SEC non-conference slates are an absolute joke!

[Flsunman]

Someone here called that a circular argument. Why are so many ranked after going 4-0 with a cupcake OOC schedule? Don't matter. But when it comes around to them playing each other, well what do you know, weak OOC schedules notwithstanding, just look at all those high ranked opponents in conference!! Then when bowl season comes around, their #2 gets their asses handed to them by a non-BCS school. With the non-conf schedules they play, those facts are impossible to deny and why that argument holds weight. The truth about the SEC is that their reputation is 1/2 hype.

The SEC has more NFL players and starters than any other conference in football. The SEC is UNDEFEATED in BCS championships games. Last but certainly not least, the SEC has more outright National titles in the last 3 years than the PAc-10 since 1970.

Facts are facts and for anybody not affiliated with SEC football they are often tough to admit.

 

[Conan]

The SEC has more NFL players and starters than any other conference in football. The SEC is UNDEFEATED in BCS championships games. Last but certainly not least, the SEC has more outright National titles in the last 3 years than the PAc-10 since 1970.

Facts are facts and for anybody not affiliated with SEC football, they are often tough to admit.

BLAH BLAH BLAH... Who hasn't already heard all that?
What the fuck good is it if they never prove it on a national level on the playing field?

I bet if they played the same kind of OOC schedules as everyone else, they wouldn't have to worry about such a tough conference schedule because 1/2 of them wouldn't be 4-0 and ranked. The SEC's winning pct. is based on beating cupcakes. If that impresses you I have nothingmore to say... to you it would be pointless.

And by the way, the BCS is being sued for calling it a "national championship"... They've gone too far because there is nothing national about the way their championship game is settled. One win vs someone from elsewhere in the country doesn't prove you are the best in the country... just the champion of a corrupt BCS moneymaking machine... nothing more. Anyone who can't see that is dumber than a bag of hammers.

PS... since facts are facts today, the fact is that USC placed 2x as many players in the NFL as any SEC team, Oregon State placed more than any SEC team and so did Oregon. 3 Pac-10 teams placed more players in the NFL than any SEC team. Since that seems to count in your thinkng I thought I'd point that out.

 

[spokenword14]

Texas tried to schedule Wisconsin but the Badgers wussed out.
Texas had scheduled quality opponents prior to this year (OhioSt, Arkansas, TCU) and maybe they realized their current NC schedule sucked so they tried to bring in a big10 school, but Wisky wouldnt play em.

CFB needs a conference vs conference challenge like they do in CBB.

yeah, texas made them an offer they couldn't refuse: come play us in Austin this year, and we will play you in Madison when we get around to it.

 

[EatTheChalk]

PS... since facts are facts today, the fact is that USC placed 2x as many players in the NFL as any SEC team, Oregon State placed more than any SEC team and so did Oregon. 3 Pac-10 teams placed more players in the NFL than any SEC team. Since that seems to count in your thinkng I thought I'd point that out.

There are nearly 400 active SEC players in the NFL. There are fewer than 300 active PAC TEN players in the NFL. There is roughly 32 NFL players per SEC team. There are almost 27 NFL players per PAC TEN team. (36 and 29 if you drop the worst two teams in each conference).

The top half (5 teams) of the PAC TEN average 33 former players who are active in the NFL; the top half (6 teams) of the SEC average 43.

In the SEC, there are 4 teams with 40 or more former players who are active in the NFL; 7 teams with 30 or more.

In the PAC TEN, there is 1 team with 40 or more former players who are active in the NFL; 3 teams with 30 or more.

The deficit is going to grow a little wider over the next couple of years as the SEC was down in the middle part of this decade.

Aside from that, road games are a little tougher in the SEC because the stadiums are bigger, the crowds are louder and more hostile, and the tv coverage is typically more significant (all create added pressures that don't exist for many games on the west coast). People who have never been around the SEC to go to various games just don't understand this part of it (insert Wyoming vs. Tennessee joke here).

