Tennessee Game 1

[tech_wreck47]

It's "ironical" that CPJ said they're 3-0 against SEC east opponents and we're next. Ha yeah pretty bad usage there.
However, I think he gives a lot of credit to the ACC and I agree. They're 2nd behind the SEC.
Here's why I think so: "you're only as strong as your weakest link"
Bottom 3 of every P5 conference?

You think the SEC is above the ACC?

 

[gtvol]

I'll offer my top 3 conferences in order based on their 4 weakest teams.
1: Ole Miss, Vandy, Mizzou, Kentucky
2: Virginia, Syracuse, BC, Wake
3: Rutgers, Purdue, Maryland, Illinois.
feel free to determine your own bottom dwellers, but I feel the SEC's worst would have a better overall record against the other bottom dwellers head to head. The conversation is interesting due to Clemson and FSU, but the battle has been determined amongst the middle tier teams. SEC & ACC actually have very competitive middle teams and that's where I look in head to head. Where ACC is probably ahead

 

[tech_wreck47]

I'll offer my top 3 conferences in order based on their 4 weakest teams.
1: Ole Miss, Vandy, Mizzou, Kentucky
2: Virginia, Syracuse, BC, Wake
3: Rutgers, Purdue, Maryland, Illinois.
feel free to determine your own bottom dwellers, but I feel the SEC's worst would have a better overall record against the other bottom dwellers head to head. The conversation is interesting due to Clemson and FSU, but the battle has been determined amongst the middle tier teams. SEC & ACC actually have very competitive middle teams and that's where I look in head to head. Where ACC is probably ahead

I would agree that the SEC has a better bottom 4, but that shouldn't be the main factor. I do believe you have to look from top to bottom though. For instance the ACC has two top tier teams the SEC only has 1. I will also say based on last year Miami, Louisville, GT, UNC, and VT were better than most of the mid tier teams in the SEC. So the ACC wins in top tier teams, middle their teams and only losses in bottom tier teams.

ACC had 6 teams with 9 or more wins and 3 teams with 10 or more.
SEC had 3 teams with 9 or more wins and 1 with 10 or more.
ACC was 12-5 against the SEC last year (regular season and bowl)
ACC was 9-6 against power 5 schools (regulars season)
SEC was 6-6.


It's hard to argue these facts just based on the SEC having a better bottom 4 teams.

 

[gtvol]

All valid and indisputable points. But just imagine that during conference play that any one of those mid to lower level tier programs can beat you on any given Saturday. And you go against it every week. Would it matter?

 

[tech_wreck47]

All valid and indisputable points. But just imagine that during conference play that any one of those mid to lower level tier programs can beat you on any given Saturday. And you go against it every week. Would it matter?

To an extent, but they really should have no place beating you. But I'll also say that the 2nd tier teams challenged the top tier teams better in the ACC.

 

[gtvol]

I say that not to be an "SEC elitist" but just how I see it is presently. Now this year and 3 years from now I think the ACC has recently added quality coaches. I.e. Bronco, Babers, Fuente, Richt which will vastly improve the top to bottom outlook of the conference.

 

[tech_wreck47]

I say that not to be an "SEC elitist" but just how I see it is presently. Now this year and 3 years from now I think the ACC has recently added quality coaches. I.e. Bronco, Babers, Fuente, Richt which will vastly improve the top to bottom outlook of the conference.

You're just a homer

 

[gtvol]

Every ACC member licked their chops against Syracuse, BC, and UVA last year. Same for big10 with Rutgers, Illinois, Maryland and Purdue. And the SEC? Vandy, Kentucky and UGA?

 

[gtvol]

I would agree that the SEC has a better bottom 4, but that shouldn't be the main factor. I do believe you have to look from top to bottom though. For instance the ACC has two top tier teams the SEC only has 1

i realize that shouldn't be the main factor, but I did define that narrative for a reason... To give credit where it's due, congrats Clemson and FSU. However, within the framework of my argument, it's hard to argue.

 

[RonJohn]

Your perspective is interesting and imo in opposition to the reasoning the SEC has been lauded by the majority of the media as the premier conference over the last dozen years.

The problem is such arguments start with a conclusion, and then find "facts" to support the conclusion.

WF beating Ole Miss proves nothing about the SEC. Ole Miss beating a top 5 SEC team the same year proves that the SEC is so deep that winning any conference game is tougher than any other conference.

The SEC is the most powerful(supposedly) because of: Power of the top teams, depth top-to-bottom, OOC record(against trash schedules), Bowl record, SEC "speed"(don't know how that is measured), Number of teams in the pre-season top 10, various others, and now strength of bottom 4 teams.

UGA is going to win the MNC because: They are ranked #1 preseason and even the voters believe they are the best team. Then the next year being something like #7 preseason is proof, because "everybody" knows that being ranked #1 is too much pressure and being ranked just out of the top 5 is the perfect position to win the MNC.

