Question for SEC Bashers

[GatorGrad]

Do you think that the SEC was the best conference this past 2006 season?

[GatorGrad]

By the way, I personally do NOT think that we are superior to all other conferences on the field in the BCS Era (since a lot of you like to use that for whatever reason.) I think that there has been a lot of parity among BCS Conferences over the last 5-10 years.

I do however think that we were the best conference on the field in 2006 given our 6-3 bowl record which included blowout wins by Florida and LSU over Ohio State and Notre Dame in BCS Bowl Games. I also think that historically, the SEC has traditionally been the best conference of all time.

It seems as if every off-season, the anti-SEC folks are on some crusade to prove that the SEC is not all that it is cracked up to be. There are good arguments on both ends. But if there's any off-season where the SEC really can claim "bragging rights," wouldn't it be right now?

[sc69er]

SEC honk bashers, there is a big difference.

[terpintime]

The SEC was probably the best overall conference last season and the Gators were terrific in the MNC game. It's the incessant honking that annoys sober fans of the game...

[GatorGrad]

sc69er and terpintime:

Please elaborate and give examples of "honking" if you don't mind. I am really honestly just curious as to why so many of you love trying so hard to discredit the SEC, especially after the most recent 2006 season where the SEC looked pretty darn good.

[Blue Hen]

Are SEC myth debunkers invited to answer the question ? ( That's what I consider myself -not a hater or basher...well, I do bash it for some things )

Anyway, yes I agree with most of the computer systems final conference rankings of 06. Most had the SEC #1 but a few actually had the BE #1. Those leagues were pretty close and the P10 just behind.

If you go back a season..to 2005, the SEC pretty much averaged a #4 ranking among the computers ...5th in a few.

[Blue Hen]

just read some of the ridiculous stuff guys like aufan59 post. I think that's what 'honking' might be....maybe.

[aufan59]

just read some of the ridiculous stuff guys like aufan59 post. I think that's what 'honking' might be....maybe.

You are the one rambling on about NFL HOF players because thats all you can grasp on to.

[Blue Hen]

So just answer the HOF question or admit that you have no answer and I'll surely quit hounding you on it...promise.

[aufan59]

Not every HOF player was on a good college team. Not every good college team had an eventual HOF player. They simply aren't directly related. Sure, a good college team is more likely to produce a HOF player, but not guaranteed.

Its like saying Jason White wasn't a good college QB because he didn't play pro. Thats ridiculous and idiotic, grasping at straws for proof. Being good in the NFL and being good in College are completely different.

Would you say Bo Jackson wasn't a good college football player? He didn't make it to the HOF for obvious reasons, but him not making it doesn't mean Auburn has never had a good running back before.

I've been avoiding the question because its quite obviously a joke. Nobody is that stupid and relentless unless the goal is a response like this.

[HellYeahHokie]

I absolutely think the SEC was the best conference in 2006.

And this isn't SEC bashing, GatorGrad. It's SEC hype-busting.

When Les Miles spouts off unsubstantiated SEC myths, then the rest of the country is going to respond to the BS with facts to debunk it.

[TommyTrojan]

Do you think that the SEC was the best conference this past 2006 season?

Yes.

[GatorGrad]

So if most of you agree that the SEC was the best conference last season, why do so many anti-SEC people get so wound up when SEC fans, players, or coaches beat their chest a bit in the off-season? Haven't they earned the right, at least for this year?

It just seems like so much effort and stat-twisting is put into putting down the SEC, and I am just trying to understand why. Is it because of all the attention the conference gets? Do you feel like the fans are cocky and think that the SEC is too good for the rest of college football?

I'm just trying to get to the root of the issue here. That is all.

[Blue Hen]

Just speaking for myself...........it's the moronic claims like aufan and guys like that make. Claims that cannot be verified factually..like 'the injury rate in the SEC is much higher than any other league' ( perceived hard hitting ). You ask 'em to provide some verifiable research #s and they disappear or try to change the subject.
I have no problem with SEC fans claiming to have the best overall 2006 season.......but many go way beyond that. In 2005 when the SEC was the consensus 4th toughest league they still claimed dominance and superiority. Most of 'em aren't like you, GG.
I may be wrong, but I sense that SEC type fans, in general, are perceived as the most passionate in CF ( easily )....but also, easily the least informed in CF.

