I remember there was a time during the season when Bama was being praised for a quality win over the fighting Mike Leach’s. Can we all agree the SEC is top heavy and the rest of the teams are about on par with the other major conferences? 
 

I know it’s tough to gauge teams during bowl season with opt outs and some guys checking out, however it’s what we have to go off. I think they are 0-4 so far this year with 3 losses to group of 5 teams. 
 

https://topdan.com/college-football-conference-records/sec.html

I’m not sure how far back this goes but as you can see the conference has been carried by the big 3 (Bama, LSU and UGA) this year it has obviously only been the two of them. Yes, those top teams do justify the SEC as being seen as the best conference… but please cut out the crap that having to play an SEC schedule (looking at all of you middle of the road SEC teams no better than the Purdues, Pitts and Texas Techs of the world) warrants scheduling Mercer, The Citadel and Youngstown State in the non conference. Rant done. 

I think the problem for the SEC is that you get teams who are not as interested in winning their bowl game as their opponents are to beat an SEC team.  It’s similar to the Notre Dame bowl losing streak where you get a perfect storm of teams who want to beat Notre Dame and Notre Dame getting into bowls they don’t merit on the field, but merit due to our fans being such good travelers and showing up to fund whatever bowl we get into.  Thus, ND used to get put into situations where we played better caliber teams who also weren’t letting down their guard because “Notre Dame” was coming to town.

For the SEC teams, the situation is one where they’re either vying for and SEC Championship and National Title or they really don’t care…they’re at the bowl to enjoy themselves along with the swag.  Meanwhile, this is the Super Bowl for their opponents who think they’re actually “proving” something by winning.  They aren’t…during the regular season, they’d easily lose the same game because the SEC team actually cares.

2 minutes ago, irishwavend said:

I think the problem for the SEC is that you get teams who are not as interested in winning their bowl game as their opponents are to beat an SEC team.  It’s similar to the Notre Dame bowl losing streak where you get a perfect storm of teams who want to beat Notre Dame and Notre Dame getting into bowls they don’t merit on the field, but merit due to our fans being such good travelers and showing up to fund whatever bowl we get into.  Thus, ND used to get put into situations where we played better caliber teams who also weren’t letting down their guard because “Notre Dame” was coming to town.

For the SEC teams, the situation is one where they’re either vying for and SEC Championship and National Title or they really don’t care…they’re at the bowl to enjoy themselves along with the swag.  Meanwhile, this is the Super Bowl for their opponents who think they’re actually “proving” something by winning.  They aren’t…during the regular season, they’d easily lose the same game because the SEC team actually cares.

I did address this in the OP but I think you missed the general point. If you look at their records vs other power 5 teams in the link, they are all .500 or less besides the 3 schools I’ve mentioned. The conference is very top heavy and these SEC coaches crying about the gauntlet they have to run through is BS. There are about 3 legit teams each year and besides that it’s basically the Big 10. 
 

I will disagree on the bowls to an extent. Like I said, opt outs and desire to be there definitely play a role. I have seen it where teams just missed the playoffs and mailed it in for their BCS game, however Auburn, Miss State, Florida and Missouri did not have playoff aspirations. They all got beat by better football teams and I believe this has been a trend the past few years. The results have less to do with desire and more to do with absolutely atrocious offence. 

I am not going to buy into the inevitable excuses. The SEC is top heavy and the rest are overrated. There is clear SEC bias in the rankings which allows other SEC teams to build off of the over-ranked teams they just beat.

They are 0-4 (Heck, I'll say 0-5 with Texas A&M dropping out). A "dominant" conference should not have that happen. But it wont matter, even if Alabama wins it all and the SEC goes 2-11 in Bowl games, they will still say the SEC is king because of Bama.

1 hour ago, ndomer4 said:

I remember there was a time during the season when Bama was being praised for a quality win over the fighting Mike Leach’s. Can we all agree the SEC is top heavy and the rest of the teams are about on par with the other major conferences? 
 

