Quote:
Originally Posted by 12thMan
To put it more succinctly, you ---and by you, I'm referring to you and GMScud (The guy won't give me an inch on Obama, so I have to find an opening where I can get it.) -- tend to ascribe success and high national rankings of smaller or lesser known programs as a fluke, dumb luck, weak scheduling, an off year in the SEC or a combination of the four.
But when it comes to anyalizing the SEC, you seem to have the best talent in the land, the best coaches, most loyal fans, and unmatched football prowess vs the rest of college football. Now considering that the SEC have been kicking ass and taking names for the past four years, I think that is a sometimes fair assessment. But it's the, what I perceive to be, belittling of inferior programs and the sense of entitelment that tends to surround SEC programs which leads me to think this.
Hey, I have no real problem with SEC dominance. They produce great NFL caliber players and make pretty good Redskins!
|
To be fair, I ascribe the SEC's success to winning (and recruiting dominance) more than anything else. I mean, they've won 4 straight national titles and 6 of the last 10.
I'm not sure I've ever poo-pooed smaller/lesser known programs' high rankings as a fluke, dumb luck, or a down year for the SEC. However when you look at schools like Boise St, how can you not consider strength of schedule? This year they beat a vastly overrated Va Tech (the ACC is garbage this season), and a .500 Oregon State team. That's it. They are a great program to be sure, and they've proven in the past they can hang with teams like Oklahoma (thanks to gadget plays, but hey, a W is a W), but SOS is important. You look at Boise State's schedule... I mean... pretty much all of those schools would lose to SEC bottom feeders.
A one loss team that runs the gauntlet of an SEC (or this year, a PAC 10) schedule is more deserving of a shot at the title than a team that plays nobody.
That said, get a damn playoff system. The BCS is a joke.