Best Conf?

Who has the best Conference in College Football? Why?

Since Notre Dame is Independent...I will go w/ SEC. That conference is strong, fast and nfl ready.

I'd have to go with the SEC because we have won the past 6 titles and there are no weeks off in the conference. Even the bottom of the conference brings it. The week to week grind is what sets it apart. That and the athleticism of our D-Linemen. And I've always looked at Notre Dame as a Big 10 school. LoL

Anyone who's thinks that the SEC doesn't have the best football conference should lose their rights to be able to post on the site lol

Some people might look at me like I'm crazy or think I'm being a homer but I really felt like the big 12 had the best conference this past season. I know the SEC had 3 top 10 teams and won the last 6 championships but here me out... The big 12 had more quality teams then any other conference so with that being that said from top to bottom I thought the big 12 was the best.

God strike me down if it isn't the big te...cough..cough. I'm not that silly, there's a lot of gaps between teams in the big ten, I do however think it's probably second best due to the talent they churn out every year and what appears to be a bit of change of culture in the way teams have been playing the last few years.

SEC gets my nod, not cause I like it, but because the proof is there to a degree, better athletes, more pros, but you're bottom squads suck like everyone else's do don't forget that.

Big 12 has been consistently good for the last 10 years or so and deserve a nod in the top 2/3 last year and could prime for top 1/2 this year (TCU and West Virginia being added). My #1 problem is that I can't watch a game and feel like anyone in the Big 12 plays D.

Boz wrote:Some people might look at me like I'm crazy or think I'm being a homer but I really felt like the big 12 had the best conference this past season. I know the SEC had 3 top 10 teams and won the last 6 championships but here me out... The big 12 had more quality teams then any other conference so with that being that said from top to bottom I thought the big 12 was the best.

Are you serious? More quality teams? Who, what, when where, how????? Kansas St was the second best team in the Big 12 that alone says enough for me. Sure Oklahoma State was a BCS contender but they were behind 3 SEC schools. And if the teams at the bottom of the SEC were in the Big 12 then they would have decent seasons. Move Baylor to the SEC West and replace Auburn and let them play Alabama, LSU, Arkansas, Mississippi State and then possibly Georgia and south Carolina. How many of those games do you think they will win? Better yet put Oklahoma St in that gauntlet and see if they come out without 4 losses. Florida had to play South Carolina, Georgia, Auburn, Alabama, and LSU and they lost all 5. That just gives you an idea of what life is like in the SEC. It's definitely not like that in the Big 12. Texas A&M played Arkansas the past 3 years and lost every game. Arkansas destroyed Kansas St in the Cotton Bowl. They could barley move the ball. I understand that's your conference but it's really no debate!

Had Oklahoma State made the title game, they would have won. Yes, they were that good. It was unfortunate they had to play after what happened, but it is what it is.

That said, SEC, but just because of who's at the top. Alabama and LSU are the elite teams. Arkansas is the really good team. Everyone else falls into the good-mediocre range. Auburn was not good, UGA was good but not great, Vandy was not good, TN was not good, SCAR was good but not great, Florida was not good, MISS was not good, MISS State was not good, and UK was not good.

As for Arkansas "destroying" Kansas State...we'll agree to disagree.

MYswagSTAYon wrote:

Boz wrote:Some people might look at me like I'm crazy or think I'm being a homer but I really felt like the big 12 had the best conference this past season. I know the SEC had 3 top 10 teams and won the last 6 championships but here me out... The big 12 had more quality teams then any other conference so with that being that said from top to bottom I thought the big 12 was the best.

Are you serious? More quality teams? Who, what, when where, how????? Kansas St was the second best team in the Big 12 that alone says enough for me. Sure Oklahoma State was a BCS contender but they were behind 3 SEC schools. And if the teams at the bottom of the SEC were in the Big 12 then they would have decent seasons. Move Baylor to the SEC West and replace Auburn and let them play Alabama, LSU, Arkansas, Mississippi State and then possibly Georgia and south Carolina. How many of those games do you think they will win? Better yet put Oklahoma St in that gauntlet and see if they come out without 4 losses. Florida had to play South Carolina, Georgia, Auburn, Alabama, and LSU and they lost all 5. That just gives you an idea of what life is like in the SEC. It's definitely not like that in the Big 12. Texas A&M played Arkansas the past 3 years and lost every game. Arkansas destroyed Kansas St in the Cotton Bowl. They could barley move the ball. I understand that's your conference but it's really no debate!

Oh great another SEC chest bumper.

