Great to see that the NCAA Football diehards are active....

[taoist]

...love this forum!!! :clap: ...gotta admit that I'm a year-round CFB fan, but come on fellas...haven't we had these arguments before? We are definitely entrenched in our separate camps...and not one of us is going to change the mind of anyone on the the other side...it's like the fawking cold war in here every spring...and most of the summer!!! :scared :cursin:

...how about we put aside our differences for one off-season and try to help each other make some coin? :mj14: ...anyone remember the old hockey forum (when we still had hockey...)??? :mj14:


...now, all that being said, where's the value here? ...seriously, not trying to be a smartass, but can't see value in USC at ev$.... as a matter of fact, I'd love to hold that bet against the rest of the field...too bad they don't offer that one.

I haven't studied any schedules yet, but where is the value here?



2006 NCAA Rose Bowl BCS Championship - Odds to win (Olympic)
601 Oklahoma +1200
602 Miami +800
603 Southern Cal +100
604 Florida State +1200
605 Michigan +1800
606 Florida +1000
607 Virginia Tech +2000
608 Ohio State +1000
609 Texas +1200
610 Georgia +2500
611 LSU +1200
612 Auburn +5000
613 Tennessee +1800
615 North Carolina State +10000
616 Maryland +10000
617 Kansas State +5000
618 Nebraska +6600
619 Colorado +7500
620 Missouri +7500
621 Wisconsin +4500
622 Penn State +6000
623 Virginia +3000
624 Notre Dame +8000
625 Oklahoma State +8000
626 Pittsburgh +7500
628 Texas A&M +3300
629 Clemson +7000
630 Michigan State +7500
632 Arizona State +5000
634 Georgia Tech +7500
635 Minnesota +6000
636 UCLA +7500
637 Oregon +6000
638 Iowa +1500
639 California +6600
640 South Carolina +8000
641 Louisville +2000
642 Alabama +7500
643 Arizona +12500
644 Field +1500

 

[IE]

"how about we put aside our differences for one off-season and try to help each other make some coin? ...anyone remember the old hockey forum (when we still had hockey...)???"

====

amen!,


god i miss nhl wagering

 

[Scott4USC]

I don't understand your post.

This forum was a GHOST TOWN before ONE thread debating Pac 10/SEC.

Each forum allows 50 threads and you are complaining about one thread in this forum that was a COMPLETE GHOST town prior?

There is room for 49 other threads on the same page. No reason to complain or comment on one particular thread of you dislike the discussion. BTW, the discussion is related to college football and this is a college football forum and this forum has been pretty much a ghost town.

*******************************

As for future values. I don't see any. USC is odds on favorite to win it all. Lets just focus on USC making it there. High probability. There also is a high probability USC will be double digit favorites in the BCS NC game. Why? USC has completely dominated college football 3 straight years and has blown out 3 straight BCS opponents. Depsite all the anti pac 10 and anti west coast football, no way USC will be single digit favorites.

Therefore, you will get a very sweet ML play on whoever USC plays.

I think its a bad bet betting against USC making it to the Rose Bowl. Not talking about winning a NC, I am talking about making it there.

FYI, there is a VERY realistic chance that EVERY starter on the USC offense this season will eventually be drafted in the NFL draft. Scouts have said this at USC spring practices, Herbstriet has said this, and Collin Herd from ESPN radio has said it. USC didn't lose 1 starter from last years team on offense!

Pretty safe bet USC reaches the Rose Bowl, but even if they don't, why would you bet against them? I find no reason or value.

Unlike the last 2 years, USC's first game next year is AT Hawaii. Last year USC travelled to V-Tech and year before travelled to Auburn. 2 extremely tough road environments and easily could have lost. This year USC has it easier travelling to Hawaii. Not a home game for USC so road games are always tougher but Hawaii is not AU or V-Tech.

Just my opinion and CFB futures. You get MUCH better value hoping USC makes it there and betting against them vs betting on "another" team to win it all.

Lets say USC doesn't make it there, you STILL have to hope that team you did bet on to make it there AND win. Not a good bet! I explained why.

 

[Sun Tzu]

On paper I would expect the Ohio State - Texas winner to get to the Rose Bowl to probably play USC after it sleepwalks through the Punk 10. OU is going to lose multiple games this year, Texas has a creampuff schedule other than OSU and OU. There is actually value there thanks to the absurd USC number.

 

[taoist]

I don't understand your post.

...no shit? ...why does that not surprise me in the least?


...you answered my question about why this forum can't be more like the old hockey forum. It's because of pricks like yourself!!! ...did you always have a problem making friends or is this a recent phenomena? Geeze!

 

[Scott4USC]

Let me repeat myself.

There are 50 threads in "each" forum, and you are complaining about 1 thread in this forum?

The college football forum has been a GHOST TOWN, meaning NOBODY posting in it.

That is why I don't understand your post. Its like you want EVERYONE to be on the same page as you. Maybe not everyone wants to post about the same material as you. Thats why Madjack allows 50 threads in the CFB forum. Yet you are complaining about maybe 2 threads that are taking part in active posting (in a forum that for the most part has been a ghost town). FYI, there is space for 48 more threads and you don't have to read every thread. Stop complaining about 1 or 2 stinking threads when the CFB forum can hold 50 threads. The funny thing is the 2 threads you are complaining about are the ONLY active threads in this forum.

Doesn't make sense. I questioned you (and others) and then you become all sensitive. I didn't call you any names or offend you. Smarter thing to do was to try and explain yourself. Instead you chose the route to call me a prick. Very mature! I think you took my post the wrong way or maybe you are a very sensitive person. Sorry if I offended you. That was not my objective.

 

[DIRTY Diapers]

I dont care how great this USC team +100 is NOT a good value for a future prop. It is EXTREMELY hard to go undefeated for one year but two years is almost impossible. There is always suprises every college year and always darkhorse teams.

USC is no question the favorite to win it again. But I see more value with some of the other teams and ANYONE who listens to Collin CowTURD opinions on College football I seriously question their expertise. That guy is a complete moron.

 

[Scott4USC]

I dont care how great this USC team +100 is NOT a good value for a future prop. It is EXTREMELY hard to go undefeated for one year but two years is almost impossible. There is always suprises every college year and always darkhorse teams.

USC is no question the favorite to win it again. But I see more value with some of the other teams and ANYONE who listens to Collin CowTURD opinions on College football I seriously question their expertise. That guy is a complete moron.

You didn't read my post carefully. I never said USC +100 is a good bet. I said betting on any team to win it all is a bad bet. I explained why.

USC is odds on favorite to make it to Rose Bowl. Anybody who plays USC in Rose Bowl will be huge underdogs. USC will be double digit favorites if they make it to the Rose Bowl. Therefore, the opposing team will be a very nice ML DOG.

Now lets say USC doesn't make it to Rose Bowl, you still need the future team you bet on to make it, AND then to win it. Asking a lot, especially when USC is ODDS ON FAVORITE to make it there. I am not talking about winning it, just making it there.

What I am saying is instead of choosing a team, simply wait for USC to make it to the Rose Bowl and bet against them on ML. Your kidding yourself if you don't think there isn't a HIGH probability of USC making it there. Thats why USC is +100 to win it all and that is absurd. Never have I seen a team with that odds to win it all in the winter before the next season.

Like you said, many teams surprise and disappoint. Just another reason not to bet on the futures. Its pretty hard to just pick the 2 teams who make it there. Lotta upsets happen and USC may very well get upset but chances are small.

I think its a bad bet and explained why I feel that way. Maybe I can save some people $$$.

 

[Mr Hockey]

I doubt every team would be a dd dog to USC. Some teams have biases that reflect in their lines. Lets just say for example a Florida, Florida State, etc went undefeated, do you think they would be dd dogs? The name recognition alone would probably keep them under dd's even if they deserved to be dd's against USC.

 

[taoist]

Let me repeat myself.

...no, let me repeat myself.... Scott, you're an asshole!!!


...and once again have proven it to the rest of the forum.

 

[DIRTY Diapers]

Scott,

Chances are very small for USC getting upset. Give me a ****ing break. You act like this team is the New England Patriots. USC is the favorite to win it again on PAPER - but this is the same team that SHOULD have lost to UCAL, and almost lost to suck ass Stanford. Not to mention, got outplayed by VTECH who probably would have won the game if wasn't for that bogus pass interf. call.

There is a great chance that USC could get upset. Do you understand how hard it is to go undefeated? Obviously not. It is damm hard - and you need to catch a lot of breaks. Which USC did last year. The better team doesn't ALWAYS win.

 

[Sun Tzu]

That conference will suck ass enough that I agree they could go unbeaten blindfolded. Arizona will be improved. Maybe UCLA will. Other than that, every team in that league is lesser than what thye had last year. And last year there was only one other solid team, and it lost pretty much everything it had. So before Scott whines that it's a PAc 10 bash- it's a fact that has everything to do with the teams, not where they play. Same will be true in Big 12, - every team except maybe Texas and AM shouldl be lesser than last year.

