SEC MYTH

[sacosud]

Hmmmm....Interesting read.

 

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article.../801100415/1103

Edited January 12, 2008 by sacosud

[theeohiostate]

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article...100415/1081/COL

 

 

 

Since 2000, NFL teams have drafted 59 Ohio State Buckeyes. Twenty-eight of those 59 were first-day picks -- guys drafted in the first three rounds.

 

No SEC team can match that. Not one.

 

 

Too bad we only have NFL speed

 

 

The Big Ten and SEC play two bowl games against each other every year, in Orlando and Tampa. This is where the conferences send their top two non-BCS teams. If the SEC is really so much deeper, then that conference should dominate those two games.

 

Yet in the BCS era, the Big Ten has won 11 of those games, the SEC nine.

Edited January 12, 2008 by theeohiostate

[Rockerbraves]

Nice article but even better responses to the article. Thought this guy summed up the article best with his response.

 

"Could not agree more with the premise of the article that the SEC is better, the last couple of years for sure, and that for the most part the gap is not enormous amongst the top 4-5 conferences.

 

Seems many of you are praising the article for its "facts". Well, I certinaly didn't see anything untrue in it, but the omissions are pretty glaring, and undoubtedly play into the spin the writer wants to impart on his readers.

 

17 BCS games for the Big10 and 15 for the SEC. Very true. I don't recall reading, however that in those games the Big10 is a dismal 8-9 and the SEC is 11-4. One step further, in the BCS Championship Game the Big10 is 1-2, while the SEC is 4-0. (with only 1 Big10 team making the Championship game in its 10 year history, while 3 differnent SEC teams have made it, and all won). 40% of the BCS Championship trophies belong to the SEC. As an SEC fan I'm pretty happy with "only" 15 appearances to go along with those 11 wins. (and I feel certain that as long as the RoseBowl is arrogant enough to invite likes of Illinois, the Big10 winning % isn't likely to see any dramatic improvements, but that 17 count will keep on rising).

 

Along the same lines, quite possibly the biggest reason (aside from the ABC/ESPN/ROSEBOWL-Big10 lovefest) that more SEC teams don't make into the BCS games is the SEC's Championship game, which more often than not hurts the loser. Pretty sure that 17 number for the Big10 would be a tad bit different if the top 2 had to play again in early December for the conference title.

 

As for head-to-head matchups, yep, the Big10 is 11-9 in the Outback and CapOne bowls. And for that matter I think also lead 2-1 in Music City Bowls. Of course, the SEC is 3-1 in head-to-head matchups in BCS bowls.

 

Also, good stuff about the draft and the Big10's success, but at the onset of the current NFL season the SEC had 130 starters on NFL teams to 112 from the Big10. I'd think both are pretty darn impressive.

 

Yards per carry is a fun little stat and I suppose it's meant to make a reader who didn't see the game think it was close, but ultimately its a pointless stat from a game that was not nearly even as close as the 14-point margin.

 

Its a great debate. Both conferences have wonderful traditions and histories. And no doubt the debate will live forever. (or at least till UGA makes it 0-10 for the OSU next year"

[detlef]

I guess my first impression is to point out yet another myth. That a majority of SEC fans are as hell bent as the writer describes. Just as I realize that not all Big 10 or OSU fans are as whacked or myopic as TOSU, I think that people need to realize that most of us SEC honks don't think that each and every year, we're far and away the best conference. That is a misinterpretation of a point that the writer himself made. That being, the fact that essentially every year we are either the strongest or about the strongest conference means we are, over all, far and away the best conference. Does that make sense?

 

So, maybe one year we're barely better than the Big 12. The next, we're barely better than the Big 10, the next we're barely better than the Pac 10. The fact that it's always us or one of a number of other suiters means we're very much the best conference year in and year out. I mean, Tiger Woods doesn't win every tourney he plays by 10 strokes but the fact that he barely wins way more often than anyone else makes him far and away the best golfer.

 

That's just a simple fact.

