Watch out college football.........
- Thread starter Scott4USC
- Start date
LEROY TIREBITER
USC rankings from 1986-2003......
1986 #25
#18
#4
#7
#23
not ranked
-#25
#23
#12
#14
#34
#30
#28
not ranked
not ranked
probation
#3
2003 Tied #1
There are not more than 15 teams in the country who have done better than USC since 1986.
Looks like you are a DUMBA$$ for making that statement!!!!
;142loser:
USC rankings from 1986-2003......
1986 #25
#18
#4
#7
#23
not ranked
-#25
#23
#12
#14
#34
#30
#28
not ranked
not ranked
probation
#3
2003 Tied #1
There are not more than 15 teams in the country who have done better than USC since 1986.
Looks like you are a DUMBA$$ for making that statement!!!!
;142loser:
Last edited:
Wareagle
Not sure what you mean. You think LSU defense would score 7-14pts off USC turnovers? :nooo: Not likely since USC simply did not turn the ball over. Leinart went something like 6-7 games without an INT and the inexperienced backfield did not fumble much at all. VERY UNLIKELY!
Or maybe you meant that LSU defense would hold USC offense to 7-14pts? Not likely again. :nooo: USC offense was very explosive and I do not think LSU defense could contain them. Think your forgetting Norm Chow is USC OC and he can tear apart any defense. LSU got great pressure on OU but USC has better OL and Chow would have put Leinart in 3 step drops where LSU cannot even touch him. Too many weapons for USC and too good of coaching for LSU defense to stop an offense that averaged over 30pts a game (and took out starters early in majority of the games) If somehow LSU was dominating the USC offense in the 1st, the USC coaching is brilliant at making 2h adjustments so I think at most the LSU defense could slow USC offense for a one half. That is nothing to take away from a great great LSU defense. Holding USC offense under 30pts is very very very tough to do. Sorry dude, another unlikely scenario. OU scored 21pts off LSU and blew opportunities to score on that LSU defense. There also were open WR's that White did not hit (yes I know he was under pressure). USC had much more talent on offense and players you simply cannot match up against. (Williams and Reggie Bush)
If LSU had a Mike Williams and Leinart, then I think LSU would beat USC because LSU had a better defense and now an explosive offense to compliment the defense.
Vegas said they would have favored USC -7 over LSU. Thought you might be interested in knowing that.
Not sure what you mean. You think LSU defense would score 7-14pts off USC turnovers? :nooo: Not likely since USC simply did not turn the ball over. Leinart went something like 6-7 games without an INT and the inexperienced backfield did not fumble much at all. VERY UNLIKELY!
Or maybe you meant that LSU defense would hold USC offense to 7-14pts? Not likely again. :nooo: USC offense was very explosive and I do not think LSU defense could contain them. Think your forgetting Norm Chow is USC OC and he can tear apart any defense. LSU got great pressure on OU but USC has better OL and Chow would have put Leinart in 3 step drops where LSU cannot even touch him. Too many weapons for USC and too good of coaching for LSU defense to stop an offense that averaged over 30pts a game (and took out starters early in majority of the games) If somehow LSU was dominating the USC offense in the 1st, the USC coaching is brilliant at making 2h adjustments so I think at most the LSU defense could slow USC offense for a one half. That is nothing to take away from a great great LSU defense. Holding USC offense under 30pts is very very very tough to do. Sorry dude, another unlikely scenario. OU scored 21pts off LSU and blew opportunities to score on that LSU defense. There also were open WR's that White did not hit (yes I know he was under pressure). USC had much more talent on offense and players you simply cannot match up against. (Williams and Reggie Bush)
If LSU had a Mike Williams and Leinart, then I think LSU would beat USC because LSU had a better defense and now an explosive offense to compliment the defense.
Vegas said they would have favored USC -7 over LSU. Thought you might be interested in knowing that.
Last edited:
trump tight (missed your 2nd post)
Your right, I did make an error. I was thinking USC would be -7 vs LSU. I think OU would have been 3pt favorites or dogs. I would have bet big on USC over OU but not like I did against Michigan. Like $500 on USC +3 and $500 ML. I also had a $100 to win $1300 on USC to win BCS NC (I unfortunately lost that ticket wager). Although I think USC would/could have been favored over OU since OU got beat so bad to KSU. Who knows, prob. game would have been PK, but I prob.would not have bet USC over $100 if USC was -7 or more against OU at that time since I thought OU just had bad game against KSU.
I really did have $10,000 on USC and I even posted it on madjacks with the betting slips. So no lies from me. The $10,000 was not my money, it was all profit. So I was not going to be hurt financially or would it have changed my life. I made about $10,000 in the last 2 years up to that game. I did not really make the $10,000 by smart money management. I picked and chose my spots and bet $100-$1000 on select few games. I have never lost a huge bet on USC ($500 or more). Last year I only bet USC 4 times so I am not a homer and bet USC every game. Wish I was because USC I think covered every game last year except 2.
This NBA playoffs I laid 3k to win 1k on Lakers to win series over Minny and laid 4k to win 2k on Detroit to beat Indie in series. Just now I laid 6k to win 1k on Lakers to win series over Detroit and 4k to win 2k Lakers to win 6games or less. Hope I collect!!!!! I think Lakers win in 5 games.
Your right, I did make an error. I was thinking USC would be -7 vs LSU. I think OU would have been 3pt favorites or dogs. I would have bet big on USC over OU but not like I did against Michigan. Like $500 on USC +3 and $500 ML. I also had a $100 to win $1300 on USC to win BCS NC (I unfortunately lost that ticket wager). Although I think USC would/could have been favored over OU since OU got beat so bad to KSU. Who knows, prob. game would have been PK, but I prob.would not have bet USC over $100 if USC was -7 or more against OU at that time since I thought OU just had bad game against KSU.
