Weak Pac 10???

[Avalanche]

Re: Weak Pac 10???

Weak Pac 10??? :nono:


[The Pac-10 is the toughest conference and the winningest conference of the BCS conferences this decade (2000-2003). [/URL]

Hmmmm.... now Scott4USC, you claim that you never said the PAC 10 was the toughest conference? What was this all about above then? You started this thread claiming that!?!?

Indeed, I have NOTHING to back up my opinion that the SEC and Big 12 are WAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYY better than the Pac 10. I don't dabble in numbers. I have a life, and I make better use of my time. I don't need to come up with these numbers. Anyone who has a brain that follows college football will rank the SEC or Big 12 or both ahead of the PAC 10 any day of the week.

Stanford? Cal? Arizona??? Arizona State??? These teams are pretty downright poor. I'll give a C to WSU, Washington, UCLA, and the two Oregon programs. There's no doubt that the class of the PAC 10 is USC so I will give them an A, but don't throw out all these numbers saying the PAC 10 is the strongest and toughest conference this decade when the decade is only 3 years old!?!?!?!?

 

[Mr Hockey]

The only thing that is quite sad Mr Hockey is your post.

No, it is you Scott that is the sad one. Is it any surprise that most on this board don't take you seriously & find you annoying. You have a problem & should get some help. You obsess over something that in the bigger picture of life isn't that important.

 

[Scott4USC]

Avalanche

Your right, I did say....

"The Pac-10 is the toughest conference and the winningest conference of the BCS conferences this decade (2000-2003)."

I said that based on the numbers I provided in my post. You cannot dispute the numbers because those are facts. So based on those numbers, the Pac 10 is the toughest conference from 2000-2003. However, I did not think the Pac 10 was the toughest conference last season.

"If you had a brain", why do you downgrade the Pac 10 when the conference clearly is a top 3 conference based on the numbers I provided? Your opinion is meaningless to me if you cannot provide anything to back it up. I always try and back up my opinion with objective or subjective material. You provide nothing to convince me the SEC and BIG 12 are better conferences.

You stated your opinion about the SEC and BIG 12 being a better conference but you fail to counter argue the numbers supporting the Pac 10 ahead of both those conferences. In addition, you fail to state why you think both those conferences are better.

 

[Scott4USC]

Mr. Hockey

No, it is you Scott that is the sad one. Is it any surprise that most on this board don't take you seriously & find you annoying. You have a problem & should get some help. You obsess over something that in the bigger picture of life isn't that important.

People on this board have no choice but to take me seriously. I back up most of my arguments with objective material to support my opinion. Most people on this board fail to do that and therefore are threatened by my posts. They have nothing to back up and support their opinion. These same posters cannot counter argue the objective facts I throw at them. Most people here are ingnorant and only believe what they want to believe even if the numbers do not support their opinion. I enjoy debating and proving ignorant people wrong.

I look down at people like you who rather attack someone vs attacking the information provided. I do not waste my time offering advice and my opinion of you. This is a college football forum so talk college football. Do not waste your time and give your personal opinion about me. :nono:

 

[Mr Hockey]

Most people don't take you seriously here & that is a FACT. Where are all your supposed supporters? No where to be found is the answer.

Yes, this is a college football forum which you are doing your best to turn into a joke. You are OBSESSED with arguing for USC with anyone & everyone on any little detail. You sit here & do your best to dig up stat after stat, even taking other people's words & using them to win a debate. How sad is that? Go out & do something with your time other then OBSESSING over USC.

 

[Scott4USC]

Mr Hockey

Another worthless post by you. Just thought I let you know this thread was not about USC. It was about the strengths of conferences. :nooo:

Most people don't take you seriously here & that is a FACT.

Who cares what people think of me in this forum. I am not going to be a sheep to make friends here and agree the SEC etc... is a superior conference.

Focus on the material inside a post and not the poster. Don't give your opinion about the poster but rather give your opinion on the material inside the post.

 

[Avalanche]

SCOTT4USC

I am not saying the PAC 10 is bad, but for you to post all this stuff about it being the toughest conference is pure jibberish. i don't care if you're talking about 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, or the 2000s...... I don't care what numbers you post.... they are not the toughest conference in the nation.

Lets talk about the 2000s since you seem to want to do that --- I wouldn't rank the Pac 10 out of the top 5, but surely not #1.