 

Now, as to the Big 10. You can point to the fact that you have more BCS appearances but if you're talking to somebody who thinks you get more love than you deserve, that doesn't mean a whole lot. That fact, coupled with your below .500 record only makes our point for us. If you were talking about, say, one conference who's been to more final fours compared to another who simply manages to close the deal more often when they get there, you'd have a great point. Either side would have a very strong argument for why those fact support their conference.

 

That's because nobody votes on who goes to the final four. You either win 4 straight games or you don't. There's never any debate as to which of the final four teams "doesn't deserve to be there" because they all do. However, claiming that a system pretty much everyone sees as flawed to the extent of being almost useless continues to reward your conference with prestigious bowl bids despite the fact that you lose more often than you win in those games... Well I just don't see that as much of an argument.

 

Over the last month, pretty much every fact has been spun in both directions by both sides. It's hard to argue the fact that the Big 10 sends plenty of guys to play on Sunday or the fact that their second tier teams have barely outplayed the 2nd tier of the SEC. However, there's a stat that I'm dying to see a Big 10 apologist spin...

 

160-73

 

That is the combined score of the last 4 BCS games they've played in which means they've lost by an average of more than 3 TDs.

[detlef]

Its a great debate. Both conferences have wonderful traditions and histories. And no doubt the debate will live forever. (or at least till UGA makes it 0-10 for the OSU next year"

If we've learned anything here, it's the fact that regardless of how many times OSU (a team that has completely owned the Big 10) gets peed all over by an SEC team in a BCS game, we can count on at least one guy here to continue to claim conference superiority.

[sacosud]

I'll be honest,

 

I really don't get into these SEC vs any conference debates too much, because really it's a endless point less debate.

 

I do jump in from time to time, hoever most times i sit back and watch.

 

I really don't even care much for other Big Ten schools myself. I follow OSU and really that's it.

 

I keep a close eye on Michigan as well, because that game/ week is so important. (1 game season)

 

The National Championship is the only game I place above the Michigan game and the Rose Bowl is a close 3rd.

 

The SEC has some great games and rivals and games within it's conference as well.

 

My favorite rival game outside of" the game" has involved a SEC school(Florida vs Florida State) so you see the reason I even post this topic is to show reporters can find anything to write about and stir the pot some, but that makes it fun ....right???....I know what OSU can do!!! I have watched enough NFL drafts and the great players come through year in and year out. OSU fans should feel extremly happy with the progress of the program and the direction we have been going since 2000.

 

Hat's off to the SEC it plays a fun brand of football and I enjoy watching the big games especially FLA vs TENN, AUB vs ALA, LSU vs AUB, GA vs FLA

[theeohiostate]

If we've learned anything here, it's the fact that regardless of how many times OSU (a team that has completely owned the Big 10) gets peed all over by an SEC team in a BCS game, we can count on at least one guy here to continue to claim conference superiority.

 

 

 

Please enlighten us, and tell us whom that would be. If you can provide any proof of ANY huddler in these forums that has said the Big 10 was better then the SEC this season, we'd all love to hear from you, but alas, you won't be able to as it hasn't happened. The only comments any big 10 posters in these forums has suggested in the SEC isn't ALL that and that the myth of SEC speed wasn't an issue against OSU.

 

 

Go ahead..............please.

[GWPFFL BrianW]

