What Kp said.... "with almost no tangible reason for this explosion.." Corey I am not looking the actual numbers up but I'm pretty certain that if you looked up non-conference game records and bowl game records during that 7 year period the SEC would hands down be the leader in those categories. Sure.... you will again point out that Utah beat Bama after the Tide lost the SEC Title game to Florida but those sorts of anomalies abound in CFB and don't overturn larger bodies of evidence.
Agree Scott. And don't you know when people have to find excuses as to why the SEC is not the best is actually a compliment to what we have achieved. I know there are certainly other good teams out there but the SEC has no reason to be ashamed or make excuses for what has been accomplished. From 2006 - 2012 we beat teams from the Big 10, Big 12, Pac 12, Notre Dame and even once had to beat another SEC team to win it all. Try as some might there is no way to trivialize this.
Scott, You and I agree, but then again, you know that. KP, No black helicopters. You forgot something very important. We used to have independents. It's true the P10-B10 always played in the Rose Bowl. It's also true that we had a better cross section of competition and those other bowls you mentioned were free to choose their opponents against the SEC/SWC/Big8 etc. We had a few crazy years in which we had split champions and we had the 'everyone's favorite' to cite (BYU) winning a title in 1984. At the same time, at least it was POSSIBLE for a team outside of the big few to win a title back then. For that reason alone, I can't say the BCS was better. The BCS forced teams into super conference formats. It forced them to abandon their traditional rivalries and bowl match ups. When you really step back and look at it, how much did the SEC and Big12 have to give up? The irony is that the Big 12 was born of the implosion of the SWC. It was a conference filled with tradition rich programs, but the conference had no history at all, comparatively speaking. It quite literally punished schools who did not conform to the way of the super conference. The next thing the BCS did was reward schools for circling the wagons, playing themselves and relying on the marketing campaigns aka 'reputation' of their conferences. The last major thing the BCS did was totally eliminate the possibility that there would ever be another 1884 BYU National Champion. The BCS was a members only club of the major super conferences. Only Notre Dame's refusal to join made it possible for their to be a true 'wild card' but that became a de facto 'good job little buddy' spot for a team from a non-BCS conference who finished unbeaten. They'd get invited to a BCS bowl, but not the national title game. I truly see what you're saying in that it gave us "ONE GAME" but the arguments over who should be playing in that game never went away. They were just dismissed because it didn't come from 'the right people.' If the BCS was so great, why were so many people eager to get rid of it? Dave, Your nonsense has been quite literally debunked by me for a solid decade now. I'm not gonna go over it again, but it will all just get dismissed with KP making a snarky comment about me going to google again. There was about a 4 year span during that time frame in which I broke it down for you every which way but loose to show you that these things were cyclical at best, and a good many of those years, the Pac10 or Mountain West conference could lay claim to being the best.. only to have it dismissed as 'Well they ain't playing in the big one baby!'... And it wasn't just me... I spent years doing this. Kes did it.. Hell even BDR used to chime in. They're smarter than I am because they simply gave up on you ever seeing it. I've had hope... but even I've given up because it's in the past. You cannot, and will not see that other side... I'm fine with that. Congrats on your run. Enjoy the future.
What nonsense Corey? Nonsense is saying that BYU was a worthy national champion when all they could be matched up with in their "championship game" bowl game was a 6-6 Michigan team that they struggled mightily to defeat. The BCS would have had them playing 11-1 Washington or 10-2 Nebraska and then I could better agree with you about BYU. And since ND has been an independent in Football you have always dismissed a conference schedule as not being "worthy" etc. but take a look Penn State's struggles in The Big Ten to make any sort of a mark nationally when they used to be in the discussion annually as an independent.
Corey, Sarcasm...Snarky Potato...Potahto! For a guy that "tells it like it is", I can't believe that bothered you. Because it only had two teams playing for the National Championship.
So it's be gonna OK right guys?....I mean, Nebraska's gonna be relevant again right?....please tell me it's gonna be OK.....please......oh ****, there it is again (Helicopter)....
Corey, while people wanted to get rid of the BCS and move to more teams in the playoff, I didn't see any demand to go back to the old system. The changes came about like they usually did, in steps and each step has improved the process toward a National Champion. However in many ways I miss the old days when I could go to a Gator Game then a Frat party whether we won or loss. These days it's really one winner and everybody else is a loser. Regardless, life is to short to argue the picky points. What I agree with is that the days of the SEC winning every year are over and I don't expect anybody to take over that role. I expect every year to have two or more teams that could win it all and that the SEC will have their share.
And therefore I do like the way the playoff tries to keep the bowl system engaged. After last weekend I am sure there are many many Notre Dame fans and Florida fans who are very pleased that the bowls are still being played. It's still chance at some small amount of redemption ( Wisconsin ) , travel to warm climes to see your favorite team ( Nashville? ) and just have a game to look forward to seeing no matter how bad your team performed ( Ole Miss? ).....
