Toughest Conference.... Poll....
- Thread starter taoist
- Start date
So if you think the ACC is #1, and Auburn beat the ACC champion last year in the Sugar Bowl...then are you admitting that Auburn played a much tougher opponent in Va Tech. than USC did in OU???
:mj07:
:mj07:
I don't get all this posturing about what conference is the toughest. Let the games be played and enjoy the competition. Obviously, the MAC isn't the strongest conference, but if I was a fan of Bowling Green or Northern Illinois, I would very happy how my league was doing.
I am a fan of a Pac-10 team and why would I have to defend something I enjoy?
I would love to hear from you guys WHY you love your league.
I am a fan of a Pac-10 team and why would I have to defend something I enjoy?
I would love to hear from you guys WHY you love your league.
AU2001 said:
I said ACC conf. was #1, meaning "all" the teams in the conf carrying the same weight. I think OU was much stronger team than V-Tech. A game I would have liked to have seen was OU vs Auburn. I honestly don't know who would win. Very interesting match up.
In 2004 V-Tech did not play Florida St. or Clemson. V-Tetch was 7-1 in ACC play and FSU was 6-2 in ACC play. Both didn't play each other. Now when people tout ACC, they will say look at Miami, FSU, V-Tech etc but in these big conferences you miss out on playing multiple teams. You never here people mention that. Like in the SEC conf. People will say, you have to play FL, LSU, TN, AU, BUT PLEASE SHOW ME WHERE A TOP TEAM PLAYS ALL THOSE TEAMS! THE TOP TEAM IS ONE OF THOSE TEAMS because half the conf. isn't competitive.
When talking about strength of conferences, too many posters here concentrate on a select few in each conf. That is wrong. Each team has to carry the same weight in calculating the strength of each conf. I also factor in SOS, h/a games, and elite/bottom dwellers. ACC is competitive in all categories. ACC last year was #1 conf. in country in SOS!
LUCK! They are a fortunate team.
Let me help you out Scott.
Auburn 38
Oklahoma 0
If OU was so much stronger than Va. Tech, then why did both Auburn and USC have so much trouble with them? IMO, VT was the fifth best team in the nation behind AU, Utah, USC, and Louisville. And OU was 7th behind Tennessee at #6.
Auburn 38
Oklahoma 0
If OU was so much stronger than Va. Tech, then why did both Auburn and USC have so much trouble with them? IMO, VT was the fifth best team in the nation behind AU, Utah, USC, and Louisville. And OU was 7th behind Tennessee at #6.
AU2001 said:
I can easily answer your question to why USC struggled against V-Tech. USC played V-Tech 1st game of the year. USC played V-Tech @V-Tech (DC). Over 60k Hokie fans vs 10-15k USC fans. USC traveled across country, V-Tech traveled few hours.
USC had only 1 returning starter on OL, no returning starters at WR, no returning starter at FB, and no returning starters at DB. That is 4 units with no starting experience. OL being the major dilemma. How the hell did Pete Carroll manage to win that game? On road, hostile environment, and multiple positions with little experience. Amazing what Carroll has done at USC and this year will be the most experienced team Carroll has had at USC.
I said last year if USC beat V-Tech, USC would win the NC. I was not very confident USC could travel across country and beat V-Tech with the lack of experience.
SO PLEASE DO NOT COMPARE USC VS V-TECH with AUBURN vs V-Tech.
NO COMPARISON!
OU faced a completely different USC team than V-Tech. Only similarities were OU had crowd advantage as well in OB but not nearly as hostile as the one USC faced @V-Tech. USC would have smoked V-Tech as well if they met in OB. OU IMO was better team than V-Tech. I honestly don't know who was better between OU and AU. Wonder what other posters think? Gun to my head, I think I would take OU.
There really is no comparison. Auburn dominated the entire game and let up at the end. USC got a fortunately bad pass interference call to help them slide by.
Why don't you 2 guys just meet somewhere and have it out once and for all. "My conference is the best"...............No "my conference is the best" Who ****ing cares, I can't win any money on who's conference is better, Isn't that what this place is about? Lets stop this crap and talk about some winners!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MY RANKINGS
1. SEC
Even though I am not a fan of any team in the league, I believe that top to bottom it is the toughest league with the best coaches.
2. Big 12
The Big 12 South in my opinion is the toughest of any division in football with the emergence of Tech, A&M and Okie State as the only easy out is Baylor. The North is what it is a collection of teams that are 500% teams, but I believe that in the near future Neb and Colorado will turn things around and Mizzou could be a dangerous team this year.
