I was talking about the past decade or so. These kinds of complaints about the SEC have been going on for at least a decade and have some merit.

They have been somewhat better with their scheduling lately. For example, Bama actually played a true ooc road game, struggling at USF. Some of them have played meaningful games against good opponents. But not always.

You listed good examples although some people might quibble about some of them. Your list of Big 13 opponents should include Pitt. To their credit, WVU played both Penn State & Pitt this season, unfortunately losing to both.

It depends on how you define "patsy." Most of those you listed were teams the P4 team should have beaten. That is probably a decent definition. But it also depends on level. UTSA & Tulane are probably better opponents than Tarleton, Albany, or Long Island. App State is a team that the Aggies should have beaten but lost. At the time, an Aggie friend said they were Michigan! LOL
But we have no room to gloat, losing to Texas State last year and both Liberty & UTSA in 2017.

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

historian said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

Why? What makes their scheduling any worse than anyone else's ? They play easy OOC teams.. as does literally everyone else. They also yearly produce several of the best teams in CFB. Results tend to speak for themselves.
They tend to play much tougher conference games as a whole compared the ACC, B12, P12 (RIP)

---

SEC schedules tend to be about the same as everyone else but they are treated as exceptional even when they are not. Just look at the preseason rankings every year, and often for the first few weeks of the season. A&M is an excellent: always ranked high before that first game, often unranked or barely ranked by the end. It's that way for lots of their teams. Also, they play as many creampuffs as others or maybe more but not punished for it. The clincher is that Bama, Aggie, & others play one in November while Big 12 & others don't.

There are other scheduling quirks as well. Only one ooc P5 or P4 game and rarely a true road game. Bama often played those in Atlanta which is essentially a home game for them. And they didn't exactly play powerhouses in those games: WVU, Miami, etc. At least the Aggies played Clemson when they were still national contenders.

I think many people criticize SEC schedules (& everything else) out of jealousy or some other emotion. But the criticism does have some merits.

---

Disagree. They may have one less conference game, but look at the teams they have played so far this year out of conference:

Clemson
Miami FL
Note Dame
USC
Michigan
Wisconsin
Oklahoma St
Virginia Tech
NC State
Wake Forest
Boston College
Tulane
Houston

The Big 12 has played:

Iowa
Penn St
Arkansas
Illinois
Tulane

---

This essentially sums it up the fallacy of any counterarguments to the SEC's scheduling, as the SEC has earned its overall reputation over the years through out of conference wins

---

You are making erroneous conclusions based on a tiny subset of data. The SEC is superior now, but that was not the case for 95% of CFB's history. The sec wasn't anything special from 1900 up until after the BCS started. I've been watching football since 1990 and the SEC didn't dominate anything until about 2010.

They were always know for playing a ton of pansies and a lot of folks complained about it. It wasn't until Saban went on his run that the myth of superiority began to turn into reality. But it wasn't just that, it was a planned and concerted effort long before Sabans run for the SEC to game the system, which has brought us to where we are today.

A big part of that gaming was uneven scheduling. Lots of pansies and a cupcake in November. Less conference losses = more bowl invites = more prestige. Then manipulating the BCS (SEC commissioner ran the darn thing) guaranteeing a spot almost every year. 4 team playoff? SEC gets 2 spots. 12 team playoff? 5-6 spots guaranteed. How can they not succeed? Everything is tilted in their favor. It's why UT and OU finally bolted, they realized there was no fighting against it.

---

The SEC, Although not as dominant as it is now, was probably the best conference in the country even before the BCS. Their problem was that a vote determined who the best team was, and the south was under represented in the media. It was also harder to go undefeated in the SEC because there were generally four or five teams that were really good every year. The big eight had Nebraska and Oklahoma, and the Big Ten had Ohio State and Penn State… And sometimes Michigan. The BCS has actually been good for the SEC because it allows things to be settled on the field and gives more than one conference team a chance.

Now, with the advent of a 12 team playoff, the SEC may win pretty much every year. Even with the 4 team playoff, FIVE different SEC teams have 13 national championships in the last 18 years. That is unreal.

I haven't watched enough or tried to analyze but that sounds correct. I just had a vague sense that they had serious problems. We have had our fair share in since Briles. I hope we have finally gotten past that and can get back to winning regularly.

historian said:

---

I was talking about the past decade or so. These kinds of complaints about the SEC have been going on for at least a decade and have some merit.

They have been somewhat better with their scheduling lately. For example, Bama actually played a true ooc road game, struggling at USF. Some of them have played meaningful games against good opponents. But not always.

You listed good examples although some people might quibble about some of them. Your list of Big 13 opponents should include Pitt. To their credit, WVU played both Penn State & Pitt this season, unfortunately losing to both.

---

Yep, you're right on Pitt. I was just scanning the Games where one team was ranked, so I may have missed a few.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

historian said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

Why? What makes their scheduling any worse than anyone else's ? They play easy OOC teams.. as does literally everyone else. They also yearly produce several of the best teams in CFB. Results tend to speak for themselves.
They tend to play much tougher conference games as a whole compared the ACC, B12, P12 (RIP)

---

SEC schedules tend to be about the same as everyone else but they are treated as exceptional even when they are not. Just look at the preseason rankings every year, and often for the first few weeks of the season. A&M is an excellent: always ranked high before that first game, often unranked or barely ranked by the end. It's that way for lots of their teams. Also, they play as many creampuffs as others or maybe more but not punished for it. The clincher is that Bama, Aggie, & others play one in November while Big 12 & others don't.

There are other scheduling quirks as well. Only one ooc P5 or P4 game and rarely a true road game. Bama often played those in Atlanta which is essentially a home game for them. And they didn't exactly play powerhouses in those games: WVU, Miami, etc. At least the Aggies played Clemson when they were still national contenders.

I think many people criticize SEC schedules (& everything else) out of jealousy or some other emotion. But the criticism does have some merits.

---

Disagree. They may have one less conference game, but look at the teams they have played so far this year out of conference:

Clemson
Miami FL
Note Dame
USC
Michigan
Wisconsin
Oklahoma St
Virginia Tech
NC State
Wake Forest
Boston College
Tulane
Houston

The Big 12 has played:

Iowa
Penn St
Arkansas
Illinois
Tulane

---

This essentially sums it up the fallacy of any counterarguments to the SEC's scheduling, as the SEC has earned its overall reputation over the years through out of conference wins - whether in the regular season or in the post season - and that's one of the places it has pulled away from the Big 12 (also recruiting, tv ratings, money, influence, etc.).

If we assume that Oklahoma State is a frontrunner for the Big 12, does anyone believe that the top 6 teams in the SEC would struggle with Arkansas? Similarly, if we assume Kansas State is a frontrunner for the Big 12, does anyone believe that the top 6 teams in the SEC would struggle with Tulane?

---

The transitive property is a terrible way to evaluate college football teams, especially three weeks into a season. Other than maybe Texas and Alabama, we don't know how good or bad anyone is yet. Almost no one has played anybody of note.

---

Who from the below list do you believe would struggle with Arkansas, Oklahoma State, Kansas State or Tulane?

Texas
Georgia
Alabama
(Gap)
Ole Miss
Tennessee
Missouri
(Smaller Gap)
Oklahoma
LSU
South Carolina

Take your time.

---

Georgia struggled against Kentucky. Tennessee might be really good this year but their season could easily fall apart halfway through. That's more likely true with Mizzou & maybe Ole Miss. The three after your "smaller gap" might all struggle against the teams listed at the top.

Admittedly, my views of these teams is their performance over the past 10-12 years. Obviously, they might do something really special this year but we have no reason to expect it and if they do it will likely be a one year phenomenon, like we had in 2021.

The problem with all of this kind of talk is that each team has played only 3 games and 1-2 of those were cupcakes. We really don't know how good most of these teams really are and won't know for a few more weeks. We also must factor in player development, injuries, etc. Like every year, there will be lots of great college football games. I don't plan to watch a whole lot of it outside the Big 12 because I'm not as interested & I must be selective in what I do watch.

What we do know is the SEC sportswriters and coaches who have a vote in the polls load up SEC Teams at the top every year… Then when the better teams emerge they beat "highly ranked teams." Juicing their rankings…Happens every year and this year may be the most egregious.

We have to account for the fact that the P10 played a round robin, which is tougher to get through unscathed.

The sec had a split division format that started in the 90's. You don't have to play the toughest teams each year with that setup. I don't remember when they added an sec champ game, but it was definitely in place by 2003, because LSU beat Georgia in the sec champ game that year. That champ game also aided the perception and the narrative the sec constantly ran, which was they were the best. It was a load of ****, then.


Let's look at those early BCS years.

1998 Tenn
1999 FL St
2000 Oklahoma
2001 Miami
2002 Ohio St
2003 LSU
2004 USC
2005 Texas
2006 Florida
2007 LSU

SEC 4 titles in 10 years
B12 2 titles in 10 years
ACC 2 titles in 10 years
P10 1 title in 10 years
B10 1 title in 10 years

Let's give USC those titles in 2003 and 2007, it completely changes the trajectory of the sport and likely slows down the SEC from going on a tear starting in 2006

1998 Tenn
1999 FL St
2000 Oklahoma
2001 Miami
2002 Ohio St
2003 USC
2004 USC
2005 Texas
2006 Florida
2007 USC

P10 3 titles in 10 years
SEC 2 titles in 10 years
B12 2 titles in 10 years
ACC 2 titles in 10 years
B10 1 title in 10 years

Chuckroast said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

historian said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

Why? What makes their scheduling any worse than anyone else's ? They play easy OOC teams.. as does literally everyone else. They also yearly produce several of the best teams in CFB. Results tend to speak for themselves.
They tend to play much tougher conference games as a whole compared the ACC, B12, P12 (RIP)

---

SEC schedules tend to be about the same as everyone else but they are treated as exceptional even when they are not. Just look at the preseason rankings every year, and often for the first few weeks of the season. A&M is an excellent: always ranked high before that first game, often unranked or barely ranked by the end. It's that way for lots of their teams. Also, they play as many creampuffs as others or maybe more but not punished for it. The clincher is that Bama, Aggie, & others play one in November while Big 12 & others don't.