My only comment on this topic...is how ridiculous to think that the SEC is slipping. They will be a great conference next year and going forward. They won't win the Nat'l Title 7 years in a row, but they will be players for it all through the season. Just too much talent in the SEC recruiting footprint and the SEC Network, TV Contract, big full stadiums, alumni support, incredible facilities all drive the bus.
More on BYU: "At the conclusion of the 1984 college football season, BYU was the only undefeated team in Division I-A. As such, BYU was the leading candidate to win the national championship if it were to win its bowl game. However, BYU, as nine-time defending champion of the Western Athletic Conference (WAC), was obligated to play in the Holiday Bowl. The Holiday Bowl was only in its fifth season, and the WAC was only considered a second-tier conference at the time. As such, the Holiday Bowl would not automatically draw a high-caliber opponent for the WAC champion. Many poll voters were reluctant to crown BYU as national champion. Not only were they skeptical about BYU's schedule (the Cougars only played one ranked team--Pittsburgh Panthers football--all season, and no one in the WAC was even close to being their equal), but they also felt the Cougars' statistics were inflated by the heavily pass-oriented brand of football played in the WAC."
KP, It actually doesn't bother me. It's just an easy way to be dismissive to a mountain of evidence toward a subject. AJ, Here's a hug buddy. Terry, Please do note that I have said repeatedly that the SEC isn't going anywhere. It's just a new day in the game with a whole new perspective. Dave, BYU was loudly ripped for being 'pass happy.' Take a look at college football through the 90s and 00s. They were ahead of their time. Were they the best team? Maybe. They won all their games on the field. My problem with your perspective is that you dismiss someone outright because of who they are. We all do that to a certain extent, but when it comes to the end of the year and someone has won all their games, and won their conference, that can't be dismissed.... but there you go. I think it's hilarious how any SEC team who loses a bowl 'didn't want to be there' or were 'obviously broken by not playing for it all' but that didn't seem to stop Florida from pounding a great many bad teams they played in non-title BCS games. In fact, you didn't claim they didn't want to be there until one of those 'lesser' teams (Louisville) crushed you.. then, Florida didn't want to be there. It's a laughable perspective. You demand onfield proof and then dismiss anything that doesn't fit your argument.
Terry as usual is the voice of reason. I think it is better that the other conferences become more competitive but to think the SEC won't be in it lacks credibility. I think in most years in the past 4 teams would have been enough. However this year TCU may well have been capable of winning it all. Whatever Terry gets my vote as the most accurate post on this topic.
Yes Bill, I'm being unreasonable. Meanwhile, taken directly from my first post But again, you guys just read what you want to see.
Corey..... it doesn't matter to me if they (BYU) were pass happy. It matters that they only played one ranked team all year... winning 20-14 and their 6-6 bowl/championship game opponent sucked ( I saw them in person twice that season ). I don't know if BYU was the best team in 1984 but in the non-BCS era of polls and bowl tie-ins we never got to find out if my serious doubts about them beating an 11-1 Washington could be erased.
This will be cyclical. Another conference will emerge eventually. That doesn't mean that the SEC has not been dominant for the last 10 years or so. They won't stay there every year though.
Corey, I may owe you a bit of an apology. But would still disagree that the SEC accomplished what they did because of the BCS. And do think it will be a long time before any conference does again what the SEC did from 2006-2012. Yes it took luck but it was also one hell of an accomplishment. I also think that we may not see another such run in our lifetime. I will be content if the SEC is in serious contention every year. Especially if it's the Gators. So truce.
One last thought on this whole BCS issue.... Only once was it a guarantee that the SEC was going to win.... LSU vs. Bama ..... but otherwise in those 7 years many different teams and conferences plus Notre Dame had their on the field shot at knocking off the SEC and they failed. When those games kicked off both teams on the field had an equal shot at winning and yet the SEC prevailed 6 times vs. the best competition in the nation. That is the streak that will not be equalled. I could however forsee a possible emergence of a dominant Big 10 with Harbaugh and Meyer duking it out annually to win the Big 10 and by doing so creating an on-field product capable of winning it all. That has been the true secret of the SEC's success on a national scale. By being good enough to win the SEC you must be good enough to win it all.
The bowl season is all about matchups. This past bowl season, the Big 10 put to rest any claim that it is "weak" by disposing of arguably the two best SEC West teams and a would-be final four team (Baylor). Perhaps going forward the B10 conference will receive much-deserved respect from the media flock and other armchair experts. IMO, conference "strength" is a relative term. Relatively speaking, the SEC is not the dominant conference this year that is has been in the past. I made this observation several times over the course of the season. Is it slipping? Absolutely not. Are other teams/conferences catching up? Possibly. A major caveat is that this entire conversation relates only to the 2014 season. There will be a whole new set of circumstances and a whole new conversation as the 2015 season unfolds. Perhaps the SEC will return to its past dominance. Perhaps not. Perhaps another Power 5 conference will emerge as the so-called dominant conference. Perhaps not. We'll see.