Can somebody explain Chris Low’s point here?
The cannibalistic nature of the league caught up with it last season, even though Auburn survived an early-season loss to LSU to work its way back up the BCS standings and into the national title game.
Is he saying that Auburn lost to FSU because the SEC was so tough last season? Otherwise, it doesn’t make any sense. And even that point seems a little shaky to me. The SEC’s been tougher in several recent seasons than its 2013 version, with its conference winner going on to win the title game in those years.
Only reason I ask is that I don’t see the conference being any easier this season, even in the face of the league-wide drop off we’re likely to see at the quarterback position. So is Low predicting another national title goose egg? Given that the postseason field is expanding to four, I would think the SEC’s odds of winning another title game are better than ever.
Get The Picture 
It’s odds of making the playoffs are through the roof. Winning? I think even the most dominant champions were only 75% against their opponents (even Bama v Notre Dame). I think a 4 game playoff hurts the SEC’s chances of winning it again as compared to a single game to win.
LikeLike
^^The voice of reason. Having 1 chance in four to win is much worse than having one chance in two.
LikeLike
I took it to mean that the week in week out toughness of the conference makes it hard for teams to go through unscathed and that making the four team playoff may actually be harder for SEC teams than for others in conferences where they have a chance to be undefeated.
LikeLike
FWIW thqt,s my take on it, too. The strength, coaching and talent of the majority of SEC teams is by all accounts the best in the nation. When it comes down to the last second win…you don’t even have to have played poorly to lose, although armchair coaches and quarterbacks can always find the major flaw in a team. You just have to have one player lose concentration for one minute.
The top SEC teams are so strong, they regularly beat each other up physically to the tune of frequent injuries being the deciding factor in the W-L column.
Looks like cannibalism to me vs. conferences like B1G where Ohio State with cupcake scheduling can have an undefeated season due to lack of conference competition.
Maybe the SEC will be taking a step back, but it sure won’t be because the cream teqms of this league were weak, but rather the opposite…I believe parity is the NFL word for this.
LikeLike
It’s a dumb statement, but I think his point is that Alabama would have been a more deserving SEC Champion than Auburn, and would have won the national championship against Florida State if not for that field goal return.
That would be a dumb statement, though, because Alabama got slobber knocked by Oklahoma.
LikeLike
Well, after all, it was Big Game Bob, a hot-footed driven man with good hearing
“This is a proud man, Bob Stoops, and a very good football coach. He heard the criticism. Every word of it. He would moonwalk across molten lava before he admits any such thing, but he heard it. And it drove him.”
http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/ou/john-e-hoover-big-game-bob-s-back-after-near/article_6fe4c92e-ccb1-5a4b-b3cc-34d5bb3be5f2.html
LikeLike
Auburn lost because the guy on kick coverage responsible for the primary return lane blew a hammie in the middle of a return. It happens. Auburn finally didn’t catch a break.
LikeLike
I also took it to mean Auburn was not the “best” team in the SEC. I’m guessing Bama is the only one that makes sense…. I do think Bama may have fared better, though they got owned by Oklahoma (could be letdown from Auburn, but still)…..I guess that makes sense, but hell, Auburn didn’t suck either, beating Bama, a very good Mizzou team, A&M, UGA, etc. Sheesh…not a bad year.
LikeLike