This is exactly it. USC loses to Stanford and everybody goes "well since Stanford sucks, USC must not be as good as we thought."

And then teams like South Carolina lose to Vanderbilt, and everybody goes "MAN! I mean we KNOW South Carolina is good, so Vanderbilt must be EVEN BETTER! Jeez, the SEC is so tough."

SEC teams beat up on a bunch of nobodies, and then when they lose to each other, the winner benefits and the loser doesn't lose an stature whatsoever.

Games like Arkansas, South Carolina, Alabama last year etc. constantly get mentioned as 'quality wins' while beating teams like Oregon State who was better than ALL THREE of those teams last year is dismissed as an easy victory.

There's a myth that the SEC plays soft nonconference schedules. The SEC schedules are as tough as any conference in the country, although not as tough as USC. When you consider how tough the SEC conference schedule is and how tough it is to get through the SEC championship game, SEC teams have nothing to apologize about when it comes to scheduling. Look at the computer strength of schedules, which have no media bias whatsoever and you'll see that.

As for on the field performance, the SEC has been the best conference the last couple of years and looks to be the best this year, although it's early.

I'm as big an SEC elitist jerk as it gets.

I won't waste my time making an argument, so I'll just say this:

When UGA utterly eviscerates ASU in two weeks, we'll see how overrated they are.

I'd set the over under on "Times Rudy Carpenter gets sacked" at about 7.5

Let's end this debate right now and save the thread at the same time.

This

I'll cheer for other SEC schools, but **** UT.

It is not a myth. I believe that the SEC has led all BCS conferences in highest percentage of non-conference games vs. lower division opponents, and highest percentage of non-conference games at home, for at least as long as I've been doing my computer rankings (which I started in 2003). I'll double check this though, since I don't have the numbers in front of me right now. Also, every major conference tends to schedule a lot of non-conference games against mid-major opponents and for purely geographical reasons this leaves the SEC with games vs. the Sun Belt while the Big Ten plays the MAC and the Pac Ten plays the WAC and Mountain West. This isn't the SEC's fault, but it does lead to weaker non-conference schedules for SEC teams.

You started by claiming that the SEC doesn't play weak non-conference schedules, but the rest of your post said to look at overall season schedule strengths (not just non-conference) and then said "When you consider how tough the SEC conference schedule is and how tough it is to get through the SEC championship game, SEC teams have nothing to apologize about when it comes to scheduling." This is EXACTLY the type of thinking that the OP is objecting to.

Your argument is essentially that the SEC should get a free pass for their weaker non-conference schedules because they play just as hard of a schedule in the end because the conference is tougher. This would be valid if the SEC was always the best conference in the country by a large margin, but that isn't the case. The SEC is, year in and year out, the best conference overall after you account for all the ups and downs that conferences go through. They are NOT always the #1 conference in any given year though, and when they are the margin usually isn't large enough to justify a free pass playing so much weaker of a non-conference schedule. They are welcome to schedule however they like, but the idea that it's "okay" because the conference is so tough, is what bothers the OP, and it's what bothers me.

It's absolutely not a myth. Every mediocre or worse SEC school plays absolute dog****, so people can later justify believing that 7-5 Arkansas counts as a real test.

That ESPN.com article linked earlier is pretty compelling evidence, 5 of the 10 worst schools for scheduling non-BCS conference cupcakes are in the SEC.

-----

The AL Central does own the NL West.

What makes it a myth other than the fact that YOU PERSONALLY don't believe it?

1. The SEC plays a higher percentage of non BCS opponents than any other conference - FACT
2. The SEC leaves their geographical area for home and homes against other top tier teams less than teams in other BCS conferences - FACT
3. Five out of the ten objectively ranked weakest non conference schedules over the last ten years are SEC teams - FACT

4. You can make all the arguments that you want about the OVERALL schedule (including conference games) being the toughest, but arguing that the SEC schedules far weaker out of conference games than the majority of other conferences (ESPECIALLY the Pac-10 which regularly ranks as the TOUGHEST OOC scheudles of any conference) is just ridiculous.

Nobody is saying that the SEC isn't good, or that if you had to pick one conference that was the best top to bottom that it probably isn't the SEC this year. What I'm saying is that the SEC isn't nearly as dominant as the media makes it out to be, and this has real consequences.

