can we just end all usc/sec/lsu debate by agreeing that....

[gman2]

1) the sec is simply a better football conference than the pac-10.

i cant see how that one is debatable.


2) usc is a damn good football program that is clearly the best football program west of the breadbasket of america.

3) lsu is an up and coming football program who is following the usc blueprint for building a dominant football program

i thought the whole usc/sec/lsu thing would end with the start of the new season. now, it seems like each week, we're going to see thread after thread about how usc is doing compared to lsu.

can we just nip that in the ass, agree that lsu and usc are going to lose one game at most apiece, and agree that the sec is a better conference top to bottom, but that usc does not fit the mold of a typical pac-10 team (meaning they would be successful and every bit as good as they are now in any other conference, but the rest of the pac10 would struggle)

can we agree on these 3 points and put the issue to bed so we all dont have to read the same stuff over and over?

 

[volfan]

I agree, usc is good. At least the 5th best team if they were in the SEC

 

[ageecee]

LSU will lose at least 2 maybe 3 games this year. U heard it here first.

 

[Blackman]

I think the ACC is better than both of them oke

 

[bgold13]

i dont agree at all... look at the ooc records. Pac-10 always does well, our predicted 5th place team went into baton rouge and lost in overtime. I would say its arguable still

 

[Stuman]

This debate will never end as long as Scott hangs on to his "OOC scheduling" arguement. For some reason he is under the illusion that SEC teams can run out and schedule anyone they want to play. I guess he doesn't understand how the scheduling proccess works. It takes two to tango. Teams that play in tough conferences don't need to play tough ooc opponents. This applies to any "tough" conference. Tough OOC games happen from time to time in big rivalry games and maybe a game here or there, but that is about it. The PAC 10 teams on the other hand need those quality OOC games to have any hope in the current BCS system and that is a fact. Even with USC's quality opponents last year, it still wasn't good enough to get into the NC game. Take those quality ooc games out of their schedule and they would've had NO shot. Am I wrong?

 

[Kdogg21]

i would definately agree. just look at the polls every year and the championships...

 

[Sun Tzu]

LSU will lose more than 1 game. USC would too if their conference was better. But my guess is they will go unbeaten.

As for OOC schedules the days of good match-ups are coming to an end. Taking SOS ou of the BCS is the deathknell. As an example, rumor is that Texas and Ohio State are already planning the mutual decision to scratch their home-home slated to start next year.

 

[bgold13]

CAL is legit, Cal may beat USC.

The polls are dumb, east coast bias plays a role. Most pollseters have submitted their polls before the west is done. Once the pac-10 get beaten up OOC then you can say they are a weak conf.
The fact is the PAC does well OOC and it showed during last yearss bowl games

 

[gman2]

bg:

i think its pretty cut and dry in the pac10.

youve got three really good programs (usc,wazzou, and oregon)
youve got three decent programs (oregon state, california, asu)
youve got four shit programs (zona, stanford, ucla, washington)

sec would have four really good programs (fla,geo,lsu,tennessee)
sec would have five decent programs (ark,miss,scarolina,auburn,bama)
youve got three shit programs (kentucky, miss st, vandy)

i think the sec is better in every "tier".

im not one to say the pac10 is a bad conference. its not. it was certainly better than the old acc and old big east.

but to compare it with the big 12 or the sec is just too much.

usc would win in any conference
oregon and wazzou would be top 1/3 in any conference
but after that, the drop is precipitous.

i know this thread is asking for a 4-page response from scott complete with numbers and calculations and data, but i prefer to look at each team individually and on their own merits.

 

[ET4646]

Why is it that every year in the bowl games this awful pac-10 conference beats these "great" teams in the "power" conferences? Do these teams just not care?

 

[gman2]

et:

washington state and oklahoma
2002 rose bowl

both teams were at the top of their conference.

you can show me cal beating virginia tech in a pre-new years day bowl. you can show me osu beating new mexico by 100.

but when the best meet the best -- other than usc, who strikes fear in their opposition?

 

[Sun Tzu]

It is pretty apples and oranges to talk bowl games v tough conferences which is a week in week out situation as opposed to a month of with tons of intangibles.

Unfortunately, I think there is a big "dont care" in the Bowl games. I know in Austin December is a big "what should have been month". Lord knows the Holiday Bowl 3 years in a row doesnt inspire a great effort. Va Tech was undefeated and went in the tank to end the year. Does anyone think they really cared about a cross-country trip during the holidays to play in a bowl game that no one was going to watch? Fact is if you are a major school in a major conference any bowl other than the BCS is a let down.

 

[Blackman]

et:

washington state and oklahoma
2002 rose bowl

both teams were at the top of their conference.

you can show me cal beating virginia tech in a pre-new years day bowl. you can show me osu beating new mexico by 100.

but when the best meet the best -- other than usc, who strikes fear in their opposition?

To be fair, Washington State took it to Texas last year.

I'm very neutral on this subject, and I think as a whole Pac Ten is a step down from the SEC and ACC, but they aren't on the level of Conference USA like a lot of people seem to imply that they are.

But I agree with GMan, last time I checked you can't place wagers on these hypothetical questions, and the forum is being inundated with this nonsense. I'd much rather see more info on things that could actually make us all some coin instead of having these pissing matches.

 

[wolfpacker97]

i dont agree at all... look at the ooc records. Pac-10 always does well, our predicted 5th place team went into baton rouge and lost in overtime. I would say its arguable still

A Loss is a loss, by 1 or 50. A Win is a win. by 1 or 50. Is margin of victory used in the BCS?

 

[gman2]

blackman:

i completely agree -- pac10 is not conference usa by any stretch. its not the sec or the big 12 -- but its not the wac or cusa either.

as for the wsu/texas game- gotta gree w/sun tzu. a motivated texas team smacks wsu. but dont want to go down that road, lol

 

[Blackman]

Didn't even see Sun Tzu's post -- he's got a point, and yes that is a completely seperate issue.

Enough of this from me I got to go watch Louisville put the hammer down.

 

[AR182]

can somebody tell me what teams are better than usc ?

certainly not lsu with a new qb.

from the magazines that i have read...georgia is suppose to be a powerhouse......

 

[Mr Hockey]

Ask that question later in the year, not when only one game was played.

 

[johnnyb.]

thank you mr. hockey you made my arguement..

gman,
nice to see you again this season, love reading your write-ups. much success to you this season!