-ETC

 

[Conan]

There are nearly 400 active SEC players in the NFL. There are fewer than 300 active PAC TEN players in the NFL. There is roughly 32 NFL players per SEC team. There are almost 27 NFL players per PAC TEN team. (36 and 29 if you drop the worst two teams in each conference).

The top half (5 teams) of the PAC TEN average 33 former players who are active in the NFL; the top half (6 teams) of the SEC average 43.

In the SEC, there are 4 teams with 40 or more former players who are active in the NFL; 7 teams with 30 or more.

In the PAC TEN, there is 1 team with 40 or more former players who are active in the NFL; 3 teams with 30 or more.

The deficit is going to grow a little wider over the next couple of years as the SEC was down in the middle part of this decade.

Aside from that, road games are a little tougher in the SEC because the stadiums are bigger, the crowds are louder and more hostile, and the tv coverage is typically more significant (all create added pressures that don't exist for many games on the west coast). People who have never been around the SEC to go to various games just don't understand this part of it (insert Wyoming vs. Tennessee joke here).

-ETC

What is your source?

With all that NFL talent (except for last year) playing a bunch of cupcakes every year is inexcusable, unless you don't wish to claim your superior level of game on the field in a national sense. If you ever owned up to the same kind of preseason challenge that confronts everyone else in CFB, then you can talk about your greatness all you want because you earned it in front of the nation.

But as it stands today, your top team's rankings are based on beating patsies and going 4-0 at year's beginning. If they played a normal level of competition, 1/2 of the ranked teams wouldn't be, dare I say some years none would survive a typical non-conference schedule and come out of it unscathed or highly ranked. The way you SEC people try to change the subject every time your OOC schedule comes up is something you'd have to be a non-SEC fan to understand.

No one else schedules patsies like the SEC and that beat reporter from Huntsville in the topic's first post points it out. Unless you have selective hysterical blindness on top of arrogance, you will admit it and move on.

I hope your next post at least remains on topic.

 

[EatTheChalk]

source

The SEC is obviously doing things right (how can you argue with 3-0 in the last 3 championship games?). So the question isn't what does the SEC need to do to change, the question is, what are the outsiders going to do to catch up. Change their own behavior to become more competitive or whine for a bailout and a stimulus package that helps them get to be more on par with the achievers of society?

The SEC Champion may get criticized for a weak OOC schedule, but drop the worst team in that set and replace them with the SEC Runner-up. For Florida last year, that turns into Alabama, FSU, Miami, and Hawaii...all of a sudden it doesn't look so bad. For LSU the year before, that turns into Virginia Tech, Tennessee, Middle Tennessee, and Tulane. You get the idea. If they're not the SEC Champion then they're not in the BCS title hunt, so it doesn't really matter what their schedule is as long as we can bet on it and they can fill their stadium, right?

But if people were wrong in giving so much praise to the SEC, then surely that would show up in the big games. Then why is the SEC 5-0 in BCS Championship Games? Why does the SEC have the best record in BCS games at a .706 clip (not counting MWC with 2 games, 2-0)? Why is it that they've done this despite having the most 2nd teams included in the BCS Bowls (indicating the suggestion of a possible mismatch for conference rankings)? No other team has won two BCS titles, yet the SEC has done it twice now.

The system of scheduling light isn't foolproof, though. Auburn tried it in 2004, and the conference wasn't strong enough to support it. If it is as easily as scheduling light, then more teams would do it. But when you schedule light, you better have a strong conference and a conference championship game.

-ETC

 

[guitarjosh]

There are nearly 400 active SEC players in the NFL. There are fewer than 300 active PAC TEN players in the NFL. There is roughly 32 NFL players per SEC team. There are almost 27 NFL players per PAC TEN team. (36 and 29 if you drop the worst two teams in each conference).

