First, this: I would agree with that statement, with one minor modification: Second, this: LMAO! Leave it to you to consider W/L records irrelevant when talking about the quality of those teams.
Kesley and Corey. Say what you will when it comes to the big game the SEC has been winning. Who cares about the record in the other bowls, just look how many upsets there are every year in regular bowl games. I hadn't mentioned this but I fell I must. The number two team in the SEC last year was Georgia, if they had scored on that last drive where they were stopped at the two yard line they would have been SEC Champs instead of Bama. If that had happen then they would have been in the bowl game against Notre dame and there is little doubt in my mind the result would have been similar, the SEC still wins. The fact that of those 7 championships there have been 4 different SEC teams speaks to the strength of the conference not against it. Last year had it been a 4 team playoff there is every possibility that two of them would have been from the SEC. I don't go around beating my chest about the SEC but when you use the reasons you did to tell me we are not that strong then I have to disagree. I know you get annoyed at MCG and don't blame you but when you find excuses instead of reasons then I have to disagree.
I'm an SEC guy, but I can correctly adjust Dave's statement: ...quality at the very top of the conference - providing a National championship contender so often. That's it. Nothing else to see here...
When two SEC teams make the BCS that's two damn good teams that had to be dealt with in the SEC regular season by most of the other conference members. WSU..... 8-7 or 3-1. Your math says that without a doubt in your mind that in 15 BCS games... based on their 3-1 record.... the Mountain West would be 10-5 ? You really believe that playing 4 games... and basically putting your very best team out on the field and then beating the SEC #2 is going to equate to a 10-5 BCS Bowl record? I am more of a believer in logic than in simple math without logic or reasoning.
Scott, I am not sure exactly what your statement means. Of course there is quality at the top of the conference but there are also usually more than one good team and I am of the opinion that if the Aggies had not lost to Florida last year and had won the west because they beat Bama that they may have won the SEC and been the representative in the BCS Championship game. And would have acquitted themselves quite well.
Bill - I don't know of anyone that says the SEC "isn't that tough". We all admit the SEC is tough. What we are trying to show is that the SEC isn't head and shoulders ahead of everyone else, which is all we hear week after week. We're trying to get you guys to realize that there are other conferences that are tough as well. MCG - you have got to be kidding me. You are definitely more of a believer, but it sure isn't logic, because when the bald-faced numbers are slapping you up side the face you choose to go with what you BELIEVE, not with what ACTUALLY HAPPENED ON THE FIELD. If a conference that is, by YOUR belief system, far and away WORSE than your precious SEC, than a 3-1 record would indicate to me that they, just like the P12 #2s, also probably deserved more opportunity to see if they could continue to succeed. Instead, we keep getting SEC #2s that, by their 8-7 record ON THE FIELD, were just as average, or more so, than several other conferences. You can keep ignoring facts, but that's by definition NOT logic.
So Utah as a member of the PAC 12 is doing well.... at 4-5.... because of their tough schedule but as a member of the Mountain West they contributed mightily to that conference's winning percentage in BCS Bowls with a record of 2-0. In the Pac 12.... not so much. In the Mountain West they have you believing that the Mountain West is/was the toughest BCS conference in the land with Utah in it. That's a logical argument to you?
Wow you come up with a lot of logical leaps of dubious quality while twisting and rearranging other's words to create an easily-defeated argument for yourself. Whoever said the MWC is/was the toughest BCS conference?? At 3-1 in BCS games, I would say they probably deserved MORE opportunity than the SEC teams, who went 8-7. And their results greatly out-performed any amount of grudging respect the SEC supporters ever gave them. Just like I said the P12, with better results than the SEC in non-CG games, probably deserved more opportunity than the SEC. The problem with your "logical" basis is that you depend on what you feel the world of football should be, not what the actual results have shown them to be. That is not logic. That is intuition and in most cases is in direct opposition to the reality of things. I'm guessing Utah's team this year isn't going to a BCS bowl. It's funny you bring that up, though, because the P12 absorbed a top-flight MWC team in Utah, and a middle of the pack B12 team in Colorado. Both are struggling. Utah is arguably the best 4-5 team in the country, and would arguably have two fewer losses if they played in other conferences. However, both teams' W/L records have suffered since stepping up in competition. Compare that to the two middle of the pack B12 teams in A&M and Missouri. It's quite possible that either of those could be playing in a BCS game in their second year. In fact, if anything, their W/L records have IMPROVED since joining the SEC. Missouri can go to the SEC CG if they beat Ole Miss and A&M, or if they lose one and end up in a 3-way tie with SC and Georgia. If they win the SEC CG (not going to happen, but it COULD) they would get the automatic BCS bid. Alternatively, if A&M wins out and Bama wins out, it quite possible A&M gets the at-large second bid for the SEC, with the Sugar choosing them to replace Bama. I am not jumping to any conclusions on this one, but it is something interesting to consider when discussing how awesome "your" conference is all the others. EVERYTHING I have been trying to present to you is that the top of the SEC has been great and quite possibly the best in the country (but that is another discussion altogether). However, there is nothing that supports your theory that everyone else in your conference is also better than anyone else in the country. Especially when considering your conference's non-CG teams are barely better than 500 in matchups of every conference's top teams.
