Thoughts on Powerful Pac10 Football Teams

[Master Capper]

Scott,

My data comes from the NCAA's website (Ncaa.org) so if you want to debate the legitimacy of my data then I think you need to contact the NCAA in Kansas and tell them that their data is wrong in regards to the PAC 10. Since you seem to have no time line involved when you compare the Pac 10 with other conferences why have they struggled to beat the Big 12, SEC and Big 10 in the past if they are such a superior league? Your rebuttal about National Championships utilizes faulty logic since you forgot to include one key element that hinders the SEC and Big 12 but not the Pac 10 and thats a Conference Championship game! Basically in the Pac 10 you can just win the league and let the cards fall whereas in those two leagues even if you win the regular season you must go to a neutral site and win against a league member to win the conference. How many solid teams have met their Waterloo in the Conf championships? Thus it's harder to go to the National Title game for a team from the Big 12 or SEC then it is for a Pac 10 team!

Avalanche,

I am starting to think that Scott use to post here under the nickname Crack Rat same faulty logic and irrational rants!

Mansa,

While your comparison is light years more accurate than Scott's, I still have to disagree with you on a few of them:

1. USC, I think they would have a tough go with Georgia since they have a deep offensive team and a very solid college qb. I would lean towards LSU since Saban is the best defensive coach in college football, lets not forget that Saban worked under one of the greatest defensive minds in all of football in Bill Bellichek while he was defensive cord in Cleveland and thus he can neutralize any team given the time to prepare! Okie and Miami would both have shots against USC since they have all been battle tested, I think Miami will be a better team this year then they were last year and Okie has to fill some defensive holes but they should be right in the thick of it. While I was never a big fan of Navarre and the defense of of the Wolves was pretty poor last year lets not forget that the game was basically a home game for USC and Mich had very little to play for after beating OSU!

2. While it's true the three Pac 10 teams have returning QB's, with the exception of Cal's QB the other two have been terribly erratic at best! No way would Texas go to Oreg State and win, but I believe the books would have Texas a TD favorite over ASU and a 3 point favorite against Cal even on the road! Until Cal beats a solid opponet outside of Berkley will I consider them a strong team. Oreg State and Texas would be a matchup of two teams with two coaches whom are terrible gameday coaches, so it would come down to which one choked first! ASU would struggle with Texas since their defense is terrible, but mark this down I think ASU could be one of the bigger surprise teams in the country this year.

3. Of course the SEC is going to have played more games against teams from the SunBelt Conf since that is more of a geographical fit and I believe some of the SEC schools are mandated by their state legislature that they have to schedule a in state school each year. This is not a good comparison because we could turn this around and say that I bet the Pac 10 plays more games against the Big Sky conf then the SEC does, well of course they would because of the geography!

4. I wouldhaveto say that if your league is only winning 35% of your games against another league then their is utter domination! Your missing the whole point here, Scott insisted that the Pac 10 has been a stronger conf then any other league around but presented no talking points except strength of schedule. He has lambasted the SEC and Big 12 when comparing them to the PAC 10 and all I did was show him that the Pac 10 has not fared at even a 50% clip when playing either conference!

5. SEC tries to schedule weak opponets out of conference is another false statement unless you want to turn around and say the PAC 10 does the same thing come on now teams from the Pac 10 have played Montana, Idaho, Sac State, San Jose, Montana State, Northern Zona etc...so they have their share of bums on the schedule! It's all about the jack and teams want to bring in cannon fodder early in the year to please the fans and fill the athletic departments coffers.

6.Again this was not a debate about any other conf except the Pac 10 but here is the breakdown:

Sec 307 wins Big 12 299 wins and 23 ties
Sec 83 wins Big 10 87 wins and 8 ties
Big 10 307 wins Big 12 195 wins and 21 ties

The Big Ten does not have a losing record against any conference!

But Mansa I enjoyed your post your thread had really great logic and was very thought provoking!

