SEC Overrated?

[John Galt?]

The Big East does very well in Bowl Games and in head to head games vs other conferences and BCS conferences.

This year the Big East has the 2nd best out of conference record. The SEC has the best record by far.  But of the 6 BCS conferences, the Big East is 2nd.  Yet the talk nationally is how the Big East is a joke and should lose their BCS affiliation, etc, etc.  So forget the SEC being overrated.  Why is the Big East so underrated??

Because they only have 8 teams. The best 8 of 12 is usually going to be better than the best 8 of 8.

[Biggs3535]

I'd say the Big East is at least on par with the ACC and Big 10, if not better.  Shoot, I'd put the Mountain West's top teams up against the Big 10's top teams.

[John Galt?]

we're talking about this perception that has gone on for years, if not decades, about the SEC being the cream of the crop.

That is because of the diversity of the conference. Look at how many different programs have been MNCs or at least top 5 in the last 3 decades.

MNCs by different programs since 1980

SEC               Big10        Big12(Big 8 and SWC combined)  ACC             Big East       PAC

UGA              PSU*         OK                                               Ga Tech         Miami           USC
Bama            OSU          Colorado                                      FSU                                   Wash
UF                 UM            Nebraska                                     Clemson
Tennessee                    Texas
LSU
Auburn???      


While the Big 12, PAC, and Big10 have lots of titles, they are mostly the same teams over and over (USC, Neb, OK) while the SEC has spread its titles out over 5 different teams (6 if you count Auburn's 12-0 but no invite season).

Also, how many teams are REALLY National Champ quality programs? No one thinks Duke or Baylor or Purdue will become a dominant force anytime soon(like our lifetimes). Some teams just don't have the recruiting base or financial re$ource$ to be relevant year after year, so removing those weak sisters what do the conferences look like?

SEC          ACC          BIG10        BIG12         BE         PAC
UGA          FSU           OSU          Ok              WVU      USC
Tenn         DaU          PSU          Texas                       Cal
UF             VaTech     UM            Neb                         Ore
Bama        BC            UW           Mizzou?                   ASU
Auburn                      Iowa                                        Wash
LSU
Ark?

Again, the SEC is deeper, mostly because SEC has more "DEEP POCKET" schools. USF has some recruiting ability, but can they afford a Meyer/Saban/Carroll quality HC (and keep him)? UCLA has the money, but they are so far behind USC in recruiting and does UCLA really have the will to go after football or are they content with perennial BBall power?

The SEC has a reputation for football because the SEC schools WANT a reputation for football and are willing spend huge $$$ to get it.

[John Galt?]

I'd say the Big East is at least on par with the ACC and Big 10, if not better.  Shoot, I'd put the Mountain West's top teams up against the Big 10's top teams.

This year, yes. But perennially they don't have the $$$ to stay up there. How long before FSU or PSU or ND steals Cincy or Pitt's HC? It already happened to WVU. And while WVU is doing pretty good with their Rodriguez replacement, how long before someone outbids them for him? If lil' Lane fails at UT, do you think Cincy, Pitt, or WVU can match their offer? How much time do you think UM is going to give Rich Rod before they go Coach poaching again?

[BucsBullsBolts]

we're talking about this perception that has gone on for years, if not decades, about the SEC being the cream of the crop.

That is because of the diversity of the conference. Look at how many different programs have been MNCs or at least top 5 in the last 3 decades.

MNCs by different programs since 1980

SEC               Big10        Big12(Big 8 and SWC combined)  ACC             Big East       PAC

UGA              PSU*         OK                                               Ga Tech         Miami           USC
Bama            OSU          Colorado                                      FSU                                   Wash
UF                 UM            Nebraska                                     Clemson
Tennessee                    Texas
LSU
Auburn???      


While the Big 12, PAC, and Big10 have lots of titles, they are mostly the same teams over and over (USC, Neb, OK) while the SEC has spread its titles out over 5 different teams (6 if you count Auburn's 12-0 but no invite season).

Also, how many teams are REALLY National Champ quality programs? No one thinks Duke or Baylor or Purdue will become a dominant force anytime soon(like our lifetimes). Some teams just don't have the recruiting base or financial re$ource$ to be relevant year after year, so removing those weak sisters what do the conferences look like?

SEC          ACC          BIG10        BIG12         BE         PAC
UGA          FSU           OSU          Ok              WVU      USC
Tenn         DaU          PSU          Texas                       Cal
UF             VaTech     UM            Neb                         Ore
Bama        BC            UW           Mizzou?                   ASU
Auburn                      Iowa                                        Wash
LSU
Ark?

Again, the SEC is deeper, mostly because SEC has more "DEEP POCKET" schools. USF has some recruiting ability, but can they afford a Meyer/Saban/Carroll quality HC (and keep him)? UCLA has the money, but they are so far behind USC in recruiting and does UCLA really have the will to go after football or are they content with perennial BBall power?

The SEC has a reputation for football because the SEC schools WANT a reputation for football and are willing spend huge $$$ to get it.

Got to admit that's a pretty compelling argument when presented that way .... and I do agree with your reasoning about the deep pockets WANTING a reputation for football.... and it does show that the SEC has done a little more in the time span pulled out but I do have one question that may or may not come into play here. When did the scholarships get limited?

[John Galt?]

I do have one question that may or may not come into play here. When did the scholarships get limited?

1994. I think it affected (negatively) the Big 10 more than anyone. UM and OSU were notorious for signing guys that would not play just so the other couldn't get them. OSU used to have RBs drafted that never played a snap. Since most recruits come from the south, fewer were going to far away Big 10 schools (or Nebraska, Washington) giving the closer schools an edge. Obviously USF has benefited greatly because of it.

[oregonbucfan]

I do have one question that may or may not come into play here. When did the scholarships get limited?

1994. I think it affected (negatively) the Big 10 more than anyone. UM and OSU were notorious for signing guys that would not play just so the other couldn't get them. OSU used to have RBs drafted that never played a snap. Since most recruits come from the south, fewer were going to far away Big 10 schools (or Nebraska, Washington) giving the closer schools an edge. Obviously USF has benefited greatly because of it.

Washington took a HUGE hit. They never recovered from it. They used to horde the NW talent since than, they have been irrelevant for the most part.