The SEC West: perception has become reality

So I’m that guy. I’m saying something that is blasphemy in today’s SEC loving football landscape. Something that would have Big Ten bashing Mark May bubbling over with the white hot anger born only in the heart of blue hyper-giant star. The SEC is…wait for it…overrated.  What would possess me, a mortal man, albeit of questionable character, to question one of the sporting world’s virtual certainties? The answer is quite simple. The eye test and the out of conference comparables. 

Let’s face it, the best offense in the SEC might just be an inconsistent, glaringly flawed Texas A&M. With a sporadic Georgia the runner-up team on the offensive side of the ball, the noticeable lack of offense from the QB position seems to be the commonality between the SEC powers. This is not to discount the inimitable presence of Dak Prescott.  He is a star. A star surrounded by generally above average--though not elite--talent. But the ascension of Mississippi State from unranked team to national power lends credence to my point. One star quarterback on a solid team, a team that plays its Saturdays in the media ordained “best” conference in America, and somehow that is enough to surge to very near the top of the conference and more importantly the top tier of all of college football.  What’s more, with no other team dominating the conference it seemed a relatively easy climb. 

Make no mistake, the SEC is the most talented conference in America. However, the best talent does not always equate to the best teams.  The SEC West is loaded with talented teams, while the East is in my opinion a good, probably closer to average, division.  The leaders of the East are respectable, but not elite, teams in Missou and Georgia.  Georgia, having only lost to SEC foes is a sweetheart pick to ascend the rankings and become a player in the National conversation.  Why then are they not elite you might ask?  A porous defense coupled with an almost one-dimensional offense. The Bulldogs have a bruising running game but with average QB play they only have the appearance of a contender.  It’s that woeful defense that sinks the Dogs.  Having given up 30 plus points in FIVE games this year is not the only evidence of their ineptitude.  The teams they gave those points up to are the key.  Tennessee, Kentucky, Arkansas, Florida, and South Carolina.  South Carolina is the lone respectable contender level candidate amongst that group.  Make excuses about the stellar running back Todd Gurley's momentary absence, but once again, we are talking defense not offense.  Giving up 38 to a limping Florida team cannot be blamed on the insertion of a very talented backup running back in Nick Chubb. They were mauled by a middle of the pack team.  A team, in Florida, that was eviscerated by Missou (who I'll get to momentarily).  So why are the Bulldogs now in the conversation? A ripping of Auburn 34-7.  Competing in the all powerful West Division, a win over such a foe can mean only one thing--Georgia must be really good. It is unthinkable that the West is actually (gasp!) overrated. 

Before we get to the West let's look at the other East leader Missou.  How can a team lose to the lowly Hoosiers of the Big Ten basement dwelling variety and still retain national prominence? How can Missou get destroyed by the aforementioned Bulldogs 34-0 and still retain national prominence? Play in the SEC.

Now the meat to the potatoes.  The West.  The best division in football.  While that statement may in fact be true, it's reputation is greatly exaggerated.  Good? Yes. The best? Maybe. But is it so good that every intra-division loss is simply excused? NO. 

A deeper look reveals why.  Teams in the West get a pass when they lose or are taken to the wire by other teams in the West because they are ALL elite.  But are they that good that poor performances deserve more respect than close wins in other conferences?  Seven teams comprise the West and 6 of the 7 have occupied a spot in the top 15, with 4 teams occupying spots in the top 5 at least once throughout the course of the year.  With those ranking it is hard to argue the conference’s supremacy right? Not when those rankings are wrong.  If you take away the conference reputation, and relabel it the Big Ten you have…well….the Big Ten.  Five teams scattered throughout the top 25 clawing against a terrible reputation to stay relevant.

Auburn, the one time number 2 in the country was never a number 2 quality team. A loss to Mississippi State is excused by the media because MSU is really “good”.  Right? Well what about A&M? Oh A&M (with its 4 losses) must be better than we thought? And what of the drubbing by the Georgia team discussed above?  It starts to add up that maybe the SEC is stacked with talent but doesn't have that many elite teams.  Without conference reputation Auburn and A&M would and should be out of the rankings. 

LSU was just shut out by a very mediocre Arkansas team (who inadvertently ended a 17 game conference losing streak in the conference with the win). That LSU team is the same team that took national presumably number 1 Alabama to overtime?  Sure LSU beat Wisconsin in a game they should have lost (but admittedly did not).  In that win over the Badgers LSU had virtual home field advantage (playing in the “neutral”” site in Texas) and still gave up 268 yards on the ground and 24 points to a 1 dimensional Wisconsin team.  Then they give up 106 yards on the ground to the mightiest defense in the land in Alabama.  And let’s not forget they got annihilated by the aforementioned overrated Auburn squad 41-7.  And once again, make my case for me with a shutout loss to the Razorbacks.

So if LSU, Arkansas, Auburn, or A&M, are dominant teams who is left to carry the division flag? Three untouchable teams: Alabama, Ole Miss, and MSU.  All have 1 or 2 losses and are each in the top ten.  Why? Conference reputation.  Do any of these teams have signature wins against an elite non-conference team? Not a single one. The closest thing is a 10 point Alabama win over a West Virginia team that put up 23 points and 365 passing yards against the Tide.  Why is that significant? Because Alabama has allowed 300 yards passing exactly 0 times since then. That's right...the four loss unranked Mountaineers put up the most passing yards (by more that 175 yards) than any of the other "elite" SEC teams they have played.  So if the reputation of the SEC was not what it is...the top teams of the SEC have only beat up on each other to get where they are...the SEC (maybe with the exception of Alabama) would be hoping for Big 10, Big 12, and PAC 10 missteps to get into the playoff.   The strength of schedule is only a perception and nothing more.    I know what I see, and what I see is a conference that skates on reputation alone.  Which team in the SEC West has an explosive offense? Answer: none. The lone standout at QB has propelled MSU to be the elite offense in the West.  Prescott is good, but being the standalone star QB in a Division has a way of making you look a lot better than you are. 

In sum--I am not arguing there is a lack of talent in the SEC.  But that talent has not translated into dominating teams. I would not be at all surprised if a 1 loss Oregon, a 1 loss Baylor, a 1 loss TCU, and a 1 loss Ohio State stepped into the SEC West and lead in offense by a large margin against the same competition.  If two teams from the SEC get into the playoff it is, in my opinion, not because they are two of the best four teams in the country it is because perception has become reality and nothing more.  

Call me a hater.  Call me a misinformed novice.  But I don't buy the SEC West as the most dominating division in decades like many have contended.  They are good, but they are not as good as the media would have you believe.

Cbusian