I really did have $10,000 on USC and I even posted it on madjacks with the betting slips. So no lies from me. The $10,000 was not my money, it was all profit. So I was not going to be hurt financially or would it have changed my life. I made about $10,000 in the last 2 years up to that game. I did not really make the $10,000 by smart money management. I picked and chose my spots and bet $100-$1000 on select few games. I have never lost a huge bet on USC ($500 or more). Last year I only bet USC 4 times so I am not a homer and bet USC every game. Wish I was because USC I think covered every game last year except 2.
This NBA playoffs I laid 3k to win 1k on Lakers to win series over Minny and laid 4k to win 2k on Detroit to beat Indie in series. Just now I laid 6k to win 1k on Lakers to win series over Detroit and 4k to win 2k Lakers to win 6games or less. Hope I collect!!!!! I think Lakers win in 5 games.
Last edited:
scott....:142smilie :142smilie :142smilie .....you're killing me
I state in my post the Top 10 teams for the last 15 years...
By your own homework the Rubbers have 3 top ten finishes
in the last 15 years, man, how IMPRESSIVE is THAT.....
Here's your next homework assignment homer....
Wright down how many times Nebraska, OU, Fla. St., Fla.,
Miami Fla., Tenn., Mich., Ohio St., Penn St., Texas, Kan. St.,
Colorado, etc. made the top 10 the last 15 years, then look
at your Rubbers and compare....do you really want to compare
USC to the real powerhouses in college football. Can't wait
to see your next spin. Get a life.
I state in my post the Top 10 teams for the last 15 years...
By your own homework the Rubbers have 3 top ten finishes
in the last 15 years, man, how IMPRESSIVE is THAT.....
Here's your next homework assignment homer....
Wright down how many times Nebraska, OU, Fla. St., Fla.,
Miami Fla., Tenn., Mich., Ohio St., Penn St., Texas, Kan. St.,
Colorado, etc. made the top 10 the last 15 years, then look
at your Rubbers and compare....do you really want to compare
USC to the real powerhouses in college football. Can't wait
to see your next spin. Get a life.
LEROY TIREBITER you said........
I clearly proved my point and your statement wrong. In my opinion you come across being very immature and uneducated. Your posts are full of incorrect information and your spelling is horrible. I am going to stop interacting with you because I cannot stand ignorance and stupidity. There are no more than 15 teams in college football who have done better than USC from the years 1986-2003. That was my argument, and you called USC a disgrace and said USC has done zilch. You will not get under my skin by making idiotic remarks. Your not very bright.
From the years 2000-2003 here are the top 10 teams who played the toughest schedule:
1) USC
2) UCLA
3) Stanford (CA)
4) California
5) Florida St.
6) Arizona
7) Washington
8) Colorado
9) Michigan
10)Penn St.
In case you have trouble counting, there are 6 teams in the Pac 10 who have played the toughest schedule for the years 2000-2003! Very impressive.
For the years 1990-1999:
1 USC
2 UCLA
3 Washington
4 Florida St.
5 Stanford (CA)
6 Michigan
7 Ohio St.
8 Arizona St.
9 Michigan St.
10 Notre Dame (IN)
5 teams in the pac 10 have played toughest schedule from the years 1990-1999!! Again, VERY IMPRESSIVE!
Lastly, if you still cannot figure out why I cannot compare USC to the teams you mentioned here are the following reasons why:
-majority of them played horrible OOC opponents and there conferences as whole play horrible OOC opponents.
-majority of them play home games and never travel to tough environments out of conference
-majority of those teams play in a TOP HEAVY conference, not very strong top to bottom. Win 2-3 tough games a year (including conf. championship game) and your ranked in top 10 in country and chance to be #1.
Not a fair comparison. :nono:
You ask me to compare USC to them, USC has played the #1 toughest schedule of all of football "since" 1990!!!!!! USC played the 2nd toughest schedule in the 80's (ND was #1). So forget about it.
You are way too uneducated and immature for me to interact with. Thanks for letting me beat my chest but I do not get much satisfaction talking down to someone still in grade school.
Schedule Strengths
--Decade Team Rankings (click years)
--Sorted by Schedule Points (click)
I clearly proved my point and your statement wrong. In my opinion you come across being very immature and uneducated. Your posts are full of incorrect information and your spelling is horrible. I am going to stop interacting with you because I cannot stand ignorance and stupidity. There are no more than 15 teams in college football who have done better than USC from the years 1986-2003. That was my argument, and you called USC a disgrace and said USC has done zilch. You will not get under my skin by making idiotic remarks. Your not very bright.
From the years 2000-2003 here are the top 10 teams who played the toughest schedule:
1) USC
2) UCLA
3) Stanford (CA)
4) California
5) Florida St.
6) Arizona
7) Washington
8) Colorado
9) Michigan
10)Penn St.
In case you have trouble counting, there are 6 teams in the Pac 10 who have played the toughest schedule for the years 2000-2003!
Very impressive. For the years 1990-1999:
1 USC
2 UCLA
3 Washington
4 Florida St.
5 Stanford (CA)
6 Michigan
7 Ohio St.
8 Arizona St.
9 Michigan St.
10 Notre Dame (IN)
5 teams in the pac 10 have played toughest schedule from the years 1990-1999!!
Again, VERY IMPRESSIVE!Lastly, if you still cannot figure out why I cannot compare USC to the teams you mentioned here are the following reasons why:
-majority of them played horrible OOC opponents and there conferences as whole play horrible OOC opponents.
-majority of them play home games and never travel to tough environments out of conference
-majority of those teams play in a TOP HEAVY conference, not very strong top to bottom. Win 2-3 tough games a year (including conf. championship game) and your ranked in top 10 in country and chance to be #1.
Not a fair comparison. :nono:
You ask me to compare USC to them, USC has played the #1 toughest schedule of all of football "since" 1990!!!!!!
USC played the 2nd toughest schedule in the 80's (ND was #1). So forget about it. You are way too uneducated and immature for me to interact with. Thanks for letting me beat my chest but I do not get much satisfaction talking down to someone still in grade school.
