With the SEC off to a 3-3 start this postseason, we thought it might be time for a little refresher course on the league’s past bowl success. It seems the SEC’s reputation has been so enhanced in recent years that any bowl loss by a league member is seen as proof that Mike Slive’s conference really isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. And if you have to go undefeated each and every bowl season just to get props, well, that’s a pretty tough standard to meet.
In reality, the SEC since 2000 has won right at 60% of its bowl games. Considering the fact that league teams usually face bowl foes who finished higher in their own conference’s standings, that’s a pretty darn good record. (Examples: When the SEC sends its eighth or ninth pick to the Liberty Bowl, it faces the champion from Conference USA. The Chick-fil-A Bowl matches the second pick from the ACC with the fifth pick from the SEC. And so on.)
Last season the Southeastern Conference finished the postseason 6-3. Pretty strong. But in 2010-11 the SEC went 5-5. So a 3-3 start isn’t anything to cry about.
The league has made its name by winning six consecutive BCS Championship Games and Alabama will have a shot to win #7 on Monday against Notre Dame. In addition, the SEC has gone 14-6 in BCS games since the 2000 season (including last night’s loss by Florida). Only the Pac-12 has bested the SEC’s BCS winning percentage (70.5% to 70.0%) over that span. And remember, one of the SEC’s losses in that period came in last year’s Alabama/LSU BCS title game. In other words, the Southeastern Conference is responsible for one of its own defeats.
But for those who want an idea of how well the conferences stack up against one another, below is a breakdown of each league’s bowl success and BCS success from 2000 through today. To the right, we’ve also listed this season’s bowl results to date:
| Conference | All Bowls ’00-’12 | BCS Bowls ’00-’12 | All Bowls 2012 | BCS Bowls 2012 |
| Big East | 42-24 (63.6%) | 8-5 | 3-1 | 1-0 |
| SEC | 62-42 (59.6%) | 14-6 | 3-3 | 0-1 |
| MWC | 31-22 (58.4%) | 3-1 | 1-4 | 0-0 |
| Big XII | 51-49 (51.0%) | 8-9 | 4-3 | 0-0 |
| Pac-10/12 | 38-37 (50.6%) | 12-5 | 3-4 | 1-0 |
| ACC | 45-49 (47.8%) | 2-11 | 4-2 | 1-0 |
| C-USA | 31-37 (45.5%) | 0-0 | 4-1 | 0-0 |
| WAC | 19-25 (43.1%) | 0-0 | 2-0 | 0-0 |
| MAC | 19-27 (41.3%) | 0-1 | 2-4 | 0-1 |
| Sun Belt | 9-13 (40.9%) | 0-0 | 1-2 | 0-0 |
| Big Ten | 37-57 (39.3%) | 8-14 | 2-5 | 0-1 |
There are five bowl games remaining this season:
Tostitos Fiesta: Kansas State (Big XII) vs Oregon (Pac-12)
AT&T Cotton: Oklahoma (Big XII) vs Texas A&M (SEC)
BBVA Compass: Pittsburgh (Big East) vs Ole Miss (SEC)
GoDaddy.com: Arkansas State (Sun Belt) vs Kent State (MAC)
Discover BCS Championship Game: Alabama (SEC) vs Notre Dame (Independent)
That's the 2012 SEASON, not the year. Technically, there were BCS bowls played in January of 2000 that didn't count on this list because we "arbitrarily" started with the 2000 SEASON. (We've just posted an updated version dating back to 1998, by the way.)
Tag, you're it.
Thanks for reading the site,
John
Hmmmm BCS began in 1998. You arbitrarily cut off 2 years in which the Big Ten was exceptional.
Yeah I'm sure there's no agenda here. College football fundamentally CHANGED in 1998, but you know why recognize that when you can literally pick an arbitrary starting point instead. Even "last 10 years" would have made more sense. But "last 12"? Oh, yeah 2000 is a cool number. I'm sure the "cool number" outweighed the LOGIC in this case.
What you did was the equivalent of looking at March Madness in the Three Point Shot Era, only you decided to cut off the first two years of that Era for no reason whatsoever other than "it made sense" and "2000 is a cool number".
Also, I will grant the validity of Bowl Results when they aren't played exclusively outside of Big Ten country thus negating the strength and natural advantages of the Big Ten and providing the PAC (namely USC), Big 12 (all the Texas Bowls) and SEC (way too many Southern bowls) with those advantages instead.
The current setup is prejudice and fraudulent while putting a much bigger travel burden on the North. It is literally more expensive to be a fan of a Northern team if you want to attend a bowl game. That is bonkers. What inherent right do warmer climates have in this case? If heat is the goal, play the games in Africa. Or turn up the heat in domed stadiums to absurd levels. So, if heat isn't the goal, why keep pretending that current bowl sites have some inherent right to college football's postseason to the detriment of an entire region of the country?
Good Lord. It was the turn of the century and it made for a nice even number. We looked more at the overall bowl records than the BCS stuff anyway. If we'd focused the piece on BCS bowls, we would would have gone back to 1998.
But here's the thing... do we mention the Big Ten anywhere in that piece? Other than showing their records on the chart? If this was some anti-Big Ten hit job we sure did a poor job of it. 'Cause we could have really crapped all over it.
Instead we were trying to explain to folks that this idea that the SEC has to go undefeated every year in the bowls is silly. They've never come close to that.
