Oh by the way when looking at the Pac 10 as a whole, why is it they feel the need to schedule such "tough" ooc games if their conference as a whole is so tough? Why hasn't the Pac 10 even won a legit national title in ages? Don't even waste your time with USC winning last year, they are a prime example of a paper champion. I won't acknowledge a team as a champion when they don't even compete in a real championship game.
Weak Pac 10???
- Thread starter Scott4USC
- Start date
So when you're saying that only 3 PAC 10 teams have been able to go undefeated in the conference since 1990 that makes it "by far the toughest conference to run the table in."
Is this really your argument?
I mean really, really your argument?
-------
Once again my challenge of defending the PAC 10 from top to bottom is overlooked or avoided. More numbers about head-to-head ooc competition.... When the PAC 10 goes 19-17 against the Big 12..... I won't argue that if you claim it to be true. BUT what teams are we talking about? Is that a true representation of the toughness of each conference? The answer is no.
Of these 36 games, which PAC 10 teams played which Big 12 teams? How many of those were the best teams in the Pac 10? How many of those teams were the best of the Big 12? This simply isn't apples to apples.
Let's not forget one other tidbit: USC didn't make the title game for what reason? Strength of schedule.
Now how did that happen?
Is this really your argument?
I mean really, really your argument?
-------
Once again my challenge of defending the PAC 10 from top to bottom is overlooked or avoided. More numbers about head-to-head ooc competition.... When the PAC 10 goes 19-17 against the Big 12..... I won't argue that if you claim it to be true. BUT what teams are we talking about? Is that a true representation of the toughness of each conference? The answer is no.
Of these 36 games, which PAC 10 teams played which Big 12 teams? How many of those were the best teams in the Pac 10? How many of those teams were the best of the Big 12? This simply isn't apples to apples.
Let's not forget one other tidbit: USC didn't make the title game for what reason? Strength of schedule.
Now how did that happen?
Avalanche said:
To answer your last question, I'll save you the time. Scott will chime in & blame Hawaii, & Notre Dame.
Yeah but Mr Hockey I thought the PAC 10 was the toughest conference in the nation? Shouldn't that be enough to overcome what Hawaii and Notre Dame do?
Apparently not.
Apparently not.
Avalanche said:
Great point
But I know Scott will sit here & pick & choose his info to counter attack since he has NOTHING BETTER TO DO!
We both know that is not going to happen! But, everyone knows that football is played on the field, not in the minds of Mr Hockey or Avalanche or mansa musa or every 1-A college football coach. So even if your point were true, it wouldnt change the facts on the field!
I thought I had covered that. But, here we go again in a nutshell. The best teams in the SEC & Big 12 usually dominate the rest of the conf & the worst teams in those conf.s usually dont win any games. Both of those are signs of overall (top to bottom) weakness, not strength! No way to spin that!
I'm sure if you could say the SEC is 6-1 v the Pac 10, it wouldnt be irrelevant to this argument. It shows the weakness of your point that you have to put it into such a tight box just to have something to say. Forget about this, never mind that, irrelevant this, I dont care one iota about that! Then what are you arguing about!
Ooops! I thought we were talking about top to bottom strength of the conf.s. I didnt realize I was only allowed to talk about the elite teams of the SEC -- you know, the ones that win all those national titles! I thought we were talking about how strong the whole conf is supposed to be. I guess all the Kentucky's, Miss St's, Vandy's & S Car's are all stronger just by rubbing elbows w/ the LSU's & Tenn's. I dont buy that!
The part I put in bold is what I call competition. Competition engenders toughness. Toughness helps you win games OOC on the road & on neutral fields. New concept for the SEC!
Why does the SEC schedule so weak out of conf when it is a virtual certainty that the good teams wont be challenged by 1/3 of the teams they play in conf.? I mean they get the same 4 lopsided wins in conf every yr, why schedule even more cupcakes on top of the Vandy's, Miss St's, Kentucky's & S Car's? Why not challenge yourself w a trip to Pullman or Ann Arbor or Boulder? If I thought I had a "tough" team, I would!
