The SEC

[LOVEMYIRISH]

About the FSU/UM rivalry -- those teams got their "balls licked" because of the history of those two teams and the games they've played, and their history period. Very few teams have been as successful as those two in the past 20 years. Say what you want about the kids that go there, but they've been very successful programs.

No one expected those two teams to be as bad as they were this year. I really don't get your point -- yes, they were bad, and yes they were two conference teams beating each other up -- but what does that have to do with anything? It was the first game of the season -- no one knew how those teams were going to perform throughout the year. Hindsight, gentleman.

As for the Arkansas/USC argument, I just don't buy it. First, it was the first game of the season. Second, and again with hindsight, not much was expected out of Arkansas this year -- everyone expected a blowout, actually. Arkansas cannot be considered the "class" of their conference, which USC is, and now that Arkansas had a good season, you people are jumping up and down and saying "see! the SEC stinks cause USC killed the number two team in the SEC!"

If USC had laid a beating on Florida, or LSU then maybe I'd buy it. But they didn't. LSU beat Arkansas -- to me, they're the second best team in the SEC. If Florida lost to USC bigtime, but then came back and won the rest of their games, I'd see where you're coming from.

And I still find it funny that you point to a weak OOC schedule to base your entire point. And then you say "hey -- the SEC hasn't won any major blow games, so they must stink!" Well, keep in mind that most of the Bowls the SEC major teams play in are on, around, or close to New Years, and so they'd be playing some very good teams.

If UM loses in the Rose Bowl, are they a weak team because they lost a bowl game? No, seeing as USC is a very solid team. Heaven fobid the Big 10 loses BOTH it's BCS bowls -- you guys might be calling for it to be disbanded.

I am not saying they stink. I am saying their toughness is overrated.

I watched a bunch of FL games this year...I was unimpressed. I watch a few LSU games too. I was impressed with them. Arkansas...meh...not so much.

What I am saying here is that there is no PROOF that they are good. They could suck, they could be great, but there is no way to determine it either way.

People ASSUME they are good, so it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy after a while.

If you stick all in a pot and let them fight it out, some will rise to the top...it happens in EVERY conference. And if you set up an easy OOC your teams will have better records than anyone else.

Honestly, the SEC could be the best EVER, but then they could be lame. We simply have no proof either way.

Having watched them, I am less than impressed in many ways...but I see them as about the same as the BigTen or Pac-10.

I think there is a lot of parity out there.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

About the FSU/UM rivalry -- those teams got their "balls licked" because of the history of those two teams and the games they've played, and their history period. Very few teams have been as successful as those two in the past 20 years. Say what you want about the kids that go there, but they've been very successful programs.

No one expected those two teams to be as bad as they were this year. I really don't get your point -- yes, they were bad, and yes they were two conference teams beating each other up -- but what does that have to do with anything? It was the first game of the season -- no one knew how those teams were going to perform throughout the year. Hindsight, gentleman.

Both teams looked awful. I thought they looked awful. I said they looked awful. However, it was played off as a brutal fight. It was BS.

That's my thinking on the SEC...they don't look good offensively when they play (except LSU) and the D's look very good in general.

But again...AGAINST WHO?

 

[jerseyborn1971]

I am not saying they stink. I am saying their toughness is overrated.

I watched a bunch of FL games this year...I was unimpressed. I watch a few LSU games too. I was impressed with them. Arkansas...meh...not so much.

What I am saying here is that there is no PROOF that they are good. They could suck, they could be great, but there is no way to determine it either way.

People ASSUME they are good, so it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy after a while.

If you stick all in a pot and let them fight it out, some will rise to the top...it happens in EVERY conference. And if you set up an easy OOC your teams will have better records than anyone else.

Honestly, the SEC could be the best EVER, but then they could be lame. We simply have no proof either way.

Having watched them, I am less than impressed in many ways...but I see them as about the same as the BigTen or Pac-10.

I think there is a lot of parity out there.

Again, all good points. But I bet no more than 5 posts go by before someone brings up their rankings....AGAIN. It's all they've got.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

...I bet no more than 5 posts go by before someone brings up their rankings....AGAIN. It's all they've got.

