Why SEC Isn't As Great In Football As You Think

[killa1storm]

I do not understand why people think that, for example, Alabama winning the title last year somehow makes the rest of the conference great. Are Ole Miss, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Miss. State, etc.. better by virtue of other teams winning titles? There is a great deal of coattail riding in the SEC.

The SEC is a top heavy conference that is now and has been benefiting from media (ESPN) hype, preseason polls and questionable scheduling.

The SEC might be the best conference. But I urge people to actually look at who these teams play and where they start out being ranked in preseason polls, which is an absurd idea to begin with, before they blindly go along with the ESPN company line.

my problem with this reasoning is people pretend as if it's not the same for other conferences. you go down the list conference by conference and there's typically 2 teams at the top and a bunch of fillers.

pac 12: usc & oregon
big 12: texas and ou
acc: miami and fsu
big 10: ohio state and michigan

meanwhile alabama, auburn, lsu, uf, uga, a&m, and tennessee are sec teams off the top of my head that have won titles with the first 4 winning them very recently.

bama, lsu, and uf are regularly in the top 10 while uga is typically a top 15 type team annually. all the conferences are top heavy, the reason the sec gets the pub it does is because recently their top teams have beat up on the top teams from other conferences. you can even go back to the 90's and during that decade three different sec teams won a national title, the most of any conference during that stretch. the data doesn't really support the top heavy narrative.

bottom line is the top teams in most of the conferences can compete with each other, talking about the bottom 6 is splitting hairs. is ole miss, vandy, or uk worse than the bc's, duke's, and nc state's of the world? same with scrubs like indiana, colorado, iowa state, etc. in the other major conferences.

I never said anything about other conferences. They are all pretty much equal to be honest. If you want to discuss the strength of other conferences, we can do that in a separate thread.

So what if 4 different teams have won a title? All four of those teams haven't been great every year. For example, when Florida was winning titles, Alabama and Auburn weren't that good at all. It was Florida and LSU. Look at Auburn. They are awful now but won a title in 2010. So that means they are elite now? Of course not.

The point being that every year the SEC doesn't have 4 elite teams.Thus, saying that four SEC teams have won a title as way to say it's the best isn't logical because those teams weren't/aren't great every year.

My real problem, and living in an SEC state, is that your average fan DOES think Mississippi State would win the ACC, BIG 10, PAC 12, etc... but are only bad because they play in the SEC. It is a very common belief that is ludicrous.

well those fans are idiots and i agree with you on that point.

my point is that saying the sec 'only' has 3 or 4 good teams and the rest suck therefore they're overrated is a nonstarter. in the other major conferences, its usually 1 or 2 good teams and the rest are trash. most years they have at least 4-5 top 25 teams with 2 of those firmly entrenched in the top 10...that's more than other conferences are doing on average.

i agree with you the bottom half isn't anything to write home about, but then again that's true for every conference, that's why they're the bottom half. i do think in some years a lesser sec team being atop another conference is true, though not to the extent sec homers would have you believe. for example texas a&m finished #5 in the sec last year, yet they destroyed the big 12's champ in the bowl and i think they could have won the big 10 and the acc as well...but that's not the norm for sure though.

i see no point in differentiating between a mississippi state caliber school and a duke or iowa state or indiana, they all suck. i don't think there's any difference between the bottom half of the sec and anywhere else...and anyone who thinks their is doesn't have much for brains. only sec homers would claim those schools are bad because they're just in the sec. but i find it just as ridiculous for people to say "well other than their top teams they aren't good!" well, no ****. that's true of all conferences.

 

[Drewbie]

I do not understand why people think that, for example, Alabama winning the title last year somehow makes the rest of the conference great. Are Ole Miss, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Miss. State, etc.. better by virtue of other teams winning titles? There is a great deal of coattail riding in the SEC.

The SEC is a top heavy conference that is now and has been benefiting from media (ESPN) hype, preseason polls and questionable scheduling.

