We keep saying these SEC teams are overrated...

If firing on all cylinders, you could say the same thing about most of the teams ranked #4 thru # 20.
Take a good look at the standings... based on the play so far, there is hardly a "tinker's damn" of difference after you get past SC, UT and VT. There are a lot of good teams out there, but only a few have put up numbers that would make anyone classify them as great teams. Sadly, it's just that kind of year, imo.

 

Yep, that is what I meant when I say it is the most overused term. Everyone said OU and UGA were overated when we beat them in 2003. Me, I like to think they weren't overated, that we were just even better than they were.

Sadly> Heck I think that makes football that much more exciting to watch. The big ten is so topsie turvy that this may be the most entertaining season in their history. I'm sure you don't like it much after yesterday's result, but to an outsider like me it's great.

 

Good point... and it has been exciting. My point was more to say that if you're not running on all cylinders, you're probably going to get your butt kicked with today's parity.

 

I don't think there is any doubt that the SEC is down this year. Sure, SEC powers always have sick athletes (LSU is no exception), but at critical positions (take your pick: new coaches, unsteady/underperforming QBs, young players at key positions) the best of the best in the conference suffers from inconsistency.

I think, for example, that a 2004 Auburn team would run the table again, and do so comfortably, over the current crop of top SEC teams. That AU team had rock solid QB play, outstanding RBs, a solid D and a firmly established and coherent coaching staff (Al Borges meshed well with the existing staff in his first season).

The bitch of it is, because all of the top teams have sick talent and are prone to inconsistency, we see good team A playing down against good team B that, for this week, is playing up...yet played down, perhaps, the week previous against a lesser opponent.

IMO, looks like the ACC will emerge at season's end as the best in the land for 2005. We'll see.

 

With Shockley, I would take the SEC champ over either of them.

If Miami hadn't played OSU in 2002, 99% of the country would never have thought OSU had a shot in living hell of beating them.

This process is a joke.

BTW, what the hell is wrong with iowa this year

 

1) we have no pass rush.
2) we played it safe at the end of the first half, then just for the tie at the end of regulation.... "pussy-football" and it cost us.

Life sucks.

 

In spite of everything in the book going wrong for Georgia yesterday, they still won.

As far as national championships teams go, most people agree that a NC team is even allowed one stumble during the regular season.

Georgia seldom covers the point spread, but Richt is now 47-0 when the Dawgs score 18 points or more in a game.

 

I like Georgia... my daughter went there, but even she would tell you this isn't one of Richt's better teams, let alone one of Georgia's better teams... other than beating a 3-3 Tennessee away, they have been "ho hum impressive".
Having said that, they have found a way to stay undefeated and, therefore, highly ranked........... so far.

 

All that matters in the end is the win.

I hate Aubarn and hope their coach but even I admit that last year they got screwed (which I enjoyed)....

Every team that goes undefeated in a BCS conference should have a chance to play for the NC. I am not sold on Utah's or BSU's undefeated seasons though they have a legit argument in the way I just said the above.

 

Yeah...and those are the ones that I rarely agreed with....

Yeah, the PAC-10 scores points. Yes they all have high-scoring offenses. Question, how many PAC-10 schools are in the top 10 in over-all defense?

Maybe it's NOT that the SEC is down, or "sucks".... maybe WE'RE just a bunch of *******s that feel that every other program is dog-sh*t compared to us and we're like Gods of college football and everyone should know it???