I've seen some awesome logic on this thread. This was particularly good.

The SEC is better because they are more top heavy. Their top teams are better than the Big 12's.


The Big 12 gets its numbers based on the fact that it's bottom teams were decent. Which could mean a couple things.

1: the top teams weren't really that much better which meant more wins for the bottom teams
2: the bottom teams were actually good but got beat by better teams.

To argue that the Big 12 was better than the SEC is asinine. And I'm partial to the Big 12.

Dear fool:

The espn link above already showed the Big 12 won the overall computer rankings as a composite. So picking out those parts that didn't is really pathetic and desperate. But not surprising

Do you really think the Big 12 was a better conference than the SEC?

Email Sagarin and tell him he's asinine.

LMAO

I'm not going to waste anymore time on your idiocy or your perverse relish of being a dunce.

The Big 12 has about 7 of "good" teams. The SEC has about 4 "great" teams, 4 "good" teams then a big drop off.


Thats where the sagarin shit is coming from. The Big 12 has more parity and the lower teams won more games because the top was weaker.


But stick to "Sagarin says so".

Sure. The Big 12 has one dog, the SEC has 3-4. Further, the SEC has 40 percent more teams so saying they have more top ten teams is lame. Shouldn't they have more good teams when they have several more teams to begin with?



Looking at records to determine quality is almost as dumb as looking at batting average to determine hitter quality. I thought math has disproven these things but it seems we have a ways to go to shirk old school, opinion based thinking

Then throw math out.


Look at just football. If you took the Big 12's best and put them in the SEC west, playing Georgia, and say South Carolina plus the other few east teams they would play, they'd be hard pressed to win 9 games.

Very hard pressed.

Agreed. Now you are making an argument I agree with and is in fact supported by computer data. The SEC's best teams are better than the Big 12s best (although I reiterate they have 4 more teams to use here). They are better at the top.


Their bottom sucks balls tho and that's why they finished below the Big 12. I see no reason to think TCU, Tech, Baylor or WVU wouldn't have pulverized the SEC dogs