nddulac
Doh! mer
The SEC also accounted for a third of the losses.The SEC won 100% of the playoff games last year
The SEC also accounted for a third of the losses.The SEC won 100% of the playoff games last year
The SEC won 100% of the playoff games last year. I think that's pretty important. Especially since you turn around and talk about bowl games, because you know - that's the most important thing.
You had a great bowl season because you didn't send any teams to the playoffs. Do you understand how the bowl things work? You sent your best team to your top bowl invite, the Rose Bowl. Meanwhile, the SEC sent it's 3rd best team to it's top bowl.
AND, on top of that, the majority of your bowl games were against Pac12 teams. Even with all those advantages, Michigan STILL somehow managed to lose to South Carolina.
So once again, what in the fuck did the Big10 do that warrants being called the best conference in college football? Because Ohio St beat USC in the Rose Bowl? That's your fucking argument?
The SEC also accounted for a third of the losses.
Fair enough. You measure an entire conference strength by 1-2 teams. I just disagree with that measurement.
SEC = Most top heavy conference but not top to bottom.
Where does the Big10 get stronger? What, you might have 1 more team in the top25 or something like that, while the rest of those teams are constantly ranked lower than the SEC?
The B10 was dynamic last year during bowl season, the SEC was not. Bowls are somewhat subjective though, depending on who you draw.
Maybe I’m just overrating the B10 this year, and I’ll be proven wrong. This is the first year I’ve felt that the B10 is better, on paper, than the SEC. I’m talking as a whole conference. I feel the playoffs just give a picture of 1-2 teams at the top of the conference.
It’s probably smart to bet on the SEC over the B10 though. It has been traditionally better. I just think this year will be different (not in the playoffs though)
Which is why the PAC 12 and Big 12 are considered the red headed step children. Until they win some playoff games/nattys, they'll be considered inferior.So the only measurement for conference quality is playoff success?
If we are talking about national titles, then yeah, we haven’t done much in 60 years.I absolutely agree! They haven’t achieved jack squat.
I do enjoy talking to you, but you do have a bad case of “Team SEC”!Read my above post.
You guys are fucking stupid.
I’m just agreeing with you. They don’t deserve respect.If we are talking about national titles, then yeah, we haven’t done much in 60 years.
If we are talking about national titles, then yeah, we haven’t done much in 60 years.
Which is why the PAC 12 and Big 12 are considered the red headed step children. Until they win some playoff games/nattys, they'll be considered inferior.
I know, I know, the PAC 12...Oregon... does have one CFP win...but the conference hasn't even been in the playoffs twice.
I do enjoy talking to you, but you do have a bad case of “Team SEC”!
Because there's no way in hell I'm right, it must be because of conference bias.
I think you are stupid, like all but like 2 Michigan fans.
Fuck I'm getting old.
I was thinking well I would give you the one over ND in the 60's if I'm pretending like Alabama didn't get screwed that year.
But that was 60 years ago.
AAC > SEC
UCF > SEC West Champion > National Champion
I’m curious, how old are you?