The SEC might be the best conference. But I urge people to actually look at who these teams play and where they start out being ranked in preseason polls, which is an absurd idea to begin with, before they blindly go along with the ESPN company line.

my problem with this reasoning is people pretend as if it's not the same for other conferences. you go down the list conference by conference and there's typically 2 teams at the top and a bunch of fillers.

pac 12: usc & oregon
big 12: texas and ou
acc: miami and fsu
big 10: ohio state and michigan

meanwhile alabama, auburn, lsu, uf, uga, a&m, and tennessee are sec teams off the top of my head that have won titles with the first 4 winning them very recently.

bama, lsu, and uf are regularly in the top 10 while uga is typically a top 15 type team annually. all the conferences are top heavy, the reason the sec gets the pub it does is because recently their top teams have beat up on the top teams from other conferences. you can even go back to the 90's and during that decade three different sec teams won a national title, the most of any conference during that stretch. the data doesn't really support the top heavy narrative.

bottom line is the top teams in most of the conferences can compete with each other, talking about the bottom 6 is splitting hairs. is ole miss, vandy, or uk worse than the bc's, duke's, and nc state's of the world? same with scrubs like indiana, colorado, iowa state, etc. in the other major conferences.

I never said anything about other conferences. They are all pretty much equal to be honest. If you want to discuss the strength of other conferences, we can do that in a separate thread.

So what if 4 different teams have won a title? All four of those teams haven't been great every year. For example, when Florida was winning titles, Alabama and Auburn weren't that good at all. It was Florida and LSU. Look at Auburn. They are awful now but won a title in 2010. So that means they are elite now? Of course not.

The point being that every year the SEC doesn't have 4 elite teams.Thus, saying that four SEC teams have won a title as way to say it's the best isn't logical because those teams weren't/aren't great every year.

My real problem, and living in an SEC state, is that your average fan DOES think Mississippi State would win the ACC, BIG 10, PAC 12, etc... but are only bad because they play in the SEC. It is a very common belief that is ludicrous.

well those fans are idiots and i agree with you on that point.

my point is that saying the sec 'only' has 3 or 4 good teams and the rest suck therefore they're overrated is a nonstarter. in the other major conferences, its usually 1 or 2 good teams and the rest are trash. most years they have at least 4-5 top 25 teams with 2 of those firmly entrenched in the top 10...that's more than other conferences are doing on average.

i agree with you the bottom half isn't anything to write home about, but then again that's true for every conference, that's why they're the bottom half. i do think in some years a lesser sec team being atop another conference is true, though not to the extent sec homers would have you believe. for example texas a&m finished #5 in the sec last year, yet they destroyed the big 12's champ in the bowl and i think they could have won the big 10 and the acc as well...but that's not the norm for sure though.

i see no point in differentiating between a mississippi state caliber school and a duke or iowa state or indiana, they all suck. only sec homers would claim those schools are bad because they're just in the sec. but i find it just as ridiculous for people to say "well other than their top teams they aren't good!" well, no ****. that's true of all conferences.

The only real way you can even accurately compare conferences is to line them up. Why compare a Miss State or Vandy to Ohio State and Florida State? Line the #1 vs. the #1, the #2 vs. the #2, etc. What conference would come out of it with a winning record against the SEC? I honestly don't think any of them could. The dropoff between the good teams and the bad teams is much steeper. Even Vanderbilt is fielding decent teams now.

 

[kendallcanes]

You can only play for a National Title if you get voted to play for it. The system is broken. We know all about that. 2000 season.

 

[4Canes]

I do not understand why people think that, for example, Alabama winning the title last year somehow makes the rest of the conference great. Are Ole Miss, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Miss. State, etc.. better by virtue of other teams winning titles? There is a great deal of coattail riding in the SEC.

The SEC is a top heavy conference that is now and has been benefiting from media (ESPN) hype, preseason polls and questionable scheduling.