The top half (5 teams) of the PAC TEN average 33 former players who are active in the NFL; the top half (6 teams) of the SEC average 43.

In the SEC, there are 4 teams with 40 or more former players who are active in the NFL; 7 teams with 30 or more.

In the PAC TEN, there is 1 team with 40 or more former players who are active in the NFL; 3 teams with 30 or more.

The deficit is going to grow a little wider over the next couple of years as the SEC was down in the middle part of this decade.

Aside from that, road games are a little tougher in the SEC because the stadiums are bigger, the crowds are louder and more hostile, and the tv coverage is typically more significant (all create added pressures that don't exist for many games on the west coast). People who have never been around the SEC to go to various games just don't understand this part of it (insert Wyoming vs. Tennessee joke here).

-ETC

Why only talk about the top half? Is it because Vandy and Kentucky both produce less NFL talent then any Pac-10 school? While we're at it, who produces more NFL talent between the Big-10, Big-12, and Pac-10? The Big 10, who is looked at as a backward conference.

 

[Conan]

The system of scheduling light isn't foolproof, though. Auburn tried it in 2004, and the conference wasn't strong enough to support it. If it is as easily as scheduling light, then more teams would do it. But when you schedule light, you better have a strong conference and a conference championship game.

-ETC

Very telling. So unless the conference members think they are strong enough to win all their games, you will continue to avoid the national competition. I think if you did that, it would become apparent to everyone that the SEC is not as dominant as the way it appears behind the smoke screen of cupcake protection.

The problem most people have with the way it's being done has nothing to do with where other conferences are with respect to the SEC, but rather the other way around from the standpoint where some things need to be proven on the playing field... in a national sense. So calling yourself the national best at anything is meaningless if you refuse to take the same kind of risks, playing the national powers that everyone else does. You have a lot of catching up to do if you want to appear as a legitimate national power, ranked as you would have it be with legitimate national competition every season. You don't even have a winning record vs the Pac-10 this decade... which is more relevant to where things are today compared to the 70's as your homer pundits will be the first to point out.

The excuses and come backs are just more ways of avoiding the issue at hand. If you wish to win the point and be respected for your national dominance (in your own eyes) there is no way around it. You will have to play the nation to claim you can beat the nation.

At least that Huntsville writer is big enough to admit it. That doesn't happen often in the SEC fanbase, you being a typical example, skirting the issue any way you can.

 

[EatTheChalk]

Why only talk about the top half? Is it because Vandy and Kentucky both produce less NFL talent then any Pac-10 school? While we're at it, who produces more NFL talent between the Big-10, Big-12, and Pac-10? The Big 10, who is looked at as a backward conference.

I highlighted the top half because those are the types of games that people care about. The teams that have a chance of knocking off the true competition within the league. Nobody cares whether or not Washington is better than Vanderbilt. But people do care about whether or not the 5th best team in the SEC (say, LSU), is better than the 5th best team in the PAC 10 (Arizona?). Playing @ LSU is a much more challenging game than playing @ Arizona. That's all I was trying to get at.

-ETC

 

[EatTheChalk]

Conan, your west coast teams can keep proving themselves in September, the SEC teams will continue to keep proving themselves in January. We'll see whose plan works out better.

What bigger national stage is there than the BCS Championshp Game?

To be honest, nobody in the South really gives a damn what the rest of the country thinks. That's a you problem, not a me problem.

Just remember, it's a game. There's a system. It's up to each team and that team's administration to make the best choices for their program to give them the greatest opportunity for success. If a team or a collection of teams have found a way to make the most money while reeling in the most championships (in the BCS era), then it's awfully hard for you to sit there and criticize it as if it's somehow the wrong way to go about it. Don't like it? Knock the SEC off the mountain top. Until then, you and yours are just sour grapes.

-ETC

 

[Conan]

Conan, your west coast teams can keep proving themselves in September, the SEC teams will continue to keep proving themselves in January. We'll see whose plan works out better.

