With the playoff upon us and all the dead weight time talk shows on sports channels are going to give to the general talking points, let's ensure what precisely we mean when we are talking about conference strength. The SEC by most appearances looks weaker than during the long seven-year title run, but I want to ensure what is meant and what is NOT meant when the discussion of conference strength comes up because too often we get the Colin Cow-trolls of the world setting up straw men and demolishing them to make their often inane points.
1) Not one SEC fan is suggesting there are not other good teams.
When fans argue the conference argument, they are NOT saying, for example, that Oklahoma or Ohio State or Clemson or (fill in the blank) are not good teams or even possibly VERY good teams. Not only that but SEC fans are NOT saying that there aren't other decent foes below the top dog in other conferences. Consider some of the conquered foes during the title run: Ohio State, Oklahoma, Texas, Oregon, Notre Dame - ALL of those teams were VERY good teams in those respective years just like USC before them. Not one fan is daring to suggest otherwise.
2) Not one SEC fan is suggesting that Vanderbilt is somehow better than (fill in the blank)
The teams in the top ten right now with the possible exception of Iowa would absolutely maul Vandy if they played them, and Iowa would no doubt beat them easily though perhaps by less than the others. (I'm only picking on Iowa because of their anemic offense). We're not saying that the conference bottom in any year is better than all or even any other conference's top three teams. Baylor, TCU, OU, and probably Okie State would sandblast Vandy, Kentucky, or South Carolina if they played this year. That's also not the point and is precisely why when Oregon (a few years back) or Oklahoma (this year) beat Tennessee we don't even pay attention to the old 'we beat the SEC' mantra because your best team beating our worst doesn't impress us, either. (Note that the perceptions have changed as to how good the OU win was now but at the time it was looked at as, "you struggled against the 7th best team in the conference").
3) We ARE pointing out, however, that your unbeaten record is not necessarily better than a one-loss SEC team that played a challenging schedule.
This is on a case-by-case basis. Clemson is a very good team. If they win today they most certainly do deserve to participate in the four-team playoff without question. But whether they deserve the number one seed is another matter altogether. To be fair, Clemson has played a decent schedule but go back to last year - Florida State may have been defending champions and been undefeated, but they also struggled against a number of mediocre teams. This means more now than it used to when only two teams got to go for the championship (BCS). If you really are the best team then the seeding doesn't 'really' matter as Ohio State proved conclusively last year.
4) And we ARE pointing out that while your team might still be the best in the land, they would not go roaring through the SEC unbeaten in multiple years (aka USC 2003-05).
Set aside the sanctions for the moment. USC put together an absolutely incredible run from 2002-08, winning two national titles and coming within one play of another (to say nothing of coming within one play each of the following three seasons of playing for it yet again). Not once did I hear a single SEC fan allege that USC was NOT a good team.
The point, however, that was made was simple: there is no way USC would have reeled off a 34-game winning streak playing an SEC schedule across those years. Keep in mind USC continually escaped close games in 2005, including one that likely would be a loss nowadays (Notre Dame 2005) with an illegal play that scored the winning TD. It is a testament to their ability as champions to have persevered as they did, but there is simply no way that USC could have reeled that off any more than Miami could have in 2000-2002. This is not said to diminish their accomplishment - it's in the record books forever. What has been the longest SEC winning streak in the last decade? Didn't Florida win 22 in a row? That's an ENTIRE SEASON from a 34-game winning streak and look how they did the next year. They won 27 of 28 games but only one national championship during that streak.
The point I'm making is this: the Miami and USC teams of years ago could no doubt compete for the SEC title had been in the conference those years. They might even win the national championship one of those years. But they wouldn't do it with an unbeaten record and thus having to rely upon a break or two to come their way in the polling/voting/whatever.
It's not the fact you have to play team X that's the problem; the problem is having to play good team X in Baton Rouge this week followed by a home game against unbeaten team Y the following week and then another road game against team Z, who is highly ranked and on fire the following week. Followed by a game against team 0 that has a close loss, is top ten material - and had last week off while you were slugging it out.
Cow-tolls, for example, touted the hiring of Rich Rodriguez at Michigan by saying he, "laid the wood to the SEC." Uh, yeah - he was 3-0, beating UGA in a Sugar Bowl where his team nearly blew a four-touchdown lead and the other two were defeats of (wait for it)......Mississippi State.
Using MSU as a typical representative of the SEC is about like using Iowa State as the Big 12 prototype or Indiana in football for the B1G.
