.......................................................oldschoolcapper said:
the answer is USC sucks !
Thoughts on the 1st game of the year!
- Thread starter Scott4USC
- Start date
the answer is USC sucks !
man, theres alot of dislike for you scott!
considering i never read where you've insulted anyone personally, seems a bit undeserved...
oldschoolcapper,
v-tech played inspired ball and time will show hokies are a top 25 team with that qb.
anytime your ranked #1, your competition is going to give their best shot.
rankings are meaningless right now anyways, sc is good but probably not #1. lets see all teams before making predictions...
sc is right there in quality with all the schools you mentioned including your tigers... so lets hope we get a bowl match-up to finally determine this ongoing debate!
considering i never read where you've insulted anyone personally, seems a bit undeserved...
oldschoolcapper,
v-tech played inspired ball and time will show hokies are a top 25 team with that qb.
anytime your ranked #1, your competition is going to give their best shot.
rankings are meaningless right now anyways, sc is good but probably not #1. lets see all teams before making predictions...
sc is right there in quality with all the schools you mentioned including your tigers... so lets hope we get a bowl match-up to finally determine this ongoing debate!
oldschoolcapper
Go War Eagle! I am sure majority of the fans would rather open up with a cupcake and actually that is fine with me. I just won't put down a team who struggled in their first game on the road against a quality opponent. If UGA beats GA Southern by 50pts are you gonna say they should be #1? USC prepared themselves 2x more by playing V-Tech opening game on road vs playing cupcake (safer). Just my opinion.
dr. freeze
Lets see how any OL starting 3 new starters does against 8 men blitzing on every down.
At the end of the year, I will predict that this same OL you called a toilet will be one of the best in the nation. They are super talented and just gained more experience tonight. Oh by the way, they only gave up 2 sacks the whole game with V-Tech blitzing 8 men and Leinart not being mobile. Not too bad and they played decent in 2h. Decent enough for Leinart to go 11/13 and throw 2 TD passes!
If USC played OU tonight I think OU would have won by 20pts although OU does not have the mobile QB which is what really hurt USC defense tonight and maybe USC defense would have been even sharper knowing they are playing OU. OU is much much more experienced team right now and they would def. have beat USC and prob. by wide margin. I think OU is kicking themselves right now for not accepting USC invitation to play in the BCA classic. OU would have earned themselves a HUGE win! OU instead never said yes/no until after V-Tech accepted the invite to USC! Must be kicking themselves.
At the end of the year I think USC will have the upper hand because Carroll always improves his team each and every game. USC always plays their best ball at the end of the year. GL to your Sooners against North Texas! I really look forward to OU vs Oregon. Hopefully Oregon can make it a game.
johnnyb.
Thanks Johnnyb! I do not insult anyone personally and when I do get insulted I usually do not retaliate. The reason these people dislike me is because I state my opinion and back it up and they have nothing to counter it so they result name calling. All they keep doing is letting me know I have the upper hand every time they insult me. Good luck to your Bruins! I am actually rooting for FUCLA to go undefeated up until the USC game. Curious if you root against USC? BEAT Oklahoma St.!! Hope you do a write-up on that game.
Go War Eagle! I am sure majority of the fans would rather open up with a cupcake and actually that is fine with me. I just won't put down a team who struggled in their first game on the road against a quality opponent. If UGA beats GA Southern by 50pts are you gonna say they should be #1? USC prepared themselves 2x more by playing V-Tech opening game on road vs playing cupcake (safer). Just my opinion.
dr. freeze
Lets see how any OL starting 3 new starters does against 8 men blitzing on every down.
At the end of the year, I will predict that this same OL you called a toilet will be one of the best in the nation. They are super talented and just gained more experience tonight. Oh by the way, they only gave up 2 sacks the whole game with V-Tech blitzing 8 men and Leinart not being mobile. Not too bad and they played decent in 2h. Decent enough for Leinart to go 11/13 and throw 2 TD passes! If USC played OU tonight I think OU would have won by 20pts although OU does not have the mobile QB which is what really hurt USC defense tonight and maybe USC defense would have been even sharper knowing they are playing OU. OU is much much more experienced team right now and they would def. have beat USC and prob. by wide margin. I think OU is kicking themselves right now for not accepting USC invitation to play in the BCA classic. OU would have earned themselves a HUGE win! OU instead never said yes/no until after V-Tech accepted the invite to USC! Must be kicking themselves.
At the end of the year I think USC will have the upper hand because Carroll always improves his team each and every game. USC always plays their best ball at the end of the year. GL to your Sooners against North Texas! I really look forward to OU vs Oregon. Hopefully Oregon can make it a game.
johnnyb.
Thanks Johnnyb! I do not insult anyone personally and when I do get insulted I usually do not retaliate. The reason these people dislike me is because I state my opinion and back it up and they have nothing to counter it so they result name calling. All they keep doing is letting me know I have the upper hand every time they insult me. Good luck to your Bruins! I am actually rooting for FUCLA to go undefeated up until the USC game. Curious if you root against USC? BEAT Oklahoma St.!! Hope you do a write-up on that game.
Last edited:
An Honest Attempt to Communicate, Concluded with Malicious Ramblings
An Honest Attempt to Communicate, Concluded with Malicious Ramblings
This is simply my attempt to explain and in some ways justify the anti- PAC-10 sentiment expressed by a large contingent of college football fans and to a certain extent, the sportswriters and most certainly, me. It is motivated by my recent reading of the MANY posts regarding the bias against the PAC-10 that have appeared here in the last several months.
Before we start, let?s get one thing clear ? the football team from the private university on the edge of Watts is Southern Cal. The students might attend USC, but in football terms, USC is where the Gamecocks catch the bus ? just ask Keith Jackson if you don?t believe me.
Now that I?ve got you riled?
The reason that the PAC-10 tends to get little respect has absolutely nothing to do with the talent of the teams this year, nor last year, nor any year in particular. I think it is the result of 4 things.
1. The PAC-10 has never produced an undisputed National Champ. When a conference cannot produce clear champions, it may get less respect than it deserves. Now it?s true that that PAC-8 produced 3 champs, and guess what ? they were all Southern Cal. Picky, I know, but important because it shows that perspective in this argument MUST pre-date MTV.
2. When a conference is dominated by one team, that conference might tend to lose a little respect. Okay, okay, UCLA (of the Pacific Coast Conference) did win it all in 1954, and before that, Cal (also of the PCC) had strong teams in 1920 and 1921. But other than those 2 schools in those 3 years, it has been Southern Cal or bust as far as undisputed titles go for the teams that currently make up the PAC-10. Remember, the Big East of the 1990?s did not get a lot of respect either, in spite of how dominating Miami was during those years.
3. When a conference puts itself in a position of not having a chance for its champ to play the other top teams during the bowl season, it tends to get overshadowed. This is exactly what the PAC-8/10 and the Big 10 did with their (pre-BCS) Rose Bowl agreement for so many years. For whatever reasons, for years the Rose Bowl match-ups seemed largely irrelevant. I didn?t get the parade, I didn?t get the weather and (in the glory days when the big bowls were played on New Year?s Day) I usually found more compelling and important game on a different channel. And if you want to talk about a team getting robbed, look at what happened to Penn State right after they joined the Big-10, simply because of that stupid Rose Bowl agreement.
