SEC

[SteelClip49]

Why does the media, sports analysts, fans always say the SEC is always the best conference? Is it because they have more teams ranked through the season? Is it because of the so-called "tough" conference schedule each team has? Is it because they have 6 different programs with a national title? Seriously, what is it??

My take on it is, every team from every conference plays the games and has to go day in and day out on preparing for anyone that is there. I think the SEC is full of it thinking they are the only ones who have it rough. Auburn was not all that last season yet they defeated Florida.

[Octavian]

your sig is wrong, historian

[yermom]

yeah, what does that mean? NU, OU and Texas all have split titles

and didn't Colorado need 5 downs for theirs ;)

[Octavian]

yeah, what does that mean? NU, OU and Texas all have split titles

and didn't Colorado need 5 downs for theirs ;)


yeah, and they still split it w/ Georgia Tech :O

[SteelClip49]

OKlahoma's 1974 National Title is undisputed because of 11-0 and the AP. USC received their share by default.

AP, UPI titles are undisputed to a certain extent. I should clarify that from now on. UT's share in 70 is hazy obviously. Nebraska's claim is undisputed because they went undefeated.

Colorado's claim is undisputed despite what happened vs. Missouri. Their schedule was legit and they took care of business.

IMO, the disputed titles awarded by the AP and UPI are:

1953 Maryland, 1960 Minnesota, 1964 Alabama, 1965 Alabama, 1970 Texas (Nixon had a say in it), 1973 Alabama, 1975 Oklahoma, 1978 Alabama, 1983 Miami, 1993 FSU, 1996 Florida. I know there are other years but these immediately came to mind. The obvious most disputed title will always be 1960 Minnesota, unless a playoff format comes into play and a team with more than 1 loss has a shot at the title.

[goingoneight]

I think his sig means that they didn't dig an MNC out of their *** like Bama did here recently when they went from 5 MNC's to 12 MNC's just by hiring Saban. Michigan went from four to eleven (four as stated by Schembechler in 2003... they were credited with eleven before OSU/MU 2006), Ohio State went from three to eight, USC went from four to eight (four listed in my OU/Bama 2003 game... eight listed before UT/SUC Rose Bowl 2006)...

I think that's what his sig means... not how many downs you were spotted. Just a guestimate, though...

[goingoneight]

OKlahoma's 1974 National Title is undisputed because of 11-0 and the AP. USC received their share by default.

AP, UPI titles are undisputed to a certain extent. I should clarify that from now on. UT's share in 70 is hazy obviously. Nebraska's claim is undisputed because they went undefeated.

Colorado's claim is undisputed despite what happened vs. Missouri. Their schedule was legit and they took care of business.

IMO, the disputed titles awarded by the AP and UPI are:

1953 Maryland, 1960 Minnesota, 1964 Alabama, 1965 Alabama, 1970 Texas (Nixon had a say in it), 1973 Alabama, 1975 Oklahoma, 1978 Alabama, 1983 Miami, 1993 FSU, 1996 Florida. I know there are other years but these immediately came to mind. The obvious most disputed title will always be 1960 Minnesota, unless a playoff format comes into play and a team with more than 1 loss has a shot at the title.

:les: WHAT ABOUT USC 2003!?! GEAUX TIGAZ!!!

[yermom]

OKlahoma's 1974 National Title is undisputed because of 11-0 and the AP. USC received their share by default.

AP, UPI titles are undisputed to a certain extent. I should clarify that from now on. UT's share in 70 is hazy obviously. Nebraska's claim is undisputed because they went undefeated.

Colorado's claim is undisputed despite what happened vs. Missouri. Their schedule was legit and they took care of business.

IMO, the disputed titles awarded by the AP and UPI are:

1953 Maryland, 1960 Minnesota, 1964 Alabama, 1965 Alabama, 1970 Texas (Nixon had a say in it), 1973 Alabama, 1975 Oklahoma, 1978 Alabama, 1983 Miami, 1993 FSU, 1996 Florida. I know there are other years but these immediately came to mind. The obvious most disputed title will always be 1960 Minnesota, unless a playoff format comes into play and a team with more than 1 loss has a shot at the title.

i'm confused

where does 18 come from then?

[Fraggle145]

did we not get at least one nod for 1949? I believe it was the UPI. the reason why the SEC get sso much pub is that is where people care about it most outside of OU, NEB, TEX, tOSU, and MICH. The reason the Big 10 get so much cred is they have the most alumni in the US over any other conference. Have you ever been to a game in the SEC? it is quite a spectacle.

[CincySooner]

the UPI did not exsist in 1949...

and Im confused too.

