I made a post a few games into the season stating\asking if you thought the SEC was down, and everyone assured me that I was wrong. Well the SEC finished the bowl season with a very unSEC like 6-6 record and the conferences two premiere programs taking losses along the way with Alabama getting absolutely embarrassed by Clemson in the title game. So, I ask again is\was the SEC down this season?
good Q, I cant decide, would we still ask this had Bama won?
MayfieldCardinal Wrote:good Q, I cant decide, would we still ask this had Bama won?
I asked this question about four games into the season.
Good question Westie, a 6-6 bowl record is pretty shabby by the standards the conference holds itself to, but looking at other conferences, it seems every P5 conference outside of the god awful PAC-12 conference had a very average record through bowl season. What is the best metric to rate a conference by other than bowl records? Was Clemson just that good this season? Alabama and Georgia both getting embarrassed really raises these type of questions.
No.
Bowl games are all about motivation and let's face it the SEC gets everyone's best shot. Does anyone really think that UGA isn't a better team than Texas?
If the SEC is down, their bowl record is not an indication of it IMO.
FoSho Wrote:No.
Bowl games are all about motivation and let's face it the SEC gets everyone's best shot. Does anyone really think that UGA isn't a better team than Texas?
If the SEC is down, their bowl record is not an indication of it IMO.
So you're saying it's kinda like how SEC basketball teams treat Kentucky when they come to town, just applied to an entire conference. I can get behind that theory. To the bolded, I think if they played 10 times, Georgia would win 7-8, but it was a bad look for Georgia's players to run their mouths on twitter then show up and lay a goose egg in the Sugar Bowl.
geauxtigers75 Wrote:it was a bad look for Georgia's players to run their mouths on twitter then show up and lay a goose egg in the Sugar Bowl.
It was terrible!
When you have 12 teams make a bowl... someone has to lose lol
Wildcatk23 Wrote:When you have 12 teams make a bowl... someone has to lose lol
There is no question the SEC is great. The question is are they down as in compared to years past. I think it is safe to say the SEC usually takes better as a whole in their bowl games than they did this season. So I think this is a fair question.
I do think they dipped a little, but with this yearâs recruiting i think you are also getting ready to see the SEC go on a nasty run over everyone in the few years too come.
I don't believe the SEC was down as much as one team in the ACC has built a program next to no ones. Teams got tired of being dominated by the SEC.........especially the top 3 or 4teams and have been building and catching up. I believe if the Georgia-v- Texas game had a national title shot on the line Georgia wins that game every day of the week and twice on Sunday. They felt like they got shafted. The main bad effect of a playoff that I can tell so far is that teams who come close but just miss their bowl game looses all meaning.
This question comes up because KY won some games and Bama lost the title. I don't think that is enough to say the SEC is down.
Interesting question. I'd say that the answer is yes and no.
A few thoughts:
1. Alabama was blown out in the national championship game. Had they won, we aren't having this conversation. Had they not been blown out we might not be having this conversation either.
2. Some of the traditional powers (especially in the East) were a bit down. Looking directly at Florida and Tennessee having rough years in making this statement. Vanderbilt and South Carolina weren't the greatest, or even up. No one is ever convinced by Missouri until they've proven otherwise.
3. Remember that some bowl games might not be the best indicator due to the trend of top players sitting out "to prepare for the NFL Draft" (read: avoid injury), or situations where, for instance, the "SEC 4" may be matched up with the "Big XII 3".
4. Clemson might not have been in the playoffs had they been in the SEC. They only beat Texas A&M by two early on and were very fortunate to beat a not so great Syracuse team in September. While they were otherwise dominant, I don't think anyone was mistaking the ACC for a football powerhouse this season. Had all other things been held constant and you flipped them with any SEC East team aside from Georgia or any West team, there is a strong argument to be made that they maybe have two losses, or would at least have had to win the SEC Championship game in what might have been a de facto quarterfinal. Almost doesn't count though, and they ran the table in the games in front of them. I do think dropping them in the SEC with a freshman QB could have led to an early loss that would have really put them behind the eight ball and left them with quite a gauntlet to run through for the rest of the season. Getting a wildly overrated Notre Dame team in their semifinal didn't hurt either.
That said, I don't think that there's a question that they were the best team in college football at the end of the season, and the results show that. I do wonder, however, if they would have been given the opportunity to show that if they'd played in the SEC.
Bottom line: Clemson proved they were the best in the nation. Some of the big names in SEC East were down, but overall, I think don't think that there's a debate that the SEC was the toughest conference top to bottom, especially in terms of making it through a season undefeated.
I totally agree with what you said. Which is why I think UK's 10-3 season should be celebrated maybe even a little more than it has been. And there's no question in my mind that had the Tennessee game been any other week on the schedule than immediately following the Georgia game, we would have won it as well. Often when you play an opponent is the most critical aspect of your schedule.