As far as you saying I "cannot" dispute the numbers because those are "facts" is not true. I will dispute any numbers posted by anyone claiming the Pac 10 is the toughest conference in the nation. I dont care if ESPN posts it. I still don't believe it. This bodes ill for someone like you with the name "SCOTT4USC" let alone a viable, credible source posting any information.

Where's your response defending Arizona, Arizona State, Cal, Stanford, Oregon State???? That's half of your conference right there and those teams are weak to say the least.Or, did you just forget they are part of your conference?

I side with "Mr Hockey" -- I did a search of your posts and all you do is pump up the PAC 10 and USC -- this gives you NO credibility whatsoever... You are simply a homer (nothing wrong with it, either) but jeez give it a break. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH BEING A HOMER but how on earth do you expect ANYONE to take you seriously????????

FACT --- The only reason USC won half of the national title is because Oklahoma lost the big 12 title game. Without that happening, you guys are a solid #3 (nothing wrong with that, either) but jeez.... give your one-sided propaganda a rest.

FACT --- The PAC 10 is NOT the strongest conference in football.

VERIFICATION -- Not even needed. No one objectively would ever claim such.

 

[Mr Hockey]

Mr Hockey

Another worthless post by you. Just thought I let you know this thread was not about USC. It was about the strengths of conferences. :nooo:



Who cares what people think of me in this forum. I am not going to be a sheep to make friends here and agree the SEC etc... is a superior conference.

Focus on the material inside a post and not the poster. Don't give your opinion about the poster but rather give your opinion on the material inside the post.

Typical post by you sweeping the facts underneath the carpet. Get a life homer.

 

[Avalanche]

SCOTT4USC

SCOTT4USC

Oh, by the way, let me throw in just ONE other aspect:

SCOTT4USC -- who cares about the nonconference schedule????????

Let's talk about the CONFERENCE schedule among the PAC 10, BIG 12, BIG 10, and SEC.

Go ahead and try to tell me or anyone else here that the PAC 10 has a tougher CONFERENCE schedule than the SEC, BIG 12, or BIG 10.

Your argument is simply flawed. Who cares about the nonconference schedule??? NO ONE. Let's talk CONFERENCE schedule. The top 3 teams in the SEC, BIG 12, and BIG 10 would LOVE, LOVE, LOVE to play Arizona, Arizona State, Stanford, Cal, and Oregon State every single year or most years.

USC gets to play sooo many CONFERENCE cupcakes. Lets see USC play at Tuscaloosa or Baton Rouge or Gainsville or Norman or Austin or Manhattan or Rocky Top or Columbus or Ann Arbor.

I can assure you one thing, if the PAC 10 had a tougher conference schedule, they'd be scheduling cupcake nonconference games more often. The conference schedule for the REAL top conferences in the USA (SEC, BIG 12, and BIG 10) are way more grueling than a trip to Palo Alto, Berkely, Tuscon, or Tempe.

Look, the PAC 10 is a GOOD conference. But for you to post all this utter garbage about it being the being and 'toughest' conference in the nation is just showing you suffer from foaming of the mouth. The PAC 10 is an above-average conference most certainly, but certainly not the "toughest" as you claim it to be. One of the greatest aspects of America is freedom of speech, and no matter how rediculous your statements are, you're entitled to state your opinion.

 

[Scott4USC]

Avalanche

I somewhat enjoyed reading your last 2 posts. You did not disrespect the Pac 10 but you do not give the conference the same respect as I do. I guess that is ok with me. You still cannot counter argue the numbers in front of you. In addition, I attached a link at the bottom of this post for your enjoyment. I bet you cannot counter argue that post either.

Based on the numbers I provided, the Pac 10 was the toughest conference between the years (2000-2003). Now you may judge toughness of conferences differently and that is ok by me. However, you ?cannot? ignore the numbers I provided in my post.

I will dispute any numbers posted by anyone claiming the Pac 10 is the toughest conference in the nation. I dont care if ESPN posts it. I still don't believe it.

That is a very ignorant statement and shows lack of intelligence.

Where's your response defending Arizona, Arizona State, Cal, Stanford, Oregon State???? That's half of your conference right there and those teams are weak to say the least. Or, did you just forget they are part of your conference?

The numbers I provided have all the teams factored in every conference. . So no, I did not forget about those teams and those teams helped make the Pac 10 conference so tough.