4. When a conference has multiple teams that win it all, it will probably tend to get a lot of credit. Since 1970 (I have to pick some date, and I don?t think this one unfair since it includes several popular choices for the greatest teams of all time, does not favor the SEC, and does bring in Southern Cal. 1980 would make the SEC look better, but give the PAC-10 no undisputed championships), the SEC has produced 5 different National Champs, for a total of 7 undisputed titles. Only Southern Cal in the PAC-8 won an undisputed title (2, in fact). The other conferences faired about the same. The Big East produced champs with 1 program (Miami ? Pitt wasn?t in the football Big East when it won), the ACC had 2 teams (Florida State and Clemson), the Big-8/12 won with 2 teams (Nebraska and Oklahoma). Even the WAC managed to sneak 1 in with BYU. Independents pulled in a couple with Penn State and Notre Dame. The Big 10 was able to produce one (Michigan).
These are the 4 major reasons that I think that the SEC tends to get so much hype as being The Conference and why the PAC-10 (and Big East and Big 12 and the ACC of a few years ago) tends to not get as much credit as they might deserve in any particular year. As we all know, the SEC has its perennial bottom feeders, but it also has a group of 6 teams that anyone legal in Vegas can remember as having Top 10 teams for sustained periods. That is hard to do for other conferences.
Now, once we get to the bowl season, it?s hard to say that the PAC-10 doesn?t get more than its fair share of respect. Since 2000, no one has received more BCS bowl invites (6, along with the Big-10 and Big-12). And only the SEC has won as many BCS bowls ? 4 (for an eye-opener, take a look at ACC performance in BCS bowls over the same period). But here, we run into the same old problem of PAC-10/Big-10 inbreeding. Three of the 4 PAC-10 BCS wins have come against the Big-10 and half of the games have been at the Rose Bowl. This hardly invalidates the performances, but it does play to existing prejudices.
So here is what I think. I think that if we randomly choose some future season, the SEC will be more likely to produce the National Champ than the PAC-10. I have no idea what the teams or conferences will look like then, but based on the only info I?ve got, I?ll take the SEC. Would anyone really want to (unemotionally) take the PAC-10 at even money? Here?s another bet, this time only considering PAC-10 teams that win the National Championship in future years (say, after the current Southern Cal squad has graduated). I?ll take Southern Cal and my opponent can have the rest of the conference. Maybe not quite as good a bet, but you get my point.
This brings to an end my semi-lucid comments. I know I feel better now. Except if I have to correct an error or defend my mother?s honor, I?m done with this. If I offended anyone, I?m sorry and was only trying to give certain poor souls a glimpse at THE TRUTH that apparently only I have access to and which becomes clearer to me and louder to others with strong drink.
I will now conclude with non-lucid, mean-spirited rantings that are my opinions only and that I may take back at any time that it appears that I might have been wrong or hasty. 1. Virginia Tech is not any better than we thought they were last Friday, even though they seemed to be able to play with Southern Cal. They are middle of the pack in the ACC. 2. Southern Cal is okay and so is Matt Leinart, but if their vaunted coaching staff insists on wacky game plans like the VaTech one, they may not get a chance to defend their PAC-10 title, much less their ?championship?. 3. In the coming months, Southern Cal will become more and more successful on offense, protecting Leinart and rushing impressively. This will be hailed as the offensive line gelling. Do not be fooled ? it will simply be the product of who they are playing. 4. Before the BCS, there was no sanctioned mechanism to decide who the Div I-A Champ was. Polls were all we had, so we followed them, and in recent years, the AP and UPI/ESPN/COACHESetc polls were our favorites. Now we have a mechanism that all of the conferences agreed on ? the winner of the BCS championship bowl. For the same reason that Al Gore winning the popular election didn?t make him President, Southern Cal winning the AP poll doesn?t make them National Champs ? that?s just not how we choose our winners these days (in spite of what the tee-shirts and the sportswriting voters in the AP say).
An Honest Attempt to Communicate, Concluded with Malicious Ramblings
This is simply my attempt to explain and in some ways justify the anti- PAC-10 sentiment expressed by a large contingent of college football fans and to a certain extent, the sportswriters and most certainly, me. It is motivated by my recent reading of the MANY posts regarding the bias against the PAC-10 that have appeared here in the last several months.
Before we start, let?s get one thing clear ? the football team from the private university on the edge of Watts is Southern Cal. The students might attend USC, but in football terms, USC is where the Gamecocks catch the bus ? just ask Keith Jackson if you don?t believe me.
Now that I?ve got you riled?
The reason that the PAC-10 tends to get little respect has absolutely nothing to do with the talent of the teams this year, nor last year, nor any year in particular. I think it is the result of 4 things.
1. The PAC-10 has never produced an undisputed National Champ. When a conference cannot produce clear champions, it may get less respect than it deserves. Now it?s true that that PAC-8 produced 3 champs, and guess what ? they were all Southern Cal. Picky, I know, but important because it shows that perspective in this argument MUST pre-date MTV.
2. When a conference is dominated by one team, that conference might tend to lose a little respect. Okay, okay, UCLA (of the Pacific Coast Conference) did win it all in 1954, and before that, Cal (also of the PCC) had strong teams in 1920 and 1921. But other than those 2 schools in those 3 years, it has been Southern Cal or bust as far as undisputed titles go for the teams that currently make up the PAC-10. Remember, the Big East of the 1990?s did not get a lot of respect either, in spite of how dominating Miami was during those years.
3. When a conference puts itself in a position of not having a chance for its champ to play the other top teams during the bowl season, it tends to get overshadowed. This is exactly what the PAC-8/10 and the Big 10 did with their (pre-BCS) Rose Bowl agreement for so many years. For whatever reasons, for years the Rose Bowl match-ups seemed largely irrelevant. I didn?t get the parade, I didn?t get the weather and (in the glory days when the big bowls were played on New Year?s Day) I usually found more compelling and important game on a different channel. And if you want to talk about a team getting robbed, look at what happened to Penn State right after they joined the Big-10, simply because of that stupid Rose Bowl agreement.
4. When a conference has multiple teams that win it all, it will probably tend to get a lot of credit. Since 1970 (I have to pick some date, and I don?t think this one unfair since it includes several popular choices for the greatest teams of all time, does not favor the SEC, and does bring in Southern Cal. 1980 would make the SEC look better, but give the PAC-10 no undisputed championships), the SEC has produced 5 different National Champs, for a total of 7 undisputed titles. Only Southern Cal in the PAC-8 won an undisputed title (2, in fact). The other conferences faired about the same. The Big East produced champs with 1 program (Miami ? Pitt wasn?t in the football Big East when it won), the ACC had 2 teams (Florida State and Clemson), the Big-8/12 won with 2 teams (Nebraska and Oklahoma). Even the WAC managed to sneak 1 in with BYU. Independents pulled in a couple with Penn State and Notre Dame. The Big 10 was able to produce one (Michigan).
These are the 4 major reasons that I think that the SEC tends to get so much hype as being The Conference and why the PAC-10 (and Big East and Big 12 and the ACC of a few years ago) tends to not get as much credit as they might deserve in any particular year. As we all know, the SEC has its perennial bottom feeders, but it also has a group of 6 teams that anyone legal in Vegas can remember as having Top 10 teams for sustained periods. That is hard to do for other conferences.
