Let's hear your explanation of my Buffs knocking off Georgia a couple of years ago and I guarantee we weren't the cream of the crop (even had a coach that was the cream of the crap).
There are always exceptions for whatever reason, but his point was a valid one. Often times, especially in bowl games, the lower ranked SEC schools get paired against higher rated (in conference) competition. It has been the norm for two SEC teams to be in the BCS so when you get to the top "other bowls" you start with at best the 3rd highest rated SEC school.
I still lhear the wails and excuses from Utah kicking the crap out of Bama in a bowl game.
As much as I hate it, they waxed us that game, for whatever reason. No excuses from this Bama fan for losing that one. We did, they won, and I congratulate them for it.
That said, I still think we were much better team than that game demonstrated. (and that is not meant as an excuse)
Problem with the excuses is you SEC fans like to purport some exhalted status until it doesn't suit your arguments. Like it or not, this article had a lot of valid points even though I agree that any stats can be skewed to suit a given situation.
It had a lot of cherry picked info, all of it may very well gave been true, but it was mostly irrelevant in proving that the SEC has not been the dominant conference in the recent past (2006), which is the time that most SEC fans started getting a real sense of unity, and conference pride.
Using Bama again as an example. They just had the best four year run as far as records go in school history. If this article were specifically about the Tide, it would be pointing out that they were subpar in the early part of the 2000s and that somehow makes the last four years less dominant. That is how it read to me anyway.
