Can we finally blow the whistle on how overrated the SEC is?

[whodey21]

All we've heard about for ages is how dominant the SEC is, how SEC speed will revolutionize the game, and how every other conference is second-rate. After being subjected to a BS national championship game last year, we have since seen Florida get dominated by Louisville, LSU get "upset" by Clemson, Mississippi State get rocked by the 6th best team in the Big Ten, and two more "top teams" out of the SEC get played closely by Big Ten teams playing two bowls higher than they had earned.

One Mississippi State player even had the nerve to say "If you're fast in the Big Ten, you stand out. If you're fast in the SEC, you're just another player" before getting embarassed on the field by Northwestern.

After constantly playing garbage nonconference schedules and living under the excuse that any loss was "to another great SEC team", can we finally put an end to it all and call this what it is? Another average conference that has its strengths, and an incredible run of luck in bowl games.

Go Notre Dame, keep exposing the "best conference in the country, hands down" for what they really are.

[Funkysylvanelf]

Originally Posted by whodey21

One Mississippi State player even had the nerve to say "If you're fast in the Big Ten, you stand out. If you're fast in the SEC, you're just another player"

Well I guess he didn't scout Northwestern on video because clearly they where faster then them.

BTW, for me it was when foxsport ran this after Vanderbilt won his game

"The Southeastern Conference is so strong that even Vanderbilt, yes Vandy, is winning like the Commodores haven't in nearly a century."

I love college football, but I hate when schools, conferences, medias, fans are full of themselves.

[whodey21]

Originally Posted by Funkysylvanelf

Well I guess he didn't scout Northwestern on video because clearly they where faster then them.

BTW, for me it was when foxsport ran this after Vanderbilt won his game

"The Southeastern Conference is so strong that even Vanderbilt, yes Vandy, is winning like the Commodores haven't in nearly a century."

I love college football, but I hate when schools, conferences, medias, fans are full of themselves.

I don't mind it as much when it is just a team, because there's some pride and usually a personal connection involved. When someone is cheering for just one team, they are achieving things on their own merits. I can't stand people who are fans of an entire conference. When you cheer for 16 teams, you win and lose every week, but you only talk about the wins. You don't have team colors, a mascot, or even in-depth knowledge about your roster. It becomes strictly a numbers game instead of having the pride and spirit that makes college football so special.

No Buckeye wants to see Michigan win a national title, and no one at USC wants UCLA to get a crystal football. Yet, somehow, I constantly see Auburn fans cheering for Alabama like the Tigers achieve something if the they win!

[Funkysylvanelf]

Originally Posted by whodey21

I don't mind it as much when it is just a team, because there's some pride and usually a personal connection involved. When someone is cheering for just one team, they are achieving things on their own merits. I can't stand people who are fans of an entire conference. When you cheer for 16 teams, you win and lose every week, but you only talk about the wins. You don't have team colors, a mascot, or even in-depth knowledge about your roster. It becomes strictly a numbers game instead of having the pride and spirit that makes college football so special.

No Buckeye wants to see Michigan win a national title, and no one at USC wants UCLA to get a crystal football. Yet, somehow, I constantly see Auburn fans cheering for Alabama like the Tigers achieve something if the they win!

Man! Exactly! Rep+

[jack1953]

Originally Posted by whodey21

All we've heard about for ages is how dominant the SEC is, how SEC speed will revolutionize the game, and how every other conference is second-rate. After being subjected to a BS national championship game last year, we have since seen Florida get dominated by Louisville, LSU get "upset" by Clemson, Mississippi State get rocked by the 6th best team in the Big Ten, and two more "top teams" out of the SEC get played closely by Big Ten teams playing two bowls higher than they had earned.

One Mississippi State player even had the nerve to say "If you're fast in the Big Ten, you stand out. If you're fast in the SEC, you're just another player" before getting embarassed on the field by Northwestern.

After constantly playing garbage nonconference schedules and living under the excuse that any loss was "to another great SEC team", can we finally put an end to it all and call this what it is? Another average conference that has its strengths, and an incredible run of luck in bowl games.

