Saying the voters who think the SEC the best consistently rank them best is a tautology. People whose favorite color is blue consistently say it is the best color, but the depth of their sentiment does not make it fact. And as long as BCS invitations are sent out based on those subjective rankings, those records do not mean much either. Just because one arbitrarily determined "top ten" team beats another does not make that assessment of either any less arbitrary.

Sure, the SEC consistently has a ton of teams ranked in the top ten, but that proves nothing except that the people who vote in the rankings BELIEVE it has the best teams. As long as those voters are convinced of that it DOES NOT MATTER what SEC teams (or anyone else) does: The people who elect "champions" were convinced the SEC had the best teams in August; each weeks subsequent rankings just give that opinion an official (but false) air of legitimacy. When the season ends SOME SEC team must inevitably win the conference, and whoever it is will then be declared one of the nations best teams (if not THE best) because "they beat all those SEC teams!" Yeah, winning the conference kind of requires that.

Just to be crystal clear: I do not give a dead rats rump about the SEC or any of its teams one way or the other. I niether hate NOR love them: Being college football teams makes them irrelevant to me, because any popularity contest without the grace and integrity to acknowledge itself as such is beneath consideration. The SECs sole significance to me is that it is like a whole CONFERENCE of Notre Dames, reflecting all NCAA Division 1A footballs glaring flaws just as clearly.

Maybe the SEC really does have the best teams: The point is it is impossible to be sure so long as all of them are simply handed unearned top ten rankings at the start of the year, and whoever manages to finish without a loss gets an automatic National "Championship" game against some other school elected one of the top two (even if it is ALSO an SEC team, has already lost to the other, and three undefeated teams are reduced to spectators.) Only in the NCAA could the only team to play 13 games win them all and still be denied even a CHANCE at a national "championship."

Get a playoff tourny and PROVE who is the best team, then I will listen; until then the NCAA will remain an old boys club (that, I am sorry, Notre Dame will ALWAYS dominate, even if the SEC, OU, OSU, Michigan, Miami, FSU and USC take turns "winning" individual "championships.")

It is hard to conceive how different the NFL would be without playoffs. The Bears would have two perfect seasons, because neither of their undefeated teams would have suffered the embarrassment of losing the title game. Eli Manning would have no Super Bowl Rings; the Giants were a wildcard both times they beat New England (which was 18-0 the first time, yet still lost perhaps the greatest football game ever played.) For that matter, New England would not have THEIR first Super Bowl win: THEY were a wildcard that year. John Elway (who must be awful, since he has never PLAYED a Bowl game) would not have his first Super Bowl win: Denver was 12-4 that year, but the 13-3 Chiefs won the division (forcing Denver to beat them on the road just to reach the Conference Championship, let alone the Super Bowl.)

Those are just (some) of the wildcard Super Bowl winners that rankings and elected champions would have treated as beneath notice. So, yeah, I do not care about the SEC. I might if someone gave me some reason other than the thousands of shirtless painted fans screaming "WE'RE #1!!!" that EVERY team (in every sport has,) but until then, I am not interested.