Tony the Tiger Bowl Thread presented by Jimmy Kimmel

[Mdot21]

SEC is 10-1 in semis in the playoff and has more NC's in the last 20 or so years than any conference. Pains to say it, but they are head and shoulders above the rest. Would be nice if the B1G could get it's sh&t together.

[MikeDeTiger]

I had a long response for that, but it's probably sufficient to say "It's not the SEC being head and shoulders above the rest, it's really just a small handful of teams in the SEC, and of those, only about two at a time at most." 

I don't know that Vanderbilt is better than Northwestern, or Clanga is better than Illinois, for example.  

[Mdot21]

I had a long response for that, but it's probably sufficient to say "It's not the SEC being head and shoulders above the rest, it's really just a small handful of teams in the SEC, and of those, only about two at a time at most." 

I don't know that Vanderbilt is better than Northwestern, or Clanga is better than Illinois, for example. 

Bama has been far and away the most dominant team in CFB for 15 years. Saban's run there might be the most dominant in CFB history. UF was dominant under Urban for a nice 5 year run there and won 2 titles. Kirby has Georgia humming along and on track to be the new Bama and win back-to-back titles. Auburn bought itself a title with Cam Newton. LSU has won titles with 3 different coaches, and one of those guys can't coach a lick or complete a full coherent sentence. That's 5 teams by my count that have won big in the last 20 years or so roughy. Roughly 36% of the teams in the SEC have won titles.

B1G has just one team holding their own in that vein. Ohio State. That's it. One in 14 teams. 7%. Michigan got to the semis twice only to get dumped on and outside of that- had a lot of crap years with RichRod and Hoke. Penn State hasn't sniffed anything. Nebraska has fallen off the face of the earth.

I get geography helps SEC teams as more top end talent is there, but that's not the only reason why. You have teams that suck like A&M willing to go all in trying to win. Seems like the programs down there really do care more. It really does mean more.

[MrNubbz]

 Seems like the programs down there really do care more. It really does mean more.

Not really Hugh Freeze loved Jesus more

[Mdot21]

Not really Hugh Freeze loved Jesus more

nah you're confusing Jesus with hookers. 

And no one loves Jesus quite like Dabo. He's got that on lock.

[OrangeAfroMan]

I had a long response for that, but it's probably sufficient to say "It's not the SEC being head and shoulders above the rest, it's really just a small handful of teams in the SEC, and of those, only about two at a time at most." 

I don't know that Vanderbilt is better than Northwestern, or Clanga is better than Illinois, for example. 

Here's the thing about that:  other conferences have either 0 or 1.  So a "small handful" is a lot, actually.

It's not just Bama.
The top-end results show a depth that is unprecedented for any conference, ever. 
Bama, Bama, Bama?  Yes, but also 3 different NC programs in 3 years.  4 in 12 seasons.  5 in 14 season.  6 in 25 seasons.  If those seem like unremarkable numbers, nope, they're UNPRECEDENTED. 
.
To match what the SEC has done in the past 3 seasons, guess how far back you have to go for other conferences?
B1G:  1965.....MSU's split NC 57 years ago
Want to include PSU, Nebraska, etc?  It's still 1997.  25 years ago.
ACC:  1990.....GT's split NC 32 years ago
Want to include Miami, etc?  It's still Miami in 2001.  21 years ago.
PAC:  1954.....UCLA's split NC 68 years ago
Want to include CU, etc?  It's still CU in 1990.  32 years ago
B12:  Technically 1939 or 1938....doesn't matter, the only teams to win anything between the Mississippi River and the Rocky Mtns are Texas, OU, and Nebraska.  No depth, whatsoever.
.
The SEC has had 6 different NCs more recently than any conference has had 3.  The "Bama, Bama, Bama" narrative is lazy.

[FearlessF]

ESPN is lazy

[LittlePig]

Comparing the SEC to the Big Ten is a lot like comparing the Big Ten East to the Big Ten West.  The champion always comes out of the East.

Yes,  Ohio State dominates the East but 3 other teams in the East have managed to break through and win the Big Ten championship.  Meanwhile the West has not managed to win one Big Ten CCG. Yet most years the East and West have roughly equal cross-division records.  Not in 2022 and 2017,  but most years they are close to equal.

[Cincydawg]

In many years, the SEC has six pretty good to great teams, and they often are the same six.  This will generate helmetosity more than a conference with the same number of good to great teams that vary back and forth.  There has been more flux in this of late, but over the past 40 years, it's mostly the same six.

Then people ignore Vandy et al. and "excuse" Tennessee for having a bad year (or five) ...

[MikeDeTiger]

Okay, but to clarify my earlier comment about a small handful of teams, and of those, usually only a couple at a time:

Does it matter that it's the same two teams dominating the Big Ten while a small rotating cast dominates the SEC?  

I'd say the main argument in the SEC's favor there is that of the teams that top the conference at a given time, the SEC has more NC's to show for it.  

But that's not the same thing as "the SEC is head and shoulders above the B1G," really.  

I'd need more evidence that the middle of the pack and bottom feeders of both conferences favor the SEC.  I'm not saying it's not there, I'm saying I don't know if it's there.  Based on random games I watch and the eyeball test, I need statistical convincing that there's a difference beyond the top couple of teams at a time.  

As far as giving the SEC only a couple at a time, my thinking is it's faulty reasoning to add up all the teams that have won something from the SEC over the 20 year time span mentioned, because those teams don't stay at the top at the same time in that span.  Bama does, over a 15 year period, and another team often joins them, but they don't stay there.    

Is that "better" than Ohio State and Michigan being at the top for 20 years?  UGA certainly wasn't much "better" than Ohio State just now.  

[Cincydawg]

Georgia football fans saw the best, not the worst, of Dawgs in Peach Bowl (dawnofthedawg.com)

[Cincydawg]

When you have six near helmet teams, a conference is going to look better, usually, than one with 2 consistent helmet teams.  Let's say in a given year only Bama and UGA look elite, and OSU and UM look elite, to a lot of observers, that 11-2 Tenn team will look near elite, over a PSU team.  And 10-4 LSU will look near elite too.

So, Auburn and Florida had down years, they'll be back, because they always have done that.  It alters perceptions, and excuses, I think.  

It doesn't matter that much to me, except for some notion about SOS, which in any event if very hard to guage.  

[FearlessF]

[OrangeAfroMan]

Whether someone think it matters or not, it's still a fact.  When a conference has 1-2 top teams (as the B1G has had, for like 50 years now), it's not just a case of their succeeding, but of the other programs failing. 
How good is Florida as a historical program?  I don't know, but they're good enough to win 3 NCs in 12 seasons. 
How good is, say, Michigan State's program?  I don't know, but they're the 2nd-best program in their own state and that rival doesn't hold them in equal regard.  No NCs.  No Heismans. 
I'm not lifting one program up or putting the other down, but those elite times for Florida, even if they're blips, go into the annals forever. 
.
When a conference has 4-5-6 teams whose peak is a NC, it's noteworthy.  Even if it doesn't truly matter, it's still a fact and is a feather in its cap.  When it comes to the SEC, it's just one of many feathers.  #1 in recruiting, #1 in NCs, #1 in depth, #1 in NFL draft picks, etc.
Someone might find it offensive, but if you said the B1G is UM, OSU, and their harem of bitches, they wouldn't be wrong.  At least, not when it comes to what the "other" programs have shown in terms of historical peak.  Same with USC in the PAC.  Same with Nebraska + OU in the Big 8. 
Cal has never mattered.  Oregon State is about as stout as its mascot.  Kansas is a rectangle of suck.  If Texas Tech disbanded its program, no one would notice. 
.
I kid, but if 10+ programs can be held under the boot of 1-2 programs, that's not a great conference.  If you're not in a great conference, you're not maximizing the respect you want. For a very long time, the SEC was under Alabama + Tennessee.  They absolutely dominated the rest of the conference for decades.  
And there is a chasm between those who have won the SEC and those who haven't.  There are 6 that have and 6 (now 8) that haven't.  That's in a 30-year sample.  
The B1G has as much diversity in that time frame as the SEC, but lacks the elite, top-end NC team seasons.  How much of that is luck vs something deeper?  I don't know.  But it's happened.