Now, once we get to the bowl season, it?s hard to say that the PAC-10 doesn?t get more than its fair share of respect. Since 2000, no one has received more BCS bowl invites (6, along with the Big-10 and Big-12). And only the SEC has won as many BCS bowls ? 4 (for an eye-opener, take a look at ACC performance in BCS bowls over the same period). But here, we run into the same old problem of PAC-10/Big-10 inbreeding. Three of the 4 PAC-10 BCS wins have come against the Big-10 and half of the games have been at the Rose Bowl. This hardly invalidates the performances, but it does play to existing prejudices.
So here is what I think. I think that if we randomly choose some future season, the SEC will be more likely to produce the National Champ than the PAC-10. I have no idea what the teams or conferences will look like then, but based on the only info I?ve got, I?ll take the SEC. Would anyone really want to (unemotionally) take the PAC-10 at even money? Here?s another bet, this time only considering PAC-10 teams that win the National Championship in future years (say, after the current Southern Cal squad has graduated). I?ll take Southern Cal and my opponent can have the rest of the conference. Maybe not quite as good a bet, but you get my point.
This brings to an end my semi-lucid comments. I know I feel better now. Except if I have to correct an error or defend my mother?s honor, I?m done with this. If I offended anyone, I?m sorry and was only trying to give certain poor souls a glimpse at THE TRUTH that apparently only I have access to and which becomes clearer to me and louder to others with strong drink.
I will now conclude with non-lucid, mean-spirited rantings that are my opinions only and that I may take back at any time that it appears that I might have been wrong or hasty. 1. Virginia Tech is not any better than we thought they were last Friday, even though they seemed to be able to play with Southern Cal. They are middle of the pack in the ACC. 2. Southern Cal is okay and so is Matt Leinart, but if their vaunted coaching staff insists on wacky game plans like the VaTech one, they may not get a chance to defend their PAC-10 title, much less their ?championship?. 3. In the coming months, Southern Cal will become more and more successful on offense, protecting Leinart and rushing impressively. This will be hailed as the offensive line gelling. Do not be fooled ? it will simply be the product of who they are playing. 4. Before the BCS, there was no sanctioned mechanism to decide who the Div I-A Champ was. Polls were all we had, so we followed them, and in recent years, the AP and UPI/ESPN/COACHESetc polls were our favorites. Now we have a mechanism that all of the conferences agreed on ? the winner of the BCS championship bowl. For the same reason that Al Gore winning the popular election didn?t make him President, Southern Cal winning the AP poll doesn?t make them National Champs ? that?s just not how we choose our winners these days (in spite of what the tee-shirts and the sportswriting voters in the AP say).
StuckinNJ since you brought up this "issue" I am going to take part in it as well. I am not attacking you I am merely disagreeing with you and explaining why I disagree with you. So do not take any offense.
SEC - Is it really so tough to play in that conference?
Looks to me like they have four teams that are perennial losers since 1990:
Florida .846 99-18, 14 winning seasons, 6 conference titles.
Tennessee .770 86-25-2, 14 winning seasons, 3 conference titles.
Alabama .639 73-41-1, 9 winning seasons, 2 conference titles.
Georgia .576 64-47-1, 9 winning seasons, 1 conference title.
Auburn .558 61-48-3, 9 winning seasons, 0 conference titles.
LSU .496 55-56-1 (What? They have a LOSING record?) 7 winning seasons, 2 conference titles.
Mississippi .455 50-60, 3 winning seasons, 0 conference titles.
Arkansas .447 50-62-2, 4 winning seasons, 0 conference titles.
Mississippi State .392 43-67-1, 4 winning seasons, 0 conference titles.
South Carolina .349 33-62-1, 2 winning seasons , 0 conference titles.
Kentucky .264 29-81, 0 winning seasons, 0 conference titles.
Vanderbilt .136 15-95, 0 winning seasons, 0 conference titles.
Out of 14 seasons only 5 teams have won the title (9 between Tennessee and Florida) You have Florida and Tennessee to worry about and every once in a while Georgia, Alabama and Auburn. LSU has gotten hot only recently and actually has a LOSING conference record during this period. The six other teams all pretty much populate the lower end of the standings year in and year out. MSU, Kentucky S Carolina and Vandy are with rare exception an easy win. Now what's this crap about "Our conference is so tough we HAVE to schedule weak OOC teams?" Gimme a break!
Compare the PAC 10
Washington .710 79-32-1, 10 winning seasons, 3 conf titles, 2 conf co-titles.
USC .598 66-44-2, 9 winning seasons, 1 conf title, 3 conf co-titles.
Oregon .568 63-48, 8 winning seasons, 2 conf titles, 1 conf co-title.
UCLA .554 62-50, 4 winning seasons, 1 conf title, 2 conf co-titles.
Stanford .491 55-57, 6 winning seasons, 1 conf title, 1 conf co-title.
Arizona State .486 54-57, 4 winning seasons, 1 conf title.
Arizona .465 52-60-1, 4 winning seasons, 1 conf co-title.
Washington State .464 52-60, 6 winning seasons, 2 conf co-titles.
California .379 42-69-1, 2 winning seasons, 0 conf titles.
Oregon State .284 31-79-1, 1 winning season, 1 conf co-title.
Since 1990, every team in the PAC 10 except Cal has either won or tied for the conference title. :clap:
90% of PAC 10 teams have won a conference title since 1990.
41% of SEC teams have won a conference title since 1990.
The PAC 10 is a more balanced conference, while the SEC is more two tiered, with some really good teams at top and some really bad ones at the bottom.
What makes the Pac 10 look weaker is its parity. Any team can beat the other on any day and that seems to happen. So great records are more difficult. At this time USC is the exception as it has risen to another level.
This is the difference between the two conferences; in the PAC every team is a threat to win on a given Saturday, however, in the SEC only a couple of teams pose a "serious" threat".
If one conference has BALANCE and PARITY THROUGHOUT it's entirety, it is safe to say it is a TOUGHER conference than one that has only a couple of "serious" threats.
So I guess that answers the initial question. SEC - Is it really so tough to play in that conference?
The answer- NO!
SEC - Is it really so tough to play in that conference?
Looks to me like they have four teams that are perennial losers since 1990:
Florida .846 99-18, 14 winning seasons, 6 conference titles.
Tennessee .770 86-25-2, 14 winning seasons, 3 conference titles.
Alabama .639 73-41-1, 9 winning seasons, 2 conference titles.
Georgia .576 64-47-1, 9 winning seasons, 1 conference title.
Auburn .558 61-48-3, 9 winning seasons, 0 conference titles.
LSU .496 55-56-1 (What? They have a LOSING record?) 7 winning seasons, 2 conference titles.
Mississippi .455 50-60, 3 winning seasons, 0 conference titles.
Arkansas .447 50-62-2, 4 winning seasons, 0 conference titles.
Mississippi State .392 43-67-1, 4 winning seasons, 0 conference titles.
South Carolina .349 33-62-1, 2 winning seasons , 0 conference titles.
Kentucky .264 29-81, 0 winning seasons, 0 conference titles.
Vanderbilt .136 15-95, 0 winning seasons, 0 conference titles.
Out of 14 seasons only 5 teams have won the title (9 between Tennessee and Florida) You have Florida and Tennessee to worry about and every once in a while Georgia, Alabama and Auburn. LSU has gotten hot only recently and actually has a LOSING conference record during this period. The six other teams all pretty much populate the lower end of the standings year in and year out. MSU, Kentucky S Carolina and Vandy are with rare exception an easy win. Now what's this crap about "Our conference is so tough we HAVE to schedule weak OOC teams?" Gimme a break!