The SEC might be the best conference. But I urge people to actually look at who these teams play and where they start out being ranked in preseason polls, which is an absurd idea to begin with, before they blindly go along with the ESPN company line.

my problem with this reasoning is people pretend as if it's not the same for other conferences. you go down the list conference by conference and there's typically 2 teams at the top and a bunch of fillers.

pac 12: usc & oregon
big 12: texas and ou
acc: miami and fsu
big 10: ohio state and michigan

meanwhile alabama, auburn, lsu, uf, uga, a&m, and tennessee are sec teams off the top of my head that have won titles with the first 4 winning them very recently.

bama, lsu, and uf are regularly in the top 10 while uga is typically a top 15 type team annually. all the conferences are top heavy, the reason the sec gets the pub it does is because recently their top teams have beat up on the top teams from other conferences. you can even go back to the 90's and during that decade three different sec teams won a national title, the most of any conference during that stretch. the data doesn't really support the top heavy narrative.

bottom line is the top teams in most of the conferences can compete with each other, talking about the bottom 6 is splitting hairs. is ole miss, vandy, or uk worse than the bc's, duke's, and nc state's of the world? same with scrubs like indiana, colorado, iowa state, etc. in the other major conferences.

I never said anything about other conferences. They are all pretty much equal to be honest. If you want to discuss the strength of other conferences, we can do that in a separate thread.

So what if 4 different teams have won a title? All four of those teams haven't been great every year. For example, when Florida was winning titles, Alabama and Auburn weren't that good at all. It was Florida and LSU. Look at Auburn. They are awful now but won a title in 2010. So that means they are elite now? Of course not.

The point being that every year the SEC doesn't have 4 elite teams.Thus, saying that four SEC teams have won a title as way to say it's the best isn't logical because those teams weren't/aren't great every year.

My real problem, and living in an SEC state, is that your average fan DOES think Mississippi State would win the ACC, BIG 10, PAC 12, etc... but are only bad because they play in the SEC. It is a very common belief that is ludicrous.

well those fans are idiots and i agree with you on that point.

my point is that saying the sec 'only' has 3 or 4 good teams and the rest suck therefore they're overrated is a nonstarter. in the other major conferences, its usually 1 or 2 good teams and the rest are trash. most years they have at least 4-5 top 25 teams with 2 of those firmly entrenched in the top 10...that's more than other conferences are doing on average.

i agree with you the bottom half isn't anything to write home about, but then again that's true for every conference, that's why they're the bottom half. i do think in some years a lesser sec team being atop another conference is true, though not to the extent sec homers would have you believe. for example texas a&m finished #5 in the sec last year, yet they destroyed the big 12's champ in the bowl and i think they could have won the big 10 and the acc as well...but that's not the norm for sure though.

i see no point in differentiating between a mississippi state caliber school and a duke or iowa state or indiana, they all suck. i don't think there's any difference between the bottom half of the sec and anywhere else...and anyone who thinks their is doesn't have much for brains. only sec homers would claim those schools are bad because they're just in the sec. but i find it just as ridiculous for people to say "well other than their top teams they aren't good!" well, no ****. that's true of all conferences.

Point is no one is touting the other conferences as the greatest blah, blah, blah like the media does with the SEC. The SEC has a huge advantage being in bed with ESPN, more coverage, more games, equate to more visibility and being at the forefront of everyone's mind i.e. voters. It's been shown that SEC does not suffer as much in the polls as other conferences when they lose.The SEC is the best because ESPN say's so.

 

[LuCane]

I'm not drinking the SEC kool-aid either. They have some great teams. They've won a lot of championships in a row. They have some inherent advantages because of how the system is currently setup and how their dynamic almost forces one of their teams to be given a shot.

I think you'll see a step back from the "awe" in the coming years.

 

[killa1storm]

I do not understand why people think that, for example, Alabama winning the title last year somehow makes the rest of the conference great. Are Ole Miss, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Miss. State, etc.. better by virtue of other teams winning titles? There is a great deal of coattail riding in the SEC.

The SEC is a top heavy conference that is now and has been benefiting from media (ESPN) hype, preseason polls and questionable scheduling.