That has a lot more to do with the crappy bowl deals that the former Pac-10 commissioner Tom Hanson left behind. This will change very soon with a better commissioner now in charge. Your point has nothing to do with the strength of the teams, but rather the strength of the bowl and TV deals as to when who plays who.

What bigger national stage is there than the BCS Championshp Game?

One game between 2 teams does not make a national stage. There are 120 teams in CFB. One game is a small stage to put this question to. Nice try.

To be honest, nobody in the South really gives a damn what the rest of the country thinks. That's a you problem, not a me problem.

Typical southern arrogance. Who's problem is that?

Just remember, it's a game. There's a system. It's up to each team and that team's administration to make the best choices for their program to give them the greatest opportunity for success. If a team or a collection of teams have found a way to make the most money while reeling in the most championships (in the BCS era), then it's awfully hard for you to sit there and criticize it as if it's somehow the wrong way to go about it. Don't like it? Knock the SEC off the mountain top. Until then, you and yours are just sour grapes.
-ETC

I don't view it as sour grapes, I see it as a chickenshit decision for the entire conference to safeguard it's selectively contrived reputation and you don't like the consequences. It is your own decision that has brought upon you the wrath of everyone for the choices you have made. If you can't see that then you are in denial and you cannot see the point... or you would simply rather not see it because it is a poor way to be seen.

I would be ashamed to be called yellow bellied. When it comes right down to it, that's exactly what is happening and there's a measure of truth to it. At least there are some who can admit it and would like to see it changed. Until that day comes, the criticism will continue, whether you win 5 BCS championships in the next 5 years or none at all.

 

[guitarjosh]

I highlighted the top half because those are the types of games that people care about. The teams that have a chance of knocking off the true competition within the league. Nobody cares whether or not Washington is better than Vanderbilt. But people do care about whether or not the 5th best team in the SEC (say, LSU), is better than the 5th best team in the PAC 10 (Arizona?). Playing @ LSU is a much more challenging game than playing @ Arizona. That's all I was trying to get at.

-ETC

I thought this was about scheduling, not the games people care about...

The flaw in your logic is that the #1 SEC team probably won't play the 2-6 SEC teams...but the #1 Pac-10 team will play the 2-5 Pac-10 teams-and their other games, according to your criteria of who produces more NFL talent, will be tougher.

 

[EatTheChalk]

Conan, if you think I'm arrogant, that's your problem, not mine. Who cares, either you have evidence to support your claims or you don't. If I have the numbers to back up my claims that makes me right, not arrogant. If you hit 70% clip in picking games, I'm not going to call you arrogant, I'm going to say, "damn he's picking games pretty f-ing well!" - I'm not going to be looking into excuses about how you might be getting lucky or what have you...you know why? Because it doesn't matter.

I've provided two sets of numbers that justify claims that the SEC is a superior conference. One set includes numbers from the NFL over the last several years (active players), the other set includes wins and losses in the BCS (which has absolutely nothing to do with poor bowl contracts). There is more data out there supporting this view, but no data out there supporting the opposing view - just whining and complaining. Was Florida's schedule not tough enough last year? Was LSU's not tough enough the previous year? Was Florida's not tough enough the year before that? Why don't you draw up some real numbers to back up your claims?

It's like you don't get that the goal is to manipulate the formula the best way possible to put your teams in the BCS Championship Game (or even just the BCS Bowls). I realize that you don't like the formula, most don't. But the issue that you are questioning is whether or not the SEC teams should change how they operate, and if so, what motivation would they have to do this? Is it to generate more revenue? No, that wouldn't happen -> fewer home games. Is it to generate more trophies? Hard to suggest given recent results. So really, what is it? Florida's schedule last year was top 5 by just about all accounts. LSU's schedule the previous year was top 15 by all accounts. The year before that, Florida's was top 10 by all accounts. Is that not tough enough? What more do SEC Champions have to prove?

