This could be a whole lot of posters on this board.

I am not acknowledging any of these bowl “victories” over the SEC. Here’s why the SEC’s bowl record, to the untrained eye, looks bad

The SEC schedule is the most grueling gauntlet ever seen in sports. It’s an absolutely miracle these teams are even still standing after beating…

— Three Year Letterman (@3YearLetterman) December 31, 2025

Quote:

---

I am not acknowledging any of these bowl "victories" over the SEC. Here's why the SEC's bowl record, to the untrained eye, looks bad

The SEC schedule is the most grueling gauntlet ever seen in sports. It's an absolutely miracle these teams are even still standing after beating each other up for a year. Hence, it's no surprise that they are 4-5 touchdowns worse by this point in the season than they otherwise would have been if they'd played in the Big 10, a conference that 7-5 SEC teams would have won

---

So far the SEC is 2-2 in bowls that matter.

1-1 if you take out games against ourselves.

Texas A&M said:

---

Just saw that. ESPN.com must have given the touchdown to the wrong team before correcting it.

---

They did that multiple times throughout that game.

Texas A&M said:

---

This could be a whole lot of posters on this board.

I am not acknowledging any of these bowl “victories” over the SEC. Here’s why the SEC’s bowl record, to the untrained eye, looks bad

The SEC schedule is the most grueling gauntlet ever seen in sports. It’s an absolutely miracle these teams are even still standing after beating…

— Three Year Letterman (@3YearLetterman) December 31, 2025

Quote:

---

I am not acknowledging any of these bowl "victories" over the SEC. Here's why the SEC's bowl record, to the untrained eye, looks bad

The SEC schedule is the most grueling gauntlet ever seen in sports. It's an absolutely miracle these teams are even still standing after beating each other up for a year. Hence, it's no surprise that they are 4-5 touchdowns worse by this point in the season than they otherwise would have been if they'd played in the Big 10, a conference that 7-5 SEC teams would have won

---

---

so bowls are no longer meaningless?

I'm so sick and tired of the "bowl game" record ******edness. Who gives a **** about a meaningless bowl games, other than the CFP bowls or games? You people sound like these BigXII idiots who think beating an opted out, depleted, portal jumped, NFL draftee 7-5, 8-4 SEC team is an accomplishment. If you're an SEC team and you're worried about beating a ****ty PAC12, BigXII, ACC or B1G team in anything other than the playoffs, you're a loser.

Get in the CFP, win them all and win it all or the season was a failure.

Ag of Northern Virginia said:

---

It's a lot easier to prep for one game a month away like it's the Super Bowl then grinding it every single week with a full SEC conference schedule.

---

This is a factor. How much, I don't know. But there is something to this

wangus12 said:

---

Jarrin Jay said:

---

SEC had 5 CFP teams. You can't judge anything based on non-CFP bowl games due to all the opt outs.

---

True. but won't shock me if we go 2-5 with the only wins being because we played other SEC teams.

---

Care to wager?

The SEC is the best conference the majority of years, but still massively overrated by the conference pride bros.

I think the last 25 years the SEC wins like 60% of games against other conferences. That's 6-4. Respectable advantage, but not nearly as dominant as most seem to think.

SlickHairandlotsofmoney said:

---

The SEC is the best conference the majority of years, but still massively overrated by the conference pride bros.

I think the last 25 years the SEC wins like 60% of games against other conferences. That's 6-4. Respectable advantage, but not nearly as dominant as most seem to think.

---

Everything pre-NIL doesn't matter anymore. NIL changed everything. Before NIL the SEC was an absolute beast

3-7 so far if I counted right. We're behind the big 10 by quite a bit at this point.

SEC diarrhea'd the bed. Need to stop with the "we don't care about bowls" bs.

pinche gringo said:

---

Stone44 said:

---

The only SCC team I root for is Georgia. I hope everyone of them gets beat.

---

I actively root against all of them. F the SEC!

---

Me too

Texas A&M said:

---

3-7 so far if I counted right. We're behind the big 10 by quite a bit at this point.

---

3-8 is looking pretty likely. Saban retired at the perfect time.

Edit: I'm losing track. I think it is 4-9.

About as overrated as the Aggies were.

SEC had a winning bowl record = Conference dominance

SEC has a losing bowl record = Bowls are useless

Texas A&M said:

---

3-7 so far if I counted right. We're behind the big 10 by quite a bit at this point.

---

were behind the acc and big 12 too

BraxtonW said:

---

Texas A&M said:

---

3-7 so far if I counted right. We're behind the big 10 by quite a bit at this point.

---

were behind the acc and big 12 too

---

In two years only one team from the ACC or Big 12 out of 5 teams has managed to win a playoff game in the 12 team format, and it's a team (Miami) that has yet to win the ACC since they joined the conference in 2004. Duke was not to be denied this season.

