That is a SEClusive mindset.
We don't know how Washington would have faired this year. Every year is different.
Washington once went unbeaten for 64 straight games, another time they had 40 wins in a row.
No one can say how those teams would have done, but when people hold the SEC on a pedistal they are looking at historical context not necessarily the season at hand.
If your point is that, generally speaking, there are no such things as lower tiers or higher tiers except that if you beat a team you are better than them, then my point is valid.
First, beating a team doesn't mean you are better than them. Second, if you can't admit that, as a general rule, certain conferences are of a higher caliber than others (i.e. lower tiers and higher tiers) then I don't know what to tell you.
Of course there are conferences money can buy. How do you think Liberty did what they did this year?
Now they are and outlier and thier conference had nothing to do with their success this year, but on an individual team basis they implemented the slush fund model used by certain conferences overall.
Yes there are vast diferences in how conferences opperate, but year to year you cant use conference to denegrade a particular team like Washington.
One thing I like looking at Michigan was their slow steady climb back from mediocrity.
Their refound success wasn't overnight.
I'll leave the early season scandals for someone else.
Neither Liberty or FSU are as bad as their last game, but Michigan is as good as its last few.
Overall the SEC is at the top, but projecting an outside teams lack of potential success is still SEClusive.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)