[GatorGrad]

Well you will rarely hear me talk about injury rates, # of bowl teams, or any other random stat that is meaningless or cannot be proven. The only factor that cannot really be proven, but I honestly believe in is that road games in the SEC are much tougher overall than in any other conference. The fans in the south are absolutely crazy. The passion is unmatched. Going to places like Death Valley, The Plains, Rocky Top, The Swamp, Between The Hedges, etc is a lot of fun for fans on a roadtrip...but not the visiting teams.

I know each conference has passionate fans with sold out stadiums and crazy atmospheres. Venues like USC, Oregon, Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Michigan, Iowa, Ohio St, Wisconsin, VaTech, etc can compare to any SEC school atmosphere for sure. But the top 6-7 SEC venues (leave out Ole Miss, Miss St, Kentucky, and Vandy) are murder. Every game is sold out and loud...very loud. Even South Carolina. There is no conference with that many hostile environments. I think that this leads to more in-conference losses and upsets than you would otherwise see at a neutral site, bowl game, or within another conference.

I can't prove this and don't expect anyone to really believe me. But that's the only "SEC Honking" belief that I guess I'll throw out there. Hen - you can let me know if you agree with me after your trip to Baton Rouge this September. I've been there as well, and it's on par with Auburn, Alabama, Florida, Tennessee, Georgia, and even South Carolina. So after your game at LSU, I want you to think to yourself what it would be like to play in 2-3 of those environments per season and tell me that it would not be a tough road.

There's my "SEC Honking For The Week!"

[Blue Hen]

GG, buddy
I'm sorry ( really) but the facts are going to crush your heart and bust your 'perceptions' bubble.( SEC types are sooooo perception driven )

Among the 6 BCS leagues, SEC road teams have a HIGHER.....HIGHER !! in conference winning percentage than road teams in any other league. True story, GG...sorry. The SEC is actually the easiest BCS league for winning on the road.
Source : Sportslink Network - CF trivia
Mr. Ktffan posted the actual numbers last year following a similar type 'perception' driven claim. Maybe if he sees this he can post them again.
I have the #s through the 2005 season ( if you want them ) but the up to date #s can be found at that site.

I feel kinda bad having to tell you this because , imo, you're the most reasonable SEC fan around here and fun to discuss and debate CF with.

[aufan59]

way to count the world's largest outdoor cocktail party and the SECCG as a road win every year.

[Blue Hen]

Sorry that the facts bust your perception bubble too, Aufan. I'll try to post the exact #s tommorrow .

[GatorGrad]

GG, buddy
I'm sorry ( really) but the facts are going to crush your heart and bust your 'perceptions' bubble.( SEC types are sooooo perception driven )

Among the 6 BCS leagues, SEC road teams have a HIGHER.....HIGHER !! in conference winning percentage than road teams in any other league. True story, GG...sorry. The SEC is actually the easiest BCS league for winning on the road.
Source : Sportslink Network - CF trivia
Mr. Ktffan posted the actual numbers last year following a similar type 'perception' driven claim. Maybe if he sees this he can post them again.
I have the #s through the 2005 season ( if you want them ) but the up to date #s can be found at that site.

I feel kinda bad having to tell you this because , imo, you're the most reasonable SEC fan around here and fun to discuss and debate CF with.

Hen,

It would not suprise me at all if the road winning % for the ENTIRE SEC was lower than expected. I'm not really talking about Vandy or Kentucky. Or Miss St/Ole Miss in most years (although those darn Mississippi teams have given Florida a heck of a time for whatever reason.) I'm mainly talking about the "big six" programs of Florida, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama, Auburn, and LSU. And even South Carolina and Arkansas. I would be interested to see the stats you can provide on those venues compared to the other top 6-8 programs of other BCS Conferences.

Also, just looking within a conference doesn't tell the entire tale. The fact that Vandy or Kentucky don't win much at home tells me nothing. OOC games against fellow BCS teams as well as an analysis of who was playing who would need to be considered (games like Michigan-Vandy or Tennessee-Duke tell us nothing.) That's why sometimes "stats" can be misleading, even if they are facts.

[aufan59]

That's why sometimes "stats" can be misleading, even if they are facts.

This is the principle that hokiehen lives by. He has gotten pretty good at selecting and manipulating misleading statistics.

[Blue Hen]

oh..ok...being 'selective' again. That's fine, and I'm really looking forward to the Tiger Stadium experience. I'm sure it will be loud, intimidating, and quite a spectacle. I just hope I'm seated among adult LSU fans with 3 digit IQs.

[Blue Hen]

For one week, aufan, try facts and reality over myths and fairytales. There will be a slight painful adjustment but in the long run you'll feel better about yourself and more importantly, be a much more astute CF fan.

[GatorGrad]

By the way, I think that the Big Ten also has several impressive home game atmospheres in Ohio St, Michigan, Penn St, Wisconsin, Iowa. Michigan St and Purdue can be tough roadtrips given the right matchup.

The ACC has VaTech, FSU, and Clemson although FSU's HFA does not seem to be what it was in the 90's lately. GaTech can be a rowdy bunch sometimes. Miami's Orange Bowl rocks, but only for the "big games" unfortunately. Other games you can have 10,000 to 30,000 empty seats.

The Big 12 is solid with Oklahoma, Texas, Nebraska, and Texas A&M. Kansas St, Colorado, and Okie St have had their moments too.

I would rank the PAC 10 fifth in this department - there's just too many other distractions on the west coast to get people excited about college football on a consistent basis. Certainly the Oregon schools, USC, AzSt, and Cal can have their moments.

I know some of you may find this topic silly, but I think it's fun. I've been to a lot of college football venues, and enjoy paying attention to the traditions and atmospheres as much as the game itself. It's what separates college football from pro football IMO.

[Blue Hen]

I have many of the same perceptions, GG, of various home venue advantages based on noise, crowd size, stadium size etc......but I just found the actual road winning success rates which I will immediately post in a new thread. The P10 road teams in the last 10 years have posted a .442 success rate. Compare with the SEC's .467 road success rate. It is surprising but true - the easieast BCS conference to win road games in is the SEC. Maybe noise, size and kids painting themselves school colors is overrated as far as providing competitive advantages for teams ???? Anyway, check out the actual conference road winning % in the new posts.

[HellYeahHokie]

Even when the SEC is down, they still say it's the toughest.

Just look on this board. There's an Auburn fan who is actually trying to make the claim that Mississippi State is a tough opponent, and is better than most teams in the Pac-10. THAT is the nonsense that people who "bash" the SEC (who aren't really bashing) are exposing as absurd.

It's hard for you to see, because you happen to be a rational SEC fan, but you do appear to be in the minority.

[GatorGrad]

Well I won't defend the AU fan that called Miss St a tough opponent. But I also hope that you guys wouldn't judge an entire conference fanbase just on a few people (like BuLLdawg) on an internet message board. Otherwise, Biffy certainly would not be a great representative of VaTech or ACC fans! :)

[Blue Hen]

There are nut case fans of all conferences in these forums but the SEC might have the statistical advantage there :-)...strictly personal perception

[HellYeahHokie]

Here's the problem, GatorGrad.

LES MILES IS SAYING THE SAME CRAP!

It's one thing for a message board looney, but these are just a byproduct of an overall mentality of SEC teams and fans that actually buy into this crap. For Les Miles to be criticizing USC's conference schedule, when LSU's conference schedule includes Ole Miss, MSU, Kentucky, etc is a complete joke. But part and parcel to the same drum beating from many, if not most SEC fans.

[GatorGrad]

I agree that Les probably shouldn't have said what he said. But I also think that too much is being made of this. He said it at one of those LSU Summer Booster functions in New Orleans, right? Coaches always play to their crowd, often not even realizing that there is media there. They tell the fans what they want to hear and get the fans pumped up for next season. Spurrier used to crack on FSU and Tennessee saying things like "FSU stands for Free Shoes University" after the 1993 Foot Locker Scandal, and would say "You can't spell Citrus Bowl without UT" in reference to Tennessee always finishing right behind Florida in the SEC and thus going to the Citrus Bowl in Orlando instead of a major bowl like the Sugar. It happens.

I'm not defending Les, but I can certainly see how he would get carried away in the setting he was in. Many LSU fans really really resent that their 2003 MNC had to be shared with USC. Especially when people were talking about USC's 2004 "repeat" and possible 2005 "three-peat" as if LSU's MNC didn't exist anymore. LSU fans have developed a rivalry with USC despite never having played them since the 80's. It's kind fo silly, but true. So Les Miles was probably playing up to his audience by ripping USC. Not something I would do, but not that big of a deal to me I guess.

[sc69er]

To be paranoid(the LSU fans). Most impartial observers felt that USC was heads and shoulders better that LSU or Oklahoma that year. USC was ranked #1 in both polls at the end of the season and would have been ranked #1 in both polls had there been a vote in the Coachs poll after the BCS bowls(they did get a #1 and MNC in the AP poll). As matter of fact you never here LSU fans discuss this issue they prefer the "every body involved in the BCS agreed to play by such and such rules---" instead of comparing the teams. There was no comparison between the two teams, USC was clearly superior hence LSU lucked out big time to share part of the MNC.