You are the only ones who think the Pac 10 "needs" to schedule tough OOC. The truth is that they "choose" to schedule tough. The same way the SEC chooses to schedule creampuffs! Trust me the Pac 10 schools arent begging people to play them, like the Mid-Am conf schools. How does La-Monroe get to play 4-5 SEC teams every season? By need or choice?
Last year should prove to anyone that the national title is more or less a popularity contest. In no way, shape or form does a "recognized" national title prove the strength of a team, let alone an entire conf. It only proves the popularity of that specific team.
I also dont recognize some champions for a variety of reasons. U of Miami's because they played a weak Nebraska team -- OSU's cause I dont think they were the best team in the Big 10 that year -- & LSU's cause they were fortunate not to play USC! Hard to call their championship real when they didnt play a real champion of any conference! I, personally, dont think LSU would have beaten Michigan or USC.
Last edited:
Could it be that there are so many bad teams in the PAC 10 that's why no team goes winless in the conference?
------------------
Why does the PAC 10 "choose" to schedule tough ooc games? Any particular reason?
-------------------
National titles a popularity contest? That's true!!! That's the only reason USC got their share of it. The media gave USC half of the title for their home game against Michigan who was ranked #4. LSU played a team that was #1 the entire year and their only loss was to a top 15 team when they had already qualified for the Sugar Bowl. The University of Colorado is a pretty popular program these days.... sure helps our recruiting! Does this mean we can win a national title too if we're popular? When you say it is "hard to call LSU's championship 'real'" because they didn't play a true conference champion, can't the same be said about USC not playing the #1 or #2 ranked team in the nation?
-------------------
------------------
Why does the PAC 10 "choose" to schedule tough ooc games? Any particular reason?
-------------------
National titles a popularity contest? That's true!!! That's the only reason USC got their share of it. The media gave USC half of the title for their home game against Michigan who was ranked #4. LSU played a team that was #1 the entire year and their only loss was to a top 15 team when they had already qualified for the Sugar Bowl. The University of Colorado is a pretty popular program these days.... sure helps our recruiting! Does this mean we can win a national title too if we're popular? When you say it is "hard to call LSU's championship 'real'" because they didn't play a true conference champion, can't the same be said about USC not playing the #1 or #2 ranked team in the nation?
-------------------
Could it be that there are so many bad teams in the Big 12, that so many teams go undefeated?
Why does the Big 12 "choose" to schedule weak OOC games? Any reason other than they "choose" to take it easy on themselves before the big Baylor game?
Everything you said is true, except the stuff about Colorado. You have "popularity" confused with notoriety.
p.s. Thanks for not confusing me w Scott -- nothing against him, but, he is way overboard w the insults towards others intelligence & opinions.
Why does the Big 12 "choose" to schedule weak OOC games? Any reason other than they "choose" to take it easy on themselves before the big Baylor game?
Everything you said is true, except the stuff about Colorado. You have "popularity" confused with notoriety.
p.s. Thanks for not confusing me w Scott -- nothing against him, but, he is way overboard w the insults towards others intelligence & opinions.
Plenty of teams won legit national titles because they earned them. It wasn't a popularity contest, it was the fact they earned it on the field & played in a REAL TITLE GAME. These are the facts & that is the end of it. I atleast applaud you for not being ridiculous like Scott though.
mansa musa,
I respect your opinions certainly, and I certainly do not view in the same light as I do SCOTT4USC. I don't necessarily agree with you (we've both made that clear we don't agree with eachother!) but I respect your statements.
I guess we're notorious then at CU. That's safe to say. They're running out of women around here.
I respect your opinions certainly, and I certainly do not view in the same light as I do SCOTT4USC. I don't necessarily agree with you (we've both made that clear we don't agree with eachother!) but I respect your statements.
I guess we're notorious then at CU. That's safe to say. They're running out of women around here.
I guess now you're going to send me to my room w/o dinner!
I say that the two most popular teams get voted to play each other. That's not a true championship in my opinion. If it takes a computer program to place you in the championship game, then you havent earned anything. If there is no playoff, there is no true champion. The equivalent in college hoop would have had a Stanford/St Joes title game. But we see neither of those squads could walk the walk.