I only saw 4 quality teams in the SEC this past season this past season and those were LSU,Bama,Ark,and Georgia everyone else in that confernce was average-mediocre at best. The big 12 had 6 quality teams Ok Lite(who was just as good as any SEC team if not better),K-State,Baylor, OU,Texas, and Mizzou. The SEC was just top heavy and not stacked from top to bottom. Ok saying the bottom tier teams in the SEC would do good in the big 12 is just plain ignorate. From top to bottom the big 12 was better but not as top heavy. Ark was just better then K-state, congrats you guys beat a very good team but thats not to say they suck just cause you guys blew them out it was just yalls night. Ok Lite might of very well been better then anyone in the SEC but too bad they did not get the chance to prove that.

If Oklahoma St didn't lose to IOWA STATE they would have beat LSU???? Are you serious? How were they going to score? But that discussion is irrelevant because they didn't beat Iowa State for whatever the reason was. They really shouldn't have beat Stanford. The kicker missed like a 35 yard field goal to win the game and to be honest Stanford wasn't good. They had 0 weapons other than Luck and the TE.

@Boz Go tell me one good team Texas, Missouri, or Kansas St beat???? Texas beat absolutely no one worth talking about and same for Missouri. What criteria are you using? Winning 8 games? What about quality of opponents? Texas had one of the worst offenses in college football and they were a quality team!!!! Yeah ok sure!!!!

MYswagSTAYon wrote:If Oklahoma St didn't lose to IOWA STATE they would have beat LSU???? Are you serious? How were they going to score? But that discussion is irrelevant because they didn't beat Iowa State for whatever the reason was. They really shouldn't have beat Stanford. The kicker missed like a 35 yard field goal to win the game and to be honest Stanford wasn't good. They had 0 weapons other than Luck and the TE.

Oklahoma State had to play a day after a tragic plane crash that took the life of the Women's basketball coach there, who the players and coaches were very fond of. The fact that they just didn't cancel the game shows a lot of guts on their part. To say their head wasn't in the game would be putting it lightly.

How would they score? I believe WVU put up something like 533 yards of offense against LSU. They were right in the game if not for some stupid turnovers. And believe me when I say Oklahoma State is a lot better than WVU is.

Did you not know that Okie Lite had a huge tragedy the morning of the Iowa State game? Its very hard to focus when something like that occurs. Did I just hear you say Stanford was not that good of a team? Smh.... Its going to be hard for me to take you serious from now on. Yea your right Stanford had nobody, I mean they just had the best offensive linemen in the draft and is supposed to be the one of the best OL in the last 10 years. They have a beast TB that will be in the NFL, They had another TE drafted, and they had one of the top OL units in the country, oh and there D was not too shabby so yea they are not that good.
Can anyone outside of the SEC be good? Or can only SEC teams be good?

K-State beat #15 Baylor and #23 Texas. Mizzou beat Texas. Texas is not anyhting what they used but they were still a good team. According to your logic Arkanas was not that good of a team cause they did not beat anyone worth a darn in the SEC and beat a bad K-state team(according to you anyways). Bama and LSU had no offense but they played in the national championship game. So I guess they are not quality teams either huh?

Does your name happen to be Smog by any chance?

I'm sorry to sound like a jerk by damn...

I knew they had a tragedy but I don't hear anyone using an excuse for Arkansas losing to LSU. They had a teammate die the week leading up to the game but oh we were suppose to lose so that's why it wasn't talked about. I'm not saying those were though conditions to play in but they would not have beaten LSU at all. But that's just my opinion. LSU averaged 35 points per game and Alabama averaged 34 points per game on top of having the best defenses in college. Texas averaged 28 in a league that plays 0 defense. Let's be real Stanford played Oregon and USC and no one else had a chance to win cause PAC 12 isn't that good but they lost to Oregon and the refs bailed them out against USC. Stanford had Luck and the TE and that's it. That rb was solid as well. I just don't think teams in these other conferences can do what Alabama did 2 years ago or do what Cam Newton did last year and that's win week in week out in the SEC. Just my opinion. Texas beat no one worth talking about and neither did Missouri. Arkansas beat several top 25 teams and we beat a 2 loss South Carolina team. But you guys just don't like the dominance of the sec. I don't like it either because we have to beat these dudes to win the conference. It would be much easier in the Big 12 that's for sure.

Alabama had zero business being in the title game last year. Who did they play who had a pulse???

They beat Arkansas. They LOST to LSU at HOME. No one else on their schedule was even close to good. They didn't win their conference. So you tell me why they deserved to be in the title game over Oklahoma State.