[GatorGrad]

There was no comparison between the two teams, USC was clearly superior hence LSU lucked out big time to share part of the MNC.

I really really hope you are joking. "No comparison?" USC was "clearly superior?" Please explain. Both were great teams and we'll never know for sure who would have won if they met head to head. You could make a case for both. But you really sound like a biased homer when you deal in absolutes like "no comparison" and "clearly superior" when comparing USC to LSU in 2003. You really have no room to bash "SEC Honking" with statements like that. Again, I hope you're kidding.

[aufan59]

I really really hope you are joking. "No comparison?" USC was "clearly superior?" Please explain. Both were great teams and we'll never know for sure who would have won if they met head to head. You could make a case for both. But you really sound like a biased homer when you deal in absolutes like "no comparison" and "clearly superior" when comparing USC to LSU in 2003. You really have no room to bash "SEC Honking" with statements like that. Again, I hope you're kidding.

Don't bother with sc69er. If he was an SEC fan he would get as much crap as I do for having off the wall opinions. Since there aren't any PAC-10 haters nobody calls him on his crap.

[sc69er]

Who voted in polls believed that USC was superior to LSU. So I am not alone in asserting that they were superior. Some stats of note. The Trojans were the #1 ranked rush defense in 2003 allowing around 90 yards/game. They were the #1 team in turnover ratio and at the end of the year the offense was rounding out to be the Matt Leinart/ Reggie Bush/ Lendle White offense we saw for the next 2 years.If the coaches had been allowed to vote LSU would not have half of a MNC, that is a fact. LSU may have had a fine team but the Tro.jans were on another level. Essentially the same Trojan team met essentially the same Sooner team(with a healthy Jason White and a real running back) one year later at a neutral site and won 55-19. The LSU team beat Oklahoma in a home game 21-14. The teams were not comparable.

[aufan59]

Who voted in polls believed that USC was superior to LSU. So I am not alone in asserting that they were superior. Some stats of note. The Trojans were the #1 ranked rush defense in 2003 allowing around 90 yards/game. They were the #1 team in turnover ratio and at the end of the year the offense was rounding out to be the Matt Leinart/ Reggie Bush/ Lendle White offense we saw for the next 2 years.If the coaches had been allowed to vote LSU would not have half of a MNC, that is a fact. LSU may have had a fine team but the Tro.jans were on another level. Essentially the same Trojan team met essentially the same Sooner team(with a healthy Jason White and a real running back) one year later at a neutral site and won 55-19. The LSU team beat Oklahoma in a home game 21-14. The teams were not comparable.

You refer to computer polls being better than opinionated polls when it supports your argument, and vice versa when they don't.

[sc69er]

Trojan team shut out the Auburn tigers at the Plains in the opening game That year. It was Matt Leinarts first game, Reggie and Lendle were true freshmen and had yet to attend a class. The defense was nails all that year and the offense just about exploded by the end of the year. A great team, maybe the best of the Carroll era!

[GatorGrad]

If the coaches had been allowed to vote LSU would not have half of a MNC, that is a fact. The teams were not comparable.

Sorry, but this is complete nonsense, cannot be proven, and is nothing more than a very biased opinion.

[HellYeahHokie]

Don't bother with sc69er. If he was an SEC fan he would get as much crap as I do for having off the wall opinions. Since there aren't any PAC-10 haters nobody calls him on his crap.

Wrong again, Aufan. sc69er has been called out on this board for outrageous statements he's made.

Again, the difference between perception and reality....

[Blue Hen]

One of my favorite Spurrier quips was about Auburn after a dormitory fire destroyed some books....

" but the real tragedy was that they hadn't been colored yet "

[HellYeahHokie]

There's a big difference between Spurrier's good-natured ribbing (perhaps not always good-natured), and Les Miles statements. Like I said when I first posted the story, there's nothing wrong with Les saying that he feels the SEC is the toughest conference. There's nothing wrong with Pete Carrol saying the Pac-10 is the toughest conference. But Les called out other conferences specifically as weak, and that is where he crossed the line. And even if his comments were based on some sort of truth, it still wouldn't be have been OK. Why knock other conferences or other teams just to promote your own? So it's poor sportsmanship, but combined with myths that are easily dismissed as false, then he's opened himself up for criticism.

