Weak Pac 10???

[Scott4USC]

Avalanche

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?

Please think before you post. This statement above is absurd. I said the Pac 10 was the toughest conference from the years 2000-2003 based on the numbers I provided. Based on these seperate numbers, the ACC was the toughest conference "last" season. (has nothing to do with the years 2000-2003, just last season. Why is that so hard to understand?

The reason USC did not qualify for the BCS Championship game was SOS. Not USC fault, as USC schedule before the season was a top 10 SOS. Remember, despite the Pac 10 having a down year, and USC OOC opponents tanking. LSU only edged out USC by .15 in the final BCS standings. YES, only .15. So on an average year, LSU would have been completely shut out because the media would never have given LSU a share of the NC. So if your bragging about LSU getting in over USC by .15 BCS pts (despite down pac 10 year and OOC opponants tanking) then thats not a strong argument. In fact it weakens your argument because on a normal year I would bet USC would have passed LSU by at least a full point. In addition, if the PAC 10 is so weak, why did USC have the #1 SOS 2 years ago?

How come in a down year for the PAC 10, they were still a tougher conference than the SEC if you calculate the power rankings and SOS of the top 3 and bottom 3 teams in both conferences????? Your weak counter argument is that it factors in OOC games. Why are you against factoring in OOC opponents? That is a great way to judge how tough a conference is. It is pretty difficult to judge how tough a conference is based on only playing each other. That is the reason why people think the SEC and other conferences are so tough. They rack up easy wins in OOC play, and get many teams ranked in the top 25. In addition, these same teams in these conferences "often" miss out on playing 1 or 2 of the tougher teams in the conference.

If you just want to factor conference play, then explain this. If LSU went 8-0 in conference play, and USC went 6-2 in conference play and both won the conference title. Who has the tougher conference? How do you judge that? How do you judge SOS based solely on conference play? Power rankings??? Makes no sense.

The Pac 10 is decent, but for you guys to claim it is the toughest conference in america is just downright misguided and misinformed.

Really? Then how come objective data proves your statement wrong? Especially if our opinion is downright "misguided and misinformed." :lol: I think you got it backwards. You fail to bring up anything to support the SEC or BIG 12 being tougher, other than your opinion. I have hard core factual data that you cannot dispute supporting my claim. I think you make yourself look foolish and you are clearly ignorant.

 

[Scott4USC]

Mr Hockey

Why do most of the top recruits go to non Pac 10 schools?

What the heck are you talking about? :lol:

The Pac 10 had 6 teams having a top 25 recruiting class. YES, 6 teams in the top 25 recruiting rankings and USC being #1 overall with the best recruiting class ever. The powerful SEC has 5 teams ranked in the top 25, and the mighty Big 12 has 4.

Lets do some math. 60% of the Pac 10 conference had a top 25 recruiting class. 41% of the teams in the SEC conference had a top 25 recruiting class. 33% of the teams in the BIG 12 cconference had a top 25 recruiting ranking. Yep, recruits sure are going elsewhere. :nono:
You continue to amaze me.

Oh yeah, Oregon St. had the #26 recruiting class, so the Pac 10 barely missed out on having 7 teams!!!!!!!!! 70% of the teams in the Pac 10 conference had a top 26 recruiting class. Now that is amazing and some serious conference recruiting.

http://recruiting.theinsiders.com/3/team_rankings.html

BTW, I enjoyed mansa_musa putting you in your place. (even if that was not his intention)

 

[THE KOD]

BTW, I enjoyed mansa_musa putting you in your place. (even if that was not his intention) [/B][/QUOTE]

..............................................................

Scott4USC

You wouldn't admit you wern't Beat the Pro at -$5K just
like you won't admit you are mansa mussy.

What are you in the library at USC using differant computers ?

I wouldn't put it past you.

Did I mention I think the SEC is the strongest football
conferance in the country. And I have proof.