EXACTLY

 

[Katzenboyer]

Another thing I'd want to add is the supreme home-field advantage teams in the SEC have.

I'm not saying this is the "be-all, end-all" to why it's the best conference in football -- it isn't -- but LSU, Florida, Tennessee, South Carolina, Auburn, and Alabama are always considered, year in and year out, some of the toughest places for a visiting team to play in.

 

[ojo_223]

You mean, undefeated, BCS-bowl-bound Boise State? Yeah, they're one of the worst teams around!

Boise St is 12-0, so what? They play in a mid level conference. Oklahoma will pound them in the Fiesta, just like Georgia did last season. 12-0 is great, but come on. Maybe I just hate Oregon St., I don't know, but that is their 'signature' win for the year.

 

[jerseyborn1971]

Another thing I'd want to add is the supreme home-field advantage teams in the SEC have.

I'm not saying this is the "be-all, end-all" to why it's the best conference in football -- it isn't -- but LSU, Florida, Tennessee, South Carolina, Auburn, and Alabama are always considered, year in and year out, some of the toughest places for a visiting team to play in.

True. Now if they could only prove how tough it is playing there by having more OOC opponents.

 

[Satans Little Helper]

True. Now if they could only prove how tough it is playing there by having more OOC opponents.

I can say that i go to at least 6-7 SEC games a year ( my favorite is th UGA Florida Game).

If you have not need to a home game at Tenn, LSU, UGA, Florida, USC or Alabama, go. You wont be dissapointed.

 

[solo]

Whether people assume it or not, year in and year out the SEC is one of the best conferences. Here is a telling stat. Below are ND's all time winning percentages against various conferences.

MAC......1.000
WAC ....1.000
C-USA... .885
MW.........788
Big east...734
ACC........723
Big 12......667
Big 10.......660
Pac 10.......647
SEC..........636

 

[jerseyborn1971]

Whether people assume it or not, year in and year out the SEC is one of the best conferences. Here is a telling stat. Below are ND's all time winning percentages against various conferences.

MAC......1.000
WAC ....1.000
C-USA... .885
MW.........788
Big east...734
ACC........723
Big 12......667
Big 10.......660
Pac 10.......647
SEC..........636

"one of" being the key phrase. Some people don't want to accept that. Anything short of THEE best conference is unfathomable. Nice stat. By the look of those winning percentages I'd have to say ND is the most dominant conference!

 

[grantland]

With the harassment ND took this year over our schedule, I'd hate to hear the media if we really scale back.

We did not "scale back." It just so happens that many of the teams on our schedule the past two years had down years. Normally, those schedules would be down right backbreakers. The only two teams on the schedule you can count on being easy games (when scheduled years in advance) are Army and Navy.

 

[grantland]

I have said it before I'll say it again, man do I get sick of the SEC shit. Why are they in the conference? Because they have to. Otherwise, get out. Go play in the Big East, I bet they will take you.

 

[Bubba]

We did not "scale back." It just so happens that many of the teams on our schedule the past two years had down years. Normally, those schedules would be down right backbreakers. The only two teams on the schedule you can count on being easy games (when scheduled years in advance) are Army and Navy.

I didn't mean to give the impression that we have scaled back. I don't beleive we have. However, there has been talk about us playing SDSU as payback to the Mountain West Conf. for rescheduling a game with BYU a couple of years ago. Not sure how Nevada got on our schedule either. I just know that ND will have to listen to all the BS about our weak schedule from the media if we start to schedule games like this. Like it or not, we will not be rewarded for scheduling like some of the elite teams are. They will always get the benifit of the doubt because they are in a conference. "They deserve some easy games because they play a tough conference schedule....blah, blah, blah" As far as I'm concerned, every game ND plays is like a conference game. Everyone wants to beat ND and they bring it when they play us. I'm not complaining, that's just how I see it. I'm fine with being an independent and I'm fine with the heat we take. I'll just be glad when ND is on the very top again and we can serve them all a big hot cup of shut the f#%* up! Until then, 10-2 is pretty good.. 11-2 will be even better.

 

[Pete]

Nevada is on the schedule for the same reason that SDSU is

 

[Bubba]

Nevada is in the WAC, though. Who do we owe for that one?