[GatorGrad]

Well, I give Miles credit for speaking his mind at least. If that's his opinion, then I give him credit for being honest and stating it in a day and age where most coaches are so PC and tell you nothing but the traditional coach-speak.

I agree that Spurrier's quips were usually good ole aw-shucks type of fun more so than what Miles said. But everyone is different. Spurrier always knew how to say what was on his mind while coming across as more funny than anything else. Except to the fans of the school he was making fun of which thought he was a jerk. But he didn't care which is what was so funny and refreshing about it. I love having Urban Meyer as our coach, but man sometimes I miss the Ole Ball Coach!

[sc69er]

Sorry, but this is complete nonsense, cannot be proven, and is nothing more than a very biased opinion.

USC was ranked #1 in the Coachs poll at the end of the regular season. LSU is ranked #2 by the coachs at the end of the regular season. USC Easily beats #4 ranked Michigan( the 28-14 score does not reflect how the Trojans dominated the Wolverines) and LSU struggles to beats # 3 ranked Oklahoma(they had just got beat by Kst in the B12 CCG) 21-14 as the Sooners were driving at the end of the game. After the Bowl game why would Coachs change the #1 and #2. LSU did nothing to merit the change and several coachs who voted in the final poll publically stated that if they had a chance they would have voted for USC but the BCS rules didn't allow them to vote. It is not nonsence at all to assert that LSU was lucky to get a 1/2 MNC in 2003. The writers who were not required to vote for the winner of the LSU vs Oklahoma game voted USC at the end of the season and following the Bowl games, QED.. LSU's MNC was achieved by a procedure not a vote!

[GatorGrad]

You still can't prove for sure that:

1) The coaches would not have voted LSU #1 after they beat one-loss Oklahoma while USC beat two-loss Michigan.

2) LSU wouldn't have beaten USC on a neutral field had the teams had the opportunity to meet.

That USC was a much better team than LSU in 2004 is nothing more than an opinion, and a very biased one at that.

[sc69er]

anything in an opinion driven system, nothing. However if logic is used you can deduce a logical outcome. You are more articulate than the average SEC honk(aka Aubuurn59)but still suffer from a blind spot when it comes to looking at the data concerning the SEC football prowess! The LSU team lucked out, any reasonable person would agree when all the facts are exposed.

[GatorGrad]

The LSU team lucked out, any reasonable person would agree when all the facts are exposed.

You make yourself sound as bad, if not worse, than the so-called "SEC Honks" when you say things like this. To say that LSU and USC were not even "comparable" is nonsense. Both were great teams, and it's a shame that we didn't get to see them play. But to act like USC was a superior team is nothing more than a biased opinion. Sorry.

[CJHawkeyes]

While I think USC would have won the coaches poll if LSU were not mandated choice, LSU did not luck into a split title. They won based on the chosen rules for the BCS (I'm not disputing USC's split title here). BCS officials are stupid for even thinking they needed to mandate such a vote. Why not just do a post-bowl BCS rankings with "playoff wins" determining first and allow both polls to vote as they see fit? We would have a BCS champion, AP champion, and Coaches' champion and fans can decide for themselves how much to value each. Bottom line is that the only purpose served by a post bowl vote is the desire to have a known finish for 25 teams. LSU need not be voted number one in an opinion poll to validate winning the title game in a matchup produced by different rules.

[Blue Hen]

I have no idea of the relative strenghts of LSU & USC in that 'split' year. They would have to line up and play for anyone to really know.

....But this is clear - The AP poll has far, far, far x10 more integrity than that joke of a so called 'coaches' poll. AP voters are allowed to vote their true convictions. Coaches poll voters, simply, are not. That's why the AP pulled` out of the BCS formula....the blatant fraud of that system. Too bad a terrific team like LSU had to get their trophy via a fraudulent poll.

[CJHawkeyes]

I have no idea of the relative strenghts of LSU & USC in that 'split' year. They would have to line up and play for anyone to really know.

....But this is clear - The AP poll has far, far, far x10 more integrity than that joke of a so called 'coaches' poll. AP voters are allowed to vote their true convictions. Coaches poll voters, simply, are not. That's why the AP pulled` out of the BCS formula....the blatant fraud of that system. Too bad a terrific team like LSU had to get their trophy via a fraudulant poll.


