Posted on: September 19, 2012 10:48 am

The SEC relative to the rest of FBS football

To "SEC fans", and those who feel the need to constantly assert that it is the best conference:

First, I would like to mention that the SEC has great football year in, year out. If I can't watch a B1G game, I am watching a SEC game, as it is simply great football. I respect the SEC as a conference and the quality of the top programs in the conference.

That being said, you super homers need to realize that while yes, the SEC is the "best" conference in college football in the last 5 years, it can change week to week, and month to month. In all honesty, the SEC gets an automatic berth into the National Title game because of the media coverage of the SEC. Auburn 2010, for example, had a ton of controversy surrounding the team and Cam Newton, yet they were allowed to compete for the National Title amidst several recruiting and benefit allegations. Alabama 2011 is another prime example of the Media influencing the outcome. Alabama may have been an amazing team, but they had already had the chance to prove it against LSU and showed they were not the better team. FBS football is all about winning every game, and when you lose to a top 3 team, you are not supposed to be given another chance, unless it is in a Conference Title game, which was not the case last season.
A hypothetical situation, should it arise (which it very well may), is that Michigan, who has already lost to Alabama, runs the table from here on out, and wins the B1G CCG. Alabama wins the SEC by means of beating LSU and going undefeated, including the SEC CCG. Every other team in the Nation has at least 1 loss, which means Michigan has the same amount or less losses than said teams.
Should Michigan get a rematch with Alabama for the National Title considering they lost a Week 1 game to them at a "neutral site" (which on another note is not neutral at all unless it's SEC vs Big12)?

I know that a majority of you will say that Michigan already had it's chance against Alabama and got manhandled, beaten soundly, etc. Or you will say that it shows the SEC dominance, whatever floats your boat.

This is why people say the SEC is overrated. Because the same situation described the 2011 season, except Alabama lost to LSU in the middle/ end of the season, and did not participate in the SEC championship game, meaning it had the same amount of wins as numerous other teams (OkSt, Stanford, ORE among many), yet still was granted a berth for the National Title game.

Also lost in the fray is the pure mediocrity of the remainder of the SEC. While Alabama and LSU are no doubt two of the best teams in college football, outside of Georgia, South Carolina, and Florida which are no more than very good bowl teams, the rest of the conference is absolutely atrocious. Auburn and Arkansas both got beat down (Auburn shouldn't have won) by ULM, adecent enough team in it's own right, but not a team that one, much less two teams from the "almighty SEC" should be even having a close game with. Throw in the perennial ineptitude of Vandy, Miss, MissSt, Kentucky, Auburn (2010 exempt), and yes, Tennessee, and then add two of the Big12's weakest programs in Missouri and TAMU, and the SEC looks very good in the top 3, but absolutey atrocious in the bottom half.

These reasons, along with some very ignorant statements and very elitist thinking by some SEC defenders on this site, and suddenly people who really do respect and like the SEC suddenly find themselves absolutely despising the SEC. This is not caused by the programs or the players, rather by the media who is absolutly blind to the rest of the Nation unless it is; USC, FSU, Texas, OU, OSU, or ND, and by the rabid fan base that buys the hype the media feeds them, then, because the results are favorable, defends the media and conference to the death.
The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com