Reply With Quote
No dude you don't get it.
YOU need to prove it. SEC Football speaks for itself bro bro.
Thus making your point, and the Pac-10 needing some proof.
Yeahhhhhhhh.
i am not surprised, the Pac 10 seriously is SOLID. their problem is consistancy. teams will rise up and beat a very good team and then lose to a team they should have beaten. any Pac 10 team is capable of beating ANY team in the nation if they have it together that day. i don't think any other conference in the nation can say that...
No dude you don't get it.
YOU need to prove it. SEC Football speaks for itself bro bro.
Thus making your point, and the Pac-10 needing some proof.
Yeahhhhhhhh.
On a semi-related note, this is rich.
Where was he when ND was ridiculously overrated at #2? Was he asking why they were rated so high with their bag D and Swiss cheese OL?
I loathe Jabba the Weis...
I'm not saying P10 is the best. I'm saying they have as many le appearances as the SEC in the BCS game, and an undefeated P10 team was rated higher than an undefeated SEC team. I'm saying you can't prove the SEC is better, which you can't.
Last 2 years the SEC is 3-3 in bowls each year. Last year the SEC champ lost to the BEast champ in a bowl. The year before the undefeated SEC champ was rated behind the B12 and P10 champ. During that same span, the B12 was 5-3 (getting in 2 more teams) and 4-3 (1 more team). The B12 Champ has been in the BCS game in 4 of 6 years and had a non champ in one year as well. The P10 is 3-2 (only 2 losses to B12) and 3-2 (1 loss to B12). As the B12 has more bowl participants and the P10 has the same percentage of bowl participants (50% each), how can you possibly say 'SEC football speaks for itself'? It speaks and the numbers say it isn't any better than the P10 and hasn't done as well as the B12.
Year in and year out, the B12 gets more teams in bowls. How can you say that the SEC beating up on each other keeps them out of bowls, when you have a same number of teams in another conf getting IN bowls? How about this, the last 2 years SEC had 7 participants (Tenn/SC) while the B12 had 10 different teams in 2 years. Therefore you can't possibly say that he B12 has more doormats, as more different teams have gotten in, and there has been a GREAT turnover recently in the north (with KState and CU down). Baylor damn near went to a bowl last year.
Top to bottom, the B12 is a much better conf than the SEC. , I wish we could play Miss St and Vandy and Kent every year. You can't say that in the B12. Every B12 team except Baylor and Kstate went to a bowl the past 2 years. OSU went to a bowl 3 of the past 4 years, Baylor almost did last year, KState was on of the best programs recently (only Neb, Fla St and Fla won more games than KState from '93-'03). In fact, last year in the B12, EVERY TEAM had a win over a bowl participant. EVERY SINGLE TEAM. The year before, the ONLY team that did not have a win over a bowl team was KState.
There is no fathomable way, other than just smack, you can show the SEC is better than anyone else, especially not the B12. B12 Football speaks for itself bro bro.
Blah Blah Blah.
One year it's one thing the next it's another. History speaks for itself, bro bro. I personally don't even like the SEC and which the B12 would send an invite to Arkansas. (like they should have already)
The point still remains the SEC is still and continues to be each year "where it's at." From the gameday experience to the overall fan support there is no conference out there that is better.
This was originally a Pac10 discussion. In which that is dead. Pac10 has nothing on SEC/B12 or even the B10 for that matter. Just a dead topic to try and say different. You wanna poll America they'd say the same thing. College Gameday and whenever you hear ESPN or a dicussion on TV about the best conferences and it's always about the SEC or B12, period. Case closed.
No SEC team other than Vandy has been without a bowl game more than 3 years at a time.
Alabama/Auburn/Arkansas/Florida/Georgia/LSU/South Carolina/Tenneessee or Texas/TexasAM/TT/OK/OKState/Nebraska/Mizzou/Colorado? Toss up? Who knows.
Is this a joke? The Big 12 has been very weak the last 2 years outside of Texas and (this year) Nebraska. Bowl Appearances are meaningless when there are 43894329432 of them all you need is a 6-5 record to make it to one. The Big 12 puts a bunch of teams in bowl games because they get to pad their records by playing ty teams, IE, each other.
It's the SEC hands down. The only team that can hang with any of them this year is Texas.Alabama/Auburn/Arkansas/Florida/Georgia/LSU/South Carolina/Tenneessee or Texas/TexasAM/TT/OK/OKState/Nebraska/Mizzou/Colorado?
