Those are 53 man rosters. Not game day active. Believe that’s 45 players. Numbers would change. Rankings probably not too much.
The mighty sec!!
- Thread starter beelit47
- Start date
Cubs speaks the truth. Year in and year out, there’s a massive difference in conferences, especially when the P5 is compared to the G5. Heck, USF has been one of the top teams in the American and they go and get pounded 49-0 at home against a Big 10 team and almost no one bats an eye. Can you imagine if an LSU or Georgia or whatever random team from the SEC lost 49-0 to a Big 10 or G5 team? We’d never hear the end of it. But that’s not what happens. When a Big time SEC or Big 10 team loses to a traditionally “inferior” team, the vast majority of the time they lose by like 1-7 points. They very rarely get beat by 3-4 (or 7) touchdowns or whatever. But that’s often the case when a G5 plays a P5. Heck, that’s often the spread, meaning it happens around 50% of the time. Massive difference.
Last edited:
True (but I couldn’t find any better in my brief search)
The 53 man roster is the roster. The 46 man game day roster can change a bit every week due to schemes or injuries or what not, but when people refer to an NFL roster they are talking about the 53 man roster.
Do you consider a 3rd string QB who rarely dresses and never plays an active player? I don’t. Josh Dobbs shouldn’t be in league but he’s Steelers 3rd string and won’t dress.
Imagine if you will a time when all 10 conferences compete in a 16 team playoff. Imagine if ESPN gave all 10 conferences say $20 million a year. I know, I know , it's Fantasyland, but if we had a 16 team playoff with a more even distribution of TV revenue, the parity in which some speak of here would definitely kick in and guess what, over time the SEC would become just another conference. I tend to think they know it and they will block with everything they have any kind of legitimate playoff system because it would expose them..
If he is on the 53 man roster than he is on an NFL roster. What you consider him doesnt matter. He is on a roster collecting a paycheck.
Last edited:
I don’t disagree. If every conference got the same exposure and same money, there would be more parity. The conferences in the southeast would still likely be better since there are far more good D1 players who are born and raised in that area, but the gap wouldn’t be as wide as it is now.
Last edited:
I don’t give a damn what the SEC is or isn’t, I enjoy watching them lose, but ultimately we can’t control anything with that conference so whatever, let’s just go 1-0 and celebrate all chaos.
Are we going to count IR and Practice squad too? Being on a roster and playing are 2 different things.
Ole Miss - irrelevant
Arkansas - irrelevant
Vanderbilt - irrelevant
Kentucky - irrelevant
Tennessee - irrelevant
Missouri - irrelevant
South Carolina - irrelevant
Mississippi State - irrelevant
Wow, you have four elite teams let me call the newspaper.
Arkansas - irrelevant
Vanderbilt - irrelevant
Kentucky - irrelevant
Tennessee - irrelevant
Missouri - irrelevant
South Carolina - irrelevant
Mississippi State - irrelevant
Wow, you have four elite teams let me call the newspaper.
Call the newspaper and tell them one conference has Alabama, Auburn, Texas A & M, Georgia, Florida, and LSU. Then ask them to to find a conference that compares favorably to that group.*
I am not really sure what you are arguing. The 53 man roster is the NFL roster, that is simply a fact. Whether you personally think someone should or shouldnt be on a roster doesnt change the fact that they are indeed on the roster. Practice squad isnt technically a roster spot because they arent eligible on gamedays unless another play is cut and they are taken off the practice squad. And I dont know where you are coming up with the "playing" aspect of this. I said on a roster, I never said anything about playing. Plenty of back up QBs dont play either, are you arguing they arent on the roster? What a 3rd string RB who doesnt get in a game? Was he not on the roster that day? I am just confused by your argument.
Now go through the other conferences and list who isnt relevant.
And its been 1 week, we dont know who is relevant or elite yet.
Why should the ESPN give all conferences an equal payout? Does the Big Sky conference bring in the same kind of revenue the SEC or B1G does?
I’m arguing there is a 45 man game day roster. In which 8 guys plus Practice Squad members are not allowed to play. Neither is IR. The original post said active players. Only 45 are active.
It is 46 not 45, and the 7 that don't dress on game day are still on an NFL roster. The game day roster changes almost weekly for a variety of reasons, injury, matchups, etc, but it has to consist of guys from the 53 man roster. The IR and practice squad guys aren't eligible for game days period so they are a completely different thing. Regardless, this is a pointless conversation.
In the eyes of the voters, all the teams above that lose to other teams, will be a quality win no matter what their 2019 record is. The BIG10 will be just as good this year
In the eyes of the voters, all the teams above that lose to other teams, will be a quality win no matter what their 2019 record is. The BIG10 will be just as good this year
In the last 5 years:
Michigan St:. Playoff berth
Ohio St: playoff berth
Michigan: 1 game from playoff berth
Penn St: 1 game from playoff berth
Wisconsin: 1 game from playoff berth
Iowa: 1 game from playoff berth
The rest of the conference has been irrelevant, so basically identical to the SEC.
The SEC has been in the playoff every year, one year having 2 teams. That isn't the same thing as being "1 game from the playoff berth". I think the Big 10 is a good conference, but you are counting being close to the playoffs as the same thing as being in the playoff (and the SEC and other conferences have had plenty of teams that were "close" to the playoff too). And for what its worth, last 2 Big 10 teams in the playoff got beat by a combined score of 69-0.
All teams that don’t get invited to the playoff become irrelevant in the end. All the SEC teams listed will have the same result, a bowl game that is meaningless. Unless, they are invited to a playoff game where they can win something, and they only allow 4. That’s what the people running college football have done to this sport and it’s schools. Having a bigger playoff would allow more parity. Until then, I love watching UCF but the system is a joke!
Obviously this is just a matter of opinion, but having a bigger playoff would also make the remaining bowl games even less relevant, to the point where I would think they would just cancel them. And it also runs the risk of making the regular season less eventful. The one thing college football has that no other major sport has, is that every game from start to finish is essentially a big game, and expanding the playoff too much would change that quite a bit I think.
I consider relevant "any team that reaches the top 10". To that end, over the last 5 years the Big 10 has had 7 teams and the SEC has had 7 as well. It seems to me that by almost every metric those 2 conferences are pretty equal but the SEC gets twice the hype from ESPN.
When you say "reach the top 10" do you mean finish in the top 10? There is no way the SEC has only had 7 teams reach the top 10 in 5 years.
They aren't equal by every metric. OSU won the first playoff back in 14-15, but the Big 10 has not only not won a playoff game since that year, they haven't scored a single point in the playoffs. Where as an SEC team has won at least 1 playoff game every year since the beginning, and in 17-18 they had 2 teams win playoff games. I like the Big 10, I think year in year out it is typically the 2nd best overall conference, but I don't think it is typically as good of a conference as the SEC.
Yep, just reach the top 10, not finish in it. 2015-2019. Bama is an outlier IMO because they have had a legendary level of success over the last few years so they have to be partially excluded when looking at the conference as a whole. Nobody would make the claim that the Big 8/12 was the strongest conference from 1993-1997 even though they won 3 titles in that timeframe because it was the product of 1 team having a legendary run. The truth is, half of the teams in both conferences haven't really done anything of note over the last five years. The other half have been in the conversation after week 5 or 6 for playoff contenders at some point in that timeframe.
They are part of the conference, so they aren't an outlier, and no they shouldn't be excluded.
Plus, Bama being so good has also kept UGA out of the playoffs twice and they beat UGA in an OT national title game. Sorry, but trying to reshape the conference to fit your argument is impossible, because it doesn't consider what other teams would have done had Alabama not been in the conference. UGA for sure, would have been in the playoffs at least 3 times and have at least 1 national title if Alabama didn't exist. So you cant exclude Alabama and not boost UGA. This is why using hypotheticals for an argument doesn't work.
Do you have a link showing only 7 teams have reached the top 10 in the last 5 years? They had 4 finish ( not just reach, but finish) in the top 10 just last year, so you are saying before last year they only had 3 teams reach the top 10?
Last edited:
3 additional teams. Bama, Auburn, LSU, Georgia, TAMU, Florida, and Missouri have been top 10 teams since 2015.
The Big 10 has had the teams I listed above plus Nebraska.
And I'm not diminishing the rest of the SEC because Bama has been so dominant. Georgia has been good but not great, just like Michigan has been good but not great. They've both had one team stand in their way. The same can be said for Penn St, Iowa, Wisconsin, Auburn, and LSU in that timeframe. So why is it that Auburn, LSU, and Georgia are considered superior to Penn St, Michigan, and Wisconsin? Because the SEC bias exists, not because they have earned it. UCF has proven it is capable of competing with the SECs 1a tier over the last 2 years but they aren't given ANY respect. The bias exists, period.
One point I never understood was that an expanded playoff would result in a less eventful regular season. Too me the opposite would be true. Many more meaningful games late in the year with playoff hopes on the line, instead of waiting to see if one of the top 4 teams lose. You end up with more big games not less.
I dont agree. College basketball has a great post season, but their regular season isn't very good IMO. I think if you expand the playoff too much, it becomes the same thing. Auburn vs Oregon for example, isnt that big a game if 16 teams make the playoff, because there is still a really good shot both teams are in the top 16. But, it is a really big game if you are trying to be ranked in the top 4.
So you are just counting the schools, and not how many times they have been in the top 10? THat isnt a valid comparison. Iowa reaching the top 10 once is not the same thing as UGA being in the top 5 three years in a row.
You dont know how good UGA would have been without Alabama. Alabama beat them in the SEC championship twice, both times keeping them out of the playoff. It is impossible to say what would have happened if they made the playoff, but you are trying to have it both ways. You are trying to say Alabama shouldnt count, but also still counting it when Alabama knocks other SEC teams from playoff contention. It is isnt an argument that works in any constructive measure.
Looked like the Pee-5 not P5 this past weekend. Gap is closing between conferences.
Now you know why many wont schedule us early in the season.
Now you know why many wont schedule us early in the season.
The point is, looking at the conference as a whole, an equal number of teams each have reached relevancy. You can say that Bama and Georgia are both fantastic, but that's only 2 of 14 teams in each conference. How good was the Big12 from 93 to 97? Yeah, 3 national titles, another runner up, and that's pretty much it. The sec and Big10 were better conferences in that timeframe overall. Was the PAC10 the best conference in the mid 2000s? Nope, but they won some hardware thanks to USC. The argument that the SEC is somehow vastly superior to everyone else is just based on Alabama having a historic run and that's pretty much it. We've gotten to the point where losing to Alabama doesn't mean anything and that, for espns financial reasons means, every team in the conference is somehow better because they play in a conference that has a team everybody loses to. It's stupid. Clemson frigging schooled Bama last year, but does that equate to the ACC being awesome? Nope, they're just a conference with one good team. Auburn beats alabama and somehow that's proof that the entire conference is elite. Don't you see the double standard there?
I have already illustrated the SEC dominance in the draft and NFL rosters and things of that nature, but its fine, if you think the SEC is only Alabama and the rest of the conference is average, more power to you.
You are right they suck, shouldn't even be in the top 50 probably since non conference is the only thing that counts.
I didn't start the thread about the SEC, a UCF fan did, so bitch to him if you have a problem with it.
When you're comparing conferences, the only thing that matters is how they do against other conferences. Outside of Bama, the SEC hasn't proven anything that the Big10 or the AAC has. All they do is play each other and then a bunch of FCS schools at home and yet that is enough to get 4 of them in the top 10 year in and year out? Come on man, if you can't see the bias then you're blind.
2019- Auburn beat Oregon. LSU plays Texas, A%M plays Clemson, Florida beat Miami. USC played UNC and will play Clemson. Georgia plays ND in a couple of weeks. Alabama played Duke and always opens against a P5 team. Miss St plays K-State, TEnn plays BYU, etc etc.
2018-Auburn played #6 Washington
LSU-played Miami
A%M- played Clemson
Ole Miss played Texas Tech
Missouri played Purdue
UT played WVU
ETC ETC
And none of that includes the rivalry games at the end of the year vs ACC schools.
So yeah, obviously you are correct, the SEC only schedules FBS teams for their non conference games and should schedule more like the Big 10. Ohio State playing Cinci, Miami (OH) and FAU is certainly more of a non conference test. Iowa playing Iow St, MIami OH, and MTSU, is very stout. Who knows how Penn St is going to survive Idaho, Buffalo, and Pitt, very tough out of conference scheduling. Much more difficult than what SEC teams play, thanks for showing me the light. Arent you a Nebraska fan? I bet that game against South Alabama last week was one you had been looking forward too since South Alabama is so good, maybe one day the SEC will follow the Big 10s lead with all those tough OOC games.