There are other scheduling quirks as well. Only one ooc P5 or P4 game and rarely a true road game. Bama often played those in Atlanta which is essentially a home game for them. And they didn't exactly play powerhouses in those games: WVU, Miami, etc. At least the Aggies played Clemson when they were still national contenders.

I think many people criticize SEC schedules (& everything else) out of jealousy or some other emotion. But the criticism does have some merits.

---

Disagree. They may have one less conference game, but look at the teams they have played so far this year out of conference:

Clemson
Miami FL
Note Dame
USC
Michigan
Wisconsin
Oklahoma St
Virginia Tech
NC State
Wake Forest
Boston College
Tulane
Houston

The Big 12 has played:

Iowa
Penn St
Arkansas
Illinois
Tulane

---

This essentially sums it up the fallacy of any counterarguments to the SEC's scheduling, as the SEC has earned its overall reputation over the years through out of conference wins

---

You are making erroneous conclusions based on a tiny subset of data. The SEC is superior now, but that was not the case for 95% of CFB's history. The sec wasn't anything special from 1900 up until after the BCS started. I've been watching football since 1990 and the SEC didn't dominate anything until about 2010.

They were always know for playing a ton of pansies and a lot of folks complained about it. It wasn't until Saban went on his run that the myth of superiority began to turn into reality. But it wasn't just that, it was a planned and concerted effort long before Sabans run for the SEC to game the system, which has brought us to where we are today.

A big part of that gaming was uneven scheduling. Lots of pansies and a cupcake in November. Less conference losses = more bowl invites = more prestige. Then manipulating the BCS (SEC commissioner ran the darn thing) guaranteeing a spot almost every year. 4 team playoff? SEC gets 2 spots. 12 team playoff? 5-6 spots guaranteed. How can they not succeed? Everything is tilted in their favor. It's why UT and OU finally bolted, they realized there was no fighting against it.

---

The SEC, Although not as dominant as it is now, was probably the best conference in the country even before the BCS. Their problem was that a vote determined who the best team was, and the south was under represented in the media.

---

OK, the lack of media is a fair take. That would take quite a bit of research to flesh out.

I would counter that media and computer bias is what helped propel the SEC during the BCS era and enabled them to achieve where they are today. It was constantly noted how great they were from 1998-2007 and that just was not the case. They were overly represented in BCS title games. Once they strung together those MNC's (2006-2013), there was really no going back because recruiting shifted and perception turned into reality.

I will add, we (Baylor) got hosed in 2013 and 2014. We should have been in the MNC in at least one of those years. However, we were fighting against bias that is rampant in the sport. Small school, not in the SEC. The deck was stacked then and things are so different now, we aren't even really playing the same game.

bear2be2 said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

Where did he declare Ole Miss great? You keep putting words in his mouth he ask you a very simple question. Would you pick either of those teams to beat Ole Miss right now. It was a trick question

---

They're not playing, so who gives a ****? I don't know how to make it any clearer that I don't give a **** who is or is not better in Week 4. All I'm saying is we don't have nearly enough data yet to form an educated opinion one way or the other. And people make these same bull**** arguments about teams every year around this time that prove to be 100 percent wrong.

It is a stupid exercise.

---

Then just answer the question with "no". It's that simple.

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

historian said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

Why? What makes their scheduling any worse than anyone else's ? They play easy OOC teams.. as does literally everyone else. They also yearly produce several of the best teams in CFB. Results tend to speak for themselves.
They tend to play much tougher conference games as a whole compared the ACC, B12, P12 (RIP)

---

SEC schedules tend to be about the same as everyone else but they are treated as exceptional even when they are not. Just look at the preseason rankings every year, and often for the first few weeks of the season. A&M is an excellent: always ranked high before that first game, often unranked or barely ranked by the end. It's that way for lots of their teams. Also, they play as many creampuffs as others or maybe more but not punished for it. The clincher is that Bama, Aggie, & others play one in November while Big 12 & others don't.

There are other scheduling quirks as well. Only one ooc P5 or P4 game and rarely a true road game. Bama often played those in Atlanta which is essentially a home game for them. And they didn't exactly play powerhouses in those games: WVU, Miami, etc. At least the Aggies played Clemson when they were still national contenders.

I think many people criticize SEC schedules (& everything else) out of jealousy or some other emotion. But the criticism does have some merits.

---

Disagree. They may have one less conference game, but look at the teams they have played so far this year out of conference:

Clemson
Miami FL
Note Dame
USC
Michigan
Wisconsin
Oklahoma St
Virginia Tech
NC State
Wake Forest
Boston College
Tulane
Houston

The Big 12 has played:

Iowa
Penn St
Arkansas
Illinois
Tulane

---

This essentially sums it up the fallacy of any counterarguments to the SEC's scheduling, as the SEC has earned its overall reputation over the years through out of conference wins

---

You are making erroneous conclusions based on a tiny subset of data. The SEC is superior now, but that was not the case for 95% of CFB's history. The sec wasn't anything special from 1900 up until after the BCS started. I've been watching football since 1990 and the SEC didn't dominate anything until about 2010.

They were always know for playing a ton of pansies and a lot of folks complained about it. It wasn't until Saban went on his run that the myth of superiority began to turn into reality. But it wasn't just that, it was a planned and concerted effort long before Sabans run for the SEC to game the system, which has brought us to where we are today.

A big part of that gaming was uneven scheduling. Lots of pansies and a cupcake in November. Less conference losses = more bowl invites = more prestige. Then manipulating the BCS (SEC commissioner ran the darn thing) guaranteeing a spot almost every year. 4 team playoff? SEC gets 2 spots. 12 team playoff? 5-6 spots guaranteed. How can they not succeed? Everything is tilted in their favor. It's why UT and OU finally bolted, they realized there was no fighting against it.

---

The SEC, Although not as dominant as it is now, was probably the best conference in the country even before the BCS. Their problem was that a vote determined who the best team was, and the south was under represented in the media.

---

OK, the lack of media is a fair take. That would take quite a bit of research to flesh out.

I would counter that media and computer bias is what helped propel the SEC during the BCS era and enabled them to achieve where they are today. It was constantly noted how great they were from 1998-2007 and that just was not the case. They were overly represented in BCS title games. Once they strung together those MNC's (2006-2013), there was really no going back because recruiting shifted and perception turned into reality.

I will add, we (Baylor) got hosed in 2013 and 2014. We should have been in the playoff at least one of those years. However, we were fighting against bias that is rampant in the sport. Small school, not in the SEC. The deck was stacked then and things are so different now, we aren't even really playing the same game.

---

The playoff didn't exist in 2013, and the 2014 Baylor team had clear weaknesses - no P5 game out of conference, no conference championship game, etc.

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

historian said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

Why? What makes their scheduling any worse than anyone else's ? They play easy OOC teams.. as does literally everyone else. They also yearly produce several of the best teams in CFB. Results tend to speak for themselves.
They tend to play much tougher conference games as a whole compared the ACC, B12, P12 (RIP)

---

SEC schedules tend to be about the same as everyone else but they are treated as exceptional even when they are not. Just look at the preseason rankings every year, and often for the first few weeks of the season. A&M is an excellent: always ranked high before that first game, often unranked or barely ranked by the end. It's that way for lots of their teams. Also, they play as many creampuffs as others or maybe more but not punished for it. The clincher is that Bama, Aggie, & others play one in November while Big 12 & others don't.

There are other scheduling quirks as well. Only one ooc P5 or P4 game and rarely a true road game. Bama often played those in Atlanta which is essentially a home game for them. And they didn't exactly play powerhouses in those games: WVU, Miami, etc. At least the Aggies played Clemson when they were still national contenders.

I think many people criticize SEC schedules (& everything else) out of jealousy or some other emotion. But the criticism does have some merits.

---

Disagree. They may have one less conference game, but look at the teams they have played so far this year out of conference:

Clemson
Miami FL
Note Dame
USC
Michigan
Wisconsin
Oklahoma St
Virginia Tech
NC State
Wake Forest
Boston College
Tulane
Houston

The Big 12 has played:

Iowa
Penn St
Arkansas
Illinois
Tulane

---

This essentially sums it up the fallacy of any counterarguments to the SEC's scheduling, as the SEC has earned its overall reputation over the years through out of conference wins

---

You are making erroneous conclusions based on a tiny subset of data. The SEC is superior now, but that was not the case for 95% of CFB's history. The sec wasn't anything special from 1900 up until after the BCS started. I've been watching football since 1990 and the SEC didn't dominate anything until about 2010.

They were always know for playing a ton of pansies and a lot of folks complained about it. It wasn't until Saban went on his run that the myth of superiority began to turn into reality. But it wasn't just that, it was a planned and concerted effort long before Sabans run for the SEC to game the system, which has brought us to where we are today.

A big part of that gaming was uneven scheduling. Lots of pansies and a cupcake in November. Less conference losses = more bowl invites = more prestige. Then manipulating the BCS (SEC commissioner ran the darn thing) guaranteeing a spot almost every year. 4 team playoff? SEC gets 2 spots. 12 team playoff? 5-6 spots guaranteed. How can they not succeed? Everything is tilted in their favor. It's why UT and OU finally bolted, they realized there was no fighting against it.

---

The SEC, Although not as dominant as it is now, was probably the best conference in the country even before the BCS. Their problem was that a vote determined who the best team was, and the south was under represented in the media.

---

OK, the lack of media is a fair take. That would take quite a bit of research to flesh out.

I would counter that media and computer bias is what helped propel the SEC during the BCS era and enabled them to achieve where they are today. It was constantly noted how great they were from 1998-2007 and that just was not the case. They were overly represented in BCS title games. Once they strung together those MNC's (2006-2013), there was really no going back because recruiting shifted and perception turned into reality.

I will add, we (Baylor) got hosed in 2013 and 2014. We should have been in the playoff at least one of those years. However, we were fighting against bias that is rampant in the sport. Small school, not in the SEC. The deck was stacked then and things are so different now, we aren't even really playing the same game.

---

Even in the BCS era, Auburn went undefeated in 2004 and it was snubbed in the championship game because they wanted Oklahoma and USC. There was certainly no SEC bias that year. Once they had the opportunity to decide things on the field, the SEC started a remarkable run.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

Where did he declare Ole Miss great? You keep putting words in his mouth he ask you a very simple question. Would you pick either of those teams to beat Ole Miss right now. It was a trick question

---

They're not playing, so who gives a ****? I don't know how to make it any clearer that I don't give a **** who is or is not better in Week 4. All I'm saying is we don't have nearly enough data yet to form an educated opinion one way or the other. And people make these same bull**** arguments about teams every year around this time that prove to be 100 percent wrong.

It is a stupid exercise.

---

Then just answer the question with "no". It's that simple.

---

I'm not playing your stupid game. I don't make definitive judgments on teams based on three-game samples against cupcake opponents.

I've already said at the beginning of this thread that I think the Big 12's best teams would look just fine on a field with Ole Miss and Missouri. Those would be competitive games.

bear2be2 said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

So your opinion is that the SEC started to dominate when they (SEC) took over control of who made the playoffs? Seems rather far fetched and conspiracy based. Even if there was a smidge of truth to that how do you explain the SEC dominating on the field? Are the games rigged too?

---

He's not that far off. In the early days of the Big 12, it was a much stronger conference top to bottom than the SEC. The SEC slowly started to take over college football in the early aughts with the help of ESPN.

SEC football was a lot like Big 12 basketball in there was a "fake it 'til you make it" element to its national takeover. The national perception that it was the undisputed best in college football existed before it actually was. I think the same could be argued of Big 12 basketball.

But once the quality of play started to match the perception, it was all over from there because competition took over and success bred success.

---

I think the Tide (literally) turned as soon as Colt Mccoy got hurt in 09. After that it was all Bama and Sec from that point and Texas being down, and the departure of aggy/miz/neb helped doom the b12 and cement the SEC as the best league.

Also, I think that the SEC really does mean more to the South. In Texas we have HS football, college and the cowboys etc. In Dallas in particular most random people are pro fans. Go to bama, georgia or S Carolina and they're SEC fans first and many dont even care about pro teams.

muddybrazos said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

So your opinion is that the SEC started to dominate when they (SEC) took over control of who made the playoffs? Seems rather far fetched and conspiracy based. Even if there was a smidge of truth to that how do you explain the SEC dominating on the field? Are the games rigged too?

---

He's not that far off. In the early days of the Big 12, it was a much stronger conference top to bottom than the SEC. The SEC slowly started to take over college football in the early aughts with the help of ESPN.

SEC football was a lot like Big 12 basketball in there was a "fake it 'til you make it" element to its national takeover. The national perception that it was the undisputed best in college football existed before it actually was. I think the same could be argued of Big 12 basketball.

But once the quality of play started to match the perception, it was all over from there because competition took over and success bred success.

---

I think the Tide (literally) turned as soon as Colt Mccoy got hurt in 09. After that it was all Bama and Sec from that point and Texas being down, and the departure of aggy/miz/neb helped doom the b12 and cement the SEC as the best league.

Also, I think that the SEC really does mean more to the South. In Texas we have HS football, college and the cowboys etc. In Dallas in particular most random people are pro fans. Go to bama, georgia or S Carolina and they're SEC fans first and many dont even care about pro teams.

---

Agreed. There's a reason ESPN went all in on the SEC. As college football goes, there's no more passionate or engaged fan base.

My only issue is the obvious conflict of interests. ESPN's outsized power and influence in college football tipped the scales in the SEC's favor. That league's rise was in many ways manufactured.

And the frustrating part is we're seeing history repeat itself with FOX and the Big Ten. That's not even a good football league, and we're being coaxed into believing that it's an equal of the SEC and head and shoulders above everyone else. With the media machine in full propaganda mode, perception and reality will meet at some point as the resource divide ensures the media's desired outcome.

bear2be2 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

So your opinion is that the SEC started to dominate when they (SEC) took over control of who made the playoffs? Seems rather far fetched and conspiracy based. Even if there was a smidge of truth to that how do you explain the SEC dominating on the field? Are the games rigged too?

---

He's not that far off. In the early days of the Big 12, it was a much stronger conference top to bottom than the SEC. The SEC slowly started to take over college football in the early aughts with the help of ESPN.

SEC football was a lot like Big 12 basketball in there was a "fake it 'til you make it" element to its national takeover. The national perception that it was the undisputed best in college football existed before it actually was. I think the same could be argued of Big 12 basketball.

But once the quality of play started to match the perception, it was all over from there because competition took over and success bred success.

---

I think the Tide (literally) turned as soon as Colt Mccoy got hurt in 09. After that it was all Bama and Sec from that point and Texas being down, and the departure of aggy/miz/neb helped doom the b12 and cement the SEC as the best league.

Also, I think that the SEC really does mean more to the South. In Texas we have HS football, college and the cowboys etc. In Dallas in particular most random people are pro fans. Go to bama, georgia or S Carolina and they're SEC fans first and many dont even care about pro teams.

---

Agreed. There's a reason ESPN went all in on the SEC. As college football goes, there's no more passionate or engaged fan base.

My only issue is the obvious conflict of interests. ESPN's outsized power and influence in college football tipped the scales in the SEC's favor. That league's rise was in many ways manufactured.

And the frustrating part is we're seeing history repeat itself with FOX and the Big Ten. That's not even a good football league, and we're being coaxed into believing that it's an equal of the SEC and head and shoulders above everyone else. With the media machine in full propaganda mode, perception and reality will meet at some point as the resource divide ensures the media's desired outcome.

---

The big10 will never be close to as good on the field as the SEC. They still have to come to Texas, Florida and the rest of the South for most of their players. ESPN and FOX can hype the b10 all they want but it will never measure up. Maybe that means the big10 has to add Clemson and FSU to get more of a foothold in the region but I guess we will see how that plays out.

muddybrazos said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

So your opinion is that the SEC started to dominate when they (SEC) took over control of who made the playoffs? Seems rather far fetched and conspiracy based. Even if there was a smidge of truth to that how do you explain the SEC dominating on the field? Are the games rigged too?

---

He's not that far off. In the early days of the Big 12, it was a much stronger conference top to bottom than the SEC. The SEC slowly started to take over college football in the early aughts with the help of ESPN.

SEC football was a lot like Big 12 basketball in there was a "fake it 'til you make it" element to its national takeover. The national perception that it was the undisputed best in college football existed before it actually was. I think the same could be argued of Big 12 basketball.

But once the quality of play started to match the perception, it was all over from there because competition took over and success bred success.

---

I think the Tide (literally) turned as soon as Colt Mccoy got hurt in 09. After that it was all Bama and Sec from that point and Texas being down, and the departure of aggy/miz/neb helped doom the b12 and cement the SEC as the best league.

Also, I think that the SEC really does mean more to the South. In Texas we have HS football, college and the cowboys etc. In Dallas in particular most random people are pro fans. Go to bama, georgia or S Carolina and they're SEC fans first and many dont even care about pro teams.

---

Agreed. There's a reason ESPN went all in on the SEC. As college football goes, there's no more passionate or engaged fan base.

My only issue is the obvious conflict of interests. ESPN's outsized power and influence in college football tipped the scales in the SEC's favor. That league's rise was in many ways manufactured.

And the frustrating part is we're seeing history repeat itself with FOX and the Big Ten. That's not even a good football league, and we're being coaxed into believing that it's an equal of the SEC and head and shoulders above everyone else. With the media machine in full propaganda mode, perception and reality will meet at some point as the resource divide ensures the media's desired outcome.

---

The big10 will never be close to as good on the field as the SEC. They still have to come to Texas, Florida and the rest of the South for most of their players. ESPN and FOX can hype the b10 all they want but it will never measure up. Maybe that means the big10 has to add Clemson and FSU to get more of a foothold in the region but I guess we will see how that plays out.

---

Whether it's as good as the SEC or not, it's being artificially boosted into that strata. And eventually the performance level will improve as a result.

muddybrazos said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

So your opinion is that the SEC started to dominate when they (SEC) took over control of who made the playoffs? Seems rather far fetched and conspiracy based. Even if there was a smidge of truth to that how do you explain the SEC dominating on the field? Are the games rigged too?