Schedule Strengths
--Decade Team Rankings (click years)
--Sorted by Schedule Points (click)
Last edited:
:142smilie :142smilie :142smilie...pac 10 is a fricken joke,
always has been, and always will be until they understand
that defense is a part of the game, have been the laughing
stock of college football for two fricken decades.....hell,
the WAC and MAC could thump your asses on any given
Saturday...get serious man, while the SEC, Big 12, Big Ten,
ACC, Big East, are pounding the shit out of each other, and
the SEC and Big 12 having Conference ****ing Championships
at the end of the season, the big bad pac ten gets to play
cupcakes all season long and back into the NC playing a
fricken Michigan team that was probably about the 8th or 9th
best team in the country. Kind of reminds me of that big bad
BYU team many years ago that went undefeated because
they played pussys and then met a 6-6 or 6-5 Michigan team
and beat them for the NC.........what a fricken joke... :142smilie :142smilie :142smilie
always has been, and always will be until they understand
that defense is a part of the game, have been the laughing
stock of college football for two fricken decades.....hell,
the WAC and MAC could thump your asses on any given
Saturday...get serious man, while the SEC, Big 12, Big Ten,
ACC, Big East, are pounding the shit out of each other, and
the SEC and Big 12 having Conference ****ing Championships
at the end of the season, the big bad pac ten gets to play
cupcakes all season long and back into the NC playing a
fricken Michigan team that was probably about the 8th or 9th
best team in the country. Kind of reminds me of that big bad
BYU team many years ago that went undefeated because
they played pussys and then met a 6-6 or 6-5 Michigan team
and beat them for the NC.........what a fricken joke... :142smilie :142smilie :142smilie
Scott,
Let's not accuse others of stupidity and ignorance. It's for your own good.
Just in case YOU have trouble counting, I decided to count for you:
PAC 10 National Championships Since 1980 (Associated Press):
2003 USC (and this was very, very weak)
SEC National Championships Since 1980 (Associated Press):
1980 Georgia
1992 Alabama
1996 Florida
1998 Tennessee
Big XII National Championships Since 1980 (Associated Press):
1985 Oklahoma
1990 Colorado
1994 Nebraska
1995 Nebraska
2000 Oklahoma
------------------
Pac 10 National Championships Since BCS Formation:
Zero/Nada/Zilch/None/Not Any/Only At Disneyland
Let's not accuse others of stupidity and ignorance. It's for your own good.
Just in case YOU have trouble counting, I decided to count for you:
PAC 10 National Championships Since 1980 (Associated Press):
2003 USC (and this was very, very weak)
SEC National Championships Since 1980 (Associated Press):
1980 Georgia
1992 Alabama
1996 Florida
1998 Tennessee
Big XII National Championships Since 1980 (Associated Press):
1985 Oklahoma
1990 Colorado
1994 Nebraska
1995 Nebraska
2000 Oklahoma
------------------
Pac 10 National Championships Since BCS Formation:
Zero/Nada/Zilch/None/Not Any/Only At Disneyland
Scotty since you love the numbers game....take a look at this and tell me why USC is not #1, #10, #25, #40, or #50
2004 Strength Of Schedule
1. Arkansas 1547
2. Georgia Tech 1483
3. Virginia Tech 1482
4. Kansas 1479
5. Texas A&M 1478
6. North Carolina State 1468
7. Notre Dame 1463
8. Oregon State 1462
9. Texas Tech 1422
10. Florida 1382
11. North Carolina 1368
12. Vanderbilt 1360
13. South Carolina 1357
14. Clemson (tie) 1350
15. Florida State (tie) 1350
16. Northwestern 1347
17. Arizona 1337
18. Wake Forest 1323
19. Georgia 1322
20. Baylor 1316
21. Kentucky 1311
22. Virginia 1307
23. Michigan State 1280
24. Arizona State 1275
25. Maryland 1264
26. Iowa 1262
27. Ohio State 1250
28. Stanford 1236
29. Miami FL 1231
30. Indiana 1228
31. Duke 1219
32. Auburn 1218
33. Tennessee 1211
34. Colorado 1210
35. Purdue (tie) 1209
36. Penn State (tie) 1209
37. Washington 1207
38. Louisiana State 1200
39. UCLA 1198
40. Houston 1196
41. Oklahoma 1172
42. Michigan (tie) 1171
43. Illinois (tie) 1171
44. Alabama 1147
45. Mississippi 1131
46. Oklahoma State 1126
47. California 1118
48. Minnesota 1114
49. Mississippi State 1108
50. Brigham Young 1093
51. Nebraska 1092
52. Wisconsin 1086
53. Louisiana Tech 1085
54. Iowa State 1081
55. Washington State 1080
56. Colorado State 1070
57. Texas 1060
58. Oregon 1053
59. Kansas State 1037
60. Syracuse 1028
61. Missouri 1010
62. Temple 984
63. Marshall 974
64. Southern Cal 944
65. UNLV 942
wned: :shocked:
2004 Strength Of Schedule
1. Arkansas 1547
2. Georgia Tech 1483
3. Virginia Tech 1482
4. Kansas 1479
5. Texas A&M 1478
6. North Carolina State 1468
7. Notre Dame 1463
8. Oregon State 1462
9. Texas Tech 1422
10. Florida 1382
11. North Carolina 1368
12. Vanderbilt 1360
13. South Carolina 1357
14. Clemson (tie) 1350
15. Florida State (tie) 1350
16. Northwestern 1347
17. Arizona 1337
18. Wake Forest 1323
19. Georgia 1322
20. Baylor 1316
21. Kentucky 1311
22. Virginia 1307
23. Michigan State 1280
24. Arizona State 1275
25. Maryland 1264
26. Iowa 1262
27. Ohio State 1250
28. Stanford 1236
29. Miami FL 1231
30. Indiana 1228
31. Duke 1219
32. Auburn 1218
33. Tennessee 1211
34. Colorado 1210
35. Purdue (tie) 1209
36. Penn State (tie) 1209
37. Washington 1207
38. Louisiana State 1200
39. UCLA 1198
40. Houston 1196
41. Oklahoma 1172
42. Michigan (tie) 1171
43. Illinois (tie) 1171
44. Alabama 1147
45. Mississippi 1131
46. Oklahoma State 1126
47. California 1118
48. Minnesota 1114
49. Mississippi State 1108
50. Brigham Young 1093
51. Nebraska 1092
52. Wisconsin 1086
53. Louisiana Tech 1085
54. Iowa State 1081
55. Washington State 1080
56. Colorado State 1070
57. Texas 1060
58. Oregon 1053
59. Kansas State 1037
60. Syracuse 1028
61. Missouri 1010
62. Temple 984
63. Marshall 974
64. Southern Cal 944
65. UNLV 942
wned: :shocked:
Last edited:
Scott4USC said:Avalanche
And your point?