Utah was 2-0.... and the MWC was 1-1. As you say Utah struggles in the Pac 12.... may never see another BCS type bowl game in their history. In a soft conference.... playing as an underdog they managed to win the two games they played in BCS Bowls and that makes you think that if they had enough respect to garner say 10 more BCS bids that they would win more than they lost?? Over the long haul.... and that's what 10 more bids would have been....a much more representative sample... Utah wouldn't have been quite what it was when it was able to catch lightning in a bottle. Their struggles in the PAC 12 indicate that to me. And again let's remember lest anyone is confused that the 8-7 you refer to is the SEC teams that were mostly the 2nd selection from the SEC.... not the league's Champions.
Ah but Dave... if the SEC is truly as much better than the other conferences as you contend... that record should be much better than the roughly 50/50 it turns out to be. The 2nd place team of the best conference should be as good or better than the first/or second place teams from other conferences. Remember... another conference usually sent a 2nd place team as well since they also had a contender in the champ game...
I'm trying to figure out why you keep trotting out the line that: Yep, in 9 out of the 15 games, 60%, an SEC #2 played. Great. 2 of those 9 games were NOT against the other conference's #1 team. In the 7 games in which it was the SEC #2 against the other conference's #1, they went 4-3. In the games in which it was the SEC #1 against the other conference's #1, they went 3-3. So to continue to trot out the argument that the pedestrian SEC non-CG BCS record is because the SEC #2 received the privilege, over another the #2 from another conference that has better win percentage in those same games, is intellectually dishonest. The SEC #2 cannot reliably beat another conference's #1. Hell, the SEC #2 cannot reliably beat another conference's #2. So why do they keep getting the benefit of the doubt? Especially when other conference's win a larger percentage of their games when they get the chance. As Scott pointed out, you keep defending the illusion that the entire conference, from #1 on down, are superior to all the other conferences, when in fact, ON FIELD RESULTS SHOW THAT IS NOT THE CASE. Great, the SEC #1 has shown they were better than the other conference #1 they went up against in the CG (except for the year nobody got a shot). But the rest of the data don't show the depth you parrot.
Didn't we discuss in another section the troubles (and why) Utah has had in the Pac12? This whole Aggie-Zoo thing is chapping his ass. Was this not a topic like 3 weeks ago?
I will trot this out. In all BCS Bowl games vs. other conferences the SEC is 16-7..... including an incredible 8-0 in the Championship game which ostensibly was against either the #1 or #2 team in the country.. You can slice and dice that any way you want but that's pretty damned good. The SEC has won BCS games with great regularity wouldn't you say?
When you can't twist the data to say what you want it to say and reflect your warped sense of how things "should" be, fall back to the point that's already been given you. That point being that we recognize your planted flag as unassailable. Well done, MCG. Well done. I would point out a minor point of correction, that the SEC isn't 8-0 in the CG. One year, nobody but the SEC was even given a chance, so you get both the win and loss for that one. So, 9-1, and that would make the SEC 17-8 in all BCS bowl games.
Key words there WSU are "against other conferences".....that's why I left out the Bama-LSU results. You could say that the SEC was a rather pedestrian 1-1 in that game... ...then again.... that's exactly what you would say. :lol:
Yes they have been competitive this year..... But arguably A&M and Mo. have two of their best teams in recent years and neither will sniff even a division title much less a conference title.
Didn't Texas A&M finish 2nd in the West last year? This year there's a good chance they'll finish at least tied for 2nd this year. That's a bit more than a sniff. Missou went 5-7 last year and 8-5 the year before that. However, they went 10-3 in 2010. They went 10-4 in 2008 and 12-2 in 2007. I know you don't actually follow a lot of non-SEC football but your statements aren't exactly accurate.
Sorry Dave, the 2013 edition of A&M has one of the best ever offenses, but the other side doesn't have a pulse. They've fielded MUCH better and will again in the near future. The 2012 team ended up being as good as anyone to end the season. If only we'd been able to play Florida after a few warm-ups instead of as a first game... we might be talking about a truly historic first year in the SEC.
A&M is lacking a defense but rarely in the NCAA has there been a more effective offense and rarely if ever has there been a better playmaker at the Qb position. Many NCAA Champions have had players at QB like Manziel ( Vince Young, Tebow, Newton, etc. ) Not to win the SEC West with this guy shows you how tough that division is right now. If the Aggies can't get that done with Manziel I don't see it getting easier in the future.