While I was the biggest opponent against the rematch, because LSU had already beat Alabama at Tuscaloosa so that's the end of the story there didn't need to be a rematch, I banked that OSU would get their shot regardless because a rematch is never necessary (If the BCS wouldn't do it for Ohio State/Michigan last decade why do it for the SEC?).

I'm not sure if you look at the loses of OSU and Alabama that they compare, that's what the coaches did and that's why Alabama went to the NC and OSU didn't (coaches ranked OSU #3 and that was their downfall in the BCS rankings):

OSU loss to Iowa State, a 6-7 team that got thumped in their bowl by 9-4 Rutgers. This was an up and down team that shouldn't have been able to take on ANY given team each week but could cause strife every week. They got lucky in a 2OT win against OSU and not that I understand how that tragedy would effect those players, I can see that there could/would be some level of impact, I just don't know how much. The plane crash and decision to play can't be the crutch though, they loss to a mediocre ISU team all the same.

Alabama lost to LSU 9-6 in OT at their place. Going into the game they were #1 and #2 I think, so they lost to the best they could. LSU was the only BCS team to go undefeated so you can't loose to a much better opponent.

As far as OSU's SOS versus Alabama's SOS:
According to the first website I pulled up (http://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/ranking/strength-of-schedule-by-team) Alabama ended up #2 and OSU #5 another key component of the BCS rankings and the basis of your argument above. I'm not sure how concrete that website is and if it was before the bowl games or not.

SOS still feels biased towards SEC though, because it is a people generated rating and people generally put SEC above all else. Alabama beat 4 teams that were ranked in the top 25 at the time (Penn State, Arkansas, Florida, and Auburn), with Arkansas finishing #5 (mainly because their two loses came at the hands of the NC opponents, both ass whippings). OSU beat 4 ranked in the top 25 at the time (Texas A&M, Texas, Kansas State, Oklahoma), with Kansas State #15 and Oklahoma #16. That's a toss up if not a favor for Alabama since Arkansas beat Kansas State in their bowl game and Oklahoma had to beat Iowa in theirs to be #16.

All in all I'm fine with people touting their own opinions. Personally I think OSU deserved the shot, more because they hadn't already lost to OSU than anything else and everything else seems close to even. OSU got screwed up by the polls, if AP or coaches swung the other way they'd have been in that game, that's not how it worked out.

Ah, but you see, they got a significant bump from being able to play the #1 team twice in one season.

Looking at ranked teams beaten in the final regular season polls, Alabama beat 2 (Arkansas and Penn State.) and Oklahoma State beat 3 (A downright whipping on OU, they beat K-State, and also laid a beatdown on Baylor.)

I guess its just perspective, but that's how I see it.

How can anyone compare Alabama losing a game to LSU against Oklahoma St losing a game to Iowa St???? Alabama outplayed LSU both times but their lousy field goal kicker blew the game. Iowa St actually outplayed Okie St and I think a lot of that was due to the tragedy but the polls don't look at it like that. Iowa St was a bad loss. I just don't understand why people say disregard Okie St losing to a team that finished under .500 and put them in over a team that lost to the 2nd best team in the country. That's absurd. Clemson I respect your opinion even though it makes no sense to me. If you remove the conference affiliation and just look at the wins and losses you will see that the loss to a NON-RANKED Iowa St really hurt their chance. They blew it themselves not the voters, not the computers, not anyone. The BCS is designed for the best 2 teams in college football to play for all the marbles, not the winners of this conference vs the winner of that conference. It's for the best two teams and if you don't think those were the best two teams last year then I do know what to tell you.

MYswagSTAYon wrote:How can anyone compare Alabama losing a game to LSU against Oklahoma St losing a game to Iowa St???? Alabama outplayed LSU both times but their lousy field goal kicker blew the game. Iowa St actually outplayed Okie St and I think a lot of that was due to the tragedy but the polls don't look at it like that. Iowa St was a bad loss. I just don't understand why people say disregard Okie St losing to a team that finished under .500 and put them in over a team that lost to the 2nd best team in the country. That's absurd. Clemson I respect your opinion even though it makes no sense to me. If you remove the conference affiliation and just look at the wins and losses you will see that the loss to a NON-RANKED Iowa St really hurt their chance. They blew it themselves not the voters, not the computers, not anyone. The BCS is designed for the best 2 teams in college football to play for all the marbles, not the winners of this conference vs the winner of that conference. It's for the best two teams and if you don't think those were the best two teams last year then I do know what to tell you.

Do you believe there should have been a rematch or should the title have just gone to LSU since they already won?

MYswagSTAYon wrote:How can anyone compare Alabama losing a game to LSU against Oklahoma St losing a game to Iowa St???? Alabama outplayed LSU both times but their lousy field goal kicker blew the game. Iowa St actually outplayed Okie St and I think a lot of that was due to the tragedy but the polls don't look at it like that. Iowa St was a bad loss. I just don't understand why people say disregard Okie St losing to a team that finished under .500 and put them in over a team that lost to the 2nd best team in the country. That's absurd. Clemson I respect your opinion even though it makes no sense to me. If you remove the conference affiliation and just look at the wins and losses you will see that the loss to a NON-RANKED Iowa St really hurt their chance. They blew it themselves not the voters, not the computers, not anyone. The BCS is designed for the best 2 teams in college football to play for all the marbles, not the winners of this conference vs the winner of that conference. It's for the best two teams and if you don't think those were the best two teams last year then I do know what to tell you.

I understand completely what you're saying. However, Alabama had already lost to LSU once and Oklahoma State had beaten more ranked teams at season's end. Alabama did not even play for their conference title. Alabama had their shot against LSU, in a game at home in which they were favored, and lost. Someone else should have been given a chance. Like I said, it is what it is.

I cant even understand why this is a debate. When a conference is strong enough to send two teams to the national championship the same year that should be enough proof. When you throw in the fact the match-ups the SEC has week in and week out and to mention the head to head record of the top teams in SEC vs the other conferences is very lopsided.

Man oh man.... It's funny watching people plead the cases for their conferences and whatnot. I mean everyone has valid points but at the end of the day, the question was who has the best conference and why. I will keep it real simple. The SEC is hands down the best conference because of two reasons. 1) Regardless of the haters and their disapproval how how things may have played out, the SEC has won the past 6 titles. That's not up for debate. 2) It's the week to week grind that separates the SEC from everyone else. For example, the top teams still have to bring their A game against the lower teams. No one can afford to take a week off. There's a difference in BAMA vs Ole Miss as opposed to Ok St. vs Kansas. And that is a direct result of the caliber of athletes the SEC has on the D-line. Control the trenches, everything else "usually" falls into line. That's why a bottom rung SEC team could be mediocre in other conferences. You put Oklahoma State in the SEC and sure they'd win a few games but eventually that week to week grind would wear them out. No way they're passing the ball 50 plus times a game in the SEC. Concluding, I'm not saying any good team couldn't come win a game in the SEC. What I'm saying is they won't sustain that success if they had to play in the conference every week.

Thank you datruth. It's really no debate. But the proof that there should have been a rematch is the fact Alabama dominated LSU in the title game. The 9-6 game was a fluke. I'm done with this debate. Y'all say disregard Alabama being the best team in college football because they lost at home to the second best team in college football. Instead put a team that lost to the 60th ranked team in the college football. Makes no sense. Conference champion is not a prerequisite for going to the title game. And yes I think Bama and LSU should have played again because they were the 2 best teams in college football hands down.

MYswagSTAYon wrote:Thank you datruth. It's really no debate. But the proof that there should have been a rematch is the fact Alabama dominated LSU in the title game. The 9-6 game was a fluke. I'm done with this debate. Y'all say disregard Alabama being the best team in college football because they lost at home to the second best team in college football. Instead put a team that lost to the 60th ranked team in the college football. Makes no sense. Conference champion is not a prerequisite for going to the title game. And yes I think Bama and LSU should have played again because they were the 2 best teams in college football hands down.

crazy notion, if but I believe LSU should have been handed the national title and no game played. They already did what they were supposed to and Alabama didn't regardless of what happened in that game the score is what mattered.

That's really foolish. The regular season puts you in position to compete for the title. What sport do you know that forfeits the championship game just because is a rematch??? The nfl didn't give the giants the Super Bowl because they had to play the Pats again? No the giants just beat them again. Your argument holds no water. Holes all through it.

Let me make this clear.

In 2003, Nick Saban himself said, and I quote "A team that does not play for its own conference championship should NOT be able to play for the national title."

Fast forward to 2011, Saban says despite not playing for a conference title, Bama SHOULD play for the national title.

A lot of hypocrisy going on there. Regardless, he was right in 2003. Under the BCS, a team that doesn't play for its own conference title shouldn't play for the national title.

Once again: It is what it is, and it happened. That doesn't make it right.