ESPN's Power 16 - Note on USC

[Stuman]

FOLKS THAT IS THE SECRET TO ALL THESE RANKED TEAMS, PARTICULARLY IN SEC LAND.

Its a shame that you are the only one smart enough to have figured this out...When will all the sports writers and coaches wise up?

THE PAC 10 THIS YEAR HAS PLAYED TWICE AS MANY NON CONFERENCE GAMES AGAINST OTHER BCS CONFERENCES + ND AS THESE TWO LEAGUES.

Once again, powerful BCS conferences don't have to play other BCS schools. Weaker ones do to be considered legit. (Big east, PAC 10) Its just common sense.

THEN CONSIDER THAT THEY (SEC) PLAY NEARLY ALL OF THESE GAMES AT HOME.

I would say that is more of a money thing. Why go on the road for $80,000 when you can rake in over a million at home?

SHOULD WE EVEN BOTHER TO CONSIDER WHO HAS PLAYED THE TOUGHER NON CONFERENCE SCHEDULE?

Not really, unless you would like to hear yourself talk some more. It really has no corelation to how strong a conference is, other than the fact that the stronger BCS conferences tend to have easier non conference games, and the weaker BCS conferences tend to have tougher ones. It's all about having a balanced schedule. Ufortunately for the weaker BCS conferences, they have to rely on the Notre Dames, LSUs, Auburns, and Virginia Techs to get their balance where it should be. Otherwise, they wouldn't stand a chance in getting into a NC game.

I would have to agree that USC is definitely still getting votes because of last year. These people are determined to get them in this year! The fact that this is able to happen really doesn't make the BCS system look very credible. Why does the coaches poll make up 33% of the BCS? How much football does a coach have time to watch? I mean really people! And like I said above, wouldn't you vote higher for your own conference teams if you were a coach? Don't be naive enough to think this doesn't happen. Better bowl games bring home a higher payoff to your conference, and the coaches are indirectly lining their own pockets. The BCS was in a better state of affairs last year. And another thing, it is a shame that Utah has absolutely no shot at the NC game. Some will say "weak schedule, blah, blah, blah," but how can you look those young men in the eye and tell them they aren't good enough? No one can prove that Utah isn't the best damn team in the country right now, and its a shame that they (or any other non-BCS school) will NEVER have a chance to prove otherwise. Bottom line is - Rich schools simply do not want to share. A BCS system that gets tweaked every year tells me one thing...it is NOT WORKING!


:sadwave:

 

[Stuman]

And since you always harp on strength of schedule so much, lets have a look at Arkansas' schedule for this year, shall we?

New Mexico State
Texas
Louisiana-Monroe
Alabama
@Florida
@Auburn
Georgia
@South Carolina
Mississippi
@Mississippi State
LSU

Over half of these opponents have been ranked in the top 25 at some point this season. And when this schedule was made, Florida had been in the top 25 for like 80 consecutive weeks (during football season only of course). Also, Ole Miss was likey also ranked in the top 25, as they finished last season in the top 20. You should have used Arkansas for your comparison above, but that would have defeated your whole arguement. (Another fine example of the way you carefully and discreetly choose the stats you make comparisons with)

Can you name a PAC 10 team in which a majority of its opponents have been ranked in the top 25 at some point during the season? Any season? Any PAC 10 team? Surely you can, since your OOC play is so unbearable. Don't talk to me about strength of schedule until you can dig up some stats that are at least close. Since I just buried you, I'm sure you won't bother to comment on ANY of my points in your next post. Nope, you'll just cut and paste a couple of LA sports writer's opinions.

I'm glad to see that a deal between South Carolina and Spurier is close. Yet another SEC school will rise to dominance.

:sadwave:

 

[medlisg]

Any other points Scott-"4th Ranked"-USC?

If you haven't noticed, you are not getting much support! You will probably still be claiming dominance after USC fails to win the big one.


Bottom Line - USC is only there because of last year!

 

[THE KOD]

"4th Ranked"-USC?

Bottom Line - USC is only there because of last year!

....................................................

med

have to agree with you and kosar, USC
is overrated.

