College Football: Debunking Conference Myths

There seems to be some football fans who are confused between the terms, "team" and "conference."

First of all, a football conference is a group of teams usually located in relatively close proximity to each other. A conference is simply a name of a group of teams. It is not a separate area of the United States, is not a "country" and is not physically defined by boundaries.

It does not have a marching band, cheerleaders, stadium or booster club. It also doesn't have a graduating class, academic institution, library, faculty or coach. It is an entity that oversees a group of teams, distributes revenues, represents teams in marketing decisions and all NCAA matters. It has never played a game, nor will it ever will.

The conference's members have changed over the years, so it is not a permanent entity, thus comparing stats of conferences over a a long period of time can be frustrating and debatable. See Southwest, ACC, Big East, Pac-10, SEC, Big 12 and Big Ten conferences' history for further explanation.

Now that everybody knows what a conference is, some myths need to be cleared up.

1. Conferences win national championships.

Since a conference is a group of teams, and only one team (in theory) can be a national champion, a conference cannot win a championship in the current system of play we have. To understand this point, look at current undisputed champion LSU.

While LSU is the champ, the SEC conference is not a national champion, and thus, does not "have" a national championship. Since the SEC is a name for a group of teams, proclaiming "The SEC has four championships" is demeaning to LSU. Mississippi State didn't earn the championship, neither did Vanderbilt. Nobody but LSU earned it.

To further make the point, Arkansas and South Carolina didn't join the SEC until 1991. If all of the national championships are counted as conference championships, then why does Arkansas benefit from "having a championship" when they weren't even a member? Same with Arizona State and Arizona in 1978.

Furthermore, please look closely at the picture below. The engraving says, "2007 National Champions LSU Tigers", not "2007 National Champions SEC."

2. Some conferences are tougher to play in than others.

There seems to be a misconception that certain conferences have 'week-in, week-out," the toughest competition in the country. Let's take a look at one conference and their record.

In the last three years, this conference has named three different conference champions. They beat three BCS conference teams in non-conference competition. Only two of their teams had winning records, one had a .500 record, and five had losing records.

Now that's a tough conference to win in, is it not? It is also the "lowest-ranked" conference in FBS football- the Sun Belt.

One could counter that argument and say that a certain conference had six teams with winning records, so they are the best. Then again, could you not say it's easier to win in the conference? If it's easier to win in, then maybe it's not so tough.

3. A team's win indicates a conference's strength.

A team's win indicates only one thing- team A was better than team B on one given day. When Cal beat Tennessee last year, it wasn't a win for the Pac-10, it was a win for Cal. That lone head-to-head match-up of Pac-10 v SEC is not indicative of conference strength. If that were so, then could we not say that when Louisiana-Monroe beat Alabama, the Sun Belt is a better conference than the SEC? You can't of course, but that's the basis for many debates here.

4. Perceived conference strength has bearing on the final conference standings.

If one conference has nine sub-.500 teams, and one great team, should that great team's win over a team from a conference that has more teams with winning records get diminished? Of course not. But it's a point of contention for many fans.

The "yes, you beat us but you're a top-heavy conference and would never last in our conference" claim is a poor argument. First of all, when you have a conference champion facing another conference champion, those two teams represent each conference's best team. This is it folks, this is our best, now go ahead and see if you can beat us. It doesn't matter if they faced better teams or worse teams. What matters is the result of those two "best" teams battling it out.

5. There is a way to gauge conference strength.

With so many factors involving injuries, road games, weather etc., there is simply no way to say with 100% accuracy which conference has the tougher competition up to the championship. Is there really a difference between eight mediocre teams playing each other and eight very good teams playing each other? The battles are just as tough.

Furthermore, rankings of teams early in the season are misleading. If a team is ranked #1 preseason, wins its first game and then loses its next eleven, does the team that beat them have the right to claim they beat a number one team? The answer is "no." Cal won its first five games and was number two before it lost its next six of seven games. South Carolina was ranked number six at one point of the season before ending up 6-6 for the season. Both teams were over-hyped and yet, gave pollsters an early deception of conference strength.

The bottom line is that unless every team plays all other teams in every conference, there is no way to gauge a conference's strength.

6. Some conferences are "overrated."

How many times have we seen it? A team beats another team and then starts the chants of "O-V-E-R-R-A-T-E-D." While it's fun to celebrate your team's win and deride the other, that chant is really saying, "we beat a bad team." Seriously, how insulting is that to your own team?

Look at LSU's win over Ohio State last year- LSU fans were chanting "Overrated" at the Buckeyes. (note- LSU is one but of many teams from many conferences to do this) The reality is, LSU was a much better team than Ohio State, but by chanting "overrated", they were insinuating that LSU beat a team that a lot of other teams could beat. If that's the case, then their championship was not a big deal. Is that the message they wanted to send?

Ask Georgia how they felt after their Sugar Bowl win. You think they wanted to play a more challenging opponent? Of course they did. While their Sugar Bowl win was a huge exclamation point, the difference in the level of talent on the field was huge. Beating an overrated opponent is overrated. Sure it's fun beating up another team, but it's more fun when you beat up a quality team than an overrated one.

The winning team may be more superior or obviously on a different playing level, but their opponents are not overrated. Perhaps the pollsters who gave them a lofty ranking were off their marks, but the team never ranked itself, nor presented itself to be anything other than what it is. Blame the pollsters, not the teams or conferences.

7. Claiming conference allegiance is illogical.

By saying you are a Big 12 fan, you are saying you root for Big 12 teams. But who do you root for in conference games? If you root for Kansas and Oklahoma one weekend, but root against them the next week because one of them is playing your favorite team, is that really being a fan? No.

Can we call this what this really is? A mis-guided attempt to root for a group to make you feel better about your short-comings. Seriously, if you are an SEC fan, you've got six conference games to make yourself feel better about whatever issues you have about yourself. Or something else that happened 150 years ago. There's another term for this phenomenon- mob mentality. If one of your teams lose, you still have eleven other teams to brag about.

Nobody roots for conferences because they love a conference. How do you love a conference? Do you love the AFC West? Do you love the NL East? If you are a normal fan, you hope every one of the teams in one division loses so yours comes out on top. That's logical.

To root for a conference is illogical. You simply can't root for all of the teams when they are playing each other. The real reason why you root for the conference is so your SOS goes up. Bottom line? You're not a conference fan, you're a passionate football fan who wants his team to gain an advantage. Recognize the difference.

Finally, remember one thing. Conferences change. If you are a Miami fan, were you a Big East fan, and now an ACC fan? Doubtful. A fan rarely changes his allegiances. That is what defines a fan. If you change your allegiances, then you were never a fan to begin with.

And until a conference's name is on a trophy, confererences don't win national championships.