---

He's not that far off. In the early days of the Big 12, it was a much stronger conference top to bottom than the SEC. The SEC slowly started to take over college football in the early aughts with the help of ESPN.

SEC football was a lot like Big 12 basketball in there was a "fake it 'til you make it" element to its national takeover. The national perception that it was the undisputed best in college football existed before it actually was. I think the same could be argued of Big 12 basketball.

But once the quality of play started to match the perception, it was all over from there because competition took over and success bred success.

---

I think the Tide (literally) turned as soon as Colt Mccoy got hurt in 09. After that it was all Bama and Sec from that point and Texas being down, and the departure of aggy/miz/neb helped doom the b12 and cement the SEC as the best league.

Also, I think that the SEC really does mean more to the South. In Texas we have HS football, college and the cowboys etc. In Dallas in particular most random people are pro fans. Go to bama, georgia or S Carolina and they're SEC fans first and many dont even care about pro teams.

---

True, many states in the south don't have pro teams. College football is definitely king … even in my home state of Tennessee

bear2be2 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

So your opinion is that the SEC started to dominate when they (SEC) took over control of who made the playoffs? Seems rather far fetched and conspiracy based. Even if there was a smidge of truth to that how do you explain the SEC dominating on the field? Are the games rigged too?

---

He's not that far off. In the early days of the Big 12, it was a much stronger conference top to bottom than the SEC. The SEC slowly started to take over college football in the early aughts with the help of ESPN.

SEC football was a lot like Big 12 basketball in there was a "fake it 'til you make it" element to its national takeover. The national perception that it was the undisputed best in college football existed before it actually was. I think the same could be argued of Big 12 basketball.

But once the quality of play started to match the perception, it was all over from there because competition took over and success bred success.

---

I think the Tide (literally) turned as soon as Colt Mccoy got hurt in 09. After that it was all Bama and Sec from that point and Texas being down, and the departure of aggy/miz/neb helped doom the b12 and cement the SEC as the best league.

Also, I think that the SEC really does mean more to the South. In Texas we have HS football, college and the cowboys etc. In Dallas in particular most random people are pro fans. Go to bama, georgia or S Carolina and they're SEC fans first and many dont even care about pro teams.

---

Agreed. There's a reason ESPN went all in on the SEC. As college football goes, there's no more passionate or engaged fan base.

My only issue is the obvious conflict of interests. ESPN's outsized power and influence in college football tipped the scales in the SEC's favor. That league's rise was in many ways manufactured.

And the frustrating part is we're seeing history repeat itself with FOX and the Big Ten. That's not even a good football league, and we're being coaxed into believing that it's an equal of the SEC and head and shoulders above everyone else. With the media machine in full propaganda mode, perception and reality will meet at some point as the resource divide ensures the media's desired outcome.

---

Couldn't agree more on the Big Ten. I believe there has been bias in the media for that league for decades. With the exception of Ohio State, that conference has been mostly mediocre. However, every year they were considered on par or sometimes better than the SEC until about 15 years ago when the SEC went on its run. They're still considered to be on par with the SEC which is ridiculous.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

historian said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

Why? What makes their scheduling any worse than anyone else's ? They play easy OOC teams.. as does literally everyone else. They also yearly produce several of the best teams in CFB. Results tend to speak for themselves.
They tend to play much tougher conference games as a whole compared the ACC, B12, P12 (RIP)

---

SEC schedules tend to be about the same as everyone else but they are treated as exceptional even when they are not. Just look at the preseason rankings every year, and often for the first few weeks of the season. A&M is an excellent: always ranked high before that first game, often unranked or barely ranked by the end. It's that way for lots of their teams. Also, they play as many creampuffs as others or maybe more but not punished for it. The clincher is that Bama, Aggie, & others play one in November while Big 12 & others don't.

There are other scheduling quirks as well. Only one ooc P5 or P4 game and rarely a true road game. Bama often played those in Atlanta which is essentially a home game for them. And they didn't exactly play powerhouses in those games: WVU, Miami, etc. At least the Aggies played Clemson when they were still national contenders.

I think many people criticize SEC schedules (& everything else) out of jealousy or some other emotion. But the criticism does have some merits.

---

Disagree. They may have one less conference game, but look at the teams they have played so far this year out of conference:

Clemson
Miami FL
Note Dame
USC
Michigan
Wisconsin
Oklahoma St
Virginia Tech
NC State
Wake Forest
Boston College
Tulane
Houston

The Big 12 has played:

Iowa
Penn St
Arkansas
Illinois
Tulane

---

This essentially sums it up the fallacy of any counterarguments to the SEC's scheduling, as the SEC has earned its overall reputation over the years through out of conference wins

---

You are making erroneous conclusions based on a tiny subset of data. The SEC is superior now, but that was not the case for 95% of CFB's history. The sec wasn't anything special from 1900 up until after the BCS started. I've been watching football since 1990 and the SEC didn't dominate anything until about 2010.

They were always know for playing a ton of pansies and a lot of folks complained about it. It wasn't until Saban went on his run that the myth of superiority began to turn into reality. But it wasn't just that, it was a planned and concerted effort long before Sabans run for the SEC to game the system, which has brought us to where we are today.

A big part of that gaming was uneven scheduling. Lots of pansies and a cupcake in November. Less conference losses = more bowl invites = more prestige. Then manipulating the BCS (SEC commissioner ran the darn thing) guaranteeing a spot almost every year. 4 team playoff? SEC gets 2 spots. 12 team playoff? 5-6 spots guaranteed. How can they not succeed? Everything is tilted in their favor. It's why UT and OU finally bolted, they realized there was no fighting against it.

---

The SEC, Although not as dominant as it is now, was probably the best conference in the country even before the BCS. Their problem was that a vote determined who the best team was, and the south was under represented in the media.

---

OK, the lack of media is a fair take. That would take quite a bit of research to flesh out.

I would counter that media and computer bias is what helped propel the SEC during the BCS era and enabled them to achieve where they are today. It was constantly noted how great they were from 1998-2007 and that just was not the case. They were overly represented in BCS title games. Once they strung together those MNC's (2006-2013), there was really no going back because recruiting shifted and perception turned into reality.

I will add, we (Baylor) got hosed in 2013 and 2014. We should have been in the MNC at least one of those years. However, we were fighting against bias that is rampant in the sport. Small school, not in the SEC. The deck was stacked then and things are so different now, we aren't even really playing the same game.

---

The playoff didn't exist in 2013, and the 2014 Baylor team had clear weaknesses - no P5 game out of conference, no conference championship game, etc.

---

The playoffs still don't exist. There has never been a real playoff system in the FBS.

Playoff, BSC National Championship Game, MNC, 2 team playoff, CFB 4 team playoff - all of those terms have been used over the years to describe the post season invitationals and crown the MNC.

As far as Baylor in 2013 and 2014 goes - we played 9 conference games. That's hard enough to get through and playing the same team twice in a CCG is pointless. The lack of that game should not have disqualified our entry. Just like the lack of a P10 CCG in 2003 and 2007 should not have left USC out of the MNC those years

Chuckroast said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

historian said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

Why? What makes their scheduling any worse than anyone else's ? They play easy OOC teams.. as does literally everyone else. They also yearly produce several of the best teams in CFB. Results tend to speak for themselves.
They tend to play much tougher conference games as a whole compared the ACC, B12, P12 (RIP)

---

SEC schedules tend to be about the same as everyone else but they are treated as exceptional even when they are not. Just look at the preseason rankings every year, and often for the first few weeks of the season. A&M is an excellent: always ranked high before that first game, often unranked or barely ranked by the end. It's that way for lots of their teams. Also, they play as many creampuffs as others or maybe more but not punished for it. The clincher is that Bama, Aggie, & others play one in November while Big 12 & others don't.

There are other scheduling quirks as well. Only one ooc P5 or P4 game and rarely a true road game. Bama often played those in Atlanta which is essentially a home game for them. And they didn't exactly play powerhouses in those games: WVU, Miami, etc. At least the Aggies played Clemson when they were still national contenders.

I think many people criticize SEC schedules (& everything else) out of jealousy or some other emotion. But the criticism does have some merits.

---

Disagree. They may have one less conference game, but look at the teams they have played so far this year out of conference:

Clemson
Miami FL
Note Dame
USC
Michigan
Wisconsin
Oklahoma St
Virginia Tech
NC State
Wake Forest
Boston College
Tulane
Houston

The Big 12 has played:

Iowa
Penn St
Arkansas
Illinois
Tulane

---

This essentially sums it up the fallacy of any counterarguments to the SEC's scheduling, as the SEC has earned its overall reputation over the years through out of conference wins

---

You are making erroneous conclusions based on a tiny subset of data. The SEC is superior now, but that was not the case for 95% of CFB's history. The sec wasn't anything special from 1900 up until after the BCS started. I've been watching football since 1990 and the SEC didn't dominate anything until about 2010.

They were always know for playing a ton of pansies and a lot of folks complained about it. It wasn't until Saban went on his run that the myth of superiority began to turn into reality. But it wasn't just that, it was a planned and concerted effort long before Sabans run for the SEC to game the system, which has brought us to where we are today.