I agree with TOSU, I never claimed the Big Ten was better than anyone. I simply said, before you're gonna sh|t all over it, let them do something that warrants being sh|t all over. And before you annoint the SEC with anything, watch them do something before doing so. And all I'll say in this is the administrators probably thank god every night that Ohio State exists, because lets face it, without Ohio State, this would be pretty lopsided. Once again, the premise of that article wasn't to suggest the Big Ten was better, more like pointing out a pretty clear myth that the SEC is sooooooo much better than the Big Ten. It simply isn't true. If you're gonna say your conference is deep, then teams besides the champion need to produce. This year they did. So hats off to them. By the way, I don't think losses to USC should even count in the Big Tens BCS bowl record, because they have been so much better than EVERYONE over the past 6 years, wonder what the SEC's BCS record would be then. that's 4 losses right there. Which is a whole other point, how often has the SEC gotten a creampuff for their bowl game. Georgia vs Hawaii this year? LSU vs Notre Dame last year. Florida played an awful Maryland team in 01, also LSU got the weakest Big Ten champion ever in Illinois that year. Shall we continue. 2002, SEC Champion Georgia gets Florida State who I believe had 4 losses going into the game. So the level of competition is higher for Big Ten BCS teams. Like I said, i'd love to see what the SEC's record would be if they had the priviledge of playing USC 4 times, especially considering their own recent past vs them in regular season games. So the argument can be tilted any way you want to. Bottom line is, overall, the conferences are pretty even, and like I've said all year, I give the slight nod to the SEC.

[Cyclones]

I agree with TOSU, I never claimed the Big Ten was better than anyone. I simply said, before you're gonna sh|t all over it, let them do something that warrants being sh|t all over. And before you annoint the SEC with anything, watch them do something before doing so. And all I'll say in this is the administrators probably thank god every night that Ohio State exists, because lets face it, without Ohio State, this would be pretty lopsided. Once again, the premise of that article wasn't to suggest the Big Ten was better, more like pointing out a pretty clear myth that the SEC is sooooooo much better than the Big Ten. It simply isn't true. If you're gonna say your conference is deep, then teams besides the champion need to produce. This year they did. So hats off to them. By the way, I don't think losses to USC should even count in the Big Tens BCS bowl record, because they have been so much better than EVERYONE over the past 6 years, wonder what the SEC's BCS record would be then. that's 4 losses right there. Which is a whole other point, how often has the SEC gotten a creampuff for their bowl game. Georgia vs Hawaii this year? LSU vs Notre Dame last year. Florida played an awful Maryland team in 01, also LSU got the weakest Big Ten champion ever in Illinois that year. Shall we continue. 2002, SEC Champion Georgia gets Florida State who I believe had 4 losses going into the game. So the level of competition is higher for Big Ten BCS teams. Like I said, i'd love to see what the SEC's record would be if they had the priviledge of playing USC 4 times, especially considering their own recent past vs them in regular season games. So the argument can be tilted any way you want to. Bottom line is, overall, the conferences are pretty even, and like I've said all year, I give the slight nod to the SEC.

 

I love how you just automatically give the SEC 4 losses vs. USC. Just because the L'il 10 can't win a game vs. USC doesn't mean the rest of the country can't (see Longhorns, Texas, 2006.)

[GWPFFL BrianW]

Yeah, and which SEC team could even hold a candle to Vince Young (Superman) and the Longhorns? I'm not saying they'd have 4 losses, but I am just asking, would their bowl record be as gaudy? Odds are probably not, as I don't believe their has been an SEC Champion in that span that was good enough to beat those great USC teams. Certainly not this years LSU team, as they are one of the weakest national champions ever. Maybe a team that went undefeated like Auburn in 04, of course the 2 years before that, USC whooped on them too. The point is, the SEC's BCS bowl record is superb, and a lot of it is because they had stellar teams, but I still say, that they have gotten some (not all) easier match ups.

[detlef]

I agree with TOSU, I never claimed the Big Ten was better than anyone. I simply said, before you're gonna sh|t all over it, let them do something that warrants being sh|t all over. And before you annoint the SEC with anything, watch them do something before doing so. And all I'll say in this is the administrators probably thank god every night that Ohio State exists, because lets face it, without Ohio State, this would be pretty lopsided. Once again, the premise of that article wasn't to suggest the Big Ten was better, more like pointing out a pretty clear myth that the SEC is sooooooo much better than the Big Ten. It simply isn't true. If you're gonna say your conference is deep, then teams besides the champion need to produce. This year they did. So hats off to them. By the way, I don't think losses to USC should even count in the Big Tens BCS bowl record, because they have been so much better than EVERYONE over the past 6 years, wonder what the SEC's BCS record would be then. that's 4 losses right there. Which is a whole other point, how often has the SEC gotten a creampuff for their bowl game. Georgia vs Hawaii this year? LSU vs Notre Dame last year. Florida played an awful Maryland team in 01, also LSU got the weakest Big Ten champion ever in Illinois that year. Shall we continue. 2002, SEC Champion Georgia gets Florida State who I believe had 4 losses going into the game. So the level of competition is higher for Big Ten BCS teams. Like I said, i'd love to see what the SEC's record would be if they had the priviledge of playing USC 4 times, especially considering their own recent past vs them in regular season games. So the argument can be tilted any way you want to. Bottom line is, overall, the conferences are pretty even, and like I've said all year, I give the slight nod to the SEC.

