OT: Have A&M and Missouri proved the SEC over-rated?
During the last few years, when talk amongst football fans/media turned to SEC conference superiority (often discussed as "vastly" superior vs. the other major conferences), you would often hear many fans complain about the media drum-beating for that POV, and some fans proclaiming that the SEC itself was over-rated and not superior, other than a team or two at the top.
I always felt that it was a simple fact that the conference was superior to any other, and that not only the national titles but head to head records and NFL talent sent proved that beyond a reaonable doubt. But with Texas A&M and Missouri, two teams that in no way were even top level Big 12 teams, coming into the conference and succeeding quite nicely, I'm starting to wonder myself (recall how dismissive most of us were about adding Missouri during B1G expansion talks). Both schools were mid-level teams in their old conferences, and now are in the top half of the SEC, with Missouri in the title game.
So what does this say to you? Has it changed your view of the SEC and it's "superiority?"
December 5th, 2013 at 3:47 PM ^
How about those matchup take place between evenly matched teams and not ALWAYS where they have the advantadge of playing against a lower ranked team? They stack the deck not on regarding location of games but also who plays who.
December 5th, 2013 at 3:56 PM ^
My ideal scenario is that the Buckeyes win Saturday and then MSU does not make a BCS bowl. This would flatten out the pecking order in the bowls so that it would be more even. Getting all those years of 2 BCS teams has hurt the conference image because our 4 or 5 team ended up playing another conference's 2 or 3 team. The media never acknowledges this.
December 5th, 2013 at 3:24 PM ^
Some good points in here, but yet nobody's mentioned the fact that they've won 7 national titles in a row.
That hasn't been done by ESPN/the media, it's actually happened on the field.
December 5th, 2013 at 3:57 PM ^
7 in a row is fantastic. But the two best coaches in the country account for 5 of those, not the conference as a whole.
December 5th, 2013 at 4:15 PM ^
December 5th, 2013 at 3:26 PM ^
Maybe its the culmination of past success? Both have been recruiting at elite levels prior. Pinkell and Sumlin are good coaches.
December 5th, 2013 at 3:29 PM ^
Interesting article floating around the past couple of days
http://www.thepostgame.com/commentary/201208/better-without-em-northern…
December 5th, 2013 at 4:16 PM ^
Wow, I can't believe I haven't read that article before. That's brilliant!
It's shocking to me that with all the influence that graduates out of the B1G year after year, we couldn't be the ones that properly manipulate the media for B1G success just like it's menioned in this article.
Thanks for posting this!
December 5th, 2013 at 4:45 PM ^
December 5th, 2013 at 3:30 PM ^
This chart comes off of something called "Mr. SEC" so take it for what it's worth... But, I think the reason the SEC has the feel of the best is their overwhelming BCS bowl success. You can definitely argue that they are set up to succeed in the bowls based on matchups and locations, but they have done exceptionally well in BCS games and very well overall.
They also generally play a weak OOC schedule, so they reduce their chances of bad regular season losses.
Finally, of course, they've won 7 straight championships.
| Conference | All Bowls ’98-’12 | BCS Bowls ’98-’12 | All Bowls 2012 | BCS Bowls 2012 |
| Big West | 2-0 (100.0%) | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 |
| Big East | 46-29 (61.3%) | 8-7 | 3-2 | 1-0 |
| SEC | 73-50 (59.3%) | 17-8 | 6-3 | 1-1 |
| MWC | 32-24 (57.1%) | 3-1 | 1-4 | 0-0 |
| Pac-10/12 | 41-45 (47.5%) | 13-7 | 4-4 | 2-0 |
| Big XII | 57-63 (47.5%) | 9-11 | 4-5 | 0-1 |
| ACC | 49-55 (47.1%) | 3-13 | 4-2 | 1-0 |
| WAC | 23-28 (45.0%) | 2-1 | 2-0 | 0-0 |
| C-USA | 33-41 (44.5%) | 0-0 | 4-1 | 0-0 |
| Big Ten | 47-59 (44.3%) | 12-14 | 2-5 | 0-1 |
| Sun Belt | 10-13 (43.4%) | 0-0 | 2-2 | 0-0 |
| MAC | 21-28 (42.8%) | 0-1 | 2-5 | 0-1 |
December 5th, 2013 at 3:56 PM ^
December 5th, 2013 at 3:33 PM ^
I always find it fun and interesting, once the regular season is over, to go back and look at the pre-season polls and compare them with the final week polls. This year is no different, and maybe it helps (or not?) with the question being posed. Looking at the coaches' poll...