A big part of that gaming was uneven scheduling. Lots of pansies and a cupcake in November. Less conference losses = more bowl invites = more prestige. Then manipulating the BCS (SEC commissioner ran the darn thing) guaranteeing a spot almost every year. 4 team playoff? SEC gets 2 spots. 12 team playoff? 5-6 spots guaranteed. How can they not succeed? Everything is tilted in their favor. It's why UT and OU finally bolted, they realized there was no fighting against it.

---

The SEC, Although not as dominant as it is now, was probably the best conference in the country even before the BCS. Their problem was that a vote determined who the best team was, and the south was under represented in the media.

---

OK, the lack of media is a fair take. That would take quite a bit of research to flesh out.

I would counter that media and computer bias is what helped propel the SEC during the BCS era and enabled them to achieve where they are today. It was constantly noted how great they were from 1998-2007 and that just was not the case. They were overly represented in BCS title games. Once they strung together those MNC's (2006-2013), there was really no going back because recruiting shifted and perception turned into reality.

I will add, we (Baylor) got hosed in 2013 and 2014. We should have been in the playoff at least one of those years. However, we were fighting against bias that is rampant in the sport. Small school, not in the SEC. The deck was stacked then and things are so different now, we aren't even really playing the same game.

---

Even in the BCS era, Auburn went undefeated in 2004 and it was snubbed in the championship game because they wanted Oklahoma and USC. There was certainly no SEC bias that year. Once they had the opportunity to decide things on the field, the SEC started a remarkable run.

---

Pointing out 1 SEC team that was snubbed between 1998-2013 does not bolster your argument.
USC was snubbed in 2003 and 2007 due to SEC bias. The 'remarkable run' was only made possible by said bias, among other things.

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

historian said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

Why? What makes their scheduling any worse than anyone else's ? They play easy OOC teams.. as does literally everyone else. They also yearly produce several of the best teams in CFB. Results tend to speak for themselves.
They tend to play much tougher conference games as a whole compared the ACC, B12, P12 (RIP)

---

SEC schedules tend to be about the same as everyone else but they are treated as exceptional even when they are not. Just look at the preseason rankings every year, and often for the first few weeks of the season. A&M is an excellent: always ranked high before that first game, often unranked or barely ranked by the end. It's that way for lots of their teams. Also, they play as many creampuffs as others or maybe more but not punished for it. The clincher is that Bama, Aggie, & others play one in November while Big 12 & others don't.

There are other scheduling quirks as well. Only one ooc P5 or P4 game and rarely a true road game. Bama often played those in Atlanta which is essentially a home game for them. And they didn't exactly play powerhouses in those games: WVU, Miami, etc. At least the Aggies played Clemson when they were still national contenders.

I think many people criticize SEC schedules (& everything else) out of jealousy or some other emotion. But the criticism does have some merits.

---

Disagree. They may have one less conference game, but look at the teams they have played so far this year out of conference:

Clemson
Miami FL
Note Dame
USC
Michigan
Wisconsin
Oklahoma St
Virginia Tech
NC State
Wake Forest
Boston College
Tulane
Houston

The Big 12 has played:

Iowa
Penn St
Arkansas
Illinois
Tulane

---

This essentially sums it up the fallacy of any counterarguments to the SEC's scheduling, as the SEC has earned its overall reputation over the years through out of conference wins

---

You are making erroneous conclusions based on a tiny subset of data. The SEC is superior now, but that was not the case for 95% of CFB's history. The sec wasn't anything special from 1900 up until after the BCS started. I've been watching football since 1990 and the SEC didn't dominate anything until about 2010.

They were always know for playing a ton of pansies and a lot of folks complained about it. It wasn't until Saban went on his run that the myth of superiority began to turn into reality. But it wasn't just that, it was a planned and concerted effort long before Sabans run for the SEC to game the system, which has brought us to where we are today.

A big part of that gaming was uneven scheduling. Lots of pansies and a cupcake in November. Less conference losses = more bowl invites = more prestige. Then manipulating the BCS (SEC commissioner ran the darn thing) guaranteeing a spot almost every year. 4 team playoff? SEC gets 2 spots. 12 team playoff? 5-6 spots guaranteed. How can they not succeed? Everything is tilted in their favor. It's why UT and OU finally bolted, they realized there was no fighting against it.

---

the Big 12 could have chosen to only play 8 conference games but it opted to not do so. Essentially, Big 12 fans cannot argue that the SEC has advantages that the Big 12 didn't have in terms of scheduling because the Big 12 voluntarily opted out of those advantages.

---

Those changes were not voluntary. The sec wrote the rules, took over the narrative and other conferences have been in the back seat ever since.

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

historian said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

Why? What makes their scheduling any worse than anyone else's ? They play easy OOC teams.. as does literally everyone else. They also yearly produce several of the best teams in CFB. Results tend to speak for themselves.
They tend to play much tougher conference games as a whole compared the ACC, B12, P12 (RIP)

---

SEC schedules tend to be about the same as everyone else but they are treated as exceptional even when they are not. Just look at the preseason rankings every year, and often for the first few weeks of the season. A&M is an excellent: always ranked high before that first game, often unranked or barely ranked by the end. It's that way for lots of their teams. Also, they play as many creampuffs as others or maybe more but not punished for it. The clincher is that Bama, Aggie, & others play one in November while Big 12 & others don't.

There are other scheduling quirks as well. Only one ooc P5 or P4 game and rarely a true road game. Bama often played those in Atlanta which is essentially a home game for them. And they didn't exactly play powerhouses in those games: WVU, Miami, etc. At least the Aggies played Clemson when they were still national contenders.

I think many people criticize SEC schedules (& everything else) out of jealousy or some other emotion. But the criticism does have some merits.

---

Disagree. They may have one less conference game, but look at the teams they have played so far this year out of conference:

Clemson
Miami FL
Note Dame
USC
Michigan
Wisconsin
Oklahoma St
Virginia Tech
NC State
Wake Forest
Boston College
Tulane
Houston

The Big 12 has played:

Iowa
Penn St
Arkansas
Illinois
Tulane

---

This essentially sums it up the fallacy of any counterarguments to the SEC's scheduling, as the SEC has earned its overall reputation over the years through out of conference wins

---

You are making erroneous conclusions based on a tiny subset of data. The SEC is superior now, but that was not the case for 95% of CFB's history. The sec wasn't anything special from 1900 up until after the BCS started. I've been watching football since 1990 and the SEC didn't dominate anything until about 2010.

They were always know for playing a ton of pansies and a lot of folks complained about it. It wasn't until Saban went on his run that the myth of superiority began to turn into reality. But it wasn't just that, it was a planned and concerted effort long before Sabans run for the SEC to game the system, which has brought us to where we are today.

A big part of that gaming was uneven scheduling. Lots of pansies and a cupcake in November. Less conference losses = more bowl invites = more prestige. Then manipulating the BCS (SEC commissioner ran the darn thing) guaranteeing a spot almost every year. 4 team playoff? SEC gets 2 spots. 12 team playoff? 5-6 spots guaranteed. How can they not succeed? Everything is tilted in their favor. It's why UT and OU finally bolted, they realized there was no fighting against it.

---

The SEC, Although not as dominant as it is now, was probably the best conference in the country even before the BCS. Their problem was that a vote determined who the best team was, and the south was under represented in the media.

---

OK, the lack of media is a fair take. That would take quite a bit of research to flesh out.

I would counter that media and computer bias is what helped propel the SEC during the BCS era and enabled them to achieve where they are today. It was constantly noted how great they were from 1998-2007 and that just was not the case. They were overly represented in BCS title games. Once they strung together those MNC's (2006-2013), there was really no going back because recruiting shifted and perception turned into reality.

I will add, we (Baylor) got hosed in 2013 and 2014. We should have been in the playoff at least one of those years. However, we were fighting against bias that is rampant in the sport. Small school, not in the SEC. The deck was stacked then and things are so different now, we aren't even really playing the same game.

---

Even in the BCS era, Auburn went undefeated in 2004 and it was snubbed in the championship game because they wanted Oklahoma and USC. There was certainly no SEC bias that year. Once they had the opportunity to decide things on the field, the SEC started a remarkable run.

---

Pointing out 1 SEC team that was snubbed between 1998-2013 does not bolster your argument.
USC was snubbed in 2003 and 2007 due to SEC bias. The 'remarkable run' was only made possible by said bias, among other things.

---

Five different SEC teams have won the championship in the last 18 years. Six if you count Tennessee and go back to 1999. Running the SEC gauntlet and coming out undefeated or with one loss Is harder to do than winning a conference with only two or three really good teams. Before the BCS era, the SEC lost out on national championship opportunities because they couldn't get out of the conference with a good enough record. The BCS may not be a perfect system, but once the field was broadened to allow for a 4 team playoff, more championships were decided on the field, and that's when the SEC took off showcasing several teams that were championship worthy.

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

historian said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

Why? What makes their scheduling any worse than anyone else's ? They play easy OOC teams.. as does literally everyone else. They also yearly produce several of the best teams in CFB. Results tend to speak for themselves.
They tend to play much tougher conference games as a whole compared the ACC, B12, P12 (RIP)

---

SEC schedules tend to be about the same as everyone else but they are treated as exceptional even when they are not. Just look at the preseason rankings every year, and often for the first few weeks of the season. A&M is an excellent: always ranked high before that first game, often unranked or barely ranked by the end. It's that way for lots of their teams. Also, they play as many creampuffs as others or maybe more but not punished for it. The clincher is that Bama, Aggie, & others play one in November while Big 12 & others don't.

