OK everyone, a little different perspective.
Some of you know I spent two years as a prisoner of war in the Federal Communist Republic of California. This was during the time when USC when beating everyone left and right. The Internet was proliferating rapidly and I wound up in some discussions with some really rabid USC and UCLA fans. They had a REAL problem with the notion of a 'very good SEC' and 'best conference,' and their argument sounds somewhat similar to what SoDawg is saying.
Their argument was that since the intra-conference record ultimately was a zero sum game (e.g. every team that had a win gave another team a loss), you CANNOT include conference games to determine conference strength. Strength could only be determined by OUT OF CONFERENCE games. Yet even here they would rip the SEC's OOC record because, "y'all play one FCS school each, which inflates the record."
Those points are somewhat true, but they're also ultimately irrelevant. Besides, during the heyday of SEC dominance (2006-2012), the SEC top to bottom was obliterating OOC teams even if one subtracted the FCS games.
Let's look at a prominent example: 2008. That year the press jumped on the Big 12 bandwagon, and the conference had four really good teams: Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Oklahoma State. These four teams combined for an insane 43-5 overall record, and they looked really good. ESPN and USA Today were telling us all that the Big 12 had surpassed the SEC in conference strength (and remember...at that point the streak was only Florida winning in a disputed rematch and LSU lucking into the title game because of BCS chaos).
And then the games were played.
Ole Miss 47 Texas Tech 34
Florida 24 Oklahoma 14 (this was the OU that became the first team ever to punch in 60-plus points in five straight games)
Oregon 42 Okie St 31
Of the big four, only Texas won their bowl game.....the Longhorns edged Ohio State, 24-21, and didn't look very good doing it, either. In fact, Texas blew a 17-6 lead entering the fourth quarter and scored the game winning TD in the final seconds. The Big 12 went 4-3 in bowl games, but their big guns lost. Meanwhile, the SEC went 6-2, beat the Big 12 head to head twice in two matchups, and ONE of the losses was Alabama's failure to show up and play Utah in the Sugar Bowl.
Right now everyone is sold on the Big Ten as being a really good conference. But if their Big Four go 0-4 or 1-3 in the bowls/playoff then that will be amended...unless, of course, Ohio State wins the whole deal, at which point the narrative will become "Alabama won because the SEC was weak."
There's another truth, though - let's be honest and admit most Tide fans haven't even seen Washington play this year. Or they saw 1-2 games at most and one of those was USC. So Tide fans simply assume that "Oregon won playing basketball, therefore, Washington plays basketball," without even bothering to see if that objection has any merit. But the comparison is specious at best to say nothing of assumed. Those making that comparison might wish to consider:
2010 Oregon Ducks - three of their 13 opponents topped 30 points and a fourth scored 29 (surrendered 18.6 ppg, opponents record 63-69 plus Portland St)
2016 Washington - highest point total surrendered was 28 - once (surrendered 17.2 ppg, opponents record 75-70 plus Portland St)....and right before their two big guns early, Oregon and Stanford.
Note that the main difference in record is that Oregon didn't have to play a conference championship game.
And yes - there IS an East Coast bias. I don't think it's intentional, but it's born of the fact that by the time most Saturday night Pac 12 games kick off, SEC fans have been watching their team and their rivals for 10-12 hours already.
And finally, just because Team A played a stronger schedule does not automatically mean it beats Team B. That said - the entire game comes down to whether or not Alabama plays like Alabama usually plays. If we do then nobody has a chance - if we don't then Washington is certainly good enough to capitalize on it.
