Since 2008, Nebraska ranks 9th in most wins

SEC is all about perception. They put up the National Champion year in and year out. They have 1-3 great teams every year, so that in turn gives a free pass to the rest of the conference as well. But I dont get it. In the nineties, when it was Nebraska, Colorado and Kansas St running the big 8, the Iowa St's and Okla St's and Missouri's didnt get any of the credit that the Ole miss's, Miss St's and Vanderbilts get. "Oh they play in the SEC against such and such, theyre good".

SEC is not nearly as much better than the rest of the country as ESPN wants you to think. In 2011, if Okla St is in the SEC and Bama in the Big 12, Okla St gets the nod to play in N.O. It's that simple.

The top of the Big 10 may not be quite as good as the SEC's top, but the Big 10 is twice as competitive from top to bottom as the SEC. Big 10 teams beat up on each other. That's why our conference champ had 5 losses last year, and 2 the year before. That's why we dont have anyone in the title hunt. it's hard for a Big 10 team to roll through unscaved, where as Bama has those games on their schedule that they know they can walk through.

That's my theory.

SEC-->2-3 great teams. The rest are mediocre to bad

Big 10-->4-8 really good teams. The rest are mediocre to bad.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
LSU, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Texas A&M are all top programs.

Next tier, Arkansas, Mississippi State, Auburn will return quickly, Tennessee (soon I think) a lot like Nebraska.

This is a very tough conference.

Much tougher than any other currently. They have advantages over the rest of the country, some I do not consider right, but they get by with it.

 
skersfan said:
LSU, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Texas A&M are all top programs.

Next tier, Arkansas, Mississippi State, Auburn will return quickly, Tennessee (soon I think) a lot like Nebraska.

This is a very tough conference.

Much tougher than any other currently. They have advantages over the rest of the country, some I do not consider right, but they get by with it.
Click to expand...
South Carolina has never one a championship, yet are considered a top program?

 
They have been at the top of the SEC for a few years. will likely remain there. They were a top program when we played them. Are they winning games in the SEC. If I remember correctly the stomped a mud puddle in Georgia's a$$ last year.

Yes they are a top program right now.

 
skersfan said:
LSU, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Texas A&M are all top programs.

Next tier, Arkansas, Mississippi State, Auburn will return quickly, Tennessee (soon I think) a lot like Nebraska.

This is a very tough conference.

Much tougher than any other currently. They have advantages over the rest of the country, some I do not consider right, but they get by with it.
Click to expand...
auburn, tennessee, msu? even arkansas. those are the second tier team? yikes.

 
i understand the hate for the SEC but to not acknowledge that its the best conference in football is ridicules Alabama, Florida, LSU, Texas A&M, Georgia and South Carolina are all elite teams at the moment even vandy won 9 games and had a winning conference record yes teams like Auburn and Arkansas struggled last year but it wasnt long ago that they were very good if nebraska was in the SEC with last years defense and all the turnovers i have a hard time believing they would have made it to a bowl game yes the SEC is full of cheating boosters but its the best conference hands down

 
swmohusker said:
I don't buy the weak conference business. We had an extremely difficult schedule last year. We played 2 top five teams on the road, wiscy twice, Pac 12 runner up on the road. Not too mention msu, psu, mich and nw. If ur not happy with 10 wins then that is fine but don't say we had an easy schedule. That is Busch league.
Click to expand...
Saying our schedule was easy is more believable than saying it was "extremely difficult". Although I agree it wasn't easy. Just easier than expected, because the Big Ten did suck last year.

 
The Dude said:
swmohusker said:
I don't buy the weak conference business. We had an extremely difficult schedule last year. We played 2 top five teams on the road, wiscy twice, Pac 12 runner up on the road. Not too mention msu, psu, mich and nw. If ur not happy with 10 wins then that is fine but don't say we had an easy schedule. That is Busch league.
Click to expand...
Saying our schedule was easy is more believable than saying it was "extremely difficult". Although I agree it wasn't easy. Just easier than expected, because the Big Ten did suck last year.
Click to expand...
If our schedule was extremely difficult I wonder what a person would call a schedule that consisted of multiple top 10 teams.