Go Notre Dame, keep exposing the "best conference in the country, hands down" for what they really are.

Let me clear, I am a Buckeye fan first and foremost. However I have lived in Florida since 1981, met my wife here in 1989, married in 1991, and had our son in 1993 who is now a sophomore at the University of Florida.

Now that I've been down here for 31 years and have been close to Florida football and the SEC, there is no doubt that they are the most dominant conference in football, just as the Big Ten is in basketball.

I would love to see the Buckeyes get another chance at one of the SEC schools again, but numbers and stats don't lie. Right now, they are top dog in NCAA Division I Football.

[Helldog]

Originally Posted by whodey21

All we've heard about for ages is how dominant the SEC is, how SEC speed will revolutionize the game, and how every other conference is second-rate. After being subjected to a BS national championship game last year, we have since seen Florida get dominated by Louisville, LSU get "upset" by Clemson, Mississippi State get rocked by the 6th best team in the Big Ten, and two more "top teams" out of the SEC get played closely by Big Ten teams playing two bowls higher than they had earned.

One Mississippi State player even had the nerve to say "If you're fast in the Big Ten, you stand out. If you're fast in the SEC, you're just another player" before getting embarassed on the field by Northwestern.

After constantly playing garbage nonconference schedules and living under the excuse that any loss was "to another great SEC team", can we finally put an end to it all and call this what it is? Another average conference that has its strengths, and an incredible run of luck in bowl games.

Go Notre Dame, keep exposing the "best conference in the country, hands down" for what they really are.

LOL. I love heart broken OSU fans. This post has butt hurt written all over it.


SEC football is above all right now by a wide margin.


Please, save your fingers the typing in trying to justify otherwards

[Whatever]

Originally Posted by whodey21

All we've heard about for ages is how dominant the SEC is, how SEC speed will revolutionize the game, and how every other conference is second-rate. After being subjected to a BS national championship game last year, we have since seen Florida get dominated by Louisville, LSU get "upset" by Clemson, Mississippi State get rocked by the 6th best team in the Big Ten, and two more "top teams" out of the SEC get played closely by Big Ten teams playing two bowls higher than they had earned.

One Mississippi State player even had the nerve to say "If you're fast in the Big Ten, you stand out. If you're fast in the SEC, you're just another player" before getting embarassed on the field by Northwestern.

After constantly playing garbage nonconference schedules and living under the excuse that any loss was "to another great SEC team", can we finally put an end to it all and call this what it is? Another average conference that has its strengths, and an incredible run of luck in bowl games.

Go Notre Dame, keep exposing the "best conference in the country, hands down" for what they really are.

I think it's still pretty clear that the SEC is the most dominant conference in football. They were 7-3 in bowl games this year, while the Big-10 was only 2-5. Yes, Florida and LSU got upset, but top to bottom, they are still far and away the most loaded conference out there.

[Bengal Droppings]

Originally Posted by whodey21

All we've heard about for ages is how dominant the SEC is, how SEC speed will revolutionize the game, and how every other conference is second-rate. After being subjected to a BS national championship game last year, we have since seen Florida get dominated by Louisville, LSU get "upset" by Clemson, Mississippi State get rocked by the 6th best team in the Big Ten, and two more "top teams" out of the SEC get played closely by Big Ten teams playing two bowls higher than they had earned.

One Mississippi State player even had the nerve to say "If you're fast in the Big Ten, you stand out. If you're fast in the SEC, you're just another player" before getting embarassed on the field by Northwestern.

After constantly playing garbage nonconference schedules and living under the excuse that any loss was "to another great SEC team", can we finally put an end to it all and call this what it is? Another average conference that has its strengths, and an incredible run of luck in bowl games.

Go Notre Dame, keep exposing the "best conference in the country, hands down" for what they really are.

SEC isn't what it was a few years ago but it's still better and tougher than the other conferences. The SEC was no way over rated when Urb was at Florida. It was a scary conference. It's still the best but only because all the others s u ck.

[whodey21]

Originally Posted by Whatever

I think it's still pretty clear that the SEC is the most dominant conference in football. They were 7-3 in bowl games this year, while the Big-10 was only 2-5. Yes, Florida and LSU got upset, but top to bottom, they are still far and away the most loaded conference out there.

