I agree with you but I also want to use your valid use of bowl games to point out how fans of different conferences handle factual data. Not you Selma, the other conferences are always claiming that we can't go by bowl wins to show SEC dominance because of ESPN arranging matchups to promote the SEC and other baseless excuses. BUT now these same fans are pointing to the bowl games last year as PROOF the SEC has fallen. How funny is that?
I think the problem is that (and I agree with Stewart Mandel here) everyone including the pro-SEC contingent needs to realize that conference strength occurs in cycles; you simply cannot take ONE year and think that settles the case. The perception of SEC dominance was not built because LSU won the 2003 title - indeed, a lot of people at the time thought LSU was the THIRD best team in the country at best and that was before Nick Saban became Nick Legend.
There are MANY problems with using bowl games. I think they ARE accurate if you can show a long-term trend of superiority. Go back during the SEC heyday and you had 9 or 10 SEC teams out of TWELVE (not 14) going to bowl games and the conference having records like 7-2, 6-3, and 6-3 across multiple consecutive years. That's a GOOD argument as long as it is PART of the argument. (This is kinda like the old Curry had better winning pct than Stallings argument pre-Alabama - it's true but it doesn't tell the whole story).
Some coaches use the bowl game to get their first look at players playing the next year.
Some enjoy the trip and to hell with whether we win or not.
Some teams (insert 2011 Florida and 2013 Alabama and 2008 Alabama and 2006 OU) simply don't want to be in the game they're playing in.
I had a Twitter pop with a guy who asserted ACC superiority last year and cited Clemson over Alabama and IIRC the ACC actually DID have a pretty good winning pct against the SEC (of course, counting Clemson over a rebuilding S Carolina proves nothing but anyway)......but when I pointed out the SEC's fourth or fifth best team (LSU) drilled the ACC's SECOND best team, he fell back on the bowl games are exhibitions excuse.
Which is it?
Yeah, the SEC West got creamed pretty good in bowl games in 2014 after looking great. The same happened with the Big Ten last year. But you don't get to SELECTIVELY cite bowl games. For Pete's sake, Louisville-Kentucky is an in state rivalry and Cats flat out BEAT Louisville, plain and simple. And UK isn't that good a team.
Those people can argue all they want to about bowl results but FACT remains the scores are FACT, not opinions. Will I take last years bowl scores and try to change fact to show the SEC is still the best? No, I will let the facts speak for themselves. I will say the SEC has had a couple of down years because of coaching problems. I can argue that without changing scores, and I fully expect future regular season and bowl games to reflect that. As long as the SEC dominates the Top 20 in recruiting I expect the SEC to dominate on the field.
I recall several years ago the Mountain West nobodies were 2-0 against a major conference (Pac 10 I think, I don't pay THAT close attention to it).......no sane person would argue that the MWC top to bottom was better.
What is NOT true that some SEC fans hold to is the old "number nine team in the SEC can beat all the conference champs" - that's NOT true at least most of the time.
SEC football is in an imposed state of transition right now like everyone else. And the reason Clemson is the champ IN PART is because their coach took the SEC form of football to the ACC, but let's not point out that inconvenient truth, either.