Wow, Scott, I didn't really think I had to spoon-feed this to you, but obviously I do. All you do is pick and choose your numbers that put your Pac 10 girls football league in a more positive light. Then, when people provide you more numbers, you don't have anything to say. You babble about SOS, well Prairie View may have a tough SOS too, but all that really matters (or at least what matters most) are wins and losses. You Pac 10 jokers haven't won squat in ages. Now, with your nice lil phantom national championship, you are just a Pac 10 spin doctor trying to drum-up support for your girls football conference. Has anyone told you a decade is longer than 3 years?
Once (if) the Pac 10 starts winning some national titles, THEN people will start (maybe) to take the Pac 10 more seriously. The Pac 10 hasnt won an undisputed NC since the 1970s!!!!!!
Note: Are there any people on this board trying to campaign for the validity of the SEC or Big 12? NOPE. No one argues (except you) about how strong these conferences are. There aren't discussions about it, except when you Pac 10 people try to put your conference up there with these two conferences.
But see, Scott, you are actually attempting to claim the Pac 10 is BETTER than the SEC or Big 12. You aren't even trying to claim legitimacy or being considered a good conference -- you're trying to say the Pac 10 is better. You've made a gamut of ignorant and idiotic statements, so it's hard to remember them all, but why not campaign for some LEGITIMACY???? That's where the Pac 10 needs to start. Become a MAJOR CONFERENCE first and then start your spin to claim the Pac 10 is the best. Not enough people even consider your Pac 10 girls conference a MAJOR conference.
In other words, put on your pants first, and then your shoes.
In other words, learn to crawl, and then learn to walk.
In other words, win an undisputed NC (which your Pac 10 conference hasn't done since the 1970s), and then start your psycho babble.
DID YOU GET THE POINT THIS TIME? SHEEEEEESH......
Avalanche
First of all, YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENT AT ALL. You base the strength of a conference on number of National Titles won. That is bogus. That is 1 team, and your support for your argument ends right there. Pac 10 is 10 teams, SEC is 12 teams, not 1 team. SO National Championships won has very little weight in determing the strength of a conference. Let me give you this example to demonstrate this. If the NE Patriots played in the Sun Belt, Colts played in MAC, and Carolina Panthers played in Conf. USA, and all 3 alternated NC's every year, would those 3 conference be ranked top 3 in college football? HELL NO! 1 teams success in a particular year (like a NC) is not a reflection on the conference. In fact, you can make an argument that a conference who produces many National Champions is easier since more teams are able to go undefeated in conference play. Pac 10 has had 10 different conference champions in the last 11 years. I think there has only been 1 team able to go undefeated in Pac 10 play in the last 11 years (UCLA). Also factor in Pac 10 teams are not afraid to schedule tough OOC opponents AND not afraid to travel on the road. A good example is Oregon St. traveling to LSU next year, UCLA traveling to OU last year, USC traveling to Auburn last year, Washington St. traveling to ND last year, Washington playing @ Ohio St., and many more tough road environments. Not to mention all the tough home OOC games as well. VERY VERY tough conference to go undefeated in. SEC is not so tough since they produce so many undefeated conference champions AND only 4 teams I think have won the SEC championship in the last 11 years. Sad thing is SEC is a 12 team conference too. Kinda sucks.
Fact is if you look at the top 10 teams from each decause who have played toughest schedules, the Pac 10 averages around 5 teams. YOU CANNOT HAVE THAT if your conference is weak.
I hope not, so I can continue to make a lot more money!!!!
These people cannot bring up an argument. At least nobody has yet too. In addition nobody can counter argue the facts against those conferences. Pretty sad. But these same people feel their opinion without support is a great argument. I always get big laugh out of it.
WRONG! I always stressed that the SEC or any conference is "NOT" more dominant than the Pac 10. I think the Pac 10 is one of the strongest conferences top to bottom while SEC or Big 12 are some of the strongest top heavy conferences. In some areas those conferences outshine Pac 10 and other areas Pac 10 outshines them. That is why I always say they are not more dominant and that is a wrong opinion to have. NO SUPPORT BEHIND IT. But because of these false opinions I been able to make a mint. But I enjoy debating it because I have so much ammo to fire back. I get big kick out of it.
Unfortunately you did not make much of a point. If National Championships are so important to you, you should look deep into why maybe these conference have more championships? Think about it.
A good recent example is USC 2 years ago. USC without a doubt, would have won a National Championship or at least participated in the NC game if they played a typical SEC/Big 12 schedule. They did not and continue to not schedule that way. Different philosophy. No way would I want to see USC schedule weak OOC opponents. Not in a million years.
