SEC is Becoming NFL Junior

#1
DiderotsGhost

DiderotsGhost

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
4,658
Likes
23,732
#1
One thing that's really amazing to me is just how brutal the SEC has become. The SEC was the toughest conference in college football in 2003. It was even more difficult by 2008 and 2011. In 2013, it's almost like a Junior version of the NFL. There is very little room for error any more.

As Vols fans, we're all disappointed with a 4-7 season. Likewise, Florida fans have to be unhappy with a likely 4-8 season, and Georgia fans are upset at what will either be an 8-4 or 7-5 season. It's almost unfathomable that the SEC East's "Big Three" will all have 4+ loss seasons, and two will have losing records. But one thing people don't realize is just how tough the SEC has become in the past few years.

There is not a weak coaching staff in the entire league any more. Even last year, you had Gene Chizik, Derek Dooley, John L. Smith, and Joker Phillips. This year, you can take any SEC staff and put them at a Sunbelt, Conference USA, or MAC program and they probably finish in the top 2-3 every single year. Even in the AAC, I think guys like Brett Bielema and Mark Stoops would have potentially to be amongst the top 3-4 year in and year out.

Take a look at the recruiting classes this year. On Rivals, here are the rankings for the 14 SEC schools:

1. Alabama
2. Tennessee
3. Georgia
5. Texas A&M
8. Kentucky
12. Auburn
13. Ole Miss
15. Florida
16. LSU
21. Vanderbilt
30. Missouri
33. Arkansas
34. South Carolina
39. Mississippi State

The 2nd best Big 10 team is ranked #18. So we have 9 teams ranked higher than the 2nd best Big 10 team. If you filter those results by "average recruit ranking", the SEC fares even better with 7 teams in the top 10 and 10 in the top 18. That's right; over half of the top 18 teams are from the SEC.

For this season, Mississippi State, Tennessee, Arkansas, and Kentucky would've all likely finished in the top 4 and had 9-3 or 8-4 seasons if they played in the AAC. Even in the Big 10 or Big 12, they might've pulled out 7-5 seasons.

The SEC was tough in 1998 when we won the national title. It was arguably the best conference in America at that time, but there were still several cupcakes any given year. It progressively became tougher in the 00's, and now in 2013, it's gotten to the point where there is no such thing as an "easy game."

The parity is not quite at NFL levels, but it's getting close. I think this is part of the reason why Florida can go 4-7 with a bunch of injuries. If this happened in 2003, Florida would've probably still gone 7-5 or 8-4, but not any more.

Not using this as a way to excuse Tennessee's lack of competitiveness this season. But what I am saying is that people are assessing their teams based on norms from 10, 15, and 20 years ago, when Tennessee, Florida, and Georgia were feasting on cupcakes for at least 5-6 games every year.

Take a look at the 1998 season and our schedule that year. We played at least 5 cupcakes in our 11 regular season games:

1. Houston
2. South Carolina
3. UAB
4. Vanderbilt
5. Kentucky

If you count Auburn (which went 3-8 that year), then we played six easy games (over half the schedule!). We really only played 5 regular season games of any difficulty: Syracuse, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, and Arkansas. You take the 2013 Tennessee team and put it into 1998, it probably wins the six "easy games" and might knock off Bama and / or Georgia, to finish the season 7-4 or 8-3.

Compare our 1998 schedule with our 2013 schedule and it's night and day. Even our "cupcakes" in 2013 (Western Kentucky and USA) were probably better than some of the weak SEC teams (Vandy, South Carolina, Kentucky) in 1998. Two of our so-called "cupcake" games next year are actually against very good mid-major teams: Utah State and Arkansas State. The only "freebie" we have is Chattanooga.

None of this is an insinuation that losing should become the norm for Tennessee (or Florida or Georgia), but rather that it's a different time and we have to evaluate things on different standards. In 2013, going 7-5 and maybe 4-4 in the SEC is similar to going 9-3 back in the mid 90's. Going 9-3 is like going 10-2 or 11-1 back then. Any season where you go 10-2, 11-1, or 12-0 in the SEC is an incredible feat!

It's scary just how tough this conference has become. Like the NFL, a few injuries or missteps, and a good team can become a losing team.

Butch will make us competitive again and we absolutely should expect to be winning a majority of our conference games, but I also think the SEC fanbases need a bit more realism in their expectations. Georgia fans will be upset with an 8-4 season, and 5-3 in the SEC, but they've actually had a moderately successful season.

If next season, we go 7-5, we should consider it a major success given where we were in 2012. And if we're at 9-3 and competing for the SEC East within 2-3 years, that's a huge success!

How would I evaluate the coaching staff over 2-3 years down the road. I'd judge them primarily by their record in SEC play with these standards:

Winning 75%+: Major success
Winning 50% - 75%: Moderate success
Winning 25% - 50% Somewhat unsuccessful
Winning 0% - 25%: Completely unacceptable
 
  • Like
Reactions: 11 people
#4
#4
I enjoyed this. It's true that the SEC has gotten progressively tougher. However, be prepared for very little appreciation and a lot of people who still think it's 1998.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#5
#5
:yahoo: One of the best posts ever.

No doubt things have gotten a lot more competitive.

Bottom line ....you can have a pretty darn good team and still lose a lot of games in the SEC.

GBO:rock:
 
#6
#6
It is preNFL or miniNFL and has been for quite some time.

