SEC Football

[jy23]

Is it just me or does anyone else think that SEC football is a tad overrated? I know that this is SEC country and everyone in this area thinks that the SEC is the best thing since sliced bread but I can't help it, I'm just not that impressed. The defenses in the conference are great but I don't see much AT ALL in the way of offense from most of the teams. When put up against other teams with decent offensive attacks they struggle, if we could ever get them to schedule any real nonconference games then we would know something, I respect Georgia for at least trying. I'm not sayin that the SEC just sucks but I dont think its as great as everyone thinks that it is.

[EazyRoc]

Nope. I'm an ACC guy too. However, there's not a conference in the country with as much talent as the SEC.

[jy23]

Nope. I'm an ACC guy too. However, there's not a conference in the country with as much talent as the SEC.

Top to bottom they are a very strong conference, I still think that they get completely OVERBLOWN! I think Florida is a good team but do they EVER play anyone outside of their conference? UGA tried and lost, TN has lost so many times to the Pac 10 lately that I lost count, LSU is one of their top teams and barely beat UW...........UW!!!!!!!!!! UF constantly plays the likes of the Citadel and Charleston Southern, really? I know the SEC fans are going to say that they have a tough schedule anyway because of the conference schedule, BULL!!!!!!!

[AHF]

Other than winning 3 consecutive national championships and consistently getting the most players drafted by the NFL? Other than being the most talented and winning the biggest games? Completely overrated.

For calling out Florida's schedule, it is notable that they beat ACC power FSU like a drum 32-19-2 in recent years:

2008 UF 45 - FSU 15 - * ACC Atlantic Division Champion

2007 UF 45 - FSU 12

2006 UF 21 - FSU 14

2005 UF 34 - FSU 7 - * ACC Atlanta Division Champion, ACC Conference Champion, Vastly inferior to SEC Rival

2004 UF 20 - FSU 13

Please don't ever make me defend the Gators again but criticizing SEC football is like criticizing ACC basketball -- only without the Big East as having a real argument as being comparable.

[buckeye242424]

Is it just me or does anyone else think that SEC football is a tad overrated? I know that this is SEC country and everyone in this area thinks that the SEC is the best thing since sliced bread but I can't help it, I'm just not that impressed. The defenses in the conference are great but I don't see much AT ALL in the way of offense from most of the teams. When put up against other teams with decent offensive attacks they struggle, if we could ever get them to schedule any real nonconference games then we would know something, I respect Georgia for at least trying. I'm not sayin that the SEC just sucks but I dont think its as great as everyone thinks that it is.

No. Best conference in football. Ohio State is 0-12 or something like that, vs. the SEC. That says it all for me...I hate it too.

[coachx]

NFL scouts don't think the SEC is over-rated.

More players are drafted out of the SEC then any other conference.

[vdunkndunk]

Three points:

First, great defense often makes a great offense look average or worse. For instance, Oklahoma scored 60+ points in 5 straight games in the Big 12, then scored 14 against Florida. It was the same way when Ohio State was scoring 40 points a game in the Big 10, then scored only 14 points in the BCS championship. Both schools had Heisman winning quarterbacks who looked average at best against a top-flight SEC defense. (Ole Miss did the same thing to Texas Tech last year).

Second, I think the SEC generally plays offense more conservatively than other leagues, because SEC teams trust in their defenses more and play for field position and ball control and grind it out a bit more.

Third, the SEC's style (conservative offense and great defense) generally has worked very well. The SEC is not invicible and obviously won't win every single non-conference game like some people seem to think, but looking at the SEC's bowl record for the last few years, the amount of teams they put into the bowls every year, and their success in BCS games, I'd say it's hard to argue that any other conference is consistently as good or as deep at the top. USC is a great program, for instance, but would have no chance at winning the SEC 7 straight years like its done in the PAC-10--every year the SEC will have one or two legit national title contenders, plus one or two other legit top 10 teams. Flordia, LSU, and Tenessee have all won one or two national championships in the last ten or so years, plus Georgia has finished second (to another SEC team) Auburn went undefeated, and Alabama spent half of last season ranked number 1. No other league has that many different teams that can achieve that level of success consistently.

[jy23]

Other than winning 3 consecutive national championships and consistently getting the most players drafted by the NFL? Other than being the most talented and winning the biggest games? Completely overrated.

For calling out Florida's schedule, it is notable that they beat ACC power FSU like a drum 32-19-2 in recent years:

2008 UF 45 - FSU 15 - * ACC Atlantic Division Champion

2007 UF 45 - FSU 12

2006 UF 21 - FSU 14

2005 UF 34 - FSU 7 - * ACC Atlanta Division Champion, ACC Conference Champion, Vastly inferior to SEC Rival

2004 UF 20 - FSU 13

Please don't ever make me defend the Gators again but criticizing SEC football is like criticizing ACC basketball -- only without the Big East as having a real argument as being comparable.