 

[DIRTY Diapers]

PAC 10 is not that bad. Sure a lot of teams are not as good as the year before but you can say that about any conference. USC is head and shoulders above anybody in the PAC 10, and almost anyteam for that matter. Still with that said - It is tough to go undefeated. There will be some suprise teams that will appear in the PAC-10 just like UCAL last year. No one expected them to be as good as they were.

 

[Scott4USC]

taoist

I don't undertand your wrath against me but you obviously have issues.

DIRTY

Scott,

Chances are very small for USC getting upset. Give me a ****ing break. You act like this team is the New England Patriots. USC is the favorite to win it again on PAPER - but this is the same team that SHOULD have lost to UCAL, and almost lost to suck ass Stanford. Not to mention, got outplayed by VTECH who probably would have won the game if wasn't for that bogus pass interf. call.

I disagree, chances are small that USC doesn't go undefeated. You are wrong saying that this years USC football team is the same as last years.

Last year USC had a brand new OL, new WR's, new DB's, and no returning starters in the backfield. This season USC returns EVERYBODY on offense!

You try and open up your season on the road across country against V-Tech with a brand new OL, DB's, WR's, and backfield. 60k Hokie fans vs 15k USC fans. Of course that game was going to be close. Last year was a rebuilding year for USC. Just look at all the inexperience USC had at so many positions and how many freshman and sophomores USC played.

This season USC is an experienced and talented team. There is decent chance that EVERY single starter on offense will be drafted by the NFL. USC very well may have the most talented offense in the history of college football. Carroll has only lost 3 games in the last 3 years (all by less than 7pts) and he has blown out 3 straight BCS opponents and won 2 straight National Championships. Carroll has said that by far this will be his best team at USC. Talent wise, depth wise, experience wise etc.

I am not saying USC is a lock to win it all, I said USC has a high probability of going undefeated next year. IMO, there is no team in the country as talented as USC. IMO there is no coaching staff better than USC. Yes USC lost 3 very important coaches but what people may not know is USC hired NFL caliber coaches. Coaches who turned down NFL contracts to come coach at USC. Pretty impressive. Only 3 question marks for USC next year. DT, LB, and Offensive Coordinator. IMO, only the DT is the serious question mark but they dominated in the spring scrimmage which blew me away.

Diapers PAC 10 is not that bad. Sure a lot of teams are not as good as the year before but you can say that about any conference. USC is head and shoulders above anybody in the PAC 10, and almost anyteam for that matter. Still with that said - It is tough to go undefeated. There will be some suprise teams that will appear in the PAC-10 just like UCAL last year. No one expected them to be as good as they were.

Good post and I agree w/you except MANY people felt CAL was going to be that good. East coast maybe not.


Sun Tzu

USC seems to struggle more in PAC 10 play vs OOC play and BCS opponents. Why do you think the Pac 10 sucks? At least you admit the Big 12 isn't great.

SEC has very good elite teams but that conference is not solid top to bottom. Then factor in weak OOC play and not playing road games, you get many SEC teams with high # of wins and the deception that this conference is superior.

Remember, the SEC is the easiest conference to go undefeated in. Why? If they are so good top to bottom, why do more teams go undefeated in the SEC than any other conf.? THIS IS A FACT!

Often people will say the SEC is so tough, look at these 4 awesome teams. The problem is you DON"T play those 4 awesome teams. SEC is a 12 team conference and you skip playing 2 teams every year.

Lastly, I think only 4 teams in the SEC have won the conf. in the last 15+ years? It is a 12 team conf. yet only 4 teams have won the conf. in the last 15 years? How come there are so many "consistently BAD teams in the conf.? How come the SEC has teams year in year out go WINLESS in conf. play? How come so many SEC teams only get 1 win in conf. play year in year out? If its such a superior conf. then it needs to be strong top to bottom. When we talk about a conf. you MUST include EVERY team.

In the Pac 10, I think 9 of the 10 teams have won the conf. in the last 12 years.

These questions are directed not only to you but to every SEC honk.

 

[taoist]

Remember, the SEC is the easiest conference to go undefeated in.

...you've outdone yourself with that quote. geeze, you're homer bias is making you completely retarded.

