SEC Best Football Conference

Oregon and Stanford couldn't take the beating of the SEC and I couldn't take the beating of 9:00 kick off starts!

 

Very True!
But....BUT....I am talking about the entire conference, not just a select number of members.

Let's play this game, using all 12 of each conference, and to avoid any biased opinions, lets use Sagarin's end of season rankings, to compare head to head, all 12.

(Parenthetical numbers indicate Sagarin's final team ranking at the end of the year.)

1) Auburn (1) vs Stanford (2) Victory to SEC
2) Alabama (5) vs Oregon (3) Victory to PAC 10
3) LSU (8) vs USC (22) Victory to SEC
4) Arkansas (9) vs Arizona St (23) Victory to SEC
5) Mississippi St (15) vs Utah (26) Victory to SEC
6) Florida (24) vs Washington (28) Victory to SEC
7) South Carolina (25) vs Oregon State (29) Victory to SEC
8) Georga (54) vs Arizona (30) Victory to PAC 10
9) Tennessee (63) vs California (33) Victory to PAC 10
10) Kentucky (74) vs UCLA (62) Victory to PAC 10
11) Mississippi (84) vs Colorado (68) Victory to PAC 10
12) Vanderbilt (126) Washington State (79) Victory to Pac 10

What do you know...a tie, 6 victories each.
Yes, I know, Colorado and Utah were not in the PAC last year, but its hard to make direct comparisons when there are different number of teams.

This comparison, as flawed as it may be, does show the SEC significantly better at the top end, and significantly worse at the bottom end.

Perhaps SEC perception of total dominance is in part fueled by a lack of scrutiny at how weak the bottom of your conference is?

You should not just pretend the bottom of your conference does not exist, or that our #11 beat your #8 last year.

 

I don't find all time win/loss percentages that important.
Yes, Duke was totally dominant in football in the 1930's, who cares?
Statistics for the BCS era, or for the last 5 years, I find of more import.

But that's just my opinion.

Your other point is of more significance.
It is true that the SEC has lots more ranked teams, that is why, if you look at my original post in this thread, I talk so much about strength of schedule, 9 conference games, and why that so much effects polling.
Few poll voters know very much about the teams ranked 15-40. So they base their poll votes mainly on wins and losses. SEC inflates wins and losses for their middle strength schools via 4 cupcake non conference games, thus on many years, gaining more "top 25" teams.

Example: Mississippi State last year.
They had 8 regular season victories.
(Sagarin rank in parenthesis)
Memphis (173)
Georgia (54)
Alcorn St (212)
Houston (82)
Florida (24)
UAB (116)
Kentucky (74)
Old Miss (84)
They had 4 regular season losses
Auburn (1)
LSU (8)
Alabama (5)
Arkanssas (9)

Now, there is no shame in those 4 losses vs 4 uber teams, and a quality win over #24 Florida, but that's a lot of easy wins on that schedule, only 1 win over a team ranked higher than #50. What if they played a non conference schedule like Oregon State's? Would they have won 4 non conference games? I very much doubt it, and had they had 2 more losses last year they might not have started this year ranked so high.

That being said, the SEC does this year, and has most years, more ELITE teams. Example, last year, depending on how you define ELITE, the SEC had 3 or 4, but the PAC 10 only had 2.

But as I have repeatedly said in several posts, I judge a conference by EVERY MEMBER, not by its top.

Still, remember what I said way back at the top of this thread....I do admit the SEC is best, but not by nearly as much as most of you all do. Its a small margin at the top.

 

It means I look at all 12 of the conference, not just the top 7.

So many SEC fans talk about how tough it is to play 8 games in the SEC, how every week is a tough match, well that is only true if all 12 of the conference is tough.

Which I have pointed out, with data to back it up, is not the case.

 

That's because when there is a best team or a best group of teams and someone isn't a part of that, it's not only easy but it's also human nature to resort to using terms such as "overrated". And since that's the case, looking for flaws, inconsistency, or controversial subjects is inevitable.

Personally I don't care how big or small the gap is between first and second, because first place remains first place.

 

Old Duck Dude: Double your capacity at Autzen and fill it up every week for a few years, then we'll talk. A football game is an outing up there. Down here it's our raison d'etre.

 

I said let them play

I bet ya a coke we win 7 out of 12 at least



truth

I am only concerned about this year and Sept 3rd

It will be a great game with 2 great teams with great fans !

great - right

 

You started this thread by claiming the BCS game was the best measure. Well here is the link to all the BCS recordshttp://www.bcsfootball.org/news/story?id=4819309
One is all time all time record by conference (taken from BCS website)

Highest Winning Percentages By Conference

Conference Percentage (Record)
Mountain West .750 (3-1)
Southeastern .714 (15-6)
WAC .667 (2-1)
Pac-12 .625 (10-6)
Big Ten .478 (11-12)
Big East .462 (6-7)
Big 12 .444 (8-10)
Atlantic Coast .154 (2-11)
Independents .000 (0-3)
Check out the team with the best all time wininning percentage in all BCS games and NC games and see it is LSU. There have been 5 NCs from the SEC over a period of 13 years.
No other conference comes close in breadth or depth of teams playing in and winning BCS games. Will this change someday, maybe probably but for well over a decade the SEC has been the toughest and best conference by the only measure that counts winning agains all comers.

:LSU231::crystal::crystal::geaux: