FanNation - The Republic of Sport

Last Saturday night, something happened that shouldn't have.  The Cal Golden Bears beat the Tennessee Vols.  Many writers and fans across the country, many of them tired of the SEC's long dominance and resultant attitude, have declared that "not only is the SEC vulnerable, we can clearly see that the gap between the SEC and other conferences not as large as LSU coach Les Miles wants everybody to believe."  Oh, is it?

For those of you who don't follow the SEC, Les Miles is one of the most vocal proponents of the superiority of the SEC to other conferences.  This summer, Miles remarked to reporters that Southern California had an easy route to the BCS title game because of many of the Pac-10 teams that he derisively called "real juggernauts." 

Here's a little memo to all other college football fans:  It does not matter how good your conference may actually be.  There is no conference in the NCAA that can compare to the SEC pound for pound.  However many titles your team or conference has won means nothing; first of all, the question of who has the most titles is up for massive debate.  Princeton and Yale both claim over 24 titles, while Alabama claims twelve.  Notre Dame is usually noted as the school with the most national championship titles, but they are not in a conference.  Secondly, Big Ten and Big Twelve, remember what happens when you let the SEC play in your precious little BCS national championship game?  Oh, yeah, you get killed.  The only reason the Pac-10 can even begin to claim this latest "victory" is because they never played a powerhouse from the SEC.

Remember when Auburn went undefeated?  That's right, undefeated in the SEC.  Jason Campbell was SEC Offensive Player of the Year, and that was a team that featured Ronnie Brown and Cadillac Williams.  Carlos Rogers won the Jim Thorpe Award.  Did they get a shot at USC?  Nope.  That honor went to Oklahoma, possibly the most overrated college team in my memory.  Why did Oklahoma get to play in that game?  Because the year before, in order to (again) protect their beloved media darling USC from the big bad wolf (or should I say tiger) of the SEC, LSU, the BCS *split* the title between LSU and USC.  As a result USC played godd@mn Michigan while LSU murdered said Oklahoma Sooners.  Knowing that they couldn't feed USC to Auburn the next year, they gave the nod to Oklahoma.  Finally, last year, the SEC champion was allowed to play for the title because a) Reggie Bush was no longer at USC and b) USC lost to the Canadians at Oregon State.   What happened?  The SEC champ, Florida, obliterated the powerhouse OSU.  There lies why the Pac-10 cannot claim this victory over Tennessee as vindication of their legitimacy as a conference.

Cal is being lauded as a potential title contender, and they only beat a shaky Tennessee team by fourteen points.  That is a good margin of victory if the final score is, say, 14-0, or 24-10.  Not when the score is 45-31; not when the team faced, UT, is weaker than most other well-known SEC teams, not when the Vols give up more points to a non-division foe since 1995.  This is not evidence of how good the Golden Bears are.  USC is going to dismantle Cal, and the defense of USC will stifle the offense seen against UT this past weekend.

Tennessee has been rebuilding for a long time now.  They have not been the same since Casey Clausen said he could beat Georgia with "one arm tied behind my back."  What if Cal played a legitimate team from the SEC?

LSU would kill Cal.  As a potential BSC title contender, LSU needs no explaining.  Georgia, coming off a down year in 2006, will be a major force in the SEC this year.  Matt Stafford has all the talent in the world, and also has a year of experience under his belt now.  He had a fine game against Ok. St.  UGA's defense, widely considered the core of the team, was made up of 8 first time starters, who all played very well.  With a core of running backs as deep as USC's, but not as hyped, look for the Bulldogs to once again be their dominant selves.

Auburn needed two come from behind touchdowns to beat Kansas St. the other night, but that does not worry me.  USC needed to come back plenty of times during their championship years; Auburn deserves their 18th ranking.  Florida would kill Cal, and USC (South Carolina) would probably give Cal a good amount of trouble.  USC is an underrated team in the SEC.  Stevie Spurs can turn just about any college team into a contender, and he is quietly doing it again in Columbia. 

Finally, let's not forget Alabama, who have been hindered by injuries (anyone remember Tyrone Prothro?).  They have Saban now, and they match up against any team in the country outside the SEC more than favorably. 

Yeah, Vandy beat UGA and almost beat Florida last year.  That goes to show that Vandy would probably be pretty to very good in a bunch of other conferences.  I know that Boise State beat Oklahoma, but as I already said, they are always overrated, and did anyone see DJ Shockley and the Dogs ruin Zabransky's season two years ago?  Kentucky would probably be good in other conferences.  Andre Woodson is about as good as any quarterback in the country; he could light up a conference like the Big Twelve.

I don't think that Cal or Southern Cal hold their programs to any less of a degree of excellence than Georgia or Auburn or Alabama.  I do think that when you look at each conference and name the schools off the top of your head, the quality of football between Pac-10 and SEC are just as big as the obnoxious southerners say it is.  Try it.  Pac-10: USC, Cal, Stanford, Arizona, Arizona St., Washington, Wash. St., Oregon and Oregon St., UCLA, and f*ckin Berkeley.  SEC:  Georgia, Auburn, Alabama, Florida, LSU, USC, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee...I think those lists speak for themselves.

SEC is still the best conference.  Easy.