Who is your pick to win the BCS National Championship?

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by Cedric

Really you are coming back with that? You are completely misrepresenting what MWM was saying.

It's not just one or two players on these SEC teams. Players like Nick Fairley are spread out throughout their whole rosters.

And the NFL quote is kinda ironic considering that's what some people think the SEC should just go ahead and turn itself into.. A feeder league.

I think Nick Fairley on the field was a monster last night and probably increased his draft status. I'd love for the Bengals to get him.

There are thugs everywhere. I'd never generalize that any team or league has the market cornered on thugs. You can't get much more "thuggish" than Maurice Clarett, but I never used him as an example that represents the Big Ten or the OSU Bucks

[MWM]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

Around here the SEC fans are only getting their feathers ruffled when they're told by others that even after all they accomplished, they're still not the best football conference. Still others claim that the SEC is only good because they cheat. For example many, many posts here claim that Auburn cheated in getting Cam Newton to attend yet there's no evidence of that. Conversely there is evidence of cheating with a certain 5 OSU players but the outrage is much more muted.

I go where the facts lead me and I don't see how the SEC has achieved its success illegally

Another strawman. No one really makes that claim that they aren't the best conference. The disagreement comes primarily on the magnititude of the difference. I'll say what I've said numerous times, I've always thought they're the best from top to bottom, but I think the gap is much closer than some make it out to be. And my belief is that the difference lies not as much in the top 3-4, but once you get to the middle and lower. That's where the SEC is better than about anyone else. They have fewer bad teams and can go deeper. That's a compliment and what I think sets them apart from the other conferences.

And if you say you let the facts lead you, how come everytime you mention the SEC's dominance of the Big Ten and I ask you top explain their head to head record, you've never responded? If they dominate, year and year out like you have suggested multiple times, why is there only one game seperating the two conferences in 35 games played against each other since the BCS began?

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by dabvu2498

It was and it wasn't. I'd say that very play and Howard's pose was a "culture" changing moment. And it happened in Ann Arbor and the folks there didn't seem to mind so bad.

It's also ironic since that play and his "showboating" lead him to a Heisman Trophy win over arguably the classiest player of our generation. Who happened to play in the SEC.

Desmond Howard was the runaway winner in 1991. I can't even remember what SEC player was second and classy. Are you speaking of Heath Shuler? I'm missing your point

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by MWM

And if you say you let the facts lead you, how come everytime you mention the SEC's dominance of the Big Ten and I ask you top explain their head to head record, you've never responded? If they dominate, year and year out like you have suggested multiple times, why is there only one game seperating the two conferences in 35 games played against each other since the BCS began?

Head to head is one part of the criteria but since you agree the SEC is better, there's really nothing to argue about, now is there?

[MWM]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

Head to head is one part of the criteria but since you agree the SEC is better, there's really nothing to argue about, now is there?

I don't argue, I debate. Magnitude of the difference does come into play though when debates focus around speculative scenarios, which the absurdity of the bowl system forces us into. I think the head to head matchups (which are usually in the top half of the conference) show that good teams in other conferences could compete against good teams in the SEC. I have always believed that and the facts suggest the same.

The only other real problem I have is when fans of the SEC want to talk about how much better their conference is, but won't discuss in a reaonsable manner some of the factors that lead to this... factors which are very real and do have a significant impact. It seems like any attempt to bring them up is met with scorn and accusations of excuse making and envy.

[dabvu2498]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

Desmond Howard was the runaway winner in 1991. I can't even remember what SEC player was second and classy. Are you speaking of Heath Shuler? I'm missing your point

Crap. I got Charles Woodson and Desmond backwards. My brain on no sleeeeeep. zzzzzzzzzzzzz

[jojo]

Originally Posted by MWM

I don't argue, I debate. Magnitude of the difference does come into play though when debates focus around speculative scenarios, which the absurdity of the bowl system forces us into. I think the head to head matchups (which are usually in the top half of the conference) show that good teams in other conferences could compete against good teams in the SEC. I have always believed that and the facts suggest the same.

