Pac-10 Football Is Better Than SEC Football: A Letter To My Haters

I've recently had the pleasure of reading an article entitled, "SEC Envy" by Bleacher Report's own Donald Fincher.

It brought up some very interesting and irrelevant points as to why Mr. Fincher believes that SEC football is superior to Pac-10 football.  I am here to dispel them and make SEC football look even worse than I already have done in my first five editions of "Pac-10 Football Is Better Than SEC Football," the series.

SEC Fans Must Label Themselves "SEC Fans" Because Their Not Good Enough Alone

In Mr. Fincher's profile, he claims that he is, "a college football nut, a SEC fan, and a Arkansas Razerbacks fan."  I find it interesting that every fan of an SEC team has to represent for the entire SEC.  Why is that? 

No other conference in college football needs to talk about their conference more than the SEC.  If an Oregon fan were on this site, they would say, "I'm an Oregon fan," not, "I'm a Pac-10 fan and an Oregon fan."  And its not just Donald Fincher who feels the need to represent the SEC all the time - it's every single person associated with the SEC.

Prior to the 2006 California-Tennessee contest, there were chants of SEC coming from the Tennessee huddle.  Why can't you just play football, do you have something to prove?  Why can't you stand alone and have pride in your program?  Why do you always have to bring your conference into the mix?

Auburn Tiger fan Liger called me out on "Pac-10 Football is Better Than SEC Football: Part One" when he said, "Sorta reminds me of car commercials that go on and on about how thier cars are better than Mercedes...I'm thinking, heck, the fact that you must compare yourself to Mercedes tells me you think they are the best," due to the fact I was comparing the Pac-10 with the SEC.

Liger, sorry buddy, but I'm comparing the SEC with the Pac-10 because everyone has a misperception that the SEC is somehow a better conference than the Pac-10.

Now, let's take a look at some of the dubious and irrelevant points that Donald Fincher makes in his attempt to derail my series that is turning people's minds upside-down.

"We Should Discard the Pac-10 and SEC's Head-to-Head Matchups"

Many of Mr. Fincher's arguments are one-sided and therefore I can hardly take them seriously.  The first quotation I have a problem with is: "...The Pac-10 is 5-2 against the SEC since 2000 [discounting LSU and USC's wins]. Now, consider that Mississippi State (a perennial SEC cellar dweller) and 'Bama (during their NCAA probation and coaching-carousel years) account for four of those five losses and you get a different story."

Well now, let's take one more look at those games, listed below for convenience.

Alabama 24, UCLA 35 {PAC10}

UCLA 20, Alabama 17 {PAC10}

Auburn 17, USC 24 {PAC10}

Mississippi State 13, Oregon 36 {PAC10}

USC 23, Auburn 0 {PAC10}

LSU 59, Arizona 13 {SEC}

Oregon 42, Mississippi State 34 {PAC10}

Oregon State 21, LSU 22 {SEC}

Arkansas 17, USC 70 {PAC10}

LSU 35, Arizona State 31 {SEC}

USC 50, Arkansas 14 {PAC10}

Washington State 14, Auburn 40 {SEC}

Arizona 3, LSU 45 {SEC}

California 18, Tennessee 35 {SEC}

Tennessee 31, California 45 {PAC10}

Interesting how Mr. Fincher mentions the low-rated teams that the Pac-10 beat, but fails to mention the sub-par teams from the Pac-10 that the SEC played. 

With the exception of the 2006 California-Tennesse game, the SEC (less LSU) beat the Pac-10 one time.  And that was when Auburn beat a Washington State team who finished 6-6 and 4-5 in the Pac-10 in 2006. 

Why don't we just throw out every head-to-head matchup between the two conferences?  Because it would certainly be better for the SEC to rid themselves of all those head-to-head losses!  Yes, Mr. Fincher, it would be good to just discard all those games because the bottom line is that the Pac-10 has beat up on the SEC when they have battled head-to-head since 2002.

"The SEC Has Done Spectacular Post-Season Play"

Mr. Fincher goes on to claim, "the SEC went to nine bowl games last year and won seven including their two BCS bowls...which means they are beating quality teams from other conferences in the postseason as well."

If this claim is supposed to mean that the SEC can compete with teams out of conference, then think again.  One, the fact remains that the SEC does not schedule quality teams out of conference.  When you play a bowl game, you must play a certain team, you don't get to chicken out with who you face.  Two, playing a team in a bowl game coming off three or four weeks rest is a whole other animal than playing a game with injuries in the grind of a season.

Also, these are not necessarily quality teams that the SEC is beating.  Yes, Auburn over Clemson, Tennessee over Wisconsin, and LSU over Ohio State are all impressive wins.  But the rest of that 7-2 record?  It includes an embarassing loss to Michigan, a blowout win by Missouri, and wins over 6-7 Colorado, UCF, and roster-depleted Florida State.