The SEC might be the best conference. But I urge people to actually look at who these teams play and where they start out being ranked in preseason polls, which is an absurd idea to begin with, before they blindly go along with the ESPN company line.

my problem with this reasoning is people pretend as if it's not the same for other conferences. you go down the list conference by conference and there's typically 2 teams at the top and a bunch of fillers.

pac 12: usc & oregon
big 12: texas and ou
acc: miami and fsu
big 10: ohio state and michigan

meanwhile alabama, auburn, lsu, uf, uga, a&m, and tennessee are sec teams off the top of my head that have won titles with the first 4 winning them very recently.

bama, lsu, and uf are regularly in the top 10 while uga is typically a top 15 type team annually. all the conferences are top heavy, the reason the sec gets the pub it does is because recently their top teams have beat up on the top teams from other conferences. you can even go back to the 90's and during that decade three different sec teams won a national title, the most of any conference during that stretch. the data doesn't really support the top heavy narrative.

bottom line is the top teams in most of the conferences can compete with each other, talking about the bottom 6 is splitting hairs. is ole miss, vandy, or uk worse than the bc's, duke's, and nc state's of the world? same with scrubs like indiana, colorado, iowa state, etc. in the other major conferences.

I never said anything about other conferences. They are all pretty much equal to be honest. If you want to discuss the strength of other conferences, we can do that in a separate thread.

So what if 4 different teams have won a title? All four of those teams haven't been great every year. For example, when Florida was winning titles, Alabama and Auburn weren't that good at all. It was Florida and LSU. Look at Auburn. They are awful now but won a title in 2010. So that means they are elite now? Of course not.

The point being that every year the SEC doesn't have 4 elite teams.Thus, saying that four SEC teams have won a title as way to say it's the best isn't logical because those teams weren't/aren't great every year.

My real problem, and living in an SEC state, is that your average fan DOES think Mississippi State would win the ACC, BIG 10, PAC 12, etc... but are only bad because they play in the SEC. It is a very common belief that is ludicrous.

well those fans are idiots and i agree with you on that point.

my point is that saying the sec 'only' has 3 or 4 good teams and the rest suck therefore they're overrated is a nonstarter. in the other major conferences, its usually 1 or 2 good teams and the rest are trash. most years they have at least 4-5 top 25 teams with 2 of those firmly entrenched in the top 10...that's more than other conferences are doing on average.

i agree with you the bottom half isn't anything to write home about, but then again that's true for every conference, that's why they're the bottom half. i do think in some years a lesser sec team being atop another conference is true, though not to the extent sec homers would have you believe. for example texas a&m finished #5 in the sec last year, yet they destroyed the big 12's champ in the bowl and i think they could have won the big 10 and the acc as well...but that's not the norm for sure though.

i see no point in differentiating between a mississippi state caliber school and a duke or iowa state or indiana, they all suck. i don't think there's any difference between the bottom half of the sec and anywhere else...and anyone who thinks their is doesn't have much for brains. only sec homers would claim those schools are bad because they're just in the sec. but i find it just as ridiculous for people to say "well other than their top teams they aren't good!" well, no ****. that's true of all conferences.

Point is no one is touting the other conferences as the greatest blah, blah, blah like the media does with the SEC. The SEC has a huge advantage being in bed with ESPN, more coverage, more games, equate to more visibility and being at the forefront of everyone's mind i.e. voters. It's been shown that SEC do not suffer as much in the polls as other conferences when they lose.The SEC is the best because ESPN say's so.

i don't agree with this.

you can argue that since the sec agreed to a contract with espn that has changed and i wouldn't disagree, but overall? nope. just a few years ago usc and the pac 10 was all the rage along with the big 10 and big 12. remember when those same idiots were calling for an ohio state-michigan rematch in the title game? some argued for the same in 08' when texas tech, oklahoma, and texas were in the top 5. they didn't just start that with lsu-bama and all those conferences were considered better by talking heads. the sec has really only started getting the media attention in the last few years and it came when they had convincing wins by their top teams in bowl games. before then they were the 3rd or 4th best conference with 'good' defenses and bad offenses, that was the perception.

 

[kmwcane]

my point is that saying the sec 'only' has 3 or 4 good teams and the rest suck therefore they're overrated is a nonstarter. in the other major conferences, its usually 1 or 2 good teams and the rest are trash. most years they have at least 4-5 top 25 teams with 2 of those firmly entrenched in the top 10...that's more than other conferences are doing on average.