First of all, YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENT AT ALL. You base the strength of a conference on number of National Titles won. That is bogus. That is 1 team, and your support for your argument ends right there. Pac 10 is 10 teams, SEC is 12 teams, not 1 team. SO National Championships won has very little weight in determing the strength of a conference. Let me give you this example to demonstrate this. If the NE Patriots played in the Sun Belt, Colts played in MAC, and Carolina Panthers played in Conf. USA, and all 3 alternated NC's every year, would those 3 conference be ranked top 3 in college football? HELL NO! 1 teams success in a particular year (like a NC) is not a reflection on the conference. In fact, you can make an argument that a conference who produces many National Champions is easier since more teams are able to go undefeated in conference play. Pac 10 has had 10 different conference champions in the last 11 years. I think there has only been 1 team able to go undefeated in Pac 10 play in the last 11 years (UCLA). Also factor in Pac 10 teams are not afraid to schedule tough OOC opponents AND not afraid to travel on the road. A good example is Oregon St. traveling to LSU next year, UCLA traveling to OU last year, USC traveling to Auburn last year, Washington St. traveling to ND last year, Washington playing @ Ohio St., and many more tough road environments. Not to mention all the tough home OOC games as well. VERY VERY tough conference to go undefeated in. SEC is not so tough since they produce so many undefeated conference champions AND only 4 teams I think have won the SEC championship in the last 11 years. Sad thing is SEC is a 12 team conference too. Kinda sucks.
Fact is if you look at the top 10 teams from each decause who have played toughest schedules, the Pac 10 averages around 5 teams. YOU CANNOT HAVE THAT if your conference is weak.
I hope not, so I can continue to make a lot more money!!!!
These people cannot bring up an argument. At least nobody has yet too. In addition nobody can counter argue the facts against those conferences. Pretty sad. But these same people feel their opinion without support is a great argument. I always get big laugh out of it.
WRONG! I always stressed that the SEC or any conference is "NOT" more dominant than the Pac 10. I think the Pac 10 is one of the strongest conferences top to bottom while SEC or Big 12 are some of the strongest top heavy conferences. In some areas those conferences outshine Pac 10 and other areas Pac 10 outshines them. That is why I always say they are not more dominant and that is a wrong opinion to have. NO SUPPORT BEHIND IT. But because of these false opinions I been able to make a mint. But I enjoy debating it because I have so much ammo to fire back. I get big kick out of it.
Unfortunately you did not make much of a point. If National Championships are so important to you, you should look deep into why maybe these conference have more championships? Think about it.
A good recent example is USC 2 years ago. USC without a doubt, would have won a National Championship or at least participated in the NC game if they played a typical SEC/Big 12 schedule. They did not and continue to not schedule that way. Different philosophy. No way would I want to see USC schedule weak OOC opponents. Not in a million years.
wareagle
Yes I do like factual data. However, I do not understand your post. How do you have a SOS for the 2004 season? Remember, before last season USC schedule was suppose to be a top 10 SOS and it ended up being #31 I think. SO this is bogus info. There is only a handful of teams you can count on being dominant. And that brings me up to my 2nd point.
You brought up USC. Well guess what, USC had 2 open dates next season and wanted to fill both dates, not just one but BOTH dates with powerhouses. USC contacted MIami, Michigan, and OU and all 3 said no. OU even had 2 open dates as well as USC, woulda been real easy to schedule. USC even volunteered to play 1 game series @ Michigan and they said NO. Guess it is not the Big House. I love it that my program wants to play anybody anywhere.
V-Tech and Colorado St. stepped up to the plate. If USC was able to schedule 1 or 2 of those 3 teams, USC would easily have a top 10 SOS next season. USC tried, its not their fault these so called powerhouses rather play weak opponents. USC knows they are the best (or at least thinks that). So I hope that answers your question.
And how was I owned? Your maturity level took a dive on that one.
Yes I do like factual data. However, I do not understand your post. How do you have a SOS for the 2004 season? Remember, before last season USC schedule was suppose to be a top 10 SOS and it ended up being #31 I think. SO this is bogus info. There is only a handful of teams you can count on being dominant. And that brings me up to my 2nd point.
You brought up USC. Well guess what, USC had 2 open dates next season and wanted to fill both dates, not just one but BOTH dates with powerhouses. USC contacted MIami, Michigan, and OU and all 3 said no. OU even had 2 open dates as well as USC, woulda been real easy to schedule. USC even volunteered to play 1 game series @ Michigan and they said NO. Guess it is not the Big House.
I love it that my program wants to play anybody anywhere. V-Tech and Colorado St. stepped up to the plate. If USC was able to schedule 1 or 2 of those 3 teams, USC would easily have a top 10 SOS next season. USC tried, its not their fault these so called powerhouses rather play weak opponents. USC knows they are the best (or at least thinks that). So I hope that answers your question.
And how was I owned? Your maturity level took a dive on that one.
Avalanche
Avalanche
I went to the Big 12 conf official website & conf records didnt go back beyond 1996! I saw all kinds of additions for the Big 8 & SWC! Hard to listen to someone scream about legitimacy, when their conf of choice isnt even 10 yrs old! The Big 12 didnt exist in the '80s or most of the '90s! That leaves the Big XII with only 1 NC since 1980!
How can a championship improve a conf that didnt exist when the championship was won? Those championships belong to the schools & teams that won them, not to the confs they were affiliated with.
Avalanche
I went to the Big 12 conf official website & conf records didnt go back beyond 1996! I saw all kinds of additions for the Big 8 & SWC! Hard to listen to someone scream about legitimacy, when their conf of choice isnt even 10 yrs old! The Big 12 didnt exist in the '80s or most of the '90s! That leaves the Big XII with only 1 NC since 1980!
How can a championship improve a conf that didnt exist when the championship was won? Those championships belong to the schools & teams that won them, not to the confs they were affiliated with.
You guys are amazingly blinded. Fine, change the Big 12 to the Big 8, and the original Big 8 has won 4 undisputed NC's since 1980 (Buffs split it with G Tech in 1990). If you're going to cling to the technicality game, I'll play along too.
The Pac 10 has ZERO undisputed NC's since 1980.