The SEC plays an incredibly weak and close-to-home bowl lineup. The fact that the Big Ten won at all when every team was playing two bowls above what they earned skews their result, while being impressive in and of itself. How many times did Big Ten teams play in the opposing team's home state? Last year, however, was a complete embarrassment for that particular conference.

Alabama is a talented team, there is no doubt about that, but last year's NCG was a joke of a game and a gimmie for the conference. In previous years they were a good conference, but the "top to bottom" comments are completely inaccurate.

The Florida and LSU games were only "upsets" because they were heavy favorites. They were only heavy favorites because they play in the SEC. Ergo, the conference is overrated once you get past Alabama.

Originally Posted by Helldog

LOL. I love heart broken OSU fans. This post has butt hurt written all over it.


SEC football is above all right now by a wide margin.


Please, save your fingers the typing in trying to justify otherwards

LOL. I love SEC apologists. This post has Florida/LSU butt hurt written all over it.

Alabama is above all (except Texas A&M, Oregon, and Ohio State) right now by a wide margin. Like every other conference in the country, the strength of the SEC lies at the top and falls off dramatically after the top one or two teams.

Please, save your fingers the typing when you are next choosing whether to argue without having a legitimate point.

[Stewee28]

I love the Buckeyes and root for the Big Ten, except for Michigan, I will not root for them, I dont care if its for a national title. I have a ton of UK fans because I went to school at EKU. Every weekend, we would get drunk and have this conversation. All these ******* UK fans would have to contribute is how the SEC is the best. But if it werent for Bama and LSU and Florida, the SEC wouldnt have that many titles in the last 8 years. You get these UK fans who root for Florida and Tennessee when it comes to these bowl games, and they are supposed to be their rivals. UK does nothing to contribute to the SEC in football. Hell, the bottom feeders in the Big Ten could beat UK in football. I just hate when people root for their rivals in conference bowl games. I would never root for Michigan.

I love seeing UK **** in football. Bama, LSU and Florida are the SEC. Then you have USC, A&M and Georgia in the second tier. A&M may reach the top tier next year with Johnny Football.

UK *****, Ole Miss is average at best, Miss St is average at best, Vandy is average at best, Mizzou was awful this year, Arkansas was garbage, Auburn was one of the worst teams in the country

[whodey21]

Originally Posted by Stewee28

I love the Buckeyes and root for the Big Ten, except for Michigan, I will not root for them, I dont care if its for a national title. I have a ton of UK fans because I went to school at EKU. Every weekend, we would get drunk and have this conversation. All these ******* UK fans would have to contribute is how the SEC is the best. But if it werent for Bama and LSU and Florida, the SEC wouldnt have that many titles in the last 8 years. You get these UK fans who root for Florida and Tennessee when it comes to these bowl games, and they are supposed to be their rivals. UK does nothing to contribute to the SEC in football. Hell, the bottom feeders in the Big Ten could beat UK in football. I just hate when people root for their rivals in conference bowl games. I would never root for Michigan.

I love seeing UK **** in football. Bama, LSU and Florida are the SEC. Then you have USC, A&M and Georgia in the second tier. A&M may reach the top tier next year with Johnny Football.

UK *****, Ole Miss is average at best, Miss St is average at best, Vandy is average at best, Mizzou was awful this year, Arkansas was garbage, Auburn was one of the worst teams in the country

Exactly right. I am so tired of the "top to bottom" comments, like the worst team in the SEC would somehow automatically win the title of any other conference every single year. Texas A&M is a team that was built (meaning their current senior class was recruited) to compete in the Big 12, and they did really well in their first year in the SEC. This is a team that went 4-5 in the Big 12 in 2011. Remember, "Johnny Football" was on the bench last year; he couldn't even make the field in 2011 against Texas and Oklahoma. If one year of watching and a new coach is all it takes to rock the mighty SEC, how tough can they really be?

I honestly don't think that UK could even compete in the MAC in football...