Compare the PAC 10
Washington .710 79-32-1, 10 winning seasons, 3 conf titles, 2 conf co-titles.
USC .598 66-44-2, 9 winning seasons, 1 conf title, 3 conf co-titles.
Oregon .568 63-48, 8 winning seasons, 2 conf titles, 1 conf co-title.
UCLA .554 62-50, 4 winning seasons, 1 conf title, 2 conf co-titles.
Stanford .491 55-57, 6 winning seasons, 1 conf title, 1 conf co-title.
Arizona State .486 54-57, 4 winning seasons, 1 conf title.
Arizona .465 52-60-1, 4 winning seasons, 1 conf co-title.
Washington State .464 52-60, 6 winning seasons, 2 conf co-titles.
California .379 42-69-1, 2 winning seasons, 0 conf titles.
Oregon State .284 31-79-1, 1 winning season, 1 conf co-title.
Since 1990, every team in the PAC 10 except Cal has either won or tied for the conference title. :clap:
90% of PAC 10 teams have won a conference title since 1990.
41% of SEC teams have won a conference title since 1990.
The PAC 10 is a more balanced conference, while the SEC is more two tiered, with some really good teams at top and some really bad ones at the bottom.
What makes the Pac 10 look weaker is its parity. Any team can beat the other on any day and that seems to happen. So great records are more difficult. At this time USC is the exception as it has risen to another level.
This is the difference between the two conferences; in the PAC every team is a threat to win on a given Saturday, however, in the SEC only a couple of teams pose a "serious" threat".
If one conference has BALANCE and PARITY THROUGHOUT it's entirety, it is safe to say it is a TOUGHER conference than one that has only a couple of "serious" threats.
So I guess that answers the initial question. SEC - Is it really so tough to play in that conference?
The answer- NO!
Last edited:
Amazing, but True SEC factoid
In 71 years of SEC football there have been 56 teams that have gone undefeated in conference play. That is an undefeated team per every 1.27 SEC seasons......and folks, 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.
Ya know why the SEC won't go on the road and play anybody ??????? Cause they get spanked.
That conference has built it's phony superiority 'myth' on home 'rent-a-win' games vs cupcakes.
Supporting factoid : Since 1998 the SEC is 10 -21 in regular season road games vs other BCS teams...and 4 ( 40%) of those road wins came at Indiana and Duke.
The SEC has averaged 1.66 road wins vs it's BCS peers per season since 1998. That's both cowardly and pitiful. SEC fans should never knock the PAC10. The P10 has bigger balls than the SEC.
When SEC teams go undefeated in conference play it's an indication that they are great teams.
When teams go undefeated in other conferences it's an indication of soft competition.
Good ol' SEC mythology
Still want to use National Championships won as a deciding factor on Strength of conferences? I do not think so. BTW, SEC has 12 teams so you should talk about all 12 team and not just 1 team winning a title in any given year. Think about it. You brought up strength of conferences so you must talk about the whole conference! Not just certain teams. That is why National Championships is not a great criteria to use to determine strength of conferences. Understand?
In my arguments I talk about every team in each conference. I also back up my opinion with data supporting it!
How many fans across the nation will understand this? Not too many! That is why the Pac 10 does not get the respect they deserve. These are all facts I have posted but how many people actually know this information?
In 71 years of SEC football there have been 56 teams that have gone undefeated in conference play. That is an undefeated team per every 1.27 SEC seasons......and folks, 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.
Ya know why the SEC won't go on the road and play anybody ??????? Cause they get spanked.
That conference has built it's phony superiority 'myth' on home 'rent-a-win' games vs cupcakes.
Supporting factoid : Since 1998 the SEC is 10 -21 in regular season road games vs other BCS teams...and 4 ( 40%) of those road wins came at Indiana and Duke.
The SEC has averaged 1.66 road wins vs it's BCS peers per season since 1998. That's both cowardly and pitiful. SEC fans should never knock the PAC10. The P10 has bigger balls than the SEC.
When SEC teams go undefeated in conference play it's an indication that they are great teams.
When teams go undefeated in other conferences it's an indication of soft competition.
Good ol' SEC mythology
Still want to use National Championships won as a deciding factor on Strength of conferences? I do not think so. BTW, SEC has 12 teams so you should talk about all 12 team and not just 1 team winning a title in any given year. Think about it. You brought up strength of conferences so you must talk about the whole conference! Not just certain teams. That is why National Championships is not a great criteria to use to determine strength of conferences. Understand?
In my arguments I talk about every team in each conference. I also back up my opinion with data supporting it!
How many fans across the nation will understand this? Not too many! That is why the Pac 10 does not get the respect they deserve. These are all facts I have posted but how many people actually know this information?
Last edited:
I can't believe that USC game! You will see a real team preform Sat night. LSU V. Ore ST. I love how ESPN shows the 2 best teams back to back weeks so the public can evaluate who is the better team. USC only recieved 1st place votes last year because coaches were upset at the BCS system and I agree the system sucks. What you cannot deny is LSU's achievement is so much bigger than USC's. LSU started the season #13 USC started top 5 and beat an overrated Auburn team. USC played an inferior schedule in an inferior conference- the pathetic-10 conference! The media darlings only had to beat CAL to be in the national champ game, LSU had to beat Georgia twice! LSU and USC had 2 common opponents Arizona and Auburn in both cases LSU won by more points. Enough said! That was last year. USC did not impress against VA tech but got bailed out by poor calls. You will see defense Sat in Death Valley. USC is like the Yankees they have a ton of stars take all the talent out of the west and punish all the pathetic teams in that conference. SEC teams beat each other up all season then have to play a team that advanced thru a soft schedule. I am tired of USC and hearing about them every day. To quote Melvin Oliver "people are going to start respecting LSU or we are going to hit them in the mouth."
#1 LSU FAN
:142lmao: What a fair comparison. :142lmao: Isn't LSU playing at home? You should just hope LSU beats Oregon St. and improve their conf. recent pathetic record against the "pathetic" Pac 10. Stop being jealous of USC & their fortunes and worry about your own teams performance. Be happy with your split National Championship, your team earned it. I believe it is LSU's 2nd NC while USC earned their 10th last year. It is a new season and good luck to your team.
You are too funny!
Jeff Sagarin NCAA football ratings
USC SOS #19
LSU SOS #28
BCS SOS Rankings
LSU #29
USC #37
LSU was lucky the BCS SOS did not factor in their win over Div 1aa opponent. LSU only finished .16 BCS pts higher than USC. How could that be if LSU plays in such a superior conf.?
:142lmao:
Lets see, LSU played Auburn at home and USC opened the season @Auburn with a brand new QB and backfield. Didn't USC shut out Auburn?Yep fair comparison. USC beat Arizona 45-0 while LSU beat Arizona 59-13. I guess that 1pt difference sure means a lot to you. You gotta love the way LSU fans rationalize things.
If that is true then please explain why so many teams come out undefeated in conference play? :142lmao:
#1 LSU FAN I see you conveniently ignored my previous 2 posts in this thread. I guess you had no choice since I posted facts that were against your conference.
Good luck handicapping this season and I wish LSU all the luck to win the SEC. They have some very tough conf. road games this year and are breaking in a new QB.
After you beat Troy St. this year you can honestly say "look we were better than the Trojans." Also want to wish LSU luck against Arkansas St.
