re: Other conferences > SEC in football

quote:

---

Am I too arrogant about the SEC?

---

I believe you are a tad bit too arrogant about the SEC.

In my view, SEC dominance over the last four years has been, in part, due to on-field performance, and due, in part, to the sports media.

Let's retrace our steps.

In 2006, all the hype was about Ohio State. Florida was a team the voters put in the NCG regrettably, mostly because Michigan had already lost to Ohio State and because USC had lost to UCLA. To say the least, Florida did not look impressive winning all those games in 2006, and most people thought it would be an OSU rout.

This, I believe, is the root of the whole thing. Because the game went so drastically different than most people expected, they decided there must be something about the SEC they hadn't considered. Some said "speed." Others said it had the best athletes. Others said the best coaches. Others said it was the most competitive, top to bottom, and played the toughest schedule. Whatever the reason, there HAD TO BE A REASON.

But the truth was that it was likely more related to the fact that it was a bad matchup for Ohio State, and Florida had game planned the hell out of them. No....it couldn't be anything due to THAT game.

That is why LSU got put in the game in 2007, which was another terrible matchup for the same team.....Ohio State.

In 2008, the wrong Big XII team got matched up with Florida. In 2009, the team that should have played in 2008 had a stroke of bad luck and lost their QB.

So...the SEC has benefited from onfield performance, yes, even if that performance was aided by good matchups and luck. However, a media myth of SEC dominance has been created that will not be countered until the SEC loses in the NCG.

End rant. Sorry. I know. TLDR.