Would you at least give me the fact that plenty of teams that didnt deserve it have played in the championship game?
p.s. The respect is mutual to both you, Avalanche, & Mr Hockey
Last edited:
I should refine my statement. I feel that for the most part the team that won the title won it deservedly & are true champions. I will TOTALLY agree with you that there have been teams that didn't deserve to be there. Cough Cough Nebraska. This is where the Pac 10 was robbed as Oregon belonged there!
Mr Hockey and Aval
mensa musa is Scott4USC. Its one of his alias.
Dont you recognize his MO ?
Look close at the way he writes and responds.
Nice try Scott4USC
KOD
mensa musa is Scott4USC. Its one of his alias.
Dont you recognize his MO ?
Look close at the way he writes and responds.
Nice try Scott4USC
KOD
Scott-Atlanta,
Gee, I hope you're wrong, Scott-Atlanta. But....
I was wondering where SCOTT4USC has been this weekend..... no posts from him.... He's been MIA --
I know from one the other threads that everyone on here was accusing SCOTT4USC of being JimmyBuff and SCOTT4USC even admitted to "editing" one of his posts. Hmmmmmm now that's a close-knit relationship.
The only thing I notice is mansa-musa uses a lot of bold-faced type to illustrate his particular points and SCOTT4USC does the same.
If SCOTT4USC is so pathetic he has to use other names on here to get his PAC 10 PR machine rolling, it just proves that the Pac 10 will always be the bridesmaid and never the bride. There's a reason why the Pac 10 doesn't get any respect. Deservingly or not, the Pac 10 doesn't get any respect because of the lack of television exposure and the lack of perennial powers and big-name programs, atleast in my opinion. Oh yeah, and their conference is pretty weak, too.
Its like the "state" programs... Aggies, etc... Colorado State hates CU because CU gets all the pub.... A&M hates Texas because Texas gets all the pub... Auburn hates Bama bc they get the pub... Okie State and OU same deal.
I guess the Pac 10 has a chip on their shoulder. Otherwise, we would never see a thread like this from SCOTT4USC claiming it to be the "toughest" conference. No one has a thread about the SEC being the toughest conference. No one needs to have such a thread.
SCOTT4USC, show up!!! Use your real name (if you haven't been) and face the music --- you started this thread... defend it like a man and take the heat.
Gee, I hope you're wrong, Scott-Atlanta. But....
I was wondering where SCOTT4USC has been this weekend..... no posts from him.... He's been MIA --
I know from one the other threads that everyone on here was accusing SCOTT4USC of being JimmyBuff and SCOTT4USC even admitted to "editing" one of his posts. Hmmmmmm now that's a close-knit relationship.
The only thing I notice is mansa-musa uses a lot of bold-faced type to illustrate his particular points and SCOTT4USC does the same.
If SCOTT4USC is so pathetic he has to use other names on here to get his PAC 10 PR machine rolling, it just proves that the Pac 10 will always be the bridesmaid and never the bride. There's a reason why the Pac 10 doesn't get any respect. Deservingly or not, the Pac 10 doesn't get any respect because of the lack of television exposure and the lack of perennial powers and big-name programs, atleast in my opinion. Oh yeah, and their conference is pretty weak, too.
Its like the "state" programs... Aggies, etc... Colorado State hates CU because CU gets all the pub.... A&M hates Texas because Texas gets all the pub... Auburn hates Bama bc they get the pub... Okie State and OU same deal.
I guess the Pac 10 has a chip on their shoulder. Otherwise, we would never see a thread like this from SCOTT4USC claiming it to be the "toughest" conference. No one has a thread about the SEC being the toughest conference. No one needs to have such a thread.
SCOTT4USC, show up!!! Use your real name (if you haven't been) and face the music --- you started this thread... defend it like a man and take the heat.
