Is the SEC the best conference still?

#1

ButchBallVFL

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2014
Messages
186
Likes
54
#1
Listening to the Stillman and Callahan show for a break from ESPN and Callahan says it is due to depth. Stillman very strongly says it's close but the SEC is not. He sites not winning the title, the West collapse during bowl season last year, UF, Arky and UT not competing well agains Big 10, Pac 12 and ACC schools recently and some other kind of off topic weird reasons.

I think the SEC is the best. I do think others have closed the gap, obviously FSU and OSU and Oregon, but the Big Ten and Pac 12 and Big 12 overall have come a long way via recruiting.

If you took Arkansas and South Carolina and put them in any other conference they compete for the title of that conference regularly. If you take the 3rd-12th best of the SEC and put them against other conferences I think the SEC wins 8-9 of those year in and year out. I think not having a team win it all and the bad bowl season really threw fuel on the fire obviously, which is fine with me because UT beating Oklahoma will allow us to contribute to the reassurance that we are the best conference over the next couple of seasons.

So what do you guys think is the conference still the best over all or has someone passed us in the last year or two and still better this year and could/will they be a better conference over the next few years?
 
#2
#2
I hope the SEC takes a huge downturn and the Vols can start cleaning house and get back to the top.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#3
#3
This is one area where I do believe you have to go strictly by recent on-field results. There's just no other way to be objective. "Eyeball tests" don't work when you're trying to measure 14 teams here against 12 there and 14 over there.

For over a decade, I've been using a system to grade all the conferences based on bowl results and final rankings.

SEC has been alone at the top every year but two.

--> In 2005, the SEC finished third behind the ACC and B12.

--> And just this past year, 2014, the SEC tied with the PAC for first.

Is this a downward trend, or just a bad year? Time will tell.

For now, I believe the SEC is at the top of the college football world. It's just we're sharing the spot with the PAC this year.

Go Vols!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#4
#4
Obviously we are. The SEC still contains 6 traditional powerhouses, more than most conferences boast. In addition, 4 teams are very competitive, 3 can be, and 1 is Vandy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5
#5
I have not studied it in every division and I'm sure I am a little biased. But I believe if you went from top to bottom in every conference, the SEC would still be the toughest.
 
#6
#6
Obviously we are. The SEC still contains 6 traditional powerhouses, more than most conferences boast. In addition, 4 teams are very competitive, 3 can be, and 1 is Vandy.

The word "traditional" is dangerous when trying to assess conference-to-conference strength. It's code for an excuse: sure, we suck this year, but traditionally we're a very strong team. "Traditional" is the word B10 fans use all the time to explain how they're still the best conference in the land even though they haven't proven anything on the field in a decade or more.

Take out the word traditional, and how many powerhouses does each conference have? That's a better basis for objective measurement.
 
#7
#7
Recruiting rankings and game attendance don't mean squat, results in head to head match ups do. Judging by bowl outcomes and the fact that Mizzou and A&M came in and had immediate success tell you that the SEC isn't as good as most fans of SEC schools think it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#9
#9
The SEC is still the best but the Big 10 and the Pac 10 are closing the distance.

PAC is there. B10 isn't even close. They're a three-team league right now. Maybe 4 if Harbaugh gets Michigan back. Incredibly weak from the middle of the pack down.

But PAC, yeah. They're strong. Tied with SEC for best conference right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#10
#10
Unfortunately, the Buckeyes marshmallow schedule will allow them to be the darling of ESPN - which they will in turn use as an underlying theme all friggin' season long: Is the SEC overrated? Prepare yourselves VN for this whimsical onslaught of garbage talk from our good friends from Bristol, CT
 
#11
#11
Recruiting rankings and game attendance don't mean squat, results in head to head match ups do. Judging by bowl outcomes and the fact that Mizzou and A&M came in and had immediate success tell you that the SEC isn't as good as most fans of SEC schools think it is.