 

[kjones]

Boise St is 12-0, so what? They play in a mid level conference. Oklahoma will pound them in the Fiesta, just like Georgia did last season. 12-0 is great, but come on. Maybe I just hate Oregon St., I don't know, but that is their 'signature' win for the year.

The original point was made that Oregon State sucked because they got beat badly by Boise State. Boise State is NOT an elite team, I never said they were, but they are pretty good. Not great, but pretty good, probably better than a lot of teams (not higher than low 20's IMO). Losing to a pretty good team can happen pretty easily, look at the ND-UCLA game for example. Oregon state clearly does not "suck" because they lose to Boise St. on probably a bad day, and beat USC on a good day. That was my only point. Only about Oregon State.

I am not the Messiah of the MAC et. al. so don't make me the pariah of the posts.

 

[Timugen]

Look, the out of conference schedule just holds no water for me. Yes, they might have played soft schedules outside of the SEC, but the SEC is a MONSTER, and that schedule is tough.

Even in a down year for Georgia, they beat some pretty good teams.

It just seems to me that the people who are discrediting the SEC by looking at their out of conference schedule refuse to accept the fact that the in-conference schedule for the SEC is brutal.

Did you even bother to read the original post? You're going by the exact same false logic with this argument you present here.


1. ASSUME from the beginning the SEC is the best.

2. Do absolutely nothing impressive OOC.

3. Make an excuse for (2) based on ASSUMPTION (1) claiming your in-conference schedule is so brutal.

4. Beat up on each other in-conference (much like many other conferences) and whine that it just isn't fair because the SEC is so good, again based on ASSUMPTION (1).

5. Fall back on ASSUMPTION (1) to validate ASSUMPTION (1).

 

[Timugen]

The SEC is the best not because they "say" they are the best -- but because they have the biggest number of ranked (or unranked, but still solid) teams in the country.

You just really don't get it, do you? A major part of these "rankings" is a product of the ASSUMPTION that the SEC is the toughest conference (which conveniently can't be tested because they refuse to play anyone OOC - and before you jump on me about criticizing the OOC schedule of the SEC please read my previous post spelling out the relevance of it for you). These rankings are based largely on media hype (anyone doubting this I would refer you to ND's #2 ranking early in the year) and nobody can honestly deny ESPN/ABC's love affair with the SEC. The simple fact of the matter is that every argument you make about the strength of the SEC is based on the ASSUMPTION from the get-go that the SEC is so strong, since they have proven nothing outside of their conference.

 

[Timugen]

If USC had laid a beating on Florida, or LSU then maybe I'd buy it. But they didn't.

Well they would have to schedule them first to facilitate this. One would only assume that the rest of the SEC learned this year from Arkansas that they had better not wander too far from their in-conference games and possibly be exposed as good-but-not-great football teams and no longer be able to cling to their argument of being a great football team because they survived their "brutal SEC schedule," despite proving nothing OOC.

 

[LOVEMYIRISH]

Well they would have to schedule them first to facilitate this. One would only assume that the rest of the SEC learned this year from Arkansas that they had better not wander too far from their in-conference games and possibly be exposed as good-but-not-great football teams and no longer be able to cling to their argument of being a great football team because they survived their "brutal SEC schedule," despite proving nothing OOC.

USC played 3 ranked non-Conf teams and laid a licking on each one:
ND
Nebraska
Arkansas

While I am DEFINITELY NOT a USC fan, I would say that speaks more for them than anyone in the SEC who failed to play any strong team OOC.

 

[solo]

You just really don't get it, do you? A major part of these "rankings" is a product of the ASSUMPTION that the SEC is the toughest conference (which conveniently can't be tested because they refuse to play anyone OOC - and before you jump on me about criticizing the OOC schedule of the SEC please read my previous post spelling out the relevance of it for you). These rankings are based largely on media hype (anyone doubting this I would refer you to ND's #2 ranking early in the year) and nobody can honestly deny ESPN/ABC's love affair with the SEC. The simple fact of the matter is that every argument you make about the strength of the SEC is based on the ASSUMPTION from the get-go that the SEC is so strong, since they have proven nothing outside of their conference.