KOD

 

[Mr Hockey]

Mr Hockey



What the heck are you talking about? :lol:

The Pac 10 had 6 teams having a top 25 recruiting class. YES, 6 teams in the top 25 recruiting rankings and USC being #1 overall with the best recruiting class ever. The powerful SEC has 5 teams ranked in the top 25, and the mighty Big 12 has 4.

Lets do some math. 60% of the Pac 10 conference had a top 25 recruiting class. 41% of the teams in the SEC conference had a top 25 recruiting class. 33% of the teams in the BIG 12 cconference had a top 25 recruiting ranking. Yep, recruits sure are going elsewhere. :nono:
You continue to amaze me.

Oh yeah, Oregon St. had the #26 recruiting class, so the Pac 10 barely missed out on having 7 teams!!!!!!!!! 70% of the teams in the Pac 10 conference had a top 26 recruiting class. Now that is amazing and some serious conference recruiting.

http://recruiting.theinsiders.com/3/team_rankings.html

BTW, I enjoyed mansa_musa putting you in your place. (even if that was not his intention)

In the last 10-12 years, don't sit here & act like the best players for the most part went to Pac 10 schools as that is bullshit. Look at schools like Florida State, Miami, etc that reload all the time. I'm not talking about some 3-4 year run but year after year. No Pac 10 school is on that level consistently.

 

[Mr Hockey]

Mr Hockey



What the heck are you talking about? :lol:

The Pac 10 had 6 teams having a top 25 recruiting class. YES, 6 teams in the top 25 recruiting rankings and USC being #1 overall with the best recruiting class ever. The powerful SEC has 5 teams ranked in the top 25, and the mighty Big 12 has 4.

Lets do some math. 60% of the Pac 10 conference had a top 25 recruiting class. 41% of the teams in the SEC conference had a top 25 recruiting class. 33% of the teams in the BIG 12 cconference had a top 25 recruiting ranking. Yep, recruits sure are going elsewhere. :nono:
You continue to amaze me.

Oh yeah, Oregon St. had the #26 recruiting class, so the Pac 10 barely missed out on having 7 teams!!!!!!!!! 70% of the teams in the Pac 10 conference had a top 26 recruiting class. Now that is amazing and some serious conference recruiting.

http://recruiting.theinsiders.com/3/team_rankings.html

BTW, I enjoyed mansa_musa putting you in your place. (even if that was not his intention)

How many legit titles has the pac 10 won in the last 2 decades?

Oh & why was USC left out of the title game? Oh yeah that is right, SOS was a big part of that. If the conference was so tough, why would games involving Hawaii or Notre Dame even matter?

 

[Scott4USC]

Mr Hockey

Oh & why was USC left out of the title game? Oh yeah that is right, SOS was a big part of that. If the conference was so tough, why would games involving Hawaii or Notre Dame even matter?

If I remember correctly, LSU was only .15 BCS points ahead of USC in the final BCS standings. THAT IS A VERY VERY SMALL MARGIN. Lets think about that. Last year no doubt was a down year in the Pac 10, yet LSU was only .15 ahead of USC. In an average Pac 10 year, USC prob. would have been .5 - 1pt ahead of LSU in the final BCS standings. If the Pac 10 had an above average year, USC would at least be 1-2pts ahead of LSU. Last year was a good year for the SEC, def. not a down year. Yet, LSU was only .15 pts ahead of USC. Not to mention USC OOC opponents tanked. So LSU was only .15 BCS pts ahead of USC with the Pac 10 having down year and USC OOC opponents tanking. Explain that.

Oh yeah, USC had the #1 strength of schedule in the nation 2 years ago. Pac 10 sure hurt USC that year.

When are you gonna give up and stop embarrassing yourself?

 

[Mr Hockey]

You are the king of embarassing yourself. You talked so much shit about how USC would NOT get passed by LSU in SOS. LSU had no shot, yada yada yada & that blew up in your face. We then had to read about your newfound love for the "AP" title because it was clear USC ONLY had a shot at that one. You change your story faster then a hooker does partners so when will you stop the obsession & stupidity?

