B1G vs. SEC

[Mavric]

I don't know enough about Mizzou to know what triggered their success, but they've had a quality program for awhile.

 

Yeah, they haven't won a conference championship outright on the field since WWII and struggled to be more than one game over .500 in conference the previous five years. Pretty quality.

[Abdullah the Butcher]

The SEC invests more in athletics and football, bigger recruiting staffs and budgets. Most SEC schools also sponsor less Olympic sports and focus on the bigger teams.

 

 

 

http://spendingdatabase.knightcommission.org/fbs

[SandhillshuskerW]

Whenever I talk to people about the exagerration of how superior the SEC is perceived, I always use Missouri and Texas A&M. If the SEC is that dominate, how do you explain the success of those two programs right away in the SEC? It's not like they were members for 10 years and started recruiting better and then became relevant in the conference. I would also like to say that I also find it funny that Indiana beats Missouri and all of a sudden people are making excuses for it. Maybe it's just that Missouri was overrated and they were just rated that high because they are now in the SEC.

 

On top of all of that, I do feel like the B1G is not at the same level overall as the SEC. We have a ways to go and we don't help our situation when we lose in big games to teams in other conferences.

[Abdullah the Butcher]

Here's one for you guys.

 

http://m.espn.go.com/general/blogs/blogpost?blogname=sec&id=89380

 

SEC West alone rivals most conferences

[AgMarauder04]

 

I don't know enough about Mizzou to know what triggered their success, but they've had a quality program for awhile.

 

Yeah, they haven't won a conference championship outright on the field since WWII and struggled to be more than one game over .500 in conference the previous five years. Pretty quality.

 

 

Missouri records and conference finishes since 2007:

 

2007: 12-2 T- 1st B12N

2008: 10-4 T-1st B12N

2009: 8-5 T- 2nd B12N

2010: 10-3 T-1st B12N

2011: 8-5 5th

2012: 5-7 T-5th East

2013: 12-2 1st East

 

No, no outright championships but they have clearly had a run of success. They haven't exactly been B12 bottom feeders like Kansas

[Count 'Bility]

Here's one for you guys.

 

http://m.espn.go.com/general/blogs/blogpost?blogname=sec&id=89380

 

SEC West alone rivals most conferences

 

Thats kinda dumb. The best division in the best conference is better than most conferences? Who's a thunk?

 

But my favorite is Davis Pollack I think it was, one day referring to the SEC west as the "NFL's 9th division".

[AgMarauder04]

It'll be interested to see what they think when they all start playing each other. I'm gonna say no team gets out of conference play undefeated.

[BigRedBuster]

What I find interesting is the general feelings of:

 

a) The SEC is the greatest conference in the country because look at what they have done over the last 5 years.

 

and

 

b) You can't look at Indiana beating Missouri as meaning anything because this is this year, this team is different than last year's.

 

The complete opposite opinion in these two statements is mind boggling.

 

With the SEC, you have "experts" from January through August talking about great the SEC is and how everyone in the country is just trying to play catch up to the SEC and how nobody is going to be able to knock off the SEC...bla bla bla....puke.

 

Then, when one of them gets knocked off...."Well, that team isn't as good as it was last year, that doesn't mean anything."

 

Yes, the SEC is good. And, yes, they have had a good run here. But the constant harping from "experts" on how great it is is so over the top it's ridiculous.

 

Just listen to broad casts of their games. There will constantly be comments about "SEC speed"...."SEC Talent". and on and on and on.

 

Hell, even in the McNeese State broad cast, the announcers were talking about "Louisiana Speed". Really???? The state of Louisiana all of a sudden has more speed than the rest of the country? Hmmmm....didn't know that. The fact is, the announcers were equating "Louisiana" with SEC speed.

[Mavric]

Missouri records and conference finishes since 2007:

 

2007: 12-2 T- 1st B12N

2008: 10-4 T-1st B12N

2009: 8-5 T- 2nd B12N

2010: 10-3 T-1st B12N

2011: 8-5 5th

2012: 5-7 T-5th East

2013: 12-2 1st East

 

No, no outright championships but they have clearly had a run of success. They haven't exactly been B12 bottom feeders like Kansas

So "bottom feeders" and "quality" are the only two options? I see mostly middle-of-the-road lately.