 

[Scott4USC]

Master of Disaster

You seem to forget what the whole argument is about. How can you partipate in a debate if you don't even understand the argument??? Your data about Pac 10 #'s against other conferences is data from the last 40+ years I believe. I am talking about recent history. For example the last 4 years. I am talking NOW the present. I am not talking about the conferences in the 1960's. READ carefully what people post and post data that is relavant to it. I checked where you got the data for SOS and I could not find last years SOS. They seem to have skipped last years SOS. I also "think" they base their SOS soley on wins/losses which is wrong in my opinion. Anyways, the 2 SOS you posted has very little to do with the argument. All my SOS I am posting are about what actually happened, not a prediction. The SOS you posted might show a trend that the SEC might be playing tougher SOS. Up till now, from 1990-2003 they have not. Last year the SEC did have multple teams in the top 20 SOS and that is great.

My data comes from the NCAA's website (Ncaa.org) so if you want to debate the legitimacy of my data then I think you need to contact the NCAA in Kansas and tell them that their data is wrong in regards to the PAC 10.

I said I wanted to see where your data was from. You gave no links or references to where you collected your data. I asked for it. I never said your data was incorrect. Stop twisting things around. I also never said the Pac 10 was superior.

Since you seem to have no time line involved when you compare the Pac 10 with other conferences why have they struggled to beat the Big 12, SEC and Big 10 in the past if they are such a superior league?

I posted this a while back and here is the data I had looked up during the last 4 years.
The Pac-10 was 12-12 vs. the Big Ten, 9-10 vs. the Big XII, 4-4 vs. Notre Dame, 3-4 vs. the Big East, 0-3 vs. the ACC and 6-1 vs. the SEC.

In the Big XII, the Pac-10 played Colorado six times, Kansas St. four times, Texas three times, Oklahoma twice, Nebraska, Oklahoma St., Baylor and Kansas once. Only five of those 19 games were the result of bowl games. The SEC played Oklahoma three times and Kansas St., Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Nebraska and Iowa St. once. Six of those nine games were bowl games.

The only BCS conference that the SEC routinely scheduled for games out of conference was against the ACC, and again, 12 of those games were rivalry games against members of that conference (South Carolina/Clemson, UGA/GTech, Florida/FSU). Throw in another six that were bowl games, and the SEC played only nine games against the ACC that weren't rivalry or bowl games.

Still, the record pretty much speaks for itself: the SEC's worst winning percentage against BCS conferences comes against the weak Pac-10. Try and spin that one away. When it comes right down to it, the Pac-10 will go out and play tough competition, and holds its own-- even its lesser teams. Arkansas has played only two BCS conference teams in the past four years, and those were both in bowl games. Mississippi St. has played only three, one of them being a victory over Texas A&M in a bowl game, and the other two losses to Oregon (Pac-10). Mississippi has also played only three BCS conference teams in the past four years, and two of those were in bowl games. Kentucky scheduled four games against Indiana, and that's the only OOC BCS teams they've played. Bama has played five OOC BCS games and is 1-4 (the victory was in a bowl game, the losses were scheduled OOC games).

In the Pac-10, Arizona (worst team in the Pac-10 the past four years) has played four OOC BCS teams, none in bowl games (Ohio St., Wisconsin, LSU and Purdue). Cal has played Illinois (twice), Rutgers, Baylor, Michigan St. and Kansas St. (no bowl games). Stanford has played Texas, Boston College (twice), Notre Dame three times and Georgia Tech (bowl game). Only Oregon St. has done what the SEC routinely does, and that is avoid BCS conference teams except in bowl games.

The fact that the Pac-10 is .500 in its out of conference BCS conference games is quite remarkable, considering that most of the games were not in bowl games. What is truly pathetic is how the SEC keeps claiming how superior they are, but against BCS conference competition, they have a losing record over the past four years. It's obvious that the conference inflates its importance by beating up on patsy OOC opponents and racking up victories that are then used to bolster its superiority claims. If every team has at least eight wins, it has to be a good conference, right? Uh-huh. Sure. The bowl record says they are 12-12, while the Pac-10 turned out to be 8-9.

****Here is the breakdown of the Pac-10's and SEC's nonconference records over the past six years against the other BCS conferences (does not include bowl games-- this is about scheduling):

ACC
Pac-10 2-2, SEC 14-20

Big East
Pac-10 6-2, SEC 6-7

Big Ten
Pac-10 14-13, SEC 5-1

Big XII
Pac-10 13-11, SEC 2-3

Pac-10
SEC 1-6

SEC
Pac-10 6-1

Notre Dame
Pac-10 5-10, SEC 2-1

To further illustrate the point, the SEC was 151-24 in games against nonconference teams that weren't in the BCS conferences (86%). Even the bad teams in the SEC prop up SOS for the good teams by playing horrible teams that guarantee them wins.

This is what the rest of the SEC does, with the exception of Florida, which has to play FSU every year (and loses, by the way) and sometimes Miami (losing to them, too). The following are the SEC teams and their records against BCS opponents listed first and their record against non-BCS opponents over the past six years.

TEAM BCS record, non BCS record
Alabama 0-4, 13-5
Arkansas 1-0, 19-0 (yes, played only one BCS team over the past 6 years)
Auburn 1-5, 14-0
Florida 1-7, 12-0
Georgia 5-3, 12-0
Kentucky 5-1, 10-4
LSU 1-2, 15-2
Mississippi 0-2, 17-1
Mississippi St. 1-3, 13-3
South Carolina 3-7, 8-2
Tennessee 7-1, 12-0
Vanderbilt 5-3, 6-7

This is how the myth of the SEC is perpetuated. Since every team is guaranteed three or four wins to start the season, and then they get 3-4 more wins against the bottom half of the SEC, they have 6-8 wins before playing any of the tougher teams. With just one or two more wins, you have five or six teams with a minimum of eight wins in the "tough" conference, leading to higher rankings for all of those teams and increase SOS.

If you're wondering how the SEC did in bowl games over that time, here you go. After all, if they were truly a much better conference, their bowl record would show it, would it not. Over that same period, the SEC was 21-20 in their bowl games, certainly not dominant like they all claim to be.

Your rebuttal about National Championships utilizes faulty logic since you forgot to include one key element that hinders the SEC and Big 12 but not the Pac 10 and thats a Conference Championship game! Basically in the Pac 10 you can just win the league and let the cards fall whereas in those two leagues even if you win the regular season you must go to a neutral site and win against a league member to win the conference. How many solid teams have met their Waterloo in the Conf championships? Thus it's harder to go to the National Title game for a team from the Big 12 or SEC then it is for a Pac 10 team!

Are you sure about that? From the years 1990-1999 Pac 10 has 9 teams playing tough SOS than the whole SEC and BIg 12. From the years 2000-2003 the Pac 10 again has 9 teams playing tougher SOS than the whole SEC and Big 12. SOS includes conference title game.

LSU would have never won the 2nd National Championship without the title game. LSU received .80 BCS pts because of it yet was only .15 BCS pts ahead of USC in the final standings. If you remember, EVERYTHING went against USC in terms of SOS. USC final SOS was only 10 slots lower than LSU I beleive.

 

[Master Capper]

No Scott your incorrect about the strength of schedule that I posted it is based both ways and maybe if you took the time to research the site you would be able to find it. The SOS your presenting is from a third party and could be skewed in multiple ways to twist the logic!

No Scott your the one whom has not established a firm time line for your comparissons and that seems to be a running theme in multiple threads where you have posted. Earlier you were basing your numbers on a longer time frame so I went out and got you all the numbers that are in existence so we would have no time frame but the history of college football.

Yes Scott you have stated numerous times how great the Pac 10 is compared with other conferences, perhaps I am dyslexic and you are not saying that but I think others would tend to agree with me!