:142lmao: What a fair comparison. :142lmao: Isn't LSU playing at home? You should just hope LSU beats Oregon St. and improve their conf. recent pathetic record against the "pathetic" Pac 10. Stop being jealous of USC & their fortunes and worry about your own teams performance. Be happy with your split National Championship, your team earned it. I believe it is LSU's 2nd NC while USC earned their 10th last year. It is a new season and good luck to your team.
You are too funny! Jeff Sagarin NCAA football ratings
USC SOS #19
LSU SOS #28
BCS SOS Rankings
LSU #29
USC #37
LSU was lucky the BCS SOS did not factor in their win over Div 1aa opponent. LSU only finished .16 BCS pts higher than USC. How could that be if LSU plays in such a superior conf.?
:142lmao:
Lets see, LSU played Auburn at home and USC opened the season @Auburn with a brand new QB and backfield. Didn't USC shut out Auburn?Yep fair comparison. USC beat Arizona 45-0 while LSU beat Arizona 59-13. I guess that 1pt difference sure means a lot to you.
You gotta love the way LSU fans rationalize things. If that is true then please explain why so many teams come out undefeated in conference play? :142lmao:
#1 LSU FAN I see you conveniently ignored my previous 2 posts in this thread. I guess you had no choice since I posted facts that were against your conference.
Good luck handicapping this season and I wish LSU all the luck to win the SEC. They have some very tough conf. road games this year and are breaking in a new QB.
After you beat Troy St. this year you can honestly say "look we were better than the Trojans." Also want to wish LSU luck against Arkansas St.
Last edited:
About your Claims as to the Price of Tea in China
About your Claims as to the Price of Tea in China
I think you mixed up my post with another. I did not claim that the SEC was tougher to play in, tougher to ?run the table in?, or had more balance. Furthermore, I did not talk about going undefeated as a sign of strength (of the team) nor weakness (of the conference or schedule). As usual, I agree with nearly everything you said, but I think you navigated your way home from a great distance only to pull into the wrong driveway.
The fact that the conference championships have been so widely distributed is incredible and something that every other conference should aspire to. There is no excuse, for example, in allowing perennial whipping-boys like Kentucky and Vandy to remain at that level and in the league. But in my opinion, you take a logical misstep when you seem to imply that this makes the PAC-10 a stronger conference in terms of producing top-quality teams. It probably does in some years and probably doesn?t in others. Clearly finding balance in the SEC by everyone settling to the Kentucky/Vandy level would not make the conference stronger.
My point was that, in terms of undisputed championships won since 1970, the PAC-10 appears to be about level with every other conference except the SEC. On the other hand, the SEC seems to be significantly better in producing different teams as champions. There is nothing magical about 1970, most any random date will do. This is a simplistic, yet (I think) the prevalent way of analyzing things without actually looking at any data. I believe that this is a major factor in why the PAC-10 is viewed the way that it is.
I think that it would be fair to say that if we picked a random year out of the last several decades, there is a better chance that an SEC team won the title than a PAC-8/10 team. Furthermore, I think that if a PAC-8/10 team did win that year, there is a good chance that it was Southern Cal. That is how perceptions are shaped. You are saying that the perceptions are wrong. I disagree if we are talking about any significant length of time, but you are clearly correct if we focus on the past few years. The PAC-10 has the number 1 conference rating of this decade (2000-2003). Unfortunately, they were 5th in the 90?s and 80?s, 3rd in the 70?s and 4th in the 60?s ? and ranked behind the SEC every decade. Again, this is what leads to the perception that the PAC-10 is not as strong.
I think that by the time you got around to your second post, you were real mad, so I?m not going to say much except that you gave counterpoint to a bunch of arguments I did not make. I will specifically grant one thing though ? the ooc schedules of SEC teams are an embarrassment. It did not use to be this way. Alabama used to have Penn State and Notre Dame on its schedule, Florida and Miami used to play every year, as did Arkansas and Texas. Again, perceptions have been built based on something that is not necessarily true any more. I will say, though, I would not consider the substitution of most MWC or any WAC opponents as a solution to the problem.
So here we go, by the means used to select the national champions over the past 10, 20, 30, 40? years, the SEC has produced more championships or shares of championships than any other conference and (unless you look REAL closely) has had more different teams win championships than any other conference. The PAC-10, except for 3 isolated years long ago, has only occasionally produced the champ and only then when Southern Cal was able to pull it off.
You are upset because your conference is not getting the credit, but this is exactly the same thing that happened to the Big-8, which for years consisted, for all appearances, of only Oklahoma and Nebraska, and to the Big East, which truly only consisted of Miami and for a short while to the ACC, right after FSU joined. Many fans have carried your torch before. Remember, the region covered by the SEC does not dominate the print or television sports media and never has. What you refer to as ?myths? might indeed simply be propaganda, but it does not originate in the Southeast. While we may believe it, we could not perpetuate it by ourselves. And it is probably more objective than the self-analysis coming out of the media centers in the Northeast, Midwest and West Coast.
Maybe things are changing and the PAC-10 will continue what it has started in the last few years. But until they have been able to do it for a decade or two, you will probably just have to accept that others do not hold the conference in as high a regard as you do.
About your Claims as to the Price of Tea in China
I think you mixed up my post with another. I did not claim that the SEC was tougher to play in, tougher to ?run the table in?, or had more balance. Furthermore, I did not talk about going undefeated as a sign of strength (of the team) nor weakness (of the conference or schedule). As usual, I agree with nearly everything you said, but I think you navigated your way home from a great distance only to pull into the wrong driveway.
The fact that the conference championships have been so widely distributed is incredible and something that every other conference should aspire to. There is no excuse, for example, in allowing perennial whipping-boys like Kentucky and Vandy to remain at that level and in the league. But in my opinion, you take a logical misstep when you seem to imply that this makes the PAC-10 a stronger conference in terms of producing top-quality teams. It probably does in some years and probably doesn?t in others. Clearly finding balance in the SEC by everyone settling to the Kentucky/Vandy level would not make the conference stronger.
My point was that, in terms of undisputed championships won since 1970, the PAC-10 appears to be about level with every other conference except the SEC. On the other hand, the SEC seems to be significantly better in producing different teams as champions. There is nothing magical about 1970, most any random date will do. This is a simplistic, yet (I think) the prevalent way of analyzing things without actually looking at any data. I believe that this is a major factor in why the PAC-10 is viewed the way that it is.
I think that it would be fair to say that if we picked a random year out of the last several decades, there is a better chance that an SEC team won the title than a PAC-8/10 team. Furthermore, I think that if a PAC-8/10 team did win that year, there is a good chance that it was Southern Cal. That is how perceptions are shaped. You are saying that the perceptions are wrong. I disagree if we are talking about any significant length of time, but you are clearly correct if we focus on the past few years. The PAC-10 has the number 1 conference rating of this decade (2000-2003). Unfortunately, they were 5th in the 90?s and 80?s, 3rd in the 70?s and 4th in the 60?s ? and ranked behind the SEC every decade. Again, this is what leads to the perception that the PAC-10 is not as strong.
I think that by the time you got around to your second post, you were real mad, so I?m not going to say much except that you gave counterpoint to a bunch of arguments I did not make. I will specifically grant one thing though ? the ooc schedules of SEC teams are an embarrassment. It did not use to be this way. Alabama used to have Penn State and Notre Dame on its schedule, Florida and Miami used to play every year, as did Arkansas and Texas. Again, perceptions have been built based on something that is not necessarily true any more. I will say, though, I would not consider the substitution of most MWC or any WAC opponents as a solution to the problem.