2 of those championships were against Ohio State, sorry buckeye242424 but that means close to nothing in my book. That last championship game was a total let down, I'm not blaming Florida for that but that may have been the most boring championship I've seen in years. I agree that top to bottom they are the best conference and I've said that already BUT I just don't think its as great as everyone says it is. I guess growing up in TN and GA I hear about the SEC so much and with me being a Southern Cal fan it just bugs the heck out of me. I am by no means saying that the SEC sucks, sorry if thats the way I made it seem but I think the are a good conference, best conference collectively, I guess my thing is that I won't give them the respect that eveyone else gives em until one of em beats USC, sorry. lol

[AHF]

If USC can just get back in the championship game they might have a shot at the top team from the SEC. Unlike the Pac-10, you don't know 2 years in advance who that top team is going to be from the SEC so it isn't going to be possible to schedule and know whether you are getting the top team from the conference or not. And frankly, why would Florida add USC to their schedule when they are playing Miami, Florida State and an entire SEC slate?

USC is an elite program. The rest of the Pac-10? Not so much.

The SEC doesn't crap gold or anything - they have their warts - but they are the strongest conference by a significant margin from top to bottom.

[APE]

USC is an elite program. The rest of the Pac-10? Not so much.

Cal. isn't an elite program? And my Bruins will beat a SEC team saturday :shy11:

[jy23]

Cal. isn't an elite program? And my Bruins will beat a SEC team saturday :shy11:

TN will fall once again to a Pac10 team

[AHF]

Consistently? Not really, when it comes to having NFL quality talents the ACC and SEC are always jockeying for position. The 09 draft went to the SEC, the 08 draft was a tie, 07 SEC, 06 ACC, 05 SEC [by 1 player when the ACC only had 11 teams]. People overlook the ACC in this respect, they are always up there in terms of NFL Draft Picks. Certainly I am not saying the ACC is a better football conference than the SEC, but the top talent is there.

I don't see the top talent as being all that comparable. Here are the first day picks (rounds 1-3) for the past 5 years:

2009

SEC 1st - 8

ACC 1st - 5

SEC 2nd - 2 (10)

ACC 2nd - 5 (10)

SEC 3rd - 7 (17)

ACC 3rd - 3 (13)

2008

SEC 1st - 6

ACC 1st - 6

SEC 2nd - 2 (8)

ACC 2nd - 3 (9)

SEC 3rd - 8 (16)

ACC 3rd - 5 (14)

2007

SEC 1st - 11

ACC 1st - 5

SEC 2nd - 6 (17)

ACC 2nd - 1 (6)

SEC 3rd - 4 (21)

ACC 3rd - 6 (12)

2006

ACC 1st - 12

SEC 1st - 4

ACC 2nd - 7 (19)

SEC 2nd - 6 (10)

ACC 3rd - 6 (25)

SEC 3rd - 4 (14)

2005

SEC 1st - 10

ACC 1st - 5

SEC 2nd - 6 (16)

ACC 2nd - 3 (8)

SEC 3rd - 5 (21)

ACC 3rd - 6 (14)

2004

SEC 1st - 6

ACC 1st - 2

SEC 2nd - 9 (15)

ACC 2nd - 4 (6)

SEC 3rd - 5 (20)

ACC 3rd - 8 (14)

Total 1st Round Picks: SEC 45, ACC 35

Total 2nd Round Picks: SEC 31, ACC 23

Total 3rd Round Picks: SEC 33, ACC 34

Total:

SEC 109

ACC 92

4 out of 5 year with more SEC picks; aggregate substantial differences in 1st and 2nd round picks; and substantial difference in total top picks. Looks like a clear difference among the "top talent" to me. This makes some sense since if there wasn't a real difference, the ACC coaches must really blow.

[AHF]

Cal. isn't an elite program? And my Bruins will beat a SEC team saturday :shy11:

Cal isn't close to an elite program. LMAO at that idea.

They have never even appeared in a BCS bowl (i.e., in a BCS bowl during the BCS era 1999 - present)! They have only made 9 bowls from 1980 - 2008. ELITE???

Really?

Wow. Pac-10 fans are desparate if they are trying to prop up Cal as elite!

UCLA has likewise never appeared in a BCS bowl. UCLA has won a total of 4 bowl games since 1990. They have only been ranked at the end of the season once in the last 9 years.

The Pac-10 has one elite program. USC.