Sure, the number of NCs won is not the FULL story, but if the Pac 10 hasn't won ONE undisputed NC since the 1970s, that doesn't speak too highly of your conference. You can spin it HOWEVER you want, but in the end , you still are left with ZERO.
Oh please, Scott..... keep babbling on about SOS. You are still stuck with the argument that since the Pac 10 conference schedule is so pathetically weak, you have to schedule tougher OOC games. Nice touch there throwing in a few "woulda haves" on USC two years ago. I don't care about would haves and should haves. No one else does either. Look at USC last year... they had a good OOC schedule (although that Utah and Colorado St was pretty weak) but the SOS for USC wasn't good enough to get to the big dance. Looks like you are still clinging to the would haves and should haves . Sure, blame it all on Hawaii.
I honestly can't believe you actually think that since the Pac 10 has very few undefeated conference teams that makes your conference tough. You make it sound like in the SEC and Big 12 it's "one team and the 11 dwarfs" -- every game in the Pac 10 is moderately winnable for any other Pac 10 team. You guys may have more exciting games, but that's because all the teams are mediocre at best. Defense is an optional requirement in the Pac 10, too. Don't penalize the SEC and Big 12 because there are 2-3 teams in each conference that are basically unbeatable in conference play. I can assure you in the SEC and Big 12 there are teams that know "oh great, we have to play at Norman, that's a loss." No one really does that in the Pac 10 except for maybe at USC if you're Arizona. Every conference game in the Pac 10 is a moderately winnable game. you Pac 10 supporters view this as being "tough" but in actuality, it just means your conference isn't very good. It's more exciting to watch, but is it tougher??? No. Is it as tough, hell no. Don't confuse a bunch of mediocre teams that all have a chance to beat eachother as "tough" --- what do you think Vandy does every year when they look at their SEC schedule??? Do you think Vandy has a realistic chance to win at Florida, Georgia, LSU, Arkansas, or Tennessee??????? They know right off the bat they'll have about 5 conference losses. Put Vandy in the Pac 10 and they might go 5-4.
The Pac 10 is fun to watch, but part of why it is fun is because anyone can win. If you view that as tough, that's fine. The rest of the country views it as "second tier" --- never a dominant team in the Pac 10. All the Pac 10 is a bunch of decent-to-bad teams. Occasionally they have a team head and shoulders above the rest, which USC has a chance to become that. (but you still got to beat Cal).
The Pac 10 has ZERO undisputed NC's since 1980.
Sure, the number of NCs won is not the FULL story, but if the Pac 10 hasn't won ONE undisputed NC since the 1970s, that doesn't speak too highly of your conference. You can spin it HOWEVER you want, but in the end , you still are left with ZERO.
Oh please, Scott..... keep babbling on about SOS. You are still stuck with the argument that since the Pac 10 conference schedule is so pathetically weak, you have to schedule tougher OOC games. Nice touch there throwing in a few "woulda haves" on USC two years ago. I don't care about would haves and should haves. No one else does either. Look at USC last year... they had a good OOC schedule (although that Utah and Colorado St was pretty weak) but the SOS for USC wasn't good enough to get to the big dance. Looks like you are still clinging to the would haves and should haves . Sure, blame it all on Hawaii.
I honestly can't believe you actually think that since the Pac 10 has very few undefeated conference teams that makes your conference tough. You make it sound like in the SEC and Big 12 it's "one team and the 11 dwarfs" -- every game in the Pac 10 is moderately winnable for any other Pac 10 team. You guys may have more exciting games, but that's because all the teams are mediocre at best. Defense is an optional requirement in the Pac 10, too. Don't penalize the SEC and Big 12 because there are 2-3 teams in each conference that are basically unbeatable in conference play. I can assure you in the SEC and Big 12 there are teams that know "oh great, we have to play at Norman, that's a loss." No one really does that in the Pac 10 except for maybe at USC if you're Arizona. Every conference game in the Pac 10 is a moderately winnable game. you Pac 10 supporters view this as being "tough" but in actuality, it just means your conference isn't very good. It's more exciting to watch, but is it tougher??? No. Is it as tough, hell no. Don't confuse a bunch of mediocre teams that all have a chance to beat eachother as "tough" --- what do you think Vandy does every year when they look at their SEC schedule??? Do you think Vandy has a realistic chance to win at Florida, Georgia, LSU, Arkansas, or Tennessee??????? They know right off the bat they'll have about 5 conference losses. Put Vandy in the Pac 10 and they might go 5-4.
The Pac 10 is fun to watch, but part of why it is fun is because anyone can win. If you view that as tough, that's fine. The rest of the country views it as "second tier" --- never a dominant team in the Pac 10. All the Pac 10 is a bunch of decent-to-bad teams. Occasionally they have a team head and shoulders above the rest, which USC has a chance to become that. (but you still got to beat Cal).
It must be tough to prepare a team to play, when every week your opponent believes they can beat you. It's logical that teams that play in a conf where every game is "moderately winnable," would schedule tough OOC to prepare themselves for conf teams who can beat them.
Why did you go there? I had to go back & do the research again. Here are the pts allowed by Big 12 teams v BCS competition last year.
Baylor 45.7
Colorado 33
TX A&M 42.8
Mizzou 24
Nebraska 18.2
Oklahoma 14.1
TX Tech 39
Texas 24.8
K State 17.3
Kansas 33.1
OSU 32.2
Iowa St 42.5
Seven Big 12 teams allowed more than 30 pts per game to other BCS teams. Take out all of the Baylor & ISU games & the numbers look even worse for the Big 12. The Big 12 was the worst defensive conf in the BCS last year. Thats what led to their pitiful 1-6 showing in last yrs bowl games v BCS teams.
Let's look at the Pac 10 defensive #'s now!
UCLA 25.2
Arizona 40.9
ASU 29.1
Stanford 33.3
Cal 25.9
Washington 27.4
WSU 22.1
Oregon 28
OSU 28
USC 17.1
Only 2 Pac 10 teams allowed more than 30 pts per game to BCS teams. The Pac 10 was 3-1 v BCS teams in the bowls & the 1 loss was by a single point!