Last edited:
I have not posted because I was at my parents cabin in Big Bear. It was refreshing to come to the board and read mansa_musa great write-ups. You people failed to counter argue (or weakly counter argue) many of his arguments. It was quite sad. :nooo: He took what you said, counter argued it and brought up great arguments. I find it funny none of you can say, "heck maybe I was wrong, and the Pac 10 might be just as tough as the SEC or Big 12." I only wished mansa_musa would disagree with me because I would enjoy debating with him and he could convince me to change or modify my opinions.
I am not mansa_musa and I do not know why I was accused of being mansa_musa. Nice counter argument and waste of a post. Really adds to this thread. I also find it hilarious how often many of you (Mr. Hockey and Scott-Atlanta) rather focus on the poster or make accusations instead of focusing what is inside the thread. (worthless posts) You people cannot attack the information inside the thread, so you attack the poster. Too funny. :lol:
Avalanche
Quotes by you......
I said based on the numbers (which i provided) that the Pac 10 was the toughest conference in the nation from 2000-2003. Now you do not have to agree using those numbers as the best way to judge the toughness of a conference. I think using those numbers was a fair and just way. It is very objective. You fail to explain why the criteria used was not a good way to judge the strength of a conference (since you "strongly" disagree with it). How was my post absurd when my opinion was backed by factual data? That was not an intelligent statement made by you.
You make some pretty bold statements. Please explain why the numbers support the Pac 10 being the toughest conference from 2000-2003. Look at the numbers; they say the Pac 10 was the toughest conference. Lastly, if it is so abundantly clear the SEC and Big 12 being a stronger conference, how come the numbers do not support it? Wouldn't the numbers have the SEC and Big 12 "smoking" the Pac 10???? Oh wait, the numbers are biased too! :lol:
I did a thread based on last season?s results that would answer your question perfectly. This is just from last season so it is a very small sample to calculate the strongest conferences. (for example, it was a down year for the Pac 10 and Big 12) However, I found it very interesting and hopefully you do too.
I took the 3 worst teams in each conference and calculated their average power ranking and calculated their average strength of schedule. Higher the Power Ranking the better, and the lower the SOS the better. Here are the results. (Sagarin Rankings)
Is a Conference as Strong as its Weakest Link???
Top 9 Strongest Conferences Using this Criteria
1. ACC 68 SOS: 16
2. Pac 10 66 SOS: 15
3. M. West 67 SOS: 47
4. B. East 64 SOS: 59
5. Big 10 60 SOS: 30
6. Big 12 60 SOS: 32
7. SEC 61 SOS: 43
8. *** 51 SOS: 82
9. C. USA 51 SOS: 85
*Big 10 and Big 12 edged out the SEC because their SOS was 13 and 9pts stronger than the SEC and only 1pt lower in power rankings.
I took the 3 best teams in each conference and calculated their average power ranking and calculated their average strength of schedule. Higher the Power Ranking the better, and the lower the SOS the better. Here are the results.
Is a Conference as Strong as its Strongest Link???
Top 9 Strongest Conferences Using this Criteria
1. SEC 90 SOS: 28
2. ACC 87 SOS: 22
3. Pac 10 87 SOS: 36
4. Big 10 87 SOS: 26
5. Big 12 87 SOS: 45
6. B. East 81 SOS: 50
7. *** 81 SOS: 88
8. M. West 76 SOS: 59
9. C. USA 72 SOS: 98
*Pac 10 edged out the Big 10 because the Pac 10 Champ dominated the Big 10 Champ. I think that was a better reason to put the Pac 10 ahead of the Big 10 despite the Big 10 having a 10pt stronger SOS. Both power rankings were equal. I have no problem if you disagree with me on this and have the Big 10 ahead of the Pac 10.
Here are the top 3 teams of each conference with the 3 worst teams of each conference. I took the average power ranking and average SOS. I did not take the order they were ranked in both posts. Here are the results.
Is a Conference as Strong as its Strongest and Weakest Links???
