Wolverine247 Board

How is it cherry-picking when it's the bowl games? If the SEC is so good, they should be able to take on the top teams in other conferences and win on the biggest stage. Who gives a crap about the SEC's record against bad OOC competition?

Case in point:

South Carolina's OOC opponents: East Carolina, UAB, Wofford.
Michigan's OOC opponents: Alabama, ND, UMass, Air Force.

FIRST OF ALL, I did not mean this to be an SEC vs the world type of discussion, but others have taken it there for some reason. My only reason for opening this thread was to gauge the Michigan fanbase's views on college football as a whole as opposed to the limited interaction that I have with one Michigan fan.

You forgot Clemson.

I didnt mean OOC altogether. I was referring to D1 schools (i.e. Bama vs Michigan 2012, LSU vs Ore 2011, etc). You can also just look up bowl records if you want. The SEC beats other teams for the most part. It's cherry picking because he just picked some games that happened this year. Yeah, some bad losses, BUT look over the last decade and that's the reason that the SEC has the rep as the best conference. It's not just because Bama and LSU win NC's... it's because the conference from top to bottom beats nonconference opponents more than they lose to them.

I just googled SEC Bowl records and this is a link that popped up (it is an SEC forum, but feel free to verify the facts if you don't trust them). Please take note of the Big 10's ranking if you want to know why fans of SEC schools feel their strength of conference schedule is much tougher than Big 10 schools. Also, it will explain why schools like Michigan feel the need to go out and schedule these big OOC matchups like Bama (Which I applaud).

http://www.secrant.com/rant/p/23111220/Conference-Bowl-records-from-2000-2009-a.aspx

Conference Bowl Records from 2000-2009

Overall

1. Mountain West (24-14) .632 winning pct.
2. Big East (32-19) .627 winning pct.
3. SEC (48-31) .608 winning pct.
4. PAC 10 (31-26) .544 winning pct.
5. Big 12 (38-39) .494 winning pct.
6. ACC (35-36) .493 winning pct.
7. WAC (15-20) .429 winning pct.
8. Big 10 (28-41) .406 winning pct.
9. Conference USA (21-31) .404 winning pct.
10. Sunbelt (5-8) .385 winning pct.
11. MAC (11-20) .355 winning pct.

Against BCS competition

1. Mountain West (11-7) .611 winning pct.
2. SEC (43-29) .597 winning pct.
3. PAC 10 (25-18) .581 winning pct.
4. Big East (20-18) .526 winning pct.
5. Big 12 (32-34) .485 winning pct.
6. ACC (28-32) .467 winning pct.
7. WAC (7-9) .438 winning pct.
8. Big 10 (26-40) .394 winning pct.
9. MAC (1-9) .100 winning pct.
10. Conference USA (1-10) .091 winning pct.
11. Sunbelt (0-0) .000 winning pct.

Against non-BCS competition

1. Big East (12-1) .923 winning pct.
2. SEC (5-2) .714 winning pct.
3. Big 10 (2-1) .667 winning pct.
4. ACC (7-4) .636 winning pct.
5. MWC (11-7) .611 winning pct.
6. Big 12 (6-5) .545 winning pct.
7. Conference USA (20-21) .488 winning pct.
8. MAC (10-11) .476 winning pct.
9. PAC 10 (6-8) .429 winning pct.
10. WAC (8-11) .421 winning pct.
11. Sunbelt (5-8) .385 winning pct.

Against ranked competition

1. MWC (6-3) .667 winning pct.
2. SEC (32-17) .653 winning pct.
3. PAC 10 (16-14) .533 winning pct.
4. Conference USA (6-6) .500 winning pct.
5. WAC (4-4) .500 winning pct.
6. Big East (8-9) .471 winning pct.
7. Big 12 (18-25) .419 winning pct.
8. Big 10 (19-27) .413 winning pct.
9. ACC (10-17) .370 winning pct.
10. Sunbelt (0-0) .000 winning pct.
11. MAC (0-1) .000 winning pct.

