Maisel makes a mistake, but a beneficial one.

At least I think so:

"There are no prouder fans than SEC fans, who believe their league stands second to no one. Actually, it stands fourth. The SEC went 7-8 this season against other BCS conferences -- 7-9 if you throw in Notre Dame. The "lowly" Big 12 went 8-5. The ACC went 13-9. The Big Ten went, yep, 10-10 (ND included)."

LSU - 2-0
vs. Arizona St (Pac-10) W 35-31
vs. Miami (ACC) W 40-3
UGA 1-1
vs. GA Tech (ACC) W 14-7
vs. W. Virginia (Big East) L 38-35
Auburn 0-2
vs. GA Tech (ACC) L 23-14
vs. Wisconsin (Big 10) L 24-10
Florida 1-0
vs. Iowa (Big 10) W 31-24
Alabama 1-0
vs. Texas Tech (Big 12) W 13-10
South Carolina 0-2
vs. Clemson (ACC) L 13-9
vs. Missouri (Big 12) L 38-31
Tennessee 0-1
vs. Notre Dame (Ind.) W 41-21
Arkansas 0-1
vs. Southern California (Pac-10) L 70-17
Vanderbilt 1-0
vs. Wake Forest (ACC) W 24-2
Ole Miss 0-0*
*No OOC BCS games.
Kentucky 0-2
vs. Louisville (Big East) L 31-24
vs. Indiana (Big 10) L 38-14
Mississippi St. 0-0*
*No OOC BCS games.

We actually went 6-9, if you include Notre Dame as he did. I'm not sure if he made the mistake or I did. However, he excludes the following:

SEC vs. ACC 2005: 3-2
SEC vs. Big 10 2005: 1-2
SEC vs. Big 12 2005: 1-1
SEC vs. Pac-10 2005: 1-1
SEC vs. Big East 2005: 0-2

Personally, I think he has a point. Not so hot this year. Perhaps it was because of the coaching changes. Glad LSU managed to take care of business in OOC games tho. Kudos to Vandy, too. Way to represent. Same to Florida and Bama. I'm just glad we beat the ACC.

 

Take away bottom feeders, like Kentucky, South Carolina and Auburn :hihi: , and we did much better

 

Didn't Florida beat Florida St as well?

 

You're absolutely right. Don't know how I missed that.

7-9 overall.
4-2 against ACC.

I guess Maisel was right.:cuss:

 

Head-to-head competition is hardly the tell-all indicator. The SEC is, top to bottom, the single most difficult conference in which to survive year-in and year-out. It's kind of intangible as it's mostly a byproduct of the sheer overall physicality of the league, and the fact that this region of the country is a hotbed of HS talent.

 

Epecially when it doesn't work for you. :shock: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

 

True. I mean, a Big-10 team did walk all over the 'best team in the SEC.':rofl: :rofl:

 

Speaking of head-to-head...Wisconsin vs. North Dakota State?????????

Hawker, even you have to admit that this is rediculous.

 

I'm not saying the Big Ten is a better conference or that the SEC isn't VERY, VERY good... I'm just saying there's a lot of parity out there now... and it's been that way... at least over the past few years.

ESPN.com only lets you go back four years on schedules. So, for brevity, I'll use the past four years. How many games do you think the SEC has played in four years versus the other 5 BCS conferences. I counted 81.

The SEC's record is 37-44.... and Georgia, at 9-1, has 25% of the wins in the conference.

Bama 1-3; Arkansas 2-3; Auburn 4-5; Florida 3-7; Georgia 9-1; Kentucky 4-4; LSU 5-3; Ole Miss 2-2; MissSt 0-2; South Carolina 1-6; Tennessee 4-5; Vandy 2-3.

The SEC is 8-7 against the Big Ten... and if we counted ND as was mentioned above somewhere, they have two wins, both against Tennessee.

I have no idea what the Big Ten's record is over the same period. My guess is even the top conference over that period is 55% wins or lower. My point only being that there ain't a whole lot of proof of late for anyone to beat their chest's too loudly.

 

It's worse that that, Tigerbait, Iowa just schedule Montana to kick off 2006.

North Dakota, Montana... first of all, I thought you had to have a certain amount of people just to have a state.