To make things worse, Mr. Fincher goes on to try and justify these losses (a true SEC fan always does).  He says, "the bowl losses were by Florida to a Michigan team that was playing lights out because their seniors (Henne, Hart, etc.) had never won a bowl game, and the whole team wanted to send Lloyd Carr out with a win."  This is the same type of resistance I met when I said USC smacked the same teams LSU barely beat.  Nic Gulas told me, "Four of the games that you picked out for comparison [between USC and LSU] are rivalry games for LSU.  Arkanas battles for the Golden Boot year in and year out and Auburn-LSU is quite an intense and defensive game."

Again, what in the world makes you think that a team doesn't try as hard against non-SEC opponents?  What makes you think that just because Michigan wants to win a game that's how they won it?  Didn't Florida also want to win that game, or did they just say, "Oh, Michigan wants it more because of their seniors and their coach, so we should hand them the game"?  What makes you think those Florida seniors didn't want to go out victorious?

When you ask yourself these questions, you begin to see how dumb that argument is. 

"The SEC Schedules Tough Non-Conference Games"

Another rediculous claim made by Mr. Fincher in "SEC Envy" states that the SEC plays a rigorous non-conference schedule.  He says, "While the SEC is still playing some cream puffs in the early non-conference, so is everyone else."

Well buddy, as I stated before in "Pac-10 Football Is Better Than SEC Football: Part One" the SEC has scheduled ten FCS games this year as opposed to the Pac-10's two.

To make matters worse, you go on to say that the SEC has some great non-conference games this year.  For a full discussion of how a Pac-10 schedule dominates the SEC's schedule, take a look at "Pac-10 Football Is Better Than SEC Football: Part Two."  In brief, here are some of the games you list:

• Arkansas vs. Texas -- This is the exception.  A quality non-conference opponent in Texas.

• Tennessee vs. UCLA -- The same UCLA that the entire Pac-10 plays every year?
  

• Georgia vs. Arizona State -- The same Arizona State the entire Pac-10 plays every year?

• Alabama vs. Clemson -- Play week one so as not to hurt Alabama's final rankings.  If Alabama plays decent in the SEC, they will finish the season Top 25.

• Florida vs. Miami -- The same Miami that has turned in 7-6 and 5-7 seasons the past two years?

• Florida vs. Florida State -- The Seminoles don't have more than eight wins in a season since 2004.

• South Carolina vs. Clemson -- A quality game.

• Georgia vs. Georgia Tech -- The Yellow Jackets have gone 7-6 every year since 2002 with the exception of 2006.

• Auburn vs. West Virginia -- A quality game.
  

Why don't you take a look at those non-conference games and compare them to the non-conference games the Pac-10 plays this year.  #3 Oklahoma?  #2 Ohio State?  Notre Dame?  Penn State?  #25 Fresno State?  #20 Virginia?  Michigan State?  Maryland?  The list goes on.

Irrelevant Point Number One: The Heisman

Mr. Fincher, presumably running out of ammunition about half way through his article says, "an SEC player won the Heisman last year (Tebow), and an SEC player was also the runner up (McFadden). In fact, McFadden was the runner up two years in a row."

First off, I don't really care who wins the Heisman.  How does that make you a better conference?  But if you really want to argue, then we can.

The Pac-10's won the Heisman three out of the last five years, while the SEC has won it once.  The Pac-10 has 11 Heisman Finalists (top 10 in Heisman votes), while the SEC has four since 2002.  So I guess that Pac-10 is superior in that category as well.

And let me also say that before everyone jumps to say that all three Heismans were won by USC players, those eleven finalists come from USC, Washington State, Oregon, and Cal.  The SEC's four come from Arkansas, LSU, and Florida.

Irrelevant Point Number Two - The SEC Produces More Pros

One other point Mr. Fincher states is that, "the SEC has more players in the pros than any other conference."  I don't care how much talent you produce; the only thing that matters is how good the players are in college.  USC receiver Mike Williams was a great college player but a terrible professional.  How does that affect how he did at USC?

Irrelevant Point Number Three - SEC Coaches Own More National Championships

The next irrelevant point is that, "the SEC has five coaches who have won national championship games (twice as many as any other conference)."  How does that make a difference?  It may mean that the SEC has more tradition, it may mean that they put together better gameplans, but the bottom line is that production on the field makes you a better conference, not how many national titles your head coaches have combined.

Irrelevant Point Number Four - Attendance and Money

The author of "SEC Envy" continues to babble on about nothing that has anything to do with the Pac-10 versus SEC debate when he mentions that, "the SEC has by far the highest attendance of any league..." and that, "the SEC is by far the highest revenue-producing conference of any league."  That has nothing to do with how well the teams play.

I look up to the sky and ask myself, "Why do SEC fans constantly have to defend themselves that they are the best conference?"  But the answer comes time and time again that they are just not.  The Pac-10 is.  And in the famous words of Mr. Fincher, "now if I could only figure out why that seems to be such a bad thing to so many people. That keeps eluding me."