BCS Bowls

1. SEC (12-3) .800 winning pct.
2. PAC 10 (9-3) .750 winning pct.
3. MWC (2-1) .667 winning pct.
3. WAC (2-1) .667 winning pct.
5. Big East (6-4) .600 winning pct.
6. Big 12 (6-9) .400 winning pct.
7. Big 10 (6-11) .353 winning pct.
8. ACC (1-9) .100 winning pct.
9. Conference USA (0-0) .000 winning pct.
9. MAC (0-0) .000 winning pct.
9. Sunbelt (0-0) .000 winning pct.

Record as ranked teams

1. MAC (3-1) .750 winning pct.
2. MWC (11-4) .733 winning pct.
3. PAC 10 (18-11) .621 winning pct.
4. SEC (28-18) .609 winning pct.
5. Big East (15-11) .577 winning pct.
6. Conference USA (2-2) .500 winning pct.
7. Big 12 (19-20) .487 winning pct.
8. ACC (13-18) .419 winning pct.
9. Big 10 (16-23) .410 winning pct.
10. WAC (4-6) .400 winning pct.
11. Sunbelt (0-0) .000 winning pct.

That's just how it comes off to me. The entire post seems very disingenuous.

First, this post isn't a "survey." It's you trying to elicit particular answers from Michigan fans so you can use them against Moon. This post wasn't generated by pure academic curiosity, it was spurred by a disagreement between you and Moon. That already starts off the thread on a bad foot.

Second, you start off by praising the classiness of Michigan fans, and then immediately go into attacking Moon. Clearly, you're looking for specific answers to your questions, so this just strikes me as you attempting to "butter up" the people you're about to question. This is straight out of the playbook for manipulating studies/surveys. Want good reviews of a product from your focus group? Start by talking about how the members of the group were all specifically selected due to some positive characteristic. It's Marketing 101.

Third, your questions are phrased in such a pathetically transparent way that it's almost insulting. Your first question could have been phrased like so: "Clowney's hit was special. T/F?" Instead, you inject words like "claims" and "indeed" that are clearly intended to guide the answer. Some of your questions are completely nonsensical - like question 4. Any answer would require such a massive generalization that the entire exercise is pointless. And don't get me started on the amount of passive-aggressiveness oozing from question 5.

Fourth and finally, you're dealing with one of the most intelligent (if not the most intelligent) fanbase on 247. Maybe it's just me, but the fact that you think we all won't see through this post is just insulting - it seems like you think so little of us that you assume we can be manipulated by this "survey."

This is how it comes off to me. If that's not what you intended, so be it - I can't read your mind. I'm just telling you how it comes off.

Yes, it was spurred by a disagreement with Moon.... the reason I mention Michigan fans being classy is because I attended the bowl game and spent a while in Florida and interacted with many. Moon has a strong dislike for South Carolina football, which he has admitted and made clear on many occasions. The reason I made this thread was because my interactions with Michigan fans in Florida as opposed to my interactions with Moon (as an anti-Carolina Michigan fan who lives in SC) gave me much different impressions. Yes, the way that I worded the questions were meant to be insulting towards Moon, which was partly supposed to be comedic in their ridiculousness. I was not trying to hide the animosity towards Moon in the questions or deceive you.

Shut the F*** Up Troll

C'est la vie.

FWIW, on this board, we make fun of Ducksworth, TAMUWolverine and Blue2468. Humor at the mods' expense is the best type.

Trying to explain yourself is getting old. We don't care what you intended....your life is forfeit. Tonight we dine in hell.

But I like TAMUWolverine...

The irony? As for the SEC's greatness, does it bother anyone that their #1 or #2 team next year is A&M...who is a year away from being a middling Big 12 team?

If the South Carolina's, Arkansas, and Auburn's of the world are really elite, that should not be the case.

And what changed from when A&M was in the Big 12 to now? Hmmm... let me think... Oh yea... Johnny Manziel... absolute freak of a QB, FRESHMAN HEISMAN WINNER, probably a once-in-a-lifetime kind of player for A&M. Same thing with Cam Newton at Auburn. It happens. Was that the only argument that you had? Besides, A&M didn't even dominate like people want to say... they finished with the same record as South Carolina and a bunch of other SEC teams. Just look at the numbers that I posted above. It's not that complicated. The A&M argument is weak and overused. It's like SEC haters are all reading off of the same script.

Oklahoma would disagree with that last part...