[Whatever]

Originally Posted by whodey21

The SEC plays an incredibly weak and close-to-home bowl lineup. The fact that the Big Ten won at all when every team was playing two bowls above what they earned skews their result, while being impressive in and of itself. How many times did Big Ten teams play in the opposing team's home state? Last year, however, was a complete embarrassment for that particular conference.

Alabama is a talented team, there is no doubt about that, but last year's NCG was a joke of a game and a gimmie for the conference. In previous years they were a good conference, but the "top to bottom" comments are completely inaccurate.

The Florida and LSU games were only "upsets" because they were heavy favorites. They were only heavy favorites because they play in the SEC. Ergo, the conference is overrated once you get past Alabama.

When you look at conference records, it's pretty clear to see that the SEC is still superior, top to bottom, to the Big-10. Head to head, South Carolina was 6-2 in the SEC and beat Michigan, who was 6-2 in the Big-10. Georgia was 7-1 in the SEC and Nebraska was 7-1 in the Big-10, and Georgia won that bowl, as well. The lone W for the Big-10 over the SEC was Northwestern over Mississippi St., and there you're taking a 10-3 ballclub that was ranked 20th in the nation and a 5-3 record in the Big-10 against an unranked Mississippi St. who was 4-4 in the SEC and squeeked into the Gator Bowl by going 4-0 against a pathetically weak out of conference schedule consisting of Jackson St., Troy, S. Alabama, and Middle Tennessee St.

Are there a couple of overrated teams in the SEC? Sure. Are they overrated as a conference? Not hardly.

FYI, the Big-10 only played two bowls against teams in their home state, the Rose Bowl with Stanford and the Meineke Bowl against Texas Tech.

[whodey21]

Originally Posted by Whatever

When you look at conference records, it's pretty clear to see that the SEC is still superior, top to bottom, to the Big-10. Head to head, South Carolina was 6-2 in the SEC and beat Michigan, who was 6-2 in the Big-10. Georgia was 7-1 in the SEC and Nebraska was 7-1 in the Big-10, and Georgia won that bowl, as well. The lone W for the Big-10 over the SEC was Northwestern over Mississippi St., and there you're taking a 10-3 ballclub that was ranked 20th in the nation and a 5-3 record in the Big-10 against an unranked Mississippi St. who was 4-4 in the SEC and squeeked into the Gator Bowl by going 4-0 against a pathetically weak out of conference schedule consisting of Jackson St., Troy, S. Alabama, and Middle Tennessee St.

Are there a couple of overrated teams in the SEC? Sure. Are they overrated as a conference? Not hardly.

FYI, the Big-10 only played two bowls against teams in their home state, the Rose Bowl with Stanford and the Meineke Bowl against Texas Tech.

Conference records don't matter. B1G teams play non-division games that skew those results. Michigan had to play Ohio State in Columbus while Minnesota got to play Illinois. Conference records are not the way bowl matchups are determined, and they are not relevant to this discussion.

If you watched the Georgia or SC games, you know that those games went down to the 4th quarter, and were much closer than they should have been. Especially with Saban's assertion that Georgia belonged in a BCS game. There is only one team in the SEC that belonged in a BCS game this year.

Ohio State, the best team in the B1G, was ineligible, and could not play in the Rose Bowl (or NCG), where they would have been.
Penn State, the second best team in the B1G, was ineligible, and could not play in the Rose Bowl/Capital One bowl.

Stanford (#1 in the Pac-12) got to play against the 3rd best team in the conference, Wisconsin, which should have been in the Outback Bowl.

The Gator Bowl should have had Nebraska, et cetera, et cetera. Every B1G team was playing two spots above the matchup they earned. Winning any bowls this year was a victory for them. Losing the Sugar Bowl raises questions about every team in the SEC except Alabama.

[Whatever]

Originally Posted by whodey21

Conference records don't matter. B1G teams play non-division games that skew those results. Michigan had to play Ohio State in Columbus while Minnesota got to play Illinois. Conference records are not the way bowl matchups are determined, and they are not relevant to this discussion.