3. Big 10
Although the league has slipped the past couple of years the league is still solid with eight good teams. You could make a case for four of the teams as having a decent shot of playing in the title game this year. The league has recently gotten an infusion of some good coaches in Smith, Zook, and Hoeppner so they should at least right the ship at those schools. They need to pick up a 12th team to balance the league, as this year I believe it is Purdue does not play either Ohio State or Michigan. Perhaps they could pick up Pitt, Cuse, Louisville or Mizzou to balance the league.
4. ACC
Really this league could go all the way up to number one, but I want to see how the transition goes before I anoint them as the best Conf. On paper FSU, Miami, VT, BC, NCST, GT etc.. are just as good as the SEC but I am interested to see just how these additions affect the lower half of the league.
5. Pac 10
This league is the reincarnation of the Big East during Miami's heyday, where Cal has become Virginia Tech and then there is a big drop off with the rest of the league. I always enjoy watching Pac 10 games for their open offenses but I question many of the teams in the leagues defensive abilities and a few of these schools seem to have attendance problems. This league very well could skyrocket up this list in the next few years with the addition of some fine young coaches and with the success of USC the other schools have had to upgrade their recruiting and facilities to compete which can only help the overall strength of the league. I think the PAC 10 should look to expand for football by adding two teams outside of the far west coast and breaking into two 6 team divisions as this would increase their exposure and allow them to have a championship game. I have heard in the past that they were talking with Colorado so perhaps they could add them and someone else or SDSU.
6. Big East
I really dont feel there will be that much of a drop-off in this league with the defection of schools, as Louisville will be a juggernaut in this league and adding the Florida schools should provide some good exposure for recruiting purposes.Still the league suffers from being bottom heavy with a few terrible teams.
1. SEC
Even though I am not a fan of any team in the league, I believe that top to bottom it is the toughest league with the best coaches.
2. Big 12
The Big 12 South in my opinion is the toughest of any division in football with the emergence of Tech, A&M and Okie State as the only easy out is Baylor. The North is what it is a collection of teams that are 500% teams, but I believe that in the near future Neb and Colorado will turn things around and Mizzou could be a dangerous team this year.
3. Big 10
Although the league has slipped the past couple of years the league is still solid with eight good teams. You could make a case for four of the teams as having a decent shot of playing in the title game this year. The league has recently gotten an infusion of some good coaches in Smith, Zook, and Hoeppner so they should at least right the ship at those schools. They need to pick up a 12th team to balance the league, as this year I believe it is Purdue does not play either Ohio State or Michigan. Perhaps they could pick up Pitt, Cuse, Louisville or Mizzou to balance the league.
4. ACC
Really this league could go all the way up to number one, but I want to see how the transition goes before I anoint them as the best Conf. On paper FSU, Miami, VT, BC, NCST, GT etc.. are just as good as the SEC but I am interested to see just how these additions affect the lower half of the league.
5. Pac 10
This league is the reincarnation of the Big East during Miami's heyday, where Cal has become Virginia Tech and then there is a big drop off with the rest of the league. I always enjoy watching Pac 10 games for their open offenses but I question many of the teams in the leagues defensive abilities and a few of these schools seem to have attendance problems. This league very well could skyrocket up this list in the next few years with the addition of some fine young coaches and with the success of USC the other schools have had to upgrade their recruiting and facilities to compete which can only help the overall strength of the league. I think the PAC 10 should look to expand for football by adding two teams outside of the far west coast and breaking into two 6 team divisions as this would increase their exposure and allow them to have a championship game. I have heard in the past that they were talking with Colorado so perhaps they could add them and someone else or SDSU.
6. Big East
I really dont feel there will be that much of a drop-off in this league with the defection of schools, as Louisville will be a juggernaut in this league and adding the Florida schools should provide some good exposure for recruiting purposes.Still the league suffers from being bottom heavy with a few terrible teams.