 

[Avalanche]

Please think before you post. This statement above is absurd. I said the Pac 10 was the toughest conference from the years 2000-2003 based on the numbers I provided. Based on these seperate numbers, the ACC was the toughest conference "last" season. (has nothing to do with the years 2000-2003, just last season. Why is that so hard to understand?

Scott, for your information, I did think before I posted. You are telling me that by virtue of me pointing your numbers indicate that the ACC was the toughest conference in the nation (and the PAC 10 for 2000-2003) shows exactly how idiotic your statement is. Are you going to say that the ACC is the toughest conference in the nation last year? Do you honestly believe the ACC was the toughest conference in the nation in 2003? By pointing out how FLAWED and UNFUNDAMENTALLY SOUND that argument is to say that the ACC was the toughest conference in the nation is EXACTLY why I am pointing out that your argument saying the PAC 10 is not the toughest conference in the nation for the past 3 years. NO ONE in their right mind would ever consider the ACC of all conferences to be the toughest in the nation. You are making a statement based on OOC and other factors. You continue to dodge and deflect the real argument: HOW TOUGH IS EACH CONFERENCE FROM TOP TO BOTTOM. Florida State is the only good/great team in that conference. Wake Forest? Duke? North Carolina? Please!!!!! Your flawed logic showing the ACC as the toughest conference based on your selective analysis process shows exactly why your same basis for the Pac 10 being the toughest conference is equally as FLAWED. This is soooo weak. It boggles me to believe you have so much intracranial pressure to actually have the nerve to post such a rediculous statement.

Originally posted by SCOTT4USC

Your weak counter argument is that it factors in OOC games. Why are you against factoring in OOC opponents? That is a great way to judge how tough a conference is. It is pretty difficult to judge how tough a conference is based on only playing each other. That is the reason why people think the SEC and other conferences are so tough. They rack up easy wins in OOC play, and get many teams ranked in the top 25. In addition, these same teams in these conferences "often" miss out on playing 1 or 2 of the tougher teams in the conference.

First of all, SCOTT4USC, you can go ahead and call my counter argument "weak" but it is nowhere close to as weak as your argument. Your posts are not titled "The PAC 10 is the toughest conference from 2000-2003 based on the OOC schedule" but rather you are simply saying it is the toughest conference PERIOD.
It may be "pretty difficult" to judge how tough a conference is based on only playing eachother, but if you want a true comparison, that's the ONLY way you can compare it --- from top to bottom. The rest of it is all subjective -- this team doesnt have to play that team (BIG 12 and SEC etc) and these teams rack up easy wins in OOC play etc... the only way to truly compare the conferences by toughness is to look at each specific conference. Since not all teams in the SEC and Big 12 play eachother, you have to simply average it out and look at the conference as a whole based on a longer period of time so that all teams eventually do play eachother. Who cares about who played who OOC and if one team took an easy road OOC to get a ranking in the top 25.... the issue is how tough is each conference from top to bottom INTERNALLY. Keep it within the conference. If you do, there's no way you can legitimately say the Pac 10 has the toughest road (but you'll still say it anyway).

Originally posted by SCOTT4USC

If you just want to factor conference play, then explain this. If LSU went 8-0 in conference play, and USC went 6-2 in conference play and both won the conference title. Who has the tougher conference? How do you judge that? How do you judge SOS based solely on conference play? Power rankings??? Makes no sense.

