SEC = AVERAGE OR AWESOME
- Thread starter Jnecker4cy
- Start date
LOL. I always say when someone starts off the conversation by telling me what a "good Christian" they are I immediately grab my billfold with both hands and quickly look to see where my wife and daughter are.
would you care to guess how many times Georgia played Alabama in the regular season in the last 15 years?
that would be 4 times (twice between 2010 and 2023)
Care to guess how often Georgia has played LSU in the same timeframe (that would be twice)
I know you're an SEC homer but holy hell this stuff isn't that hard to look up.
It’s been best conference purposefully avoiding best schedules for decades now.
I’m glad they are moving to 9 conference games. Texas fans are complaining that they should’ve played another cupcake instead of Ohio state but ignore that they only play 8 conference games.
Texas only played 9 p4 teams this year. Teams like Iowa State play 10 P4 teams a season. Maybe don’t lose to Florida next time.
Texas only played 9 p4 teams this year. Teams like Iowa State play 10 P4 teams a season. Maybe don’t lose to Florida next time.
FFS Iowa would have been beating the playoff drum (even more) if they only played 9 p4 games.
That's true, but Alabama has also played LSU, Tennessee and Auburn 15 times in the regular season in the past 15 Regular Seasons + Georgia those 4 years + Florida few time too. My point is that the SEC at least tries to get their 6 Historical Powers to play each other.
Now, you may wonder why I refer to the 6 Historical Powers, and it is because these are the 6 SEC teams that have won every single SEC Championship since 1964-* and all of them have won at least one National Championship since 1998 and all are in the Top 20 all-time in wins and winning percentage.. They cannot all be great in the same year, but they all have top notch recruits and are super tough to play even in an off year.
Like I said, the 8 game schedule has been an issue, but they have doen their best to make sure the 6 Historical powers play each other as much as possible with 3 games minimum per year and sometimes 4 out of 5 (like Alabama the past two years).
FWIW, I am a part-time Alabama fan, but I am not an SEC homer. Just because I discuss Alabama and the SEC does not make me homer in and of itself. I don't speak in hyperbole.
*-Kentucky won the 1976 Championship after the fact due to a forfeit, but Georgia won the SEC that year on the field and went to the Sugar Bowl.
This is just an odd statement. When the B1G had divisions, OSU, UM and Penn State were all in one division.
I smell desperation from the SEC. They know the gap closed with NIL and they are trying to squeeze every ounce of equity they earned in the previous decade.
They were, and they did! I also removed that point, as it was hyperbolic.
The B1G East was tough to win. However, there were Western B1G Teams that did not have to play any or only one of those three. In the old SEC format, all of the 6 powers (Alabama, Auburn. LSU, Tennessee, Florida and Georgia) played at least 3 of the others and usually four, and the lower teams had to play at least two of the powers and sometimes three.My favorite SEC stat is that Texas A&M has been in the SEC since 2012 yet has only played Georgia once in that timeframe, in 2019.
Having the newer teams makes scheduling more difficult for sure, and that is / was a problem being addressed with the new format that starts next year where every team will play every other team home and away within a four year period. I like both the 9 game conference schedule and the new format.
As to the original point about SEC trying to avoid the power teams playing other power teams, A&M has yet to make the SEC CCG Game, let alone win it. So, while having a good year this year (and in 2012), they are not really considered a power team in the conference yet.
Part of that is that during their time in the SEC West, they did have to play Alabama-*, LSU and Auburn every year which all won at least one SEC Championship and played for (Auburn) and won (LSU and Alabama) at least one National Championship during that period. So, they didn't play Georgia and Florida much, but they did play Alabama, LSU and Auburn annually.
*- Alabama was 10-2 vs. A&M during this stretch from 2012-24.
Get ready for a steady dose of consternation on the bubble teams clamoring to get in. Last year it was Ole Miss and South Carolina on the bubble. This year it’s Texas and Vandy. There will always be teams on the fringe making noise. It’s part of the design.
ESPN had a graphic the other night of like OU, Texas, Vandy, Notre Dame, Miami. No mention of 1 loss BYU.