I know it’s tough to gauge teams during bowl season with opt outs and some guys checking out, however it’s what we have to go off. I think they are 0-4 so far this year with 3 losses to group of 5 teams. 
 

https://topdan.com/college-football-conference-records/sec.html

I’m not sure how far back this goes but as you can see the conference has been carried by the big 3 (Bama, LSU and UGA) this year it has obviously only been the two of them. Yes, those top teams do justify the SEC as being seen as the best conference… but please cut out the crap that having to play an SEC schedule (looking at all of you middle of the road SEC teams no better than the Purdues, Pitts and Texas Techs of the world) warrants scheduling Mercer, The Citadel and Youngstown State in the non conference. Rant done. 

I could not agree more!  This is a debate I had with O’Kelly Irish about one month ago.  I’m glad to see others see it too, because the SEC bias is real.  We can thank ESECPN for that.  Makes sense since they have that multi million dollar deal with the SEC and own the SEC network.  The SEC is very top heavy too, which I have also been pointing out for a very long time.

1 hour ago, irishwavend said:

I think the problem for the SEC is that you get teams who are not as interested in winning their bowl game as their opponents are to beat an SEC team.  It’s similar to the Notre Dame bowl losing streak where you get a perfect storm of teams who want to beat Notre Dame and Notre Dame getting into bowls they don’t merit on the field, but merit due to our fans being such good travelers and showing up to fund whatever bowl we get into.  Thus, ND used to get put into situations where we played better caliber teams who also weren’t letting down their guard because “Notre Dame” was coming to town.

For the SEC teams, the situation is one where they’re either vying for and SEC Championship and National Title or they really don’t care…they’re at the bowl to enjoy themselves along with the swag.  Meanwhile, this is the Super Bowl for their opponents who think they’re actually “proving” something by winning.  They aren’t…during the regular season, they’d easily lose the same game because the SEC team actually cares.

The whole “not interested in winning their bowl game” is the lamest excuse in the world and exactly what ESECPN says all the time when they lose bowl games.

30 minutes ago, NDhoosier said:

I am not going to buy into the inevitable excuses. The SEC is top heavy and the rest are overrated. There is clear SEC bias in the rankings which allows other SEC teams to build off of the over-ranked teams they just beat.

They are 0-4 (Heck, I'll say 0-5 with Texas A&M dropping out). A "dominant" conference should not have that happen. But it wont matter, even if Alabama wins it all and the SEC goes 2-11 in Bowl games, they will still say the SEC is king because of Bama.

Exactly right!  Let’s just hope they go 0-13 then.  🤞🏼

The lowly service academies have a better bowl record than the SEC so far this year with wins over SEC and ACC schools (Missouri and Louisville).  However, it’s all about winning it all and well the SEC will probably do that yet again this year. 

11 hours ago, irishwavend said:

I think the problem for the SEC is that you get teams who are not as interested in winning their bowl game as their opponents are to beat an SEC team.  It’s similar to the Notre Dame bowl losing streak where you get a perfect storm of teams who want to beat Notre Dame and Notre Dame getting into bowls they don’t merit on the field, but merit due to our fans being such good travelers and showing up to fund whatever bowl we get into.  Thus, ND used to get put into situations where we played better caliber teams who also weren’t letting down their guard because “Notre Dame” was coming to town.

For the SEC teams, the situation is one where they’re either vying for and SEC Championship and National Title or they really don’t care…they’re at the bowl to enjoy themselves along with the swag.  Meanwhile, this is the Super Bowl for their opponents who think they’re actually “proving” something by winning.  They aren’t…during the regular season, they’d easily lose the same game because the SEC team actually cares.

Is this why ND has not won a major bowl game in forever? Silly me thought it might have to do with something like coaching. Was it because the Irish simply didn't care?

SEC's out of conference wins are better than other teams, and it isn't really that close. 

SEC teams are also not overly interested in winning bad bowls either, but still their record is better than other conferences. 

Yes they might be top heavy in terms of Bama and UGA, but their depth is better than other conferences over the years. 