SEC Teams in the Top Ten, Preseason (present ranking in parentheses):
1 - Alabama (4)
5 - Georgia (unranked)
6 - Texas A&M (25)
7 - South Carolina (7)
10 - Florida (unranked)
SEC Teams in the Top Ten, Present (preseason ranking in parentheses):
3 - Auburn (unranked)
4 - Alabama (1)
5 - Missouri (unranked)
7 - South Carolina (7)
Of note: Not only were both Auburn and Missouri unranked pre-season, but they also weren't even in the "others receiving votes" section. So the championship game will be played by a newbie and a team that was 3-9 last year, both of whom so-called experts thought were irrelevant at the beginning of the year. I don't know if this helps with the OP or not. You could maybe say, "OMG!! There's so much parity in the SEC!!!" Or you could also say that just maybe those vaunted creams of the crop aren't so unbeatable after all. Or maybe it just shows how silly a pre-season poll is. But hey... they got South Carolina exactly right.
December 5th, 2013 at 4:36 PM ^
I would say that Auburn and Missouri are ranked as high as they are, as compared to say Oklahoma St., because teams like Georgia, A&M, and Florida were criminally overrated to start the season. Auburn was only #4 before the Alabama game on the strength of wins over A&M and a miracle over Georgia. Missouri only jumped in the rankings after beating Georgia and the rotting corpse of Florida.
Everyone ignores the fact that A&M didn't beat anyone all season; Georgia lost to Clemson at full strength, lost to Vandy while beat up, and was taken to double OT by a mediocre Georgia Tech team two weeks after losing to Auburn; and Florida lost to Miami at full strength and then lost to Vandy and Georgia Southern.
It would be one thing if Auburn and Missouri laid down the path of destruction Florida State did in their wins, but that was far from the case. They simply rose so fast because an SEC win was valued more than any other win by pollsters.
December 5th, 2013 at 3:48 PM ^
How you answer this question is really just a function of what your pre-existing belief is regarding the SEC.
There is not enough meaningful data on these teams to judge.
You could just as easily challenge the premise of your question than accept it. Mizzou went 5-7 last year, and did not play either Bama or Auburn in the regular season this year, where their biggest wins are against 8-4 ATM and 8-4 Georgia. ATM went 8-4 this year, and 10-2 last year, when they beat Bama. Aside from the Bama win, in 2012 ATM lost their other two tough SEC games, and their biggest conference win was over 8-5 Miss. State. This year ATM lost to every ranked conference team it played, and its biggest win was 8-4 Vandy.
December 5th, 2013 at 4:24 PM ^
December 5th, 2013 at 4:43 PM ^
It has just as many bad teams as most.... it's just the TOP of it is the absolute TOP... Bama, LSU, even Auburn, Georgia and SC to a degree.
December 5th, 2013 at 4:48 PM ^
Overall the SEC is the best conference relative to Bowl wins/Championships etc. The main issue is the top-to-bottom quality of the conferences and players. The talent beds in the south (FL/LA/GA/AL/TX) where football is king drive this phenomenon, but if you look at median W-L records of the conference I bet it would tell a different story (e.g. SEC being top heavy).. I think you have to look at it relative to championships/bowl wins but also total wins in and out of conference and the overall strength of all the teams. Just because your top teams are the best doesn't mean that you're the best overall. On a championships basis in the BCS era there is unfortunately no argument. I hate the SEC (except for LSU - whose fans were friendly and knowlegable when they came here to play UW and Florida - who has yet to beat M)..
December 5th, 2013 at 5:20 PM ^
Missouri has not beaten a current top 20 team since it joined the SEC. ZERO. The SEC East is a legitimate tire fire this year with Florida's implosion, Georgia's injuries, and everyone else just sucking. That's a 5-3 conference team headed to the Cotton Bowl if they played in the SEC West.
A&M has what? One win over Alabama last year with the best player in the country. Literally, that's it. They went 4-4 in the SEC this year and have looked awful the last few games when Manziel got banged up.
December 5th, 2013 at 5:23 PM ^
Almost all SEC "big" wins are against other SEC teams, so it's just self-fulfilling. Most of their OOC schedules are very weak.
December 5th, 2013 at 6:54 PM ^
Mizzou basically recruits as well as a lower tier BCS team. Just go look at their recent classes, they're not a team of NFL players.
I think the SEC hype is so large because they do have 2-3 BCS title level teams each and every year but all the morans saying that Ole Miss and Kentucky would win the Big Ten are high
December 6th, 2013 at 7:19 AM ^
December 6th, 2013 at 8:17 AM ^
December 6th, 2013 at 9:11 AM ^
I have always thought the SEC over the last decade has been top heavy in talent - with Alabama, LSU, Florida, and Georgia. Once you get passed those teams (I suppose you could include South Carolina) they are an average conference. You look at where Mizzou and A&M were at within the Big 12 before jumping over, and it is a strong indicator that the SEC hype machine is just that, HYPE. That being said, I still think the winner of the SEC championship should represent the #2 team in the BCS championship. The body of work is far more impressive than OSU's.