This means that the SEC can schedule laughable OOC games, and go 4-0 at home against cupcakes, and then waltz through the SEC schedule and get more credit than they deserve for beating mediocre teams like Arkansas, South Carolina, etc. who are vastly overrated.

I don't need to explain again why this bias has significant implications for rankings, TV contracts, BCS bowl and title game selections etc. Plus, it's just plain annoying.

ASU is going to end up 4th in the Pac-10.

But, as long as we're having this conversation, can we talk about how overrated Tennessee was when they got exposed by the Pac-10's 5th or 6th best team's backups and third stringers?

Honestly, this is just straight truth.

GoldenBears,

There's a big difference between "having an opinion and then searching for evidence that proves your point" and "having a question and then searching for the answer"


Maybe you will learn this one day.

Okay, Obi Wan.

2008 Non Conference schedules:

SEC: 48 games. 14 on the road (29%), 15 vs. BCS opponents (31%), 9 vs. "FCS" opponents (19%)

Pac Ten: 30 games. 10 on the road (33%), 14 vs. BCS opponents (47%), 2 vs. "FCS" opponents (7%)

And that's treating all non BCS 1-A opponents as equal. It doesn't account for the fact that of the Pac Ten's 14 games vs. Mid-Major schools, 4 are against BYU, Fresno, and Utah (the only three Mid-Majors who are currently ranked). 2 more are against Boise State and TCU (both "others receiving votes"). The SEC's 22 games vs. Mid-Majors include UL Monroe 3 times, Western Kentucky twice, Middle Tennessee twice, Arkansas State, North Texas, Troy, and not one game against a team receiving votes in any top 25 poll.

Also, factor in the fact that Pac-10 teams play NINE conference games whereas SEC teams play EIGHT.

So that's 5 more road games, 10 more games against BCS opponents and - more games against FCS opponents on top of those statistics.

This makes it easier for SEC teams to post good records (because the average quality of their OOC teams is way below the average quality of a Pac-10 team) but slightly more difficult to go undefeated (the two teams that go to the Championship game have to play a 9th conference game against a very good conference opponent.

On the other hand, most SEC teams duck at least one of the top opponents in their league every year, if not two. Pac-10 teams never miss anyone in the Pac-10.


The Big-10 is the worst here... They have 11 teams, but only play 8 out of their 10 conference foes every year, and also don't have a championship game.



Big East is weird, since they only have 8 teams, so they have 5 OOC games. So WVU for example plays Auburn, Colorado and ECU in addition to Marshall and Villanova on top of their conference games. This allows teams a lot of leeway to schedule incredibly difficult schedules or incredibly easy schedules as they please.

Yeah but the Big 10 also has rival games that never rotate off the schedule. I'm not sure if it's like that other places or not.

Could you imagine OSU and Michigan both going undefeated and never having to play each other? Would be nuts.

10 BCS teams that don't avoid competition

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2...midable/080905

1. FSU
2. USC
3. GT
4. UCLA
5. UNC
6. Mich St
7. Iowa
8. Miami
9. Clemson, Duke, Virginia, Penn St, Syracuse

Hmm, actually that's 13 teams (14 if you include Notre Dame, who is mentioned in the article.) Now who can tell me one thing that they all have in common. Anyone? Yes, you there in the back. None of them play in the SEC? Correct, very good! You get a gold star.

Tons of Pac-10 teams on the list though!

Is that supposed to be a knock on the conference with 2 of the top 4?

I never claimed the Pac Ten schedules tougher than the ACC, they deserve a lot of credit too. I just made the Pac Ten comparison because it was quicker (fewer teams, fewer games per team, shorter list to type out) and it proved my point. The ACC also schedules miles tougher than the SEC.

SEC teams have to keep ass-whippins on other BCS teams to a minimum otherwise they'd get thrown out of the BCS imo

couple things

1 - pac10 plays an extra conference game, which happens to be against a BCS team

2 - geographic isolation

Well, in 2007 out of 48 non-conference games, the SEC did deign to face other BCS schools 14 times (29%). They went 7-7 as I recall.

The list only looked at non conference games

yeah ldo, but i was defending the rest of the pac10 besides USC and UCLA. If they already have 9 games penciled in against BCS teams on their schedule, having a softer non conference schedule is not nearly as egregious than if they were scheduling patsies for 4 non conference games.