|
Bradley H -> RE: College Football (Future Vikings!) (10/14/2014 8:11:56 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: djskillz
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bradley H
quote:
ORIGINAL: djskillz
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bradley H
quote:
ORIGINAL: McMurfy
Yeah, I get that, but success was immediate and recruiting usually isn't.
I agree with that. Which is why I think we all need to adjust our opinion of the SEC. Great conference? Yes. Lots of power programs. However, lots of shit programs like Kentucky, Vandy, Tennessee, Arkansas, South Carolina (always overhyped) and Ole Miss and Mississippi State (who were almost never good until this season).
The recipe in the SEC in recent years is to have an innovative offense. Florida rode it to titles with Tebow. Auburn with Newton. A&M enjoyed success with Manziel. The idea is to score 20 points and make it stick because it has been a defensive conference (until this year). Alabama was kind of the exception, as they were good on both sides of the ball.
Last I checked, defense still matters, a lot. I'd rather have a great defense than a great offense.
I agree, defense is important. IMO, had there been a final four last year Michigan State would have won it all. I thought they were the most complete team at the end of the year.
My point is, I think it is easier to win a defensive conference if you are the only team in the conference with a good offense. As long as you have a respectable defense you can win the SEC with a great offense.
In the PAC 12, almost every team has a very good offense and Stanford has won the conference because they were the only team that played any defense.
Having said that, I think Bama would have had a hard time running the table in the PAC 12 the last two years because they would eventually catch somebody on a good day (which is what happened to USC and Oregon in recent years). The same could be said for Stanford in the SEC because they are pretty vanilla on offense.
The last truly dominant team in college football was USC. They had it all. Bama was close. Auburn and Florida were gimmicky. Both of those teams would have lost some games in the Pac 12.
You seem to have a double standard, Brad. You say that the defenses are great in the SEC but it's mostly because of vanillas offenses (I used to agree somewhat with that statement; I don't anymore). But you don't extend the same critique to the Pac12, which is filled with cupcake defenses. A good defense generally beats a good offense.
I try to stay away from broad generalizations. There is no empirical data to support the good defense beats a good offense claim. It is an overcooked myth from the 70's. I have seen plenty of good offenses that beat good defenses, and vice versa. The most complete team wins out over time.
|
|
|
|