Top 9 Strongest Conferences Combining Both Criteria
1. ACC 77 SOS: 22
2. Pac 10 76 SOS: 25
3. SEC 75 SOS: 35
4. Big 10 73 SOS: 28
5. Big 12 73 SOS: 38
6. B. East 72 SOS: 54
7. M. West 71 SOS: 53
8. *** 66 SOS: 85
9. C. USA 61 SOS: 91
Remember, this was supposedly a down year for the Pac 10 and Big 12, which makes these number more interesting.
I am not mansa_musa and I do not know why I was accused of being mansa_musa.
Nice counter argument and waste of a post. Really adds to this thread. I also find it hilarious how often many of you (Mr. Hockey and Scott-Atlanta) rather focus on the poster or make accusations instead of focusing what is inside the thread. (worthless posts) You people cannot attack the information inside the thread, so you attack the poster. Too funny. :lol: Avalanche
Quotes by you......
I said based on the numbers (which i provided) that the Pac 10 was the toughest conference in the nation from 2000-2003. Now you do not have to agree using those numbers as the best way to judge the toughness of a conference. I think using those numbers was a fair and just way. It is very objective. You fail to explain why the criteria used was not a good way to judge the strength of a conference (since you "strongly" disagree with it). How was my post absurd when my opinion was backed by factual data? That was not an intelligent statement made by you.
You make some pretty bold statements. Please explain why the numbers support the Pac 10 being the toughest conference from 2000-2003. Look at the numbers; they say the Pac 10 was the toughest conference. Lastly, if it is so abundantly clear the SEC and Big 12 being a stronger conference, how come the numbers do not support it? Wouldn't the numbers have the SEC and Big 12 "smoking" the Pac 10???? Oh wait, the numbers are biased too! :lol:
I did a thread based on last season?s results that would answer your question perfectly. This is just from last season so it is a very small sample to calculate the strongest conferences. (for example, it was a down year for the Pac 10 and Big 12) However, I found it very interesting and hopefully you do too.
I took the 3 worst teams in each conference and calculated their average power ranking and calculated their average strength of schedule. Higher the Power Ranking the better, and the lower the SOS the better. Here are the results. (Sagarin Rankings)
Is a Conference as Strong as its Weakest Link???
Top 9 Strongest Conferences Using this Criteria
1. ACC 68 SOS: 16
2. Pac 10 66 SOS: 15
3. M. West 67 SOS: 47
4. B. East 64 SOS: 59
5. Big 10 60 SOS: 30
6. Big 12 60 SOS: 32
7. SEC 61 SOS: 43
8. *** 51 SOS: 82
9. C. USA 51 SOS: 85
*Big 10 and Big 12 edged out the SEC because their SOS was 13 and 9pts stronger than the SEC and only 1pt lower in power rankings.
I took the 3 best teams in each conference and calculated their average power ranking and calculated their average strength of schedule. Higher the Power Ranking the better, and the lower the SOS the better. Here are the results.
Is a Conference as Strong as its Strongest Link???
Top 9 Strongest Conferences Using this Criteria
1. SEC 90 SOS: 28
2. ACC 87 SOS: 22
3. Pac 10 87 SOS: 36
4. Big 10 87 SOS: 26
5. Big 12 87 SOS: 45
6. B. East 81 SOS: 50
7. *** 81 SOS: 88
8. M. West 76 SOS: 59
9. C. USA 72 SOS: 98
*Pac 10 edged out the Big 10 because the Pac 10 Champ dominated the Big 10 Champ. I think that was a better reason to put the Pac 10 ahead of the Big 10 despite the Big 10 having a 10pt stronger SOS. Both power rankings were equal. I have no problem if you disagree with me on this and have the Big 10 ahead of the Pac 10.
Here are the top 3 teams of each conference with the 3 worst teams of each conference. I took the average power ranking and average SOS. I did not take the order they were ranked in both posts. Here are the results.
Is a Conference as Strong as its Strongest and Weakest Links???
Top 9 Strongest Conferences Combining Both Criteria
1. ACC 77 SOS: 22
2. Pac 10 76 SOS: 25
3. SEC 75 SOS: 35
4. Big 10 73 SOS: 28
5. Big 12 73 SOS: 38
6. B. East 72 SOS: 54
7. M. West 71 SOS: 53
8. *** 66 SOS: 85
9. C. USA 61 SOS: 91
Remember, this was supposedly a down year for the Pac 10 and Big 12, which makes these number more interesting.