Saying I have no credibility is bogus. I always try and support my opinion with objective facts. You cannot dispute facts, therefore you cannot say I have no credibility. If you disagree with someone, that does not mean they lack credibility. If I supported my opinion with only subjective material, then you can somewhat say I lack credibility and I am biased. That is why I always throw the facts out and hard core data. Makes all of you who say I lack credibility look foolish.

SCOTT4USC -- who cares about the nonconference schedule????????

Let's talk about the CONFERENCE schedule among the PAC 10, BIG 12, BIG 10, and SEC.

Well I think nonconference schedule is very important when comparing conferences. Big 12 and SEC rack up easy wins with their OOC and therefore gets there teams ranked in the top 25. If a conference generally plays tough OOC competition, that same conference will most likely lose few OOC games and not be ranked in the top 25. Public perception is to judge the strength of conferences based on how many teams are ranked in the top 25. That is wrong. The scheduling of a patsy OOC schedule easily fools you and many others into thinking the SEC is so tough. Reason you think the SEC is so tough is look at how many wins each team has and how many teams are ranked in the top 25. Think about why so many teams have so many wins.
Teams in the SEC rack up wins against inferior OOC competition and rack up wins in conference play. But wait, you said the SEC conference competition is so tough???? If the conference is so tough, then how come throughout the years so many teams go undefeated in conference play? How come only select few teams win the conference championship? How come teams often go winless in conference play? Is it tough top to bottom? How come the SEC struggles against BCS competition??? Is that what you think is a superior conference??? :nooo:

Here is my personal opinion of the Big 12, SEC, and Pac 10.

Big 12 and SEC are top heavy conferences. If you compare the top 3 teams in each conference on "average", I say the Big 12 and SEC are slightly ahead of the Pac 10. The Pac 10 is clearly a strong conference from top to bottom. In the last 11 years, 9 of the 10 teams in the Pac 10 have won the conference title. Teams from the Pac 10 play 8/9 teams, while in the SEC a team will miss out on playing 3 teams and most likely not the 3 teams at the bottom of the conference. Get what I am saying? You judge the Big 12 and SEC as 12 team conference, but the teams do not play all each other. SO therefore you get more teams ranked in the top 25. Do not give me the bogus argument they play a title game. What about the teams ranked 2-4 in each division of the conference? Another argument against the BIG 12 and SEC. Both conference have teams that have not won the conference title in 20-50 years, some never winning the title. In addition, these conference have multiple teams every year that often go winless in conference play. I cannot remember the last time a team went winless in conference play in the Pac 10. I also think only 1 team in the last 11 years in the Pac 10 has won all their conference games. In the SEC and Big 12, the conference champion often wins all their conference play.

Think about it.

Read the first and 5th post in this thread posted by me. Then tell me how superior the SEC is to the Pac 10. I am not saying the Pac 10 is so much better, but I know the SEC is not more dominant like many people on here ?want? to believe.

The Myth of the SEC

 

[Mr Hockey]

Avalanche

I somewhat enjoyed reading your last 2 posts. You did not disrespect the Pac 10 but you do not give the conference the same respect as I do. I guess that is ok with me. You still cannot counter argue the numbers in front of you. In addition, I attached a link at the bottom of this post for your enjoyment. I bet you cannot counter argue that post either.

Based on the numbers I provided, the Pac 10 was the toughest conference between the years (2000-2003). Now you may judge toughness of conferences differently and that is ok by me. However, you ?cannot? ignore the numbers I provided in my post.



That is a very ignorant statement and shows lack of intelligence.



The numbers I provided have all the teams factored in every conference. . So no, I did not forget about those teams and those teams helped make the Pac 10 conference so tough.

Saying I have no credibility is bogus. I always try and support my opinion with objective facts. You cannot dispute facts, therefore you cannot say I have no credibility. If you disagree with someone, that does not mean they lack credibility. If I supported my opinion with only subjective material, then you can somewhat say I lack credibility and I am biased. That is why I always throw the facts out and hard core data. Makes all of you who say I lack credibility look foolish.



Well I think nonconference schedule is very important when comparing conferences. Big 12 and SEC rack up easy wins with their OOC and therefore gets there teams ranked in the top 25. If a conference generally plays tough OOC competition, that same conference will most likely lose few OOC games and not be ranked in the top 25. Public perception is to judge the strength of conferences based on how many teams are ranked in the top 25. That is wrong. The scheduling of a patsy OOC schedule easily fools you and many others into thinking the SEC is so tough. Reason you think the SEC is so tough is look at how many wins each team has and how many teams are ranked in the top 25. Think about why so many teams have so many wins.
Teams in the SEC rack up wins against inferior OOC competition and rack up wins in conference play. But wait, you said the SEC conference competition is so tough???? If the conference is so tough, then how come throughout the years so many teams go undefeated in conference play? How come only select few teams win the conference championship? How come teams often go winless in conference play? Is it tough top to bottom? How come the SEC struggles against BCS competition??? Is that what you think is a superior conference??? :nooo:

Here is my personal opinion of the Big 12, SEC, and Pac 10.

Big 12 and SEC are top heavy conferences. If you compare the top 3 teams in each conference on "average", I say the Big 12 and SEC are slightly ahead of the Pac 10. The Pac 10 is clearly a strong conference from top to bottom. In the last 11 years, 9 of the 10 teams in the Pac 10 have won the conference title. Teams from the Pac 10 play 8/9 teams, while in the SEC a team will miss out on playing 3 teams and most likely not the 3 teams at the bottom of the conference. Get what I am saying? You judge the Big 12 and SEC as 12 team conference, but the teams do not play all each other. SO therefore you get more teams ranked in the top 25. Do not give me the bogus argument they play a title game. What about the teams ranked 2-4 in each division of the conference? Another argument against the BIG 12 and SEC. Both conference have teams that have not won the conference title in 20-50 years, some never winning the title. In addition, these conference have multiple teams every year that often go winless in conference play. I cannot remember the last time a team went winless in conference play in the Pac 10. I also think only 1 team in the last 11 years in the Pac 10 has won all their conference games. In the SEC and Big 12, the conference champion often wins all their conference play.

Think about it.

Read the first and 5th post in this thread posted by me. Then tell me how superior the SEC is to the Pac 10. I am not saying the Pac 10 is so much better, but I know the SEC is not more dominant like many people on here ?want? to believe.

The Myth of the SEC

GET A LIFE ALREADY

How many titles has the Pac 10 won in the last 20 years?

 

[Avalanche]

SCOTT4USC, I am not sure whether to break out the Kleenex or the heavy artillery with you. You claim that one of my statements is "ignorant" and shows a "lack of intelligence" when I said that I wouldn't care one iota WHO posts that the PAC 10 is the toughest conference (fortunately for me and everyone else, no one posts such nonsense except for you) and even if a credible source like ESPN were to post this, I still wouldn't believe a word of it. This, of course, is a hypothetical argument because no one in their right mind would ever claim the PAC 10 is the toughest conference in the nation. For you to claim that my opinion shows a "lack of intelligence" is absolutely, positively absurd and also shows that you have tunnel vision.

Ok, now the proof is in the pudding here:

Lets just play a hypothetical season here with NO nonconference games at all. ALL GAMES ARE ON THE ROAD. USC has to play every conference team regardless of games. Would USC rather play:

USC at Alabama
USC at Arkansas
USC at Auburn
USC at Florida
USC at Georgia
USC at Kentucky
USC at LSU
USC at Ole Miss
USC at Mississippi St
USC at South Carolina
USC at Tennessee
USC at Vandy

-- or --

USC at Baylor
USC at Colorado
USC at Iowa St
USC at Kansas
USC at Kansas St
USC at Missouri
USC at Nebraska
USC at Oklahoma
USC at Oklahoma St
USC at Texas
USC at Texas A&M
USC at Texas Tech

-- or --

USC at Illinois
USC at Indiana
USC at Iowa
USC at Michigan
USC at Michigan St
USC at Minnesota
USC at Northwestern
USC at Ohio St
USC at Penn St
USC at Purdue
USC at Wisconsin

-- or --

USC at Arizona
USC at Arizona St
USC at Cal
USC at Oregon
USC at Oregon St
USC at Stanford
USC at UCLA
USC at Washington
USC at Washington St

THROW OUT EVERYTHING PERTAINING TO NONCONFERENCE GAMES. I DONT CARE IF YOU THINK IT IS IMPORTANT OR NOT -- IT IS NOT A TRUE REPRESENTATION OF THE STRENGTH OF THE CONFERENCES. YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHO HAS THE TOUGHEST CONFERENCE - GET RID OF THIS --FLUFF-- ABOUT NONCONFERENCE STUFF. THAT DOES NOT MATTER. LETS TAKE IT STRAIGHT TO EACH CONFERENCE. WHICH SCHEDULE WOULD YOU WANT TO PLAY??????? WHICH SCHEDULE GIVES USC THE --BEST-- CHANCE OF WINNING OUT AND GOING TO THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP GAME????

--CASE CLOSED--

 

[mw]

I said that based on the numbers I provided in my post. You cannot dispute the numbers because those are facts. So based on those numbers, the Pac 10 is the toughest conference from 2000-2003.

The numbers in your post say that the ACC is the best conference.

 

[Scott4USC]

Nice post Avalanche....

There are many ways you can judge the strength of a conference and you brought up an interesting argument. This argument is subjective and I will give you my opinion.

First let me explain why this might be a poor argument. SEC and BIG 12 both have 12 teams in each conference, and the Big 10 has 11 teams. Pac 10 has 10 teams and USC plays 8 of the 9 opponents in the PAC 10. That is why this might be a poor argument. There is a much higher probability that any given Pac 10 team will play the top 5 teams in the conference vs a team from one of these other conferences playing the top 5 teams.

For example, LSU not playing Tennessee last year (TENN was tied for #1 in the SEC East), OU not playing Nebraska last year (which is a great example because OU missed out on playing tough teams in the Big 12 and look what happened when they played someone good), Ohio St. not playing Iowa 2 years ago (when both teams were #1 in the conference), and there are many more examples I can give. However, I will play along even though I think this is a poor argument for the reasons I stated above.

In all fairness, we should not use USC in this example. I think the PAC 10 is one of the toughest conferences for USC to play in because of the great offenses in this conference. There are not many good offensive teams in the other conferences and those conferences tend to run the ball more and USC excels against the run. #1 Rush Defense in the country. Therefore using USC is not a good example. I really think USC would walk through the Big 10 and Big 12 (except for maybe the top 2 elite teams). SEC may be tougher than those 2 conferences but there are not that many great teams to challenge USC in the SEC. (LSU and maybe UGA would challenge USC) Remember, the PAC 10 has had great success facing the SEC and playing in the south. I am just going to judge quality of teams in each conference vs. which conference would I think USC would have the easiest time.

REMEMBER, THE PAC 10 HAS 10 TEAMS, WHILE THE OTHER CONFERENCES HAVE MORE TEAMS. THIS MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO COMPARE CONFERENCES, AND IF YOU DO NOT THINK ABOUT IT, MIGHT GIVE YOU FALSE IMPRESSIONS WHEN COMPARING CONFERENCES. IN ADDITION, I AM NOT JUDGING BASED ON JUST LAST SEASON.

Playing the top 10 teams in the SEC might be the toughest (not if you play all 12). There are quality programs and tough road environments in this conference. It is a very top heavy conference. 2nd toughest would be the Pac 10. Way too many explosive offenses in this conference and is by far the toughest conference top to bottom. (don?t give me the no defense excuse because that argument is flawed) I admit the Pac 10 played no defense in the late 90?s but that has changed now (def. ?not? a dominating defensive conference), but the conference offenses have risen to new level which gives false impression this conference plays no defense) The 3rd toughest I would say is the Big 10, especially throwing out the 11th team. Problem with this conference is there are not many good offensive teams (and offensive minded coaches) in this conference. In addition, at times this conference has dead weight at the bottom of the conference. Iowa was an awesome offensive team in the Big 10 2 years ago yet USC defense dominated them in the BCS Bowl Game. Michigan was the best offensive teams last year in the Big 10 and many people thought maybe a top 5 offensive team (and hottest team) and USC defense had a shutout going into the 3rd quarter. 4th toughest would be the Big 12. VERY GOOD offensive teams but the defenses in this conference are horrible. It shows in OOC and Bowl Season play. In addition, there are a lot of dead weight teams in this conference and declining programs.

--Sorry, Case NOT Closed--

 

[Avalanche]

SCOTT4USC,

You know what's interesting? You say "lets not use USC as the example here" and then your quote defending the PAC 10 is all USC and nothing but USC. You don't mention a single other PAC 10 team in your post.

Please remember one aspect here. YOU are the one saying that the PAC 10 is the strongest conference in the nation. I, on the other hand, am merely (strongly) disagreeing with this argument in all facets and all merits. I personally think the SEC and BIG 12 smoke the PAC 10 from top to bottom. EASILY. To a lesser degree the BIG 10 does too, but its more of a push. There is no question that the SEC blows away the PAC 10 in sheer toughness. The SEC is clearly the strongest conference in America. BIG 12 is right behind them.

