As we speak, Ohio State is sitting in the BCS Championship game and no one can knock them out. They're golden. Michigan is waiting out USC/UCLA to see if they get to go to to the BCSCG. Michigan can do nothing to screw up their own little catbird seat. If USC loses, they're in the Rose Bowl. Not bad for a team that lost their last game of the regular season. USC has to beat a 6-5 wannabe and they're coasting into the BCSCG. What do these teams have in common? No Conference Championship game. Meanwhile, Florida and Arkansas have to do battle with their very BCS status at stake. It just doesn't seem fair. End of rant. Thank you for your support.
It also put LSU in the championship game, see 2003. It can be either a positive or a negative depending on if you win or lose, but that's just like every other game in the season. The only difference is that it is at the end of the season and will almost always match two very good teams. Even if USC played a pac 10 championship game who would they play.......Cal??? Pffffft what a joke!!!!!!
In the first 15 years of the SECCG era the SEC has produced 4 National Champions. In the 15 years preceeding that the SEC produced 3. Let's look at the breakdown for those years: 15 years Pre-SECCG National Champions: SEC: 3 (Bama in '77 and '79, UGA in '80) Big Eight: 2 (Oklahoma '85, Colorado '90) Big East: 1 (Miami '91) WAC: 1 (BYU '84) Independent:6 (Miami in '83,'87,'89. ND in '88. Penn State in '82,'86) ACC:2 (Clemson in '81, G-Tech in '90) Pac-10: 2 (USC in '78, Washington in '91) 15 years Post-SEC National Champions SEC: 4 (Bama in '92, Florida in '96, Tenn in '98, LSU in '03) ACC: 2 (FSU in '93 and '99) Pac-10: 1 (USC in 04) Big 12:5 (Nebraska in '94,'95,'97. Oklahoma in '00, Texas in '05) Big Ten:2 (Ohio State in '02, Michigan in '97) Big East:1 (Miami in '01)
SECCG = One of the Reasons LSU played for the MNC in 2003 SECCG = Reason UT did not play for the MNC in 2000 Live by the sword die by the sword
Until the BCS polls stop giving the puss 10 credit for being a top notch conference when they are little better than conference USA it will never be fair.
In fairness the Pac-10 is a decent enough conference, and USC did play touch OOC competition, meaning the worst teams on their schedule were Pac-10 opponents. I have thought they were overrated over the past few years but they are probably the most deserving team to get a crack at Ohio State. Florida should not have scheduled a 1-AA opponent.
I'm not sure who you're leaving out, but '77-91 (15 years before) Bama - '78 Bama - '79 Georgia - '80 3-in-a-row '92-present (15 years of) Bama - '92 Florida - '96 Tennessee - 98 LSU - '03 Still more since, just different totals. Now lets look at other 15 year stretchs '62-'77 Arky - '64 (not in SEC at the time) Bama - ' 64 Bama - '67 Bama - '73 '47-61 Tennessee - '50 Tennessee - '51 Auburn - '57 LSU - '58 Bama - '61 So between 3-5 NC every 15 years is about average for the SEC
I went back and fixed the numbers, so it's correct now. It's much harder to compare farther off era's of college football because the landscape is so different, but the point is that it's clear the SECCG hasn't had an adverse effect on SEC teams winning National Titles.
I agree with you completely. I took your original post as meaning that since the CG, we win more, giving it a positive spin. I was only trying to say that it's not much different.