For the Big 12 and ACC these were the happy days, the salad days as they say . . .[/Raising Arizona]

1. Remove any bowls that aren't CFP games (garbage data).

2. Remove any SEC v. SEC games (automatic 1-1).

TexasRebel said:

---

1. Remove any bowls that aren't CFP games (garbage data).

2. Remove any SEC v. SEC games (automatic 1-1).

---

so we are 0-1 and the only win is Texas ?

That was a garbage bowl.

Ole Miss beat Tulane.
We lost to Miami.
Bama lost to Indiana.

1-2.

TexasRebel said:

---

That was a garbage bowl.

Ole Miss beat Tulane.
We lost to Miami.
Bama lost to Indiana.

1-2.

---

1-2 total
Idk if I'd count Tulane so 0-2 against p4 schools. Not ideal to say the least

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

SEC had a winning bowl record = Conference dominance

SEC has a losing bowl record = Bowls are useless

---

Except that with opt outs and an expanded CFP the landscape has changed.

Teslag said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

SEC had a winning bowl record = Conference dominance

SEC has a losing bowl record = Bowls are useless

---

Except that with opt outs and an expanded CFP the landscape has changed.

---

Which would affect every conference.

BraxtonW said:

---

Teslag said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

SEC had a winning bowl record = Conference dominance

SEC has a losing bowl record = Bowls are useless

---

Except that with opt outs and an expanded CFP the landscape has changed.

---

Which would affect every conference.

---

Depends. Unfortunately, it's not that easy as it is not apples to apples. The strongest teams/conferences will have more high end players who opt out since they're going to the NFL. So those teams are left with lots of 2nd stringers who have relatively little playing experience, playing against teams without opt outs due to their team having fewer NFL prospects. So it's all about how many opt outs teams have to deal with. In a stronger conference, the best teams have NFL caliber players who may not be playing. They are then playing teams who (may) still have their first stringers participating, since their players aren't expecting to be high draft picks. Also factor in that some of the best players are now basically trying out to transfer to better schools, so they have something to prove on the field against better competition. The better teams have nothing to play for at that point, and don't have much to prove other than playing for school pride, which clearly is no longer a thing for a majority of the big programs.

So while it effects each conference, logically it would impact the better teams with better players more significantly.

Kaiser von Wilhelm said:

---

BraxtonW said:

---

Teslag said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

SEC had a winning bowl record = Conference dominance

SEC has a losing bowl record = Bowls are useless

---

Except that with opt outs and an expanded CFP the landscape has changed.

---

Which would affect every conference.

---

Depends. Unfortunately, it's not that easy as it is not apples to apples. The strongest teams/conferences will have more high end players who opt out since they're going to the NFL. So those teams are left with lots of 2nd stringers who have relatively little playing experience, playing against teams without opt outs due to their team having fewer NFL prospects. So it's all about how many opt outs teams have to deal with. In a stronger conference, the best teams have NFL caliber players who may not be playing. They are then playing teams who (may) still have their first stringers participating, since their players aren't expecting to be high draft picks. Also factor in that some of the best players are now basically trying out to transfer to better schools, so they have something to prove on the field against better competition. The better teams have nothing to play for at that point, and don't have much to prove other than playing for school pride, which clearly is no longer a thing for a majority of the big programs.

So while it effects each conference, logically it would impact the better teams with better players more significantly.

---

Yeah I understand that point, either way it's not a good look at all to get outplayed by every conference except the mountain west

BraxtonW said:

---

Kaiser von Wilhelm said:

---

BraxtonW said:

---

Teslag said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

SEC had a winning bowl record = Conference dominance

SEC has a losing bowl record = Bowls are useless

---

Except that with opt outs and an expanded CFP the landscape has changed.

---

Which would affect every conference.

---

Depends. Unfortunately, it's not that easy as it is not apples to apples. The strongest teams/conferences will have more high end players who opt out since they're going to the NFL. So those teams are left with lots of 2nd stringers who have relatively little playing experience, playing against teams without opt outs due to their team having fewer NFL prospects. So it's all about how many opt outs teams have to deal with. In a stronger conference, the best teams have NFL caliber players who may not be playing. They are then playing teams who (may) still have their first stringers participating, since their players aren't expecting to be high draft picks. Also factor in that some of the best players are now basically trying out to transfer to better schools, so they have something to prove on the field against better competition. The better teams have nothing to play for at that point, and don't have much to prove other than playing for school pride, which clearly is no longer a thing for a majority of the big programs.

So while it effects each conference, logically it would impact the better teams with better players more significantly.

---

Yeah I understand that point, either way it's not a good look at all to get outplayed by every conference except the mountain west

---

And yet I'm 100% ok with it. Screw em all. I love watching all the SEC losses, regardless of excuses. F em all.

Kaiser von Wilhelm said:

---

BraxtonW said:

---

Kaiser von Wilhelm said:

---

BraxtonW said:

---

Teslag said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

SEC had a winning bowl record = Conference dominance

SEC has a losing bowl record = Bowls are useless

---

Except that with opt outs and an expanded CFP the landscape has changed.

