SEC Championship odds for all 14 teams

USATSI_6580404_154511880_lowres

Offshore sportsbook The Greek unveiled their power conference championship odds.

RELATED: Latest Heisman odds for 2014 season

Alabama is the SEC’s biggest favorite, with LSU, South Carolina, Auburn and Florida right behind them. The Big 12’s Oklahoma was the biggest favorite to win their conference of any team in the power five conferences.

Here’s a look at the The Greek’s SEC Championship odds:

  • Alabama 5/4
  • LSU 5/2
  • South Carolina 5/2
  • Auburn 5/1
  • Florida 5/1
  • Georgia 13/2
  • Ole Miss 12/1
  • Tennessee 15/1
  • Missouri 20/1
  • Mississippi State 25/1
  • Texas A&M 25/1
  • Arkansas 70/1
  • Kentucky 80/1
  • Vanderbilt 250/1

Here’s a look at the teams atop the odds for every conference:

  • Pac-12: Oregon 5/4
  • Big Ten: Ohio State 3/2
  • ACC: Florida State 21/20
  • Big 12: Oklahoma 2/5

[H/T KegsnEggs]

REFERENCES

COMMENTS

You must be logged in to post a comment. Please sign in or register

  • Surprised UF is above UGA

  • How could Georgia not be the favorite in the SEC East???

    • Does the team “Gamecocks” ring a bell?

    • Let’s see Georgia finished third in there division and now not having a proven starter at qb and there defense has been horrible to the Georgia standards.

    • Ya think maybe because the Gamecocks have beaten them 3 out of the last 4 years, and Georgia has to play at South Carolina this year, where the last time they played, Georgia was #5 in the nation and lost by 4 touchdowns to South Carolina. Not to mention the Bulldog defense didn’t stop anyone last year. Other than those things I can’t understand it either…..

      • But UGA beat USC 1 out of the last 1 years, USC is replacing their QB, top WR, and most their best places on defense. I don’t know who will win the game but that big win USC had two years ago, especially if look at both teams seasons that year, was more of a fluke. And if look at the way these two teams have played each other for the last decade or more.

  • I think Auburn is rated way too high

  • Every time I see a pre-season “prediction” I am baffled by what I see. Tennessee has better odds than Mizzou, State, and A&M? Vandy at 250/1 (?) while Kentucky and Arkansas are at 80/1 and 70/1? These aren’t even realistic.

    • There’s a difference between pre-season rankings and odds from a sportsbook. These guys have to put their money where they’re mouth is, so you can (literally) bet that these are realistic. I’m sure Miss. State and Texas A&M are below Tennessee because they are in the west. I’m glad to see that Florida got some respect!

      • True. Some of these odds just don’t seem really promising to me. I mean Tennessee, a team who didn’t even land a bowl last year, has a better chance of reaching Atlanta than Missouri, who was there last year and went 12-2. I’m not a betting guy but I’d take them over TN anyday. That being said I guess these don’t affect me or mean much anyway, just thought I might rant a little and provide some input.

        • Yeah I thought the Vols were high. But both Mizzou and Auburn proved you can suck one year, and win the next.

      • you almost have it right. people bet with their hearts, not with a crystal ball.

  • Love Mizzou at 20/1, tremendous money for a team that has a fair shot at getting back to the title game

    • Mizzou has it tough this year for sure that probably why they have been better than most people give them credit or for seen but they haven’t beat the other columbia yet in the east.

      • As a lifelong Mizzou follower at 61, I’ve seen the best & the worst of Missouri football! The 80’s & 90’s were TOUGH on us Tiger fans…but we’ve stuck with them & are now seeing a coach (Pinkel) who has completely turned things positive for the program, is recruiting more & more like the big dogs in college football, and who has been there 13 seasons and will be there at least 8-10 more before he retires. He has great assistants & depth throughout the team, but for some ungodly reason NO ONE gives Pinkel or Mizzou credit…mainly media & such who have all put TENN & OLE MISS ahead of Mizzou in all their polls!!! WHAT? Have they not been paying attention? Tigers have an outstanding QB in Maty Mauk & have 2 more great D-lineman to plug right into where DE’s Kony Ealy & Michael Sam left off last season. Thank you to both of you for your positive words.

