SEC Success is Mostly Hype

by Arcane Arandee
(Uranus)

Your "reporting" is clearly biased. Kentucky and Arkansas both ended the 2007 season 8-5. You mentioned Colorado ending the season with 6 losses. Not to mention your quality win, a suspect VT, out of a suspect ACC, ended the season with 3 losses. Why is an SEC loss better than any other conference's loss?

Year in and year out, the SEC has up to six teams ranked within the top 25 in the preseason polls, yet at the end of the season most of these have fallen out of the polls (only to be replaced by one of their SEC brethren).

In fact, the SEC is the only conference that can have an unranked team shoot right to the top ten based solely on a few early season wins (Kentucky, Alabama, and Auburn in the last few years come to mind). Then these same shooting star teams fizzle out, and the rest of the college football world is left to wonder how they shot up so fast when, really, they were evidently not that good.

Don't get me wrong, the SEC is a good conference. But I suspect their success has more to do with hype than simple dominance. It's very easy for any conference to look dominant when the polls just take any team that loses from within said conference and replaces it with another from the same conference.