How you make this mighty leap in logic I'll never know! But, how tough can a conf be if 5-6 games for 2-3 teams are over before they even start? How tough can that be for the Oklahoma's, LSU's & Tennessee's? Especially, when those schools go out of their way to schedule even more weak teams OOC to play.
This statement disqualifies you from any intelligent discussion about college football! I dont think Vandy (or Baylor, or ISU, or TX A&M) would have a realistic chance of winning at Stanford or Arizona. I'm glad you didnt try to say you can pencil in 5 conf losses for any Pac 10 team every single year.
I took the liberty to change the "anyone" in your statement to "everyone," just to make it more accurate. Read that statement over & over & over again, then tell me how a conf where everyone can win isnt tough. OU dominated the Big 12 regular season schedule last year. & when they faced an LSU team that struggled thru some tough games in the SEC, the Sooners fell on their faces. The dominant Sooners didnt score one meaningful TD in the 2H of a game all last season. So much for your "dominant teams" theory.
Last edited:
mansa, why dont you do a little more research and show the OVERALL defensive #s for each conference over the last year and THEN indicate where you got the information.Dont be a Scott4USc and pick and choose your info as in "against BCS competition." While you're at it, show the PPG the offenses scored and how they ranked in the NCAA. If you want anyone to believe the Pac 10 actually plays defense, you need to provide a compelling argument, not a mix and match argument. How many Pac 10 teams played BCS competition???? How many Big 12 and SEC teams played against BCS competition? Your claims leave you with a lot of holes and unanswered questions, let alone anything verifiable.
Oklahoma didn't score a "meaningful 2H TD all year" --- and how is this relevant? They finished 3rd in the NCAA in scoring offense and won all their 11 of 12 wins by double digits. They did score a pretty meaningful TD against Alabama last year in the 2nd half, so you obviously need to check your numbers a little more thoroughly before you bark these statements out as universal law. Okla won that game 20-13 in Alabama.
Also please explain to me how OU "fell on their faces" against LSU and lost 21-14 in the Lousiana Superdome 100 miles away from LSU's campus.
Don't claim my statements "disqualify" me when you have nothing really to say about how good/great/decent the pac 10 is. All you could say is "no no no, the big 12 was formed in 1996" but you have nothing to say about the Pac 10's NCs. You are just playing dodge ball. You have nothing to say about the content I provided except to say the big 12 was only formed in 1996. Your Pac 10 girls football league is still left with 0/zero/none/not any/not a single/nada/zilch undisputed NC since the 1970s
FACT: The Pac 10 hasn't won an undisputed NC since the 1970s.
FACT: The Big 8/12 and SEC have both won at least 4 since 1980 each.
Don't "take the liberty" to change my statements. I said "anyone" can win any Pac 10 game virtually.Don't twist it around to say EVERYONE has a chance to win the Pac 10 conference. Arizona has about as much of a chance to win the Pac 10 as Scott4USC has in beng taken seriously on this forum.
HERE IS MY QUESTION FOR YOU, MANSA: Who has a better chance to win the respective conference?
Arizona in the Pac 10?
Baylor in the Big 12?
Vandy in the SEC?
ANSWER THE QUESTION. I WILL REPEAT IT UNTIL YOU ANSWER. DONT PLAY DODGE BALL.
PS you have done nothing to disprove my "dominant teams" theory. All you did was babble (incorrectly) that Oklahoma hadn't scored a meaningful 2H TD all season. How that is relevant is beyond me, even if your information was true and factual (which it wasn't).
Oklahoma didn't score a "meaningful 2H TD all year" --- and how is this relevant? They finished 3rd in the NCAA in scoring offense and won all their 11 of 12 wins by double digits. They did score a pretty meaningful TD against Alabama last year in the 2nd half, so you obviously need to check your numbers a little more thoroughly before you bark these statements out as universal law. Okla won that game 20-13 in Alabama.
Also please explain to me how OU "fell on their faces" against LSU and lost 21-14 in the Lousiana Superdome 100 miles away from LSU's campus.
Don't claim my statements "disqualify" me when you have nothing really to say about how good/great/decent the pac 10 is. All you could say is "no no no, the big 12 was formed in 1996" but you have nothing to say about the Pac 10's NCs. You are just playing dodge ball. You have nothing to say about the content I provided except to say the big 12 was only formed in 1996. Your Pac 10 girls football league is still left with 0/zero/none/not any/not a single/nada/zilch undisputed NC since the 1970s
FACT: The Pac 10 hasn't won an undisputed NC since the 1970s.
FACT: The Big 8/12 and SEC have both won at least 4 since 1980 each.
Don't "take the liberty" to change my statements. I said "anyone" can win any Pac 10 game virtually.Don't twist it around to say EVERYONE has a chance to win the Pac 10 conference. Arizona has about as much of a chance to win the Pac 10 as Scott4USC has in beng taken seriously on this forum.
HERE IS MY QUESTION FOR YOU, MANSA: Who has a better chance to win the respective conference?
Arizona in the Pac 10?
Baylor in the Big 12?
Vandy in the SEC?
ANSWER THE QUESTION. I WILL REPEAT IT UNTIL YOU ANSWER. DONT PLAY DODGE BALL.
PS you have done nothing to disprove my "dominant teams" theory. All you did was babble (incorrectly) that Oklahoma hadn't scored a meaningful 2H TD all season. How that is relevant is beyond me, even if your information was true and factual (which it wasn't).
Last edited:
Scott4USC said:
Point of information: Just so you know - these are called "home at home" series. Meaning that : You play at our home, and we'll play at your home. They do this contractually. It isn't one sided with one team travelling to these environments, and not getting them back at their home field. Unless of course it is a scheduling snafu, and one team is stuck with an open date, and no one to schedule. Eventually, within the next 5 years, those teams come back and play at the opponents home field. But I'm sure you already knew that.