Where you compare the strength of schedule of the Pac 10 and how they plan BCS schools are we again on a 4 year time line or did the time line disappear again? Because if were still on a 4 year time line then out of the 14 schools you rattled off that are BCS contenders that have played Pac 10 teams, the reality is that only Ohio State and perhaps Kansas State have been consistently in the BCS mix the past 4 years. What do teams like Rutgers and Illinois have to do with this debate? You could list the same out of conf games that SEC teams have played that would be comparable to the crap you tossed out there and your comment that they play all weak teams outside the conf is laughable. How come you didnt list such luminary Pac 10 opponets such as Montana, Idaho, hell San Jose State should be a member of the Pac 10 since everyone seems to play them. I dont think Idaho and Montana are even Division 1-A!


Your logic about how the Pac 10 has owned the SEC in recent years is very misleading as most of these games were played against a Alabama team that had been gutted by probation and has had three coaches in that time period.

Scott, u need to define your definition of what is a BCS team and what is not because your making no sense whereas in one paragraph you state how the SEC plays no BCS teams and then you come back later with their records against BCS teams and it looks to me they play quite alot. Also, that stat is misleading or skewed as you state that Arkansas has played only one BCS team in the past 4 yearswhen they play 8 conf games a year so that would be 32 games against BCS teams

Go back and look at the Conf championship games and of course a few teams got a bounce after winning the game, but just off the top of my head I can think of three that screwed after losing Tenn, Okl and Texas! The Pac 10 needs to add two teams and break up into two leagues to add the championship game. I nominate San Jose State since almost everyone in the conf plays them and you could toss in San Diego State since they are a Home Coming Game for most Pac 10 schools!

Scott wasnt it just 3 years ago that USC got beat by Utah in the Slop Bowl? So to say USC is a modern day dynasty is a bit premature as they have yet to win a outright national title. Lets worry about getting within ten games in the all time series with ND before we annoit USC as the greatest school in football history!

 

[Scott4USC]

Master Capper

Lets get this thing straightened out.

1) I never said Pac 10 is superior to anybody. I said SEC and Big 12 are not superior to the Pac 10.

2) I never said USC was a dynasty. I might have said USC is starting to build a dynasty. Never said they were a dynasty.

3) I never said USC was the greatest program in college football. I have said that I think USC is one of the best teams in college football and USC has one of the best coaching staffs in college football. I do predict them to win the NC. A very realistic prediction.

Scott wasnt it just 3 years ago that USC got beat by Utah in the Slop Bowl? So to say USC is a modern day dynasty is a bit premature as they have yet to win a outright national title.

Yep and I paid for it. Lost boat load of $$$ on USC in that game. I did not handicap that game very well. USC had poor OL and Utah had very good defense who blitzed every down. Why is outright NC vs co-national championship such an important issue? I don't really get it. LSU and USC both won a NC and that is how it will look 50+ years from now. Not fair to USC or LSU to downplay the NC. That is the system and co-national championships have exsited for a long time. Nothing new.

No Scott your the one whom has not established a firm time line for your comparissons and that seems to be a running theme in multiple threads where you have posted. Earlier you were basing your numbers on a longer time frame so I went out and got you all the numbers that are in existence so we would have no time frame but the history of college football.

If I am debating on what conferences are superior or not superor I am going to use recent data to prove my point. I am not going to use data from 20+ years ago to support my argument because I am not debating all time toughest conferences. Pac 10 IMO would prob. rank somewhere 4th-5th if we did all time strongest conferences.

My info is not misleading because that is what happened. Not altering the info.

The Pac 10 needs to add two teams and break up into two leagues to add the championship game. I nominate San Jose State since almost everyone in the conf plays them and you could toss in San Diego State since they are a Home Coming Game for most Pac 10 schools!

Maybe they do but your scenario would never happen. Pac 10 is a top notch academic conference. Pac 10 has Universities such as Stanford, UCLA, CAL, USC etc.. who are ranked top 30 of all Universiities in the country. Pac 10 will only add teams who fit their academic requirements. Pac 10 will reject about every team who wants to join because of academics. If 2 teams were going to be added CO and CSU or Utah and BYU would be my 2 picks.