Ok, I'll explain it. There's no way to do it by one specific year because there are variations with the SEC and Big 12 because not each team plays all the others. That's fine. That's why you have to look at the conference in a broader timeframe in order to judge the conferences as a whole to where it averages out. I dont care how many teams are ranked in the top 25 in either the Pac 10 or SEC or Big 12. The issue is how tough are these teams in the conference. It is hard to judge this, but remember, all I am doing is disagreeing with your bold and outlandish statements stating that the Pac 10 is the "toughest" conference in the nation, and in actuality, it is difficult to judge because all you can really do to REALLY compare the conferences is how they do against the other teams in the conference. Therefore, there's no way you can really say (or anyone else either) which conference is the toughest. It is perception. It is a never-ending argument because its not fair to just say "well this conference has won twice as many national titles so that makes it the toughest" just like it isnt fair to penalize the Pac 10 or any other conference because they havent won as many national championships.

Originally posted by SCOTT4USC

Really? Then how come objective data proves your statement wrong? Especially if our opinion is downright "misguided and misinformed." :lol: I think you got it backwards. You fail to bring up anything to support the SEC or BIG 12 being tougher, other than your opinion. I have hard core factual data that you cannot dispute supporting my claim. I think you make yourself look foolish and you are clearly ignorant. [/B]

If anyone's ignorant here, Scott, it's you. Your "factual" data includes OOC comparisons and for all we know the best of the Pac 10 beat up on the worst of the SEC. Even if it is close to being a comparable matchup between the conferences, its still not fair. Where were the OOC games played? All in Pac 10 land or all in the SEC. This doesn't reflect the strength of the conferences. You fail to bring up anything factual about the strength of your conference from top to bottom. All you do is cling to this OOC notion. How could I be considered "foolish" when all I am doing is poking serious holes in your feeble argument? YOU are the guy shooting your mouth off about how great and tough the Pac 10 is and that's certifiably WEAK. If you're going to post something, post something about the strength of the PAC 10 from top to bottom in CONFERENCE play and then compare it to the SEC and Big 12.

By the way, for you to say I am "clearly ignorant" proves that you are just babbling. If you are going to sit here and post numbers, make them factual and have a premise to them. Posting how teams do out of the conference has NOTHING to do with how tough the conferences are as a whole. I've promised that I am not going to resort to name calling here (unlike you) but you have no idea what you're talking about and how many freaking times have I posted here that your numbers are flawed??? You don't have a leg to stand on (and you know it) so all you do is post OOC numbers. That is soooooo weak!!!! Finally, to prove how ignorant your statements are, you say you "have hard core factual data supporting (your) claim that I can't dispute." --- this would be true if your posts say "well the PAC 10 is 6-1 vs the SEC" because you have numbers that can support that --- BUT -- your argument is saying that the PAC 10 is the toughest conference in the nation based on that??? That's easily under dispute!!! That's an entirely different argument altogether.

PS Don't ever tell me that I can't dispute anything you say. You are clearly not the voice of objectivity or reason. You simply have a chip on your shoulder because your conference doesnt get any respect.

 

[mansa_musa]

I figured it out! Scott-Atlanta is really bbk!

Seriously! The bad grammar & poor spelling! Lack of any coherent thought -- other than I hate Scott4USC!

It's gotta be bbk! Come on out of the closet! How low must you be to have to duplicate yourself, just to spread ignorance all thoughout this great forum. Shame on you bbk-Atlanta! KOB!!

How many legit titles has the pac 10 won in the last 2 decades?

2 -- UW '91 & USC '03! The Huskies ended the 1991 season #1 in the coaches poll. SC's title was every bit as legit as LSU's. The Trojans were #1 in both polls ending the season, the coaches poll sold itself out to the BCS & was forced to vote LSU #1! When you conduct your poll of every 1-A coach ask them if they changed their mind after the Sugar Bowl about whether USC was better than LSU.

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.

Well, you have upgraded the Pac 10 to ok from "weak, weak, weak!" I consider that a small victory!

Second, the "world" doesnt calculate SOS, a computer program does. There is no way of telling me or anybody else that ISU, Baylor & Tx Tech are better than Stanford, AZ or ASU. I will say it again for the 10th time, football is played on the field. No where else!