I knew you'd argue that not all the teams in the SEC or BIG 12 play each other (or the BIG 10 either). I am talking about the strength of each conference TOTALLY. Every single team. Every single member of each conference. Please dont cling to the argument that "well this team doesn't have to play that team...." that is balanced out over time. Every team eventually plays every other team. Lets just suppose college football has a 15-game schedule where all teams from the PAC 10, SEC, BIG 12, and BIG 10 have to play EVERY OTHER TEAM IN ITS CONFERENCE every year. Your entire argument is saying that the PAC 10 is the toughest conference. Well, let's just see..... please don't include FLUFF about nonconference games and how this team doesnt have to play that team... that's using smoke and mirrors. Your argument is all about which conference is the toughest.

Are you LEGITIMATELY trying to say the PAC 10 has the toughest road???

Lets make it apples to apples then. If you are saying that the PAC 10 has to play 8 conference opponents every year, that will fit nicely into this scenario: Take the top 4 teams from each conference (SEC, BIG 12, BIG 10, and PAC 10) and then the bottom 4 teams in the SEC, BIG 12, BIG 10, and PAC 10. You can choose the teams of your choosing on what you consider to be the top 4 programs in each conference and then the bottom 4 of each league. PLease compile a list of your opponents and tell me which schedule you would prefer to play. Which gives USC (or any PAC 10 team) the best chance to win out?

Its all in your corner now, SCOTT4USC..... go ahead and try to pump up that trip to Pullman... I'm sure that has a lot of teams shaking in their cleats.

 

[mansa_musa]

Avalanche

Avalanche

please don't include FLUFF about nonconference games and how this team doesnt have to play that team... that's using smoke and mirrors.

Then you say!

Take the top 4 teams from each conference (SEC, BIG 12, BIG 10, and PAC 10) and then the bottom 4 teams in the SEC, BIG 12, BIG 10, and PAC 10. You can choose the teams of your choosing on what you consider to be the top 4 programs in each conference and then the bottom 4 of each league.

And!

Lets just play a hypothetical season here with NO nonconference games at all. ALL GAMES ARE ON THE ROAD. USC has to play every conference team regardless of games. Would USC rather play:

That seems like a whole lot more smoke & mirrors to prove your point, than the simple #'s of what happens when the teams play each other on the field.

The top 3 teams in the SEC, BIG 12, and BIG 10 would LOVE, LOVE, LOVE to play Arizona, Arizona State, Stanford, Cal, and Oregon State every single year or most years.

If you really believe any team would rather travel over a thousand miles 4 or 5 times in a yr to play the Pac 10's bottom teams, you are crazy. Remember, Michigan lost both Pac 10 roadies last yr. Miami lost @ UW, then won about 35 straight after that. They havent come back! I dont think Michigan will be back soon either. And if your point were true, then why do those teams end up w all the FAMU's & LA- Laf's on their schedules.

The top 3 teams in the Pac 10 would love to play Kansas, ISU, Baylor, Tx Tech, Tx A&M, Colorado, Missouri, OK St (more than half of the Big 12), Vandy, Kentucky, Miss St, Ole Miss, S Car, Indiana, NW, Illinois, Penn St or Purdue! Before you tell me how Ok St was ranked last yr, show me the 2 wins they had (Add Texas & Missouri, for that matter!) bigger than Cal's wins over USC & Va Tech.

Maybe you forgot those teams were in those conf.s. I'm not surprised, because, evidently you're pretty good at ignoring things that are right in front of your face,

I don't care what you respond with, asking for numbers, etc... I am not going to post any.

You refuse to post any info to back up your statement, except that everyone (you believe!) agrees with you.

I wouldn't care one iota... even if a credible source... were to post this, I still wouldn't believe a word of it.

No disrespect intended, but, that second statement there, is the definition of ignorance. To dismiss information in order to hold on to a belief even after it has been proven false by a "credible" source. & I'm not saying anything has been proven here. But, I think you may be the one guilty of foaming at the mouth.

There is no question that the SEC blows away the PAC 10 in sheer toughness.

SEC 1-6 v the Pac 10 in the time frame Scott has mentioned! Again, I know you dont care (& you have no info to counter -- what a coincidence!) but, nevertheless, it is true. Any argument about how strong those confs are that subtracts head to head competition is.... FLUFF!