But they don't have 3-4 each year is my point. Look at the schedules of who is being played by these teams. The SEC benefits from preseason polls; they begin ranked so high that even if they lose a game or two, they'll end up in the top 10 even though they really haven't beaten anyone of note. It looks so great to have an early season #5 South Carolina vs #11 Georgia (even though it's week 2 and polls shouldn't be released until at least 5 weeks in).

Couple preseason polls with ESPN being in bed with them, and that's the recipe for conference over rating.

 

[killa1storm]

I do not understand why people think that, for example, Alabama winning the title last year somehow makes the rest of the conference great. Are Ole Miss, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, Miss. State, etc.. better by virtue of other teams winning titles? There is a great deal of coattail riding in the SEC.

The SEC is a top heavy conference that is now and has been benefiting from media (ESPN) hype, preseason polls and questionable scheduling.

The SEC might be the best conference. But I urge people to actually look at who these teams play and where they start out being ranked in preseason polls, which is an absurd idea to begin with, before they blindly go along with the ESPN company line.

my problem with this reasoning is people pretend as if it's not the same for other conferences. you go down the list conference by conference and there's typically 2 teams at the top and a bunch of fillers.

pac 12: usc & oregon
big 12: texas and ou
acc: miami and fsu
big 10: ohio state and michigan

meanwhile alabama, auburn, lsu, uf, uga, a&m, and tennessee are sec teams off the top of my head that have won titles with the first 4 winning them very recently.

bama, lsu, and uf are regularly in the top 10 while uga is typically a top 15 type team annually. all the conferences are top heavy, the reason the sec gets the pub it does is because recently their top teams have beat up on the top teams from other conferences. you can even go back to the 90's and during that decade three different sec teams won a national title, the most of any conference during that stretch. the data doesn't really support the top heavy narrative.

bottom line is the top teams in most of the conferences can compete with each other, talking about the bottom 6 is splitting hairs. is ole miss, vandy, or uk worse than the bc's, duke's, and nc state's of the world? same with scrubs like indiana, colorado, iowa state, etc. in the other major conferences.

I never said anything about other conferences. They are all pretty much equal to be honest. If you want to discuss the strength of other conferences, we can do that in a separate thread.

So what if 4 different teams have won a title? All four of those teams haven't been great every year. For example, when Florida was winning titles, Alabama and Auburn weren't that good at all. It was Florida and LSU. Look at Auburn. They are awful now but won a title in 2010. So that means they are elite now? Of course not.

The point being that every year the SEC doesn't have 4 elite teams.Thus, saying that four SEC teams have won a title as way to say it's the best isn't logical because those teams weren't/aren't great every year.

My real problem, and living in an SEC state, is that your average fan DOES think Mississippi State would win the ACC, BIG 10, PAC 12, etc... but are only bad because they play in the SEC. It is a very common belief that is ludicrous.

well those fans are idiots and i agree with you on that point.

my point is that saying the sec 'only' has 3 or 4 good teams and the rest suck therefore they're overrated is a nonstarter. in the other major conferences, its usually 1 or 2 good teams and the rest are trash. most years they have at least 4-5 top 25 teams with 2 of those firmly entrenched in the top 10...that's more than other conferences are doing on average.

i agree with you the bottom half isn't anything to write home about, but then again that's true for every conference, that's why they're the bottom half. i do think in some years a lesser sec team being atop another conference is true, though not to the extent sec homers would have you believe. for example texas a&m finished #5 in the sec last year, yet they destroyed the big 12's champ in the bowl and i think they could have won the big 10 and the acc as well...but that's not the norm for sure though.

i see no point in differentiating between a mississippi state caliber school and a duke or iowa state or indiana, they all suck. only sec homers would claim those schools are bad because they're just in the sec. but i find it just as ridiculous for people to say "well other than their top teams they aren't good!" well, no ****. that's true of all conferences.

