The SEC and How I Feel

True. It may also be because I cannot argue in single syllables or three word sentences.

The SEC wins games. 14-5 in BCS games. They've won 6 of the 12 national championships in the BCS era. The Big Ten had a solid bowl season, but even though everyone thought the SEC was down, the conference still finished 6-4. When the Big Ten is excited about going 4-3 and the SEC is "down" because they go 6-4, it kind of gives you an idea of where things stand right now in the pecking order of college football.

I agree with some of your points, but I take issue with your belief that the Big 10 is full of slow big guys while the SEC is filled with ESSSS-EEEE-CEEEE speed. This article, which references a couple of well-respected authors, pointed out that the Big 10 is just as fast as any conference in America. Perhaps to a greater point, the recruiting capabilities for most teams has gone far more expansive over the years, with even the mediocre teams in various conferences having some success in distant states. Maybe when a Nebraska played a Miami in the 80s there was a speed difference, but in today's game a fast kid on Georgia is just as fast as a kid at MSU. As for your argument that the Big 10 has been more conservative than other conferences in adopting new offensive styles, I point out that Purdue has been running some form of a spread for over a decade, and rode it to a Rose Bowl and a number of big wins. OSU played a very (at least for them) wide-open offense when Troy Smith was at the helm, and UM's pro style was certainly capable of running over anyone when Carr was willing to open it up. By comparison, John L. Smith tried to turn MSU into a wide-open, pass-happy offense and fell on his face, while Auburn's attempt at opening it up led to one of the worst offenses I've seen in years. Good teams win no matter the system they run because they have good talent, and that's why teams like Alabama and USC have been consistent winners using their decidedly non-spread attacks. A team with good talent wins; a spread offense might cover up the holes a bit better talent-wise against mediocre clubs, but against more talented outfits they usually have trouble. I do agree that the Big 10 has had some trouble in the past letting go of methods that used to work, but no more than teams in other major conferences. The reason the Ole Miss's and Texas Tech's of the world take a chance on the new systems is because they haven't experienced success before, so you are not trading in a working model for the unknown. Teams like Nebraska, OSU, Oklahoma, UM, etc. always won, so the argument went that there was no need to try to fix it. I agree that was a detriment to the teams being consistently competitive as the years went on and talent distribution leveled out (the biggest reason, IMO, why more teams are successful is due to the reduction in scholarships), but I can also understand why they viewed some of the systems as more "fad" than anything else. UM will succeed when RR has talented players on both sides of the ball, and that would be true irrespective of the system he runs. The SEC has experienced some recent success because they have top-flight talent and creative coaches, but they also succeed because the BCS is set up such that two teams from basically 4 conferences - Big 10, SEC, Big 12, and Pac 10 - are going to play for the title each year. Sure, a resurgent Miami or VT might sneak in one year, but those four conferences have a virtual monopoly on who plays for the MNC. Alabama and Florida were ordained as potential MNC players, so irrespective of how they did on the field, they were always going to be in the mix. Right now, I think the SEC is a very good conference with exceptional PR, and was once the case for the ACC, Big 12, and especially late 90s, early 00s, the Big 10. While most would view Florida's shellacking on an overrated Cincy team in turmoil over the lost of its coach, and Alabama's nail-bitter against a freshman playing his first game of the year, as signs that maybe those teams were not as good as advertised, the story is that the SEC is dominant and every other conference sucks. I simply don't believe in that, and once the Big 10 continues to win hopefully that story will change.

