One more reason the SEC is overrated

It took them 15 years to get players that matched the athleticism of BYU in the early 90s.



http://bluecougarfootball.blogspot.com/2011/01/flashback-leaping-lewis-1993.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have no love for the SEC, but how can a conference that won the last 5 national championships be overrated?

A nice piece, but I think you are really stretching it with the conclusions you have drawn in the OP on this thread.

crh55 wrote:
I have no love for the SEC, but how can a conference that won the last 5 national championships be overrated?

Because the overrated perception of the entire conference allows the conf champ to play in the BCS championship (not a NATIONAL championship) every year. So, if their best team wins one game, they get crowned.

Schmoe wrote:

I have no love for the SEC, but how can a conference that won the last 5 national championships be overrated?

Because the overrated perception of the entire conference allows the conf champ to play in the BCS championship (not a NATIONAL championship) every year. So, if their best team wins one game, they get crowned.

I understand why you don't want to call it a national championship, but that's what the game is--a national championship. The winner is guaranteed the coaches poll national championship trophy. I'm pretty sure that if BYU won that trophy you'd call it a national championship. If you want to nitpick, it's the BCS national championship game.



Your thoughts explain the coaches' trophy, but you forget they keep getting voted the AP trophy as well. Furthermore, the SEC champ has been #1 in both polls the week before the championship game three of those five years--one year Florida was #1 in the coaches poll, and Oklahoma was #1 in the AP poll, and the other year OSU was #1 before getting b-slapped by LSU in the BCS championship game. So if you take the hated BCS out of it and they keep winning their regular bowl games, the SEC would still have at least 4 national championships in those five year.s



You also forget that the five teams they have beaten for the trophy could have had that trophy too--if the "best team" from some other "overrated" conference could've won "just one game, they get crowned." Problem is, for the last five years, no best team from the Big XII, PAC-10 or Big Ten has been able to do that. The SEC has been able to beat the best the other conferences have to offer five years in a row.

Problem is - it's rigged and based upon perceived superiority of major universities. Last year BSU could beat any team; this year so could TCU. However, we will never know. Hear crap all year round in AR

about how good SECis - but they are predictable and struggle with teams that have good balance and tenacious D.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

One thing I know is... The SEC is huge here in the South. Their crap is everywhere and I can't stand it!



If they are overrated. Then they have a huge population fooled. There's more people in the South, than anything West of Nebraska.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

snoscythe wrote:
A nice piece, but I think you are really stretching it with the conclusions you have drawn in the OP on this thread.

This is TIC. I do think the SEC is overrated, and if the technology of 2008 had been around in 1993 Lewis' leap would have gotten a lot more pub. Sort of like the attention Jimmer is getting for his recent big plays.



But I don't really think Lewis' play means the sec had inferior athletes.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Sno, you can call it a national championship all you want, but as long as its pollsters and not players on the field deciding who's number #1, I won't.



PS-The argument that ONE team wins the championship so the ENTIRE CONFERENCE must be great is so filled with holes that its straight up laughable. The SEC was .500 in their bowl games this year.

Schmoe wrote:
Sno, you can call it a national championship all you want, but as long as its pollsters and not players on the field deciding who's number #1, I won't.



PS-The argument that ONE team wins the championship so the ENTIRE CONFERENCE must be great is so filled with holes that its straight up laughable. The SEC was .500 in their bowl games this year.

Thanks for taking away BYU's national championship. I appreciate it.

kitic77 wrote:

Sno, you can call it a national championship all you want, but as long as its pollsters and not players on the field deciding who's number #1, I won't.



PS-The argument that ONE team wins the championship so the ENTIRE CONFERENCE must be great is so filled with holes that its straight up laughable. The SEC was .500 in their bowl games this year.

Thanks for taking away BYU's national championship. I appreciate it.

I didn't take it away, I just defined it as it really is. I would argue, however, that it is more real for BYU than most schools because BYU did it in spite of the system.

kitic77 wrote:

Sno, you can call it a national championship all you want, but as long as its pollsters and not players on the field deciding who's number #1, I won't.



PS-The argument that ONE team wins the championship so the ENTIRE CONFERENCE must be great is so filled with holes that its straight up laughable. The SEC was .500 in their bowl games this year.

Thanks for taking away BYU's national championship. I appreciate it.

Given the choice of holding onto a NC (we don't really know if BYU was the best team that year, let's face it) or going to a playoff format, I'd give up the hardware. BYU could have won a COUPLE NCs if there was a playoff during the 80s and 90s.