Here's some more facts for you to exploit the myth of "not playing anybody." Over the past 3 seasons. The SEC Champion has played 14 teams ranked in the final BCS standings (7 in the top 10). The PAC Ten Champ has played 11 teams ranked in the final BCS Standings (2 in the top 10). Don't believe me? Go look it up.

-ETC

 

[EatTheChalk]

I thought this was about scheduling, not the games people care about...

The flaw in your logic is that the #1 SEC team probably won't play the 2-6 SEC teams...but the #1 Pac-10 team will play the 2-5 Pac-10 teams-and their other games, according to your criteria of who produces more NFL talent, will be tougher.

See my last comment to Conan. The problem is, the people who lead the "SEC never plays anybody march" never have any stats to back up their whining.

I don't get your first comment...people seem to care about scheduling, so "a game somebody cares about" is a specific reference to scheduling tougher.

-ETC

 

[guitarjosh]

See my last comment to Conan. The problem is, the people who lead the "SEC never plays anybody march" never have any stats to back up their whining.

I don't get your first comment...people seem to care about scheduling, so "a game somebody cares about" is a specific reference to scheduling tougher.

-ETC

I'm not saying that the SEC isn't the top conference top to bottom, I'm saying that it doesn't mean they play a tougher schedule. Since you keep bringing up NFL players produced, San Diego State, who is on UCLA's schedule, produces more talent the Charleston Southern, Troy, and Florida International combined. Those last 3 make up 75% of Florida's OOC schedule. FIU and Charleston S have produced 4 NFL players between them! In addition to that, look at when the games are played. Florida hosts FIU in November! Playing a good OOC team which has bigger, faster, stronger players, means that your best players are on the field longer and have more of a chance for injury. Playing FIU or Northern Arizona at home in November is like adding a bye week to your schedule.

 

[Conan]

Conan, if you think I'm arrogant, that's your problem, not mine. You are the one doing the hating, not me.

Understanding why others see you the way they do is not easy for someone who "doesn't give a damn what people (specifically CFB fans) in this country think." You continue to deny that there is anything to this feedback... arrogance, pure and simple.

I've provided two sets of numbers that justify claims that the SEC is a superior conference. One set includes numbers from the NFL over the last several years (active players), the other set includes wins and losses in the BCS (which has absolutely nothing to do with poor bowl contracts). There is more data out there supporting this view, but no data out there supporting the opposing view - just whining and complaining. Was Florida's schedule not tough enough last year? Was LSU's not tough enough the previous year? Was Florida's not tough enough the year before that? Why don't you draw up some real numbers to back up your claims?

You retreat to defending the conference one team per year. We are talking about all teams all years. I have a better idea, why don't you start your own thread saying that the SEC is the greatest thing to come along since sliced bread. That seems to be your objective. If you are looking for numbers, I have posted them ad nauseum. Just do a search for my posts with SEC content. You will find the numbers you seek.

On another note, why are you trying to hijack this thread which is purely and simply about how degraded and cowardly the SEC's OOC schedules have been and what should be done about it? But if you feel that you have been unjustifiably attacked, go right ahead and stick to some formula that works for you... however if it involves making chickenshit moves like avoiding real competition on the national stage, and be the only conference that does so, be prepared to take shit for it because it's deserved. Nice system. Is that the new SEC? Beat up the little guys to advance your W/L records because it works with the system? Some people call that cowardice. You call it a system.

And if you need a reason why you should play better teams, how about showing a little respect for the game itself, the game you avoid in the truest sense yet claim to be best via every method you can drum up aside from playing football on the field. Mano e mano. Not behaving like the schoolyard bully picking on the weak. If you can live with how you "work the system to your advantage" and in so doing, take the low road on the national stage every year, have at it but you will suffer the consequences for your decisions... well deserved scrutiny and criticism.