Doesn't the East give a better representation of your middle of the pack teams? If you judge a conference from top to bottom, the bowl results of the East show how hard even the daily grind is in the SEC.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#12
#12
Unfortunately, the Buckeyes marshmallow schedule will allow them to be the darling of ESPN - which they will in turn use as an underlying theme all friggin' season long: Is the SEC overrated? Prepare yourselves VN for this whimsical onslaught of garbage talk from our good friends from Bristol, CT

Well, OSU did make Kirby Smart look like Sal Sunseri!

There is one certain way to shut them up...beat them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#13
#13
The SEC won how many championships in a row?

Then we fail to get into the first playoff and the sky is falling.


Geez.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#14
#14
Top to Bottom...

SEC is STILL the premier Conference...No Doubt About It!
 
#16
#16
#17
#17
The word "traditional" is dangerous when trying to assess conference-to-conference strength. It's code for an excuse: sure, we suck this year, but traditionally we're a very strong team. "Traditional" is the word B10 fans use all the time to explain how they're still the best conference in the land even though they haven't proven anything on the field in a decade or more.

Take out the word traditional, and how many powerhouses does each conference have? That's a better basis for objective measurement.

Traditional teams are teams that could compete for a NC within 5 years. It depends on the coaching staff, but they are powerhouses because their brand alone can assist with recruiting.

Otherwise, we still have 5 when you remove FL and UT and add in OM
 
#18
#18
The answer is yes. The SEC is the best conference as a whole.

If you look at the average recruiting classes in every conference, you can see that the SEC is more talent-rich. The disadvantage the SEC has is they beat up on each other as there are many strong teams. The other conferences may have a few outliers that can coast through the conference schedule unscathed and be in a good position to win in the post-season.

Look at Florida State last year. They escaped their season undefeated with some close calls and beating Florida (Florida!) by 5 pts. They were good - yes. Did they deserve to be in the playoffs - no. Had they played an SEC schedule, would they have been undefeated? - Not a chance.

The SEC, which had more representatives than any other conference, didn't have a great post-season at 7-5. Still above 500. The only 2 conferences with better bowl-win averages were the PAC-12 and Conference USA. So, if we say the SEC is not good good because they didn't have a better bowl record, then are we saying Conference USA is the best conference because they had the best bowl record?? Or maybe the match-ups just worked out so that the top of the SEC played some tough opponents. With our 7-5 record, 3 of the losses were by 1 score or less and to quality teams. The only 2 "bad" losses were Miss. St. against GT and Ole Miss (who was missing a lot of key players by then) to TCU.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#19
#19
#20
#20
Traditional teams are teams that could compete for a NC within 5 years. It depends on the coaching staff, but they are powerhouses because their brand alone can assist with recruiting.

No one is going to rank Team X or Conference Y high today because they might be awesome in 5 years. This really is one of those things where only on-field results will do. Otherwise, it just turns into a popularity contest.
 
#21
#21
It's difficult to look at win/loss, bowl performance, team and individual performance stats, etc because there are such a large number of variables which contribute to those stats. In my mind, you can only determine the strength of a school by how many professionals come from that school. Likewise, the SEC can only be judged adequately by how many players are drafted into the NFL. With this criteria i searched the google and found:

"The SEC had 54 players selected in the*2015 NFL Draft, giving the league the most draftees for the ninth year in a row."

A compelling argument, i think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#22
#22
The SEC, which had more representatives than any other conference, didn't have a great post-season at 7-5. Still above 500. The only 2 conferences with better bowl-win averages were the PAC-12 and Conference USA. So, if we say the SEC is not good good because they didn't have a better bowl record, then are we saying Conference USA is the best conference because they had the best bowl record?? Or maybe the match-ups just worked out so that the top of the SEC played some tough opponents. With our 7-5 record, 3 of the losses were by 1 score or less and to quality teams. The only 2 "bad" losses were Miss. St. against GT and Ole Miss (who was missing a lot of key players by then) to TCU.