  • There is no way, zero chance, that LSU, South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, OMiss, or Tennessee have a better chance to win the SEC this year than Missouri. Go ahead make your case that they have an equal chance but not better. These are all very good teams and Missouri is certainly not flawless, but LSU doesn’t have a returning roster or plan. South Carolina has a good coach and many good players but does not have a proven leader yet, Florida no proven offense yet, Georgia no proven replacement for Murray yet, OMiss no proven offense yet, Tennessee no proven defense yet. In the face of these facts you have to give the defending East champs returning a top qb, line, receive corp, and running backs, and d-play-makers the credit they earned. Anything else is the kind of immaturity that is bound to be exposed.

    • Actually Ole Miss, LSU, South Carolina, and Georgia do have a much better chance of winning the SEC than Mizzo. They all have better teams. Just because Mizzou had one good season doesn’t mean anything in the SEC. This isn’t the Big 12 were all the team are the same each year and one or two teams dominate the rest of the league.

      • Once again a delusional statement from army. Ole miss has zero chance of winning the sec so there is no way they have a better chance than mizzou.

        • Actually Ole miss is stacked this year, and their cross conference opponents are pretty weak. Mizzou has to go to Kyle Field next year.

        • And you think Moo U has a chance at winning anything? How did if feel getting stomped by ULL in the regionals? I guess it feels a lot better than winning and coming to Oxford to get ya’lls butt kicked lol.

        • And bas shall has what to do with football? Again, olé miss has no chance of winning the sec. This is not 1962. No, I don’t think MSN can win the SEC but they have as good a chance as blue blood u?

        • That shouse read “and baseball” has what to do wit football!

        • Oh well, you get the message. Now that I’m on a functioning keyboard.

        • Baseball = Football…?

      • Army, you know i like your comments, but there’s was that little game at OMiss where the Rebs looked good, but did come up a little short ginst Missouri last year, so you ought to least be able ta say OMiss can’t be more than equally favored.

        • SOrry guys but Mizzou has a very very very small chance of winning the CC

        • Wolfman, that was last year and Ole Miss was a very young team. Auburn 3-9 before this past season. You can’t really go off the past season. You have to look at what each team has coming back and how they have recruiting and depth. Mizzou had a great year and they have some really good coaching. I expect them to play well and hard. I do agree with you that Mizzou has a better chance at winning than Tennessee. No way a team wins the SEC that has to replace their whole OL and DL.

        • I know almost as many folks in Arkansas as I do in Missouri, i swear there really are people down there that have the ability to write things that don’t sound like “all other football programs are bad, and ours won’t be bad much longer”

    • “South Carolina doesn’t have a proven leader YET.” It takes one game for a player to break out. You also discredit Dylan Thompson’s existing resume going into the season. Though this is nothing compared to the overhype that appears to be surrounding Maty Mauk’s supposed prowess in your Columbia.

      • Cola, I like your comment, and I actually agree with you. Dylan Thompson could turn out to be one of the best quarterbacks in the league and I will make my comment consistent. Mauk and Thompson are equally likely to break out and have a Division or League Champ year. I can’t say that about every SEC quarterback but when you support Thompson, SC has a very good record even in the games he played a lot of snaps. Even though the Missouri game last year turned on a quarterback sub. I still give your point the weight due. Thanks for adding this important perspective on Thompson’s many SC snaps.

        • I don’t think it’s fair to blame Thompson for the first 3 quarters of last year’s Battle of the Columbias. He threw a pick or two, but Mike Davis fumbling the ball twice really sapped the momentum from the Gamecocks early on. Not having Shaw on the sidelines this year, I think the boys will know it’s up to Thompson to lead them on offense. When I watched the Mizzou games, I always felt like the players responded better to Mauk than Franklin, so maybe this year, with Franklin out of the picture, they won’t have to feel better about liking Mauk more.

        • Matt, some good thoughts here, thanks.

    • Wolf I keep seeing you make all of these comments about Missouri having players just as good as the SEC big dogs and how you’re returning a “top qb, line, receiving corp, and running backs”. At what point are you going to acknowledge that your top QB, top RB, and top 3 WR from last year are all gone? All you have is a bunch of guys with potential and to be honest the talent level and potential of your players is solid but it is nowhere near the big dogs in the SEC my friend. For the past 4 seasons Missouri hasn’t even cracked the top 30 in recruiting! Bottom line is you don’t have the same level of firepower to draw from as Auburn, Bama, Georgia, Florida, LSU or South Carolina and while with good coaching you will be able to compete on occasion you simply wont be able to consistently be amongst the best in the league. Just ask Miss St, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Vandy. Look how long it took an elite coach like Spurrier to build up South Carolina to their current level.

      • Yea, and you should add ole miss to that just ask list.

      • Warrior, first let me say your’s is a pretty good summary bout why old favorites continue to be favorites whether or not they get the job done or not. And your logic would be good if not for several important facts: Kendial Lawrence gained 1000 yards in 2012, Josey gained 100 yards in 2013, and Murphy or Hansborough either one could gain 1000 yards in 2014. Only the media worshiped the receiver combo of DGB, Washington, and Lucas. Everyone who know Missouri long history of having deep receiving corps know who and how many very good receivers are coming thru the pipeline next year. Few NCAA football teams have done as much as Missouri with their passing game over the past decade. You may not be a fan of the NFL players who were part of this but the fact that they were promoted blows the recruit star rating idea out the window. Missouri is not trying to be anybody but Missouri and your idea that those programs somehow have the only plans that can win a National Championship should be reaching a 9 year peak in humility after none of the teams you just mentioned walked off with the crown. Now, let me give you a high five here, your men at Auburn were able to beat Missouri in Atlanta, in spite of Missouri having the lead numerous times in the contest, but nobody in the SEC looked like they had any kind of recruiting edge you keep in your media created fantasy dreams. No agency can look at high school players in 50 states and several foreign countries and find anywhere close to all the top prospects. If you understood how many high school players go almost totally without good coaching and therefore have no chance to be highly rated you would see how good college coaches don’t have that hard a job finding young men who are bound to pass all the football prep school boys. I don’t see any SEC big dogs, I just see 14 football programs who can all do what Spurrier did at South Carolina and do it faster. And if you do just a little bit of reading, you will find that the Missouri, has been among the Biggest Tigers in the nation before, and they are deeper into a run back to the top than Spurrier is. That’s why Nebraska wanted to avoid them, Texas wanted a TV network that might help keep them in their place, and the SEC Missouri on it’s team.

        • My point was that none of the teams I mentioned won the SEC. Why do Ole Miss, Miss St, Arkansas, Miss St, Vandy, and Kentucky almost NEVER win the SEC? Because they cant consistently recruit with the big dogs. I get the concept of finding diamonds in the rough and you might have been able to make a living on that in the B12 but here in the SEC unless you can consistently recruit top prospects the best you will be is a solid team who contends about once a decade. And to imply that the recruiting stars mean nothing is asinine. If the star ratings by Scout, Rivals, ESPN etc. mean nothing then why is it the teams that consistently have top 10 recruiting classes that are winning the SEC? Simply having good coaching doesn’t go as far in the SEC as it does in any other conference. Here you have to have the good coaching and stud athletes and you guys have less stud athletes than the top 2/3rd of the SEC.

        • Warrior, Once again thanks for writing more about your ideas. It’s not that you are naming bad programs or bad recruits. The logical flaw is that the system finds a significantly high percentage of them and that they don’t rearrange their value order significantly after they get to college. That’s not the only logical flaw, however. Lot’s of programs that have access to the recruits you like the best have failed to win the SEC and the NC. Even among the programs that have won it, the recruit targets are not the exact same skill-set targets, size targets, etc.. When you go to the other extreme and say that that the agencies never rate anyone in such a way that they can’t live up to the rating then that would be the first ‘asinine’ position. If your idea that coaches were less important in the SEC, wouldn’t the SEC coaching salaries reflect that?, because it appears the money says that coaches are even more important in the SEC. So the same idea keep coming around here, You think that a “stud” athlete in the NCAA always has the same height, weight, skills, tactical knowledge, psychological profile, coaching history, speed, endurance, motivation, injury history and recovery rate/quality, and much more. And you think that one or two programs in the SEC have the market cornered. And you write this only 120 days after a non-SEC team won the NC, against a program that has access to your studs, and this same program, with their studs, was totally shutout in league play last year. This happened only bout 130 days after Alabama got beat by a conference you specifically want to disqualify. Then you forget that Missouri won the Cottonbowl about 130 days ago, and beat Arkansas in the Cotton bowl in recent years, went undefeated in SEC regulation present calendar and they do these things regularly without athletes you blindly accept as the only possible “studs”. I’m saying lots of NCAA football coaches don’t ever even ask who’s on your list. They know who they are going after a long time before these lists get made.