I am referring to your whole conference, not your conference champion. But can you tell me when the last time Florida left the state to play a non-conference game? Back in the 80's sometime? People notice these things and it's finally catching up to them.

It's like you don't get that the goal is to manipulate the formula the best way possible to put your teams in the BCS Championship Game (or even just the BCS Bowls). I realize that you don't like the formula, most don't. But the issue that you are questioning is whether or not the SEC teams should change how they operate, and if so, what motivation would they have to do this? Is it to generate more revenue? No, that wouldn't happen -> fewer home games. Is it to generate more trophies? Hard to suggest given recent results. So really, what is it? Florida's schedule last year was top 5 by just about all accounts. LSU's schedule the previous year was top 15 by all accounts. The year before that, Florida's was top 10 by all accounts. Is that not tough enough? What more do SEC Champions have to prove?

For starters, you can prove that you are willing to take on these issues directly like the rest of CFB does and make it work for you. Instead, you attempt to "manipulate" the system to your advantage... kind of reminds me of the fine print when you do business with a bank and realize that they've managed to screw you through some loophole. So has that become the new "sportsmanship" of the south? Are you proud? That is perhaps explainable, but it's indefensible.

Here's some more facts for you to exploit the myth of "not playing anybody." Over the past 3 seasons. The SEC Champion has played 14 teams ranked in the final BCS standings (7 in the top 10). The PAC Ten Champ has played 11 teams ranked in the final BCS Standings (2 in the top 10). Don't believe me? Go look it up.
-ETC

Listen, I can see right through that argument. More circular logic about teams that wind up being ranked because in part, they set themselves up to go 4-0 in their out of conference games. It comes full circle when they play each other and then claim... gee, look at all the ranked teams we play. Once again skirting the issue of playing quality opponents on the national level instead of patsies.

Please respect this topic by keeping on topic. If you want to herald the SEC as something so great, do it in your own thread or any thread about that topic. This topic is about the chickenshit opponents they "CHOOSE" to play because that's how they manipulate the system, safegarding themselves against losing against a real opponent from outside the conference, i.e. the national stage. The big stage includes a whole season's worth of games, not just conference grudge matches. In comparison, they mean very little to most of the country, certainly less than a marquee matchup between 2 powers from different regions.

So play the game the way it could be done right for its own sake, or play your games with your manipulation solutions. It has nothing to do with jealousy, envy or incompetence. The crap you get for it is deserved because you made a choice that warrants it.

 

[ChrisParadise]

no use arguing this

we get it, the pac-10 is a top 5 conference right now. hurray!

no one denies the SEC is #1, so whats the point? to an SEC team - ooc schedules matter as much as the uniform design(ahem) or the turf color (ahem ahem)

at the end of the day its about winning the BCS

give it time, USC will get probation and the pac-10 will fade back into conf-usa status

 

[ChrisParadise]

and btw , the ONLY reason TN schedules w coast teams is for recruiting purposes- and its worked over the years

Cali is ripe for the pickin with a lot of guys wanting to come to the SEC.

 

[Conan]

and btw , the ONLY reason TN schedules w coast teams is for recruiting purposes- and its worked over the years

Cali is ripe for the pickin with a lot of guys wanting to come to the SEC.

I don't blame you for being mad when players in your back yard like Dontae Williams flee to Oregon.

I've also noticed that you look for head coaches out west too. You won't hear this mentioned anywhere in the south, not in public anyway, but they must like how the teams are coached in the Pac-10 and out west nearby. That's quite a paradox. Put them down then hire their coaches.

 

[Carp332]

The Eight Big East teams play 10 FCS teams.

Actually, they play 13 FCS teams plus ND twice and #19 Utah once. But regardless you are correct, the current BCS system makes no incentive for these teams to schedule solid OOC games (esp. SEC East). The days of the Auburn snub are over, an undefeated SEC team plays for national title this year.