And how do you think Texas would do on that trip to Pullman, since they couldnt win SU on a neutral field? I guess their strong conf slate didnt prepare them well enough to face a "C" rated team on a neutral field. Does that make the 3rd best team in the Big 12 a "D" or an "F" team? :shrug:

 

[Mr Hockey]

The fact you include Purdue in your list of so so teams in conference just shows how your post shouldn't be taken seriously.

Why don't you ask every coach in america what the toughest conference is from top to bottom? I guarantee you the Pac 10 won't be chosen as the toughest. If you think it would then you are quite clueless.

 

[Avalanche]

Hey mansu musa, I appreciate you getting in on the discussion.

All I am trying to do here is give SCOTT4USC any available scenario to make an apples-to-apples comparison among the leagues playing the same number of games. I respect your opinion, certainly. I also don't see you touting the PAC 10 as the second coming either at every turn like SCOTT4USC does.


When someone sits there and says the PAC 10 is the "toughest" conference in the nation ... that's absolutely absurd. And again, I will say it again even if you refer it as being ignorant, but I wouldn't care one iota if a credible source stated that the Pac 10 was the toughest conference in the nation. Fortunately, and yes I am repeating myself, no one with any credibility goes around touting the PAC 10 as the toughest conference in college football because there aren't any credible sources I know that would make such a statement. If you find a credible source, please post it. I'd like to see someone credible make that statement.

We all can make jabs of particular instances.... like Texas getting their lunch handed to them by WSU in the Holiday Bowl... Sure... and I am no defender of Texas. However, I don't going around pointing out (without reason) that WSU got their lunch handed to them by Oklahoma the year before in the Rose Bowl either unless prompted. Sure, USC killed Iowa in the Orange Bowl last year.... Sure this, sure that... we all have particular games that can poke holes in any argument based on a specific instance. I am speaking collectively. Half of the PAC 10 is downright weak. This is simply my opinion, but how can anyone say the PAC 10 is a tougher conference than the SEC?

Come on... PAC 10 guys simply must admit this some time..... do they really think their conference schedule in the PAC 10 is THAT grueling? I am frankly not interested in how the conferences do against nonconference teams, and that includes the whole SEC vs PAC 10 or BIG 12 matchups.... It seems that the point I am making is simply being missed (or avoided). The issue is who has the toughest conference. All rebuttals seem to point out "well the PAC 10 is 6-1 against the SEC." I am not talking about how the conferences do head-to-head. I am talking about who has the toughest conference and that, frankly, means how good is each conference INTERNALLY and not EXTERNALLY. The PAC 10 has some good teams in the conference. USC, Washington, Wash St, and Oregon. But the rest? Come on! The rest of them are either borderline cupcakes or legitimate cupcakes. The SEC has twice as many good teams in the conference. Plus the bad teams in the SEC aren't nearly as weak as the bottom-feeding PAC 10 teams.

Just for clarification, let me repeat myself: I don't care about how the conferences do against eachother. I don't care who loads up more on cupcake nonconference games. Let's stick to the purest of facts and that is how tough is the specific conference! PAC 10 from top to bottom, SEC from top to bottom, BIG 12 from top to bottom. No more and no less. Saying this conference is 6-1 versus that conference is simply "dodge ball." This thread was started by SCOTT4USC claiming that the USC has the toughest conference in college football and NOT him claiming that the PAC 10 has a 6-1 record vs the SEC. Since the bold statement is made by him, he's going to have to defend his conference and no one (including you, respectfully) is defending the PAC 10 from top to bottom as the "toughest" conference -- which is what he is saying. Sorry, but being 6-1 against the SEC doesn't make the PAC 10 the "toughest" conference. How many of those Arizona States and Arizonas and Stanfords played any SEC teams?? And in what time frame are we talking about?? The argument can go on forever... but the PAC 10 supporters don't talk about how difficult their road to a championship is.... some day the PAC 10 has to realize they have it easy... or at least an easier ride than the SEC or Big 12 has. This simply does not make them the "toughest" conference like SCOTT4uSC claims it to be.

 

[mansa_musa]

Your top to bottom argument doesnt hold water!

Since 1990, every Pac 10 team, except Cal, has won or shared the Pac 10 title. That means 9 of the 10 schools have been competitive INTERNALLY within the last 15 yrs.

