Eleven Warriors

This is brilliant. I want the book too.

It seemed like this all started after the '06 game against Florida. The media was really behind the B1G and OSU at that point, but flipped immediately after. It was almost as if they were embarrased by picking OSU and childishly rebelled against with a "no no I actually think the SEC is better" attitude... like how kids always jump to the winning side as quickly and as hard as possible and never stand up for their real beliefs. It was only enhanced with the media deal signed in '08.

@Steensen, I don't think I've ever really been convinced that they're even better at the top, at least not each of the last 6 years.

Seriously, BT, did you even read that article?

It's about the self-fulfilling prophecy of preseason polls.  Much like the confirmation bias you appear to suffer from in picking results of a couple games to prove to yourself that the SEC is something ESPN and others have made them out to be.  The OSU-Florida game (a home game for Florida) in that sort of year PROVES something? Really? Come on.

I think this says it all if you don't care to read the article:

Witness the record since the start of the BCS era in 1998:

SEC vs. PAC-12 regular season: 10-12
SEC vs. PAC-12 bowl games: 1-0
SEC vs. Big 12 regular season: 6-10
SEC vs. Big 12 bowl games: 21-8
SEC vs. ACC regular season: 42-36
SEC vs. ACC bowl games: 16-9
SEC vs. Big 10 regular season: 7-4
SEC vs. Big 10 bowl games: 19-19
SEC vs. Big East regular season: 16-15
SEC vs. Big East bowl game: 3-8

Reading this article also makes me sick about the plus one agreement that means college football will be stuck in this rut for at least another decade.  I would bet the SEC will have 2 teams in the final four at least every other year, if not more.  And of course, they'll get to play at least 50% of those games at home as well.

I read the article and maybe it's not overwhelmingly better TOP TO BOTTOM, but it is better from 1-6.  The article doesn't give you the stats on what the rankings of the teams head to head were or what place in the conference teams where when playing in bowls.  If the number 3 B1G team plays the number 6 SEC team in the Holiday Bowl is the outcome really that shocking if the B1G team wins.  I'm not saying I prescribe to the idea that Kentucky or Vandy could go anywhere else and win the conference, that's a bunch of BS.  I do think, though, if you look at last year There were 5 teams in the SEC that very well could of won the B1G and I don't think there were any teams from the B1G who would of won the SEC.  I certainly think those same 5 teams WOULD of won the Big East and ACC. 

I do agree with the article that the preseason rankings drive the strength of schedule and allow for a team like Auburn to cover a lot of ground in the rankings really fast.  I would also say, though, who on earth was going to beat Auburn that year? What Auburn did coming into the year ranked so low and winning a BCS title wasn't unprecedented though.  Oklahoma kind of came out of nowhere in their BCS title year as well.

Again though, showing a bunch of head to head stats against different conferences really doesn't prove the conference is or isn't good.  It doesn't account for USC when they were awesome playing an inferior Arkansas for a couple of years, or Oregon beating up on Tennessee in the recent years.  It would be a compelling argument if they really broke it down and showed rankings and position teams were in in their conference when they played eachother.  Without that, giving those comparisons is no different than my original comparison that you were so offended by.

Heard it all before, unfortunately most people only read headlines.  Until a PAC, Big XII or Big Ten team wins it all the same headlines will still exist.

I'm not buying it.  The article is a case of looking too deeply into the numbers which creates spin.  At the end of the year, I've rarely had a problem with rankings on the whole-- the system basically works itself out with a few minor glitches.  But the overall picture, I believe, ends up being accurate. 

The SEC is king until they are beaten.  Maybe even consistently beaten.  One National Championship lost by the SEC won't erase this notion.

"Without that, giving those comparisons is no different than my original comparison that you were so offended by."

Except for the whole concepts of small sample size and selection bias.  Anyone can hand pick resullts of two or three games to argue one way or another. Obviously I am wasting my time with this discussion.