The revenue, especially with the new SEC network and bowl game payouts, is commensurate.

Which is why it is illogical to believe that the battle can be won with MAC coaches.
 
#9
#9
It's been the Junior NFL for a long time. UT either steps up it's game or will sink further. It isn't going to get any easier and if you're looking for sympathy you'll find it between sh&t and syphilis in the dictionary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#12
#12
When I think of powerhouse conferences, I think of losses to Georgia State and absolutely no non-conference Top 25 victories for the entire conference. Thus far, 2013 has been a very weak year for the SEC, aside from Alabama and Auburn. As for Mizzou, that is a program that is only two years removed from a stellar 5-4 BigXII Conference showing.
 
#13
#13
therealUT said:
When I think of powerhouse conferences, I think of losses to Georgia State and absolutely no non-conference Top 25 victories for the entire conference. Thus far, 2013 has been a very weak year for the SEC, aside from Alabama and Auburn. As for Mizzou, that is a program that is only two years removed from a stellar 5-4 BigXII Conference showing.
Click to expand...

What SEC team lost to Georgia State? Georgia State is 0-11 this year.

2013 Georgia State Football

Honestly, any SEC team scheduling non-conference top 25 teams is just plain stupid. I wish Tennessee would stop doing it. The SEC stretch is brutal enough, without adding top teams from the Big 12, Pac 12, and ACC every year. We should be scheduling a I-AA cupcake, along with 2 bottom-tier I-A teams, and maybe one decent mid-major.

It's not like the pollsters reward us for playing a more difficult schedule. If Auburn beats Bama and Mizzou / SC, and finishes the season 12-1 with a bevy of great wins, the pollsters will still put Ohio State with its cupcake schedule in the national title game. It makes sense to schedule weak non-conference competition when the pollsters show virtually no ability to discern strength of schedule.

That's why there are no non-conference top 25 wins; not because the SEC is weak.
 
#14
#14
DiderotsGhost said:
What SEC team lost to Georgia State? Georgia State is 0-11 this year.

2013 Georgia State Football

Honestly, any SEC team scheduling non-conference top 25 teams is just plain stupid. I wish Tennessee would stop doing it. The SEC stretch is brutal enough, without adding top teams from the Big 12, Pac 12, and ACC every year. We should be scheduling a I-AA cupcake, along with 2 bottom-tier I-A teams, and maybe one decent mid-major.

It's not like the pollsters reward us for playing a more difficult schedule. If Auburn beats Bama and Mizzou / SC, and finishes the season 12-1 with a bevy of great wins, the pollsters will still put Ohio State with its cupcake schedule in the national title game. It makes sense to schedule weak non-conference competition when the pollsters show virtually no ability to discern strength of schedule.

That's why there are no non-conference top 25 wins; not because the SEC is weak.
Click to expand...

Georgia Southern...you know what I meant, I'm well into a few drinks.

So, the non-conference losses to Top 25 teams and non-Top 25 teams are because the conference is a powerhouse?

It's not hard to look at the level of talent in the SEC this year and come to the conclusion that the SEC has seen much, much better days in past years. The SEC is down this year. It is top heavy with Alabama and Alabama is most likely the best team in the nation. However, the second, third, and fourth best teams in the SEC (Auburn, Mizzou, and LSU, in my opinion) are not teams that I would bet on to beat Stanford, UCLA, Oregon, Oklahoma State, Baylor, Ohio State, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Clemson, Duke (yes, Duke), etc. That would have not been the case a few years ago, with those Georgia, South Carolina, and LSU squads.
 
#16
#16
OP, That or we have fallen off so far in talent that we consider no one as cupcakes. I think if we had the same level of talent as 1998, we would still consider 6 - 7 teams as cup cakes.
 
#17
#17
Vols4ever said:
OP, That or we have fallen off so far in talent that we consider no one as cupcakes. I think if we had the same level of talent as 1998, we would still consider 6 - 7 teams as cup cakes.
Click to expand...

I've always thought we were above the cupcakes...but we are one.

We just are.
 
#18
#18
I don't want to make excuses for either one of these teams but GA & FL had so many injures this yr its very hard to judge them. I just wished we could have capitalized on them being down this yr. This was probably the last chance we had to steal some cheap wins against the top two sec east teams.
 
#19
#19
Good thread.

Has anyone ever considered that SEC recruiting may be skewed based on the coverage of the geographical areas being recruited and the fact that SEC fans probably make up the majority of those who subscribe to recruiting services? Or am I crazy for considering such a conspiracy?
 
#21
#21
To paraphrase a poker cliche, if you look at your schedule and can't identify the cupcake, you are the cupcake.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#24
#24
I remember reading a quote from an NFL scout or coach that was similar to:
"There are 9 divisions in the NFL; AFC North, South, East, West. NFC North, South, East, West. And then there's the SEC."
 
#25
#25
knucklehead_vol said:
PAC 12 is better top to bottom.
Click to expand...

If we're basing this assumption on TALENT top to bottom, the SEC is still leaps and bounds ahead of the Pac12.

You could make the argument that the Pac12 had the better coaches during the last 6-8 years (they're all successful in the NFL now). You could make the argument that the college teams are more competitive week in and week out, but if you look at the talent that's gone to the NFL in the last 10 years, it's SEC heavy.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top