So here we go, by the means used to select the national champions over the past 10, 20, 30, 40? years, the SEC has produced more championships or shares of championships than any other conference and (unless you look REAL closely) has had more different teams win championships than any other conference. The PAC-10, except for 3 isolated years long ago, has only occasionally produced the champ and only then when Southern Cal was able to pull it off.
You are upset because your conference is not getting the credit, but this is exactly the same thing that happened to the Big-8, which for years consisted, for all appearances, of only Oklahoma and Nebraska, and to the Big East, which truly only consisted of Miami and for a short while to the ACC, right after FSU joined. Many fans have carried your torch before. Remember, the region covered by the SEC does not dominate the print or television sports media and never has. What you refer to as ?myths? might indeed simply be propaganda, but it does not originate in the Southeast. While we may believe it, we could not perpetuate it by ourselves. And it is probably more objective than the self-analysis coming out of the media centers in the Northeast, Midwest and West Coast.
Maybe things are changing and the PAC-10 will continue what it has started in the last few years. But until they have been able to do it for a decade or two, you will probably just have to accept that others do not hold the conference in as high a regard as you do.
StuckinNJ very good post and enjoyed reading it. I am glad you agree with me on certain points and I think I agreed with everything you said in this last post of yours.
I am a fan of the SEC and love watching the teams play. I obviously am not a fan of watching the SEC OOC games but you get my point. Glad you agree the SEC OOC is a joke.
I am glad you aknowledge the Pac 10 being the #1 conf. from 2000-2003. Without a doubt the SEC has been better than the Pac 10 before that. That has been my arguments on this board and posters here refuse to believe it. Glad I have been finally able to find a knowledgeable SEC fan to interact with!
I agree that most dis-respect the Pac 10 and actually that is fine with me since I been able to profit from that. On here at madjacks I enjoy debating and talking college football and this is a very very hot topic across college football.
Sorry for the misunderstandings and again I was not putting you down or insulting you. Just merely showing why SEC is not superior in recent history. I explained why it is a false to think so and I also explained why there has been so many SEC National Championships. It simply is not hard to go undefeated in conf. play in the SEC and since the SEC schedules WEAK OOC opponents you have a good shot at getting a National Championship!
BTW, USC has won an undisputed NC since 1970!
Oh yeah, I disagree with you thinking USC was not co-national champs last year. You pretty much have no argument since the AP was part of the BCS but the AP NEVER had an agreement to vote the BCS NC game winner the NC. Coaches poll is not better or more worthy than the AP poll and that is a fact. LSU did not win the AP but the coaches and only won the coaches poll because they were FORCED to vote LSU #1. Coaches had USC #1 prior. LSU and USC both earned their National Championships and neither one is worth more.
I am a fan of the SEC and love watching the teams play. I obviously am not a fan of watching the SEC OOC games but you get my point. Glad you agree the SEC OOC is a joke.
I am glad you aknowledge the Pac 10 being the #1 conf. from 2000-2003. Without a doubt the SEC has been better than the Pac 10 before that. That has been my arguments on this board and posters here refuse to believe it. Glad I have been finally able to find a knowledgeable SEC fan to interact with!
I agree that most dis-respect the Pac 10 and actually that is fine with me since I been able to profit from that. On here at madjacks I enjoy debating and talking college football and this is a very very hot topic across college football.
Sorry for the misunderstandings and again I was not putting you down or insulting you. Just merely showing why SEC is not superior in recent history. I explained why it is a false to think so and I also explained why there has been so many SEC National Championships. It simply is not hard to go undefeated in conf. play in the SEC and since the SEC schedules WEAK OOC opponents you have a good shot at getting a National Championship!
BTW, USC has won an undisputed NC since 1970!
Oh yeah, I disagree with you thinking USC was not co-national champs last year. You pretty much have no argument since the AP was part of the BCS but the AP NEVER had an agreement to vote the BCS NC game winner the NC. Coaches poll is not better or more worthy than the AP poll and that is a fact. LSU did not win the AP but the coaches and only won the coaches poll because they were FORCED to vote LSU #1. Coaches had USC #1 prior. LSU and USC both earned their National Championships and neither one is worth more.
Last edited:
Footnote Regarding Delusionality(?) is Delusional
Footnote Regarding Delusionality(?) is Delusional
Your statement
I will always wonder how a conference (Pac 10) that has more BCS appearances than any other conference since 2000 isn't considered one of the strongest. Facts are usually not enough for the delusional!
is not fact. If you change it to say
I will always wonder how a conference (Pac 10) that has the second most BCS appearances (3 tied for 2nd) of all conferences over the period 2000-2004 isn't considered one of the strongest...
you will be correct.
Unless you mean starting with the bowl games following the 2000 season, in which case you could say
I will always wonder how a conference (Pac 10) that has just as many BCS appearances as the Big-10 and the Big-12 over period starting after the 2000 season isn't considered one of the strongest...
That would do it too. Or, if you meant since 2000 to mean beginning with the 2001 season, you could say
I will always wonder how a conference (Pac 10) that has just as many BCS bowl appearances and only one less BCS bowl win than the SEC...
Footnote Regarding Delusionality(?) is Delusional
Your statement
I will always wonder how a conference (Pac 10) that has more BCS appearances than any other conference since 2000 isn't considered one of the strongest. Facts are usually not enough for the delusional!
is not fact. If you change it to say
I will always wonder how a conference (Pac 10) that has the second most BCS appearances (3 tied for 2nd) of all conferences over the period 2000-2004 isn't considered one of the strongest...
you will be correct.
Unless you mean starting with the bowl games following the 2000 season, in which case you could say
I will always wonder how a conference (Pac 10) that has just as many BCS appearances as the Big-10 and the Big-12 over period starting after the 2000 season isn't considered one of the strongest...
That would do it too. Or, if you meant since 2000 to mean beginning with the 2001 season, you could say
I will always wonder how a conference (Pac 10) that has just as many BCS bowl appearances and only one less BCS bowl win than the SEC...
About that last claim
About that last claim
I divided my first post into two sections. The reasonable, fairly defensible first section, and the insupportable final paragraph. I cannot begin to argue my final 4 points with any sort of legitimate conviction.
I went back to 1970 to make sure I included Southern Cals most recent undisputed champs and to make sure I could not be accused of excluding their best team ever.
About that last claim
I divided my first post into two sections. The reasonable, fairly defensible first section, and the insupportable final paragraph. I cannot begin to argue my final 4 points with any sort of legitimate conviction.
I went back to 1970 to make sure I included Southern Cals most recent undisputed champs and to make sure I could not be accused of excluding their best team ever.
BCS Bowl Appearances
BCS Bowl Appearances
Maybe you're right, I have the Pac10 playing 1 in 2004, 2 in 2003, 1 in 2002, 2 in 2001 and 1 in 2000 for a total of 7.
I have the Big-10 playing 2 in 2004, 2 in 2003, 1 in 2002, 1 in 2001 and 2 in 2000 for a total of 8.
I have totals of 7 for the SEC and Big 12 over the same years
BCS Bowl Appearances
Maybe you're right, I have the Pac10 playing 1 in 2004, 2 in 2003, 1 in 2002, 2 in 2001 and 1 in 2000 for a total of 7.