I think such discussions are meaningless trash talk. People believe they use "facts", but they subjectively pull only very small numbers of "facts" that would support their subjective belief and ignore all others, even ones that they used before in the same argument. I don't pay much attention to "best" team or "best" conference talk, but I don't remember ANY person establishing a metric to measure the "best" conference and using it repeatedly.

 

[gtvol]

The problem is such arguments start with a conclusion, and then find "facts" to support the conclusion.

WF beating Ole Miss proves nothing about the SEC. Ole Miss beating a top 5 SEC team the same year proves that the SEC is so deep that winning any conference game is tougher than any other conference.

The SEC is the most powerful(supposedly) because of: Power of the top teams, depth top-to-bottom, OOC record(against trash schedules), Bowl record, SEC "speed"(don't know how that is measured), Number of teams in the pre-season top 10, various others, and now strength of bottom 4 teams.

UGA is going to win the MNC because: They are ranked #1 preseason and even the voters believe they are the best team. Then the next year being something like #7 preseason is proof, because "everybody" knows that being ranked #1 is too much pressure and being ranked just out of the top 5 is the perfect position to win the MNC.

I think such discussions are meaningless trash talk. People believe they use "facts", but they subjectively pull only very small numbers of "facts" that would support their subjective belief and ignore all others, even ones that they used before in the same argument. I don't pay much attention to "best" team or "best" conference talk, but I don't remember ANY person establishing a metric to measure the "best" conference and using it repeatedly.

So you say "na-uh". I'm jk I stated that I proposed that narrative for a reason and obviously I stated an argument to support my claims while also projecting the coaching to improve the other conference. Just good back and forth chatter. Has nothing to do with anything.

 

[Blumpkin Souffle]

Every ACC member licked their chops against Syracuse, BC, and UVA last year. Same for big10 with Rutgers, Illinois, Maryland and Purdue. And the SEC? Vandy, Kentucky and UGA?

Surely you realize Tech beat all three of those SEC teams last year?

 

[gtvol]

Surely you realize Tech beat all three of those SEC teams last year?

lol yeah. Had to slide that in there to appease the people. Too subtle?

 

[gtg936g]

I'll offer my top 3 conferences in order based on their 4 weakest teams.
1: Ole Miss, Vandy, Mizzou, Kentucky
2: Virginia, Syracuse, BC, Wake
3: Rutgers, Purdue, Maryland, Illinois.
feel free to determine your own bottom dwellers, but I feel the SEC's worst would have a better overall record against the other bottom dwellers head to head. The conversation is interesting due to Clemson and FSU, but the battle has been determined amongst the middle tier teams. SEC & ACC actually have very competitive middle teams and that's where I look in head to head. Where ACC is probably ahead

I tend to look at it this way FWIW. The ACC has more teams that have won a national title over the last 5 years than the SEC. That shows more balance than the SEC which (to me) equates to conference strength. Alabama has been an undisputed power house over the last 5 years, but the fact that both FSU and Clemson have won national championships means (IMO) the ACC conference is stronger than the SEC.

Stated another way, if you take out Alabama how many national championships does the SEC have over the last 5 years? If you take out FSU, the ACC would still have 1.

Good discussion. Welcome to the board.

 

[tech_wreck47]

i realize that shouldn't be the main factor, but I did define that narrative for a reason... To give credit where it's due, congrats Clemson and FSU. However, within the framework of my argument, it's hard to argue.

I will just have to agree to disagree. I think the ACC having more top tier teams and a better group of mid tier teams sets us apart. It's hard to argue the records against power 5 teams and the record of the ACC against the SEC.

 

[Milwaukee]

I do think the Tech fan base puts too much emphasis on beating 2 trash SEC teams last year, and a middler UGA. We didn't exactly play Bama, LSU, and co.

I still think the ACC is the strongest conference.

 

[tech_wreck47]

I do think the Tech fan base puts too much emphasis on beating 2 trash SEC teams last year, and a middler UGA. We didn't exactly play Bama, LSU, and co.

I still think the ACC is the strongest conference.

Agree, but to the SEC fans we are in the bottom tier of ACC teams, so destroying two of their bottom tier teams have to stand for something.

 

[strong90]

I do think the Tech fan base puts too much emphasis on beating 2 trash SEC teams last year, and a middler UGA. We didn't exactly play Bama, LSU, and co.

I still think the ACC is the strongest conference.

In other words, those teams were pretty good (well Bama was), but it's not like they played GA Tech.
I get your point, but I'm tired of the inferiority complex.

 

[gtvol]

I do think the Tech fan base puts too much emphasis on beating 2 trash SEC teams last year, and a middler UGA. We didn't exactly play Bama, LSU, and co.

I agree and we didn't even beat candy or usce so no room to talk but I don't hear any claims of UT being Big10 west champions bc of beating Iowa northwestern and Nebraska. Why not?

 

[Blumpkin Souffle]

I do think the Tech fan base puts too much emphasis on beating 2 trash SEC teams last year, and a middler UGA. We didn't exactly play Bama, LSU, and co.

I still think the ACC is the strongest conference.

I get your point, but all you can do is win the games you play.