Last edited:
Scott you can cry all you want about how we don't counter argue the posts. I'm sorry but I'm not wasting my time with a long winded post to prove a fool like you wrong. I mean everytime the titles are brought up, you go running to a new point. Why hasn't the Pac 10 won a legit national title earned in ages. Why do you ignore the idea of asking the coaches who you know damn well wouldn't agree with your ridiculous obsession. Get a life kid.
Wow!!!
Wow!!!
Dont know where to start!
Mr Hockey puts entire quotes in bold. He must be Scott4USC's Baptist cousin!
Scott-Atlanta instantly discredited all of my arguments just by claiming Scott4USC wrote them. Not by any intelligent argument related to anything I said. You guys wanted to believe it was true so that you could dismiss my points w/o any logic.
Yes they do!
http://www.madjacksports.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=131076
And no Big 10 or Big 12 fans took offense to it!
Now, we arent talking about football anymore. Now we are talking about ratings & publicity! (aka smoke & mirrors!)
I see why the SEC & Big 12 play all those weak teams OOC. Exposure! If they played good teams on TV, they might get exposed for the bad football they play! For the Big 12, that was last bowl season.
A national title is an individual team accomplishment. The entire conf doesnt share the title. A national title doesnt make a conf stronger. It may (& obviously has in your case) bolster the pride of the conf fans, but it doesnt do a damn thing for Vandy & Baylor! Maybe you should run to a new point! One that proves something!
Second, what is w your obsession w asking every coach! If that's your solution to this debate, then have at it! When you get back tell us what the exact results are. Maybe we can learn something from that. Then you would have some data, not just opinions!
Wow!!!
Dont know where to start!
Mr Hockey puts entire quotes in bold. He must be Scott4USC's Baptist cousin!
Scott-Atlanta instantly discredited all of my arguments just by claiming Scott4USC wrote them. Not by any intelligent argument related to anything I said. You guys wanted to believe it was true so that you could dismiss my points w/o any logic.
Yes they do!
http://www.madjacksports.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=131076
And no Big 10 or Big 12 fans took offense to it!
Now, we arent talking about football anymore. Now we are talking about ratings & publicity! (aka smoke & mirrors!)
I see why the SEC & Big 12 play all those weak teams OOC. Exposure! If they played good teams on TV, they might get exposed for the bad football they play! For the Big 12, that was last bowl season.
A national title is an individual team accomplishment. The entire conf doesnt share the title. A national title doesnt make a conf stronger. It may (& obviously has in your case) bolster the pride of the conf fans, but it doesnt do a damn thing for Vandy & Baylor! Maybe you should run to a new point! One that proves something!
Second, what is w your obsession w asking every coach! If that's your solution to this debate, then have at it! When you get back tell us what the exact results are. Maybe we can learn something from that. Then you would have some data, not just opinions!
Last edited:
You guys are some piece of work, by virtue of your "numbers" you should be posting that the ACC is the toughest conference in football. It's the same rationale. They're your numbers. You are basing your judgement of the Pac 10 being the toughest conference based on those numbers, and yet your numbers indicate that the ACC is the toughest conference!! If you hold so much stock in what these numbers say, why would you bother to claim the Pac 10 is so tough?
Look, Pac 10 people... face it!! Why did you guys not qualify for the national title game last year? Strength of schedule! Do you think the world is just anti-Pac 10 or something? Does the world have something against USC? No! The media just gave them half of the national title and they didn't even qualify for the game. You guys can post whatever numbers you want and claim that justifies you as being the toughest conference (despite continuing to post stuff about nonconference quests that make the argument luke-warm at best) and you continually deflect and deny the truth, which is the exact reason why your conference has to schedule tougher nonconference opponents in the first place... the strength of schedule in the Pac 10 is ok, but it certainly is not the toughest. Not even close.
