I didn’t think the ilk on this board, having memorized the schedules and records of teams they don’t follow, would be so obtuse as to miss the apparent sarcasm . . my appologies 
Now on to your points, Florida is a fine example of a reason why the SEC is a tough conference. Their last three years, they’ve been a shadow of their Ol’ Ballcoach days past, but still they damn near squeaked out a win against both Miami and Florida State in '03 (each game by last minute score), they were the only team to beat 1/2 of the National Champs last year and they beat (for the 13th time in 14 years) this talk walkin UGA program. My point is that fundamentally sound struggling program is much more likely to raise up for a big game especially when there’s a rivalry at stake and the SEC is filled with those sort of programs. Don’t focus so much on non-confernce competition and lose sight of the number of really good conference games a team has to play. Playing Tennesse for the second time was waaaaaaaaaaaayyyy harder than playing Colorado or UCLA.
BTW, I admitted that the SEC has had three or four perenially weak teams, but they’ve also had three to five perenial powerhouses.
as to UF’s UGA and LSU victories, I was obvioulsly referring to 2003 wins.
Neurotik said: I think you’re overestimating how many people have heard about Valdosta. You’re certainly overestimating how many people care.
eh? you tellin me all these folks babblin about who played which 9-2 team and which non-conference opponent don’t know what the winningest highschool football program of all time is? College football players don’t spontaneously generate and with the rare exception of a kicker or receiver, here and there, they tend to play highschool ball. My comment was, as stated, a joke, but I bet you most college football fans know about De La Salle, Valdosta . . .
Still, I wanna know how a USC advocate can possibly complain about the SEC relying on reputation when USC’s preseason rank is one of the primary reasons it is number one.
You mean other than Cal (who beat USC)?
actually I meant the only team to beat LSU, but the way that I put it, yes, I would have to include Cal. I should have said “the only team to beat LSU, 1/2 of the Natonal Champs.” Sorry for any confusion . . no slight meant to Cal.
Yep. I never heard of it, I had to look it up. Just as how I’ve had to look up the schedules and such to find out about non-conference opponents. I’ve got none of this memorized.
Bzzzt. Time out. There’s no doubt the SEC is a tough conference. The question is, are they the hands-down toughest conference?
Oregon State nearly squeaked out a win against LSU this year. A loss is a loss is a loss. You want to be counted as good, you’d better win.
Except Cal…
They did. Good on them. Too bad they couldn’t beat FSU but once the last three years, or Miami, or Michigan, or Iowa. Then maybe we’d be talking about them being able to beat someone outside their own conference.
But they didn’t, so we’re not.
I was using UF as an example of a down on their luck squad that’s still tough in conference play, the near losses were evidence of their potential, the wins against UGA and LSU a realization of that potential. What you’ve done is take my example of a middle of the road squad who’s risen to the occassion in conference play (living up to potential demonstrated in non-conference play) and made that the embodiment of every SEC team’s non-conference play. That is the height of disingenuinness.
I have neither the time nor the energy to see how many of those non-conference losses in the SEC came from conference basement dwellers, either perenials (Vandy, UK, Ole Miss) or down on their luck squads (e.g. Bama), but I think it would add interesting depth to those otherwise shallow statistics. Additonally, I would like to see a comparison of the various conferences non-conference opponents - some years playing Notre Dame means something, some years it doesn’t.
Finally, I agree that the SEC is not the only tough conference and this brings me to my point. The backlash to the OP has largely been a criticism of the SEC being overrated. My question is by whom? Not the press. Not the coaches. The fans? Yeah, they detemrine rankings. The media lovefest that is anything to do with USC and Oklahoma makes me wonder where this overrating comment finds it locus.
Well USC did go 12-0 and somebody has to be #1. What real riles is comments like this in the OP:
It riles becuase it is without any basis in fact. It is an assertion made as if it is a first principle. It isn’t, there is plenty of reason to doubt the assertion.
Um, how dense are you?
You were the one who used UF as an example of why the SEC was a tough conference. So I used UF as a counterpoint. The issue of the entire SEC’s non-conference play has been already discussed here. Read the whole thread and then come back.
By the OP and a few other posters here. PTI was just discussing how the SEC was easily the toughest conference and how Auburn should probably be taking the place of one of the two teams. And they’ve discussed it on College Gameday on ESPN.
My density is approximately 61-67 pounds per cubic foot, with breathe exhaled and 56-62 pounds per cubic foot when I inhale. Now was there really any need to be nasty?
When I stated that you disengenuously used UF’s bad year non-conference performance I was referring to this statement “Too bad they couldn’t beat FSU but once the last three years, or Miami, or Michigan, or Iowa. Then maybe we’d be talking about them being able to beat someone outside their own conference.”
I have read the entire thread, as is suggested by this statement,“I have neither the time nor the energy to see how many of those non-conference losses in the SEC came from conference basement dwellers, either perenials (Vandy, UK, Ole Miss) or down on their luck squads (e.g. Bama), but I think it would add interesting depth to those otherwise shallow statistics [reffered to by you many posts ago].” My hunch is that the answer to this might seriously undercut your weak non-conference performance argument. In other words, if in any given year the SEC has 4 good sqauds, 4 shitty squads, with the rest in the middle, and in that year they go 4-4 in BCS non-conference games, and 3 of those losses were by Ole Miss, UK, and Vandy. In the same year, the PAC-10 has 3 good squads, and they go 5-3 in BCS non-conference games, but the 3 good squads account for all the BCS non-conference losses, and the 9 BCS non-conference wins were to shitty programs, then just looking at the overall BCS non-conference record doesn’t give you a very good picture of the best of each conference. Right? By your logic, UF, UT, UGA should load up on Syracuse, BC, WVa, Duke, Wake Forrest games
PTI? help a brother out.
It’s a show on ESPN.