I have the Big-10 playing 2 in 2004, 2 in 2003, 1 in 2002, 1 in 2001 and 2 in 2000 for a total of 8.
I have totals of 7 for the SEC and Big 12 over the same years
BCS Bowl Appearances 2000-2004
Pac 10: 6 teams
Big 10: 6 teams
Big 12: 6 teams
SEC: 5 teams
ACC: 4 teams
Big East: 4 teams
You were right that my SIG was wrong. I meant to say BCS BOWL WINS. The Pac 10 has the most BCS Bowl Victories since 2000. Pac 10 has won 5 of their 6 BCS Bowl Games. Thanks for correcting my error. The Pac 10 has the most BCS Bowl appearances from 2000-2003 but if you include 2004 the Pac 10 is tied with the Big 10 and Big 12.
*Something that is impressive is that 4 of those 5 BCS Bowl Victories were by 4 different Pac 10 teams. USC, Washington, Oregon St. and Oregon! 40% of the conf.
*Another impressive note to make is that 5 different Pac 10 teams made it to BCS Bowl games. USC, Washington St., Oregon, Oregon St., and Washington! 50% of the conf.
Pac 10: 6 teams
Big 10: 6 teams
Big 12: 6 teams
SEC: 5 teams
ACC: 4 teams
Big East: 4 teams
You were right that my SIG was wrong. I meant to say BCS BOWL WINS. The Pac 10 has the most BCS Bowl Victories since 2000. Pac 10 has won 5 of their 6 BCS Bowl Games. Thanks for correcting my error. The Pac 10 has the most BCS Bowl appearances from 2000-2003 but if you include 2004 the Pac 10 is tied with the Big 10 and Big 12.
*Something that is impressive is that 4 of those 5 BCS Bowl Victories were by 4 different Pac 10 teams. USC, Washington, Oregon St. and Oregon! 40% of the conf.
*Another impressive note to make is that 5 different Pac 10 teams made it to BCS Bowl games. USC, Washington St., Oregon, Oregon St., and Washington! 50% of the conf.
Last edited:
Almost Non-delusional, but close enough
Almost Non-delusional, but close enough
It;'s moot now that you're no longer referring to it in you footnote, but just to clear up a claim in your last post.
The PAC 10 only has the most bowl appearances for 2000-2003 if you interpret 2000 to mean the games played January of 2001(the following year), but 2003 to mean the games played January of 2003 (the current year). I think the years you want to include for the appearance claim are 2001-2003, or the seasons 2000-2002.
UNCLE
Almost Non-delusional, but close enough
It;'s moot now that you're no longer referring to it in you footnote, but just to clear up a claim in your last post.
The PAC 10 only has the most bowl appearances for 2000-2003 if you interpret 2000 to mean the games played January of 2001(the following year), but 2003 to mean the games played January of 2003 (the current year). I think the years you want to include for the appearance claim are 2001-2003, or the seasons 2000-2002.
UNCLE
oldschoolcapper said:
Not Scott, but since you said to ask some fellow Trojan fans what they thought, I figured I could jump in.
I was at the game, in a USC section that was about 10-20% VTech Fans. There were easily 75,000+ VTech fans there (not the 60K people are throwing around). They stood the entire game & screamed on every single play.
I can tell you that the "neutral" Fed-Ex field was the most HOSTILE environment Ive ever personally experienced. Yes, I was at Auburn last year & Jordan Hare did not even come close to what SC experienced at Fed Ex field.
I really wish I would have went to the KState game a couple years ago to see how it compared, but Im hearing reports that Saturdays game was close to what was expereinced in Manhatten.
For people to call that a "neutral" field is laughable. I dont think SC will experience anything like it the rest of the year.
That's all I have to add, now please continue with the SC bashing...
StuckinNJ what is your opinion on this. Found this on another board.
Opening with easy games is a way of life for most of the SEC and Big 12. USC went all across the country to take on a team rated 4th in the new ACC. How are the other top 25 teams doing it? Well, here is an example.
All are home games of course, except as noted.
Big 12
Oklahoma favored by 32 over Bowling Green.
Texas favored by 26 over North Texas.
Missouri favored by 33 over Arkansas State.
Zero away games, zero bowl teams.
SEC
LSU favored by 18 over Oregon State. Go Beavs!
Florida favored by 28 over MIddle Tennessee State.
Tennessee favored by 20 over UNLV.
Auburn favored by 38 over Louisiana Monroe.
Zero away games. One bowl team.
ACC
Virginia favored by 16 over Temple. (away)
Big 10
Michigan favored by 15 over Miami, Ohio.
Ohio State favored by 16 over Cincinnatti.
Wisconsin favored by 23 over Central Florida.
Zero away games, 1 bowl team.
PAC-10,
Besides Oregon State at LSU.
UCLA favored by 1 over Oklahoma State. (home)
Cal favored by 13 at Air Force.
Washington favored by 4 over Fresno State. (home)
With USC thats 3 away games, 4 bowl teams.
Should the PAC-10 continue to play tough openers, or become like the rest of the "elite" conferences and schedule weak openers at home? People won't respect the Pac 10 for going out and playing tough OOC opponents. Should they do what other conferences do and play easy OOC to garner up more wins? 40% of the conf. easily could start the season off with 1 loss with their tough openers.
Opening with easy games is a way of life for most of the SEC and Big 12. USC went all across the country to take on a team rated 4th in the new ACC. How are the other top 25 teams doing it? Well, here is an example.
All are home games of course, except as noted.
Big 12
Oklahoma favored by 32 over Bowling Green.
Texas favored by 26 over North Texas.
Missouri favored by 33 over Arkansas State.
Zero away games, zero bowl teams.
SEC
LSU favored by 18 over Oregon State. Go Beavs!
Florida favored by 28 over MIddle Tennessee State.
Tennessee favored by 20 over UNLV.
Auburn favored by 38 over Louisiana Monroe.
Zero away games. One bowl team.
ACC
Virginia favored by 16 over Temple. (away)
Big 10
Michigan favored by 15 over Miami, Ohio.
Ohio State favored by 16 over Cincinnatti.
Wisconsin favored by 23 over Central Florida.
Zero away games, 1 bowl team.
PAC-10,
Besides Oregon State at LSU.
UCLA favored by 1 over Oklahoma State. (home)
Cal favored by 13 at Air Force.
Washington favored by 4 over Fresno State. (home)
With USC thats 3 away games, 4 bowl teams.
Should the PAC-10 continue to play tough openers, or become like the rest of the "elite" conferences and schedule weak openers at home? People won't respect the Pac 10 for going out and playing tough OOC opponents. Should they do what other conferences do and play easy OOC to garner up more wins? 40% of the conf. easily could start the season off with 1 loss with their tough openers.
Last edited:
I cannot agree
I cannot agree
I can't follow you on this one. Your argument seems to be that extrapolating each conference's entire season opener opponents from those of that conference's Top 25 ranked teams leads to the conclusion that the PAC-10 should get more credit for going out and playing tough ooc opponents. Also, you seem to imply that home openers imply easier ooc schedules than away openers. I can't buy into this at all.
If your argument is really along the lines of Oregon State should get more credit for playing LSU than Auburn should from playing La Monroe, well I agree. But keep in mind 2 things - First, by this reasoning, Oregon St should get more credit for playing LSU than LSU gets for playing Oregon State, and second (and more to the point for you), Auburn opened against Southern Cal last year and should presumably get credit for playing a tough ooc opener.