 

The had some better finishes in the latter part of the last decade. The only two years they made the Big XII Championship game were on the tail end of Nebraska's worst stretch in almost 50 years but I'm sure there's no coincidence there. And they were 22-19 in conference from 2008-2012 - pretty much the definition of average. But I thought only their time in the current conference was relevant.

[Mavric]

Matt Svoboda ‏@HuskerLegacy 47m

The Big Ten has played 16 games against Power 5 Conferences. SEC has played 7, Pac 12 8, ACC 9, Big 12 10.

Matt Svoboda ‏@HuskerLegacy 47m

The Big Ten has played as many road games against Power 5 as the SEC has total games.

I think the SEC still has a couple later this season but the formula works: Play very few quality OOC games, assume many good SEC teams to start the year, if supposedly-lesser SEC teams beat the ranked ones, assume the the lower-ranked ones were better than expected - don't assume the higher-ranked ones are worse than expected. Guaranteed high finish.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Here we go with the SEC circle-suck (yes it's more than a circle-jerk).

 

 

http://espn.go.com/blog/sec/post/_/id/89380/sec-west-alone-rivals-most-conferences

 

 

 

 

"If you're going to win and be in the playoff, you've got to be a good football team anyway," Stallings said. "The bad thing is they're going to knock each other off. I don't know who's choosing the teams for the playoff, but the [sEC West] teams could lose two games by a couple of points and still be a better team than an undefeated or one-loss team from another league."

[RedDenver]

 

Missouri records and conference finishes since 2007:

 

2007: 12-2 T- 1st B12N

2008: 10-4 T-1st B12N

2009: 8-5 T- 2nd B12N

2010: 10-3 T-1st B12N

2011: 8-5 5th

2012: 5-7 T-5th East

2013: 12-2 1st East

 

No, no outright championships but they have clearly had a run of success. They haven't exactly been B12 bottom feeders like Kansas

 

There are no ties for teams within a division. Mizzou finished first in their division in 2007, 2008, and 2013.

[StPaulHusker]

 

Matt Svoboda ‏@HuskerLegacy 47m

The Big Ten has played 16 games against Power 5 Conferences. SEC has played 7, Pac 12 8, ACC 9, Big 12 10.

Matt Svoboda ‏@HuskerLegacy 47m

The Big Ten has played as many road games against Power 5 as the SEC has total games.

I think the SEC still has a couple later this season but the formula works: Play very few quality OOC games, assume many good SEC teams to start the year, if supposedly-lesser SEC teams beat the ranked ones, assume the the lower-ranked ones were better than expected - don't assume the higher-ranked ones are worse than expected. Guaranteed high finish.

 

The Power 5 games they have left are in state rivals. Georgia-Georgia Tech, Louisville-Kentucky, Florida-Florida State

[Notre Dame Joe]

It'll be interested to see what they think when they all start playing each other. I'm gonna say no team gets out of conference play undefeated.

 

Generally the slot is reserved for the winner of the SEC game. The loser drops a few places but can easily jump back up when they win again. The SEC actually has a net gain by playing each other.

[Branno]

First of all, I wasn't arguing how much better the SEC is than the B1G. I was simply saying arguing Mizzou as evidence that the SEC is weak and that there is some media conspiracy propping up the SEC is false, especially when the fact that that coaches have a poll too, that also shows SEC quality.

 

As far as NU vs A&M, I really only think performance in current conferences is relevant.

 

Overall

A&M: 24-6 (80% winning pcg)

NU: 32-12 (72.7% winning pcg)

 

Conference

A&M: 11-6 (64.7% winning pcg)

NU: 17-9 (70.1% winning pcg)

 

So, according to this, A&M is better overall while NU is better during conference play. We could also examine who each team plays every year and how well they did if you REALLY want to delve, but again, my point wasn't to argue that the SEC is better than the B1G OR that A&M is better than Nebraska. I was only pointing out that a lot of energy on this thread was being dedicated to media conspiracy about the SEC and that SEC isn't very good.

How about you compare your middle of the road Big 12 team to us when you do anything of record.

 

And no, beating Bama once doesn't count.