The only real way you can even accurately compare conferences is to line them up. Why compare a Miss State or Vandy to Ohio State and Florida State? Line the #1 vs. the #1, the #2 vs. the #2, etc. What conference would come out of it with a winning record against the SEC? I honestly don't think any of them could. The dropoff between the good teams and the bad teams is much steeper. Even Vanderbilt is fielding decent teams now.

correct, and that is why most people have said they are the best conference.

the bottom half sucks in every conference, it's the top that separates them. and when the top 4 in the sec have collectively won 8 straight titles, how can you argue they are not the best conference?

don't tell me 'after the top 4 the rest are trash.' because after 2 teams in other conferences, the rest are trash too, that's the same everywhere.

but to your point i'd like to see the bowl matchups be #1 vs. #1 and #2 vs. #2, etc. to get a better feel on all of this. you look at the chik-fil-a bowl for example and it features the ACC's #2 against the SEC's #4 team, you find similar cases in other bowls too like the cotton bowl which is usually the big 12's #2 against the SEC's #5.

 

[DeepEyez]

This is pointless conversation. The Top schools in the SEC have out-recruited and out-coached your favorite programs for the past 10 years, there's no denying the unwillingness to play Big Boy Football at the level they are playing.

They are willing spend more money on coaching and are more willing to go practically anywhere to reel-in top talent.

Other conferences, including the ACC, have the opportunity to match wits with the Top of that league but haven't shown the financial commitment to do so.

In a perfect world, Florida State and Clemson wouldn't wouldn't be the only programs in this conference worth talking about. In a perfect world Florida State and Clemson, would have competitive conference partners in Miami, North Carolina, NC State, Georgia Tech, Virginia and Virginia Tech. As a conference we should be able to field 6 Top 25 teams out of this bunch, but we only have 2. Pathetic.

So the day we field 6 Top 25 in a given year, then we'll have room to talk.

 

[kmwcane]

I guess the even bigger overall point is what is with the obsession with "who has the best conference" in the first place??? I never hear anyone chanting "AFC North!AFC North!AFC North!" when a team from that division beats a non-divisional opponent, for example. However, I hear an SEC chant that EVERY time an SEC team beats anyone out of conference. Seems like a way for teams to ride Alabama's coattails (presently).

Furthermore, the SEC doesn't win anything. One team is winning. Let me know when a team composed of players from each team wins a title and then you can let the SEC chants flow freely!

 

[TheCaneShow]

With half the conference ranked in preseason polls followed by most of the conference teeing off cupcake OOC games, by the time you hit October you have nearly every team in the conference with a fictional number next to their name come conference play time because they are all 3-1 or 4-0.

The system never allows them to move down because there's always an SEC matchup of like a #14 vs. a #6, so no matter what if the lower seed wins the shoot right up near the top and the lower seed only slightly dips because hey they lost to a ranked team. If they higher seed wins, they move up because they just defeated another SEC opponent that was ranked.

The system is completely broken, preseason rankings make it impossible for their teams to dip out of the top of the polls unless they have a total collapse like Arkansas did last year.

 

[Drewbie]

I'm not drinking the SEC kool-aid either. They have some great teams. They've won a lot of championships in a row. They have some inherent advantages because of how the system is currently setup and how their dynamic almost forces one of their teams to be given a shot.

I think you'll see a step back from the "awe" in the coming years.

Please tell me what inherent advantages the SEC has? An undefeated SEC champion Auburn was left out of the BCS title game in 2004. The people that blame the BCS for the SEC's constant top rankings are just butthurt and looking for something to blame the SEC's streak on other than them just flat out being better teams.

 

[killa1storm]

With half the conference ranked in preseason polls followed by most of the conference teeing off cupcake OOC games, by the time you hit October you have nearly every team in the conference with a fictional number next to their name come conference play time because they are all 3-1 or 4-0.

The system never allows them to move down because there's always an SEC matchup of like a #14 vs. a #6, so no matter what if the lower seed wins the shoot right up near the top and the lower seed only slightly dips because hey they lost to a ranked team. If they higher seed wins, they move up because they just defeated another SEC opponent that was ranked.

