Is it the West Again?

#2
#2
Wow ESPN is really getting bold there.



Oh yeah . . . The obligatory "ESPN hates us"
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#7
#7
I just really want this team to prove so many people wrong this year and go out destroying some people.
 
#11
#11
ETV said:
Not too long ago it was the other way around.
Click to expand...

Not really. In the mid to late 90s the East simply had the best two teams, but the West has pretty much always been the better division, top to bottom.

During the era that Tennessee and Florida were tops in the conference, the East had one mediocre to above average team in UGA, and three below average to completely awful teams in USCe, UK, and Vandy.
 
#17
#17
Best part is, every time the media has picked bammer to win it, it turned out a fail for them. I also heard them say the media has made the pick 22 times and missed on it 16. More of a curse than a benefit.
 
#18
#18
One thing about the SEC that no sportswriter ever seems to mention is the simple fact that it's not always as simple as to look at a roster and schedule and make the assumption that a West or East team will make it to the CG. Throughout the year, teams knock each other off and destroy the hopes they might have of getting to that game, injuries happen that take key players out of contention, etc.

At the beginning of last season, nobody last year would have figured Mizzou and Auburn for the CG. But as the way the SEC rolls (and not tide) there is always that X factor that comes into play that ruins what otherwise would be a perfect season.
 
#19
#19
bamawriter said:
Not really. In the mid to late 90s the East simply had the best two teams, but the West has pretty much always been the better division, top to bottom.

During the era that Tennessee and Florida were tops in the conference, the East had one mediocre to above average team in UGA, and three below average to completely awful teams in USCe, UK, and Vandy.
Click to expand...

This is highly debatable considering how bad LSU was from '92-'99 and how bad the Mississippi schools and Arky were from '94-'97. Also, from '93 to '03 three separate teams from the West did probation with bowl bans including Alabama twice....I will add that the most recent expansion clearly favors the West though (A&M > Mizzou).
 
#20
#20
BowlBrother85 said:
This is highly debatable considering how bad LSU was from '92-'99 and how bad the Mississippi schools and Arky were from '94-'97. Also, from '93 to '03 three separate teams from the West did probation with bowl bans including Alabama twice....I will add that the most recent expansion clearly favors the West though (A&M > Mizzou).
Click to expand...

It's not really that debatable.

The SEC West's records in conference, cross-division, and overall are all considerably better than the Easts. While there have been a few years here and there where the East was better, top-to-bottom, over the 22 year life of the divided SEC, the West has been the stronger division, and it really can't be argued otherwise.
 
#21
#21
bamawriter said:
Not really. In the mid to late 90s the East simply had the best two teams, but the West has pretty much always been the better division, top to bottom.

During the era that Tennessee and Florida were tops in the conference, the East had one mediocre to above average team in UGA, and three below average to completely awful teams in USCe, UK, and Vandy.
Click to expand...
During that same era the west had Alabama who was top 10 caliber team and Auburn had a good run from 93-97. Everybody else in the west had a couple of good seasons with several bad to mediocre seasons mixed in. Even LSU had 7 losing seasons during the decade. Arkansas managed to win the west one year when the rest of the division was down. Miss State did the same thing. It was mainly two good teams with a bunch of average to mediocre teams just like the east.
 
#22
#22
MyBloodRunnethOrange said:
During that same era the west had Alabama who was top 10 caliber team and Auburn had a good run from 93-97. Everybody else in the west had a couple of good seasons with several bad to mediocre seasons mixed in. Even LSU had 7 losing seasons during the decade. Arkansas managed to win the west one year when the rest of the division was down. Miss State did the same thing. It was mainly two good teams with a bunch of average to mediocre teams just like the east.
Click to expand...

Again, not really. Between '92 and '99:

Arkansas: Bowl eligible 4 times. Best regular season = 9-2. Worst = 3-7-1

LSU: Bowl eligible 3 times. Won all three. Best regular season = 9-2. Worst = 2-9.

Ole Miss: Bowl eligible 6 times. Best regular season = 8-3. Worst = 4-7.

MSU: Bowl eligible 4 times. Best regular season = 9-2. Worst = 3-8.

Compare that to the East:

Georgia: Bowl eligible 6. Best regular season = 9-2. Worst = 5-6

Kentucky: Bowl eligible 3 times. Didn't win one. Best regular season = 7-4. Worst = 1-10

South Carolina: Bowl eligible 2 times. Best regular season = 6-5. Worst = 0-11.

Vanderbilt: Never bowl eligible. Best regular season = 5-6. Worst = 2-9.

Aside from Ole Miss and UGA, I'm not seeing much parity there.
 
#25
#25
UT_Dutchman said:
Best part is, every time the media has picked bammer to win it, it turned out a fail for them. I also heard them say the media has made the pick 22 times and missed on it 16. More of a curse than a benefit.
Click to expand...

So winning 6 SEC championships in 22 years is a curse? And one of those years they won the NC without winning the SEC.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top