won 6/10 of the CFB playoffs, and the only teams that have won besides them are Clemson (which has the same advantages as SEC teams), Michigan, and Ohio State. They have the most money, the best recruits, are in the best recruiting grounds, and have the big-name coaches. Based on that, you can assume that the SEC teams are probably pretty solid.

But then you claim that the SEC is overrated, but then show that the top 8 SEC teams have lost only two non-conference games, one to USC and the other to Notre Dame. Both these schools have similar advantages to SEC teams and are two of the top programs in the country. Neither one is a bad loss.

The basis of your argument is that the SEC isn’t as good as people think because the traditionally weak SEC teams are beating/almost beating better SEC teams. For example, Vanderbilt is traditionally bad, but this year they beat Alabama and almost beating Missouri. But instead of assuming that Vanderbilt must be good this year, you assume that everyone they beat/play close is worse than usual. If anything, it just shows that the floor of the SEC is higher than it normally is.

If the SEC was losing to other average teams from other conferences consistently, I’d buy it. But 8 teams with only 2 non-conference losses isn’t the negative thing you think it is.