I thought OU could hang with the SEC pre-bloading, and Neb could hang now, unless their coach calls a greg-davis-esque 4th quarter against EVERY opponent
If the game UT played against Nebraska was their "A" game, then neither school can hang with the SEC and UT is overrated. I suspect more along the lines of Texas having an off game.I thought OU could hang with the SEC pre-bloading, and Neb could hang now, unless their coach calls a greg-davis-esque 4th quarter against EVERY opponent
The point is... the SEC has doormats to beat up on. When 10 of 12 teams in a 2 year period make a 6-5 or better bowl and the 2 teams that didn't both finished with 5-6 records, there are no doormats. Therefore how can you say the B12 has been weaker than the SEC the past 2 years, when only 7 of 12 teams were good enough to get into a bowl. The point proves, irregardless, that the B12 is better from top to bottom.
As far as the Alabama/Auburn/Arkansas/Florida/Georgia/LSU/South Carolina/Tenneessee or Texas/TexasAM/TT/OK/OKState/Nebraska/Mizzou/Colorado comment... well are you talking the 2005 versions of Tenn (5-6) and Ark (4-7) or the 2004 versions of SC (6-5)and Ark (5-6)?
How about those 6-5 teams in a bowl? In 2004, the SEC had 2 of them and the B12 had one, while the B12 still had more bowl teams.
How about overall records? 2005 B12 was 80-54, SEC was 76-58.
2004 B12 was 77-57 SEC was 74-60.
I keep providing hard numbers... all you provide is words. Saying something doesn't make it so, and it isn't so.
In addition, there is no tougher division in football than the B12 South.
How about you get on the same page as everyone else and talk about this year, numbnutz.
Because I was responding to post #22, numbnutz. How about you read instead of talking before your brain thinks, ala Rush.
1. irregardless isn't really a word, ha ha
2. i agree that the big 12 south is the toughest division in CFB, but not the toughest conference. when teams beat up on each other...of course their overall records are going to suffer, etc
3. however, it has a very marginal lead over the Big 12, Big 10, and Pac 10, imo. and those great defenses are more a product of inept offenses than anything else. Pac 10 teams could go into the SEC hang huge #'s on those teams (maybe not all of them, but a good amount). see USC, ASU, etc
Current Saragin ratings, numbnutz:
1 PAC-10 (A) = 80.37 80.01 ( 1) 10
2 SOUTHEASTERN (A) = 78.55 78.33 ( 2) 12
3 BIG EAST (A) = 77.39 77.57 ( 4) 8
Current BCS Conf ratings, numbnutz:
1 Pac-10 0.5567 15 9 0.6250 89 67 0.5705 518 606 0.4609 0.5340 39.70
2 Big Ten 0.5167 23 11 0.6765 103 113 0.4769 722 931 0.4368 0.4635 43.73
3 SEC 0.5086 24 7 0.7742 81 115 0.4133 634 828 0.4337 0.4201 37.67
4 Big East 0.4871 26 8 0.7647 80 141 0.3620 728 856 0.4596 0.3945 38.75
Does it not stand to reason that 12 B12 teams and 12 SEC teams are both beating up on each other, yet the better overall conf will have a better overall record? B12 teams play just as many intra conf teams as an SEC schedule. uo and UT have been beating up on each other and yet one of them has been in the BCS game 4 of 5 years.
I've still had no one explain to me, if the SEC is indeed a better conf, how when 3 teams are undefeated that an SEC team is rated 3rd. Seems to me when the compter polls are LARGELY based on SOS that it says the SEC wasn't as tuff as the P10 or B12.
..this is your best argument, and i really don't have a good answer for you other than the computer might be flawed? though i will say, your right the SEC does have more doormats than the big 12, however, their top teams are better...which is why they can be a tougher conference and not have as good an overall record as big 12.
though this is just currently. if the big 12 teams continue to improve like they have (mizzou, nebraska, & kansas in the north; A&M, baylor, & OSU in the south) then the big 12 will be #1 again.
If you were responding to post #22, you shouldn't have quoted my post (#32) in your response, dumb .
Did you REALLY just say that?
I think that Colorado is very underrated.
I cant believe VaTech beat Clemson, especially so handily.
Huge upset, even in a weak conference.
Actually I typed it, Mensa.
This weeks Saragins, numbnutz:
1 PAC-10 (A) = 81.03 80.25 ( 1) 10
2 SOUTHEASTERN (A) = 78.94 78.56 ( 2) 12
This week's BCS, numbnutz:
1 Pac-10 0.5536 15 9 0.6250 102 79 0.5635 676 786 0.4624 0.5298 39.40
2 Big Ten 0.5158 24 11 0.6857 121 132 0.4783 920 1266 0.4209 0.4591 42.55
3 SEC 0.4970 27 7 0.7941 91 148 0.3808 866 1136 0.4326 0.3980 37.67
its all about the Pac-10. i think, if USC can run the table, their computer rankings will be enough to overcome those other teams (the three or four ahead of them).
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions