Is the SEC better top to bottom than other conf? Topic

moronis' logic makes my brain hurt.   Jeez. 

The two "best" teams in the B1G were less than impressive with a loss(beatdown) and a squeaker against one of the weaker P12 team. 

I've already said the top 4 in the SEC would win the B1G and, if things keep going like they are, I'm going to extend that to 6.
9/16/2012 6:57 PM
moranis has only ever really argued this: The SEC isn't as good as many of you would have everyone believe.

He's right about that. Looking at the last 5 completed years of College Football, let me just point this out:

Vanderbilt, Mississippi & Kentucky were all outperformed by Arizona State over this span. An Arizona State team that went 26-31 & didn't have the boost of those great schedules that SEC teams have.

Tennessee, Mississippi State & Auburn.. Yes, Auburn won a National Championship over this time & that win is counted & probably deserves alittle extra credit, so keep that in mind.. However, TCU could be argued to have outperformed all 3 of those teams. If we look at Auburn's National Title as an 1 great moment out of 5 tries & then we see that TCU has went to a couple BCS Bowl games in that span & won a Rose Bowl, then you see why TCU has actually been more consistent & done more than Auburn. Auburn missed a bowl game completely in 2008 & performed significantly worse than TCU did that year. 

Yes, you could nitpick this or that out of this arguement.. But, really? If you want to argue that MAYBE Kentucky is on the same level of an Arizona State squad that's had a losing record over the last 5 years, well then.. That's pathetic for the GREAT SEC anyway. If you want to argue that you're allowed a losing season in the SEC & that the 1 National Title instantly makes Auburn better than TCU over the last 5 years, then that just makes moranis even more right about the point he's been trying to hammer through here. Because TCU, considering 5 years instead of just 1.. has performed consistently & at a higher level than Auburn through most of that period.

9/16/2012 7:40 PM
"Truly you have a dizzying intellect."
9/16/2012 7:53 PM
I stopped at "Vanderbilt, Mississippi & Kentucky".

When you start your argument with "Your 'tards aren't as good as our 'tards", I can't work with you.
9/16/2012 9:14 PM
Well, he went on to argue that TCU might be better than the 7th-9th teams in the SEC.  Whatever that proves.
9/16/2012 9:23 PM
Oh, I guess that makes it better, right?

9/16/2012 9:27 PM
Like I said, dizzying.
9/16/2012 9:28 PM
Posted by AlCheez on 9/16/2012 6:58:00 PM (view original):
Congratulations on your triumph in a meaningless debate of syntax.

Also, as a ND fan, I'm not really sure ND gets the "no shame in losing to" mark on reputation at this point, which is all you were giving it to them on after 2 weeks.  NOW it looks like they might be a high quality opponent.
Actually I wasn't.  I generally believe ND is vastly overrated, but since Kelly got there, they have slowly been getting better and the team this year appeared to be better than the last couple which went 8-5.  I figure ND should be 9-3 or 10-2 going to their bowl game, which would rate as a no shame in losing to team.  Now granted there is plenty of season to be played and they could still go on a downturn, but I just don't see them falling off into an abyss (so to speak).
9/16/2012 10:26 PM
Ok, you've convinced me: Auburn is just a crappy team.

I guess that just leaves Alabama, LSU & Florida.. The only 3 SEC teams that matter. moranis' point is proven. Thanks.
9/16/2012 10:29 PM
So, in comparing 3 SEC schools to Arizona State, and 3 others to TCU, you've demonstrated that only 3 matter?

Without touching your actual arguments, which don't really qualify as coherent, just how many schools do you think are in the SEC?
9/16/2012 11:03 PM
No, if you're going to ignore my actual arguements, then I'm going to ignore your questions & ask my own. If more than 3 teams in the SEC are great, who?

Georgia? Exactly what qualifies them as being great over the last 5 years? Getting their tails kicked by Alabama all along the way?

How about South Carolina? They didn't even make a bowl game in 2007.

You can't say Auburn, you've already dismissed them as just 7th best.

There's really not much else. So, what's YOUR arguement? I've said my piece. 
9/16/2012 11:12 PM
You're clearly under the impression that someone said everyone in the SEC was great.  The issue being discussed here is whether the SEC, top to bottom, is hands down better than any other conference top to bottom - the Big 10 being the point of comparison most discussed.  Moranis is saying that the SEC's advantage really doesn't extend beyond the top 2. You shouldn't be comparing these teams to "greatness", you should be comparing them to similarly slotted teams in other conferences.  Now your original argument at least makes sense, even though it's only tangentially related to the debate.  I will agree with you - not every team in the SEC is great.  Even most of them aren't - but that still doesn't rule out that them being significantly better than the Big 10 top to bottom.
9/16/2012 11:22 PM
And I would say that if you're comparing teams in the middle of the road to TCU, you're not helping moranis, since I think I recall from past discussions that you think pretty highly of the Boises and TCUs.
9/16/2012 11:25 PM
They are SEC haters.

They HATE all the talking heads that prop them up.

They will not miss an opportunity to point and say "see the SEC isn't as great as everyone makes them out to be".

9/16/2012 11:40 PM

The reason I was pressing hard on comparing the bottom ranks of the SEC to better teams is because a lot of the time I hear people dismiss that the SEC has teams that just aren't even CLOSE to LSU, Alabama or Florida when you really look at it. But, when someone from a different conference beats these bottom to mid-tier SEC schools, suddenly they become only "the 6th best" or whatever. So, I hope that explains why I was going at it like that.
I picked TCU to compare against Auburn because they were a non-BCS team during that span & they still outperformed most of the SEC. You wouldn't know that if you talked to many SEC praisers, though. They probably think Mississippi State has accomplished just as much just for playing in the SEC.

The Big 10 is hard to argue for in comparison to the SEC over the last 5 years. Ohio State has been really successful along with Wisconsin to a bit of a lesser extent. The Top 3 SEC teams, generally, are the main strength of the conference, though. The problem with the Big 10 is the bottom of the conference is absolutely hideous while the bottom of the SEC is just hideous when they play the Alabamas, LSU's & Floridas (during Tebow).

Indiana & Minnesota just don't measure up with Vandy & Ole Miss. But, once you get up into the mid-tier of the conferences, there's really less & less of a difference.

South Carolina & Michigan State is the middle vs. the middle matchup & really, there's not a mile of difference. South Carolina has been better over the last 5 years, but it's not some crazy difference. So, to be totally fair to both sides: I would say that the SEC's biggest advantages against the Big 10 are not only at the top, but at the bottom, as well. The SEC seems to still have a slight advantage through the middle of the conferences too. It's just that I believe if you stuck Michigan State in the SEC, they would hold their own in the conference. Would they win it very often? No. But would they be at the bottom of the SEC just because they're in the middle of the Big 10? That answer would likely still be "no".


9/17/2012 12:17 AM (edited)
◂ Prev 1...3|4|5|6|7 Next ▸
Is the SEC better top to bottom than other conf? Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2018, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.