Yet SEC fans have been riding Alabama's (and before that Florida) coat tail for years now...

 

Let's see. The SEC has won 9 of the 15 BCS titles. Those 9 titles were split between 5 different teams.

Everyone bashing the SEC is hanging their hat on the same thing, that Missouri and Texas A&M came in and were able to compete at the highest levels.

 

 

Texas A&M first: They had arguably the best and most dominant player in their schools history last season (also the top player in college football) and lost two Conf Games to Florida and LSU. This season 8-4 with a 4-4 conf. record...competitive but not at a high level with 4 losses. Before anyone brings up that they beat National Champion Alabama last season, remember that UK beat LSU during their National Champion seasons a few years ago. Anything can happen. Anyone putting money on A&M after Johnny Football leaves?

Missouri second: 2 and 6 conference record last season...this season great year kinda like the year Northwestern popped up in the Big 0 a few years ago...but they avoided Auburn, Alabama and LSU best win is over an 8-4 Georgia team that has fallen flat sever times this season. That said I think they have a shot at beating Auburn and winning the SEC, but then again even Duke, Purdue and Northwestern pop up to the top of a conference every 10-15 years.

 

I will be. Check out their recruiting classes. Look at Ricky Seals-Jones' highlight reels and he's a kid who can hardly see the field as a true freshman this year. They have a QB better than the younger Joeckel who'll take the reigns and be just fine.

Here is where the SEC does take a hit. If the other conferences were so inferior, how do A&M and Mizzou come from the Big 12 and instantly compete at a high level? The curtain has been pulled back on that alone...

 

Based on BCS Championship appearances the Big 12 is the second best conference over the last 15 years.

 

The SEC has sent 10 teams to the Championship game and the Big 12 has sent 7.

 

No other conference has sent more than 3.

 

Why should it be so surprising that a Big 12 team would come in and compete?

Consensus double standards?

 

Texas is football crazy and churns out tons of D1 talent. They are in Houston's backyard, which is the third largest city in the nation. It's easy to see why Texas A&M parlayed the change of conference when they got mad at Texas over the Longhorn Network, came to the SEC at a time when their profile was unmatched, made a good hire in Sumlin, and capitalized on some recruiting momentum.

 

Kentucky has none of those advantages. They are a basketball school in a small state, and haven't had much success in football over the last 40 years.

 

UK would be better playing a soft schedule because they don't have a talent pool like Houston just sitting in their backyard, nor the tradition of a school like A&M whose boosters are nuts for football.

 

So why does their defense suck? Texas kids don't want to play defense in the SEC? And what about Mizzou? Not exactly a talent rich hot bed. UK is closer to the talent pool in Ohio than anything near the Tigers. Keep trying...

My whole point is, for Texas A&M and Missouri, going to the SEC made sense. Like Kentucky, they aren't completely boxed in by other schools when it comes to recruiting. Unlike Kentucky, Missouri has two cities that would easily be the largest in Kentucky in St. Louis and Kansas City. I don't even want to waste time talking about the advantages of being the only SEC school in Texas. For those schools, it makes much more sense and they have the capacity to be good more often than not because of their resources. For a school like Kentucky that doesn't have those, we'd be much better off if our goal was to get to a bowl game every year if we played Cincinnati or Louisville's schedule. There's no arguing that.

 

Cincinnati and Louisville recruit Florida and Georgia far better than UK does, and that's without the coveted SEC brand. Until this one cycle, they both recruit Ohio better than UK with SEC as a selling point. Keep swinging and missing...

Based on BCS Championship appearances the Big 12 is the second best conference over the last 15 years.

 

The SEC has sent 10 teams to the Championship game and the Big 12 has sent 7.

 

No other conference has sent more than 3.

 

Why should it be so surprising that a Big 12 team would come in and compete?

 

How many BCS title games for A&M and Mizzou???

It is. Next.

 

So he can't have it both ways. Thanks for the back up...

If the SEC isn't the best conference, then which one is?

If the SEC isn't the best conference, then which one is?

 

Has anyone said the SEC isn't the best conference? Just not the top to bottom slam dunk some make it out to be...

How many BCS title games for A&M and Mizzou???

 

There's a big difference between competing and winning a national championship. They are competing.

Missouri looks better, but they had a favorable schedule this year in the injury ridden east.

Has anyone said the SEC isn't the best conference? Just not the top to bottom slam dunk some make it out to be...

 

I've seen a couple of posts in this thread that say the SEC sucks. I'm not sure I know what that means, but it doesn't sound very good.

Consensus double standards?

 

Texas is football crazy and churns out tons of D1 talent. They are in Houston's backyard, which is the third largest city in the nation. It's easy to see why Texas A&M parlayed the change of conference when they got mad at Texas over the Longhorn Network, came to the SEC at a time when their profile was unmatched, made a good hire in Sumlin, and capitalized on some recruiting momentum.

 

Kentucky has none of those advantages. They are a basketball school in a small state, and haven't had much success in football over the last 40 years.

 

UK would be better playing a soft schedule because they don't have a talent pool like Houston just sitting in their backyard, nor the tradition of a school like A&M whose boosters are nuts for football.

 

Good post. Didn't realize that Houston had surpassed Chicago.

 

It's not like A&M wasn't quality program when the bolted for the SEC. In some ways it the atmosphere there really wasn't much different than the SEC to begin with. A lot of my mom's extended family went to A&M or are big fans, and believe me they are nuts. Not much different than other fanbases in the south.

 

I would also argue that the success of A&M & Missour is being a little overstated as well.

 

Year 1 A&M beat Arkansas, Ole Miss, Miss St, a 3-9 Auburn team, and Bama. With loses to UF and LSU. The Bama win was huge but other than than they mostly beat SEC bottom feeders.

 

Year 2 A&M beat Arkansas, Ole Miss, Vandy, and Miss St. No wins against the traditionally better schools in the conference.

 

Year 1 for Missouri they beat UK and Tenn, nothing outstanding.

 

Year 2 what can you say but that they are one of the best teams in the SEC only losing to USC east, and if my memory is correct their starting QB was either injured during that game or missed it completely or who knows perhaps they are undefeated. It wouldn't surprise me to see them beat Auburn Saturday.

 

Bottom line is that for all the talk that A&M is now one of the big boys in the SEC, really outside of one huge win against Bama their in conference wins really aren't that spectauclar at this point. That being said as long as Sumlin sticks around, I only see them getting better.

So why does their defense suck? Texas kids don't want to play defense in the SEC? And what about Mizzou? Not exactly a talent rich hot bed. UK is closer to the talent pool in Ohio than anything near the Tigers. Keep trying...

 

To the underlined:

 

Because they've been in the conference two seasons and are still building up? Because they are still capable of beating Alabama, who absolutely crushed the Rust Belt darlings Notre Dame last year?

 

How did Texas A&M's bowl game work out last year? People were downing them as one hit wonders and they dropped the hammer on Oklahoma.

 

Their defense sucks? Come on. I mean, yes, it's sub par for an SEC team and what they were expected to be, but geez, they'd run through Cincinnati or Louisville's schedule like a buzz saw. Still waiting on which conference is better than the SEC. You must realize A&M plays in the SEC West, so they've had dates with Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Ole Miss, Mississippi State, and a cross division game with Missouri.

 

Exactly whose defense do you see looking good after playing those schools? Please, I'm waiting on anyone not named Stanford.

 

This year, only the Pac 12 even belongs in the discussion as a conference that could challenge the SEC. To say otherwise is ludicrous. I wouldn't be sitting defending the SEC if this weren't obvious. Personal feelings for them aside, you have to call a spade a spade.

 

 

To the bolded:

 

UK is closer to the talent pool in Ohio, but they aren't an Ohio school and they aren't Ohio State. Again, Missouri has St. Louis and Kansas City, two relatively large cities, and who do they have to compete with for them in state? You keep talking about talent but fail to grasp the concept that these are much bigger cities than Louisville or Lexington. They have two cities the size of Cincinnati, which is as far as UK could grasp into Ohio before getting into Ohio State territory. As a state Kentucky will produce a few D1 talents that are divided between Kentucky and Louisville each year. Who is Missouri competing with? Missouri State? St. Louis? Please.

Good post. Didn't realize that Houston had surpassed Chicago.

 

It's not like A&M wasn't quality program when the bolted for the SEC. In some ways it the atmosphere there really wasn't much different than the SEC to begin with. A lot of my mom's extended family went to A&M or are big fans, and believe me they are nuts. Not much different than other fanbases in the south.

 

I would also argue that the success of A&M & Missour is being a little overstated as well.

 

Year 1 A&M beat Arkansas, Ole Miss, Miss St, a 3-9 Auburn team, and Bama. With loses to UF and LSU. The Bama win was huge but other than than they mostly beat SEC bottom feeders.

 

Year 2 A&M beat Arkansas, Ole Miss, Vandy, and Miss St. No wins against the traditionally better schools in the conference.

 

Year 1 for Missouri they beat UK and Tenn, nothing outstanding.

 

Year 2 what can you say but that they are one of the best teams in the SEC only losing to USC east, and if my memory is correct their starting QB was either injured during that game or missed it completely or who knows perhaps they are undefeated. It wouldn't surprise me to see them beat Auburn Saturday.

 

Bottom line is that for all the talk that A&M is now one of the big boys in the SEC, really outside of one huge win against Bama their in conference wins really aren't that spectauclar at this point. That being said as long as Sumlin sticks around, I only see them getting better.

 

Texas A&M has BIG plans for their football program. Nearly 1/2 a billion dollars in stadium renovations. At the time, the largest ever for a college project.

 

 

I fail to grasp talent? That's hilarious. Cincinnati alone produces a level of talent equal to KC and St Louis combined. Quit making excuses for the failures of UK. As I said, UC and UL do a better job getting talent out of Cincinnati, Georgia, Florida and so on without the SEC brand to sell. How many NFL guys are coming out of Mizzou? It isn't the number UC and UL are putting at the highest level.

 

Bottom line. Two middle of the pack Big 12 teams came into the SEC and made noise very early. You'd expect Texas and Oklahoma to be on that level. Most SEC hacks laughed at the thought those two could compete when they were added. Now, they are proof recruiting to the SEC "works" It's a total farce...