From the CFN preview of the SEC comes some insight into just why the league is so damn tough week in and week out: By Pete Fiutak "Oh sure, there have been some legendary SEC coaches from Shug Jordan to General Neyland to The Bear, but when the 2008 season kicks off it’ll be the start of a new era of SEC football. Call it the renaissance or call it everyone keeping up in the arms race, but make no mistake about it, this is the greatest collection of college coaches to ever occupy one league at the same time. Five of the coaches (Phil Fulmer, Steve Spurrier, Les Miles, Urban Meyer and Nick Saban) have won national titles, Tommy Tuberville did everything but win the national championship in 2004, and Mark Richt has been hanging around the national title ever since he took over at Georgia and has the team to break through this season. Rich Brooks, Houston Nutt, Sylvester Croom and Bobby Johnson are SEC veterans who have all fielded strong teams over the last few seasons." You have to admit that's a lot of traps out there with regard to negotiating an unbeaten season in the SEC. http://cfn.scout.com/2/774922.html
I think whether you're an SEC fan or not, you have to be impressed with that list of coaches. I don't think it's just because we're southern football fans either. 95% of Div. I-A would take about half those guys if they needed to fill a coaching vacancy.
It will probably get perceived here as just another MCG touting the SEC post but really...when you look at that cast of coaches from top to bottom you realize just how hard it is for a team like LSU had last year to navigate their conference schedule. I definitely do not see an SEC team going unbeaten this year either and two losses for the champion may happen again.
You really don't get it, do you? No one here has a problem with you or anyone else "touting" their team or conference. Where you veer off the road is when you move - inevitably - from your own team/conference to bashing other teams/conferences. It happens with enough regularity that it is predictable.
I say offering up an honest opinion or assessment and you say bashing. It's been pointed out to me that honest opinions aren't conducive to good Skybox relationships although I do admit that I tend to press that opinion ad nauseum sometimes and I need to work on that. But hey....time to move on. What about that thought of a two loss team coming out of the SEC again? I think it's a very real possibility if not a likelihood when you look at the gauntlet all teams must face in the conference this year. Heck...Auburn could go through the SEC with one loss but still lose at W. Va. for their second loss.
Parity is what you guys have, that's what's likely to cause the League winner to have 2 losses. No super team, just 4-6 really good teams.
I would also like to point out... that for years, SEC fans (and Terry) said the Pac10 wasn't great because of the parity...now there is alleged parity in the SEC and its proof of the conference greatness. Some of us are having a hard time buying into any of this.
The clouds are parting and the bright sun is casting its brilliant light on the Skybox! THERE IS HOPE! :lol:
Come on Corey, there was a period of time in the 90's when the Pac 10 was not so strong. UCLA had a clear shot to the Championship game then lost to a Miami team that was not that strong 47-45 or something like that leaving it to FSU to face Tennessee. But S. Cal has changed all that and they are very very strong. In fact I see them as the best team in the country year in and year out. The rest of the conference is trying to catch up to them and are making some progress. But I have always looked at the SEC, Big 12, Big 10 and Pac 10 as the best conferences and pretty much on a par with each other over the long haul.
MCG, Your original post was fine. It's the second one that starts the heartburn. You actually called yourself on it... :shock: And you're "surprised" when the backlash starts?
"proof of the conference greatness." The SEC has won 4 BCS title games....including the last two. Must count for something more than just parity with other SEC teams...
Right you are George.. I do think the list of coaches is pretty impressive when you look at their accomplishments and experience and that does lead to why the SEC is such a tough place to win games.
Hasn't always been that way, it wasn't that long ago that the SEC West was seemingly on the same level as the Mtn West or CUSA. None of the programs were doing all that well. Plus during much of the SOS tenure the UF record was pretty much tied up in 2 games the Tenn and FSU games, you could pencil in wins against the rest of the SEC competition. But right now you guys have good teams in both divisions, good coaches and very competitive recruiting. So there is a lot of parity. But as far as using Nat'l Championship games to tout superiority of a league, I guess that back in '94 and 95 the Big 8 must have been superior to the SEC, given Neb won back to back Nat'l Championship games including the worst beating of any team in a Nat'l Championship game when they beat the best the SEC had to offer.
I would agree that in the 1990s, like all conferences.. there were up and down years for the conference. 1994 and 1999 really stand out in my mind. In 1990, Washington was 10-2 and only lost to UCLA and National Champion Colorado by 3 and 6 points respectively. Both games on the road. In 1991, Washington won the National Title in a season that included a Rose Bowl win vs Michigan and a noncon road win at Nebraska. That same season, Cal was 10-2 and whacked Clemson in their bowl game. In 1992, Washington tied for 1st at 9-3. They had noncon wins vs Wisconsin and Nebraska. Their losses all came in conference. The other first place team was Stanford at 10-3. They were beaten soundly by Washington (41-7) but did have big wins over Notre Dame in South Bend and Penn State in their bowl game. In 1993, there was a 3way tie in the Pac10. Arizona finished 10-2 and DESTROYED Miami in their bowl game. That year USC lost to everyone noncon (and Zona/UCLA in conference) but won their bowl game. UCLA had 4 losses that year.. Cal by 2 points, Nebraska by 1 point, ASU by 6 points and Wisconsin in the Rose by 6. 94=awful In 1995, USC was 9-2-1. They won the Rose Bowl over the miracle Northwestern team. They lost to ND (this is the heart of the decade of dominance), UCLA and tied Washington. In 1996, Arizona State was 11-1 and lost to Ohio State in the Rose Bowl. In 1997, Washington State was 10-2, UCLA was 10-2 (with big wins over Texas and Texas A&M), and Arizona State was 9-3 with big wins over Miami @ Miami and Iowa in their bowl game. In 1998, Arizona was 12-1... lost only to UCLA and beat Nebraska in their bowl game. UCLA was 10-2 and was the team who totally collapsed in their last 2 games (this was the season the team was totally torn apart by racial divide that blew up right before the Miami game). In 1999, we sucked and Stanford won the conference. This is also the season, oddly, that immortalized Ty as 'the molder of men.' So we had 2 bad years in the 1990s. What really hurt the Pac10 more often than not was a team that didn't do well OOC would find a way to tie for the conference title...That and the fact that it seemed new teams were winning the conference each year.. Somehow that 'parity' was used throughout the 90s as 'evidence' of the Pac10s weakness... Its an image they are still fighting to overcome to this day... and its 2008 now!!