Hi, Time to start a controversial topic. So, before I get into the nitty gritty, I would like to put out a request that people keep the invective to a minimum, and try to back up their statements with some real evidence. OK (**Dons fire retardant armor**) I think the SEC is over rated as a football conference. Now, that being said, I do think it's the best, but only barely. Too many SEC fans seem to think the gap between them and the other conferences is massive, when I believe its minimal. Argument: Yes, the SEC has won 5 straight BCS championships, but I believe the BCS system is deeply flawed, in that in the BCS era, it is not at ALL clear that the best 2 teams were playing in the championship game. Instead I would argue a better, similar metric to judge the high end of a conference, is to to look at the record in all BCS bowl games, not just the title game. And, if you look at the over all BCS bowl game record of conferences, the SEC is still #1, but not by that big a margin. Only very rarely does a mediocre team make it into a BCS bowl game (Cough, Cough, UCON), so a win in a BCS bowl game means a lot. Oregons 1-2 record in BSC bowl games is telling, and not in a good way for our program. The SEC gets a lot of teams in the top 25 poll rankings, but this is partly inflated by wins against very very weak non conference schedules. Not all SEC teams schedule 4 patsies a year, LSU is better than the rest of your SEC brothers in this regard, but as a whole the conference inflates it's win totals, and most poll voters just look at wins and losses for the lower half of its voting on top 25 polls. Ted Miller writes an inflammatory article about how 9 conference games and over all stronger non conference schedules in the PAC 12 make for fewer PAC 12 teams in the top 25. SEC should expand conference play - Pac-12 Blog - ESPN He is deliberately baiting SEC fans, but if you get past that, he has some good points. I particularly like the factiod that only 3 FBS teams have NEVER played a FCS team, and 2 of them are in the PAC 12. On average, how many FCS teams does a SEC team play each year? Computers can do a better job than humans at factoring in all the scheduling differences. Sagarin's ratings are widely considered the best of the computer rankings, and one can easily find many years worth of rankings Here are Sagarin's last 5 years of conference rankings, and yes, the SEC is #1 in 4 out of the 5 years, but once again, it's CLOSE, the SEC is better, but only by a little. USATODAY.com USATODAY.com USATODAY.com USATODAY.com USATODAY.com I believe that in the BCS era, the PAC 10 has a winning record vs the SEC, although I also believe that LSU is undefeated vs the PAC 10 in that period. This is not really that strong of an argument, as far too often the games have been a miss match, our good team vs your weak team, or our weak team vs your good team. Still, it's worth pointing out. So, while I am saying you SEC fans can continue to have bragging rights as the best conference in college football, please stop acting like the difference between the PAC 12 and the SEC is so huge. It's a small gap.
This thread's not for overly emotionally charged. Just sit back and listen. :yelwink2: OldDuckFan I know everything you're going to say and hope others at least appreciate the non-SEC perspectives that may be offered up here. I've posted on PAC 10 forums enough to have heard the "other side". I happen to agree with you that the SEC is the strongest and also that the gap isn't AS wide as man believe though it's big enough to be easily seen also. One thing you can't sell me is the BCS Championships are bogus. Here's why, if we (SEC) have never lost a BCS Championship game then it appears that WE (SEC) are not the "wrong team" there, wouldn't you agree?
I you look at the number of ranked opponents that lose to ranked SEC teams, the number of BCS CGs won by SEC teams and the number of players from the NFL who came from SEC teams (The huge disparity in the number of SEC players in the NFL really speaks to the talent gap.), you begin to understand just why the SEC is the clear cut winner in the battle of the conferences. Regardless if whether or not the gap is large or small, year in and year out, no other conference can make those claims. The SEC has a pretty big following as a conference and that has led to the numerous ties to so many bowl games. In these games you see the 3rd or 4th best team in the Big Ten or Pac 10 playing the 8th best SEC team. Just keep some perspective when you start dragging out numbers.
He's going to say the SEC has 12 teams while the PAC had 10. More teams = more players in NFL. Correct and I was watching his line of reasoning. He did say, "BCS" Bowls and since it wasn't clear he meant ALL bowls DURING BCS era I gave him the benefit.
Regardless of the distance between the #1 conference and the rest, it's quite clear the SEC has been the best for quite a while. If I had to rank the remaining five BCS conferences the PAC-1 would not be #2 or #3. There just isn't any consistency in the PAC. 1-2 teams look good then are gone the next year. A few teams play well for a few years then drop back to nothing. The SEC doesn't have the added advantage of the east coast / west coast media bias. The SEC has to earn their rankings.
Actually, if you pro rate the number of NFL players by number of teams in the conference, the PAC 10, was neck and neck with the SEC, at least recently. A 12 team conference should put 20% more players into the NFL than a 10 team conference. And talent does not always equate to performance. And the PAC 10/12 and the SEC have no common bowls, I think last years Auburn-Oregon game was the first SEC/PAC 10 bowl in over a decade.
Can't be the ACC or Big East either so Big 12 then Big 10? Would you put the Big 10 2nd or 3rd? He's going to say that the SEC is in bed with ESPN...and he'll be right.
