Originally Posted by improbus
I understand your frustration (I believe we've had this argument before), but conference play and performance gives us a context for each team. The fact that Texas Tech, a supposedly high level Big 12 team, lost to a mid-to-low level SEC team gives us a little context. I am not saying SEC > BIG 12, therefore, FLORIDA > OKLAHOMA. What I am saying is that I don't know what to think of Oklahoma. The SEC out of conference beat Clemson, FSU, ASU, TTU, Michigan State, Georgia Tech, and Boston College. The Big 12 beat WVU, Illinois, Northwestern, Clemson, Cincy, TCU, and possibly OSU. That provides some context. It does not provide a definitive answer (see Alabama - Utah). I see the SEC's OOC schedule as slightly stronger which helps Florida's argument.
Well, the clear second best SEC team lost, and lost convincingly, to a Mountain West team. I just can't wrap my mind around how Ole Miss beating Texas Tech has anything to do with Florida versus Oklahoma. Texas Tech completely disappeared after the loss to OU. They were a completely different team.
Also, I think people put way too much stock in the sweeping implications of bowl games. For one, I think the fact that teams have 4 weeks to prepare for these games makes it difficult to draw the types of conclusions people want to draw. So much can change in that long of a timeframe preparing for a single game. Would the result of TTU again Miss have been different had they played in the middle of the season when TTU was playing at their best and Ole Miss was still trying to discover themselves? Maybe not, but I don't look at one game and draw absolutel conclusions. Ole Miss beat Texas Tech yesterday because they played better. I don't think it means anything other than that.
And I think there's some fear of calling out the SEC as weak, because afterall it's the SEC and you're likely to get railed on by the SEC contingent always in place to put all the other inferior conferenes in their rightful place. But I try to be as objective as possible and have no problem saying that while most years the SEC is obviously the strongest conference, this year they really weren't that good at all. So when folks try to discredit Big 12 teams because the conference wasn't that good, why don't they apply the same logic to Florida? Let's be realistic, who really did Florida beat this year other than Alabama in the title game? No one special, IMO. And even Alabama was never as good as they hype. So Florida is really the only top caliber team in the SEC this year, IMO. Don't get me wrong, I think they are REALLY good and probably the second best team in the country (I think USC would handle Florida quite easily in a bowl game), and will most likely win the BCS title game, but that's because they have a good team. They have a great offense and a pretty good defense. That has nothing at all to do with the SEC, who I think provided very little test to them this year.
You could go all over the place trying to map some kind of logical conclusions about conferences from bowl games. I don't care how many bowl games the Pac-10 won, I still think they were a very weak conference this year. Sample sizes of bowl games are way to small to draw solid conclusions, IMO. I so wish we saw more big time OOC conference games during the season. It would be easier that way.