Winning the SEC is goal #1.

Championship, we typically get narrative’d as the winner in a down year for the SEC. So in a way, unless we go undefeated in the regular season, our SEC Championship will be less meaningful in the long run. Just think if we would have won the SEC title this year but then LSU or Bama went on the play and win the national title. Our SEC crown would be meaningless outside the Dawg Nation. But a national championship is forever and you have to win it on the national stage typically against schools from another conference. Plus a national title will end so many stupid stories around our program: that we are a good but not elite program, that Mark Richt can’t win it all, that we underutilize our recruited talent, etc.

the last twenty or so years that college football ends the first weekend in December. Anything after that is the silly season.

The SEC Championship is the only “real” thing worth winning as it occurs on the field!

“Old lady luck just laughed out loud right there!”

Yu bet I would!

I want to make sure I understand the full ramifications of your formal declaration: because the SEC title is decided on the field according to clearly outlined rules, and because of the grueling nature of SEC play, and because the element of luck does not ultimately decide one’s championship fate, it is more desirable, legitimate, and honorable than a BCS title. Stop me here if I’ve misinterpreted your position, or am unfairly lumping the opinions expressed by commenters sympathetic to your declaration into your own.

I grant that winning the SEC is among the most difficult and merit-worthy accomplishments in all of sports. However, I wholly disagree that a conference title is a necessary prerequisite for a national title. Winning the SEC championship is a high honor indeed, but let’s not pretend lady luck plays no role in a team’s SEC title hopes. Luck manifests beyond the field of play in scheduling; without a round-robin system, cross-divisional assignments — especially in today’s land-grabbing conference landscape — play a major role in determining a given team’s championship hopes. (Here’s an example: Georgia didn’t have to play Alabama this season, but went to the championship game over USCe despite losing to USCe head-to-head. While a loss to Alabama is not a foregone conclusion, such a loss would’ve put USCe in the title game.)

Furthermore, how can cross-divisional rematches for the SEC title produce “legitimate” results when a BCS rematch between conference opponents produces an illegitimate championship? That’s a major double standard that I cannot resolve. Follow this hypothetical: Say hell freezes over and Auburn is good next year. Say Auburn beats Georgia in the regular season, but faces Georgia again in the SEC championship game. Say Georgia wins that game. Auburn and Georgia are now 1-1 on the season, but have not faced common opponents among the west and east divisions. Sure, one claims a championship “on the field” because there is a championship game, and they played it, and Georgia won, but a.) luck played a role for both teams, vis-a-vis cross-divisional scheduling, and b.) “superiority” is ultimately a function of timing. (That is, our hypothetical Georgia is “superior” because they win the game predetermined to be the championship game, and because they win the latter match.)

And that’s FINE. I am totally fine with that. This is not sarcasm.

But according to that standard, it seems patently ridiculous to me that one could react to the 2011 BCS title game with a stern declaration of moral superiority that effectively denounces the merit of Alabama’s championship. Yes, Alabama (and Alabama fans) would’ve LOVED to win the SEC title, but that doesn’t diminish the accomplishment of winning the BCS title. LSU won the predetermined SEC championship game — which, as the hypothetical above demonstrates, is “legitimate” up to the point of similar rematch circumstances, and then only so because Big Football People In Suits made it a game where two teams who’ve played unblanced schedules play for a trophy — so they are SEC champions. Alabama then defeated LSU, a conference opponent, for the BCS title. At the very least, one can argue that results on the field establish Alabama as equal to the best team in the SEC; those results actually suggest (if one watches those games) that Alabama is the best team in the SEC. No, Alabama didn’t play Georgia, but LSU missed the two best teams in the SEC East this year during the regular season. All of that is academic: LSU won the SEC.

But according to the same metric, and allowing for the same vicissitudes of fate, Alabama won a fully legitimate BCS title.It’s not that not winning the one invalidates the other; perhaps under different circumstances (that is, if Alabama had not defeated the SEC champion) I’d find it appalling, but what are the odds of a non-SEC champion winning a national championship over a non-SEC team?

I can think of one scenario. Let me put it like this: if y’all had beaten LSU, they would’ve probably still played OSU for the title, IIRC. If a non-champion LSU had beaten the Cowboys in the BCS title game, should the Tiger faithful refuse to take pride in the win or recognize the title? No, they’d lament the SEC loss and claim their rightful place as national champions, having demonstrated their superiority on the field. Much as Alabama just did.

Or is the problem simply that Alabama won the BCS title without having to face Georgia?

Sure, an SEC championship is attained through a more regimented process, but reliable? I’m still not sure we agree upon the definition of reliability. You say that “[m]ore than a few random events had to occur to put Alabama in a position to get the rematch,” but what you call random events, I call football game results. Let’s not get into a discussion of the potential ramifications of tragedy upon those results, because THAT’S an unquantifiable and unmeasurable factor. Whether or not tragedy befell his institution, Mike Gundy’s team still lost a critical game to a far, far inferior opponent. I believe both LSU and Alabama fought through their share of distractions this season, as ESPN reminded us every 15 minutes this season.

But with all that said, I should clarify: I’m not arguing that the SEC title is inferior to a BCS title or vice versa. I’m arguing that they are two different accomplishments, and that while winning the SEC should rightfully be the goal of every SEC team, I don’t think it’s logical to declare winning the SEC a prerequisite to winning the BCS title, ESPECIALLY given this year’s strange, incestuous circumstances (i.e., the BCS winner resoundingly defeats the champion of its conference; said BCS champion’s only other loss is to this conference champion; first game went into overtime; etc., etc, etc.).

Of COURSE the BCS selection process is more random than the conference race; it’s a system designed to organize chaos into single output in order to maximize profit within a system of “academic amateurism.” Whether or not the BCS sucks is an entirely different argument… one, I might add, where we might find more common ground. My point is that it’s irrational (and probably disingenuous) to argue that a team cannot win a national championship, or that their fans should not honor a national championship, without a conference title when the BCS victor defeats the champion of its conference.

This goes back to my argument regarding SEC title game rematches. Kyle, I believe your point of distinction elsewhere is the timing of those two games — that is, the SEC title carries more weight because it is played (effectively) as part of the regular season. I get your reasoning behind that point, but since I’m less concerned in elevating one accomplishment over the other (rather than recognizing them both as outstanding achievements), I’m not sure that affects my stance. After all, if we’re deducing which team is “best,” isn’t it valuable to consider the data points we get from well-rested teams after weeks of preparation alongside (but not above) results from the regular season? Why shouldn’t both be considered? That gets into arguments about what a national championship “means,” which is another discussion for another day. Back to my point: a hypothetical rematch in the SEC title game is only “decisive” because it’s the SEC Title Game Presented By Dr. Pepper Amen, and results from such a rematch carry more weight only because the system says so. The SEC Championship, while more orderly, stratified and even fair, remains vulnerable to similar conditions that many mobilize as evidence that Alabama’s national title is illegitimate. I grant the matters of degree, but still contend the following (in regards to the OP):

- One can “take pride in a National Championship in which [their team] didn’t win the SEC” when that team defeats the SEC champion in the National Championship Game; it’s fallacious to claim that one cannot “take pride” in that accomplishment while still regretting the team’s failure to win the SEC title, especially when the teams playing for the title are from the same conference division and played to OT the first time around.

- To claim that “[a]ny random team can win a NC, but only the most grueling, dueling hard fought teams can win an SEC [title]” is delicious and righteous SEC homerism, supported by six years of results, but once again ignores the circumstances of THIS rematch; that is, while Alabama didn’t win the SEC title, they did gruelingly duel the SEC champion (and consensus #1 team in America) for 8 quarters and change without allowing a touchdown, and therefore have most decisively “earned something.”

- “Are you Dixie, or not?” is a false dilemma, especially given the circumstances.

- Any attentive college football fan understands that winning anything means “lady luck landed on your shoulder.”

Finally (I swear), two lines of inquiry.

- Had LSU beaten OSU for the BCS title following an SEC title game loss (a weird, but not unlikely scenario), would the same questions have arisen regarding the legitimacy of their national championship? Would it matter to anyone that they’d lost the SEC title game? Or is the sturm and drang less about “only conference champions should win national titles” than “bah rematch bad”?

- Had Georgia and Florida, not Alabama and LSU, been the juggernauts at the heart of this year’s controversy; that is, had the Saurians beaten the Gators 9-6 in overtime and stomped LSU in Atlanta, but the ’Dawgs found revenge in New Orleans for all the (ESPN approved) marbles, would tankertoad and others occupy the same moral high ground? Or would further scrutiny apply?

I’m sorry you don’t want to engage in discussion. I have commented on this site before, and have offered praise for this site often. I only engage in conversation with authors of this site because I respect y’all (especially Kyle), and read EVERYTHING attentively. If you want to discover insult within debate, fine; I’m out. Good luck next season and beat Auburn.

But I was otherwise sincere about generating discussion regarding the original post. Have I been rude? If so, you know what, I’m grading papers and drinking box wine and otherwise typing about college football. I apologize; I didn’t think I was responding in a coarse fashion, though I did mean to be challenging (productively).

Hey folks, I don’t post here much so bear with me.

Strong statement, but I understand the above sentiment completely and in many respects agree. Although, as a Gamecock fan I’d take any championship all day every day. Following the same sentiment though, is it also true then that there is no pride to be taken in a SEC East title, when the Dawgs did not have the best record in division? (Personally, I’d be damn proud no matter what.)

Which begs the question, how irrelevant are the respective SEC division titles, exactly? LSU won all the SEC West games. LSU won all their SEC games. LSU won the SECCG, but they aren’t national champs.

The system kind of stinks when situations such as this arise. I don’t know how it could be fixed but something must be done. Thanks, and would welcome any input.