I agree with some of your points, but I take issue with your belief that the Big 10 is full of slow big guys while the SEC is filled with ESSSS-EEEE-CEEEE speed. This article, which references a couple of well-respected authors, pointed out that the Big 10 is just as fast as any conference in America. Perhaps to a greater point, the recruiting capabilities for most teams has gone far more expansive over the years, with even the mediocre teams in various conferences having some success in distant states. Maybe when a Nebraska played a Miami in the 80s there was a speed difference, but in today's game a fast kid on Georgia is just as fast as a kid at MSU. As for your argument that the Big 10 has been more conservative than other conferences in adopting new offensive styles, I point out that Purdue has been running some form of a spread for over a decade, and rode it to a Rose Bowl and a number of big wins. OSU played a very (at least for them) wide-open offense when Troy Smith was at the helm, and UM's pro style was certainly capable of running over anyone when Carr was willing to open it up. By comparison, John L. Smith tried to turn MSU into a wide-open, pass-happy offense and fell on his face, while Auburn's attempt at opening it up led to one of the worst offenses I've seen in years. Good teams win no matter the system they run because they have good talent, and that's why teams like Alabama and USC have been consistent winners using their decidedly non-spread attacks. A team with good talent wins; a spread offense might cover up the holes a bit better talent-wise against mediocre clubs, but against more talented outfits they usually have trouble. I do agree that the Big 10 has had some trouble in the past letting go of methods that used to work, but no more than teams in other major conferences. The reason the Ole Miss's and Texas Tech's of the world take a chance on the new systems is because they haven't experienced success before, so you are not trading in a working model for the unknown. Teams like Nebraska, OSU, Oklahoma, UM, etc. always won, so the argument went that there was no need to try to fix it. I agree that was a detriment to the teams being consistently competitive as the years went on and talent distribution leveled out (the biggest reason, IMO, why more teams are successful is due to the reduction in scholarships), but I can also understand why they viewed some of the systems as more "fad" than anything else. UM will succeed when RR has talented players on both sides of the ball, and that would be true irrespective of the system he runs. The SEC has experienced some recent success because they have top-flight talent and creative coaches, but they also succeed because the BCS is set up such that two teams from basically 4 conferences - Big 10, SEC, Big 12, and Pac 10 - are going to play for the title each year. Sure, a resurgent Miami or VT might sneak in one year, but those four conferences have a virtual monopoly on who plays for the MNC. Alabama and Florida were ordained as potential MNC players, so irrespective of how they did on the field, they were always going to be in the mix. Right now, I think the SEC is a very good conference with exceptional PR, and was once the case for the ACC, Big 12, and especially late 90s, early 00s, the Big 10. While most would view Florida's shellacking on an overrated Cincy team in turmoil over the lost of its coach, and Alabama's nail-bitter against a freshman playing his first game of the year, as signs that maybe those teams were not as good as advertised, the story is that the SEC is dominant and every other conference sucks. I simply don't believe in that, and once the Big 10 continues to win hopefully that story will change.

2. Modernization of Big Ten offenses. When Michigan succeeds again with a spread offense, it will officially become "the" offense in the conference. So far, it has been mostly bottom feeders using the spread to get into the middle of the conference, but they need one elite team to succeed with the spread. That will be Michigan.

Ohio State, Penn State, Iowa and Wisconsin were all successful in their bowl games without the spread offense. And yes, Penn State's "spread HD" was not utilised. Pro-style offenses can and will win games, they did durintg the bowl season. The spread is not a prerequisite for success.

3. Speed over bulk. The age-old argument that "you need those big guys to compete in Big Ten weather" is being proven wrong. Strength and levarage mean more than bulk, and bulk lowers speed. The fast teams are winning everything now; the old-style Big Ten dinosaurs are quickly becoming extinct.

Again, the Big Ten proved this year that this is false. Wisconsin is big. They have a big offensive line. They have a big defense. They shut down Miami's "faster" atheletes. John Clay and Monte Ball ran over and around people all game, and Lance Kendricks was able to consistently get open against safeties and linebackers, and he's a tight end. Speed and Size are not mutually exclusive either. Look at Iowa's defensive line, they were bigger than Georgia Tech's undersized spread offensive line yet dominated them all game long with their athleticism. The fast teams may be winning everything now but it's because they're big and fast.

And you consider that to be a problem?