There are other scheduling quirks as well. Only one ooc P5 or P4 game and rarely a true road game. Bama often played those in Atlanta which is essentially a home game for them. And they didn't exactly play powerhouses in those games: WVU, Miami, etc. At least the Aggies played Clemson when they were still national contenders.

I think many people criticize SEC schedules (& everything else) out of jealousy or some other emotion. But the criticism does have some merits.

---

Disagree. They may have one less conference game, but look at the teams they have played so far this year out of conference:

Clemson
Miami FL
Note Dame
USC
Michigan
Wisconsin
Oklahoma St
Virginia Tech
NC State
Wake Forest
Boston College
Tulane
Houston

The Big 12 has played:

Iowa
Penn St
Arkansas
Illinois
Tulane

---

This essentially sums it up the fallacy of any counterarguments to the SEC's scheduling, as the SEC has earned its overall reputation over the years through out of conference wins

---

You are making erroneous conclusions based on a tiny subset of data. The SEC is superior now, but that was not the case for 95% of CFB's history. The sec wasn't anything special from 1900 up until after the BCS started. I've been watching football since 1990 and the SEC didn't dominate anything until about 2010.

They were always know for playing a ton of pansies and a lot of folks complained about it. It wasn't until Saban went on his run that the myth of superiority began to turn into reality. But it wasn't just that, it was a planned and concerted effort long before Sabans run for the SEC to game the system, which has brought us to where we are today.

A big part of that gaming was uneven scheduling. Lots of pansies and a cupcake in November. Less conference losses = more bowl invites = more prestige. Then manipulating the BCS (SEC commissioner ran the darn thing) guaranteeing a spot almost every year. 4 team playoff? SEC gets 2 spots. 12 team playoff? 5-6 spots guaranteed. How can they not succeed? Everything is tilted in their favor. It's why UT and OU finally bolted, they realized there was no fighting against it.

---

the Big 12 could have chosen to only play 8 conference games but it opted to not do so. Essentially, Big 12 fans cannot argue that the SEC has advantages that the Big 12 didn't have in terms of scheduling because the Big 12 voluntarily opted out of those advantages.

---

Those changes were not voluntary. The sec wrote the rules, took over the narrative and other conferences have been in the back seat ever since.

---

What rules did the SEC write? The south does not have the population or media presence of the East Coast, West Coast, or Big Ten country. The SEC had to earn every ounce of respect it now gets. I think the media grudgingly came around to anccepting and acknowledging that the SEC is top tier. And in the BCS era, success has bred success for the SEC to the point that they probably get the best players and coaches.

Chuckroast said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

historian said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

Why? What makes their scheduling any worse than anyone else's ? They play easy OOC teams.. as does literally everyone else. They also yearly produce several of the best teams in CFB. Results tend to speak for themselves.
They tend to play much tougher conference games as a whole compared the ACC, B12, P12 (RIP)

---

SEC schedules tend to be about the same as everyone else but they are treated as exceptional even when they are not. Just look at the preseason rankings every year, and often for the first few weeks of the season. A&M is an excellent: always ranked high before that first game, often unranked or barely ranked by the end. It's that way for lots of their teams. Also, they play as many creampuffs as others or maybe more but not punished for it. The clincher is that Bama, Aggie, & others play one in November while Big 12 & others don't.

There are other scheduling quirks as well. Only one ooc P5 or P4 game and rarely a true road game. Bama often played those in Atlanta which is essentially a home game for them. And they didn't exactly play powerhouses in those games: WVU, Miami, etc. At least the Aggies played Clemson when they were still national contenders.

I think many people criticize SEC schedules (& everything else) out of jealousy or some other emotion. But the criticism does have some merits.

---

Disagree. They may have one less conference game, but look at the teams they have played so far this year out of conference:

Clemson
Miami FL
Note Dame
USC
Michigan
Wisconsin
Oklahoma St
Virginia Tech
NC State
Wake Forest
Boston College
Tulane
Houston

The Big 12 has played:

Iowa
Penn St
Arkansas
Illinois
Tulane

---

This essentially sums it up the fallacy of any counterarguments to the SEC's scheduling, as the SEC has earned its overall reputation over the years through out of conference wins

---

You are making erroneous conclusions based on a tiny subset of data. The SEC is superior now, but that was not the case for 95% of CFB's history. The sec wasn't anything special from 1900 up until after the BCS started. I've been watching football since 1990 and the SEC didn't dominate anything until about 2010.

They were always know for playing a ton of pansies and a lot of folks complained about it. It wasn't until Saban went on his run that the myth of superiority began to turn into reality. But it wasn't just that, it was a planned and concerted effort long before Sabans run for the SEC to game the system, which has brought us to where we are today.

A big part of that gaming was uneven scheduling. Lots of pansies and a cupcake in November. Less conference losses = more bowl invites = more prestige. Then manipulating the BCS (SEC commissioner ran the darn thing) guaranteeing a spot almost every year. 4 team playoff? SEC gets 2 spots. 12 team playoff? 5-6 spots guaranteed. How can they not succeed? Everything is tilted in their favor. It's why UT and OU finally bolted, they realized there was no fighting against it.

---

The SEC, Although not as dominant as it is now, was probably the best conference in the country even before the BCS. Their problem was that a vote determined who the best team was, and the south was under represented in the media.

---

OK, the lack of media is a fair take. That would take quite a bit of research to flesh out.

I would counter that media and computer bias is what helped propel the SEC during the BCS era and enabled them to achieve where they are today. It was constantly noted how great they were from 1998-2007 and that just was not the case. They were overly represented in BCS title games. Once they strung together those MNC's (2006-2013), there was really no going back because recruiting shifted and perception turned into reality.

I will add, we (Baylor) got hosed in 2013 and 2014. We should have been in the playoff at least one of those years. However, we were fighting against bias that is rampant in the sport. Small school, not in the SEC. The deck was stacked then and things are so different now, we aren't even really playing the same game.

---

Even in the BCS era, Auburn went undefeated in 2004 and it was snubbed in the championship game because they wanted Oklahoma and USC. There was certainly no SEC bias that year. Once they had the opportunity to decide things on the field, the SEC started a remarkable run.

---

Pointing out 1 SEC team that was snubbed between 1998-2013 does not bolster your argument.
USC was snubbed in 2003 and 2007 due to SEC bias. The 'remarkable run' was only made possible by said bias, among other things.

---

Five different SEC teams have won the championship in the last 18 years.

---

Champions of what, exactly?

IowaBear said:

---

Our 19 team got handled by Georgias backups

---

How many starters opted out?

I wasn't surprised that our offense struggled. It was pedestrian all season.

What stood out to me was using a 3 man front all game and not being able to cover Pickens. That 3 man front got 0 pressure on Fromm and Pickens lit us up.

#38, (Williams I think), dropped an INT thrown right at him and that drive ended in a TD. Instead of 3-0 Georgia and our ball around the 35, it was 10-0. That's as close as it would get.

I'd have to go back and check but I believe GA had 6 starters opt out and another 2-3 were injured. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong as I'm going strictly on memory .

Football natty: Bama, Georgia, LSU, Auburn, Florida.

historian said:

---

Football natty: Bama, Georgia, LSU, Auburn, Florida.

---

Yeah it's shocking in 2024 that some are still arguing that the SEC isn't the best conference at the FBS level. The SEC is at the point that their champion is, more likely than not, one of the two best teams in FBS - no other league can seriously say that.

Chuckroast said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

historian said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

Why? What makes their scheduling any worse than anyone else's ? They play easy OOC teams.. as does literally everyone else. They also yearly produce several of the best teams in CFB. Results tend to speak for themselves.
They tend to play much tougher conference games as a whole compared the ACC, B12, P12 (RIP)

---

SEC schedules tend to be about the same as everyone else but they are treated as exceptional even when they are not. Just look at the preseason rankings every year, and often for the first few weeks of the season. A&M is an excellent: always ranked high before that first game, often unranked or barely ranked by the end. It's that way for lots of their teams. Also, they play as many creampuffs as others or maybe more but not punished for it. The clincher is that Bama, Aggie, & others play one in November while Big 12 & others don't.

There are other scheduling quirks as well. Only one ooc P5 or P4 game and rarely a true road game. Bama often played those in Atlanta which is essentially a home game for them. And they didn't exactly play powerhouses in those games: WVU, Miami, etc. At least the Aggies played Clemson when they were still national contenders.

I think many people criticize SEC schedules (& everything else) out of jealousy or some other emotion. But the criticism does have some merits.

---

Disagree. They may have one less conference game, but look at the teams they have played so far this year out of conference:

Clemson
Miami FL
Note Dame
USC
Michigan
Wisconsin
Oklahoma St
Virginia Tech
NC State
Wake Forest
Boston College
Tulane
Houston

The Big 12 has played:

Iowa
Penn St
Arkansas
Illinois
Tulane

---

This essentially sums it up the fallacy of any counterarguments to the SEC's scheduling, as the SEC has earned its overall reputation over the years through out of conference wins

---

You are making erroneous conclusions based on a tiny subset of data. The SEC is superior now, but that was not the case for 95% of CFB's history. The sec wasn't anything special from 1900 up until after the BCS started. I've been watching football since 1990 and the SEC didn't dominate anything until about 2010.

They were always know for playing a ton of pansies and a lot of folks complained about it. It wasn't until Saban went on his run that the myth of superiority began to turn into reality. But it wasn't just that, it was a planned and concerted effort long before Sabans run for the SEC to game the system, which has brought us to where we are today.