Third, any analysis of intra-conf competition comes up even. No one can produce any intra conf #s that would differentiate one conf from the other! When one conf team plays another -- one wins, one loses! Each conf would be .500. Nothing can be proven from that. But, if the same sides always win, at some point, it ceases to be competitive. For each perrenial power, there seems to be a perrenial cupcake in those confs.

Simply stated, there are so many bad teams in the Pac 10 everyone in the conference is assured a win.

You're not even trying to be logical anymore! The bad teams in a weak conf can win games, but the bad teams from your strong confs cant! That kind of kills the bottom of your whole "top to bottom" theory doesnt it!

And if the teams are so bad, why cant your teams win more than they lose against ours? That is as basic as the argument can get. You can deflect & deny all you want, but, recently, head to head (not non-conf.) the Pac 10 wins more than it loses v the Big 12 & the SEC!

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.

That might be the silliest thing you have written in any of your posts! A conspiracy -- with the ultimate goal being -- improve the image of the Pac 10! What kind of shit are you smoking up there?

Last, since all of you think your confs are tough, tell me why! Spend your next post to tell me why your conf is tougher than the Pac 10, not just why you think the Pac 10 isnt tough. It's way too easy shooting holes through your opinions about the Pac 10.

 

[Mr Hockey]

USC wasn't in a national title game in 03 & their title was handed to them by the media of all things. I hardly call that a legit case.
Avalanche is just poking holes in the absolute stupid commentary mostly provided from Scott. Scott is the one who is so desperate about this issue that he starts topic after topic about it. You atleast have to give all of us that. You have handled yourself in a more mature manner then he ever could. I don't see you creating thread after thread about these things. Scott was exposed months ago when he switched his story after his first theory went down the tubes.

 

[Scott4USC]

Last, since all of you think your confs are tough, tell me why! Spend your next post to tell me why your conf is tougher than the Pac 10, not just why you think the Pac 10 isnt tough. It's way too easy shooting holes through your opinions about the Pac 10.

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!! NONE of them can bring up any arguments supporting their claim but they sure love to bash the Pac 10. It is too funny. I get the biggest kick out of these posters :lol:, although I wish someone can bring up a valid argument with support behind it. It is getting pretty pathetic.

 

[Avalanche]

Why is it necessary to bring up a "valid argument" when your argument is anything from valid, SCOTT4USC?

Here are the points you continue to make:

x - It is tougher to go undefeated in the PAC 10 than it is in the SEC or BIG 12.

x - The Pac 10 schedules tougher OOC games than the SEC or BIG 12 does.

x - The Pac 10 has a good record against the SEC and Big 12 head-to-head when they play out of conference.

x - Hardly any Pac 10 goes winless in the conference and mostly all the teams have won the conference in the past 10-15 years.

====================================

All of these scenarios mean, to you, that the PAC 10 is the "toughest" conference in the nation.


My counterarguments:

x - It sure as hell isn't tougher to go undefeated in the PAC 10 than it is the SEC or Big 12. In the SEC and Big 12 there are at least 2-3 "unwinnable" games for any team.

x - Pac 10 may schedule tough OOC games, but if the SEC and Big 12 felt the consequences of not doing so, they'd do it too. Fortunately for the SEC and Big 12 their conference schedule provides all the SOS they need.

x - Pac 10 may have a good record against the SEC and Big 12, but you don't provide an itemized list of which teams played which teams. Does that mean USC played Vandy and Baylor? Show me the itemized list of your theory!!

x - Just because there are teams in the SEC and Big 12 that hardly ever win even one conference game doesn't mean that their conference is "weak." In fact, it means that there are so many of the best teams in the entire country in both of these conferences that the little guys don't have a chance. For you guys in the Pac 10 to cling to the argument that everyone in the Pac 10 can win a conference game and a lot of different teams in the Pac 10 win the conference just proves that your conference is mediocre. There's a reason only a few (like around 4 teams each) from the Big 12 and SEC are able to compete for the championship. They are the best programs in all of college football. Just because USC is the only team in the Pac 10 that really can compete for a national championship doesn't mean that makes you all the toughest conference. In fact, it makes you about 4th on the list.