Fine arguments indeed.

 

If I may...

 

As I mentioned above, I think the notion of people claiming the SEC is far and away the best conference is being misinterpreted as meaning that they're always way better than every other conference. That's simply not the case, well at least to most of us. It is simply the fact that year in and year out they are one of the top 2 if not the top conference. That doesn't mean that they have to be heads and shoulders above everyone else every year. Rather that their consistent position at or near the top earns them the title of best over all by a wide margin.

 

Imagine if this was a track meet where you get 10 pts for 1st, 7 pts for 2nd, 5 pts for 3rd, 2 pts for 4th, and 1 pt for 5th. If you are constantly getting 1sts and 2nds while the others may get 1st or 2nd from time to time but just as often get 4ths and 5ths, eventually you're going to have a pretty gaudy point total relative to everyone else. Even if, in any given race, you didn't lap the field. That's what I'm talking about. The other conferences take their turns at challenging the SEC for the strongest conference but then the next year fall back to the pack. Meanwhile, the only constant is that the SEC will again be in the argument against someone else. This year it was the Big 12, with 4 teams in the top 10 going up against the SEC at 1 and 2 along with 2 others right outside the top 10 and another in the top 15. Of course, where was the Big 12 last year? Nobody in the top 10 and only 2 teams in the top 25. Last year it was the Big 10 matching the SEC's 3 teams in the top 10. Of course, this year? One it the top 10 and nobody else until 18. Hell, even in 2005, when they failed to have a team in the final top 5, they ended up with 3 in the top 10 and 5 in the top 15. Something no other conference could claim. '04 and '03, basically the same story. Rarely was the SEC's claim to the top conference uncontested but it's always either them or somebody else. It's just that somebody is never the same.

 

Now let's talk about depth. SEC honks will say that when a team makes it through that conference as the top team, they're battle tested and ready for the best anyone can give them. This is because of the depth. The fact that the 7th or 8th best team in the conference has enough talent that you have to get up for them. Well, you know what, we seem to be right. SEC teams that emerge from the conference to the NC game have proven, rather emphatically that they belong in that game by winning all four they've been in. For that matter, SEC teams that emerge to play in any BCS game do quite nicely. Now, nobody here is hanging their hats on victories over Hawaii and Notre Dame. However, it is fair to say that both LSU and UGA completely dominated those games. Had they won by a TD or even 2. Had it not been abundantly clear who the better teams were, then these games could be pointed to as cheap victories. Instead, they took advantage of drawing the weakest BCS teams by completely destroying them.

 

None the less, your point is fair. Perhaps the SEC doesn't go 11-4 if they had to play USC as often as the Big 10. None the less, it's hard to argue 4-0 in the NC game. I mean, there have been 10, right? Six BCS conferences means that, by average each one should have won 1.66 each. So the SEC has won it more than twice as often as it should by averages. Hell, the next closest is 2 by the Big 12 but they've got 2 losses (one a complete blow-out) to go along with those. That's a rather hard fact to ignore. I also find it rather ironic that you discredit LSU this year. Saying they're perhaps the weakest NC team of all time. Perhaps you're right. Of course, considering that they punked a Big 10 team to earn that title, I have a hard time understanding how that is an argument in your favor.