People can say we didn't have that easy of a schedule. Problem is that once we face a team with equal or greater talent we poop our pants.

We will get spanked again next season by a team with similar talent and superior coaching. I would like Pelini to change my mind on this but the more of HIS guys that are on the team the more often we have had it handed to us.

We beat a lot of average teams last year and barely did that.

 
The SEC being from "top to bottom" the strongest conference in the nation is a bit of a missconception, but so is this. The SEC is loaded from top to middle, but the bottoming teams are just as weak or weaker than the weak teams in any other AQ conference (minus the Big East, obviously), and people tend to overlook that.

The SEC doesn't field 1-3 great team every year, for the past few years, it's fielded 3-6 every year. Then usually a 1-3 pretty good teams, and then the bottom half which usually suck and don't even make it to a Bowl. Last year, Alabama, Florida, Texas A&M, South Carolina, Georgia, and LSU were all awesome teams capable of competing with most teams from any other conference. The year before that, it was Alabama, Arkansas, LSU, South Carolina, and Georgia.

I think Nebraska would actually do pretty well in the SEC… they wouldn't be great, at least not at first, but it would probably improve over time. It's a program rich with tradition and winning, and a team like Nebraska would experience a slight recruiting bump in its recruiting area because it could use the SEC as a selling point, which no other team nearby could do. Players in Nebraska and the bordering states could play for a decent team in the SEC without having to travel very far.

The SEC is the best conference. The people for and people against both tend to exaggerate how good or bad it is. It's stacked better than any other conference, but it's not solid from top-to-bottom, that's for sure.

 
Everyone realizes that Northwestern beat two SEC teams on the field this past season, right?

Yes. Northwestern beat 2 SEC teams on the field.

Northwestern did that.

 
arkane said:
Northwestern went 2-0 against the SEC. What is your point? Michigan went 0-2, and Nebraska went 0-1.
Click to expand...
The simple point that they overglorify the entire SEC as this unstoppable juggernaut. Bottom-feeders or not, our Northwestern beat 2 SEC teams on the field. End of story. SEC is the best. That's not the argument. They are not nearly as far ahead as ESPN and the talking heads want you to think. That is the actual point.

 
accountability said:
arkane said:
Northwestern went 2-0 against the SEC. What is your point? Michigan went 0-2, and Nebraska went 0-1.
Click to expand...
The simple point that they overglorify the entire SEC as this unstoppable juggernaut. Bottom-feeders or not, our Northwestern beat 2 SEC teams on the field. End of story. SEC is the best. That's not the argument. They are not nearly as far ahead as ESPN and the talking heads want you to think. That is the actual point.
Click to expand...
ESPN does glorify the SEC and I will take nothing away from Northwestern's wins but neither Mississippi State nor Vanderbilt beat a team in the FBS that finished with a winning record.

 
StPaulHusker said:
accountability said:
arkane said:
Northwestern went 2-0 against the SEC. What is your point? Michigan went 0-2, and Nebraska went 0-1.
Click to expand...
The simple point that they overglorify the entire SEC as this unstoppable juggernaut. Bottom-feeders or not, our Northwestern beat 2 SEC teams on the field. End of story. SEC is the best. That's not the argument. They are not nearly as far ahead as ESPN and the talking heads want you to think. That is the actual point.
Click to expand...
ESPN does glorify the SEC and I will take nothing away from Northwestern's wins but neither Mississippi State nor Vanderbilt beat a team in the FBS that finished with a winning record.
Click to expand...
So the SEC's middle to bottom teams are not world-beaters as the whole conference is made out to be? Shocking. Isnt that the point we're all trying to agree on?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top