Let me reiterate lest rival fans want to jump me - the SEC does not appear to be anywhere near what it was in recent years this go around. We'll know more after the bowl games. I just wanted to clear it up before we get the annual straw man demolition we get every year.
RTR
1) Not one SEC fan is suggesting there are not other good teams.
When fans argue the conference argument, they are NOT saying, for example, that Oklahoma or Ohio State or Clemson or (fill in the blank) are not good teams or even possibly VERY good teams. Not only that but SEC fans are NOT saying that there aren't other decent foes below the top dog in other conferences. Consider some of the conquered foes during the title run: Ohio State, Oklahoma, Texas, Oregon, Notre Dame - ALL of those teams were VERY good teams in those respective years just like USC before them. Not one fan is daring to suggest otherwise.
2) Not one SEC fan is suggesting that Vanderbilt is somehow better than (fill in the blank)
The teams in the top ten right now with the possible exception of Iowa would absolutely maul Vandy if they played them, and Iowa would no doubt beat them easily though perhaps by less than the others. (I'm only picking on Iowa because of their anemic offense). We're not saying that the conference bottom in any year is better than all or even any other conference's top three teams. Baylor, TCU, OU, and probably Okie State would sandblast Vandy, Kentucky, or South Carolina if they played this year. That's also not the point and is precisely why when Oregon (a few years back) or Oklahoma (this year) beat Tennessee we don't even pay attention to the old 'we beat the SEC' mantra because your best team beating our worst doesn't impress us, either. (Note that the perceptions have changed as to how good the OU win was now but at the time it was looked at as, "you struggled against the 7th best team in the conference").
3) We ARE pointing out, however, that your unbeaten record is not necessarily better than a one-loss SEC team that played a challenging schedule.
This is on a case-by-case basis. Clemson is a very good team. If they win today they most certainly do deserve to participate in the four-team playoff without question. But whether they deserve the number one seed is another matter altogether. To be fair, Clemson has played a decent schedule but go back to last year - Florida State may have been defending champions and been undefeated, but they also struggled against a number of mediocre teams. This means more now than it used to when only two teams got to go for the championship (BCS). If you really are the best team then the seeding doesn't 'really' matter as Ohio State proved conclusively last year.
4) And we ARE pointing out that while your team might still be the best in the land, they would not go roaring through the SEC unbeaten in multiple years (aka USC 2003-05).
Set aside the sanctions for the moment. USC put together an absolutely incredible run from 2002-08, winning two national titles and coming within one play of another (to say nothing of coming within one play each of the following three seasons of playing for it yet again). Not once did I hear a single SEC fan allege that USC was NOT a good team.
The point, however, that was made was simple: there is no way USC would have reeled off a 34-game winning streak playing an SEC schedule across those years. Keep in mind USC continually escaped close games in 2005, including one that likely would be a loss nowadays (Notre Dame 2005) with an illegal play that scored the winning TD. It is a testament to their ability as champions to have persevered as they did, but there is simply no way that USC could have reeled that off any more than Miami could have in 2000-2002. This is not said to diminish their accomplishment - it's in the record books forever. What has been the longest SEC winning streak in the last decade? Didn't Florida win 22 in a row? That's an ENTIRE SEASON from a 34-game winning streak and look how they did the next year. They won 27 of 28 games but only one national championship during that streak.
The point I'm making is this: the Miami and USC teams of years ago could no doubt compete for the SEC title had been in the conference those years. They might even win the national championship one of those years. But they wouldn't do it with an unbeaten record and thus having to rely upon a break or two to come their way in the polling/voting/whatever.
It's not the fact you have to play team X that's the problem; the problem is having to play good team X in Baton Rouge this week followed by a home game against unbeaten team Y the following week and then another road game against team Z, who is highly ranked and on fire the following week. Followed by a game against team 0 that has a close loss, is top ten material - and had last week off while you were slugging it out.
Cow-tolls, for example, touted the hiring of Rich Rodriguez at Michigan by saying he, "laid the wood to the SEC." Uh, yeah - he was 3-0, beating UGA in a Sugar Bowl where his team nearly blew a four-touchdown lead and the other two were defeats of (wait for it)......Mississippi State.
Using MSU as a typical representative of the SEC is about like using Iowa State as the Big 12 prototype or Indiana in football for the B1G.
Let me reiterate lest rival fans want to jump me - the SEC does not appear to be anywhere near what it was in recent years this go around. We'll know more after the bowl games. I just wanted to clear it up before we get the annual straw man demolition we get every year.
RTR