[OUinFLA]

This thread should have been titled "Sig Ciritique"

[Sooner in Tampa]

This thread should have been titled "Sig Ciritique"HEH...your right, because there has not been one reply about SEC football.

[OUinFLA]

HEH...your right, because there has not been one reply about SEC football.

Which goes to show how important they really are.

[XingTheRubicon]

Imagine having at least 2 sometimes 3 away games every year as intense and loud and spirted as Kyle Field.

That's why the SEC is the best.....and other than 'Bama, I loathe the SEC.


I've been to a night game in Baton Rouge and an Iron Bowl at Auburn. It's hard to explain.

Take the loudest, drunk, most passionate yell on 1st 2nd and 3rd down and during punts and while they're in the huddle, bastard red-faced maniac at Owen Field on any given Saturday, and clone him 80,000 times. That's Baton Rouge, Tuscaloosa, Auburn, Gainesville, Athens, Knoxville, Columbus and so on.

They're just different. I think their parents beat them or give them booze when they're 9 or something. They seem unsettled and "after school special crazy" but no one seems to notice mainly because the people that would normally notice (the people right next to them) have chicken grease in their hair and clinched fists and discolored faces because someone they truly hate is going to snap the ball in 26 seconds.

[AimForCenterMass]

Just for SNG's, let's take a look at how the SEC "powers" have done versus the Big XII (B8/SWC) "powers". Then, we'll discuss why the SEC is constantly regarded as the best conference in the land.


Alabama versus
Texas 0-7-1
Oklahoma 1-2-1
Nebraska 3-2


Auburn versus
Texas 3-5
Oklahoma 0-1
Nebraska 1-3


Florida versus
Texas 0-2-1
Nebraska 0-2
(hasn't played OU)


Georgia versus
Texas 1-3
Nebraska 0-1
(hasn't played OU)


LSU versus
Texas 7-9-1
Oklahoma 1-1
Nebraska 1-5-1


Tennessee versus
Texas 1-2
Oklahoma 1-1
Nebraska 0-2


So, as you can see the "powers" of the SEC haven't faired well against the Big XII's Big Three. If you'll pull the records of the SEC versus the rest of the Big XII, the numbers will look a little better. The SEC makes a living beating some of the weakest teams in strong conferences, and some of the strongest teams in weak conferences. The result is a great OOC record for all SEC teams leading into conference play. When the SEC teams battle one another to start the conference match ups, they're all 3-0 and 4-0. The East Coast writers all proclaim the SEC teams to be great because they have such a great OOC record, and when they start losing amongst themselves, they say it's only because they're such a great conference...plug OOC W/L record logic.

With that being said, the last few SEC teams to show in NC games have done pretty well. You can't take that away from them.

[starrca23]

I don't know about historically speaking, but th SEC has been pretty good the last few years.

[XingTheRubicon]

[QUOTE=AimForCenterMass]Just for SNG's, let's take a look at how the SEC "powers" have done versus the Big XII (B8/SWC) "powers". Then, we'll discuss why the SEC is constantly regarded as the best conference in the land.
QUOTE]


You do realize that you just went 6 deep (SEC) to get all the powers listed.

[OSUAggie]

Imagine having at least 2 sometimes 3 away games every year as intense and loud and spirted as Kyle Field.

That's why the SEC is the best.....and other than 'Bama, I loathe the SEC.


I've been to a night game in Baton Rouge and an Iron Bowl at Auburn. It's hard to explain.

Take the loudest, drunk, most passionate yell on 1st 2nd and 3rd down and during punts and while they're in the huddle, bastard red-faced maniac at Owen Field on any given Saturday, and clone him 80,000 times. That's Baton Rouge, Tuscaloosa, Auburn, Gainesville, Athens, Knoxville, Columbus and so on.

They're just different. I think their parents beat them or give them booze when they're 9 or something. They seem unsettled and "after school special crazy" but no one seems to notice mainly because the people that would normally notice (the people right next to them) have chicken grease in their hair and clinched fists and discolored faces because someone they truly hate is going to snap the ball in 26 seconds.

I'd say OU, Nebrsaka, A&M and Texas are on par with the top SEC venues. Lubbock and Boulder are so different from the rest of the conference that they're difficult as well. Ames is a bit cold as fall progresses. The weather isn't exactly 80 with no wind all year in the Big XII like it is down South, and all of the SEC schools basically share the same climate (save for Arkansas and maybe Kentucky).

I've been to a few SEC stadiums, and they're a bit overrated in my estimation. Sure, they're great venues and the fans are psychotic, but it's nothing markedly better than anything else around the country. I'll see how Sanford is in a few months, but I don't think it'll be any better than Knoxville.

