It's a term I coined myself, but you've probably heard the argument before. It goes something like this: The SEC is so tough that the teams that come out of SEC league play with a certain number of losses are better than teams from other conferences with the same record. Basically, their teams are awarded extra credit just for playing in the SEC. This inevitably leads to a conclusion that can be used to degrade any non-SEC team's record (no matter how impressive). The absurd assertion is this: If Team A played in the SEC, they would have finished with X losses (X being greater than the actual number of losses the team suffered). This is a ridiculous hypothetical, and a lazy argument that would not fly for any other conference, but for some reason it is deemed OK when used to tout SEC superiority.
You might think this kind of talk would have died down, given the Southeastern Conference's recent struggles in big bowl games (0 - 5 in BCS and New Year's Six Bowls in the last two years). But alas, it has not. At least not for the folks at ESPN. Folks like Chris Low, who recently wrote a whiny article that claimed that the tough SEC schedule, ie SEC teams "beating up on each other", prevents more than one team from the mighty conference from making the playoffs (ludicrous!). I won't delve into the details of the insipid puff piece, except to point out one section which proves that the laughable argument of SEC super-strength of schedule is alive and well.
Low first admits that Ohio State was indeed the best team in the country (thanks but no thanks - there's already a trophy in Columbus that tells us that). But he follows that up with the question: "Now, could they have navigated their way through the SEC with just one loss and even been in position to make the playoff?" He doesn't answer it except to say "That’s a story for a different day". This is almost worst than coming right out and saying what he's implying, because he hides behind the guise of a rhetorical question. He appears to only be playing devil's advocate, but by doing so perpetuates the idea that nobody is anybody unless they play in the "big, bad SEC". We know exactly what he is actually saying though, and it's ridiculous. The Buckeyes beat Alabama, the SEC champ, on a neutral field in a game much more lopsided than the final score suggested - they would have been fine in the SEC. My point is not to parade Ohio State though, but to debunk this lame excuse for an argument and prevent it from being applied to any team. And when an ESPN writer is claiming that a clear-cut National Champion wouldn't have even made the playoffs if they played in the SEC, it's obvious it needs debunking.
Let me start by giving the SEC its due. I'm sure it wasn't easy winning six straight BCS championships (sorry, Alabama over fellow SEC member LSU in 2012 doesn't count when comparing conference accolades). And in most regards, they have been the most impressive conference over the past 10 years. But does this warrant the kind of claim that Chris Low and countless others make about the supreme dominance of the SEC? No. Let me explain why.
The thing with this argument is it's extremely lazy. So lazy. Did I mention it's lazy? It needs no evidence or supporting facts because there are none. It's purely hypothetical. Ohio State does not play in the SEC, will never join the SEC, and even if they did, we can't go back in time and see how they would have done in a particular season as a member of the SEC. The next best thing would be to see how some other teams would do if they joined the SEC and compare the before and after. If only such a thing had happened recently...
Wait a second! Texas A&M and Missouri left the Big 12 to join the SEC in 2012. Let's take a look at how they fared.
At first glance, a couple of things stand out. Most notably for the Aggies was their victory over powerhouse Alabama in their first year. They nearly did it again in their second year. Missouri, on the other hand, struggled in their first year but won the SEC East in their second and third years in the conference. Let's take a closer look at the numbers:
Performance before and after joining SEC, over last 6 seasons
| Overall Record (win %) | Conference Record (win %) | |
| Texas A&M, in Big 12 | 22 - 17 (56.4%) | 13 - 13 (50.0%) |
| Texas A&M, in SEC | 28 - 11 (71.8%) | 13 - 11 (54.2%) |
| Missouri, in Big 12 | 26 - 13 (66.7%) | 15 - 10 (60.0%) |
| Missouri, in SEC | 28 - 12 (70.0%) | 16 - 10 (61.5%) |
As you can see, both teams' overall records and win percentage didn't decline but actually improved slightly since joining the SEC. If SEC super-strength of schedule was a real thing, wouldn't you expect to see a sharp decline after new teams joined (particularly in conference records)? That's exactly what this nonsense argument suggests, but it didn't happen (in fact, I could draw the conclusion from these numbers that the SEC is easier than the Big 12! imagine that!). Now, SEC proponents would have you believe that after joining the new conference they were made magically better just by being part of the SEC. This is, of course, utter nonsense. It is plainly clear that these two teams were decent before joining the SEC and are still decent. They did not automatically lose a bunch more games after joining the conference. Nor did they become national powerhouses.
Their identities are constant. Missouri is a team that can win its division with some consistency, doing so in the Big 12 (titles in 2007, 2008, and 2010) and the SEC (titles in 2013 and 2014), but can't seem to make that extra leap to conference champion (0 conference championships in the Big 12 or SEC). Texas A&M is a team with ups and downs that can occasionally knock off teams at the top of the conference, whether it's in the Big 12 (Oklahoma and Nebraska in 2010 - teams that later played for the conference championship) or the SEC (eventual conference champion Alabama in 2012). But the Aggies rarely reach the championship game themselves (last conference championship appearance was in 1998).
So, please, stop with the madness. Ohio State would have been fine playing in the SEC this year and most years. And same goes for other top teams from the Big Ten, Pac-12, Big 12, and ACC. Mid level teams? They would still be middle-of-the-pack in the SEC. Conference doormats would still be doormats.
The SEC has been at the top of the college football world, particularly in the second half of the BCS era. But the idea that other teams would fall apart if they had to play an SEC schedule is absurd. The argument of SEC super-strength of schedule needs to be put to rest. It should have been buried along with the BCS, but it wasn't. It's not too late to get the shovels back out.