Penult, you aren't grasping the point I'm trying to make, just showing a head to head results doesn't tell the full story is what I'm trying to say.  It's just as lazy of a comparison as what you are acusing those of small sample size.  If the artical had some statistical analysis comparing the head to head matchups.  What percentage of the games paired power teams from another conference against low to mid teams in the other.  How many of the bowl matchups where the SEC lost to another conferece had the SEC facing a higher placed team from another conference? 

Do I think they are astronimically better than any other conference in football?  Absolutely not, but they are better than everyone else.  I don't think that's so horrible to admit.

I do think, the B1G will get close in the near future though.  Meyer coming to Ohio State, and the money the school is paying for his staff is going to make the rest of the conference have to step up or watch another decade of dominance.  Hoke may get Michigan back and he certainly has a great defensive coordinator as well so we'll see what happens there.  The rest of the conference will have to pony up some cash and compete for great coaching staffs or keep playing mediocre to poor football. If they open up the wallet which keeps getting more money every year, and get guys who know how to coach quality football, they may be able to get quality recruits and compete.

The SEC is best and the gap is going to start widening unless something is done soon.  Recruits are drawn to schools that get publicity, and ESPN is hyping the SEC 24 hours a day.  Recruits see this, and go to those schools, so those schools have the best players.  Then, those schools win titles...and with those titles, are able to bring in the best kids....

I commented to my friends watching the LSU-Bama regular season game last year... "Just watch, ESPN will spend the next week talking about how great a defensive battle this game was, unlike in the B1G, when a 9-6 final score is evidence of just how bad the conference is."  Sure enough, I was correct.   

I read that article earlier today, and I do certainly agree that the preseason polls are a self-fulfilling entity.  ESPN's stranglehold ownership on college football is a major culprit.  And it is despicable and eggregious, and I'm shocked more university presidents aren't expressing outrage over it.

HOWEVER, the article fails to mention how the SEC has fared in the actual BCS bowls.  The SEC has been there 23 times, and won 16 times.  Only one other major conference is above 0.500 in those bowls, and that's the Pac-12 (largely because of one team, USC).  The Big Ten has been to more BCS bowls (25), and has won only 11 (most of those wins coming from Ohio State).  The article does mention the MWC's superiority in win % in BCS bowls over the SEC, but it's a 0.750 to 0.696 advantage...so it's not that mind-boggling.

The SEC has certainly been given an advantage over all the other conferences in terms of propelling teams to being top-ranked and brought into the national title game.  But those top teams have delivered.  If the rankings over the course of a season were wrong, then the SEC champ would lose at least some of those title games. We have had relatively little controversy regarding whether the SEC champion deserves to be there (2003 and 2004 are really the only years that come to mind).  In all the other years, any other deserving team (like USC or Texas) failed to match the SEC champ in W-L record, and therefore could be eliminated from consideration.

So, I hate the SEC dominance as much as the next guy.  But, Florida State, Oklahoma (twice), Ohio State (twice), and Oregon were all given their shot and failed to deliver...sometimes in catastrophic fashion.  The only teams that got home field advantage were LSU in 2003 and 2007 and Florida in 2008...only one was a true blow-out.

Rise up and beat them.  That's all that can be done.

@ Bucksfan

I'm really excited for the playoff seasons to start. Will be some really exciting games. Just hope we get to be a part of them.

I agree about the bowl games, they've been playing them in SEC, PAC12, and Big12 country for years, it's only become an issue because they are winning the games and titles more lately. 

So by your logic then, the SEC fans are right, Ohio State couldn't compete in the SEC at all, and you know why, 0-10!!!!!  Of course that's not right,but looking at overall bowl record, which are most of the games they play against the SEC , Ohio State can't hang down there.  No need to analyze how the games went or who they played, they just can't beat em. Besdies, overall bowl record is the best indication to tell how the best program in the B1G the last 10 years or so could stack up againgst the SEC.

