Rockne's Roundtable

I love Texas A&M for what they're proving in the elite SEC.

The problem to me that this will be spun as not a weaker conference but instead that A&M is the real deal. They'll probably suggest A&M would've walked through the Big 12 and this season, they just might have. It is an endless love fest for the SEC and I am glad to see such a big blow delivered by the newcomers.

Granted, I was hoping it'd be Mizzou who did this rude awakening but I'll happily take A&M. Mizzou physically does not have the talent on the their O-line to run their offense and are less talented as a whole then in previous years.

Mizzou - since 2002 was 5-1 against A&M heading into this season with 3 wins I believe coming in College station. I remember 2 OT wins there and I believe there was a 3rd as well.

Mizzou has found success under Pinkel and over the last 5 years in particular. Coming into the SEC, I hated hearing about how difficult it would be for both Big12 teams as if the Big 12 had been a pushover during Missouri's successful campaigns. I also hated how they were being measured in regards to winning the conference, when the team never won the Big 12 during that stretch. They frequently struggled against Oklahoma and Texas, and so I had the outlook of there is no real reason why they couldn't achieve similar success in the SEC, especially playing in the East.

They drew Bama' this year as their lone crossover game (since A&M is a lock annually now as a crossover) so tough pull for my Tigers. Either way, I figured that if the team was as good as advertised (they are not) and could stay healthy (which they havent) that a 8-4/9-3 campaign was possible and that the SEC really isn't that much different from what they had seen.

A&M I didn't expect to play as well as they have so the teams have essentially switched roles and I am happy to see it.

While there is no doubt that the SEC has some of the cream of the crop top-tier wise. This SEC hype machine keeps these teams way up there at all times.

Bama, drove me nuts this season because they were concensus #1 and prior to LSU, had not played anyone. They played an awful non-conference, and beat Michigan. When Pro-SEC/Bama guys would talk Alabama, they'd use Michigan as a huge win. When they'd discuss ND, Michigan was a weak team that was overrated.

So Bama finally plays their second ranked opponent, Mississippi St. Undefeated Mississippi St who again was getting by based off their profile of an SEC team when their schedule was even worse. I believe 3 D-1AA schools and then the bottom feeders of the SEC. We then saw Bama pull off a miracle win over LSU. I don't know how they blew that game but what you could see was a team clearly not head and shoulders above the rest of the conference/BCS heading into the A&M game.

Watching the game, I feel pretty confident in ND's chances against them in they can move the ball offensively. Golson has the ability to create similar havoc as Manziel when a play breaks down and defensively I find ND far superior then A&M.

I'd really like to see that matchup now.

To your point, I think all these SEC schools have been given a pass non-conference and they all take turns beating one another amongst the "elites" in conference. They basically take 4-0 non conference and get at least 3 freebies in conference. then go 2-2/ 3-1 against the better teams. Perception is 90% of college football these days and they play to it. The playoff could hopefully change this but I doubt it will. Texas A&M scored a big victory this weekend but it will be downplayed in the long-run and become more of a A&M is amongst the elites instead of bring the elite status down a bit.

So if A&M is proving the SEC is over hyped what is Mizzou proving with just 1 SEC win over a winless Tennessee?

I hate the SEC as well, but they have won 6 straight NC's, no one beats them head to head. Simple fact of the matter is they win the NC games.

That doesn't mean as much when two SEC teams play each other for the NC, like last year.