A big part of that gaming was uneven scheduling. Lots of pansies and a cupcake in November. Less conference losses = more bowl invites = more prestige. Then manipulating the BCS (SEC commissioner ran the darn thing) guaranteeing a spot almost every year. 4 team playoff? SEC gets 2 spots. 12 team playoff? 5-6 spots guaranteed. How can they not succeed? Everything is tilted in their favor. It's why UT and OU finally bolted, they realized there was no fighting against it.

---

the Big 12 could have chosen to only play 8 conference games but it opted to not do so. Essentially, Big 12 fans cannot argue that the SEC has advantages that the Big 12 didn't have in terms of scheduling because the Big 12 voluntarily opted out of those advantages.

---

Those changes were not voluntary. The sec wrote the rules, took over the narrative and other conferences have been in the back seat ever since.

---

What rules did the SEC write? The south does not have the population or media presence of the East Coast, West Coast, or Big Ten country. The SEC had to earn every ounce of respect it now gets. I think the media grudgingly came around to anccepting and acknowledging that the SEC is top tier. And in the BCS era, success has bred success for the SEC to the point that they probably get the best players and coaches.

---

This isn't remotely true. ESPN has been carrying that league's water since the early oughts -- basically as soon as the first semi-exclusive TV contract between the two parties was inked.

The ESPN-pushed narrative that the SEC was the undisputed best conference in America existed a good half-decade before it was actually true.

I don't have any problem acknowledging the SEC's strength. But it's path to this point was, in many ways, a self-fulfilling prophecy. ESPN squeezed everyone else out of that space through exposure and opportunity.

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

historian said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

Why? What makes their scheduling any worse than anyone else's ? They play easy OOC teams.. as does literally everyone else. They also yearly produce several of the best teams in CFB. Results tend to speak for themselves.
They tend to play much tougher conference games as a whole compared the ACC, B12, P12 (RIP)

---

SEC schedules tend to be about the same as everyone else but they are treated as exceptional even when they are not. Just look at the preseason rankings every year, and often for the first few weeks of the season. A&M is an excellent: always ranked high before that first game, often unranked or barely ranked by the end. It's that way for lots of their teams. Also, they play as many creampuffs as others or maybe more but not punished for it. The clincher is that Bama, Aggie, & others play one in November while Big 12 & others don't.

There are other scheduling quirks as well. Only one ooc P5 or P4 game and rarely a true road game. Bama often played those in Atlanta which is essentially a home game for them. And they didn't exactly play powerhouses in those games: WVU, Miami, etc. At least the Aggies played Clemson when they were still national contenders.

I think many people criticize SEC schedules (& everything else) out of jealousy or some other emotion. But the criticism does have some merits.

---

Disagree. They may have one less conference game, but look at the teams they have played so far this year out of conference:

Clemson
Miami FL
Note Dame
USC
Michigan
Wisconsin
Oklahoma St
Virginia Tech
NC State
Wake Forest
Boston College
Tulane
Houston

The Big 12 has played:

Iowa
Penn St
Arkansas
Illinois
Tulane

---

This essentially sums it up the fallacy of any counterarguments to the SEC's scheduling, as the SEC has earned its overall reputation over the years through out of conference wins

---

You are making erroneous conclusions based on a tiny subset of data. The SEC is superior now, but that was not the case for 95% of CFB's history. The sec wasn't anything special from 1900 up until after the BCS started. I've been watching football since 1990 and the SEC didn't dominate anything until about 2010.

They were always know for playing a ton of pansies and a lot of folks complained about it. It wasn't until Saban went on his run that the myth of superiority began to turn into reality. But it wasn't just that, it was a planned and concerted effort long before Sabans run for the SEC to game the system, which has brought us to where we are today.

A big part of that gaming was uneven scheduling. Lots of pansies and a cupcake in November. Less conference losses = more bowl invites = more prestige. Then manipulating the BCS (SEC commissioner ran the darn thing) guaranteeing a spot almost every year. 4 team playoff? SEC gets 2 spots. 12 team playoff? 5-6 spots guaranteed. How can they not succeed? Everything is tilted in their favor. It's why UT and OU finally bolted, they realized there was no fighting against it.

---

the Big 12 could have chosen to only play 8 conference games but it opted to not do so. Essentially, Big 12 fans cannot argue that the SEC has advantages that the Big 12 didn't have in terms of scheduling because the Big 12 voluntarily opted out of those advantages.

---

Those changes were not voluntary. The sec wrote the rules, took over the narrative and other conferences have been in the back seat ever since.

---

What rules did the SEC write? The south does not have the population or media presence of the East Coast, West Coast, or Big Ten country. The SEC had to earn every ounce of respect it now gets. I think the media grudgingly came around to anccepting and acknowledging that the SEC is top tier. And in the BCS era, success has bred success for the SEC to the point that they probably get the best players and coaches.

---

This isn't remotely true. ESPN has been carrying that league's water since the early oughts -- basically as soon as the first semi-exclusive TV contract between the two parties was inked.

The ESPN-pushed narrative that the SEC was the undisputed best conference in America existed a good half-decade before it was actually true.

I don't have any problem acknowledging the SEC's strength. But it's path to this point was, in many ways, a self-fulfilling prophecy. ESPN squeezed everyone else out of that space through exposure and opportunity.

---

I've been closely following the SEC for 40+ years. I'm not just talking about the ESPN era. ESPN jumped on board at an opportune time, but they didn't create the success of the SEC

---

They didn't creat the ascent. They cleared the runway for it.

The SEC was never what we know the SEC to be now until ESPN got involved. And it took several years of fluffing the league before reality matched perception.

We're seeing the exact same thing now with the Big Ten and FOX. The TV networks set the narrative and perception fuels the machine.

We've seen that nonsense in this thread. We have people who genuinely believe a Missouri team that just struggled in back-to-back home games against Boston College and Vanderbilt is elite. Why? Because of the conference patch on their jerseys.

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

historian said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

Why? What makes their scheduling any worse than anyone else's ? They play easy OOC teams.. as does literally everyone else. They also yearly produce several of the best teams in CFB. Results tend to speak for themselves.
They tend to play much tougher conference games as a whole compared the ACC, B12, P12 (RIP)

---

SEC schedules tend to be about the same as everyone else but they are treated as exceptional even when they are not. Just look at the preseason rankings every year, and often for the first few weeks of the season. A&M is an excellent: always ranked high before that first game, often unranked or barely ranked by the end. It's that way for lots of their teams. Also, they play as many creampuffs as others or maybe more but not punished for it. The clincher is that Bama, Aggie, & others play one in November while Big 12 & others don't.

There are other scheduling quirks as well. Only one ooc P5 or P4 game and rarely a true road game. Bama often played those in Atlanta which is essentially a home game for them. And they didn't exactly play powerhouses in those games: WVU, Miami, etc. At least the Aggies played Clemson when they were still national contenders.

I think many people criticize SEC schedules (& everything else) out of jealousy or some other emotion. But the criticism does have some merits.

---

Disagree. They may have one less conference game, but look at the teams they have played so far this year out of conference:

Clemson
Miami FL
Note Dame
USC
Michigan
Wisconsin
Oklahoma St
Virginia Tech
NC State
Wake Forest
Boston College
Tulane
Houston

The Big 12 has played:

Iowa
Penn St
Arkansas
Illinois
Tulane

---

This essentially sums it up the fallacy of any counterarguments to the SEC's scheduling, as the SEC has earned its overall reputation over the years through out of conference wins

---

You are making erroneous conclusions based on a tiny subset of data. The SEC is superior now, but that was not the case for 95% of CFB's history. The sec wasn't anything special from 1900 up until after the BCS started. I've been watching football since 1990 and the SEC didn't dominate anything until about 2010.

They were always know for playing a ton of pansies and a lot of folks complained about it. It wasn't until Saban went on his run that the myth of superiority began to turn into reality. But it wasn't just that, it was a planned and concerted effort long before Sabans run for the SEC to game the system, which has brought us to where we are today.

A big part of that gaming was uneven scheduling. Lots of pansies and a cupcake in November. Less conference losses = more bowl invites = more prestige. Then manipulating the BCS (SEC commissioner ran the darn thing) guaranteeing a spot almost every year. 4 team playoff? SEC gets 2 spots. 12 team playoff? 5-6 spots guaranteed. How can they not succeed? Everything is tilted in their favor. It's why UT and OU finally bolted, they realized there was no fighting against it.

---

the Big 12 could have chosen to only play 8 conference games but it opted to not do so. Essentially, Big 12 fans cannot argue that the SEC has advantages that the Big 12 didn't have in terms of scheduling because the Big 12 voluntarily opted out of those advantages.

---

Those changes were not voluntary. The sec wrote the rules, took over the narrative and other conferences have been in the back seat ever since.

---

What rules did the SEC write? The south does not have the population or media presence of the East Coast, West Coast, or Big Ten country. The SEC had to earn every ounce of respect it now gets. I think the media grudgingly came around to anccepting and acknowledging that the SEC is top tier. And in the BCS era, success has bred success for the SEC to the point that they probably get the best players and coaches.

---

This isn't remotely true. ESPN has been carrying that league's water since the early oughts -- basically as soon as the first semi-exclusive TV contract between the two parties was inked.

The ESPN-pushed narrative that the SEC was the undisputed best conference in America existed a good half-decade before it was actually true.