ESPN had a graphic the other night of like OU, Texas, Vandy, Notre Dame, Miami. No mention of 1 loss BYU.
Heard it at work yesterday-
"would have beat Indiana if Groinski didn't get hurt"
"got screwed vs Oregon, should have won that game"
"almost beat USC"
"one more win and we're in the conversation, two more and for sure in"
I think at one point, someone noodled out that Ohio St played Oklahoma more in the past 10 years than they'd played Iowa, who is in their conference. Don't think it's true anymore, but at one point it was.
It makes me want to seize power in a coup, and limit conferences to be only 10 teams and make them play a round robin.
The Flip side of that was that LSU, Alabama and Auburn got to play A and M every year.
Auburn has been pretty irrelevant the past 15 years. They haven't finished the season ranked since 2019, and have finished ranked just 5 times the past 15 years. I think this is part of the issue with the SEC myth is that people hear the name "Auburn" and envision them as this perennial powerhouse because they won a natty in 2010. In reality they've finished with a losing record the past 4 seasons and have had double-digit wins just 3 times in the past 15 years.
Same thing with Tennessee. They've turned things around recently, but over the past 15 years they've finished nearly half of those seasons with a losing record. But people think they're amazing every year just because they're in the SEC and won a natty in 1998.
Last edited:
Sorry if it's long winded but here is my two cents on the SEC. First off, the SEC hasn't had that ELITE team over the past two seasons that was a clear favorite to win it all. For the first time in 20 years, the SEC missed out on back to back national title games (2023 and 2024). Here we are this season and to me, there is not that team that is a clear cut above the rest. All of the top 7 teams in the SEC standings have flaws.
The other issue not just in the SEC but across other power conferences is that these conferences are way too big. The bottom of the SEC may be the worst in recent memory. Last year the SEC had 13 bowl teams and this year it's only 10.
Perhaps no one took advantage of the bottom of the SEC more than A&M did. In conference play, A&M only played one team that finished inside the top 7 of the conference standings which was Texas. They lost by double digits. In fact, when you look at their 7 wins in SEC play not a single one of them came against a team who finished above .500 in conference play. The teams that they beat had a combined SEC record of 12-44. A&M's best win in SEC action was against Missouri at home and if you look at Missouri's schedule, their best win was against against Auburn who went 1-7 in SEC play.
The other issue not just in the SEC but across other power conferences is that these conferences are way too big. The bottom of the SEC may be the worst in recent memory. Last year the SEC had 13 bowl teams and this year it's only 10.
Perhaps no one took advantage of the bottom of the SEC more than A&M did. In conference play, A&M only played one team that finished inside the top 7 of the conference standings which was Texas. They lost by double digits. In fact, when you look at their 7 wins in SEC play not a single one of them came against a team who finished above .500 in conference play. The teams that they beat had a combined SEC record of 12-44. A&M's best win in SEC action was against Missouri at home and if you look at Missouri's schedule, their best win was against against Auburn who went 1-7 in SEC play.
I think there likely needs to be added context whenever there is discussion about an entire conference and the quality of the teams within. Sometimes it depends on the sport. Sometimes it depends on the academic expectations of the universities. Sometimes it depends on some sort of regional bias (voting for the Heisman winner comes to mind here, too). Is a conference awesome because it produces a national champion or is a conference great because every game is competitive AND played at a nationally significant level?
The easy answer seems to be that almost any conference is awesome. Some conferences have great history and have a better ability at controlling "the narrative" for whatever reason. So the SEC has produced great individual football champions recently, but I am not so sure that the entire conference is really any better than any other one. But they have been able to control the greatness narrative, so that seems to me to be why many pundits say they are impressed with the "it matters more" people.
The easy answer seems to be that almost any conference is awesome. Some conferences have great history and have a better ability at controlling "the narrative" for whatever reason. So the SEC has produced great individual football champions recently, but I am not so sure that the entire conference is really any better than any other one. But they have been able to control the greatness narrative, so that seems to me to be why many pundits say they are impressed with the "it matters more" people.