The system is completely broken, preseason rankings make it impossible for their teams to dip out of the top of the polls unless they have a total collapse like Arkansas did last year.

how is this not true of other conferences though?

is the sec the only team with multiple teams who start the season in the top 25 or play ooc cupcakes? simple research shows this isn't close to true. for example the pac-12 had 5 this year in the preseason top 25, the big 10 had 5 as well, that's close to half of their teams starting in the top 25, why isn't that true of them? when they lose to each other they won't fall and if they win they'll shoot up as well, no different than the sec. seems like selective critiquing.

 

[DeepEyez]

With half the conference ranked in preseason polls followed by most of the conference teeing off cupcake OOC games, by the time you hit October you have nearly every team in the conference with a fictional number next to their name come conference play time because they are all 3-1 or 4-0.

The system never allows them to move down because there's always an SEC matchup of like a #14 vs. a #6, so no matter what if the lower seed wins the shoot right up near the top and the lower seed only slightly dips because hey they lost to a ranked team. If they higher seed wins, they move up because they just defeated another SEC opponent that was ranked.

The system is completely broken, preseason rankings make it impossible for their teams to dip out of the top of the polls unless they have a total collapse like Arkansas did last year.

Well then, ACC teams need to get ranked high and schedule soft to start the season.

You have ACC teams scheduling games they know they are going to lose and hoping to get sympathy points for keeping it close, which is ludicrous to me.

The ACC also needs to redo the divisions because the only schools that benefit the current divisional arrangement is Clemson & FSU. Miami plays in a division that rather play spoiler than actually field a competent and consistent football team. Miami is better off being in a division with Florida State, Clemson, Georgia Tech and Louisville than the current setup.

 

[Drewbie]

With half the conference ranked in preseason polls followed by most of the conference teeing off cupcake OOC games, by the time you hit October you have nearly every team in the conference with a fictional number next to their name come conference play time because they are all 3-1 or 4-0.

The system never allows them to move down because there's always an SEC matchup of like a #14 vs. a #6, so no matter what if the lower seed wins the shoot right up near the top and the lower seed only slightly dips because hey they lost to a ranked team. If they higher seed wins, they move up because they just defeated another SEC opponent that was ranked.

The system is completely broken, preseason rankings make it impossible for their teams to dip out of the top of the polls unless they have a total collapse like Arkansas did last year.

Then maybe you should tell the teams in other conferences to stop losing their games. Everyone wants to blame the BCS for their teams not getting in, but wouldn't they be overwhelmingly voted into the title game if they just won their schedule? Notre Dame was complete garbage last year but got a shot at the title. Why? Because they didn't lose. Stop blaming the SEC and the BCS and start blaming the fact that the Oregons, Oklahomas, USCs, and Florida States of the world keep getting tripped up by teams they have no business losing to. Why would anyone vote a team that lost to an Iowa State, Washington, Northwestern, Stanford etc. into the title game?

 

[kendallcanes]

You lost me at voting to decide who should play a game.

 

[Dghustla]

With half the conference ranked in preseason polls followed by most of the conference teeing off cupcake OOC games, by the time you hit October you have nearly every team in the conference with a fictional number next to their name come conference play time because they are all 3-1 or 4-0.

The system never allows them to move down because there's always an SEC matchup of like a #14 vs. a #6, so no matter what if the lower seed wins the shoot right up near the top and the lower seed only slightly dips because hey they lost to a ranked team. If they higher seed wins, they move up because they just defeated another SEC opponent that was ranked.

The system is completely broken, preseason rankings make it impossible for their teams to dip out of the top of the polls unless they have a total collapse like Arkansas did last year.

This guy gets it. It's a perpetual cycle of never ending hype. Created by ESPN. And it's rather Genius because ESPN is making billions of dollars off the perception. ESPN use to use Rivals and Scout ranking of High School Athletes. They did away with that for their own rankings. It's no coincidence that ESPN recruit rankings are heavily skewed towards the South. So each year they can crown a team with a top 25 class, so their analyst can say "they have soo much talent". It's funny how 8 years ago the argument for SEC playing Cupcakes was "The SEC is too hard" yet they hadn't even started their historic run. Now it's acceptable to play 3 cupcakes a year. The SEC does not have 4 legit title contenders every year. They have 2 legit teams like everyone else, and a bunch of teams getting the benefit of the doubt. Then in October as this posted mentioned when they are 4-0 and ranked 10th we should just believe it because Buffalo and FAU are really good programs.