If you watched the Georgia or SC games, you know that those games went down to the 4th quarter, and were much closer than they should have been. Especially with Saban's assertion that Georgia belonged in a BCS game. There is only one team in the SEC that belonged in a BCS game this year.

Ohio State, the best team in the B1G, was ineligible, and could not play in the Rose Bowl (or NCG), where they would have been.
Penn State, the second best team in the B1G, was ineligible, and could not play in the Rose Bowl/Capital One bowl.

Stanford (#1 in the Pac-12) got to play against the 3rd best team in the conference, Wisconsin, which should have been in the Outback Bowl.

The Gator Bowl should have had Nebraska, et cetera, et cetera. Every B1G team was playing two spots above the matchup they earned. Winning any bowls this year was a victory for them. Losing the Sugar Bowl raises questions about every team in the SEC except Alabama.

If we're looking at overall records, then your argument actually loses a lot of steam. The SEC had 6 teams with 10+ wins this year, while the Big-10 had only 3. If we match the SEC teams up against the Big-10 teams based on final records, this is what you'd have...

Alabama vs. Ohio State=Alabama was a cut above everybody this year, and we've watched the Buckeyes walk through their Big-10 schedule only to get beaten by big boys from other conferences to think that OSU would win this one. Advantage SEC.

Georgia vs.Northwestern=Georgia beat Nebraska in their bowl game and Nebraska beat Northwestern during the regular season. Advantage SEC.

Texas A&M vs. Nebraska=Give A&M the tiebreaker here for being the only team to beat the national champs and their extremely impressive bowl win over Oklahoma. Nebraska lost to Georgia by 2 TD's, and A&M was playing better football at the end of the year. The Aggies scored 30+ in 5 of their last 6 games and the Huskers defense went into the toilet at the end of the year. Advantage SEC.

South Carolina vs. Penn St.=SoS favors South Carolina. Their only two losses were to LSU and Florida. Penn State has a couple of nice W's over Northwestern and Wisconsin, but losses to Ohio and Virginia early in the year really makes it hard to go with the Nittney Lions in this one. Plus, SC beat Clemson on the road in their last game of their normal schedule. Advantage SEC.

Florida vs. Michigan=Florida certainly has a huge edge in wins, although Michigan played tough against South Carolina. Looking at their respective schedules, Florida has a big OOC W over Florida State on the road, while Michigan lost to both Alabama and Notre Dame. Michigan's one big W was over Northwestern, which isn't even that impressive when you consider Florida beat Texas A&M and the team Michigan lost their bowl game to, South Carolina. Advantage SEC.

LSU vs. Wisconsin=Neither team has a quality OOC victory. Wisconsin lost to Oregon State and Stanford while LSU obliterated Washington, but even that isn't a great comparison. At the end of the day, you've got a 10 win LSU team matched up against a team who's lone quality W was in the Big-10 title game over a Nebraska team that beat them earlier in the year, and the only reason they were in that game was the two teams ahead of them were on probation. The Badgers had a lot of close calls against tough teams, but proved when the going gets tough, they fold up. LSU in a squeeker. Advantage SEC.

Vanderbilt vs. Michigan St.=Both teams lost to Northwestern, with Vandy on the road and Sparty at home. For best respective conference W's, Vandy beat Ole Miss while State beat Wisconsin. Vandy beat 7-6 ACC club NC State in their bowl, while State beat 7-6 Big-12 school TCU in theirs. TCU's best W was over Texas, while the Wolfpack's best W was over Florida St. Based on a marginally tougher bowl opponent and two more W's during the season, I gotta' go with Vandy. Advantage SEC.

Mississippi St. vs. Purdue=The Bulldogs hold the lone W over a D-1 team with a winning record between these two teams, beating Middle Tennessee St.[8-4] out of the Sun Belt. Based on that and their superior record, I'm going with the Bulldogs in this one. Advantage SEC.

Ole' Miss vs. Minnessotta=Ole' Miss beat Mississippi St. in the regular season and won their bowl game over Pitt. The Golden Gophers W's over bowl elligible teams came against Purdue and Syracuse. Have to go with the team with the winning record. Advantage SEC.