 

[SALTY DOG]

Scott, you don't have a clue...I'm a Big 12 fan
but the SEC is by far the worst gauntlet in college
football, hence the weak OOC schedule...USC
would NOT be where it is today if it were in the
SEC....They, like the Big 12, with the conference
championship, beat each other up during the
course of the season where as a USC can tiptoe
thru the tulips and be ready for THE ONE BIG
GAME.....Oklahoma State last year played A&M,
Texas, and OU back to back to back...like to see
big bad Rubbers do that...I'd love to see the
Rubbers go to the Swamp this year, or Knoxville,
that's what SEC teams have to do on a weekly
basis...you don't have a clue... :mj07:

 

[Scott4USC]

Taoist and SALTY DOG

:nono: :nono: :nono:

In 72 years of SEC football there have been 57 teams that have gone undefeated in conference play. That is an undefeated team per every 1.26 SEC seasons......that happens to be the highest rate of in-conference undefeated teams among all 1A conferences. Go ahead and research it.

So please, don't believe the silly 'MYTH' that the SEC is the toughest conference to run the table in.

Keep calling me names Taost and I will continue to make you look silly. Maybe now I understand your wrath against me!

I don't stoop to the level of calling people names, I express my opinion and back it up. Usually with FACTS! Some people can't handle it.

SEC folks think when SEC teams go undefeated in conference play it's an indication that they are great teams. But when teams go undefeated in other conferences it's an indication of soft competition.

That is good ol' SEC mythology! :mj07:


To give you an idea of how bad the SEC is, check this out. :scared

One of the teams in that conference, Vanderbilt, has NEVER won a conference title, even though they are charter members of the SEC when it was created back in 1933.

In fact, their highest finish in the conference was fourth place back in 1982. :142lmao: That's right, Vanderbilt has NEVER finished in the top three in the SEC in 71 years of being a member.

You have to go all the way back to 1977 to find a conference winner that was not one of the following: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, LSU or Tennessee. :lol2

In contrast, these are the schools in the Pac-10 that have won or shared the conference title since 1990: USC, UCLA, Washington St., Washington, Stanford, Oregon, Oregon St. and ASU. Only Cal and Arizona have not won the conference title in that time. Even more amazing is that every single team in the Pac-10 has finished in the top ten in the final AP poll since 1991, :clap: Since Cal finished in the top ten this year, it means that every Pac-10 team will have finished in the top ten in the past 11 years, with seven of these teams having finished in the TOP FIVE during that same period.

No other conference comes close to this accomplishment. So, when an SEC honk comes here and talks about how many bowl representatives the SEC has, know that it's because teams like South Carolina and Vanderbilt have never made it once into the top ten, and that teams like Arkansas (last appeared in top 10 in 1982), Kentucky (1977), Mississippi (1969) and Mississippi St. (1940) rarely provide a challenge for the teams at the top. The top six teams are almost guaranteed wins over the bottom half, and half of the bottom half qualify for bowls because they're bound to win half of their games against the losers at the bottom. Couple that with scheduling of directional state schools, and the SEC qualifies 7-8-9 bowl teams every year. It's not good football; just the magic of scheduling and raw probabilities.

:clap:

These are the facts, and sometimes the truth hurts! Unfortunately for me, facts are usually not enough for the delusional!

 

[taoist]

...my apologies, scottie.... you're right.... the Pac 10 is the toughest conf to run the table.... :mj07: :mj07:


...retard.

 

[AR182]

i don't study conferences like some of you do but off the top of my head i would think that with boston college, miami & virginia tech added to the mix....the acc would be the strongest conference....hands down.

and my prediction for national champs for this coming year will be florida( they are supposed to be loaded this year) because they will have a game coach for the first time in years .....with their qb winning the heisman.

 

[Scott4USC]

AR182 I agree FL is a solid pick to win the NC. Here is there schedule.

Wyoming
Louisiana Tech
Tennessee
at Kentucky
at Alabama
Mississippi State
at LSU
Georgia
Vanderbilt
at South Carolina
Florida State

They got 3-4 "tough" games in TN, LSU, and FSU. UGA won't be much easier but they did lose their starting QB and WR's. I am not a Richt fan. Only 1 of there "tough" games are on the road. Thats nice!

What amazes me FL only plays 4 road games all year. That is a joke. Meyer sure has it easy in that department. IMO that is the reason they may run the table. Playing at home vs road is such a huge difference. They also start the season with 3 straight home games. Thats nice!

FL doesn't play Auburn, Arkansas, or Ole Miss. But they do play Vandy, Kentucky, and Miss. St. All 3 combined for only 1 conf. win last year outside of each other.

Unlike other "traditional" SEC teams, FL does play at least 1 tough OOC opponent a year and that is FSU. Props to them! :clap:

Unfortunately for FL, they play FSU at the end of the year where the new FSU QB will be well seasoned. Coul dbe trouble and of course it is a big rivalry game.