Phil Steele's Toughest Conference Rankings for 2005
1. SEC (tie)
1. Big 10 (tie)
3. ACC
4. Big 12 (tie)
4. PAC 10 (tie)
6. Big East
7. Mt. West
8. CUSA
9. WAC
10. MAC
11. Independent
12. Sun Belt
1. SEC (tie)
1. Big 10 (tie)
3. ACC
4. Big 12 (tie)
4. PAC 10 (tie)
6. Big East
7. Mt. West
8. CUSA
9. WAC
10. MAC
11. Independent
12. Sun Belt
Master Capper:
You know your college football. As stated previously, I am a fan of a Pac-10 school, so I know most about that league. I am not going to quibble with your ranking of the Pac-10. Your reasons seem valid enough. Compared to other conferences, the Pac-10 does not have as many football powerhouses.
When I watch games from other conferences, particularly the SEC, Big 10 and Big 12, they seem less sophisticated offensively. It often appears to be a contest of raw physical talent and a reliance on the running game. Of course, this is a generalization, but I believe there is some credence. Ohio State and Michigan are not substantially different than they were thirty years ago.
I believe the Pac-10 is on the rise. Having the #1 team in the country helps. As you say, it almost automatically forces other schools to step up a notch. Also, the opportunity of upsetting the defending national champion and #1 team is a great incentive.
Going into the 2005 season, every team in the Pac-10 will field a competitive football program. Cal, probably the biggest patsy of the last decade, was a Top Ten team last year. Arizona should be a better with Mike Stoops. And Washington with Tyrone Willingham and more importantly, President Mark Emmert, formerly of LSU, should also be on the rise.
I have heard the comparison of the Pac-10 with the Big East before and while I can see some comparisons, I think the Pac-10 is a lot deeper and doesn't not have the obvious cream puffs. Perception is reality, however.
Let me give you example. I bought a copy of the Sporting News College Football Preview. They do a great job, seem to be very knowledgeable, etc. The first preview I looked at was my team, Washington State.
The Sporting News ranked Washington State as the 63rd best team in the country for the 2005, down from a pre-season ranking of 38th in 2004. This years team should be much better due to returning virtually every significant starter. I don't understand the rating, but the perception that the Pac-10 isn't a strong league doesn't help.
Cal losing to Texas Tech hurt the league's reputation. There were a lot of reasons why Cal came into that game flat, but to claim that they were a fraud and the Pac-10 is bogus isn't any more fair than to claim the Big 12 is a joke because of Oklahoma's performance in the Orange Bowl.
Since 2000, USC has won a couple of National Championships. Oregon, Washington and Oregon State were all Top Five teams. Washington State had three consecutive Top Ten finishes in 2002-2004. Cal is one of the hottest programs in the country. ASU is a Top Twenty-Five program. UCLA is on the cusp of being rated.
In comparison, when is the last time Michigan won a big game? Everybody assumes that Iowa is on the edge of greatness, but ASU smoked them last year and USC did the same a few years earlier. Wisconsin, Purdue and Minnesota are solid teams, but nothing spectacular. ...Hell, Wisconsin was damn lucky to get out of Arizona with a win last season. Ohio State is loaded with talent, but they are no USC. Plus, they are boring as hell.
As for the Big 12, as mentioned, Oklahoma did not fare too well against a Pac-10 team and Texas was spanked the year before by Washington State in the Holiday Bowl. Those would be the two monsters in that league.
Should be interesting. Truth be told, the Pac-10, besides USC and Cal was down in 2004. Things look better pretty much across the board in 2005.
You know your college football. As stated previously, I am a fan of a Pac-10 school, so I know most about that league. I am not going to quibble with your ranking of the Pac-10. Your reasons seem valid enough. Compared to other conferences, the Pac-10 does not have as many football powerhouses.
When I watch games from other conferences, particularly the SEC, Big 10 and Big 12, they seem less sophisticated offensively. It often appears to be a contest of raw physical talent and a reliance on the running game. Of course, this is a generalization, but I believe there is some credence. Ohio State and Michigan are not substantially different than they were thirty years ago.
I believe the Pac-10 is on the rise. Having the #1 team in the country helps. As you say, it almost automatically forces other schools to step up a notch. Also, the opportunity of upsetting the defending national champion and #1 team is a great incentive.
Going into the 2005 season, every team in the Pac-10 will field a competitive football program. Cal, probably the biggest patsy of the last decade, was a Top Ten team last year. Arizona should be a better with Mike Stoops. And Washington with Tyrone Willingham and more importantly, President Mark Emmert, formerly of LSU, should also be on the rise.
I have heard the comparison of the Pac-10 with the Big East before and while I can see some comparisons, I think the Pac-10 is a lot deeper and doesn't not have the obvious cream puffs. Perception is reality, however.
Let me give you example. I bought a copy of the Sporting News College Football Preview. They do a great job, seem to be very knowledgeable, etc. The first preview I looked at was my team, Washington State.
The Sporting News ranked Washington State as the 63rd best team in the country for the 2005, down from a pre-season ranking of 38th in 2004. This years team should be much better due to returning virtually every significant starter. I don't understand the rating, but the perception that the Pac-10 isn't a strong league doesn't help.
Cal losing to Texas Tech hurt the league's reputation. There were a lot of reasons why Cal came into that game flat, but to claim that they were a fraud and the Pac-10 is bogus isn't any more fair than to claim the Big 12 is a joke because of Oklahoma's performance in the Orange Bowl.
Since 2000, USC has won a couple of National Championships. Oregon, Washington and Oregon State were all Top Five teams. Washington State had three consecutive Top Ten finishes in 2002-2004. Cal is one of the hottest programs in the country. ASU is a Top Twenty-Five program. UCLA is on the cusp of being rated.
In comparison, when is the last time Michigan won a big game? Everybody assumes that Iowa is on the edge of greatness, but ASU smoked them last year and USC did the same a few years earlier. Wisconsin, Purdue and Minnesota are solid teams, but nothing spectacular. ...Hell, Wisconsin was damn lucky to get out of Arizona with a win last season. Ohio State is loaded with talent, but they are no USC. Plus, they are boring as hell.
As for the Big 12, as mentioned, Oklahoma did not fare too well against a Pac-10 team and Texas was spanked the year before by Washington State in the Holiday Bowl. Those would be the two monsters in that league.
Should be interesting. Truth be told, the Pac-10, besides USC and Cal was down in 2004. Things look better pretty much across the board in 2005.
Coug,
I am slightly surprised that WSU is ranked in the bottom 50% as they should field a quality team with a extremely strong defense. Of course they have some issues on offense ranging from shaky play at the QB position and a complete lack of depth on offense at RB and especially at the tackle position. They should be embarassed about their OOC games, Idaho, Nevada and Grambling, although I would not be surprised to see Nevada give them a game since WSU may struggle against teams that can pass the ball. I think they should definitely go to a minor bowl this year with the front seven they will be able to field on defense, but with road games at OSU, CAL and USC it would be quite a accomplishment if they went 1-2 in these games. I would estimate that they have a good shot at a 7 or 8 game winning season.
I wouldn't put much stock in bowl games other than the BCS games or some of the minor bowls where teams actually are happy to be playing. Cal's loss to Tech was not surprising as they felt slighted about being sent to that bowl, but Tech's offense is tough to game plan for since you rarely see a similar offense all year. I would place the blame on that blowout on Tedford's shoulder since if he wants Cal to be an elite program then he needs to motivate his team better no matter what the circumstances.
I wont go as far as saying when was the last time Michigan won a big game as they have won many big games in the past few years and in general Michigan plays a strong overall schedule. I could be wrong about Iowa but I believe they got beat up by ASU when they were breaking in a new QB and had severe depth problems at RB, but they were a different team by midyear. I agree with you on Sota, Pur and Wisky they all are generally overhyped and usually play weak OOC schedules. As far as the Buckeye's they have just as much talent as USC except in the offensive backfield, but their defense is superior to USC's. Tressel needs to modify his offense as it has become predictable, he did change tactics against Mich and it worked for him, but I really am not sold on Troy Smith as the savior. The Buckeyes should beat Texas if they get any QB play and then would have a realistic shot at going undefeated.
The only one whom doesn't agree with you that top to bottom the Pac 10 was down last year is Scott4usc, but you are correct as the league was too bottom heavy. The Pac 10 should keep on improving with the addition of the new coaching blood, but they have a ways to go on the defensive side of the ball.
I am slightly surprised that WSU is ranked in the bottom 50% as they should field a quality team with a extremely strong defense. Of course they have some issues on offense ranging from shaky play at the QB position and a complete lack of depth on offense at RB and especially at the tackle position. They should be embarassed about their OOC games, Idaho, Nevada and Grambling, although I would not be surprised to see Nevada give them a game since WSU may struggle against teams that can pass the ball. I think they should definitely go to a minor bowl this year with the front seven they will be able to field on defense, but with road games at OSU, CAL and USC it would be quite a accomplishment if they went 1-2 in these games. I would estimate that they have a good shot at a 7 or 8 game winning season.
I wouldn't put much stock in bowl games other than the BCS games or some of the minor bowls where teams actually are happy to be playing. Cal's loss to Tech was not surprising as they felt slighted about being sent to that bowl, but Tech's offense is tough to game plan for since you rarely see a similar offense all year. I would place the blame on that blowout on Tedford's shoulder since if he wants Cal to be an elite program then he needs to motivate his team better no matter what the circumstances.
I wont go as far as saying when was the last time Michigan won a big game as they have won many big games in the past few years and in general Michigan plays a strong overall schedule. I could be wrong about Iowa but I believe they got beat up by ASU when they were breaking in a new QB and had severe depth problems at RB, but they were a different team by midyear. I agree with you on Sota, Pur and Wisky they all are generally overhyped and usually play weak OOC schedules. As far as the Buckeye's they have just as much talent as USC except in the offensive backfield, but their defense is superior to USC's. Tressel needs to modify his offense as it has become predictable, he did change tactics against Mich and it worked for him, but I really am not sold on Troy Smith as the savior. The Buckeyes should beat Texas if they get any QB play and then would have a realistic shot at going undefeated.
The only one whom doesn't agree with you that top to bottom the Pac 10 was down last year is Scott4usc, but you are correct as the league was too bottom heavy. The Pac 10 should keep on improving with the addition of the new coaching blood, but they have a ways to go on the defensive side of the ball.
M.C.:
Ohio State is loaded with talent. I am surprised they don't have a better rushing attack and considering how Tressell runs his Offense, that is a key ingredient. He has some great play breaker receivers, but I don't see an old dog learning new tricks.
As for the Cougs, quarterback is key - though the Cougs return to quality guys that got significant playing time last season: Alex Brink and Josh Swogger. They have progressed nicely and with the excellent skill players on the team, Washington State should be able to put points on the board.
The secondary is an area of concern, as is kicking. The OOC is a joke, though no one wants to play the Cougs home and home and the A.D. is reluctant, at this stage, the sign slanted deals. The Cougs are a relatively young team, so the OOC may be alright. It probably will assure a bowl.
I guess Scott and I disagreed on the Pac-10 last season, but this year should be better. Oregon, Arizona, WSU, Washington and UCLA all should be clearly better. USC, ASU and Stanford should be about the same. Cal and Oregon State should dip somewhat, but not too much.
I agree that Tedford dropped the ball with Texas Tech. The Bears came in cocky and got their clocks cleaned. I think they are ranked too high this year, but Jeff Tedford has done some amazing things in Berkeley. He is recruiting very well and could have Cal up there for awhile, though the Pac-10 has a lot of teams that are on the rise. The league should improve next season as well, as most teams are young and with key pieces returning in 2006.
USC took some big hits on Defense, but they have brought in so much talent the last three years that I wouldn't assume they will be mediocre on that side of the ball. According to the Sporting News, SC got 11 out of the Top Twenty recruits this year. L.A. has a ton of blue chip players and the Trojans get people from everywhere else as well. ...They also have one of the best punters in the nation.
Ohio State is loaded with talent. I am surprised they don't have a better rushing attack and considering how Tressell runs his Offense, that is a key ingredient. He has some great play breaker receivers, but I don't see an old dog learning new tricks.
As for the Cougs, quarterback is key - though the Cougs return to quality guys that got significant playing time last season: Alex Brink and Josh Swogger. They have progressed nicely and with the excellent skill players on the team, Washington State should be able to put points on the board.
The secondary is an area of concern, as is kicking. The OOC is a joke, though no one wants to play the Cougs home and home and the A.D. is reluctant, at this stage, the sign slanted deals. The Cougs are a relatively young team, so the OOC may be alright. It probably will assure a bowl.
I guess Scott and I disagreed on the Pac-10 last season, but this year should be better. Oregon, Arizona, WSU, Washington and UCLA all should be clearly better. USC, ASU and Stanford should be about the same. Cal and Oregon State should dip somewhat, but not too much.
I agree that Tedford dropped the ball with Texas Tech. The Bears came in cocky and got their clocks cleaned. I think they are ranked too high this year, but Jeff Tedford has done some amazing things in Berkeley. He is recruiting very well and could have Cal up there for awhile, though the Pac-10 has a lot of teams that are on the rise. The league should improve next season as well, as most teams are young and with key pieces returning in 2006.