Master Capper you have failed to prove why you think the SEC and Big 12 are superior to the Pac 10. You have shown me nothing to support your opinoon.

 

[Master Capper]

I allready posted the all-time record of the Pac 10 vs SEC, doesnt that sort of prove that by winning 65% of the contests the SEC has owned the Pac 10? Not only do I think the SEC and Big 12 are better football conferences, I also think the Big Ten is better and that within 2 years the ACC will be a better football conf than the Pac 10. USC may very well win a National Title this year and could go on a nice run which will be very similiar to what Miami did in the Big East or FSU in the ACC since the drop off below all of these teams was huge! USC is similiar in the Pac 10 the drop off level between USC and the rest of the Conf is huge.

 

[Birdy]

Not only do I think the SEC and Big 12 are better football conferences, I also think the Big Ten is better and that within 2 years the ACC will be a better football conf than the Pac 10.

Miami, FSU, Clemson, Virginia, Virginia Tech, NC State, Maryland and Georgia Tech could all be bowl teams -- that was eight teams if you weren't counting. So until the Pac-10 is sending their whole conference bowling, I'd say the ACC has a pretty big leg up already, nevermind in two years. - Birdy

 

[Scott4USC]

Birdy

To be a bowl team you need 6 wins. ACC, SEC, Big 12 are 12 team conferences (ACC 11 I think) so they will have more bowl teams than the Pac 10 who is a 10 team conference. Lets take the SEC for example. Teams in the SEC get 3-4 wins from OOC play, then automatic 2 wins from the HORRIBLE BOTTON DWELLERS in the conference year in and year out. That gives majority of the teams in the 12 team conference 5-6 wins right there. All they gotta do is win 1-2 more games and they are bowl eligible. You gotta look at the whole picture and ask why teams from these conferences have so many bowl teams. Last year the Pac 10 had one horrible team (Arizona) yet they pulled off an upset in conference play. Before last year, there usually are NO BOTTOM DWELLERS in the Pac 10. Much much harder to reach 6 wins in the Pac 10 and the way the Pac 10 schedules OOC opponents. Just different philosophies but do not judge strength of conference by bowl teams. Not a smart idea.

Master Capper

I already posted the all-time record of the Pac 10 vs SEC, doesn't that sort of prove that by winning 65% of the contests the SEC has owned the Pac 10?

Yes you did but that had unfortunately had NOTHING to do with the strength of conferences for this decade (2000-2004). To determine the Strength of conferences for this decade, you must user current data. Not data from the 60's, 70's, 80's, etc.. You are smarter than that MC.

You are acting like we are debating all time strongest conferences. I already said I would rank the Pac 10 #4 or #5 for all time strongest conferences. Then your data would be relevant.

I agree with you that USC outclasses the rest of the conference but your comparisons of USC to Miami is wrong. USC plays a much much harder SOS. USC has played the #1 SOS for the years 1990-1999 and the years 2000-2003. I am talking on average, and I know USC schedule this season is not very hard.

 

[Birdy]

To be a bowl team you need 6 wins. ACC, SEC, Big 12 are 12 team conferences (ACC 11 I think) so they will have more bowl teams than the Pac 10 who is a 10 team conference.

The MAC has 14 teams. I don't follow.

Teams in the SEC get 3-4 wins from OOC play, then automatic 2 wins from the HORRIBLE BOTTON DWELLERS in the conference year in and year out. That gives majority of the teams in the 12 team conference 5-6 wins right there.

I think you're confusing "good teams" with "teams in the SEC" (which would be rather appropriate in this context, actually). All the major powers go through their seasons in the above manner, yes. But to say "all" the teams in the SEC (or any other conference) have this luxury is nonsense.

Generally, yes, the teams in the top-half of a conference -- any conference -- will have some "automatic" wins against teams in the bottom half; but that's a reflection of the programs themselves, not the conference. The bottom line is there are more power programs in the ACC, SEC, and Big XII than there are in the Pac-10. To disagree is to start claiming Oregon and Cal are "the real deal" and they're simply NOT.

