To SEC apologists who claim that the SEC's overall winning records in bowl games is evidence of success in "games that matter" against "quality opponents," I offer the counter-argument that because bowl game pairings are more easily manipulated than regular-season games, and because SEC teams frequently play in bowls near home stadiums, they often result in more favorable match-ups for SEC teams.

n 2012, for instance, the SEC was able to even its BCS bowl record against the Big Ten at 19-19 when the Florida Gators beat Ohio State in the none-too-partisan Gator Bowl. The game was played in Jacksonville. No bowl games are played in Ohio.
So, if the SEC plays other conferences about even, why do SEC teams keep winning national championships?
That answer, of course, is the BCS and its corporate underwriters, who have created a reliable business model for determining national champions that is in all respects a self-fulfilling prophecy designed to protect its primary investment.
The BCS business plan works like this: preseason rankings typically include two, three, or four SEC teams among the nation's top ten, more than from any other conference. From the outset, this bias for SEC teams builds into the system a near insurmountable advantage.
Start the season with two of the top four teams being from the SEC, as was the case in 2010 with Alabama and Florida, and in 2011 with Alabama and LSU, and the conference is virtually guaranteed to be represented in the title game -- and this is an important point -- even if neither of those two schools end up winning the conference.
To be the best, so goes to the old sports adage, you've got to beat the best. But since only SEC teams are consistently declared the best, only SEC teams get the chance to prove themselves against "the best."
It's a chicken-or-the-egg situation. Does the SEC get favorable rankings because it's so good? Or is the SEC so good because it gets favorable rankings? I argue for the latter.

[URL="http://www.thepostgame.com/commentary/201208/better-without-em-northern-manifesto-southern-secession-chuck-thompson-sec-bcs"]My argument is simply that if you look at results on the field -- not guesswork from writers, network suits, and BCS computers -- teams from the major conferences, and some schools from smaller conferences, are actually a lot more evenly matched than most fans believe.

Despite being approximately equal to other conferences in most quantifiable categories, the SEC and other southern schools are unfairly presented with championship opportunities and favors on what is far from a level playing field.

Rotinaj;1249655 wrote:It's obvious the SEC has been the best conference as of late but it's definitely closer than most think.

Terry_Tate;1249796 wrote:There is not a doubt in my mind that if you take away Oversigning the SEC isn't near as dominant and is probably on level with the Pac 12 and Big 12 and B1G. Nick Saban and Les Miles are good coaches, but letting a coach essentially cut their mistakes can make them look way better than they really are.

Pick6;1249815 wrote:Agreed. And the SEC really does cheat no matter who naive you want to be about it. Heard this directly from a former Miss St recruiting coordinator

Rotinaj;1249816 wrote:Lol the whole conference cheats? Or is it just LSU and bama? Did he admit that he cheated? I'd like to hear more about this cheating going on.

Pick6;1249815 wrote:Agreed. And the SEC really does cheat no matter who naive you want to be about it. Heard this directly from a former Miss St recruiting coordinator

Pick6;1249815 wrote:Agreed. And the SEC really does cheat no matter who naive you want to be about it. Heard this directly from a former Miss St recruiting coordinator

Terry_Tate;1249858 wrote:I don't doubt it. I think the SEC West is worse than the East. But to be fair, I think every big time program cheats in one way or another. Auburn, Bama, LSU and them just take it to another level

Rotinaj;1249867 wrote:What level is that? Paying players? Worse?

Terry_Tate;1249869 wrote:I would guess somehow they're getting paid. I think Ohio State, USC, and others have stuff going on that are probably not too much money but are extra "incentives" and Auburn and Alabama probably have the same thing just for more money. But honestly it wouldn't surprise me if they just get a bag of cash somehow. With how commits have gone from Auburn to Alabama and vice versa nothing would surprise me.

Pick6;1249820 wrote:The whole conference. He never admitted he cheated, but he also never elaborated on what the cheating is.

ptown_trojans_1;1249896 wrote:
The SEC also benefited from the fall of USC. We never got to see a really good USC team vs. a top SEC team.


I really hope USC can play them at the end of the year, so we can see this matchup.

cats gone wild;1250038 wrote:USC, lol. In 14 BCS years they have ZERO titles to show for it. They cheated to get the one they got (that got stripped). And this year is laughable. They have NO depth at all and they werent that impressive last season. They always get hyped and they play a weak schedule this year.