USC took some big hits on Defense, but they have brought in so much talent the last three years that I wouldn't assume they will be mediocre on that side of the ball. According to the Sporting News, SC got 11 out of the Top Twenty recruits this year. L.A. has a ton of blue chip players and the Trojans get people from everywhere else as well. ...They also have one of the best punters in the nation.
Coug, MC...you guys have a nice discussion going on here.
I follow West Coast sports as well, but I have no favorite team( though I do root for Cal) . Pac-10 was soft last season and like Coug, I think there will be a bit of a resurgence in '05 - UO, Ariz. ,UCLA...but I disagree w/ UW and am not sure about Wazzu.
I voted for the ACC but the SEC could just as well lay claim to this mythical spot.
I follow West Coast sports as well, but I have no favorite team( though I do root for Cal) . Pac-10 was soft last season and like Coug, I think there will be a bit of a resurgence in '05 - UO, Ariz. ,UCLA...but I disagree w/ UW and am not sure about Wazzu.
I voted for the ACC but the SEC could just as well lay claim to this mythical spot.
Good write-up on your rankings but I disagree with all of it. 
I have.........
#1 ACC
#2 SEC
#3 Pac 10 (tie)
#4 Big 10 (tie)
#5 Big 12
#6 Big East
Good points and I agree. A lot of talented and young coaches in the Pac 10. A lot of coaching turnover in the last 4 years in this conf. but right now it looks settled. Want to know something funny. USC prob. has the 8th best facilities in the Pac 10.
Pac 10 can't exand because nobody fits the bill academically. Stanford, USC, UCLA, CAL, and Washington are top notch academic schools and veto anybody else joining who isn't academic. There are couple schools that aren't very good academically so they won't allow anymore. Pac 10 seems to never get praised for having so many elite academic schools. CO would get in but who else fits academically? That is the problem, and I don't think CO would join. BYU I think is academically ok but not Utah. Plus you have them not wanting to play Sat. because religion or something like that. So I don't think there will be an exansion anytime soon.
I agree. Wasn't it funny to see an ex Pac 10 OC who was basically run out of the league have so much success in the SEC?
:clap:
Who are you taking this weekend to win $$$? Why does this thread bother you when there are 40 more spaces that are not occupied for new threads to be posted. This is the off-season and I don't understand your beef with this thread. But if you read closer, you actually can learn something about each conf. or at least learn others takes. That very well could help someone handicap or respect a team/conf. more. If it doesn't help you, you have the choice to ignore this thread.
I have.........
#1 ACC
#2 SEC
#3 Pac 10 (tie)
#4 Big 10 (tie)
#5 Big 12
#6 Big East
Master Capper said:
Good points and I agree. A lot of talented and young coaches in the Pac 10. A lot of coaching turnover in the last 4 years in this conf. but right now it looks settled. Want to know something funny. USC prob. has the 8th best facilities in the Pac 10.
Pac 10 can't exand because nobody fits the bill academically. Stanford, USC, UCLA, CAL, and Washington are top notch academic schools and veto anybody else joining who isn't academic. There are couple schools that aren't very good academically so they won't allow anymore. Pac 10 seems to never get praised for having so many elite academic schools. CO would get in but who else fits academically? That is the problem, and I don't think CO would join. BYU I think is academically ok but not Utah. Plus you have them not wanting to play Sat. because religion or something like that. So I don't think there will be an exansion anytime soon.
Coug LJ said:
I agree. Wasn't it funny to see an ex Pac 10 OC who was basically run out of the league have so much success in the SEC?
Coug LJ said:
:clap:
ET4646 said:
Who are you taking this weekend to win $$$? Why does this thread bother you when there are 40 more spaces that are not occupied for new threads to be posted. This is the off-season and I don't understand your beef with this thread. But if you read closer, you actually can learn something about each conf. or at least learn others takes. That very well could help someone handicap or respect a team/conf. more. If it doesn't help you, you have the choice to ignore this thread.
Last edited:
My point was who ****ing cares which is conference better. Oh thanks for teaching me something about these conferences. what the fawk are you teaching anyone? It's your opinion vs his opinion, by the way it's hard to ignore someones bullshit when they are in every thread. but I will try to ignore both of you dumb asses!
ET4646 said:
I certainly hope that you aren't lumping me in with Scooter, but to be honest, some of us enjoy the off-season banter back and forth.... If you're looking for some hard core handicapping information about NCAA football, you might want to check back in a couple of months...as it IS still the off-season. Either way, there is an "IGNORE" button that you should feel free to use....
