Quote:
Originally Posted by Saul Too
Oklahoma gets credit because they lost to the number 1 and 3 teams even though their best win (and only win against a ranked opponent) was against the #17 team in the country.
Georgia might not be any good despite their only loss being to the #8 team and having beat the #6 team.
Mississippi State shouldn't have been ranked when they were 7-0 because they have since lost three games to three top 10 teams.
It's amazing how people have to contort things in order to make their conferences look like they are in the same universe as the SEC.
|
Miss. St. should never have been ranked as high as they were. They had played exactly zero teams of any significance. They have since been blown out in three consecutive games. I know they were all against ranked opponents, but they weren't competitive in any of the three games. They were a fraud.
How high do you think Oregon, K-State, or Notre Dame would be ranked in the BCS if they had a 28 point loss to South Carolina on their record and on top of that only had one win against a ranked opponent? I guarantee it would be nowhere near the top five.
This has never been an argument about what the best conference in college football is. I agree it is the SEC, but the SEC is not "head and shoulders" above every other conference or as you say "in another universe." SEC teams get consistently ranked higher than their résumés suggest because they are members of the SEC. Anyone with a working set of eyeballs can see that the play in the SEC is down this year compared to previous years.