I went to the official Big 12 & SEC websites to look up division champs for the same time frame. The Big 12 only goes back to 1996, so the sample is a little smaller for that conf, but w the teams that I am talking about, I really doubt it makes a difference in this argument.

Now, since '96 only six teams in the Big 12 have won or shared a division title in the conf. OK St, Missouri, Tx Tech, Baylor, ISU & Kansas havent sniffed a title. The SEC has had eight teams win or share a conf title since 1990. Kentucky, S Car, Miss St & Vandy are the also rans of that conf.

The bottom of the SEC & the Big 12 are pretty much set in stone! Those teams never improve beyond middle of the pack INTERNALLY. How tough can those conf be if 1/2 or 1/3 cannot & do not compete w the rest of the conf?

An undefeated team in a conf, tells me that one team was able to dominate the rest of the conf. & thus, is a sign of weakness. In the 8 yr existence of the Big 12, there have been 4 undefeated teams. That's one every 2 yrs on avg. The SEC has had 5 or 6 undefeated teams since 1990, for an avg of 1 every 3 yrs. The Pac 10 has had 3 undefeated teams in 14 yrs. Basically, once every 5 yrs, the Pac 10 has one team that the rest of the conf cant beat. By that argument, the Pac 10 is, without a doubt, the toughest conf to run the table in.

A winless team in a conf., tells me that team was dominated by every team in that conf. & is also a sign of weakness. The Pac 10 has had 5 teams go winless since 1990. The SEC has had at least 8 teams go winless since then -- including a 7 out of 8 yr stretch. The Big 12, in 8 yrs, has had 6 (every single season since '98) teams tough enough to lose every conf game they played that season. The bottom teams in the SEC & Big 12, more often than not, dont manage to win any conf games at all. Can you say cupcake?

Another interesting tidbit that I found on the Big 12 site. The Big 12 was 17-19 SU v the Pac 10 & 11-22 SU v the Big 10 going into last season. You asserted that the next best conf to the SEC is the Big 12, but, the only conf.s they had a losing record against are the two you place behind the Big 12. Big 12 was 9-9 v SEC.

I hope I have addressed your top to bottom argument. You obviously, had no idea what you were saying to even bring up that argument in defense of those conf.s!

Mr Hockey -- The fact that the only team on my previous list that you could find to defend was Purdue tells me I was pretty much right on in my analysis.

So in my opinion, the toughest conf. is the one that is the hardest to win all of your games & also the hardest to overlook any opponent. If that same conf. then decides to schedule tough non conf. opponents on top of their already difficult conf schedule, they remove all doubt about which conf. is the toughest, in my mind.

In defense of the SEC & Big 12, I will admit that in the avg yr those conf.s have a higher quantity of good teams, but, they also have a higher quantity of bad teams than the Pac 10. That fact alone makes the conf. slate tougher any given yr. But, that's where Scott's points come into the argument. The conf title can easily be decided by which team plays the least amount of the good teams in conf.

The scheduling also has to come into question, in light of the little research I have done. The middle teams aren't preparing themselves non conf. to compete w the top teams, and that's why it is so easy for them to get dominated by one great team. The bottom teams arent preparing themselves non conf., so their positions in the conf. will never change.

The SEC & Big 12 both lose more than they win when they play against the Pac 10. That's not spin, hocus-pocus or smoke & mirrors -- That's the truth! Any attempt to argue toughness w/o, including head to head matchups isn't worth discussing. That shows that truth is far less important to you, than the belief that your opinion is a correct one. Well, it is not a correct assumption! Any source you can find that says the SEC or Big 12 is a tougher conf. than the Pac 10 would instantly lose its credibility in my eyes, because they could not have looked at same #'s that I have.

SEC & Big 12 fans must admit that their conf.s are not as good as they might think they are. INTERNALLY or EXTERNALLY!

 

[Mr Hockey]

Once again forget what us posters think, go ask EVERY single coach in 1-A football what they think is the toughest conference from top to bottom & I would bet my life that the Pac 10 wouldn't be the one chosen most.

When focusing on conference strength within, what they did against others is irrelevant as we are talking about within just in case you forgot.

You could spin the fact of how many different teams have won the Pac 10 since whatever year in many ways. You spin it in a positive fashion of course but what about looking at the fact that having that many winners just shows how mediocre the conference is since no one team can step up to the plate & dominate over a decent span of time. What else is new from the conference though that is known by most to be a finesse league.