wareagle :nono:
Time for me to flex my muscles!!!
You obviously do not know that the SEC contrives its high rankings by playing a bunch of nobodies. SEC inflates their rankings by playing a weak schedule, then beating up on the bad teams in the league to produce five or six top 25 teams. Therefore, the SEC conference plays a lot of teams ranked in the top 25.
Note: this was compiled before last year's bowl games.
The SEC played only 68 games against BCS teams (28%) vs. the Pac-10's 85 games against BCS teams (41%). 12 teams on average played less than one game a year against BCS competition in nonconference play, while the Pac-10 played an average of one and a half BCS teams a year over the past six years. Against BCS competition, the SEC had a losing record over the past six years, going 30-38 (44%). The Pac-10 had a winning record against BCS teams, going 46-39 (54%).
The SEC was 151-24 in games against nonconference teams that weren't in the BCS conferences (86%). Even the bad teams in the SEC prop up SOS for the good teams by playing horrible teams that guarantee them wins.
Over that same period, the SEC was 21-20 in their bowl games, certainly not dominant like they all claim to be.
In case your a little "slow," I will spell it out to you how the system works. BCS and POLLS value wins more than anything. More wins you have, the higher ranking you will get. SOS, AWAY/HOME games do not carry as much weight. (Beating a 100th ranked division 1 school is worth more than losing by 1pt to a top 10 div. 1 school on the road) The SEC is not breaking any rules for beating the system, but this is the explanation as to why there are so many SEC teams ranked in the top 25. I am not gullible like many of you are and I will not proclaim this conference superior to anyone for the following reasons above. In addition, SEC is a 12 team conference, and the better teams in the conference often miss out on playing each other. If the SEC was deserving of such high rankings, WHY DO THEY HAVE A LOSING RECORD AGAINST BCS competition and are only 21-20 in BOWL GAMES??? The PAC 10 has a different philosophy and PAC 10 fans generally DO NOT support their teams beating up on pansy oppononts. Fans of the SEC are more passionate about football and they get joy out of beating a 90th ranked opponent by 40pts. Makes them feel superior. Which conference to you respect more? Pac 10 who plays TOUGH OOC OPPONENTS or SEC WHO PLAYS CRAP OOC OPPONENTS? Saying the SEC conference schedule is so tough there is no need for tough OOC schedule is absurd. CAL lost 6 games last season, if they played LSU SCHEDULE last year, CAL WOULD NOT LOSE MORE THAN 6 GAMES. I think CAL at most would lose 2-4 games. Your tricked into thinking the SEC conference is so superior because so many teams are ranked and have many wins. You fail to realize why so many teams are ranked and have so many wins. Again, if the SEC conference is so tough, why does the SEC have a losing record against BCS competition and are only 21-20 in Bowl Games?
Pac-10 vs. SEC past four years
Went back over the records of the two conferences and how they fared against BCS conference and Notre Dame over the past four years (since 2000). Here is what I found.
Pac-10 was 34-34 vs. BCS competition. SEC was 32-35. Of the 67 games against BCS conference competition, 23 were played because they were bowl games, and another 15 were played because of rivalry games (Georgia vs. Georgia Tech [ACC], Florida vs Miami and FSU [Big East, ACC] and South Carolina vs. Clemson [ACC]). That means the 12 teams of the SEC scheduled 29 games against BCS competition in four years, or a little more than one game every other year per team. The Pac-10 played 15 of its 68 games against BCS competition because of bowl games, and another four were from a rivalry game (USC vs. Notre Dame). That means the ten teams of the Pac-10 scheduled 49 games over four years, a one and a quarter games a year per team.
The SEC was 1-0 vs. Notre Dame, 16-11 vs. the ACC, 8-4 vs. the Big Ten, 4-8 vs. the Big East, 3-6 vs. Big XII and 1-6 vs. the Pac-10. That's right, the SEC's worst record against any one conference over the last four years comes against the Pac-10. Only LSU's victory against one of the worst Pac-10 teams in recent memory, this year's Arizona team, puts a W in the victory column against the Pac-10. Other losses were Auburn to USC (twice), Alabama to UCLA (twice) and Mississippi St. to Oregon (twice).
The Pac-10 was 12-12 vs. the Big Ten, 9-10 vs. the Big XII, 4-4 vs. Notre Dame, 3-4 vs. the Big East, 0-3 vs. the ACC and 6-1 vs. the SEC.
And the quality of teams the Pac-10 played was much better than the quality of teams that the SEC played. In the Big Ten, the Pac-10 played Michigan, Ohio St., Purdue and Wisconsin four times, Illinois three times, Iowa twice, and Penn St., Michigan St. and Indiana once. Only five of those games were because they met in bowl games The SEC played Michigan three times, Ohio St. twice, Penn St., Illinois and Minnesota once and Indiana four times. Eight of those games were played in bowl games. The only games scheduled against Big Ten competitition were the four times that Mississippi played Indiana, a time that Indiana went 12-34.
In the Big XII, the Pac-10 played Colorado six times, Kansas St. four times, Texas three times, Oklahoma twice, Nebraska, Oklahoma St., Baylor and Kansas once. Only five of those 19 games were the result of bowl games. The SEC played Oklahoma three times and Kansas St., Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Nebraska and Iowa St. once. Six of those nine games were bowl games.
The only BCS conference that the SEC routinely scheduled for games out of conference was against the ACC, and again, 12 of those games were rivalry games against members of that conference (South Carolina/Clemson, UGA/GTech, Florida/FSU). Throw in another six that were bowl games, and the SEC played only nine games against the ACC that weren't rivalry or bowl games.
Still, the record pretty much speaks for itself: the SEC's worst winning percentage against BCS conferences comes against the weak Pac-10. Try and spin that one away. When it comes right down to it, the Pac-10 will go out and play tough competition, and holds its own-- even its lesser teams. Arkansas has played only two BCS conference teams in the past four years, and those were both in bowl games. Mississippi St. has played only three, one of them being a victory over Texas A&M in a bowl game, and the other two losses to Oregon (Pac-10). Mississippi has also played only three BCS conference teams in the past four years, and two of those were in bowl games. Kentucky scheduled four games against Indiana, and that's the only OOC BCS teams they've played. Bama has played five OOC BCS games and is 1-4 (the victory was in a bowl game, the losses were scheduled OOC games).
In the Pac-10, Arizona (worst team in the Pac-10 the past four years) has played four OOC BCS teams, none in bowl games (Ohio St., Wisconsin, LSU and Purdue). Cal has played Illinois (twice), Rutgers, Baylor, Michigan St. and Kansas St. (no bowl games). Stanford has played Texas, Boston College (twice), Notre Dame three times and Georgia Tech (bowl game). Only Oregon St. has done what the SEC routinely does, and that is avoid BCS conference teams except in bowl games.
The fact that the Pac-10 is .500 in its out of conference BCS conference games is quite remarkable, considering that most of the games were not in bowl games. What is truly pathetic is how the SEC keeps claiming how superior they are, but against BCS conference competition, they have a losing record over the past four years. It's obvious that the conference inflates its importance by beating up on patsy OOC opponents and racking up victories that are then used to bolster its superiority claims. If every team has at least eight wins, it has to be a good conference, right? Uh-huh. Sure. The bowl record says they are 12-12, while the Pac-10 turned out to be 8-9.