 

[TheCaneShow]

how is this not true of other conferences though?

is the sec the only team with multiple teams who start the season in the top 25 or play ooc cupcakes? simple research shows this isn't close to true. for example the pac-12 had 5 this year in the preseason top 25, the big 10 had 5 as well, that's close to half of their teams starting in the top 25, why isn't that true of them? when they lose to each other they won't fall and if they win they'll shoot up as well, no different than the sec. seems like selective critiquing.

The voters pity the SEC losses a lot more than they do any other conference vs. conference loss, simply because of the rusty trombones they've gotten from ESPN the last couple of years.

Who do you think would land on their feet in a poll drop, South Carolina losing to Georgia or Clemson losing to Florida State?

 

[kmwcane]

With half the conference ranked in preseason polls followed by most of the conference teeing off cupcake OOC games, by the time you hit October you have nearly every team in the conference with a fictional number next to their name come conference play time because they are all 3-1 or 4-0.

The system never allows them to move down because there's always an SEC matchup of like a #14 vs. a #6, so no matter what if the lower seed wins the shoot right up near the top and the lower seed only slightly dips because hey they lost to a ranked team. If they higher seed wins, they move up because they just defeated another SEC opponent that was ranked.

The system is completely broken, preseason rankings make it impossible for their teams to dip out of the top of the polls unless they have a total collapse like Arkansas did last year.

how is this not true of other conferences though?

is the sec the only team with multiple teams who start the season in the top 25 or play ooc cupcakes? simple research shows this isn't close to true. for example the pac-12 had 5 this year in the preseason top 25, the big 10 had 5 as well, that's close to half of their teams starting in the top 25, why isn't that true of them? when they lose to each other they won't fall and if they win they'll shoot up as well, no different than the sec. seems like selective critiquing.

The SEC has the teams that are starting inside the top 10. Of course other conferences have teams in the top 25 but rarely are they ranked as highly.

Point being: Preseason polls are ridiculous and should be abolished.

 

[Drewbie]

With half the conference ranked in preseason polls followed by most of the conference teeing off cupcake OOC games, by the time you hit October you have nearly every team in the conference with a fictional number next to their name come conference play time because they are all 3-1 or 4-0.

The system never allows them to move down because there's always an SEC matchup of like a #14 vs. a #6, so no matter what if the lower seed wins the shoot right up near the top and the lower seed only slightly dips because hey they lost to a ranked team. If they higher seed wins, they move up because they just defeated another SEC opponent that was ranked.

The system is completely broken, preseason rankings make it impossible for their teams to dip out of the top of the polls unless they have a total collapse like Arkansas did last year.

This guy gets it. It's a perpetual cycle of never ending hype. Created by ESPN. And it's rather Genius because ESPN is making billions of dollars off the perception. ESPN use to use Rivals and Scout ranking of High School Athletes. They did away with that for their own rankings. It's no coincidence that ESPN recruit rankings are heavily skewed towards the South. So each year they can crown a team with a top 25 class, so their analyst can say "they have soo much talent". It's funny how 8 years ago the argument for SEC playing Cupcakes was "The SEC is too hard" yet they hadn't even started their historic run. Now it's acceptable to play 3 cupcakes a year. The SEC does not have 4 legit title contenders every year. They have 2 legit teams like everyone else, and a bunch of teams getting the benefit of the doubt. Then in October as this posted mentioned when they are 4-0 and ranked 10th we should just believe it because Buffalo and FAU are really good programs.

Auburn was ranked as high as #11 in the preseason polls in 2004. They didn't lose a single game and still got left out of the title game. Clearly an SEC bias right? People blaming the system are just grasping for straws. Auburn didn't get into the 2004 title game even though they went undefeated. Why is that? Oh. Because other teams from other conferences were undefeated as well. How about that? If another team from another conference goes undefeated just like the SEC teams, they have a shot at being ahead of the SEC schools in the BCS. Color me shocked.