Missouri vs. Indiana=I am giving Mizzou the benefit of the doubt in this one due to the fact that they beat Beef-O-Brady's Bowl champions, UCF and Indiana didn't beat a bowl elligible team all year. Advantage SEC.

Tennessee vs. Iowa=The Vols knocked off NC State at home, while Iowa beat Sparty in 2OT on the road. Given the fact that Iowa went totally in the crapper and lost their last 6, if they had to play the week after the bowls, I would say advantage Volunteers. Advantage SEC.

Arkansas vs. Illinois=The Razorbacks beat Liberty Bowl champs, Tulsa. Illinois' best W was either W. Michigan, a 4-8 MAC school, or Charleston Southern, a 5-6 D2 school. Advantage SEC.



At the end of the day, your argument is basically that the SEC is falling off because the best team in the Big East beat the 5th best SEC team and the second best ACC team beat the 6th best team from the SEC.

[wolfkaosaun]

Originally Posted by whodey21

Conference records don't matter. B1G teams play non-division games that skew those results. Michigan had to play Ohio State in Columbus while Minnesota got to play Illinois. Conference records are not the way bowl matchups are determined, and they are not relevant to this discussion.

If you watched the Georgia or SC games, you know that those games went down to the 4th quarter, and were much closer than they should have been. Especially with Saban's assertion that Georgia belonged in a BCS game. There is only one team in the SEC that belonged in a BCS game this year.

Ohio State, the best team in the B1G, was ineligible, and could not play in the Rose Bowl (or NCG), where they would have been.
Penn State, the second best team in the B1G, was ineligible, and could not play in the Rose Bowl/Capital One bowl.

Stanford (#1 in the Pac-12) got to play against the 3rd best team in the conference, Wisconsin, which should have been in the Outback Bowl.

The Gator Bowl should have had Nebraska, et cetera, et cetera. Every B1G team was playing two spots above the matchup they earned. Winning any bowls this year was a victory for them. Losing the Sugar Bowl raises questions about every team in the SEC except Alabama.

Yes, because an upset in a bowl game ruins the whole conference.

Lolwut?

And you said winning ANY bowls is a victory for the Big 10. The SEC wants to win every bowl, and expects to.

If you put teams toe to toe, SEC would have more wins than the Big 10. Actually, put the SEC against any conference for that matter.

[whodey21]

Originally Posted by wolfkaosaun

Yes, because an upset in a bowl game ruins the whole conference.

Lolwut?

And you said winning ANY bowls is a victory for the Big 10. The SEC wants to win every bowl, and expects to.

If you put teams toe to toe, SEC would have more wins than the Big 10. Actually, put the SEC against any conference for that matter.

Ugh.

THIS YEAR the Big Ten having any bowl wins is a big deal. THIS YEAR every Big Ten team was playing two bowls above the bowl they earned. The Big Ten expects to win their bowls, too, but not in a year when their best two teams have their slots occupied by 5 loss teams. Last year was an embarrassment for the Big Ten. No one will argue against that. But this year, the SEC rode their reputation instead of their talent. Except for Alabama.

I'm not defending the Big Ten in any other year. I'm not defending the Big Ten at all. I am saying that the SEC is not any better than any other conference. When the #3 team in the country gets dismantled by the #21 team in the country. The #3 team was obviously overrated. When it takes a top-ten, two-loss team until the 4th quarter to beat a 5(or 4)-loss team, there is obviously not a huge gap between the two teams, and therefore definitely not the conferences as a whole.

[whodey21]

Originally Posted by Whatever

At the end of the day, your argument is basically that the SEC is falling off because the best team in the Big East beat the 5th best SEC team and the second best ACC team beat the 6th best team from the SEC.

So now Florida is the 5th best team in the SEC? Because when they played the Sugar Bowl, they were the 3rd best team in the country. Maybe you can explain how that works?

That is why I say they were overrated.

As to the rest of your argument, You can't compare post-bowl records to decide your imaginary bowl matchups. Whatever nonsense it was that you did also fails to take into account that there are 16 teams in the SEC, whilst the B1G only has 12. Therefore the 5th worst team in the SEC gets "matched up" against the worst team in the B1G. It doesn't work that way.