 

[kosar]

Stuman,

Don't confuse Scottisahomer with facts.

Good point, Scotty. Overrated.

 

[Scott4USC]

Stuman

All 5 computer polls seem to disagree with you about the SEC being superior this year. Here is cut & paste from yesterdays paper from the Times. Once again, I provide support to back up my opinion. NOBODY else who shares your opinion (including yourself) about the SEC being superior can provide ANY support backing up their opinion. I wonder why? If people want to have an intelligent debate with me, you gotta bring substance to support your opinion/argument. Not one person on Madjacks can make an argument the SEC is the best conference this year. NOT ONE! Just saying the SEC is superior and bringing nothing else to the table just proves my argument to be correct.

"Making the Case against Auburn:

A lot of folks with accents are drawling that Auburn, at 12-0, would deserve a national title shot because the Southeastern Conference is the nation's toughest conference.

Well, is it?

Not according to most coherent analysis of conference strength.

BCS ratings man Jeff Sagarin ranks the Pacific 10 as the nation's toughest conference, followed by the Big 12, Atlantic Coast and SEC.

Peter Wolfe has the ACC first, followed by the Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-10 and the SEC.

Wes Colley's Index, based in the South, has the SEC rated sixth.

Here's what BCS men Anderson-Hester reported this week on their website: With all due respect to the SEC, this year it ranks fifth among the conferences.

SEC fans can argue computers don't know squat, but these are the same computers that helped get Louisiana State to the Sugar Bowl last year at the expense of No. 1 USC.

Bottom line: Don't confuse packed stadiums and unparalleled passion with conference strength.

Just because some people say the SEC is the best conference doesn't make it so.

In fact, this year, the SEC might be only so-so."

ALL THESE COMPUTER POLLS MUST BE BIAS AGAINST THE SEC, RIGHT? :142lmao:

THE SEC CAN PLAY CUPCAKES BECAUSE THE CONF. SCHEDULE IS SO BRUTAL, RIGHT? :142lmao:

Why isn't that powerful SEC conf. schedule helping these poor SEC teams. Gotta say this, SEC fans are loyal. Even when they are proven wrong they still worship their conference.

 

[kosar]

The SEC is clearly a better conference than the weak, soft PAC 10.

 

[THE KOD]

weak soft PAC 10

got to agree with kosar

 

[kosar]

The facts speak for themselves, Scotty. Soft.

 

[Chain Saw]

Got to be honest with you Scott, have not heard a single Spanish speaking person(folks with accents) here in Alabama drawling about how Auburn should be #1. I'm not sure they know how to drawl.

You show your ignorance when you start stereotyping fans of the SEC.

What do the people in southern California that speak with accents have to say about the PAC 10?

Whats the Spanish word for overrated?

 

[medlisg]

"Just because some people say the SEC is the best conference doesn't make it so."

Scott"ranked4th"USC​

​

You just spent half of your post listing "some people" that say that the SEC is not the best conference. That's a little hypicritical I think!

I think you should poll those people and ask them where they think USC would finish in the SEC. If they were in the west, it wouldn't be in Atlanta.

 

[Stuman]

All 5 computer polls seem to disagree with you about the SEC being superior this year.

The national concensus (AP and Coaches) which comprises 67% of the BCS seem to think the SEC is in fact superior. What better indicator than to count the number of ranked teams? Many years, the SEC will see half or more of its teams crack the top 25. Has the PAC 10 ever accomplished this in its entire history? And please spare us with your broken record routine about the "SEC Myth". You're the only one who sees it that way. Every coach and sports writer who has a say seems to think otherwise. Even the ESPN sports writers (the original subject of this thread) seem to agree, and they even had the sack to drop USC to #2.

NOBODY else who shares your opinion (including yourself) about the SEC being superior can provide ANY support backing up their opinion.

Really? Re-read my response to your first quote. Not sure what you are ranting about. :shrug: (It actually kills two of your arguments...and counting) Just to clarify, I never said anything about the SEC "being superior". That must have been the national consensus, ESPN, and others in your ear.

:sadwave: