Watch out college football.........

[Avalanche]

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!

Nice selective math. If the numbers were in your favor, you'd have included them.

Originally posted by mansa-musa
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!

Texas Tech's demise is they have a Pac 10 defense.

Originally posted by mansa-musa
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.

This is really funny. You are saying that it's no big deal that the Pac 10 hasn't won a NC since the 1970s and that doesnt make the Pac 10 weak. What's there to argue with someone who thinks NCs are a popularity contest and "werent won on the field" - ARE YOU SERIOUS???? NCs arent won on the field pre-BCS???? Tell that to Nebraska and Miami. This is by far your most ignorant statement. Sure, lets hand Prairie View a NC for finally winning a game. When did you become a fan of the BCS? Just now? Suddenly you are a proponent of it since pre-BCS NCs "werent won on the field."

Originally posted by mansa_musa
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.

Hmmmm, no one has asked me to defend the SEC and Big 12, so no dodge ball from me. Also let's look at the originator of this fine thread. Scott4USC (ironically you and Scott4USC both sure write similarly with the constant abbreviations of the word conference to be "conf" and using &'s instead of and) but anyway you two are the only fine gentlemen here defending the pac 10, but Scott4USC is the one starting it. Where are all of your other Pac 10 supporters jumping all over me? (Sorry, the Jimmy Buffett guy doesn't count)

I'll tell you exactly why the SEC and Big 12 are so good: CONFERENCE SOS

SEC teams have to play the likes of Tennessee, Florida, LSU, Arkansas, Georgia, Ole Miss, Alabama... etc... no one can dominate this conference. There are too many near-the-top teams to deal with and hostile environments to play in. Any team making it thru the SEC with only 1 conference loss is good enough to beat anybody in college football more often than not. This has been evidenced by the SEC's National Championships as well as # of Bowl Teams year after year. Oh yeah, once you make it thru the regular season you have to prove your manhood again just one more tme in the SEC Championship game.

SEC is BY FAR the toughest conference in the USA.

Big 12 comes in 2nd IMO, but with the likes of Okla, Texas, Nebraska, Kansas State these teams beat up on eachother also.

There are Big 12 and SEC teams are GOOD ENOUGH to WIN IT ALL unlike the Pac 10 --- to improve, you've got to play the best. Iowa State improved by having to play OU and K State. May not reflect on the scoreboard, but do you want MAJOR LEAGUE COMPETITION or do you want to hang out in the MINOR LEAGUES and play the Pac 10 schedule?

 

[Scott4USC]

Avalanche :nono:

SEC is BY FAR the toughest conference in the USA.

EXPLAIN THIS!!!!!!!!!! If what you said above is true, then please explain the hard core data below? Where is your data? Oh yeah, you just offer your worthless opinion with no support. Once again you lack support because you have no material to work with.

Pac-10 vs. SEC past four years

Went back over the records of the two conferences and how they fared against BCS conference and Notre Dame over the past four years (since 2000). Here is what I found.

Pac-10 was 34-34 vs. BCS competition. SEC was 32-35. Of the 67 games against BCS conference competition, 23 were played because they were bowl games, and another 15 were played because of rivalry games (Georgia vs. Georgia Tech [ACC], Florida vs Miami and FSU [Big East, ACC] and South Carolina vs. Clemson [ACC]). That means the 12 teams of the SEC scheduled 29 games against BCS competition in four years, or a little more than one game every other year per team. The Pac-10 played 15 of its 68 games against BCS competition because of bowl games, and another four were from a rivalry game (USC vs. Notre Dame). That means the ten teams of the Pac-10 scheduled 49 games over four years, a one and a quarter games a year per team.

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

The SEC has played 243 nonconference games over the past six years, includng this year (not counting bowl games). Of those 243 games, only 54 were road games (22%). That's right, 12 teams over the course of six years played a total of 54 road games against nonconference opponents.

I'll tell you exactly why the SEC and Big 12 are so good: CONFERENCE SOS

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. 1 team from BIG 12 and 0 teams from SEC.

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! 0 teams from BIG 12 and 0 teams from SEC.

Where are the teams from the supiore BIG 12 and SEC conferences??? I was told both conferences are by far the best.

So if the SEC or Big 12 are soooo dominant and "by far" toughest conferences, then how come the Pac 10 has more teams ranked ahead in terms of SOS???? WHY??? Pac 10 is so weak, right? That is impossible to have 5 teams ranked in the top 10 in SOS for a decade if they play in such a weak conference compared to SEC or Big 12. How many SEC or Big 12 teams are there? How many of the dominant SEC or Big 12 teams make the list? You are just an uneducated college football fan. My argument is the SEC nor Big 12 (who is not very good at all) are not more dominant than the Pac 10. Nowhere do I say the Pac 10 is more dominant. FYI, last year Big 12 was pathetic.

Schedule Strengths

--Decade Team Rankings (click years)
--Sorted by Schedule Points (click)

Lastly, your argument about NC's is fine. But sad thing is that it only involves 1 team per year. That is exactly 8% of the conference. Then you argue there are 4 great quality teams (i agree) but sadly that is only 33% of the conference. Explain the rest of the conference. We are using the word CONFERENCE which means 100% of the teams in both the BIG 12 and SEC. I think the problem with you is you don't understand the argument. Like I said, if you put 1 NFL team in the WAC does that make the WAC a top conference? NO! Not even close. If you put an NFL team in the WAC along with 2 other solid teams, does that make the WAC the toughest conference? NO!

 

[Scott4USC]

mansa_musa

I really enjoyed reading your posts to Avalanche. I laughed so loud. It was great. You completely tore him apart and he failed to counter argue. He also added zero support for his argument unless you factor in NC's won when talking about 10-12 teams in each conference. I'll say it again. I wish one day you and I could butt heads because you come across being very intelligent. You always offer your opinion and have info to back it up. Very enjoyable to read.

Avalanche

Your replies to mansa_musa were quite pathetic. :nono:

 

[Avalanche]

Scott, you are a firm believer in the cut-and-paste because all you do is rehash the same stuff from the same threads. YOU are the idiot claiming the Pac 10 is as good as the SEC (a groundless argument) so the burden of proof is on YOU

YOU are the originator of these threads, pleading for Pac 10 legitimacy. If you're going to make the claims, you need to post the ENTIRE story. Don't just post that the Pac 10 is better head to head against the SEC for a very small time frame WITHOUT posting who beat who.

Once again you dodge the argument of CONFERENCE SOS and replace it with individual SOS. How about that Pac 10 conference schedule? How does that compare to the SEC SOS? You have no chance.

I find it funny you say my opinions are "worthless." This is coming from a guy who thinks a decade is from 2000-2003. You remind me of the "new rich" compared to the "old rich." You finally have a contender in the Pac 10 for a NC and now you think you're established. meanwhile, the established SEC and Big 12 churn out NC contenders EVERY year.

And finally, whatever the hell you're babbling about concerning one NFL-type team in the conference, you simply say "that doesnt make the conference tougher." If you have to play an SEC-type conference schedule, you're facing top-notch teams every week mostly. You don't think that matters, obviously, and those trips to Palo Alto, Tuscon, Tempe, UCLA,, Oregon State, and Seattle are tougher than going to Gainsville, ,Auburn, tuscaloosa, Baton Rouge, Tennessee, Fayetteville, etc....

Is it easier to play a conference schedule against 1 team in the top 10 or 3-4 teams ranked in the top 10 YEAR AFTER YEAR??? If you say yes, you're looking at the Pac 10 conference schedule. If you say no, you're a certifiable idiot.

PS I love how you say my argument responses to mansa musa are "quite pathetic." --- You put stock in this guy's statements that before the BCS: "national championships weren't won on the field."

Well where in the hell were these NCs won? Disneyland?

Also, if you're going to babble on about SOS, why don't you post the W/L records? Prairie View might have a tough SOS but if they go 0-11 against tougher competition, what difference does that make?

POST THE WHOLE STORY OR SHUT UP. GUESS WE'LL HAVE TO DEAL W/ YOUR BS UNTIL AUGUST WHEN VTECH KICKS USC ALL OVER THE FIELD.