Yeah, Kristy, exactly, this is why any ranking system for conferences has to include an average of balancing measurements. Any one alone can be misleading.

2014 for example.

Using only bowl win %s, looks like CUSA is best, at 80% (they went 4-1). PAC is second best, at 67% (6-3). Independents (not a conference, but still) were also 67% (2-1). SEC was next, at 58% (7-5). So...third best?

No, because as you point out, pure bowl win % misses the quality of bowl opponents. How HARD were those 5, or 9, or 12 challenges your conference faced? Conference USA beat mighty powerhouses Northern Illinois ... Central Michigan ... Fresno State ... and Illinois. Hmm. Meanwhile, PAC was busy beating Kansas State, FSU, Colorado State, Duke, Nebraska and Maryland. SEC was beating Miami, West Virginia, Texas, Louisville, Minnesota, Iowa, and East Carolina.

So you have to account not only for win %, but also win quality and depth of quality. Simply getting 12 (SEC) or 9 (PAC) teams bowl eligible is a measure of success, no?

I balance bowl results with final rankings in the system I came up with. The rankings (AP & USAT) tend to be rear-looking...they favor "traditional" strengths and only slowly adjust to a shifting landscape. For example, several years after the B10's decline became obvious in bowl results, B10 teams kept showing up in the polls in unjustified numbers. Slowly that washed out, but only slowly.

So you take the extremely fickle "what happened today" bowl results, and marry them to the more steady (but slow to change) rankings, and you get something a bit more balanced.

In the polls, CUSA was practically non-existent in 2014. Marshall was ranked #22 (USAT) or #23 (AP). That's it. Because the rankings, slow as they are to adjust to change, still can see through the quality or weakness of a conference's successes. Meanwhile, the SEC and PAC, with six teams each in the final rankings, were rewarded for having quality depth in their conferences. Balancing out the bowl win %s.

Sorry, I got into it and rambled on. Long way of saying, "I mostly agree. Do see the PAC even with SEC in 2014, but otherwise agree 100%."
 
Last edited:
#23
#23
Man, Mike, I'd love if they did. Nebraska in the B10 feels as wrong as, say, Notre Dame in the SEC. Just doesn't fit.

But it would take a lot to get them back. Some real distrust there.

If Nebraska does go back to the Big 12 I bet Notre Dame takes their place in the Big 10.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#24
#24
In my mind, you can only determine the strength of a school by how many professionals come from that school. Likewise, the SEC can only be judged adequately by how many players are drafted into the NFL. With this criteria i searched the google and found:

"The SEC had 54 players selected in the*2015 NFL Draft, giving the league the most draftees for the ninth year in a row."

A compelling argument, i think.

Talented individuals do not necessarily make excellent teams. Or conferences.

You said: "In my mind, you can only determine the strength of a school by how many professionals come from that school." If you mean that literally and without exception, then you believe that 7-5 Florida was the best team in the SEC last year. Because they had 8 draftees, more even than 12-2 Alabama.

I agree, McDad, that NFL draft results are a useful indicator. But taken in isolation, they can become quite meaningless.

Talented individuals can come from really awful teams. Or conferences.
 
#25
#25
Talented individuals do not necessarily make excellent teams. Or conferences.

You said: "In my mind, you can only determine the strength of a school by how many professionals come from that school." If you mean that literally and without exception, then you believe that 7-5 Florida was the best team in the SEC last year. Because they had 8 draftees, more even than 12-2 Alabama.

I agree, McDad, that NFL draft results are a useful indicator. But taken in isolation, they can become quite meaningless.

Talented individuals can come from really awful teams. Or conferences.

Maybe.

If you're a prelaw major and you have two schools offering a scholarship, school A sends 45 kids a year to Harvard Law and School B sends 54 (with everything else being equal like class size, experience etc) which do you choose?
 

VN Store



Back
Top