Jim

Thank you to the academians of the SEC for pointing this out. Keep up the great journalism guys. Wait...I'll put it in language you can understand: I'm sure you has been practice hole lots of times to get it right to.

The strength of schedule aspect is where the SEC bias argument starts to come into play. Every year the SEC sees teams that have no business being ranked in the preseason. Although not as bad this year as in years past, South Carolina and Texas A&M held the honor this year. Add in Missouri ranked #24 preseason, who broke SEC character and played out of conference losing to Indiana, and #12 preseason Georgia and you can see where I'm going with this. A&M climbed the rankings on the backs of their win over SC. SC, ranked 9 at the time went on to lose to Missouri (remember Indiana) and Kentucky. The closest thing A&M has to a quality win is an overtime win over and unranked Arkansas. Yet there they were standing tall at No. 6 when they fell to AK. No other conference gets the opportunity to beat "ranked" teams that go on to prove that they had no business in the rankings to begin with. In no other conference can an unranked team go from unranked preseason to No. 1 by week 10 on the backs of teams like this year's SC or A&M. Yes, the SEC can argue that they have 2-3 top teams but many conferences can do that. What is wrong is that the mid-level teams always get ranked high preseason making possible for SEC teams to move right up the rankings by beating "ranked" teams that never should have been there in the first place.