BTW Scott4USC, I call your analysis absurd (and continue to call it as such) because your "numbers" talk about nonconference games. How hard of a point is that to figure out? Instead of admitting that your numbers are heavily weighed with nonconference stuff that is NOT objectively comparing the strength of the Pac 10 from top to bottom, that's not a very intelligent statement made by you either. You ask why I call your statements absurd even when you support them with "factual" data and I have told you this about 10 times already.... nonconference!!!!! Is it that hard to read that????
And whoever it was that was claiming that the Pac 10 is the toughest conference because hardly any team ever goes winless in the conference, that's a weak, weak argument. Simply stated, there are so many bad teams in the Pac 10 everyone in the conference is assured a win.
And simply the mere fact that you guys have to make a thread trying to tout the Pac 10 as being the "toughest" conference in the nation is simply trying to drum up support for the conference and improve its image because of the inferiority complex (fair or unfair) that the Pac 10 has. I am not going to resort to name calling or insults here, but come on!!!! The Pac 10 is decent, but for you guys to claim it is the toughest conference in america is just downright misguided and misinformed. What kind of reefer do you guy smoke out there? Sign me up for some but spare me this "well we're 6-1 against the SEC" and "no team in the Pac 10 goes winless" as the basis of your argument for it being the toughest conference.
Look, Pac 10 people... face it!! Why did you guys not qualify for the national title game last year? Strength of schedule! Do you think the world is just anti-Pac 10 or something? Does the world have something against USC? No! The media just gave them half of the national title and they didn't even qualify for the game. You guys can post whatever numbers you want and claim that justifies you as being the toughest conference (despite continuing to post stuff about nonconference quests that make the argument luke-warm at best) and you continually deflect and deny the truth, which is the exact reason why your conference has to schedule tougher nonconference opponents in the first place... the strength of schedule in the Pac 10 is ok, but it certainly is not the toughest. Not even close.
BTW Scott4USC, I call your analysis absurd (and continue to call it as such) because your "numbers" talk about nonconference games. How hard of a point is that to figure out? Instead of admitting that your numbers are heavily weighed with nonconference stuff that is NOT objectively comparing the strength of the Pac 10 from top to bottom, that's not a very intelligent statement made by you either. You ask why I call your statements absurd even when you support them with "factual" data and I have told you this about 10 times already.... nonconference!!!!! Is it that hard to read that????
And whoever it was that was claiming that the Pac 10 is the toughest conference because hardly any team ever goes winless in the conference, that's a weak, weak argument. Simply stated, there are so many bad teams in the Pac 10 everyone in the conference is assured a win.
And simply the mere fact that you guys have to make a thread trying to tout the Pac 10 as being the "toughest" conference in the nation is simply trying to drum up support for the conference and improve its image because of the inferiority complex (fair or unfair) that the Pac 10 has. I am not going to resort to name calling or insults here, but come on!!!! The Pac 10 is decent, but for you guys to claim it is the toughest conference in america is just downright misguided and misinformed. What kind of reefer do you guy smoke out there? Sign me up for some but spare me this "well we're 6-1 against the SEC" and "no team in the Pac 10 goes winless" as the basis of your argument for it being the toughest conference.
I click the quote button & the posts automatically become bold. Atleast find a legit excuse to bring my name into your debate with Scott A saying you are posting under an alias.
Oh by the way I don't let a title win bolster my conference pride. I love the specific teams I do specifically not because they are in a conference.
People remember titles won & titles earned on the field, once again why ignore the question about why it has been ages since the Pac 10 as won a LEGIT title? Why do most of the top recruits go to non Pac 10 schools?
Some of the attitudes shown for the most part by ScottI'mObssessedWith USC is downright laughable. Go out sometime kiddo.
Oh by the way I don't let a title win bolster my conference pride. I love the specific teams I do specifically not because they are in a conference.
People remember titles won & titles earned on the field, once again why ignore the question about why it has been ages since the Pac 10 as won a LEGIT title? Why do most of the top recruits go to non Pac 10 schools?
Some of the attitudes shown for the most part by ScottI'mObssessedWith USC is downright laughable. Go out sometime kiddo.