        • “And if you do just a little bit of reading, you will find that the Missouri, has been among the Biggest Tigers in the nation before” Okay seriously man!? I did a little bit of reading and found that Missouri hasn’t won a conference championship in OVER 40 YEARS! 1969 was the last time! Also you say “Only the media worshiped the receiver combo of DGB, Washington, and Lucas.” So what? That doesn’t change the fact that they were your top 3 receivers and accounted for over 75% of your receptions and are now gone. I cant stress enough how blind you are to the recruiting gap. For the record I think you are a solid program that SHOULD be recruiting much better than you have. There is no reason why you shouldn’t be able to land top 20 classes consistently but that’s on your coach. To illustrate the importance of the recruiting gap consider that you guys have consistently recruited roughly the same level of players as Kentucky.

        • I never said coaches were less important in the SEC. That is absurd. I said you cant get by with good coaches and avg players. You need good coaches and stud players. 2012 AU was filled with top recruits from multiple top 10 classes and only won 3 games because the coaching sucked.

      • W..er, Missouri’s receiver corp in a nutshell: 20 young men that could all get that 75%. Can you tell me anything about any of them? Now you’ve got me laughing, the teams that you are talking about with all the rated boys are not winning the conference championship every year. For every one that does then your other favorites are bad recruits ( oh sorry, i mean badly coached) in your book. Admit it, you just hate any program that doesn’t belong to your club. Thanks for the exchange, but you’re not going to find a single coaching staff in the SEC or anywhere else who will tell you the successes of 2014 will have more to do with what these boys did before they turned 17, than after. Just the opposite, all of these professionals are telling you that success comes from the work they are doing now and every day till the last practice of the 2014 season.

        • and no, both your coaches and recruits were responsible for 2012, same as Missouri’s.

        • Maybe you should look things up before you post? The teams I am talking about, lets call them the haves, aka the big dogs, this is Auburn, Alabama, LSU, Florida, Georgia, and formerly Tennessee until recently. Those are the only 6 teams to win the SEC championship since 1992. And no of course what they did before they were in college wont matter more than what they do to prepare themselves this year but what you are missing is that every athlete has a ceiling, a maximum level of potential that they have and that is the main difference between a stud athlete and a lightly recruited 2 star guy. Absolutely there are going to be guys that slip through the cracks and never reach their 5 star potential and 2 star guys who end up as 1st round draft picks. But as a whole given a quality coaching staff a team full of 4 and 5 star athletes vs a team full of 2 and 3 star athletes is going to have more success over the long haul. Go ahead and keep trying to convince yourself that you don’t want the 4 and 5 star recruits and that Missouri is “getting the players we want” but nobody here is buying it because its a stupid idea. If you don’t recruit better you will not win an SEC championship, you couldn’t even win a B12 championship!

        • W.er, One measure of success does not equal all others, you can get fixated on any one you like. No matter how many times you try to use extreme examples to save you argument, i.e. 2 stars vs 5 stars, it’s still an vastly incomplete summary of college football, and it based on something 14 years old did, thru 16 year olds, sometimes they turn 17 before committing. Everyone recognizes what this is because they were all this age once. You can use any single program you want as a “never could”, but that program will always have less failure than your “always shoulds”

        • Okay Wolf show me the example of an SEC team that wins championships with consistency and never signs high ranked recruiting classes. The different measure of success you speak of is that I consider success winning league championships while you somehow think your team is among the best when you haven’t won a league championship in 45 years. Did you ever stop to think hey maybe if we recruited better we would have more success? You have all of the hallmarks of a big dog, major school, good fan base, good facilities, good coaching, the one thing you lack is good recruiting.

        • W.er, Thanks again for the discussion,.. Can I suggest that to understand a little better this process?, you could put yourself in the shoes of the coaching staff. A program gets built from the bottom but it gets planned and paid for from the top. So the coaching staff also get built from the bottom personally and as a personnel search from the top. Who knows the really great coaches?… other really great coaches (and that’s it), not even A.D.s and certainly not fans. So a head coach starts assembling a resume, and along the way he builds associations with other men who can teach the game. (Yes there are a few coaching staffs out there who are a little better salesmen and some who are better teachers). Every staff has a blueprint for filling a scheme’s many roles. And recruits are watching college programs to see if they have a 16 year old recognition of a program that uses players the way they believe they might perform. No two programs have to use the same bueprint /roles, but some might appear to. Just a couple of examples: sometimes the agencies can’t rate a role player because they can’t use every coaches blueprint at the same time. Sometimes the recruits just matures at a normal rate and can’t be noticed at a young age. Coaches do not have equal access to every recruit, high school, role player, for hundreds of reasons. So they construct a team blue print using the players who are best role players they have access to. Coaches know who they can develop way before the recruit gets his final high school rating. Raters know who different programs are going after before they issue their final ratings. It’s a dog and pony show, (no offense intended GA and SMU). The whole idea that some rater somewhere is smarter than coaches who have studied the game on a much higher level is…’ tooth fairy-ish’. The dynamics of the real inside story can be both inspirational at times and stomach turning other times. Jon just did a mini-series here on NFL and star rating. Some athletes make it in the NFL because they were born athletes and other purely because they had great teachers for 10 years before they got to the NFL, and some because their first great teacher was a coach in the NFL. Meanwhile head coaches could care less because they are focused on the role players they can sign and develop. So the college football consuming public sees a vastly over simplified picture of this and not an accurate summary. If you think I’m sometimes agreeing with you, it’s because this is not a debate. No one can really describe the all the essential elements of ‘college’ football’s success on their own simple model, not the least misleading would be the star-rated recruit wagging the Tiger. So you can argue about whether success has a cut-off line right below Alabama over the past half decade, or some other conference’s best teams/years, or Oregon because of a unique scheme, or the proven power currency of Nebraska/Missouri because they have now won division titles in two top five league in the last half decade, or Vanderbilt/Stanford because they have won so many games in academically challenging institutions (“college” football), and some fans are even going to say that only Texas, or the deep southeast, or the corn belt, or the cool west coast, or the cold lake land has victories that are classic, meaningful, or recent enough. All this, you hope to simplify, into recruiting services ratings and some physicists entire universe into one mathematical equation too. It’s true that round robin conference championships are a level of success that every winner can be proud of and i recognize your choice as a valid one. I’m frequently on the record here saying the same thing, I don’t think you knew that. Conferences decided by division championships, however, are significantly less valid. At the same time this method allow two programs to get well deserved title instead of one per year, and that has some merit also.

        • You keep assuming I have certain opinions that I never said I had. I never said recruiting services could evaluate players better than coaches. The recruiting services exist for the athletes and the fans. I doubt any coaches pay attention to the star ratings. That being said it doesn’t change the fact that as a whole the star ratings are generally somewhat close to the evaluation most coaches give a player. That is illustrated by the fact that year after year after year 90% of the 5 star guys are gobbled up by the top programs in the nation. Do Urban Meyer, Bob Stoops, Nick Saban give a crap about stars? Hell no. They evaluate players based on how they fit the intricate behind the scenes details of their respective programs. You can slice it and dice it however you want and insist that the 5 star blue chippers never fit your system so you don’t pursue them or that your coaches are better evaluators than the Sabans and Stoops of the world and you get the players you want, but if that is the case then you need to change it up because you haven’t had much success doing things the way you do now and a roster full of blue chip athletes is what you are lacking. Also, Division Championships are nothing more than a reminder that you weren’t good enough that year.

  • Georgia is a good bet at 13/2.They will win the East with an overpowering offense and a defense that will be much improved over the last couple years(which want take much considering how poorly Granthems units played).Miss St and Mizzou seem to be to far down the list as well.

  • I agree, well said! I’m a true blue Razorback fan and I know our season is gonna be kinda crappy but still yet all I ca say is Goooooo Hoggggsss!!

  • Im a rebel fan and i’m sorta confused why TN is in front of Missouri and Georgia and Florida are in front of Ole Miss? I mostly agree with SDS but as far as this i think your wrong.

  • 5/1 looks pretty good for Florida. People forget that even with all the injuries the Gators were competitive with Georgia, SoCar, and LSU. A healthy Florida team with a dynamic offensive coordinator could spell trouble for the rest of the East.