Also, as I keep repeating, I am not out to defend the Big Ten. I am only saying that every AQ conference is roughly on par with the others this year. The Big Ten only raises an interesting argument because of the ineligibility of their top two teams.

[Whatever]

Originally Posted by whodey21

So now Florida is the 5th best team in the SEC? Because when they played the Sugar Bowl, they were the 3rd best team in the country. Maybe you can explain how that works?

That is why I say they were overrated.

As to the rest of your argument, You can't compare post-bowl records to decide your imaginary bowl matchups. Whatever nonsense it was that you did also fails to take into account that there are 16 teams in the SEC, whilst the B1G only has 12. Therefore the 5th worst team in the SEC gets "matched up" against the worst team in the B1G. It doesn't work that way.

Also, as I keep repeating, I am not out to defend the Big Ten. I am only saying that every AQ conference is roughly on par with the others this year. The Big Ten only raises an interesting argument because of the ineligibility of their top two teams.

Easy. Timing. How in the world does Florida leapfrog Georgia when Georgia beat Florida earlier in the year? Because Georgia had to play 'bama in the SEC title game and lost, so they slid. Georgia was a better football team than Florida. If their was no SEC title game and Alabama just went straight to the NCG, they would have still been ranked ahead of Florida.

There's a little bit of a double standard there when you say the SEC is overrated based on bowl results, but then say bowl results shouldn't factor into a hypothetical who could beat who.

There are actually only 14 teams in the SEC, so the bottom two get dropped, but it really doesn't change the comparisons a whole lot if you throw in the two worst teams instead of the 3rd and 4th worst teams.

I'm also trying to figure out how every Big-10 team was playing two bowls higher than they should have been. Nebraska had a better conference and overall record than Penn State. Michigan had the same conference and overally record as Penn State. Northwestern had a worse conference record but better overall record than Penn State.

[whodey21]

Originally Posted by Whatever

Easy. Timing. How in the world does Florida leapfrog Georgia when Georgia beat Florida earlier in the year? Because Georgia had to play 'bama in the SEC title game and lost, so they slid. Georgia was a better football team than Florida. If their was no SEC title game and Alabama just went straight to the NCG, they would have still been ranked ahead of Florida.

There's a little bit of a double standard there when you say the SEC is overrated based on bowl results, but then say bowl results shouldn't factor into a hypothetical who could beat who.

There are actually only 14 teams in the SEC, so the bottom two get dropped, but it really doesn't change the comparisons a whole lot if you throw in the two worst teams instead of the 3rd and 4th worst teams.

I'm also trying to figure out how every Big-10 team was playing two bowls higher than they should have been. Nebraska had a better conference and overall record than Penn State. Michigan had the same conference and overally record as Penn State. Northwestern had a worse conference record but better overall record than Penn State.

That makes Georgia third... Not fifth in the SEC. And you are also helping my "overrated" argument.

And we've already discussed why conference records don't matter in the Big Ten. I'll let you refer to earlier in the conversation for that one.

Ohio State is better than Penn State (OSU undefeated in the division). Penn State is better than Wisconsin (PSU's only division loss to OSU). Wisconsin is infinitely better than Nebraska (70-31 at a neutral site. Need I say more?). Nebraska is better than Michigan (Nebraska undefeated in the division). Michigan is better than Northwestern (UM's only division loss to Nebraska). Northwestern is better than Michigan State (Northwestern's only division losses to UM & Nebraska). The rest of the B1G rankings get a little less black-and-white, and a lot less relevant.

As much as I hate the transitive property in football, this season shakes out to be pretty definitive for the top teams in the B1G.

In summary:
#1 Ohio State
#2 Penn State
#3 Wisconsin
#4 Nebraska
#5 Michigan
#6 Northwestern
#7 Michigan State

By the way, I didn't say it wouldn't factor into a "who would beat who". I said it shouldn't factor into "who is matched up with who", as you are using win totals to rank teams instead of divisional records. It skews things because of huge variance between OOC scheduling difficulty.