I disagree with the contention that LSU got their trophy via a fraudlent poll (notwithstanding my position that polls are worthless). The mandated vote was completely unnecessary. LSU got their trophy as a result of finishing in the top two of the BCS standings then WINNING the subsequent BCS title game. The BCS didn't need the coaches to vote LSU #1. They could have just had a postbowl BCS standings that mandated the the title game winner #1 and let the two polls vote as they wished. For example, the two polls release post NCAA BB tournament rankings. It is not necessary for either to vote the winner of the tournament #1 in order to validate the trophy earned by winning the tournament.

[Blue Hen]

You might not be aware, CJH, of what is written on the actual BCS championship trophy.

Right at the top of the trophy is the American Football Coaches Association logo....just below it you'll see" THE NATIONAL CHAMPION." Below that, the Coaches poll and BCS logo.

Now, the AFCA is the organization that forbids it's voting coaches in the ESPN/USATODAY coaches poll from voting their true convictions.
It can't get any more fraudulent than that.


I see your point for not needing post BCS/MNC game voting....however the trophy itself represents blatant fraud. That's what I was talking about.

[CJHawkeyes]

You might not be aware, CJH, of what is written on the actual BCS championship trophy.

Right at the top of the trophy is the American Football Coaches Association logo....just below it you'll see" THE NATIONAL CHAMPION." Below that, the Coaches poll and BCS logo.

Now, the AFCA is the organization that forbids it's voting coaches in the ESPN/USATODAY coaches poll from voting their true convictions.
It can't get any more fraudulant than that.


I see your point for not needing post BCS/MNC game voting....however the trophy itself represents blatant fraud. That's what I was talking about.


I knew all of that and suspected that is where you were coming from. Just one more stupid thing done by the BCS. Should have just let the polls vote as they wanted and validated their own champion with their own final standings. Ultimately, my point is that LSU did not win a share of the title because the coaches poll mandated them number #1 but rather because they finished #2 in the BCS standings and beat the #1 BCS team in the title game. Had the coaches and BCS not agreed to the mandated rules, I'm sure the BCS would have done what I said they should have done. My guess is that wanted to save money on having another expensive trophy created.

[GatorGrad]

These last few posts just prove what a mess college football's post season truly is. Seriously...it's all about CONFERENCE Championships! Real standings based on real on the field results. No voting or computers. Heck, I wouldn't mind seeing us drop the pointless OOC games and go to an 11-game SEC Round Robin Schedule. Get to play every team every year, produce a clear champ, and be done with it. Or maybe take the top four and have a mini SEC Playoff. What a waste OOC and Bowl games are. I have no desire to watch games against Troy, Western Carolina, or Florida Atlantic.

[CJHawkeyes]

These last few posts just prove what a mess college football's post season truly is. Seriously...it's all about CONFERENCE Championships! Real standings based on real on the field results. No voting or computers. Heck, I wouldn't mind seeing us drop the pointless OOC games and go to an 11-game SEC Round Robin Schedule. Get to play every team every year, produce a clear champ, and be done with it. Or maybe take the top four and have a mini SEC Playoff. What a waste OOC and Bowl games are. I have no desire to watch games against Troy, Western Carolina, or Florida Atlantic.


FWIW, "computers" produce standings based on real on the field results.:D

[kocurt]

I will chime in on a few thing.

First- to answer the original question, yes the SEC was the best last year. The bowl record and OOC games seem to bear it out, though little facts like the #12 team in the big 12 dominating UGA between the hedges seem to get left out of most SEC arguments. :)

The SEC fans are passionate for sure. I live here in GA now and I attend games often (perk of the job) for UGA and GT. I am a fan of niether team, so I am pretty unbiased on what I see from them and the oppoenent on the field. In my opinion, the SEC is very much like the Big 12 (my home) in quality. They have some powerhouses each year, some mid-road teams, and some bottom feeders. The names of the teams switch a bit from year to year but thats about it. As far as the SEC being the best conference in quality of football teams? I dont see it. In regards to passion, fan support, media involement, etc. They are tops imo. The BCS conferences are all pretty equal in my opinion. Even the Big East has proven themselves imo.

On to other stuff. LSU vs USC in 2003. They play the games for a reason. On any given night any team can beat another. To say that one team was "clearly superior" than the other is pure speculation. 2001 Okie state was not even in the same league as 2001 OU, but they still managed to win the game. It comes down to coaching, preparation, talent level, and player involvement. Would OU have lost to BSU if they REALLY cared about the game and prepared for it? Would UGA have been embarrassed by Colorado or WVU if they REALLY expected the other team to be competitive with them? Would USC have been shut down totally by UCLA if they REALLY thought they were in for a tough game? Who can say. But the point is this, they play the games for a REASON.