I don't have any problem acknowledging the SEC's strength. But it's path to this point was, in many ways, a self-fulfilling prophecy. ESPN squeezed everyone else out of that space through exposure and opportunity.

---

I've been closely following the SEC for 40+ years. I'm not just talking about the ESPN era. ESPN jumped on board at an opportune time, but they didn't create the success of the SEC

---

They didn't creat the ascent. They cleared the runway for it.

The SEC was never what we know the SEC to be now until ESPN got involved. And it took several years of fluffing the league before reality matched perception.

We're seeing the exact same thing now with the Big Ten and FOX. The TV networks set the narrative and perception fuels the machine.

We've seen that nonsense in this thread. We have people who genuinely believe a Missouri team that just struggled in back-to-back home games against Boston College and Vanderbilt is elite. Why? Because of the conference patch on their jerseys.

---

I'll give you that teams in the SEC now get the benefit of the doubt just like teams in the Pac 12 and Big Ten always have (see Wisconsin, Michigan, State, and Iowa), but Missouri is still Missouri. No amount of media fluffing is gonna make them better than they are. To be a championship conference, you still have to win on the field. The media did not create Alabama, Florida, LSU, or Georgia.

The PAC 12 and big 10 had more media hype for years, but they never have had that type of diverse and sustained success. The Big 10 still gets just as much hype now … you can even add Notre Dame. At the end of the day, though, you still have to win on the field. The SEC is the only conference consistently doing that.

With all the hype they get, USC, UCLA, Wisconsin, Michigan State, and Notre Dame have not been in the discussion for championship programs in a long time.

Producing actual national champions, however, lifts the boats of every team in the conference. While they haven't won any championships, Texas A&M started recruiting much better after it came to the SEC. They just haven't parlayed that to much success. Now that Texas has joined the conference, A&M will likely be UT's little brother again.

For much of the 90s, Florida and Tennessee were probably the two best teams in the SEC and in the country, but they both played in the SEC East. Whoever lost that game was essentially eliminated from the SEC playoff game and therefore the national championship picture. Peyton Manning never had an opportunity to play for a national championship because they couldn't beat Steve Spurrier's gators… Who won a national championship in the 90s. Tennessee's Phil Fulmer had the highest winning percentage of any college football coach for quite a while. If they had played in the BCS era, they would've had a very legitimate chance to get a playoff spot.

The SEC has only been recognized as the best for probably the last 10 years Or so. It took the seven straight national championships by 4 different teams between 2006-2012 for them to get that recognition. While the BCS isn't perfect, it was non-biased computers rather than voters that allowed the SEC to play for more national Championships. When they expanded to create a 4 team playoff, it was hard for an SEC team to ever be left out, and when a team has gotten in, they have won more often than not.

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

morethanhecouldbear said:

---

Aberzombie1892 said:

---

Chuckroast said:

---

historian said:

---

IowaBear said:

---

Why? What makes their scheduling any worse than anyone else's ? They play easy OOC teams.. as does literally everyone else. They also yearly produce several of the best teams in CFB. Results tend to speak for themselves.
They tend to play much tougher conference games as a whole compared the ACC, B12, P12 (RIP)

---

SEC schedules tend to be about the same as everyone else but they are treated as exceptional even when they are not. Just look at the preseason rankings every year, and often for the first few weeks of the season. A&M is an excellent: always ranked high before that first game, often unranked or barely ranked by the end. It's that way for lots of their teams. Also, they play as many creampuffs as others or maybe more but not punished for it. The clincher is that Bama, Aggie, & others play one in November while Big 12 & others don't.

There are other scheduling quirks as well. Only one ooc P5 or P4 game and rarely a true road game. Bama often played those in Atlanta which is essentially a home game for them. And they didn't exactly play powerhouses in those games: WVU, Miami, etc. At least the Aggies played Clemson when they were still national contenders.

I think many people criticize SEC schedules (& everything else) out of jealousy or some other emotion. But the criticism does have some merits.

---

Disagree. They may have one less conference game, but look at the teams they have played so far this year out of conference:

Clemson
Miami FL
Note Dame
USC
Michigan
Wisconsin
Oklahoma St
Virginia Tech
NC State
Wake Forest
Boston College
Tulane
Houston

The Big 12 has played:

Iowa
Penn St
Arkansas
Illinois
Tulane

---

This essentially sums it up the fallacy of any counterarguments to the SEC's scheduling, as the SEC has earned its overall reputation over the years through out of conference wins

---

You are making erroneous conclusions based on a tiny subset of data. The SEC is superior now, but that was not the case for 95% of CFB's history. The sec wasn't anything special from 1900 up until after the BCS started. I've been watching football since 1990 and the SEC didn't dominate anything until about 2010.

They were always know for playing a ton of pansies and a lot of folks complained about it. It wasn't until Saban went on his run that the myth of superiority began to turn into reality. But it wasn't just that, it was a planned and concerted effort long before Sabans run for the SEC to game the system, which has brought us to where we are today.

A big part of that gaming was uneven scheduling. Lots of pansies and a cupcake in November. Less conference losses = more bowl invites = more prestige. Then manipulating the BCS (SEC commissioner ran the darn thing) guaranteeing a spot almost every year. 4 team playoff? SEC gets 2 spots. 12 team playoff? 5-6 spots guaranteed. How can they not succeed? Everything is tilted in their favor. It's why UT and OU finally bolted, they realized there was no fighting against it.

---

the Big 12 could have chosen to only play 8 conference games but it opted to not do so. Essentially, Big 12 fans cannot argue that the SEC has advantages that the Big 12 didn't have in terms of scheduling because the Big 12 voluntarily opted out of those advantages.

---

Those changes were not voluntary. The sec wrote the rules, took over the narrative and other conferences have been in the back seat ever since.

---

What rules did the SEC write? The south does not have the population or media presence of the East Coast, West Coast, or Big Ten country. The SEC had to earn every ounce of respect it now gets. I think the media grudgingly came around to anccepting and acknowledging that the SEC is top tier. And in the BCS era, success has bred success for the SEC to the point that they probably get the best players and coaches.

---

This isn't remotely true. ESPN has been carrying that league's water since the early oughts -- basically as soon as the first semi-exclusive TV contract between the two parties was inked.

The ESPN-pushed narrative that the SEC was the undisputed best conference in America existed a good half-decade before it was actually true.

I don't have any problem acknowledging the SEC's strength. But it's path to this point was, in many ways, a self-fulfilling prophecy. ESPN squeezed everyone else out of that space through exposure and opportunity.

---

I've been closely following the SEC for 40+ years. I'm not just talking about the ESPN era. ESPN jumped on board at an opportune time, but they didn't create the success of the SEC

---

They didn't creat the ascent. They cleared the runway for it.

The SEC was never what we know the SEC to be now until ESPN got involved. And it took several years of fluffing the league before reality matched perception.

We're seeing the exact same thing now with the Big Ten and FOX. The TV networks set the narrative and perception fuels the machine.

We've seen that nonsense in this thread. We have people who genuinely believe a Missouri team that just struggled in back-to-back home games against Boston College and Vanderbilt is elite. Why? Because of the conference patch on their jerseys.

---

I'll give you that teams in the SEC now get the benefit of the doubt just like teams in the Pac 12 and Big Ten always have (see Wisconsin, Michigan, State, and Iowa), but Missouri is still Missouri. No amount of media fluffing is gonna make them better than they are. To be a championship conference, you still have to win on the field. The media did not create Alabama, Florida, LSU, or Georgia.

The PAC 12 and big 10 had more media hype for years, but they never have had that type of diverse and sustained success. The Big 10 still gets just as much hype now … you can even add Notre Dame. At the end of the day, though, you still have to win on the field. The SEC is the only conference consistently doing that.

With all the hype they get, USC, UCLA, Wisconsin, Michigan State, and Notre Dame have not been in the discussion for championship programs in a long time.

Producing actual national champions, however, lifts the boats of every team in the conference. While they haven't won any championships, Texas A&M started recruiting much better after it came to the SEC. They just haven't parlayed that to much success. Now that Texas has joined the conference, A&M will likely be UT's little brother again.

For much of the 90s, Florida and Tennessee were probably the two best teams in the SEC and in the country, but they both played in the SEC East. Whoever lost that game was essentially eliminated from the SEC playoff game and therefore the national championship picture. Peyton Manning never had an opportunity to play for a national championship because they couldn't beat Steve Spurrier's gators… Who won a national championship in the 90s. Tennessee's Phil Fulmer had the highest winning percentage of any college football coach for quite a while. If they had played in the BCS era, they would've had a very legitimate chance to get a playoff spot.

The SEC has only been recognized as the best for probably the last 10 years Or so. It took the seven straight national championships by 4 different teams between 2006-2012 for them to get that recognition. While the BCS isn't perfect, it was non-biased computers rather than voters that allowed the SEC to play for more national Championships. When they expanded to create a 4 team playoff, it was hard for an SEC team to ever be left out, and when a team has gotten in, they have won more often than not.

Georgia had their only loss last year in a close game with Alabama (that had really improved throughout the year) in the SEC championship game. Had they gotten into the playoffs, they would have most likely been the favorite to win it all. They simply slipped up in one game in the SEC gauntlet in a year when there were three undefeated teams, so they never had a chance to play for it all.

I think the 12 team playoff will be good for college football so that non-blue blood teams will have a chance to participate. The end result, though, is that more SEC teams Will also get in causing them to most likely continue their dominance.

---