[I_SMELL_FEAR]

I'd say OU, Nebrsaka, A&M and Texas are on par with the top SEC venues. Lubbock and Boulder are so different from the rest of the conference that they're difficult as well. Ames is a bit cold as fall progresses. The weather isn't exactly 80 with no wind all year in the Big XII like it is down South, and all of the SEC schools basically share the same climate (save for Arkansas and maybe Kentucky).

I've been to a few SEC stadiums, and they're a bit overrated in my estimation. Sure, they're great venues, and the fans are psychotic, but it's nothing markedly better than anything else around the country. I'll see how Sanford is in a few months, but I don't think it'll be any better than Knoxville.

the wimmins should be better.

[SteelClip49]

I have been told that I am a "confused" individual and based on what some of the responses have been, I can see your point. The deal about 1975 is that UCLA took care of tOSU and all OU had to do was win and they were a sure bet for the title which happened. Arizona State was a national power in the 70s and defeated some good programs. They defeated Nebraska (10-2) in the Fiesta Bowl to go undefeated but was denied the national title because of the weak conference they were in. Of course the polls backfired on that notion when BYU from the same conference, the WAC won it. Alabama was also a choice who finished 11-1; lost 1st game of season to Mizzou. But, there have been many times where a 3peat could have happened but never did so Bammer was out of luck there. That is the only title for OU, imo, that is disputable.

SEC had a good year in 2006 but it was a bit screwy with Georgia and Auburn. I wonder when Oklahoma and Florida will play? We have played Miami 5 times, Florida State 5 times and USF 1 time.

[JDawg2303]

I would have to say why the SEC "appears" to be the best is because they (the conference as a whole) have a lot more money to devote to their programs than any other conference. If you look around at all the conferences, there may be a two to three really good teams while the SEC like the post earlier, has 6 so-called powerhouses. That doesn't make them any better than the other. It's just that football thrives in the South and the SEC has a monopoly on the "deep south". Plus a lot of media hype (again, money) and biases can go a long way.

[Big Red Ron]

I think the SEC is so highly regarded because of the athletes they have.

They usually have more first round draft picks than any other conference.

Even the "crappy" SEC teams have athletes.

[mithrandir2398]

I'd say OU, Nebrsaka, A&M and Texas are on par with the top SEC venues. Lubbock and Boulder are so different from the rest of the conference that they're difficult as well. Ames is a bit cold as fall progresses. The weather isn't exactly 80 with no wind all year in the Big XII like it is down South, and all of the SEC schools basically share the same climate (save for Arkansas and maybe Kentucky).

I've been to a few SEC stadiums, and they're a bit overrated in my estimation. Sure, they're great venues and the fans are psychotic, but it's nothing markedly better than anything else around the country. I'll see how Sanford is in a few months, but I don't think it'll be any better than Knoxville.

Its better. Knoxville's stadium sucks, you feel like you are about to fall down a mountain. Athens is just prettier, both girls and campus and its a better atmosphere.

[AlabamaSooner]

I think, in general, the SEC is usually best top to bottom most years and usually has the most teams that can compete for a NC that year. Regarding stadiums, I've been to my fair share in both conferences, and the SEC takes the cake by far. I can remember going to Lincoln and feeling let down after going to so many SEC games over the years. It's just a different world really. Kyle Field is definitely up there with anything I've seen in the SEC. Maybe it was just the game (OU/A&M 04), but it was fricken loud.

[AimForCenterMass]

[QUOTE=AimForCenterMass]Just for SNG's, let's take a look at how the SEC "powers" have done versus the Big XII (B8/SWC) "powers". Then, we'll discuss why the SEC is constantly regarded as the best conference in the land.
QUOTE]


You do realize that you just went 6 deep (SEC) to get all the powers listed.

Why does it matter how deep I went? Do you think that, because I named six teams, the SEC is better? It doesn't matter how many teams I mention when they all have losing records to the condensed number of teams in the Big XII. Those teams I mentioned are considered the best of SEC, which is why I used them for comparison. You can go with the bottom feeders of the SEC if you'd like...same result. I guess you can see by now where I'm going with this. You can take the best the SEC can offer...doesn't matter how many teams really...and they haven't stacked up well with the Big XII.

[Octavian]

Just from a historical standpoint, I think he's saying the Big XII is top heavy.



Big XII:

Oklahoma
Nebraska
Texas
....
...
....

....<crickets chirping>



SEC:

Alabama
Tennessee
Florida
Georgia
LSU
Auburn


No conference can match the Big XII's three heavyweights on a historical level. I wouldn't even rank the SEC second in this....The Big 11 has Michigan, Ohio St., Penn St. But even those three don't have the combined accomplishments of OU, Nebraska, and Texas.


But no conference can match the SEC's depth of historical quality from top to bottom.

[Octavian]

OKlahoma's 1974 National Title is undisputed because of 11-0 and the AP. USC received their share by default.

AP, UPI titles are undisputed to a certain extent. I should clarify that from now on. UT's share in 70 is hazy obviously. Nebraska's claim is undisputed because they went undefeated.

Colorado's claim is undisputed despite what happened vs. Missouri. Their schedule was legit and they took care of business.

IMO, the disputed titles awarded by the AP and UPI are:

1953 Maryland, 1960 Minnesota, 1964 Alabama, 1965 Alabama, 1970 Texas (Nixon had a say in it), 1973 Alabama, 1975 Oklahoma, 1978 Alabama, 1983 Miami, 1993 FSU, 1996 Florida. I know there are other years but these immediately came to mind. The obvious most disputed title will always be 1960 Minnesota, unless a playoff format comes into play and a team with more than 1 loss has a shot at the title.


and that makes no sense.


unless you're working with new and never-seen-before definitions of "disputed" and "undisputed"

[OUinFLA]

and that makes no sense.



in which case, this needs to be moved to SO.

:D

[HTown77095]

Well, they have bragging rights for at least a year. When Florida absolutely smoked tOSU and LSU stomped a mud hole into Notre Dame, that was enough proof for me. The only other team that beat Florida was another SEC team (LSU).

[XingTheRubicon]

Well, they have bragging rights for at least a year. When Florida absolutely smoked tOSU and LSU stomped a mud hole into Notre Dame, that was enough proof for me. The only other team that beat Florida was another SEC team (Auburn).

fixed

[HTown77095]

fixed

gracias

[OSUAggie]

Just from a historical standpoint, I think he's saying the Big XII is top heavy.



Big XII:

Oklahoma
Nebraska
Texas
....
...
....

....<crickets chirping>



SEC:

Alabama
Tennessee
Florida
Georgia
LSU
Auburn


No conference can match the Big XII's three heavyweights on a historical level. I wouldn't even rank the SEC second in this....The Big 11 has Michigan, Ohio St., Penn St. But even those three don't have the combined accomplishments of OU, Nebraska, and Texas.


But no conference can match the SEC's depth of historical quality from top to bottom.

How many titles do those SEC "powers" have in the last 25 years?

5? From 4 programs?

4 different Big XII programs have won a title in that time span as well. They've won a combined 7.

**** the SEC.

[Fraggle145]

How many titles do those SEC "powers" have in the last 25 years?

5? From 4 programs?

4 different Big XII programs have won a title in that time span as well. They've won a combined 7.

**** the SEC.

You go girl. ;)

[Salt City Sooner]

Was the SEC the best conference last year? Well, as mentioned above, they've got a pretty good case for that argument. But, are they the year in, year out, be all, end all, hands down best conference in the nation as the media (namely ESPN) would have you believe? Decide for yourself. Below are the ON THE FIELD results for the SEC vs. the other BCS conferences + Notre Dame from '98 (Tennessee's title year) to 2005:

Alabama- 2-7

1998- 0-1 ( L 7-38 vs, Va. Tech in Music City Bowl)
1999- 0-1 ( L 34-35 vs. Michigan in Orange Bowl)
2000- 0-1 ( L 24-35 @ UCLA)
2001- 1-1 ( L 17-20 vs. UCLA, W 14-13 vs. Iowa St. in Independence Bowl)
2002- 0-1 (L 27-37 @ OU)
2003- 0-1 (L 13-20 vs. OU)
2004- 0-1 (L 16-20 vs Minn. in Music City Bowl)
2005- 1-0 (W 13-10 vs. Tx. Tech in Cotton Bowl)

Arkansas 3-5

1998- 0-1 (L 31-45 vs. Michigan in Florida Citrus Bowl)
1999- 1-0 (W 27-6 vs. Texas in Cotton Bowl)
2000- DNP a OOC team from a BCS conference
2001- 0-1 (L 3-10 vs. OU in Cotton Bowl)
2002- 0-1 (L 14-29 vs. Minn. in Music City Bowl)
2003- 2-0 (W 38-28 @ Texas, W 27-14 vs. Mizzou in Independence Bowl)
2004- 0-1 (L 20-22 vs. Texas)
2005- 0-1 (L 17-70 @ USC)

Auburn- 4-9

1998- 0-1 (L 0-19 vs. Virginia)
1999- DNP a OOC team from BCS conference
2000- 0-1 (L 28-31 vs. Michigan in Citrus Bowl)
2001- 0-2 (L 14-31 @ Syracuse, L 10-16 vs. UNC in Peach Bowl)
2002- 2-1 (L 17-24 @ USC, W 37-34 vs. Syracuse, W 13-9 vs. Penn St. in Cap. One Bowl
2003- 1-2 (L 0-23 vs. USC, L 3-17 @ Ga. Tech, W 28-14 vs. Wisconsin in Music City Bowl
2004- 1-0 (W 16-13 vs. Va. Tech in Sugar Bowl)
2005- 0-2 (L 14-23 vs. Ga. Tech, L 10-24 vs. Wiconsin in Cap. One Bowl

Florida- 6-12

1998- 1-1 (L 12-23 @ FSU, W 31-10 vs. Syracuse in Orange Bowl)
1999- 0-2 (L 23-30 vs. FSU, L34-37 vs. Mich. St. in Citrus Bowl)
2000- 0-2 (L 7-30 @ FSU, L 20-37 vs. Miami in Sugar Bowl)
2001- 2-0 (W 37-13 vs. FSU, W 56-23 vs. Maryland in Orange Bowl)
2002- 0-3 (L 16-41 vs. Miami, L 14-31 @ FSU, L 30-38 vs. Michigan in Outback Bowl)
2003- 0-3 (L 33-38 @ Miami, L 34-38 vs. FSU, L 17-37 vs. Iowa in Outback Bowl)
2004- 1-1 (W 20-13 @ FSU, L 10-27 vs. Miami in Peach Bowl)
2005- 2-0 (W 34-7 vs. FSU, W 31-24 vs. Iowa in Outback Bowl)

Georgia 13-5

1998- 1-1 (L 19-21 vs. Ga. Tech, W 35-33 vs. Virginia in Peach Bowl)
1999- 1-1 (L 48-51 @ Ga. Tech, W 28-25 vs. Purdue in Outback Bowl)
2000- 1-1 (L 15-27 vs. Ga. Tech, W 37-14 vs. Virginia in Oahu Classic)
2001- 1-1 (W 31-17 @ Ga. Tech, L 16-20 vs. Boston College in Music City Bowl)
2002- 3-0 (W 31-28 vs. Clemson, W 51-7 vs. Ga. Tech, W 26-13 vs. FSU in Sugar Bowl)
2003- 3-0 (W 30-0 @ Clemson, W 34-17 @ Ga. Tech, W 34-27 vs. Purdue in Cap. One Bowl)
2004- 2-0 (W 19-13 vs. Ga. Tech, W 24-21 vs. Wisconsin in Outback Bowl)
2005- 1-1 W 14-7 @ Ga. Tech, L 35-38 vs. West Virginia in Sugar Bowl)

Kentucky 6-6

1998- 1-1 (W 31-27 vs Indiana, L 14-26 vs. Penn St. in Outback Bowl
1999- 1-1 (W 44-35 @ Indiana, L 13-20 vs. Syracuse in Music City Bowl)
2000- 1-0 (W 41-34 vs. Indiana)
2001- 0-1 (L 15-26 @ Indiana)
2002- 1-0 (W 27-17 vs. Indiana)
2003- 1-0 (W 34-17 @ Indiana)
2004- 1-1 (L 0-28 @ Louisville, W 51-32 vs. Indiana)
2005- 0-2 (L 24-31 vs. Louisville, L 14-38 @ Indiana)

LSU 7-4

1998- 0-1 (L 36-39 @ Notre Dame)
1999- DNP a OOC from a BCS conference
2000- 1-0 (W 28-14 vs. Ga. Tech in Peach Bowl)
2001- 1-0 (W 47-34 vs. Illinois in Sugar Bowl)
2002- 0-2 (L 8-26 @ Va. Tech, L 20-35 vs. Texas in Cotton Bowl)
2003- 2-0 (W 59-13 @ Arizona, W 21-14 vs. OU in Sugar Bowl)
2004- 1-1 (W 22-21 vs. Oregon St., L 25-30 vs. Iowa in Cap. One Bowl)
2005- 2-0 (W 35-31 @ Arizona St., W 40-3 vs. Miami in Peach Bowl)

Ole Miss 4-3

1998- 1-0 (W 35-18 vs. Texas Tech in Independence Bowl)
1999- 1-0 (W 27-25 vs. OU in Independence Bowl)
2000- 0-1 (L 38-49 vs. West Virginia in Music City Bowl)
2001- DNP a OOC team from BCS conference
2002- 1-1 (L 28-42 @ Texas Tech, W 27-23 vs. Nebraska in Independence Bowl)
2003- 1-1 (L 45-49 vs. Texas Tech, W 31-28 vs. Oklahoma St. in Cotton Bowl)
2004- DNP a OOC team from BCS conference



Mississippi St. 3-4

1998- 0-2 (L 23-42 @ Oklahoma St., L 11-38 vs. Texas in Cotton Bowl)
1999- 2-0 (W 29-11 vs. Oklahoma St, W 17-7 vs. Clemson in Peach Bowl)
2000- 1-0 (W 43-41 vs. Texas A&M in Independence Bowl)
2001- DNP a OOC team from a BCS conference
2002- 0-1 (L 13-36 @ Oregon)
2003- 0-1 (L 34-42 vs. Oregon)
2004- DNP a OOC team from a BCS conference
2005- DNP a OOC team from a BCS conference

South Carolina 4-10

1998- 0-1 (L 19-28 @ Clemson)
1999- 0-2 (L 0-10 @ N.C. State, L 21-31 vs. Clemson)
2000- 1-1 (L 14-16 @ Clemson, W 24-7 vs. Ohio St. in Outback Bowl)
2001- 2-0 (W 20-15 vs. Clemson, W 31-28 vs. Ohio St. in Outback Bowl)
2002- 0-2 (L 21-34 @ Virginia, L 20-27 @ Clemson
2003- 1-1 (W 31-7 vs. Virginia, L 17-63 vs. Clemson
2004- 0-1 (L 7-29 @ Clemson)
2005- 0-2 (L 9-13 vs. Clemson, L 31-38 vs. Mizzou in Independence Bowl)

Tennessee 10-7

1998- 2-0 (W 34-33 @ Syracuse, W 23-16 vs. Florida St. in Fiesta Bowl)
1999- 1-1 (W 38-14 vs. Notre Dame, L 21-31 vs. Nebraska in Fiesta Bowl)
2000- 0-1 (L 21-35 vs. Kansas St. in Cotton Bowl)
2001- 3-0 (W 33-9 vs. Syracuse, W 28-18 @ Notre Dame, W 45-17 vs. Michigan in Citrus Bowl
2002- 1-2 (W 35-14 vs. Rutgers, L 3-26 vs. Miami, L 3-30 vs. Maryland in Peach Bowl)
2003- 2-1 (W 23-6 vs. Duke, W 10-6 @ Miami, L 14-27 vs. Clemson in Peach Bowl)
2004- 1-1 (L 13-17 vs. Notre Dame, W 38-7 vs. Texas A&M in Cotton Bowl)
2005- 0-1 (L 21-41 @ Notre Dame)

Vanderbilt 5-4

1998- 1-0 (W 36-33 vs. Duke)
1999- 1-0 (W 31-14 @ Duke)
2000- 1-1 (W 26-7 vs. Duke, L 10-17 @ Wake Forest)
2001- 1-0 (W 42-28 @ Duke)
2002- 0-1 (L 3-45 @ Ga. Tech)
2003- 0-1 (L 17-24 vs. Ga. Tech)
2004- 0-1 (L 34-37 vs. Rutgers)
2005- 1-0 (W 24-20 @ Wake Forest)


Folks, that is a losing record at 67 wins against 76 losses, & unless I've mis-counted, 11 of those 67 wins are against Indiana & Duke. Is the SEC a fine conference with a lot to be proud of? ABSOLUTELY. Is the SEC the total frontrunner that all other conferences have no choice but to take a back seat to, as Corso & co. say? ABSOLUTELY NOT.

[XingTheRubicon]

How many titles do those SEC "powers" have in the last 25 years?

5? From 4 programs?

4 different Big XII programs have won a title in that time span as well. They've won a combined 7.

**** the SEC.

:les: THE SEC WOULD WIN IT EVERY YEAR, BUT WE BEAT EACH OTHER UP!!!!

[XingTheRubicon]

The 5th and 6th best team in the Big XII is

Kansas State

and

Texas Tech


The 5th and 6th best team in the SEC is

Auburn

and

LSU

[AimForCenterMass]

:les: THE SEC WOULD WIN IT EVERY YEAR, BUT WE BEAT EACH OTHER UP!!!!

I hear this every year. Now tell me what conference doesn't have teams that beat up on one another. The SEC makes it sound like only SEC teams can beat SEC teams. I guess since all of the Div IAA schools can't beat them, that means no one else can.

Every conference has teams that beat up on each other. That doesn't make it better overall as a conference, that just makes it a conference. When the teams of the SEC start beating elite programs year in and year out, I'll call 'em elite. Until then, I'll think of them like this:

They pad their W/L Record versus Div IAA and Sun Belt cupcakes.
When they start conference play, they're already 4-0 and the whole nation takes notice.
When they start conference play and teams lose, it's only because they're playing such great competition and it's literally giants beating up on giants. How can it be any other way? You saw the 4-0 record. That speaks for itself.

[AimForCenterMass]

The 5th and 6th best team in the Big XII is

Kansas State

and

Texas Tech


The 5th and 6th best team in the SEC is

Auburn

and

LSU

Now, if I've shown how the almighty powers of the SEC have faired poorly against the best of the best, why should I be impressed as you go further down the list? If the guys on top of the conference can't cut it, they're only going to get worse as you go down. I'm not saying these teams suck, but they're certainly not as powerful as the top teams in the SEC, who have losing records to the top teams in the Big XII. By the way, I would consider LSU in the top three of the SEC of all time.

[RedstickSooner]

By the way, I would consider LSU in the top three of the SEC of all time.

Which shows that you're not qualified to discuss the SEC.

LSU was a perennial underachiever for a good 40 straight years. It wasn't until Saban that they got consistently good for more than a season at a time -- and that sure as hell doesn't qualify them as "best of all time".

I'm also a little puzzled how, precisely, it is that East Coast bias is the "reason" analysts are on the SECs jock. Folks do realize that the east coast has it's *own* conferences, and those conferences are *not* the SEC?

The reason why many people claim the SEC is the "best" or "toughest" (I tend to gravitate towards toughest -- best is a subjective question, and I think the SEC is highly flawed in many ways, like its tendency to phone it in during the bowl season, or its tendency to go in for the "Everybody Wins a National Trophy" crap, at least at SEC schools in the state of Alabama) is that every program outside of the cupcakes is *seriously* devoted to their football, their program, and competing. Even your goofy programs, like your South Carolinas, actually believe they have a "real" football program, and could honestly expect to win, say, a conference or even national championship.

A solid 6 SEC teams each year have *both* the coaching & playing talent to beat anyone -- and I don't mean in that traditional "anybody can beat anybody" way. I mean they're good enough to hang with anyone. If anything, the problem with the SEC is that most schools in the SEC only truly care about beating each other -- out of conference games are basically just something you do while waiting on the conference opposition, so the kids don't play up for it, there's little intensity, and teams routinely schedule laughably bad out-of-conference opposition. Well, laughably until that team then bitches that they should've been in the national championship game, and doesn't get why playing the Catholic Sisters of the Poor twice in one season might somehow preclude them from their claim on Greatest Team in the Land.

[AimForCenterMass]

Which shows that you're not qualified to discuss the SEC.

LSU was a perennial underachiever for a good 40 straight years. It wasn't until Saban that they got consistently good for more than a season at a time -- and that sure as hell doesn't qualify them as "best of all time".

Only two schools in the SEC have more National Titles.
Only three schools in the SEC have more Conference Titles.
Only three schools in the SEC have a higher Winning Percentage.

That puts LSU right up there in the top 3/4 of the SEC. The school that you might be able to put ahead of LSU, based on these numbers, is Georgia. Given that Georgia's last National Title was 27 years ago, I put at LSU #3.

The College Football Data Warehouse seems to agree with me on this one.
http://cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div_ia/sec/team_rankings.php

But you're right, I'm not qualified to talk about the SEC. I just cite facts and statistics and have no ground to stand on.

[Octavian]

As an aside, that site lists Oklahoma as the All-Time Big XII #1


There's Only One (http://cfbdatawarehouse.com/data/div_ia/big12/team_rankings.php)


...that's not surprising, but it's interesting they have Texas over Nebraska at #2.

[SteelClip49]

I always make sense. Some just can't keep up.

[goingoneight]

Just for SNG's, let's take a look at how the SEC "powers" have done versus the Big XII (B8/SWC) "powers". Then, we'll discuss why the SEC is constantly regarded as the best conference in the land.


Alabama = OSUWNED!!!

Auburn = I WOULDA LOST TO NEBRASKA (had they a real coach)!!!

LSU = :les: I was a bottom feeder in the Big 12, now I rule the SEC!!!



This is particularly why I see them as just another conference.

[OSUAggie]

This is particularly why I see them as just another conference.

Les wasn't a bottom feeder in the Big XII.

**** the SEC anyway, and **** ACC basketball.

[SteelClip49]

Once Less was confident beating OU and being in the Big 12, he figured he could not be stopped. 52-9 changed that perception, so he runs of to another conference and continues his smack talk about OU cuz he knows he is AFRAID. I wonder why the LSU/OU series was cancelled for 2006 or 2007-2008, is it because Less found out about there being a posible deal so he waited? Guess we have to wait til 2017-18.

[josh09]

Why does the media, sports analysts, fans always say the SEC is always the best conference? Is it because they have more teams ranked through the season? Is it because of the so-called "tough" conference schedule each team has? Is it because they have 6 different programs with a national title? Seriously, what is it??

My take on it is, every team from every conference plays the games and has to go day in and day out on preparing for anyone that is there. I think the SEC is full of it thinking they are the only ones who have it rough. Auburn was not all that last season yet they defeated Florida.


THANK YOU!!! :D

[sooner94]

The 1972 Dolphins would have lost 4 games if they played in the SEC.

[RedstickSooner]

Only two schools in the SEC have more National Titles.
Only three schools in the SEC have more Conference Titles.
Only three schools in the SEC have a higher Winning Percentage.




I said they were a perennial underachiever for 40 years -- and the stats you're talking about don't bely that fact. From 1965 to 2006, they had only 3 1-loss seasons, and one of those one-loss seasons included a tie.

1965 8.3.0
1966 5.4.1
1967 7.3.1
1968 8.3.0
1969 9.1.0
1970 9.3.0
1971 9.3.0
1972 9.2.1
1973 9.3.0
1974 5.5.1
1975 5.6.0
1976 7.3.1
1977 8.4.0
1978 8.4.0
1979 7.5.0
1980 7.4.0
1981 3.7.1
1982 8.3.1
1983 4.7.0
1984 8.3.1
1985 9.2.1
1986 9.3.0
1987 10.1.1
1988 8.4.0
1989 4.7.0
1990 5.6.0
1991 5.6.0
1992 2.9.0
1993 5.6.0
1994 4.7.0
1995 7.4.1
1996 10.2.0
1997 9.3.0
1998 4.7.0
1999 3.8.0
2000 8.4.0
2001 10.3.0
2002 8.5.0
2003 13.1.0
2004 9.3.0
2005 11.2.0
2006 11.2.0

Now, I was out of line saying you weren't qualified to talk about the SEC, and I apologize for that. I do, however, think you can get blinded by stats -- and for quite some time, LSU was just a high-middle-of-the-pack SEC team. I honestly didn't know their winning percentages or any of that -- I just know, having married into an LSU family, that the Tigers have managed to show signs of greatness which they then promptly turn around and choke on, for the adult lives of all the fans I know down here. (Up until recently, that is).

So, calling them top-3 just seemed ludicrous to me ;)

Ironically enough, it seems to be Lester the Molester who has made 'em into a consistent winner, which puzzles me to no end. Even under Saban, they followed great seasons with mediocrity -- like 2002 and 2004.

[whitehelmutsagain]

Imagine having at least 2 sometimes 3 away games every year as intense and loud and spirted as Kyle Field.

That's why the SEC is the best.....and other than 'Bama, I loathe the SEC.


I've been to a night game in Baton Rouge and an Iron Bowl at Auburn. It's hard to explain.

Take the loudest, drunk, most passionate yell on 1st 2nd and 3rd down and during punts and while they're in the huddle, bastard red-faced maniac at Owen Field on any given Saturday, and clone him 80,000 times. That's Baton Rouge, Tuscaloosa, Auburn, Gainesville, Athens, Knoxville, Columbus and so on.

They're just different. I think their parents beat them or give them booze when they're 9 or something. They seem unsettled and "after school special crazy" but no one seems to notice mainly because the people that would normally notice (the people right next to them) have chicken grease in their hair and clinched fists and discolored faces because someone they truly hate is going to snap the ball in 26 seconds.

NOW THAT IS FUNNY!! HILARIOUS!! :P

[jkjsooner]

About 10 years ago someone posted Nebraska's record against the SEC since around 1970. It was amazing. I wish I had the statistics in front of me. Even among the SEC champs, Nebraska was pretty dominant.

Keep in mind that in the majority of these seasons Nebraska was the Big 8 runner-up to OU yet still had a very impressive record against the SEC champ.

That being said, the SEC is stronger top to bottom but that in no way means the SEC champ is more deserving that the Big 12 champ as Nebraska's success shows.

[jkjsooner]

Here's what I could compile in 20 minutes.

Nebraska's record against the SEC in the '70s, '80s, and '90s:

1971 - W LSU
1972 - W Alabama*
1974 - W Florida
1975 - W LSU
1976 - T LSU
1977 - W Alabama*
1978 - L Alabama*
1980 - W Miss St.
1981 - W Auburn
1982 - W Auburn, W LSU
1984 - W LSU
1986 - W LSU*
1987 - They beat S. Car. who was not in the SEC at the time.
1995 - W Florida*
1997 - W Tennessee*

That puts Nebraska at 13-1-1 through these years. They were 5-1 against SEC champions.

This shows that at least in these decades (commonly thought of as Nebraska, Oklahoma and the Little 6) the upper tier Big 12 schools did well against the SEC champs.

Oklahoma didn't play nearly as many SEC schools so there's not enough data (IMO) to make a fair comparison.