The Great Debate: The SEC
Posted by Walter
Frazier, I literally cannot believe your entire argument consists of "The SEC is the best conference in the nation, therefore it's not possible for it to be overrated." In taking that position you are ignoring the entire essence of the argument. There is no debate that the SEC is far and away the best conference in the land, but let's take a step back and view it through the proper lens.
First and foremost we have every SEC coach, player, and yahoo fan whining that without a playoff they can never challenge for a national title because it's too hard to go undefeated through the SEC (yeah Tommy Tubberville, I'm talking about you!). Please! You listen to these morons long enough and you'd think these SEC teams were playing in the AFC. Since I'm using Auburn as the example here, why don't we take a look at the "herculean task" that was their conference schedule last season:
- @ Mississippi State - A team that finished 3-9 overall and hasn't won more than 3 games in over 5 seasons. Where I come from, we call that a gimme.
- LSU - A difficult game no doubt. LSU counts as elite competition.
- @ South Carolina - A solid team on the rise, but they have a combined 21-15 record over the past 3 seasons. By way of comparison, the University of Minnesota out of the Big-10 was a very comparable 20-17 over that same span.
- Arkansas - Another very solid team. Certainly not elite, and probably not as good as they showed during the regular season. Remember, this was a one-dimensional Arkansas team that had their game handed to them by Wisconsin, a similar type team from a supposedly weaker conference.
- Florida - Obviously elite competition.
- @ Mississippi - Here we go again. Another terrible team, that hasn't won more than 4 games since Eli Manning left town. Like their cross state rivals, this one is a gimme.
- Georgia - Another solid team, but were they really that great in 2006. Yes they beat a solid Virginia Tech team in their bowl game, but this is the same team that had to come from behind at home to beat a terrible Colorado team 14-13, lost to Tennessee at home by 18 points, lost to Vanderbilt at home, and beat the aforementioned gimme Mississippi State at home by only 3 points. In a word, the Bulldogs stunk.
- And finally, they beat a mediocre at best Alabama team that hasn't been relevant since the early 1990's.
Is the schedule difficult? Yes, of course. But is it the bare knuckled death match week in and week out that SECers would have us believe. No freaking way!
Look we all killed the Big 10 for being soft last year, but by way of exercise, why don't we compare Auburn's SEC schedule to Michigan's Big 10 schedule. For Michigan in 2006 I count 2 games against elite competition (Wisconsin and Ohio State), 1 game against good competition (Penn. State - and quiet down all you SEC yahoos, the Nittany Lions dismantled your precious Tennessee Volunteers in their bowl game), 1 game against mediocre/inconsistent competition (Iowa), and 4 gimmes (Minnesota, Northwestern, Indiana, Michigan State). BUT....and it's a big BUT.....I would be remiss not to mention that since the Big 10 isn't quite as revered as the mortal combat tournament that is the SEC, Michigan simply cannot get away with a joke of a non-conference schedule (something we let all SEC teams off the hook for). Thus the Wolverines travelled to Notre Dame, giving them at least one more game against good competition.
So what's the verdict? Well if you ask me, Michigan's schedule is NOT appreciably worse than Auburn's. We all agree that the Big 10 sucks and it isn't nearly as good as the SEC, right? Well then how can this be? I am not sure, but it be. I think we all need to just accept the fact that the SEC, while the best conference in the land, isn't quite the week-in-week-out fight to the death that SEC yahoos claim it is.
So basically, shut the hell up Tommy Tubberville!
Posts