Finally, in closing, you wish that us "Pac 10 bashers" could bring up a valid argument with support behind it. Well, I wish you Pac 10 exalters that have proclaimed the Pac 10 to be the toughest conference in football would actually bring up a valid argument rather than all this dodge ball you guys play.... First and foremost, give us all an ITEMIZED LIST (this means post each Pac 10 team that played each SEC team and the location). Show us where these games were played. I've asked you to do that about 10 times now and you don't seem to ever read it. SHOW ME WHO IN THE PAC 10 PLAYED WHICH TEAMS IN THE SEC if you are going to sit there and say the PAC 10 is 6-1 against the SEC. Show some support for your statements rather than the constant, terminal babbling of the same stuff.

 

[Scott4USC]

First let me say Avalanche, your ?starting? to head into the right direction in debating. I read your counter arguments and unfortunately I felt they were weak. Once again, you provided ZERO information supporting the SEC and/or Big 12 being superior to the Pac 10. You say it, but have nothing to show for it. NOTHING! I am sorry, your opinion alone is not enough, especially when you?re debating. Provide support behind your opinion.

Let me say again, I think the SEC or Big 12 conferences are "not" superior to the Pac 10. I never said the Pac 10 is the superior conference. My personal opinion is the SEC and PAC 10 are about equal in strength. SEC may be more top heavy while the Pac 10 clearly has a stronger conference top to bottom.

However, based on the numbers I provided in this thread, the Pac 10 was the toughest conference (2000-2003), and there is nothing you can do about it. (it is based on the numbers) You CANNOT disagree with the numbers but you can disagree on using those numbers to judge the strength of a conference. I personally think it was a good and fair way. You disagree because these numbers factor in OOC play (which I think is absurd), yet you cannot show me ?anything? supporting your claim that the SEC and Big 12 are vastly superior. :nooo: You have ginven ZERO data proclaiming the SEC and Big 12 being ?a lot? tougher than the Pac 10. Thus far, you have provided crap.

You sure as hell can knock down the (factual) data I provide, yet you provide NOTHING. I must say, it takes some balls to tear apart someone?s opinion/argument that is supported with factual data and provide nothing to support your own opinion. :nono:

x - It sure as hell isn't tougher to go undefeated in the PAC 10 than it is the SEC or Big 12. In the SEC and Big 12 there are at least 2-3 "unwinnable" games for any team.

x - Pac 10 may schedule tough OOC games, but if the SEC and Big 12 felt the consequences of not doing so, they'd do it too. Fortunately for the SEC and Big 12 their conference schedule provides all the SOS they need.

WHERE IS THE DATA TO SUPPORT THAT? :shrug: I guess your opinion alone is good enough.

As for your 4th x argument, how do we know those pathetic teams who cannot win a conference game are good? Your basically saying those winless conference teams are good teams, but they just cannot compete with the powers on top of the conference. Well my friend, then please explain this. HOW COME THE SEC CANNOT DOMINATE BCS COMPETITION? HOW COME THE PAC 10 and SEC have very similar results against BCS competition? The SEC is so superior right? If you want the data go to my thread ?Myth of the SEC.? It is all right there in front of you.

The SEC played only 68 games against BCS teams (28%) vs. the Pac-10's 85 games against BCS teams (41%).

The SEC was 21-20 in their bowl games, certainly not dominant like they all claim to be.
Pac-10 was 34-34 vs. BCS competition. SEC was 32-35.

The Pac-10 was 9-10 vs. the Big XII and 6-1 vs. the SEC.