What did ND do to proive that we are the #11 team other than beat up on 10 mediocre football teams and get our @sses handed to us by the 2 good teams we played?

College football is all about hype and media attention. ND benefits from this just as much as any other program. Of course, in most years, ND plays a tough schedule to back it up. But the last 2 years the shcedule has been weak.

 

[FleaFlicker]

What did ND do to proive that we are the #11 team other than beat up on 10 mediocre football teams and get our @sses handed to us by the 2 good teams we played?

College football is all about hype and media attention. ND benefits from this just as much as any other program. Of course, in most years, ND plays a tough schedule to back it up. But the last 2 years the shcedule has been weak.

Our schedule hasn't been weak, our wins have been weak, there is a difference.

At the end of the year, we will have played 2 teams that were ranked in the top 3 within the last two weeks of the season. We just didn't beat them. Stop acting like our schedule was weak though, it wasn't, our wins were.

 

[solo]

Our schedule hasn't been weak, our wins have been weak, there is a difference.

At the end of the year, we will have played 2 teams that were ranked in the top 3 within the last two weeks of the season. We just didn't beat them. Stop acting like our schedule was weak though, it wasn't, our wins were.

Weak is a relative term. Our schedule was weak for us. I would say that when compared to the rest of the teams out there, our schedule was pretty average. But normally we play a very difficult schedule. It just so happens that many of the programs on our schedule that used to be good, simply were not good this year and last.

We didn't play a weak schedule like your average Big East team played. But our schedule was definitely weak by ND standards.

I agree that our wins were weak. Weis is yet to beat one legit good team, unless you count GT (which I don't). Sure would like to see that change in the Sugar Bowl.

 

[VictorsValiant]

Let me say this about the SEC. I hope, for the sake of their future, that they perform well in bowl games.

If not, the reprecussions will last for a long time.

 

[Stalking_Eagle]

On NCAA for PS2 our schedule is rated an A. That is good enough for me.

 

[Timugen]

USC played 3 ranked non-Conf teams and laid a licking on each one:
ND
Nebraska
Arkansas

While I am DEFINITELY NOT a USC fan, I would say that speaks more for them than anyone in the SEC who failed to play any strong team OOC.

Just to clarify, I wasn't criticizing USC for not scheduling good teams OOC, I was referring to UF and LSU.

 

[solo]

Just to clarify, I wasn't criticizing USC for not scheduling good teams OOC, I was referring to UF and LSU.

In my opinion, your OOC schedule should be inversely proportional to your in conference schedule. If you play in a toucg conference, you might need to schedule down OOC. If you play in an easy conference, you need to schedule up.

If I had to play teams like Florida, Tenn, LSU, Auburn and Alabama in conference, I wouldn't be lining up TX, Ohio State and ND OOC.

 

[Vince Young]

If I had to play teams like Florida, Tenn, LSU, Auburn and Alabama in conference, I wouldn't be lining up TX, Ohio State and ND OOC.

True, but I wouldn't stoop so low as to line up Southeast Missouri State, Western Carolina, Western Kentucky, Louisiana-Monroe, Utah State, Buffalo and Arkansas State either, just a sampling of the out-of-conference teams that popped up on various SEC schedules this year.

Southeast. Missouri. State. What the F@%* is up with THAT?!?

 

[ACamp1900]

What did ND do to proive that we are the #11 team other than beat up on 10 mediocre football teams and get our @sses handed to us by the 2 good teams we played?

College football is all about hype and media attention. ND benefits from this just as much as any other program. Of course, in most years, ND plays a tough schedule to back it up. But the last 2 years the shcedule has been weak.

So a top 25 schedule is a weak one???

 

[solo]

So a top 25 schedule is a weak one???

I really hadn't seen the schedule rankings, just making an observation. It was an easy schedule in comparison to ND schedules of years past.

We played two ranked teams...USC and Michigan.

We played one unranked team that was good....GT

Other than that, I don't recall playing any other teams that were good. We played all 3 service academies, Stanford, Mich St...these are all bad football teams. Throw in a few average teams. It just doesn't stike me as a hard schedule.

It was probably equivalent to an average schedule from a power conference. For example, if you played in the big 10 this year or the SEC.