The PAC, SEC, and Big 12 aren't even close to being comps. B10 is the only one that comes close, and it's really their top end teams, not their depth. This is probably the best year for the B10 in a while, and I'd still take the SEC in just about every game if you stacked both conferences and played them head to head. 

3 hours ago, OKelleyIrish said:

SEC's out of conference wins are better than other teams, and it isn't really that close. 

SEC teams are also not overly interested in winning bad bowls either, but still their record is better than other conferences. 

Yes they might be top heavy in terms of Bama and UGA, but their depth is better than other conferences over the years. 

The PAC, SEC, and Big 12 aren't even close to being comps. B10 is the only one that comes close, and it's really their top end teams, not their depth. This is probably the best year for the B10 in a while, and I'd still take the SEC in just about every game if you stacked both conferences and played them head to head. 

Let me get this right.  You’re saying that the SEC doesn’t care about winning a bad bowl game, but out of conference wins are better than anyone else and it isn’t close?  Don’t you see the contradiction there?  Wouldn’t they have to win all of these bowl games, especially since they’re out of conference, in order to be considered dominant and make your argument valid?

You’re definitely the type of person that finds an excuse for the SEC when they lose a bowl game by saying they don’t care.  But when they win, say they’re the most dominant conference ever!  Just admit, it’s not the SEC as a whole.  I have already shown you the data a month or so ago that no other team in the SEC besides Alabama, Georgia, and LSU are dominant out of conference.  You said just in this quote that the SEC was top heavy with Alabama and Georgia.

And you can say the B1G is top heavy too, with it being tOSU and Michigan.  However, the B1G is no where near what it is in the SEC.  Because let’s be serious, it’s been Alabama pretty much the last 15 years and the rest of the SEC is trying to ride their success by chanting…SEC, SEC, SEC.

This is the bias we’re trying to point out, and can’t deny it doesn’t exist.

Edited December 29, 20213 yr by Baldy

What non-conference schedule? Clemson and a bunch of FCS schools? Their non-conference schedule is nowhere near as dominant as you make it out to be. Weak-sauce.

All I know is excuses are like butt holes...everyone has one.  If whatever team doesn't give a crude about making it to a bowl because its not the playoffs then thats their problem.  Head to head winner gets the bragging rights in season or post season.  You wanna claim we didn't feel like playing, players x y and z sat out for the draft, blah blah blah...whatever.  Guess what vote as a team to not go to a bowl if your high standards aren't met.  Its been done before.  As a youngster I'd be chomping at the bit to get some PT especially if I was riding the pine during the season.  Set myself up and make the coaches reevaluate me come spring and the next season for PT/starting status.

5 hours ago, Baldy said:

Let me get this right.  You’re saying that the SEC doesn’t care about winning a bad bowl game, but out of conference wins are better than anyone else and it isn’t close?  Don’t you see the contradiction there?  Wouldn’t they have to win all of these bowl games, especially since they’re out of conference, in order to be considered dominant and make your argument valid?

You’re definitely the type of person that finds an excuse for the SEC when they lose a bowl game by saying they don’t care.  But when they win, say they’re the most dominant conference ever!  Just admit, it’s not the SEC as a whole.  I have already shown you the data a month or so ago that no other team in the SEC besides Alabama, Georgia, and LSU are dominant out of conference.  You said just in this quote that the SEC was top heavy with Alabama and Georgia.

And you can say the B1G is top heavy too, with it being tOSU and Michigan.  However, the B1G is no where near what it is in the SEC.  Because let’s be serious, it’s been Alabama pretty much the last 15 years and the rest of the SEC is trying to ride their success by chanting…SEC, SEC, SEC.

This is the bias we’re trying to point out, and can’t deny it doesn’t exist.

Their bowl and OoC record are heads and tails better than any other conference. That's not just Bama..... Only NC's is Bama....

That's just fact....

And it seems more SEC guys sit out games, especially the top tier guys. 

You're data wasn't data. I provided data from every angle. All you said was "top heavy"... 

4 hours ago, OKelleyIrish said:

Their bowl and OoC record are heads and tails better than any other conference. That's not just Bama..... Only NC's is Bama....

That's just fact....

And it seems more SEC guys sit out games, especially the top tier guys. 

You're data wasn't data. I provided data from every angle. All you said was "top heavy"... 

😂  The first part of your quote is not a fact, because the SEC as a whole is not “heads and tails better” than any other conference.  The data I provided you was actually data, and it showed out of conference wins for every current SEC team.  It wasn’t just me saying “top heavy,” but nice try.

I’ll say this one more time so you understand, but Alabama, LSU, and Georgia we’re the only teams with a dominant record OOC.  There were only 2-3 other teams with 1-2 wins over 500 OOC.  I wouldn’t consider that dominant.  The rest of the SEC were below 500.

Oh, and it’s also not true that more guys from the SEC sit out bowl games.  I just looked it up and it seems you were wrong again.  Just this year, six players from the SEC out of 30 are sitting out.  There were more from the B1G, with 10 total sitting out.  Excuses are so lame.

8 hours ago, Baldy said:

😂  The first part of your quote is not a fact, because the SEC as a whole is not “heads and tails better” than any other conference.  The data I provided you was actually data, and it showed out of conference wins for every current SEC team.  It wasn’t just me saying “top heavy,” but nice try.

I’ll say this one more time so you understand, but Alabama, LSU, and Georgia we’re the only teams with a dominant record OOC.  There were only 2-3 other teams with 1-2 wins over 500 OOC.  I wouldn’t consider that dominant.  The rest of the SEC were below 500.

Again, you're going back to top heavy. 

For any data to be meaningful, you need to compare it to other conferences. So stack up any conference vs the SEC top to bottom, and show their OoC records team by team. Just because some SEC teams are below whatever, doesn't make any difference if other conferences bottom 75% are also the same or worse. Again, you're cherry picking and going back to top heavy. 

8 hours ago, Baldy said:

Oh, and it’s also not true that more guys from the SEC sit out bowl games.  I just looked it up and it seems you were wrong again.  Just this year, six players from the SEC out of 30 are sitting out.  There were more from the B1G, with 10 total sitting out.  Excuses are so lame.

You're looking at one year lol... 

And of the P5 schools, there's only 23. 

So 6 of 23 is more than 25%... Which is over the 20% you'd expect per P5.

 

BTW, are you including FCS and Sun Conference games in the SEC OOC numbers? I believe that the SEC plays more games versus the Sun Conference than any other Power 5 conference and I believe that the Sun Conference is usually the lowest ranked FBS conference. It is also not uncommon for SEC schools also play two FCS schools in a season.

27 minutes ago, jbrown_9999 said:

BTW, are you including FCS and Sun Conference games in the SEC OOC numbers? I believe that the SEC plays more games versus the Sun Conference than any other Power 5 conference and I believe that the Sun Conference is usually the lowest ranked FBS conference. It is also not uncommon for SEC schools also play two FCS schools in a season.

You and I are always in agreement on certain issues. I was literally about to write something similar to this. 

I did find this which computed OOC results as of 9/21/2021. I must admit, I did not realize that the SEC was such a powerhouse winning two more games than they lost versus the Power 5.  They also played the second fewest P-5 OOC teams per school, just barely beating the Big 12.  Not only did the Big Ten schools play the most P-5 OOC teams per school, they had the best record. 

Results through first three weeks (9/21)

ACC Vs. P-5: 3-8 (27.3%)    11 games/14 teams = .79 OOC games played vs P-% per team
Big 12 Vs. P-5: 4-3 (57.1%)     7 games / 10 teams = .70 OOC games played vs P-% per team
Big Ten Vs. P-5: 9-5 (64.3%)    14 games/14 teams = 1.0 OOC games played vs P-% per team
Pac 12 Vs. P-5: 3-9 (25%)     12 games/12 teams = .83 OOC games played vs P-% per team
SEC Vs. P-5: 6-4 (60%)    10 games/14 teams = .71 OOC games played vs P-% per team

 

 

17 minutes ago, jbrown_9999 said:

I did find this which computed OOC results as of 9/21/2021. I must admit, I did not realize that the SEC was such a powerhouse winning two more games than they lost versus the Power 5.  They also played the second fewest P-5 OOC teams per school, just barely beating the Big 12.  Not only did the Big Ten schools play the most P-5 OOC teams per school, they had the best record. 

Results through first three weeks (9/21)

ACC Vs. P-5: 3-8 (27.3%)    11 games/14 teams = .79 OOC games played vs P-% per team
Big 12 Vs. P-5: 4-3 (57.1%)     7 games / 10 teams = .70 OOC games played vs P-% per team
Big Ten Vs. P-5: 9-5 (64.3%)    14 games/14 teams = 1.0 OOC games played vs P-% per team
Pac 12 Vs. P-5: 3-9 (25%)     12 games/12 teams = .83 OOC games played vs P-% per team
SEC Vs. P-5: 6-4 (60%)    10 games/14 teams = .71 OOC games played vs P-% per team

 

 

Well, if ND didn’t kick the crap out of Purdue and Wisky it might of been better 😉

1 hour ago, coltssb said:

Well, if ND didn’t kick the crap out of Purdue and Wisky it might of been better 😉

True, we did hurt the B1G OOC schedule. lol

Sorry OKelley, but FCS schools should not count toward one's record, especially with comparing OoC schedule strength. I believe every single SEC school played at least one FCS school, some played two. 

2 hours ago, jbrown_9999 said:

I did find this which computed OOC results as of 9/21/2021. I must admit, I did not realize that the SEC was such a powerhouse winning two more games than they lost versus the Power 5.  They also played the second fewest P-5 OOC teams per school, just barely beating the Big 12.  Not only did the Big Ten schools play the most P-5 OOC teams per school, they had the best record. 

Results through first three weeks (9/21)

ACC Vs. P-5: 3-8 (27.3%)    11 games/14 teams = .79 OOC games played vs P-% per team
Big 12 Vs. P-5: 4-3 (57.1%)     7 games / 10 teams = .70 OOC games played vs P-% per team
Big Ten Vs. P-5: 9-5 (64.3%)    14 games/14 teams = 1.0 OOC games played vs P-% per team
Pac 12 Vs. P-5: 3-9 (25%)     12 games/12 teams = .83 OOC games played vs P-% per team
SEC Vs. P-5: 6-4 (60%)    10 games/14 teams = .71 OOC games played vs P-% per team

 

 

BTW, the SEC was 6-0 vs the Sun Belt conference. 

13-1 vs FBS schools.

They were 2-3 vs Big 12, Big Ten, and Pac-12 combined. They lost every OOC game played vs the Big 10 ( they were 0-1) and were 1-2 vs the Pac-12. ACC was where they won most P-5 OOC games (7-3 vs them)

SEC teams played 14 FCS games and 27 games vs Group of Five teams (six vs Sun Belt teams).

Big Ten in comparison played just 7 FCS games and only 21 games vs Group of Five teams including none vs. the Sun Belt conference.

 

 

Edited December 30, 20213 yr by jbrown_9999

6 hours ago, OKelleyIrish said:

Again, you're going back to top heavy. 

For any data to be meaningful, you need to compare it to other conferences. So stack up any conference vs the SEC top to bottom, and show their OoC records team by team. Just because some SEC teams are below whatever, doesn't make any difference if other conferences bottom 75% are also the same or worse. Again, you're cherry picking and going back to top heavy. 

You're looking at one year lol... 

And of the P5 schools, there's only 23. 

So 6 of 23 is more than 25%... Which is over the 20% you'd expect per P5.

 

Dude, you were obviously not paying attention to the data I provided you back then.  I was comparing the SECs record to other conferences, which includes all.  You say I’m cherry picking, but again, I’m not.  You are the one doing that in order to fit your narrative.  I’m also not comparing it off of one year.  All the data I provided to you was based off of the last 15 years or so.