---

Which would affect every conference.

---

Depends. Unfortunately, it's not that easy as it is not apples to apples. The strongest teams/conferences will have more high end players who opt out since they're going to the NFL. So those teams are left with lots of 2nd stringers who have relatively little playing experience, playing against teams without opt outs due to their team having fewer NFL prospects. So it's all about how many opt outs teams have to deal with. In a stronger conference, the best teams have NFL caliber players who may not be playing. They are then playing teams who (may) still have their first stringers participating, since their players aren't expecting to be high draft picks. Also factor in that some of the best players are now basically trying out to transfer to better schools, so they have something to prove on the field against better competition. The better teams have nothing to play for at that point, and don't have much to prove other than playing for school pride, which clearly is no longer a thing for a majority of the big programs.

So while it effects each conference, logically it would impact the better teams with better players more significantly.

---

Yeah I understand that point, either way it's not a good look at all to get outplayed by every conference except the mountain west

---

And yet I'm 100% ok with it. Screw em all. I love watching all the SEC losses, regardless of excuses. F em all.

---

I agree with this too.

But also disagree. While I love to watch them lose, we can't lose leverage as being equal to the big 10 for playoff bids. We want the most power possible since that benefits us if that makes sense.

I see it both ways is what I'm trying to get at but you're not wrong at all.

BraxtonW said:

---

Kaiser von Wilhelm said:

---

BraxtonW said:

---

Kaiser von Wilhelm said:

---

BraxtonW said:

---

Teslag said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

SEC had a winning bowl record = Conference dominance

SEC has a losing bowl record = Bowls are useless

---

Except that with opt outs and an expanded CFP the landscape has changed.

---

Which would affect every conference.

---

Depends. Unfortunately, it's not that easy as it is not apples to apples. The strongest teams/conferences will have more high end players who opt out since they're going to the NFL. So those teams are left with lots of 2nd stringers who have relatively little playing experience, playing against teams without opt outs due to their team having fewer NFL prospects. So it's all about how many opt outs teams have to deal with. In a stronger conference, the best teams have NFL caliber players who may not be playing. They are then playing teams who (may) still have their first stringers participating, since their players aren't expecting to be high draft picks. Also factor in that some of the best players are now basically trying out to transfer to better schools, so they have something to prove on the field against better competition. The better teams have nothing to play for at that point, and don't have much to prove other than playing for school pride, which clearly is no longer a thing for a majority of the big programs.

So while it effects each conference, logically it would impact the better teams with better players more significantly.

---

Yeah I understand that point, either way it's not a good look at all to get outplayed by every conference except the mountain west

---

And yet I'm 100% ok with it. Screw em all. I love watching all the SEC losses, regardless of excuses. F em all.

---

I agree with this too.

But also disagree. While I love to watch them lose, we can't lose leverage as being equal to the big 10 for playoff bids. We want the most power possible since that benefits us if that makes sense.

I see it both ways is what I'm trying to get at but you're not wrong at all.

---

Then we can go one step further and accept that going to a 9 game conference schedule will make this pretty much an impossibility. With the quality of opponents every team has to play every week, compared to what the top big10 teams have to (or get to) play, this will be even more of a problem going forward. Instead of adding Texas and OU, we shouldve added rice and Baylor, based on the metrics being imposed upon teams/conferences at this point.

If we want more power and guaranteed "success" we should go to the new pac12 and call it a day.

BraxtonW said:

---

Teslag said:

---

ABATTBQ11 said:

---

SEC had a winning bowl record = Conference dominance

SEC has a losing bowl record = Bowls are useless

---

Except that with opt outs and an expanded CFP the landscape has changed.

---

Which would affect every conference.

---

If a game has no meaning and the players don't care it's an exhibition at that point. You can't draw **** from it. A lot of yall simply refuse to recognize the realities of the game now.

Count me in with the "DGAF" crowd. All the backstabbing ******* SEC schools can go to hell as far as I'm concerned

Non CFP bowl games, are now basically pick up games at the Y. Players only show up for their swag bags, free meals, and some strange.

Angry Jonathan Zaludek said:

---

AustinAg2K said:

---

SEC started going down hill as soon as Texas and OU announced they were joining.

---

Let it burn! A&M should stick it to Sankey and head to the Big-10.

---

Can you imagine how miserable it would be to play in the Big-10.

Angry Jonathan Zaludek said:

---

King Aggie aTm said:

---

A&M would be better off the the big ten, being the sole Texas school there and getting the most athletic revenue as possible

---

I'd love to see A&M in the Big-10. They already have 18 teams,

---

There are lots of teams in the B1G that look like a Rutgers, Maryland, UCLA Iowa,Minnesota, Nebraska, not sure the money would be worth it for every game against a Michigan you get a game vs Rutgers and Nebraska