[AHF]

Right here you are comparing a 12 team conference (SEC) to an 11 team conference (ACC). Is that really fair? You are also drawing an arbitrary line in the sand, making a distinction between a 3rd round pick compared to a 4th round pick. The drop-off in talent between rounds 2-7 isn't like the drop-off of talent with the NBA draft from round 1 to 2. When you look at Pro-Bowl selections in a draft year, Round 1 has a substantially more amount but then the other rounds differences aren't nearly as noticeable (not saying there isn't a trend, its just not very strong).

And in reality, the ACC is handicapped for football. They have to deal with Duke, a team that self-admittedly is the worst team in college football. If it weren't for their academics and basketball they would have no business in the ACC (kind of like Vanderbilt but incomparably worse). Duke Football Sucks, really.

We can totally agree that Duke absolutely blows. I love their argument in their lawsuit against Louisville:

After a 40-3 loss in Durham in 2002, Duke backed out of a three-game series with Louisville. The Cards, in turn, sued for $450,000 for breach of contract. Except, as the Duke lawyers argued, the contract called for Duke to pay a penalty of $150,000 per game if a date with a “team of similar stature” could not be arranged.

Duke's lawyer argued:

Judge Phillip J. Shepherd, a Franklin, Ky. Circuit Court judge, sided with Duke's lawyers.

[jy23]

Cal isn't close to an elite program. LMAO at that idea.

They have never even appeared in a BCS bowl (i.e., in a BCS bowl during the BCS era 1999 - present)! They have only made 9 bowls from 1980 - 2008. ELITE???

Really?

Wow. Pac-10 fans are desparate if they are trying to prop up Cal as elite!

UCLA has likewise never appeared in a BCS bowl. UCLA has won a total of 4 bowl games since 1990. They have only been ranked at the end of the season once in the last 9 years.

The Pac-10 has one elite program. USC.

Totally agree with u here.

[APE]

Cal isn't close to an elite program. LMAO at that idea.

They have never even appeared in a BCS bowl (i.e., in a BCS bowl during the BCS era 1999 - present)! They have only made 9 bowls from 1980 - 2008. ELITE???

Really?

Wow. Pac-10 fans are desparate if they are trying to prop up Cal as elite!

UCLA has likewise never appeared in a BCS bowl. UCLA has won a total of 4 bowl games since 1990. They have only been ranked at the end of the season once in the last 9 years.

The Pac-10 has one elite program. USC.

LOL did I say UCLA was an elite football school ? I just said they where going to beat Tenn.

[EazyRoc]

I doubt it. Tennessee's defense is pretty damn good too. They've got a nice running back, as well. That's a deadly combo in college football.

[APE]

I doubt it. Tennessee's defense is pretty damn good too. They've got a nice running back, as well. That's a deadly combo in college football.

Our defense is pretty damn good too. Last year we beat them with no running game and Kevin Craft, BUT they are better now...It's just that we need to get payback from lane Kiffin.

[EazyRoc]

I don't see the top talent as being all that comparable. Here are the first day picks (rounds 1-3) for the past 5 years:

2009

SEC 1st - 8

ACC 1st - 5

SEC 2nd - 2 (10)

ACC 2nd - 5 (10)

SEC 3rd - 7 (17)

ACC 3rd - 3 (13)

2008

SEC 1st - 6

ACC 1st - 6

SEC 2nd - 2 (8)

ACC 2nd - 3 (9)

SEC 3rd - 8 (16)

ACC 3rd - 5 (14)

2007

SEC 1st - 11

ACC 1st - 5

SEC 2nd - 6 (17)

ACC 2nd - 1 (6)

SEC 3rd - 4 (21)

ACC 3rd - 6 (12)

2006

ACC 1st - 12

SEC 1st - 4

ACC 2nd - 7 (19)

SEC 2nd - 6 (10)

ACC 3rd - 6 (25)

SEC 3rd - 4 (14)

2005

SEC 1st - 10

ACC 1st - 5

SEC 2nd - 6 (16)

ACC 2nd - 3 (8)

SEC 3rd - 5 (21)

ACC 3rd - 6 (14)

2004

SEC 1st - 6

ACC 1st - 2

SEC 2nd - 9 (15)

ACC 2nd - 4 (6)

SEC 3rd - 5 (20)

ACC 3rd - 8 (14)

Total 1st Round Picks: SEC 45, ACC 35

Total 2nd Round Picks: SEC 31, ACC 23

Total 3rd Round Picks: SEC 33, ACC 34

Total:

SEC 109

ACC 92

4 out of 5 year with more SEC picks; aggregate substantial differences in 1st and 2nd round picks; and substantial difference in total top picks. Looks like a clear difference among the "top talent" to me. This makes some sense since if there wasn't a real difference, the ACC coaches must really blow.

The argument is not that the ACC puts out more talent, but that it's comparable. From the information you've posted, it really is. The difference between 17 draftees over the span of 6 years is negligible.

[DrReality]

If TN beats UCLA today that will help their case.