Why the SEC is BullShit

LSU, UNO, Loyola, ULL, ULM, Louisiana Tech, Southeastern, Delgado, Northwestern, McNeese, Nicholls St., Southern, Grambling, Centenary, Dilliard, Xavier, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
tpstulane
Top of the WAVE
Posts: 26738
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 11:56 pm
Status: Offline

http://totalfratmove.com/why-the-sec-is-bullshit/
Let’s start with how the polling system is biased. Most people will claim that preseason polling is useless and has no real bearing on the game. This is certainly true if you look at polls as indicators of how teams will shake out in the season. However, they’re extremely important in terms of maintaining a ranking. See, it’s much harder to climb the polls as the season goes on if you were underrated going in. Conversely, if you start in the top 10 and play in the SEC, you have to REALLY shit the bed to drop out of the rankings. It’s because the conference itself is set up to allow that.

The SEC is almost like a commune in the way that it mutually weakens itself in order to raise up the whole. (That’s right, SEC fans. I just compared your conference to a hippie, communist retreat.) See, the conference realizes that if it only plays a minimal number of games against the teams that make it up and schedules only powderpuff teams as its non-conference opponents, it can preserve the “competitive integrity” of the conference. It’s easy to write off a loss as acceptable when it’s against “yet another powerhouse SEC team.” You’ll have teams end up with 9-3 and 8-4 records that still easily rank in the top 25, which is ridiculous, given that half of their wins are against garbage teams and their three losses are to “premier” teams within their own conference. The only reason that they’re considered premier is because they started that way in the first place. It’s like a snake eating its own tail, except the tail is a dick, and the snake’s mouth is every ESPN mouthpiece paid to laud the SEC’s deified status.
Texas A&M and Missouri have shattered this idea that SEC defenses are unassailable. They’re unassailable, because prior to those two schools’ inclusion in the conference, SEC teams couldn’t pass to save their lives. They acted like ground and pound was their preferred strategy, and not simply a product of the fact that they couldn’t get a real quarterback to save their lives. A&M beat Alabama in Tuscaloosa its first year in the conference, and Missouri won the East its second season in. Their combined record is 35-15 since joining the SEC. Let’s also not forget that neither team was particularly dominant in the Big 12, either. Perhaps the proof is that outside offenses are actually very well suited to beat SEC defenses, provided they have the time to adjust. One game with no previous playing experience versus each other does not proof of superiority make.


Be proactive, being reactive is for losers..
Tulane Class of 1981
sader24
Tsunami
Posts: 5695
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2010 11:35 pm
Status: Offline

I don't know, the SEC looked pretty dominant this week for the most part with the exception of Vanderbilt who is horrible. I watched pretty much every worthwhile game on TV Thursday-Saturday and the 2 most impressive teams that I saw were Texas AM and Georgia. LSU played horribly and still beat Wisconsin. Ole Miss whipped Boise St. Miss St whipped USM. Alabama played poorly and still won by 10 over West Virginia. The least impressive conference I saw was the ACC. Every team looked like crap that I saw. NC St, UNC, Wake Forest, Syracuse, Clemson, GT. FSU struggled and Virginia looked average at best. Pac 12 seems like the 2nd best conference.
Robert1969
Riptide
Posts: 2706
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 8:45 pm
Status: Offline

That sounds interesting but doesn't explain how, during a "down year" the SEC still was 7-3 in the bowls, and how it had an 11-7 record against BCS teams. Now this was a down year for the SEC and it finished just below .500 at 4-6 vs out-of-conference ranked teams, but the year before the SEC was 8-6 vs out-of-conference ranked teams, and in 2011 8-2 vs out-of-conference ranked teams.

And frankly it is a ridiculous argument to say that most of your losses are against teams in your conference and therefore your conference is weak. That is an indication that you have fewer out-of-conference losses.

As far as scheduling "weak" teams, I am pretty certain that is standard fare. Not every game is going to be against powerhouse teams. The proof is in the pudding. With the exception of last year, the SEC team in the national championship demolished their opponents in that game. Why? How could a team from a weak conference play the best the rest of the nation has to offer, and demolish them?

I do believe that the SEC's dominance will begin to fade, but their dominance is legit.
Post Reply