 

Another element of depth is that the SEC doesn't have just one or two teams to hang their hats on. Three different SEC teams have won the BCS NC game. A fourth is the only major conference team to finish undefeated in the BCS era without a shot at the title. So, one year it's FL, the next it's LSU, meanwhile UGA, Auburn, and Tenn are lurking around the top 10. On the other hand, nearly every year, the Pac 10 is USC and maybe somebody else. The Big 10 is OSU and maybe Michigan, the Big 12 is OU and Texas (this year being the only one in a while where anyone else showed up at all). See where I'm going here? That's depth.

 

Big 10 fans claim their conference isn't as bad as everyone says. That OSU, despite playing about as pathetic out of conference schedule as you can had proven itself sufficiently by dominating the Big 10 yet again. Well, they certainly did little to answer the critics in that regard. With the exception of playing a slightly better OOC last year (trading good but not great Texas for last place Washington), that's exactly what happened last year as well. When Big 10 fans were saying that the two best teams were in the Big 10, the rest of us were saying, "Who have they played?"

 

That began the annual debate between the Big 10 and SEC. Two conferences who rarely have OOC schedules to brag about. Each claiming that their conference is good enough that somebody should be able to stand on the achievement of simply making it through the conference schedule. It just so happens that, of late, the SEC teams that have done so proved their supporters were correct while the Big 10 teams have gotten creamed. So, there's another point for the SEC.

 

You mention that, if OSU was removed from the equation... Really? A team that has completely manhandled your conference? I mean, doesn't that say a lot? That a team who has owned the Big 10 for the last three years only has a BCS win against a team that basically needs only have a pulse to qualify for inclusion.

 

So Brian, I'm honestly just trying to argue this without homer blinders on. As I have said before, I am really just a fan of the game who just calls them as I see them. I think it is very clear that the finest program in the country is not an SEC team. Unlike some, I do think that if USC were in the SEC they'd be the best team in that league. I don't think they'd win the thing as many years in a row as they've won the Pac 10, but they'd win it more often than anyone else. However, I don't see another team stepping in at the top spot. All the teams that are the unquestioned elite of their conferences (OU, UT, Mich, OSU, not even sure who those teams are in the Big East or ACC) would just be another team in the SEC. Sometimes 1st, sometimes 6th, usually somewhere in between. I mean honestly, what have any of the others shown to prove otherwise?

 

Perhaps that's the final argument. Those teams I just mentioned have a virtual stranglehold on the top of their respective conferences yet only USC has shown any reason why they might be able to do the same to the SEC.

Edited January 14, 2008 by detlef

[detlef]

Please enlighten us, and tell us whom that would be. If you can provide any proof of ANY huddler in these forums that has said the Big 10 was better then the SEC this season, we'd all love to hear from you, but alas, you won't be able to as it hasn't happened. The only comments any big 10 posters in these forums has suggested in the SEC isn't ALL that and that the myth of SEC speed wasn't an issue against OSU.

Go ahead..............please.

Whatever. After having to endure your crap leading up to last year's NC game and then noticing that you didn't skip a beat despite getting punked, only to hear your crap yet again leading up to this one. Then you pause for one paragraph of humility only to get right back to it. Perhaps I exaggerated your claims.

 

I could have sworn that somewhere in the number of times when you mention how the SEC would be exposed "once OSU punked LSU"... that you were implying Big 10 superiority.

 

I suppose, perhaps I misinterpreted. Perhaps you are simply saying the Big 10 is only somewhat worse than the SEC. If that's the case, I stand corrected.

 

I should thank you, however, for proving why everyone shouldn't have been jumping all over Rocker for rubbing it in after OSU's latest episode of SEC bukake. The manner in which you carry on deserves graciousness from nobody.

