The "Bama does something and the SEC claims credit" thing doesn't work well when OSU and OU treat the B1G and Big XII like escaped slaves year after year.
The SEC has had 4 different teams win the NC in the past 13 years.
You have to go back to 1990 just to find 3 for the ACC.
Back to 1965 to find 3 for the B1G.
To find 3 for the Big 12, you have to go back to the 1997 season.....but the SEC has had 5 different NC programs since then.
.
It's a joke, I know, and it's not a big deal, but it's literally the opposite of the reality of the thing.
not to mention the programs that played in the championship and lost. Georgia ( to Bama) and Auburn ( to FSU).
I'm not saying the SEC isn't strong, but I think this argument overstates their strength because it isn't like those five NC winning programs since 1997 have all been consistent NC contenders.
In the last 30 years there have been 33 NC's because we had co-champions in 1991 (Washington and Miami, FL), 1997 (Nebraska and Michigan), and 2003 (LSU and USC). Here they are by school and current league:
The first thing that stands out to me is that Bama's lead here is pretty amazing. They have more than twice what any other school has.
30 years of NC's by current league:
- 15 SEC, 5 schools
- 7 ACC, 3 schools
- 6 B1G, 3 schools (3 NC's were by UNL before they were in the B1G)
- 3 PAC, 2 schools
- 2 B12, 2 schools
But look at the win% ranking for this same group of schools:
This isn't perfect but it is a much better measurement of how difficult a given school is to play year-in and year-out. Ohio State, as typical for the Buckeyes, has been amazingly consistent. They are a tough game year-in-year-out with only VERY few exceptions.
Florida and Oklahoma are next and they have both been a tough game a lot more years than not.
Bama is weird. They are #5 in win% so they've been good a lot but actually it would be more descriptive to say that they've been incredible a lot and otherwise they generally sucked. Within the last 30 years they had an entire decade of sub .500 football (1997-2006 they went .481 and 1998-2007 they went .476). If you've played Bama every year for the last 30 you've played 7 NC's and a bunch more that were right at NC level but you've also played some pretty bad teams.
FSU is like bama-lite in this metric. They were REALLY good and then they weren't.
Clemson has been great lately but for most of the last 30 years they were merely a decent opponent.
Miami is similar, some great teams and some terrible ones.
Nebraska and Tennessee were both winning NC's in the 90's but it has been a LONG time since either of them was a scary opponent for an NC Contender.
LSU has had their ups and downs as well.
Michigan through the end of Carr's tenure was generally a borderline contender but since then not so much.
Texas, well we keep thinking they'll get back on track.
USC was just about at Bama's current level back during the height of Pete Carroll's run there but outside of that they have largely sucked.
Auburn has been this way for a long time, very high (and infrequent) highs, otherwise generally solid but not elite and then occasionally just plain bad.
Washington, they shared the NC 30 years ago. Since then some solid teams but rarely (if ever) a truly scary opponent for an NC contender.
I'll grant you that one of the strengths of the SEC is that they have more "potential" contenders so when Bama sucked (roughly 1997-2007) the SEC didn't slide to irrelevance. Instead, UF, TN, and LSU each won at least one NC during those 11 years. In the B12 if Oklahoma sucks Texas better be good or else . . . irrelevance. In the B1G if Ohio State spent a decade sucking and Michigan didn't get straightened out it could get ugly.
