my top 15 for now...

-- half the sec does currently suck. never said it didn't.
-- name me one conference where half the teams don't suck right now? acc - about half. big 12 - about half. big east -- half sounds right. big 10? 8 of 11. pac 10? 6 or 7 of 10. sec. 7 of 12 suck. but those top 5 are pretty good.
-- yeah, i know, it sucks that recruits want to go places where college football is the biggest game in town and the most important thing around. oh yeah, it's so awful that fans actually care about college football in the sec. yep, reallys ucks. just awful.

 

But hoops, you're equating dialed-in fans with superior football there. The fan base has nothing to do with it. If it did, Wisconsin would be Top 10 every season.

 

In the past 10 years, Tennessee has victories over Notre Dame, California, Miami (when they were good), Florida State (when they were great), UCLA, Washington State, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Ohio State and Michigan.

And a couple of seasons before that, they won at Louisville and beat Louisville the next year at UT.

THAT'S why they don't get punished for a loss to LSU the way Louisville will be punished for a loss to Rutgers.

And there's another reason: You call it "lifetime achievement." We call it "proving yourself over time."

From time to time a team will shoot out to an 8-0 or 9-0 record.

But how much of it is smoke and mirrors? And even if they continue that success for the rest of the season --- which few teams do --- oftentimes they fall back off the face of the earth. West Virginia has made a career out of looking sensational for one season, then becoming irrelevent for the next 5 years.

If, say, a Boise State or Rutgers somehow goes 13-0 . . . an argument could be made that they got "screwed".

Maybe they did. But maybe people simply remember what happened, oh, one year ago when Boise State faced Georgia . . . and lost 48-13. Do you guys really think Tulane (12-0) got screwed in 1998 because they didn't get to play for the title but a 10-1 FSU team did?

And maybe these 8-0 wannabes just didn't have to play a gauntlet of tough teams that leaves you little room for error and beats your team to a pulp.

Tennessee likely will lose Saturday at Arkansas.

One reason is the Razorbacks are pretty good. But a great deal of the reason will be because the Vols are just beat up. Rutgers is a lot of things . . . but "beat up" isn't one of them.

And "national titles" is just a stupid argument.

One, national titles are fickle. A bounce here, a BCS computer chip there, and you lose out.

Two, it has been explained over and over why SEC teams have it rougher . . . and even when they do deserve a national title, it either gets split (LSU/USC 2003) or they don't even get a fucking chance to play for it (Auburn 2004).

 

right... as would nebraska and pockets of other places (and shit, texas a&m would finally win something)

but when people tell recruits (and note, i'm using dooley's words here) that one is truly better -- i beleive they're telling them that the entire experience is better -- football and things associated with football. and, year after year, the sec is the best on the field. this year? well, there's a shitload of mediocrity otu there. not sure any conference is better than any other. but year-in, year-out? the sec is attractive.

i honestly believe people like dooley are just anti-sec because sec people care more about college football and it threatens his feelings of superiority

 

I liked that preseason column Ron Higgins wrote. Call me crazy.

 

I would think one factor would negate the other. National titles are a very valid argument.

Look, the SEC is a power conference. I'm certainly not going to argue that it's not. But the mystical reverence given to it in some circles DOES get a little tough to take in other areas of the country where they care about their college football, too.

 

no, shot, they aren't -- especially when the same people using the national championships as the basis for their grading one place and then calling the system for deciding the national championship a farce another place

it's either a great indicator of the best <i>team</i> or it isn't. can't have it both ways

and, as has been said before. having the best team doesn't make a conference the best. espeically when it protects a team keeping them healthy and eliminating chances for an upset, paving the way for a national title (see florida state in the acc in the 90s)

 

OK. That makes sense.

 

I'm sure I could cherry pick a few SEC teams and pick out name teams they've lost to, especially in bowl season, when they have to play teams from other regions regularly.

"Beat up" because you're buying into the iconography of the SEC. Sure, they play games in big stadiums, and sometimes hostile ones on the road, but that doesn't mean every opponent is tougher than what another conference would offer.

"Two, it has been explained over and over why SEC teams have it rougher ."...well, why don't you humor me and explain again why it's any tougher in the SEC than in the Pac-10 or the Big Ten or the Big 12, all of whom get top recruits by the bushel load. So no, I don't buy that West Virginia or Louisville should get punished me.

And hoops, I'm not anti-SEC. I'm anti-journalists giving a conference a free pass-blow job that generates a self-perpetuating myth that costs other worthy teams.

 

SEC (and Big 12 and ACC) teams have a tougher time winning national titles than Pac-10 or Big Ten teams for one simple reason:

They have to play an extra game against an elite foe --- a conference title game.

The winner of the Ohio State-Michigan game will play for the national title. That is 100% certain.

A rematch in the "Big Ten Conference Championship Game" reduces that percentage to about 50% or 60%.

The statistical relevance of that point cannot be argued, regardless of how you feel about conference title games in general.

Please tell me how an over-hyped SEC team has ever "cost" another "worthy" team anything.

Hell, the SEC has only had ONE team in a BCS title game in the past 7 years. What "worthy" teams have gotten screwed over that span?

I submit to you that Tennessee got screwed in 2001 by having to play a rematch against LSU.

And LSU got screwed in 2003 by having to split its BCS national title.

And Auburn got screwed in 2004 by getting left out of the title game entirely.

That's 3 on my side. What do you have?

 

how are journalists costing other worthy teams? this i want to hear

(i know, i know, damn liberal, sec media -- electing democrat to the presidency and giving titles to sec teams every year!)

 

Or maybe they're just tired of hearing how great the SEC is when its one nonconference road win came via Vandy at Duke.

And I'm certainly not going to bash the Big 10 or Pac-10 for not having conference title games. Pac-10 doesn't need one now with 12 games, and the Big 10 is smart for not doing so. When the Big 12 formed, they saw the game as a cash cow, like every other conference that decided to go that route. I can't fault them for not following the money when it might jeopardize a conference team's chances to win a national title.