[GWPFFL BrianW]

Well you point to OSU dominating the Big Ten, as that is supposed to mean ANYTHING at all, but when Florida absolutely tore through the SEC with ease in the 90's, no one ever questioned the SEC. While I think it is impressive that many different teams have won the national title out of the SEC, I think that kind of makes you question that maybe it isn't as hard to get there from the SEC? To win a BCS NC, you have to get there first, and more often than not, you have to get there with 1 loss or 0, in this years case, 2 to unranked teams was sufficient enough, but this year was one of the most wacky years ever. I look at the number of different conference champions. Since 1990, 9 out of the 11 Big Ten teams (Minnesota and Indiana in case you were wondering which 2 haven't) have won at least a share of a Big Ten title. In the SEC, you have the big 6 (merely half the conference) Auburn, Alabama, LSU from the west, Tennseee, Florida, and Georgia from the East. The rest are pretty much also-rans who once in awhile might put together a pretty good season, but the conference is so out of balance they never have a real chance?

 

OOC scheduling is what it is, and once again, it's all about money. Even a team like Iowa for example, not an elite team in terms of prestige, but do you ever think that one of the big boys would ever come up to Iowa City? Yeah we can get teams like Syracuse, Arizona, Arizona State, and Pittsburgh (in 2 years) but no one would ever sign on for that. The last big time team to play Iowa in Iowa City, was Miami way back in 1989. Now I'm off on a rant here, but why is that? I'll tell you why that is, because, A. its not profitable for the USC's, Tennessees, and Texas's of the world to play games like that. They either want the big time match up like OSU-Texas, or cream puffs Texas-Rice or OSU-Akron. Rarely is their a middle ground. You mention Washington, but I would put the Huskies in the upper class of college football given their rich history they are simply going through a rough period like all teams do. I'm just using Iowa as an example, their are many other schools in Iowa's situation, that will probably never be able to get anyone to sign a home and home with them. BTW, I think pointing to Ohio State's OOC scheduling is a pretty poor example. They've played some heavy hitters over the years, a lot more than most of the premeir teams do. But back to my point, I bring this up, because college football is totally money driven. The scheduling is out of whack, and that is because of money. Some teams play killer schedules, most teams don't. I commend the Pac 10, because top to bottom, for the most part, they play tougher schedules than any other conference. If their was a system where we could see more match ups, I'd be down with that. But it won't happen. I mean, as much as I would love to see Ohio State play home and homes with teams like USC and Oklahoma etc etc, they have about 10 or 12 years lined up already. It's an unbalanced system in almost every phase.

[detlef]

Well you point to OSU dominating the Big Ten, as that is supposed to mean ANYTHING at all, but when Florida absolutely tore through the SEC with ease in the 90's, no one ever questioned the SEC. While I think it is impressive that many different teams have won the national title out of the SEC, I think that kind of makes you question that maybe it isn't as hard to get there from the SEC? To win a BCS NC, you have to get there first, and more often than not, you have to get there with 1 loss or 0, in this years case, 2 to unranked teams was sufficient enough, but this year was one of the most wacky years ever. I look at the number of different conference champions. Since 1990, 9 out of the 11 Big Ten teams (Minnesota and Indiana in case you were wondering which 2 haven't) have won at least a share of a Big Ten title. In the SEC, you have the big 6 (merely half the conference) Auburn, Alabama, LSU from the west, Tennseee, Florida, and Georgia from the East. The rest are pretty much also-rans who once in awhile might put together a pretty good season, but the conference is so out of balance they never have a real chance?

 

OOC scheduling is what it is, and once again, it's all about money. Even a team like Iowa for example, not an elite team in terms of prestige, but do you ever think that one of the big boys would ever come up to Iowa City? Yeah we can get teams like Syracuse, Arizona, Arizona State, and Pittsburgh (in 2 years) but no one would ever sign on for that. The last big time team to play Iowa in Iowa City, was Miami way back in 1989. Now I'm off on a rant here, but why is that? I'll tell you why that is, because, A. its not profitable for the USC's, Tennessees, and Texas's of the world to play games like that. They either want the big time match up like OSU-Texas, or cream puffs Texas-Rice or OSU-Akron. Rarely is their a middle ground. You mention Washington, but I would put the Huskies in the upper class of college football given their rich history they are simply going through a rough period like all teams do. I'm just using Iowa as an example, their are many other schools in Iowa's situation, that will probably never be able to get anyone to sign a home and home with them. BTW, I think pointing to Ohio State's OOC scheduling is a pretty poor example. They've played some heavy hitters over the years, a lot more than most of the premeir teams do. But back to my point, I bring this up, because college football is totally money driven. The scheduling is out of whack, and that is because of money. Some teams play killer schedules, most teams don't. I commend the Pac 10, because top to bottom, for the most part, they play tougher schedules than any other conference. If their was a system where we could see more match ups, I'd be down with that. But it won't happen. I mean, as much as I would love to see Ohio State play home and homes with teams like USC and Oklahoma etc etc, they have about 10 or 12 years lined up already. It's an unbalanced system in almost every phase.