Much much harder to reach 6 wins in the Pac 10 and the way the Pac 10 schedules OOC opponents. Just different philosophies but do not judge strength of conference by bowl teams. Not a smart idea.

It's "hard to win games" in every conference. The point, however, is that good teams make it to bowl games, and teams that aren't good don't. Are you really claiming that the teams in the Pac-10 that won't go to a bowl are somehow better than the SEC, ACC, or Big XII teams that will? That's straight weird, dude.

 

[Scott4USC]

Birdy

Are you really claiming that the teams in the Pac-10 that won't go to a bowl are somehow better than the SEC, ACC, or Big XII teams that will? That's straight weird, dude.

Not so weird. :nooo:

Take last year as an example.

Washington was 6-6 last year and did not go to a bowl game. (I am not saying UW was a great team) They lost their 1st game of year against Ohio St. and to Nevada (a bowl team I "think" but they were decent) If UW played ?Citadel? they would have won 7 games last year and would have been a bowl team without a doubt.

Arizona St. was 5-7 last year (again not saying they were a great team) and lost tough OOC game to Iowa @Iowa. If they played ?Citadel? they would have been 6-6 which is bowl eligible.

In the Big 12 Kansas was a bowl team who got spanked by NC St. They were only 3-5 in conference play yet were a bowl team. I think UW and ASU would beat Kansas or at very least be on par.

Texas Tech was a bowl team and they beat Navy. I think UW and ASU "could" compete with Texas Tech.

Arkansas was 4-4 in conference play and was a bowl team.
Missouri was 4-4 in conference play and was a bowl team.
Texas Tech was 4-4 in conference play and was a bowl team.
Washington was 4-4 in conference play and was NOT a bowl team.

Pac 10 had 1 team with 1 loss or less (rare thing for Pac 10 to have bottom dweller)
Arizona won 1 game in conference play and pulled big upset beating Washington.

Big 12 had 2 teams with 1 loss or less.
Iowa St. had zero wins in conference play.
Baylor had 1 win in conference play and not an upset.

SEC had 3 teams with only 1 win in conference play.
Kentucky, Miss. St. and Vandy and all their wins came against each other. EPITOME of bottom dwellers.

Play all 3 of these teams = 3 automatic wins and 3 weak OOC opponents and you already have 6 wins (bowl eligible). Add couple more w?s and you are a top 25 team. Get it? It is not hard to understand.

 

[Blackman]

Birdy



Not so weird. :nooo:

Take last year as an example.

Washington was 6-6 last year and did not go to a bowl game. (I am not saying UW was a great team) They lost their 1st game of year against Ohio St. and to Nevada (a bowl team I "think" but they were decent) If UW played ?Citadel? they would have won 7 games last year and would have been a bowl team without a doubt.



Pac 10 had 1 team with 1 loss or less (rare thing for Pac 10 to have bottom dweller)
Arizona won 1 game in conference play and pulled big upset beating Washington.

QUOTE]


I think you answered your own question about Washington. While it was a conference loss, that defeat to Arizona killed their slim bowl chances. That is one game they should have taken care of business and gotten that seventh win. No excuses for them on that loss in my opinion.

 

[mansa_musa]

I believe UW declined an invitation to a bowl. In defense of my boys, AZ was going to beat somebody in conf play. It just happened to be the Huskies. A winless team in Pac 10 play is rare.

 

[Scott4USC]

UCLA got the bowl bid over Washington last season. I don't "think" UW declined a bowl bid because they never were offered one. What bowl offered them? I do remember UW wanted the bowl game where UCLA was invited too which was pretty crappy to begin with. They were bummed about not getting selected over UCLA. Gilby wanted a bowl game to give his team extra practice since that was his first season @ UW. Pac 10 commissioner SUCKS! I hate the bowl contracts the Pac 10 are involved in.

Mansa, i have a gut feeling if UW plays poorly next year, Chow will become the head coach at UW!!!!!!!! Not sure you would want Chow as head coach though. I wouldn't but he makes one hell of an OC!!!!!!