SEC Still Best Football Conference in America!

[TBCuse11]

Eh, I think you're taking way too much from one game. Just because the bowl games are what the teams play for doesn't mean the better team always wins. I think Alabama was pretty easily better than Ohio State this year, and even yesterday. Lane Kiffin just wouldn't let them win for some reason. To me, I would go with the SEC, then Pac 12, then Big 12, then Big 10, then ACC.

yes he is. dude has a strong agenda to bash the SEC... which is his right. It just comes of as sounding silly.

SEC is still the dominant conference in all of football. They just had a down year, all the way down to 2nd best conference.

 

[TBCuse11]

If they simply hand the ball off last night, they win by multiple possessions. Ohio State had absolutely no answer for their running game. Kiffin just refused to use it for some unknown reason. So yes, I think they were the better team all year and last night didn't do anything to change that opinion. They just blew an easy opportunity, which happens from time to time. I'm not about to say Ohio State was a better team because of one game, just like I disagree with the people that say Baylor is better than TCU because of one game.

one game judgments are never a good thing. Is Arizona better than Oregon? Is BC better than USC? IS Va Tech better than Ohio State? No, no, and no.
The SEC still rules the game. For now...

 

[wfschrec]

How is the Pac 12 better than the B1G?

The second best Pac 12 team lost to Boise.

If you are so gung ho about bowl results look at the respective records for each conference.

 

[HOFCeluck]

The argument against Ohio state in the playoff four like a month was that the big ten wasn't that good.

 

[SWC75]

The big thing used to be the mighty SEC defenses, full of pro prospects.

In 2007, (I'm using the year of the BCS title game) Ohio State came in averaging 36 points per game and scored 14 vs. Florida.

In 2008 the Buckeyes came in at 32ppg and scored 24 vs. LSU.

In 2009 Oklahoma was averaging 54ppg, (and had scored 60+ five times in a row) and got 14 vs. Florida.

In 2010 Texas was averaging 41ppg and got 21 vs. Alabama, (admittedly Colt McCoy getting hurt on the first possession didn't help).

In 2011 Oregon was averaging 49ppg and got 19 vs. Auburn.

In 2012 they were both SEC teams. Alabama won in a shut-out over LSU, who'd been averaging 38 points a game. .

In 2013 Notre Dame was averaging 27ppg and got 14 vs. Alabama.

In 2014 Florida State was averaging 53ppg and got 34 vs. Auburn.



In 2015 Ohio State was averaging 45ppg and got 42 vs. Alabama

TCU came in averaging 47 and got 42 vs. Ole Miss

Georgia Tech came in averaging 37 and got 49 vs. Mississippi State

Wisconsin came in averaging 35ppg and got 34 vs. Auburn

Minnesota came in averaging 29 and got 17 vs. Missouri

Louisville came in averaging 33 points and scored 14 vs. Georgia

Notre Dame came in averaging 33 and scored 31 vs. LSU

Texas came in averaging 23 and got 7 vs. Arkansas

West Virginia came in averaging 28 and got 37 vs. Texas A&M

Miami cam in averaging 30 and got 21 vs. South Carolina

Iowa is averaging 30 and plays Tennessee today.

East Carolina is averaging 37 and plays Florida tomorrow.

On the whole I'd say that modern college offenses are catching up to SEC defenses.

 

[TheCusian]

If they simply hand the ball off last night, they win by multiple possessions. Ohio State had absolutely no answer for their running game. Kiffin just refused to use it for some unknown reason. So yes, I think they were the better team all year and last night didn't do anything to change that opinion. They just blew an easy opportunity, which happens from time to time. I'm not about to say Ohio State was a better team because of one game, just like I disagree with the people that say Baylor is better than TCU because of one game.

Cute. Whatever floats your boat.

I take on the field wins over hypotheticals as measurements of greatness.

 

[omniorange]

This is a wildly inaccurate post. To imply the ACC is even in the same world as the SEC is just silly. Bowl games dont prove much honestly. SEC teams have one goal, to win the title. Teams like Ole Miss and Miss St... they were never going to get up for those games. The PAC12 is the best, the SEC is a close 2nd.

then there are the rest.

As you said, there are silly arguments in this thread. But this is one of them as well. The idea that Ole Miss and Miss State weren't "up" for these games because all SEC teams only have one goal - to win the title - is SEC hype at the highest level. You have to go back more than 70 years for the Bulldogs last meaningful bowl game and 50 or so years for the Rebels. Not all SEC teams are equal in terms of their goals.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[HOFCeluck]

The nice thing is that can retroactively change the narrative ie ole miss was either fired up to prove the world wrong, or they just didn't care because it was title or bust. In this case...it was the latter.

 

[omniorange]

The nice thing is that can retroactively change the narrative ie ole miss was either fired up to prove the world wrong, or they just didn't care because it was title or bust. In this case...it was the latter.

Though you state the narrative can be either, you appear to be stating the latter as fact. Was this your intent?

Cheers,
Neil

 

[HOFCeluck]

Though you state the narrative can be either, you appear to be stating the latter as fact. Was this your intent?

Cheers,
Neil

No it was meant to be facetious.

 

[omniorange]

No it was meant to be facetious.

Thanks. I honestly couldn't tell based upon your back and forth with Alsacs in the other thread.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[HOFCeluck]

Thanks. I honestly couldn't tell based upon your back and forth with Alsacs in the other thread.

Cheers,
Neil

No...I iust didn't perceive the hype everyone else did. I didn't think the SEC was THAT good this year.

 

[omniorange]

No...I iust didn't perceive the hype everyone else did. I didn't think the SEC was THAT good this year.

Well you were ahead of the curve then.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[Crusty]

Nobody is as over rated as ND year after year.

 

[wfschrec]

Was this a down year for the SEC? Yes. Are they usually the best conference in the land? Yes. Are they still a top 3 conference even this season? Yes. I find it hilarious that people on this board want to crucify them for scheduling the way they do and then insist SU should do the same because it works for programs like Rutgers. When you play in a conference as athletic and as deep as the SEC I can see the appeal in playing pasties. Facts are pretty simple:

SEC has a .563 bowl winning percentage, the only other P5 conference even over .500 is the Pac-12 which rests at .526. If you look at the active NFL rosters the SEC has 4 teams in the top 7 in terms of producing NFL level talent. Bama, LSU, Georgia and UF are in the top 7 along with FSU and Miami of the ACC and the lone other team is from the Pac-12 in USC. That is a massive outflux of talent year after year. I would love to say that SU is in a conference that strong but the ACC just isn't there at this point in time, hell the SEC produced 7 straight National Champs. I live in SEC country and it sucks at times hearing about it but they have amazing athletes and play a very high level of football. The fact is you don't have to like the conference but in most seasons they truly are a dominant entity.

 

[SWC75]

Was this a down year for the SEC? Yes. Are they usually the best conference in the land? Yes. Are they still a top 3 conference even this season? Yes. I find it hilarious that people on this board want to crucify them for scheduling the way they do and then insist SU should do the same because it works for programs like Rutgers. When you play in a conference as athletic and as deep as the SEC I can see the appeal in playing pasties. Facts are pretty simple:

SEC has a .563 bowl winning percentage, the only other P5 conference even over .500 is the Pac-12 which rests at .526. If you look at the active NFL rosters the SEC has 4 teams in the top 7 in terms of producing NFL level talent. Bama, LSU, Georgia and UF are in the top 7 along with FSU and Miami of the ACC and the lone other team is from the Pac-12 in USC. That is a massive outflux of talent year after year. I would love to say that SU is in a conference that strong but the ACC just isn't there at this point in time, hell the SEC produced 7 straight National Champs. I live in SEC country and it sucks at times hearing about it but they have amazing athletes and play a very high level of football. The fact is you don't have to like the conference but in most seasons they truly are a dominant entity.

But it was a down year and if a conference has such a thing you can't just rate their teams above others just because of the brand of the conference. The failure to play a lot of games against other power 5 teams makes it hard to judge whether or not it was a down year until the bowl season.

 

[Moontan]

Some food for thought...

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...nd-of-an-era-breaking-down-the-secs-bowl-bust

 

[wfschrec]

But it was a down year and if a conference has such a thing you can't just rate their teams above others just because of the brand of the conference. The failure to play a lot of games against other power 5 teams makes it hard to judge whether or not it was a down year until the bowl season.

I'm not saying you rate them above for that reason however they have earned the benefit of the doubt have they not?

 

[wfschrec]

Florida, Georgia and LSU each have 33 active NFLers and Alabama has 36. Those 4 teams alone could build more than 2 NFL rosters ... in a 2012 survey the SEC had over 300 active players (329 to be exact) far more than any other conference ... the ACC was second with 256. Again the margin is enough to build nearly 1.5 football teams. When you are constantly pushing out talent like that there will be times where you are going to have blips and a "down" season. I will say that some P5s are gaining ground but no conference from top to bottom churns out talent and has the athletes the SEC has.

 

[SWC75]

I'm not saying you rate them above for that reason however they have earned the benefit of the doubt have they not?

What is the difference? The issue is presuming that an SEC team is better in a particular year because they are an SEC team. This eyar the presumption proved wrong. It might in another as well.

 

[wfschrec]

What is the difference? The issue is presuming that an SEC team is better in a particular year because they are an SEC team. This eyar the presumption proved wrong. It might in another as well.

Because based on percentages and track record that presumption is usually correct and therefore becomes the means by which analysis is performed. I never said it was necessarily right but based on trends and the fact that you have 120+ D1 teams how do you propose they do it?

 

[SWC75]

Because based on percentages and track record that presumption is usually correct and therefore becomes the means by which analysis is performed. I never said it was necessarily right but based on trends and the fact that you have 120+ D1 teams how do you propose they do it?

They could look at what the teams have actually done this year, rather than counting NFL players. That's where the SEC's scheduling practices allow them to remain a mystery, which produces the type of analysis you are advocating. Maybe if we stopped doing that, they might change their scheduling practices.

 

[wfschrec]

They could look at what the teams have actually done this year, rather than counting NFL players. That's where the SEC's scheduling practices allow them to remain a mystery, which produces the type of analysis you are advocating. Maybe if we stopped doing that, they might change their scheduling practices.

No the highest bowl winning percentage for a conference is what allows that ... and the SEC is tops.

 

[TheCusian]

No the highest bowl winning percentage for a conference is what allows that ... and the SEC is tops.

And now that their top teams have lost a fair amount of games at the top, they should take notice that the cream puff schedule won't cut it. They should be playing 2-3 games a year vs p5 opponents, the end, no more free reputation passes.

Not to mention bowl winning teams never return 100% of their coaches, players, etc from the year before AND the committee has said that they don't take the previous years results into consideration at all. Prior years bowl performance is as faulty a metric as NFL players drafted.

 

[wfschrec]

And now that their top teams have lost a fair amount of games at the top, they should take notice that the cream puff schedule won't cut it. They should be playing 2-3 games a year vs p5 opponents, the end, no more free reputation passes.

Not to mention bowl winning teams never return 100% of their coaches, players, etc from the year before AND the committee has said that they don't take the previous years results into consideration at all. Prior years bowl performance is as faulty a metric as NFL players drafted.

Its not perfect but how do you then determine preseason rankings effectively if you wish to just start throwing any of that data out the window? Go ahead and give me your top 25 for next year and your metrics for doing so then I'll take the time to tear them apart. There is no perfect way to do it ... but give me your top 25.