Since schedules are made years in advance, its hard to honestly evaluate just what teams are trying to accomplish with their opening game. Yes, I'm sure that EVERY team wants to win their first game and is tempted to put an easier game there - the same as when scheduling their home opener (if different) and homecoming. On the other hand, it is far easier to recover from an early season loss than a late season one, so you would think that the early season would be packed with big games. In all honesty, I think teams try to have a fairly even progression of easier to harder (bigger) games as the season goes on, both for publicity's sake and so that they will more likely have their starters deeper into the season.
As far as the 3 conferences you mentioned, the way you chose your teams to compare certainly comes out in favor of those PAC-10 teams having a tougher go of it. But this brings 2 points to mind for me. First is So What? SOS ratings change over the course of the year, so for a short time, it looks like, based on your data, the PAC-10 will have a higher SOS ranking. I really don't think that it matters to me what order a school plays its schedule in as it is the end results that count. Second, and far more importantly, since no one had any idea who the Top 25 teams or Bowl Teams would be when the schedules were made, if we want to uncover a tend or bias, we should look at the whole conferences, not just a currently successful subset.
Here is the PAC-10's schedule of opening games for the entire conference:
This is far less impressive than what your data would have lead me to believe was going on. With the exception of Va Tech and maybe Fresno State, I doubt any one of these opponents would have been even money to be coming off of a winning season when the schedules were set. I will also say that LSU, when the schedules were set, was probably expected to be a .500 team rather than defending National Champs.
For the SEC, we have
These opponents are hardly impressive and even less likely to be coming off of winning seasons than the PAC-10 opponents, but record-wise, not as different as I would have thought just looking at the team names (basically, they are about 1 win each worse, record-wise).
The last conference you mentioned was the Big XII.
The Big XII opponents actually have a .5% better winning percentage than the PAC-10 opponents - insignificant to be sure, but from your post, I assumed it would be MUCH LESS than the PAC-10 opponent winning percentage. I will also say that the Big XII percentage is dragged down by the SMU game (you can hardly blame Tech for scheduling an in-state rival).
I ignored all Div 1-AA opponents because 1. everybody plays, them, 2. No one should play them, and 3. Their records are meaningless for comparison purposes to 1-A teams.
So, to wind this up, I cannot agree that, based on the data and arguments that you presented in your post, the PAC-10 plays tougher openers than the 2 conferences mentioned, even in this year, much less as a policy. It looks like what ever you think of the SEC's and Big XII's scheduling policy resulting in this year's opening games, you must apply to the PAC-10 as well.
I cannot agree
I can't follow you on this one. Your argument seems to be that extrapolating each conference's entire season opener opponents from those of that conference's Top 25 ranked teams leads to the conclusion that the PAC-10 should get more credit for going out and playing tough ooc opponents. Also, you seem to imply that home openers imply easier ooc schedules than away openers. I can't buy into this at all.
If your argument is really along the lines of Oregon State should get more credit for playing LSU than Auburn should from playing La Monroe, well I agree. But keep in mind 2 things - First, by this reasoning, Oregon St should get more credit for playing LSU than LSU gets for playing Oregon State, and second (and more to the point for you), Auburn opened against Southern Cal last year and should presumably get credit for playing a tough ooc opener.
Since schedules are made years in advance, its hard to honestly evaluate just what teams are trying to accomplish with their opening game. Yes, I'm sure that EVERY team wants to win their first game and is tempted to put an easier game there - the same as when scheduling their home opener (if different) and homecoming. On the other hand, it is far easier to recover from an early season loss than a late season one, so you would think that the early season would be packed with big games. In all honesty, I think teams try to have a fairly even progression of easier to harder (bigger) games as the season goes on, both for publicity's sake and so that they will more likely have their starters deeper into the season.
As far as the 3 conferences you mentioned, the way you chose your teams to compare certainly comes out in favor of those PAC-10 teams having a tougher go of it. But this brings 2 points to mind for me. First is So What? SOS ratings change over the course of the year, so for a short time, it looks like, based on your data, the PAC-10 will have a higher SOS ranking. I really don't think that it matters to me what order a school plays its schedule in as it is the end results that count. Second, and far more importantly, since no one had any idea who the Top 25 teams or Bowl Teams would be when the schedules were made, if we want to uncover a tend or bias, we should look at the whole conferences, not just a currently successful subset.
Here is the PAC-10's schedule of opening games for the entire conference:
HTML:
Team Opener
Arizona N Arizona [Div 1-AA ]
Arizona St UTEP (2-11)
Cal @ Air Force (7-5)
Oregon Indiana (2-10)
Oregon State @ LSU (13-1 and National Champs)
Stanford San Jose St (3-8)
UCLA Oklahoma St (9-4)
Southern Cal @ Va Tech (8-5)
Washington Fresno St (9-5)
Wash St @ New Mexico (8-5)
Cumulative W/L of opening opponents: 61-54 ~ 53% winsThis is far less impressive than what your data would have lead me to believe was going on. With the exception of Va Tech and maybe Fresno State, I doubt any one of these opponents would have been even money to be coming off of a winning season when the schedules were set. I will also say that LSU, when the schedules were set, was probably expected to be a .500 team rather than defending National Champs.
For the SEC, we have
HTML:
Team Opener
Alabama Utah St (3-9)
Arkansas New Mexico St (3-9)
Auburn La Monroe (1-11)
Florida MTSU (4-8)
Georgia Ga Southern [Div](1-AA)
Kentucky @ Louisville (9-4)
LSU Oregon St (8-5)
Ole Miss Memphis (9-4)
Miss St Tulane (5-7)
UT UNLV (6-6)
Vandy S Carolina (5-7)
Cumulative W/L of opening opponents: 53-70 ~ 43% winsThese opponents are hardly impressive and even less likely to be coming off of winning seasons than the PAC-10 opponents, but record-wise, not as different as I would have thought just looking at the team names (basically, they are about 1 win each worse, record-wise).
The last conference you mentioned was the Big XII.
HTML:
Team Opener
Baylor @ UAB(5-7)
Colorado Colorado St (7-6)
Iowa St N Iowa [Div 1-AA]
Kansas Tulsa (8-5)
Kansas St W Kentucky [Div 1-AA]
Missouri Arkansas St (5-7)
Nebraska W Illinois [Div 1-AA]
Oklahoma Bowling Green (11-3)
Oklahoma St @ UCLA (6-7)
Texas North Texas (9-4)
Texas A&M @ Utah(10-2)
Texas Tech @ SMU(0-12)
Cumulative W/L of opening opponents: 61-53 ~ 54% winsThe Big XII opponents actually have a .5% better winning percentage than the PAC-10 opponents - insignificant to be sure, but from your post, I assumed it would be MUCH LESS than the PAC-10 opponent winning percentage. I will also say that the Big XII percentage is dragged down by the SMU game (you can hardly blame Tech for scheduling an in-state rival).
I ignored all Div 1-AA opponents because 1. everybody plays, them, 2. No one should play them, and 3. Their records are meaningless for comparison purposes to 1-A teams.
So, to wind this up, I cannot agree that, based on the data and arguments that you presented in your post, the PAC-10 plays tougher openers than the 2 conferences mentioned, even in this year, much less as a policy. It looks like what ever you think of the SEC's and Big XII's scheduling policy resulting in this year's opening games, you must apply to the PAC-10 as well.
