As a transplant to Alabama I can attest to the SEC madness that infects this part of the country. I don't have a dog in the fight, find most of the people down here that do have a dog in the fight incredibly annoying, and on an amazing weekend of SEC West football am planning to be at a mediocre at best D3 game involving Birmingham Southern (0-4) and Sewanee (1-3).
That being said, the SEC West folks consider the SEC East to be a poor little brother. It's not that the SEC West folks are ignoring Missouri's loss to Indiana, it just doesn't matter to them. The SEC West has won the last 5 SEC championships. The top 6 teams in the SEC West, at least, would have a likely shot to win the East. To be honest Arkansas would probably compete as well. It's like the SEC before last year's title game. The rest of the country just wasn't relevant until they could take the trophy. The East isn't relevant until they can take the game in Atlanta. FSU? Drawing lots of ire. The SEC East? As irrelevant to the SEC West as the Big 10 until proven otherwise.
So when you talk to the true SEC fanatics around here, Missouri losing to Indiana doesn't matter. Missouri, South Carolina, Georgia... as far as the SEC West folks are concerned they are just waiting to be cannon fodder. This weekend Alabama (3) plays Ole Miss (11), Miss St. (12) plays Texas A&M (6), and Auburn (5) and LSU (15) face off (all AP rankings). There isn't a conference in the country, let alone half a conference, that doesn't wish they had that slate of games to offer up to viewing audiences...
I would argue that those slate of games were conceived due to the Media (ESPN) bias and the fact that those teams are perceived to be better solely due to one of the teams (Alabama) being very good over the past few years and the others (LSU & Auburn) winning championships. For example, Auburn beats Oregon by 3 in the Nat'l Championship and team A, B, C from the SEC West loses to that same Auburn team by 11, 13, and 9 respectively, they are ranked in the Top 10, however Teams X, Y, and Z that loss to Oregon by 3, 8, 12, are not even Top 10, but most likely unranked, based on the current ranking philosophy. I would think that each of those teams X,Y, Z, A, B, and C would be ranked somewhere together.
What proof do you have other than it's a fun theory for those outside the southeast? These six teams are 25-1. The one loss comes to another team in the SEC West. They have 4 victories over teams in the Top 25. Two of those Top 25 wins are OOC, including a road win over the Big 12 (Auburn over KState) and a neutral-ish site win over the Big 10 (LSU over Wisconsin).
Let's compare to other conferences. The top 6 teams in the Big 10 East? 20-8, 1-3 Top 25. Big 10 West? 21-7. 0-2 Top 25. Those Top 25 losses on the OOC schedule include Oregon, VaTech, Notre Dame, and LSU. The win is over Missouri.
ACC Atlantic? 19-7, 2-4. Acc Coastal? 20-9. 1-4. The Top 25 OOC losses are to Georgia, Notre Dame, UCLA, BYU, Nebraska and East Carolina. The three non-conf wins? USC, Oklahoma State, and Ohio State.
Big 12 (combined)? 19-4. 0-4 versus the Top 25. Florida State, Auburn, BYU and UCLA own the 4 wins.
PAC 12 North? 19-7, 1-4. PAC 12 South? 19-6, 2-2 versus the Top 25. Only Oregon's win over Michigan State is OOC.
So here's the thing about the BIAS argument. 1) It has very little foundation. The SEC West has the highest winning percentage of any division in the Big 5. 2) They played 4 top 25 teams, 2 OOC. That is very much in line with every other division. The difference is the SEC West has won all of theirs, no other division is over .500. The number of cupcakes is roughly the same, the difference is the SEC West hasn't choked any of theirs. Even Arkansas, at the bottom of the SEC West, is 3-0 OOC.
So there really isn't a leg to stand on. By any objective measure, the SEC West is winning EVERYTHING, including the games they are supposed to win. Other divisions can't say the same thing. So you want to say the SEC West's rankings are fabricated? By what measure? By what objective standard? By some data other than "we're tired of the SEC."
You want to move Baylor above Alabama, Auburn or Texas A&M? Each of those teams own a real win. Baylor doesn't have squat. UCLA owns a win over Arizona State, you could move them up, Notre Dame as well if you want to stretch. Michigan State? Already a big loss to Oregon. You going to push them into the Top 5? Didn't think so. Stanford? A loss to USC. USC? A loss to Boston College for crying out loud. Wisconsin? A loss to a team just two spots ahead of them. BYU? Probably an argument to move them higher, but not above the SEC West Big 3, maybe over the little 3. Nebraska? Maybe an argument here to push them higher, but you are hanging on a win over 3-2 Miami. It isn't the mid-90s anymore. Ohio State? Nope, loss to a non Top 25. Oklahoma State? A loss to number 1 is acceptable, but their best win is Texas Tech for crying out loud.
So look at the contenders. Would you move 3 of these over LSU, Mississippi State and Ole Miss? Maybe. BYU, Nebraska and maybe someone else. So you move the bottom SEC West teams 3 spots down and Texas A&M one spot for UCLA. There STILL isn't a division in the country that wouldn't trade with the SEC West.
You're argument? It's got no factual legs...