Why the SEC is the Best Conference in College Football

I recently read an article discussing why the SEC is not as great a conference as people crack it up to be (here).  While being enjoyable to read, I can't help but disagree with nearly all of it.  Most of it is cherry-picking facts to support the argument while ignoring many other obvious ones.  I won't attempt to tear the whole thing apart as that really does nothing more than refute one opinion that is based on a shaky foundation as best.

The major concept that this article chose in its attempt at bashing the SEC is the their records against other BCS conferences is mediocre since the inception of the BCS.  For the sake of argument, I will agree with that, and trust that the numbers he found were accurate in portraying such.   However, let's note that the argument  of the SEC being the best conference has not existed since 1998 when the BCS was constructed.  The argument surrounding the BCS is one far more recent than that, pretty much since they went on a streak of six National Championships in a row.

Here are the SEC records against teams from other BCS conferences dating back to the 2006 season when Florida won the first of these National Titles:

• ACC (33-21) - .611
• Big East (11-10) - .524
• Big Ten (12-9) - .571
• Big 12 (15-7) - .682
• Pac-12 (8-5) - .615
• BCS Conferences (79-52) - .603

Conference realignment within the BCS conferences has been minimal through 2006-11 with only one game against Nebraska this past season being played with a team in its new conference.  These numbers show a more dominant SEC compared to the aforementioned article.  The Big East no longer has Miami or Virginia Tech giving them a winning record, and the Pac-12 has been far less dominant in recent years compared to the first half of the last decade where USC and Oregon were making frequent BCS stops.  Ironically, it is the Big East that are closest to breaking even with the SEC although that relied a lot on a West Virginia team that has since moved on to the Big 12.

Nonetheless, it proves that over the last six seasons, no BCS conference has had a winning record over all the other conferences except the SEC.  Even more ironic in my opinion, is that the Big 12 is probably the only conference that could possibly challenge the SEC for supremacy over the last past couple of seasons, but they have by far the worst record against the SEC.  You can argue that the SEC isn't "as good" as some make them out to be, but you can't use out of conference records and suggest the SEC isn't the best because they are the only ones to prove it back holding winning records against the five others.  On conference records along, no one has held their own at all except maybe the Big Ten and Big East at times, but surely no one would argue in their favor that they are better.

Now preseason polls are something I have long disagreed with having.  In fact, I would suggest that polls should not be voted on until October once some games have been played.  However, it makes the point that conferences that see a biased in their favor in the preseason automatically have a better chance at playing for a National Championship, or a BCS bid, so it is worth looking at here.  Let's take a look at the number of preseason top 10 and 25 teams dating back to 2006 to see how they compare to the rest of college football (using the USAToday Coaches Poll):

• ACC:  Top 10 - 6
• Big East:  Top 10 - 3
  
• Big Ten:  Top 10 - 11
  
• Big 12:  Top 10 - 15
  
• Pac-12:  Top 10 - 6
  
• SEC:  Top 10 - 16

Those totals don't really mean anything until you look at the total number of available teams those conferences put forward.  For instance, the Big 12 should have more preseason berths than the Pac-12 because the Pac-12 played with less teams over the course of the 2006-2011 seasons.  Let's call them Conference Chances (CC):

• ACC:  6 seasons x 12 teams = 72 CC
• Big East:  6 seasons x 8 teams = 48 CC
• Big Ten:  5 seasons x 11 teams + 1 season x 12 teams = 67 CC
• Big 12:   5 seasons x 12 teams + 1 seasons x 10 teams = 70 CC
• Pac-12:  5 seasons x 10 teams + 1 season x 12 teams - 2 (USC banned) = 60 CC
• SEC:  6 seasons x 12 teams = 72 CC

Simply dividing the number of top 10 appearances from each conference by the total number of CC gives you a percentage of how many conference teams show up in the preseason top 10 year to year.  For example, the ACC:

[(6 Top Ten Appearances) / (72 CC)] = 0.083 or 8.3% of the ACC teams

 This results in the following:

1. SEC - 22.2%
2. Big 12 - 21.4%
3. Big Ten - 16.4%
4. Pac-12 - 10.0%
5. ACC - 8.3%
6. Big East - 6.3%

This does suggest that the SEC gets a preseason biased in the polls, but not a significantly larger one than say the Big 12.  Ignoring just how ridiculously stupid preseason polls are, these percentages really make perfect sense since they go primarily by the results of previous season.  If the SEC keeps winning championships, they are likely to see that percentage increase.  Meanwhile, based on the out of conference records mentioned above, it should really be no surprise that SEC teams are moving more and more towards the top.  I am not surprised the Big 12 came in second in this, but was shocked how close they were to the SEC.  Meanwhile, the top three percentages here account for 11 of the last 12 teams to play for a National Title, including all the National Champions.  I'll acknowledge that doing this method with the top 25 favors the SEC more than the other conferences.  Granted, I think ranking 25 teams by a human is pointless.  Can you really remotely measure the 17th best team versus the 23rd?  The SEC dominates this part of the preseason polls because of parity.  As far as a top 10 preseason spot goes, I really see no significant biased towards the SEC compared to the Big 12 or even the Big Ten.

Speaking of parity, the SEC is really the only top conference that shows parity year to year instead of team to team.  This isn't to say Vanderbilt or Kentucky have any shot, but the conference has produced not only numerous conference champions over that time, but four different National Champions.  This is different than the Big Ten where Ohio State was the lone dominant team over that period, similar to Texas/Oklahoma in the Big 12, and USC/Oregon in the Pac-12.  Trying to pick a conference champion in the SEC ahead of the season is far more difficult than selecting a Virginia Tech or Oregon for their respective conferences.

One last thing, the opposing article I've referenced mentioned favorable bowl matchups for them.  Obviously, the majority of bowls are played in the south because going to Washington, Idaho, New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio is not really appealing in January.  The SEC likely gains a bit of a homefield advantage with that, but I find that slightly blown out of proportion.  On the other hand, it is worth looking at the SEC bowl matchups.  Let's assume the SEC and Big Ten both send two teams to BCS bowls which is business as usual, this leaves:

1. SEC Champion to National Championship Game
2. SEC #2 to BCS Bowl
3. SEC #3 to Capital One Bowl vs. Big Ten #3
4. SEC #4 to Outback Bowl vs. Big Ten #4
5. SEC #5 to Cotton Bowl vs. Big 12 #2
6. SEC #6 to Chick-fil-a Bowl vs. ACC #2
7. SEC #7 to Gator Bowl vs. Big Ten #5/6
8. SEC #8 to Liberty Bowl vs. C-USA #1
9. SEC #9 to Music City Bowl vs.  ACC #6
10. SEC #10 to BBVA Compass Bowl vs. Big East #5
11. SEC #11 to Independence Bowl vs. ACC #7

After the couple of BCS bids, the first two matchups make sense.  Both are again Big Ten teams, but both matchups place the 3rd and 4th place teams against each other which seems fair.  After that is where is gets a little hairy.  The Cotton Bowl pits the 5th best SEC team against the 2nd best Big 12 team.  This year that was Arkansas to beat Kansas State pretty handily.

Next you have the runner up in the ACC facing an SEC team that finished in the middle of it's conference.  This year, the ACC sent two teams to BCS bowls which left the #3 ACC team, Virginia, who got ran over by the #6 SEC, Auburn.  The #7 SEC Florida, pulled one out of Ohio State.  The point is that for all the favorable homefield advantage locations, the SEC is generally pitted against teams that finished higher in another conference.  More often than not, they beat them.

Anyone can argue how dominant one conference is versus the others.  Opinions will vary on style of play, weather conditions, scheduling, etc.  However, I see no way of debating that the SEC is not the top conference in college football.  I didn't agree with them sending two teams to the National Championship Game, but that is hardly their fault so much as a very faulty system.  On the flip side, it was the SEC that was left on the outside looking in for 2004 when an undefeated Auburn team was passed over.  I honestly don't see how you could argue any team was better than the team crowned BCS National Champion since the SEC began it's run in 2006.  You can argue a Boise State or TCU deserved a shot at them, but I challenge anyone who would be willing to put their next paycheck on one of those teams instead of the one that was eventually crowned.

Some last little facts to toss out there.  USC and West Virginia are the only two non-SEC teams to play in more than two BCS games since the 2006 season and post a winning record.  Since the BCS inception in 1998, only five teams have winning records in National Championship games, all of them are SEC teams.  The question I would pose, if not the SEC, then who?