The only other real problem I have is when fans of the SEC want to talk about how much better their conference is, but won't discuss in a reaonsable manner some of the factors that lead to this... factors which are very real and do have a significant impact. It seems like any attempt to bring them up is met with scorn and accusations of excuse making and envy.

Any fan base has a percentage of turds. Buckeye "fan" is just as obnoxious as SEC "fan" or PAC-10 "fan".

[MWM]

Certainly, all fanbases has their percentage of turds, just not the same %.

Cub fans still take the cake, though.

[dabvu2498]

Originally Posted by jojo

Any fan base has a percentage of turds. Buckeye "fan" is just as obnoxious as SEC "fan" or PAC-10 "fan".

Truer words have never been spoken.

And the more bandwagoneers jump on, the more obnoxious the fan base seems.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by MWM

I don't argue, I debate. Magnitude of the difference does come into play though when debates focus around speculative scenarios, which the absurdity of the bowl system forces us into. I think the head to head matchups (which are usually in the top half of the conference) show that good teams in other conferences could compete against good teams in the SEC. I have always believed that and the facts suggest the same.

The only other real problem I have is when fans of the SEC want to talk about how much better their conference is, but won't discuss in a reaonsable manner some of the factors that lead to this... factors which are very real and do have a significant impact. It seems like any attempt to bring them up is met with scorn and accusations of excuse making and envy.

Call it what you like, argue, debate, whatever. I have nothing to debate. We agree that the SEC is better. To debate which adjectives to use seems pointless.

As for head to head to head matchups, they are a part of the equation but there's way too many factors to consider. If I was a big believer I'd say that in 2010 the SEC was light years in front of the Big Ten because they won 75% of their head to head matchups. Actually I believe the SEC came back to the pack somewhat this year.

Over an extended period of time, years vary. Some years the SEC is far better, others not so much. What stands out to me are the years where OSU ran roughshod over the Big Ten competition only to get pummeled in their face to face SEC matchup. One yr OSU and Mich dominated Big Ten play but both got hammered in their Bowl games. Instances like that do not reflect well on the overall Big Ten scene.

But I'm not here to "debate" just how much better the SEC is. That sort of minutia gets us nowhere. There is a nationwide concensus that the SEC is king of football and I'll leave it at that.

[Cedric]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

Call it what you like, argue, debate, whatever. I have nothing to debate. We agree that the SEC is better. To debate which adjectives to use seems pointless.

As for head to head to head matchups, they are a part of the equation but there's way too many factors to consider. If I was a big believer I'd say that in 2010 the SEC was light years in front of the Big Ten because they won 75% of their head to head matchups. Actually I believe the SEC came back to the pack somewhat this year.

Over an extended period of time, years vary. Some years the SEC is far better, others not so much. What stands out to me are the years where OSU ran roughshod over the Big Ten competition only to get pummeled in their face to face SEC matchup. One yr OSU and Mich dominated Big Ten play but both got hammered in their Bowl games. Instances like that do not reflect well on the overall Big Ten scene.

But I'm not here to "debate" just how much better the SEC is. That sort of minutia gets us nowhere. There is a nationwide concensus that the SEC is king of football and I'll leave it at that.

And the king of sleeze. I guess we can agree on that also?

[MWM]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

Over an extended period of time, years vary. Some years the SEC is far better, others not so much. What stands out to me are the years where OSU ran roughshod over the Big Ten competition only to get pummeled in their face to face SEC matchup. One yr OSU and Mich dominated Big Ten play but both got hammered in their Bowl games. Instances like that do not reflect well on the overall Big Ten scene.

Ironically, the Big Ten won the only other two matchups against the SEC that year.

Bringing other single pieces of data (i.e. 2006 when OSU lost bad to Florida) is all pretty much trumped by the 35 games they've played in a 12 year stretch... point being, at the top of the conference, there's not a great deal of separation over time.

[MWM]

[Brutus]

Originally Posted by MWM

Pretty much on point LOL

[Oxblood]

Boise St was the best team this season, neutral field they beat anyone. Idiot kicker messed it all up.