Get back to the circus, clown.
John
Life's too short. I'll attack anyone I want. Don't like the site, don't come here.
If you have come here for five years, you know our expansion/realignment pieces have been pretty darn spot-on. You know there's a reason we do radio shows across the country. You know there's a reason CSS has used us as one of their SEC analysts.
As for you making fun of me having a source in the athletic equipment supply business, you're really showing just how out of touch you are. Do you not believe the reps for Adidas, Nike, Under Armour, Easton or Louisville Slugger speak to coaches on a regular basis and know what they are hearing. I just happen to know one of those guys who's been in that business for decades. And he passed along what he'd heard from speaking to coaches. It happened to jive with other things this site has been told -- two sources equals confirmation -- so we posted it.
Regarding the arbitrary starting point, isn't any starting point arbitrary?
Finally, I've never understood what gives a reader the right to come here and suggest we're liars or that we skew our facts... when the right to defend ourselves -- or to say "buzz off" -- isn't extended to us.
Again, don't like the site, don't come here. (Hmmm, that really doesn't sound like someone who'd make up information just for pageviews, does it?)
Kindly buzz off,
John
The only circus act here is this sideshow blog. You consider a guy who sells baseball gloves to be a "source". Now you attack a reader for pointing out that you used an arbitrary starting point. Nobody wants to read anything you write unless you are quoting your "sources" at the Louisville slugger factory.
Nice information. My concern this year is that 2 higher BCS ranked SEC teams have lost to lower BCS ranked opponents (LSU and Florida). That sort of makes the argument that the SEC faces opponents who had better success in their own conference somewhat weaker. Does it really matter that Florida didn't win its division in the SEC West yet faced the winner of the Big East when Florida was ranked #3 in the BCS and Louisville was ranked #21? Losing these types of games just empowers SEC critics to continue to complain about ranking bias toward the SEC. Lets just root for all the remaining SEC teams to win! I hope A&M really trounces Oklahoma. Great time of the sports year.
@MoKelly1 As a UF fan, I'll note that it's clear that UF was overrated in the BCS. They have a one-dimensional offense this year which has allowed them to be shut down all too often by opposing teams. What has kept UF going is their defense, which potentially was one of the best in the SEC, if not the best. The D that came to the Sugar, though, apparently had all too many players focusing on their approaching pro careers, and it showed in a lot of the play. There was a marked lack of discipline and verve. While Louisville inarguable won the game, and dominated UF, they still only won based on two failures at the start of each half -- a fairly lucky interception leading to seven points immediately, and a rather ridiculously questionable coaching decision leading to another quick, "cheap", score. To counter this, I'd cite that UF's D DID manage to totally shut down Louisville inside the red zone -- TWICE -- both times they came away with zero points. If they'd played like that all game the outcome would have been different. None of this should be construed as sour grapes or denigrating what Louisville did. They played a flawless game and came in with a great game plan. Their QB is clearly one of the three QBs right now that showed themselves to be clearly Heisman caliber (TA&M and Bama having the other two). ----------------------------------- Regarding the rest -- the LSU loss was to a last-second play at the end of the game. They probably should not have been in that situation. And Mississippi State losing is hardly surprising. Vandy's win, otoh, was clearly indicative of what even mediocre SEC teams are capable of.
I just couldn't root for Miss. St. Their schedule was such a sham and it was clear that if they'd had Missouri's schedule, for example, they'd have finished 2-8. Plus, NWern needed to win a bowl game so they'd finally stop talking about them not winning one since the ice age.
I think one factor that has influenced people's opinion is that the SEC usually has a couple of blowout victories mixed in those bowls. So far in this season that hasn't happened yet.
This comment has been deleted
2 Like
Don't you want Tennessee to be apart of the most successful football conference in America? It takes bowl wins, especially BCS wins, to claim that title. As an Arkansas fan, I see other SEC squads as my brothers. I root for all of them during Bowl season because I support them and our conference.
1 Like
@TruancyBot Got to agree with you. I admit at times it is hard to root for some of your rivals. But having them win these bowls helps the SEC and because of revenue sharing, everyone gets more money as well.
@Mith242 @TruancyBot Even more critically, it does help recruiting overall. Though Bama winning helps Bama the most, it means that those players who can't get the nod from Bama are more likely to consider Auburn, UF, UGA, USC, LSU, TA&M, and so forth -- because it's clear that any one of them might wind up playing for an NC in the coming four or five years. Unlike the other conferences, the SEC doesn't have just two dominant teams at any given time. While Bama is clearly, right now, the best, the SEC has had Florida, LSU, and Auburn win NCs in this streak, and it seems reasonable to say that UGA, USC, and TA&M can all challenge for it right now. Play for one of them and you may just find yourself in an NC game come January. ================================================================================There is the SEC, and there is everyone else.
Home | Recruiting | Over Time | Blue Chip Stories | MrSEC Shop | RSS Feeds | About Us & Contact Us
Team Pages: Alabama | Arkansas | Auburn | Florida | Georgia | Kentucky | LSU | Mississippi State | Missouri | Ole Miss | South Carolina | Tennessee | Texas A&M | Vanderbilt
Copyright (c)2013 Malt Shovel Media | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Partner of USA TODAY Sports Digital Properties. From:
[...] we went back through every bowl game played in this century and broke down the wins and losses by conference. That story pointed out that while the national expectation is for the SEC to go undefeated each [...]