First, the term "v BCS competition" means, every game against every team from the ACC, Big East, Big 10, Big 12, Pac 10 & SEC. No hocus-pocus, no jaded #'s. Most every team played between 9-11 games "v BCS competition." The majority of which were conference games. The only defensive #'s excluded came against the Sun Belt, MAC, C-USA, Mtn West, etc... Who cares about those games? If you want to know how well Oklahoma does against N Tx, then you add it up! The only offensive #'s excluded were all of the OOC games. Who the hell do you think was scoring 40+ against Baylor & ISU? If you want to prove the offensive prowess of the Big 12 v OOC opponents, you look up the #'s! Then maybe you'll have something to back your incompetent arguments. You just let the forum know that you dont even know what teams make up the BCS!
Second, you took a shot at the Pac 10's defensive ability. My post wasnt trying to prove the greatness of the Pac 10, just the weakness of the Big 12. You couldnt even defend those pathetic defensive #'s, just attack my source for (& use) of information! I went to espn.com and looked at the schedule results & used a calculator to add & divide the #'s -- took about 1/2 hr on my slow ass computer! Nothing up my sleeve!
If you had bet OU in that game that "meaningful TD" didnt save your bet. I'm a handicapper first, & a fan second. OU was supposed to smash Bama. I think the TD in question was set up by the special teams after the #3 scoring offense stalled. & speaking of the #3 scoring offense, look how many of those 30+ ppg Big 12 teams they played! Wasnt Tx Tech the #1 scoring offense??? Coincidence??? I think not!
Again, OU was supposed to win! They went into that game #1 & were favored! You mean the trips to Columbia, Ames & Dallas didnt prepare the Sooners to play their best in a tough road environment. How could that happen??? (sarcasm)
As for your dominant teams theory. OU dominated the Big 12 regular season. I dont think anyone can say that LSU dominated the SEC. The less dominant team that faced the tougher tests won the game. The same type of thing usually happens in the NFL. The teams w the best regular season records rarely win the Super Bowl.
You still havent explained how a NC makes the entire conf better. I, personally, dont believe that it does. A NC team & a strong conf are 2 different things. You havent made a single point in defense of your own logic. Why should I argue against a point that you cant effectively argue for? And you havent even tried! You just keep saying "look, look, look. No NC's. look, look, look. We have 4" I can remember in my younger days reading alot about how this team or that team was awarded the NC. Until the BCS, teams were awarded NC's, they werent won on the field. So your precious titles won shrivels down to 1 again. You still cant say how that 1 title made Tx Tech or Kansas any better.
So why dont you stop playing dodge ball & tell us what makes your conference so good. Not the individual NC teams that shine above the rest, but the entire conf. Baylor on up! Baylor hasnt won 10 conf games since the Big 12 started in 1996. What characteristic does Iowa St share w the 94/95 NC Neb teams? When does Texas get its turn to put Colorado's NC trophy in their trophy case? And how long do they get to keep it? When does the Kansas team get invited to the White House on behalf of the '00 OU Sooners team?
Arizona has a better chance of winning the Pac 10 than Baylor or Vandy have of winning just 3 conf games in one season. Can you tell me when was the last time Baylor or Vandy won that many conf games? Arizona has won or shared the Pac 10 title within the last 14 yrs. Every Pac 10 team except Cal has done the same!!
No dodge ball! All straight answers! I dont really think you could do the same.
Last edited:
mansa, it sure is interesting that your statements evolve.... now a meaninful 2H TD is for spread-covering purposes only eh? This is relevant how? I must have missed something. If OU is leading Texas 37-13 at half and they don't score a "meaingful" TD in the 2H that's somehow going to effect the spread. I wasn't aware that you classify "meaningful" for gambling purposes only. Perhaps you should have indicated such.
Ahhhhaaa so it's "you do the math, Avalanche" --- interesting that you decided to do some math, but not enough to tell the full story. Sorry, but how all the teams do in the ENTIRE schedule is relevant. So yes, how Okla does against North Texas is part of it, and how USC did against Utah is relevant, etc...
BCS Competition huh.... so it's back to the technicality game. Every Division 1A team is BCS competition. So then why do you leave out North Texas' 3 points against Oklahoma? For some reason I figured you were talking about BCS competition in terms of BCS Bowl teams.
Wasn't USC supposed to KILL California?
So Arizona has the easiest road to a conference championship. Thanks for admitting it is easier for any Pac 10 team to win the conference. I agree with you. Baylor has virtually no chance and neither does Vandy. This is the point I am trying to make. When you have 2-3 of the top teams in the nation EACH in the Big 12 and SEC rather than just 1 top team in the Pac 10, that's partly why the Pac 10 isn't very tough. Are 3 roadblocks tougher to get by than just 1? My math says yes. Perhaps you disagree.
Get back to us when you want to do all the math.
Ahhhhaaa so it's "you do the math, Avalanche" --- interesting that you decided to do some math, but not enough to tell the full story. Sorry, but how all the teams do in the ENTIRE schedule is relevant. So yes, how Okla does against North Texas is part of it, and how USC did against Utah is relevant, etc...
BCS Competition huh.... so it's back to the technicality game. Every Division 1A team is BCS competition. So then why do you leave out North Texas' 3 points against Oklahoma? For some reason I figured you were talking about BCS competition in terms of BCS Bowl teams.
Wasn't USC supposed to KILL California?
So Arizona has the easiest road to a conference championship. Thanks for admitting it is easier for any Pac 10 team to win the conference. I agree with you. Baylor has virtually no chance and neither does Vandy. This is the point I am trying to make. When you have 2-3 of the top teams in the nation EACH in the Big 12 and SEC rather than just 1 top team in the Pac 10, that's partly why the Pac 10 isn't very tough. Are 3 roadblocks tougher to get by than just 1? My math says yes. Perhaps you disagree.
Get back to us when you want to do all the math.