Good point on the 9 of 11 vs 6 of 12 bit. I didn't realize that.

 

Mind you, my point in bringing up the degree to which OSU has owned the Big 10 was primarily to mention how silly it was to suggest how much better your conference record would be against the SEC if you removed them from the picture. I also wasn't discrediting the strength of the Big 10 simply because OSU has had a strangle hold on the top of late. Rather that fact combined with the fact that OSU hasn't really done much against the big boys outside of the Big 10 in the same period. So basically, one team can have its way with the entire conference but not so much outside it. You don't see me, for instance, pointing to USC's dominance of the Pac 10 as evidence that it is weak because USC's only out of conference loss in several years was to Texas in what might be the best college football game ever. Do you see the difference?

 

Also, please don't make a big out of my OOC comment. It was not was not intended as in indictment of OSU and I even pointed out that neither the SEC or Big 10 had one to brag about. My point was that fans of both claim their conference is strong enough that any team that emerges from conference to go to the big dance has proven itself enough regardless of who they've played outside. I was simply pointing out that elite SEC teams have done more to prove that theory than Big 10 teams.

 

Lastly, c'mon now. You're not really pointing to the fact that the SEC has been in 4 NC games as an illustration of how easy it is for them to get there are you? For starters, all but the Pac 10 has been to 3 and the Big 12 has been to 5. Further, up until two years ago, the SEC had only been to two. Perhaps they're now starting to get some looks because people are realizing that teams that make it through the SEC with a good record are likely better than teams that make it through other conferences with the same record.

 

I think that last point is very important. I mean, say for instance OSU loses at USC but totally runs through the Big 10. USC is undefeated. OSU is sitting at 11-1 come december and there's an SEC team sitting there also 11-1. As a voter, I'm going to have a hard time picking OSU over that SEC team because it's going to be hard to get it out of my head how poorly they've done the last few years against elite teams. Now, if for some reason they get the nod anyway, and lay another egg? Coupled with another Big 10 getting pasted in the Rose Bowl? I mean, at what point does this start to cost your conferences credibility?

[GWPFFL BrianW]

Good point on the 9 of 11 vs 6 of 12 bit. I didn't realize that.

 

Mind you, my point in bringing up the degree to which OSU has owned the Big 10 was primarily to mention how silly it was to suggest how much better your conference record would be against the SEC if you removed them from the picture. I also wasn't discrediting the strength of the Big 10 simply because OSU has had a strangle hold on the top of late. Rather that fact combined with the fact that OSU hasn't really done much against the big boys outside of the Big 10 in the same period. So basically, one team can have its way with the entire conference but not so much outside it. You don't see me, for instance, pointing to USC's dominance of the Pac 10 as evidence that it is weak because USC's only out of conference loss in several years was to Texas in what might be the best college football game ever. Do you see the difference?

 

Also, please don't make a big out of my OOC comment. It was not was not intended as in indictment of OSU and I even pointed out that neither the SEC or Big 10 had one to brag about. My point was that fans of both claim their conference is strong enough that any team that emerges from conference to go to the big dance has proven itself enough regardless of who they've played outside. I was simply pointing out that elite SEC teams have done more to prove that theory than Big 10 teams.

 

Lastly, c'mon now. You're not really pointing to the fact that the SEC has been in 4 NC games as an illustration of how easy it is for them to get there are you? For starters, all but the Pac 10 has been to 3 and the Big 12 has been to 5. Further, up until two years ago, the SEC had only been to two. Perhaps they're now starting to get some looks because people are realizing that teams that make it through the SEC with a good record are likely better than teams that make it through other conferences with the same record.

 

I think that last point is very important. I mean, say for instance OSU loses at USC but totally runs through the Big 10. USC is undefeated. OSU is sitting at 11-1 come december and there's an SEC team sitting there also 11-1. As a voter, I'm going to have a hard time picking OSU over that SEC team because it's going to be hard to get it out of my head how poorly they've done the last few years against elite teams. Now, if for some reason they get the nod anyway, and lay another egg? Coupled with another Big 10 getting pasted in the Rose Bowl? I mean, at what point does this start to cost your conferences credibility?

 

My OOC rant had very little to do with really anything you said, but more just a rant, of what is clearly wrong with college football as a whole. I agree with you, come December under that scenario in the BCS, The SEC Champion might very well get the nod. Just like THIS year, if Ohio State was in the pool of 2 loss teams, they wouldn't have even been talked about, because of their schedule. But these things go in cycles as you know.

[detlef]

My OOC rant had very little to do with really anything you said, but more just a rant, of what is clearly wrong with college football as a whole. I agree with you, come December under that scenario in the BCS, The SEC Champion might very well get the nod. Just like THIS year, if Ohio State was in the pool of 2 loss teams, they wouldn't have even been talked about, because of their schedule. But these things go in cycles as you know.

Agreed.

[wildcat2334]

wow

 

 

The Big 10 seems to have a SLIGHT inferiority complex.............................

[sacosud]

wow

The Big 10 seems to have a SLIGHT inferiority complex.............................

Not likely.

[Cyclones]

Not likely.

 

Right, they still think they're the cat's meow.

[sacosud]

Right, they still think they're the cat's meow.

Most likely.

[GWPFFL BrianW]

Right, they still think they're the cat's meow.

 

Not really, just shouldn't be subject to all the crap that has been dumped on them.

[Cyclones]

Not really, just shouldn't be subject to all the crap that has been dumped on them.

 

Absolutely right Brian.

 

The Big 10 is an elite conference - in my opinion the "Big 6" can be broken down with the SEC, Big 10, Pac 10 and Big 12 in one group, the Big East next, and the ACC last. Any of the top four could be interchangeable in any given year. The SEC has likely been the top conf by a slim margin the last two years, but the perception is that the margin is wider due to OSU getting rolled in two straight games. The Big 10 suffers further from the last 2 Rose Bowl results. I'm enjoying it while it lasts because the SEC could be knocked out of that spot in any season,

 

Just so everyone follows, I'm a huge SEC homer and I admit fully that the Big 10 is an elite conference and that OSU deserved to play for the national title the last two years. They just happened to catch very talented SEC champions in both games.

[GWPFFL BrianW]

Absolutely right Brian.

 

The Big 10 is an elite conference - in my opinion the "Big 6" can be broken down with the SEC, Big 10, Pac 10 and Big 12 in one group, the Big East next, and the ACC last. Any of the top four could be interchangeable in any given year. The SEC has likely been the top conf by a slim margin the last two years, but the perception is that the margin is wider due to OSU getting rolled in two straight games. The Big 10 suffers further from the last 2 Rose Bowl results. I'm enjoying it while it lasts because the SEC could be knocked out of that spot in any season,

 

Just so everyone follows, I'm a huge SEC homer and I admit fully that the Big 10 is an elite conference and that OSU deserved to play for the national title the last two years. They just happened to catch very talented SEC champions in both games.

 

Exactly, I've said all year, I've given the SEC the slight edge overall, simply due to the fact that they have produced more NFL players. But on the field, the conferences have been about as even as you can get, and the games themselves for the most part, are always close and exciting. Outback and Capital 1 Bowls were probably the most exciting bowls out of any of them this season.