For those who say the SEC isn't strong top to bottom

[Uncle Ken]

That's not far from making statements like Ole Miss, Tennessee, Vandy, Auburn, and Missouri are bad teams. Missouri sure didn't have any trouble winning in the Big 12. They just discovered the bar went way up on them when they got on the field in the Southeastern Conference. I'm not saying they are good teams, but I don't think any of the bottom feeders in other conferences could beat them.
Just my opinion, but Vandy is going to a bowl game this year, Mississippi too. 9 teams from the SEC are in bowl games this year. Auburn and Tennessee didn't win, but I guarantee you both of those teams have alot of good players. If the SEC isn't the strongest conference top to bottom, then you tell me who is?

You were being baited, and you can't help yourself. So Mizzou must be good, and didn't get worse? But TAMU can get suddenly better? That's very convenient for your argument. Vandy? They did a nice job handling UMASS and Presbyterian and a few SEC teams. But the SEC teams they must be good, 'cause you know...SEC. Your arguments continue to be either circular, or benefitting to the opposing view.

 

[SBG]

EatME was a Big 12 team, not SEC. They may get stronger, but the team that gives up 57 to LaTexh would have had more losses in the Big XII.

 

[77buff]

You were being baited, and you can't help yourself. So Mizzou must be good, and didn't get worse? But TAMU can get suddenly better? That's very convenient for your argument. Vandy? They did a nice job handling UMASS and Presbyterian and a few SEC teams. But the SEC teams they must be good, 'cause you know...SEC. Your arguments continue to be either circular, or benefitting to the opposing view.

OK, whatever. Happy Holidays

 

[White_Rabbit]

bump

 

[Uncle Ken]

So far it seems like the SEC seems to struggle to beat teams over which they have a significant ranking advantage (UGA over Huskers and South Carolina's last second win over Michigan) unless of course they outright lose, as two of those top 10 SEC teams have.

When 77 used the number of SEC teams in the Top 10 as evidence that the conference wasn't overrated I jumped all over it. Not because I was necessarily certain those teams were overrated (turns out I'm not disappointed to learn that they were), but because it was such a stupid ****ing argument.

Think about it:

The SEC is overrated!

No way! They have a bunch of teams in the top 10! They can't be!

Also, the ESPN pumps up the SEC because of their contract.

No way! Here's an ESPN article explaining how good the SEC is.

Anyway, I forget why I bumped this thread...

 

[Uncle Ken]

bump

Damn you for taking this from me.

 

[somebody]

He bumped it cuz of "#3 Florida".

 

[White_Rabbit]

Damn you for taking this from me.

hahaha sorry, you put some thought into it as well.

 

[Burrito]

bump

UBumpL'd!

 

[Burrito]

He bumped it cuz of "#3 Florida".

Exponential UBL?

 

[Bama Charlie]

Thats not remotely true. CBS has the first pick of SEC games each week and the rest are all on the ESPN family of networks.

True.

 

[Buffenuf]

True.

So then, logic would tell us that since ESPN loses out on the best game each week (which if it is the "best", anyone would watch, even if it was on Root) they have to really hype the status of the SEC to get low info fans to watch the remaining ESPN-broadcast "not-so-good" games like Vandy vs. Presbyterain to improve their own ratings.

Something like: "Yeah, it may be a shi*ty game but you're watching a great SEC team from the SEC, the greatest conference on ESPN or any network, there in Vanderbilt, bucko"!

Easier "sell" that way, to your average pro-oriented, "don't know nuttin' about college" NE Corridor football fan, of which there are far too many.