AC - I agree with each of your points.  Well said.

I remember a few years (probably more than 3) ago watching an ESPN college football show and an NFL show back to back.  On the CFB show the analysts (do we have to call people like Mark May and Lou Holtz and Chris Berman etc. analysts?) argued vehemently that differences in weather for northern teams and southern teams would not impact either in any meaningful way.  Then, in the NFL show talking about the playoff matchups everyone pined and worried about the Ravens (or maybe Patriots or Jets) defense struggling and hitting a wall because of the warm and humid weather expected in Miami. 

Sometimes saying "don't make excuses" is a way to inform and motivate, because the hand your dealt is the hand your dealt.  You can't change it, you just have to make the best of it.  And, it's also true in most situations that others aren't going to feel sorry for you or sympathize with your disadvantage(s).

Other times, saying "don't make excuses" is an illogical cliche used to win an argument even if you're wrong.

Personally, I've been through several football seasons in Ohio.  The change from the blistering heat of two-a-days, to the ideal weather in early season, to the brutal cold is unmistakable and undeniable.  It's not just having to play with cold hands and noticeable difference in the way your helmet rings.  The worst adjustment when the weather changes is breathing, especially when you have to breathe deep.  The physiological changes in your blood, red blood cells, etc. play a part as well.  Bodies are adapted to the climate they live in and it doesn't change in a day or two. 

So, it's not just that B1G teams, for example, are geared towards playing in winter weather, players' bodies are adapted to winter weather, and thus not adapted to Florida and New Orleans weather.  Whether this is a meaningful disadvantage or not, I don't know, but I do see the bowl games as more than just road games.  Is it an excuse? Maybe.  But it shouldn't be dismissed outright.

I don't get why media covering the NFL discuss it so freely (e.g., almost any team having to play in Denver, how the AFC North has to play smash mouth football, how a defense from a northern team will be affected by having to play at a sourthern team in the playoffs, etc.), but the media covering NCAA football tries to bury it like an unwanted redheaded stepchild. Oh wait, I do get it, it doesn't fit into their narrative.

It's also BS that midwest fans will have to travel to not one but two locations that are as far away as possible from their homes if their team makes it to the championship.  Superbowls can be played in Indy and NY, but bowl games can't?

I also disagree that bowl record is the best way to compare.  I don't know where you get that.  Almost all the games are home games for one conference, whereas they would be split in regular season.  And bowl game matchups are manipulated.  Bowl games are also terrible examples for a slew of other reasons.  Teams play 11 or 12 games and then take a MONTH off.  People seem to underestimate how important something like depth is after playing almost every week and then taking a month off.  Guess who the queen of depth is? Yep, Oversigning.  Want to make some money? Look at which team in a bowl matchup has signed more players over the last 5 years and bet the moneyline on that team.

Penult, I'm just making a comparison of 14 years of the BCS era and how much Ohio State has played the SEC.  Forgive me, but I thought those 5 games where the only games they had, and of course that bowl game that doesn't count.  I completely understand sample size, but again, just pointing out an overall record for a 14 year period really doesn't tell the full story.  THATS MY POINT.  There needs to be further analysis to really make it more meaningful.

I look at baseball as an example.  I'd say most can agree over the last 10-15 years the AL East has been the best division in the MLB.  Now collectively, as a divison, head to head against other divsions their overall record is probably around 500, plus or minus.  They don't completely dominate every one else all the time, and being baseball there's a far larger sample size because they play so many games.  That doesn't mean that if you put their 2nd and sometimes 3rd place teams in another division that they wouldn't win the division.  If the Rays or Boston most years had to play the the slate in the NL or AL Central most years, it's absolutely fair to say they would fare well if not win those divisions. 

Do they always win their playoff games against other divisional opponents?  Nope, do they always win the world series?  Nope, but that doesn't mean that year in and year out they aren't the best division. 

Just got done with Chapter 4 on college football.  Every single person needs to read this book.