In the Big XII, the Pac-10 played Colorado six times, Kansas St. four times, Texas three times, Oklahoma twice, Nebraska, Oklahoma St., Baylor and Kansas once. Only five of those 19 games were the result of bowl games. The SEC played Oklahoma three times and Kansas St., Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Nebraska and Iowa St. once. Six of those nine games were bowl games.

Still, the record pretty much speaks for itself: the SEC's worst winning percentage against BCS conferences comes against the weak Pac-10. Try and spin that one away. When it comes right down to it, the Pac-10 will go out and play tough competition, and holds its own-- even its lesser teams.

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 (unlike the SEC). 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 bowl record says they are 12-12, while the Pac-10 turned out to be 8-9.

Here is that list you wanted, right smack in front of you. Maybe it is not that impressive to beat the SEC 6/7 times.

Oregon

2002 Mississippi St. Oregon won 36-13

2003 at Mississippi St. Oregon won 42-34

UCLA

2000
UCLA 35, Alabama 24
(alabama was a pre-season top 5 team)

2001
at No. 25 Alabama UCLA won 20-17

USC

2002
No. 22 Auburn USC won 24-17

2003
at Auburn USC won 23-0
(AU was a pre-season top 5 team and it was opening game with USC breaking in new QB and completely new RB's)

Arizona

2003 No. 2 LSU L 59-13

:toast:

 

[Mr Hockey]

Why am I not surprised that Scott picks & chooses what facts he brings up. He lists the Pac 10 victories against the SEC but lets peak in a little more into the matchups he listed.


Point #1:

Notice how none of the teams the Pac 10 beat in the SEC include the heavy hitters like a Florida, Georgia, Tennessee.



Point #2:

Look at the season record for the teams the Pac 10 beat in a respective season.


Point #3:

Actual records of these teams in the particular season:


2002 Mississippi State: 3-9; lost @ Oregon (1st GOTY)

2003 Mississippi State: 2-11 lost @ home (1st GOTY)

2000 Alabama: 3-8; lost @ UCLA (1st GOTY)

2001 Alabama: 7-5; lost @ home (1st GOTY)

2002 Auburn: 9-4; lost @ USC (1st GOTY)

2003 Auburn 8-5; lost @ home (1st GOTY)

2003: LSU 13-1; won @ Arizona (2nd GOTY)

Total: 45-43

Take away LSU since the Pac 10 LOST that game & you have a combined record of the teams from the SEC, the Pac 10 beat at a whopping 32-42!!!!


We have a tool in Scott bragging about the Pac 10 beating the SEC & look at the teams they beat. Notice how 4 of the 7 games were @ the Pac 10 schools as well.

These are pure facts Scott so you can't say shit about them. I just showed how pathetic your #'s are. You listed 7 games & notice that 3 of the games came against teams with LOSING records.

Lets also point out how you beat up on a Mississippi State team that clearly was on a downturn, an average Auburn team & an Alabama team that has had NCAA sanctions against it for a couple of years now so you weren't facing a solid Alabama team like the old days.


Lets point out one HUGE fact as you notice on the list HE provided, you see no Florida, Georgia, or Tennessee. Hmm & this is your evidence Scott?


You once again have been EXPOSED

 

[Scott4USC]

Mr Hockey

Much better post from you than I am used to seeing. :thumb:
I agree the Pac 10 did not face the elite teams in the SEC. Would the elite teams in the SEC face the average or elite teams in the Pac 10? :nooo: Based on history, NO WAY. The elite teams in the SEC will do their best to stay away, unlike the elite teams in the Pac 10. History tells us so. So we have no choice but to go by the last 7 times the Pac 10 played against the SEC. Why is that a bad argument? It helps support my claim the SEC is "NOT" superior to the Pac 10. I have "not" based my opinion soley on that. You cannot compare the elite teams of the SEC because they do not play anybody. :lol: They rather take the easy route to a NC or 10 win season. That is fine with me, it is not against the rules. However, I do not respect that and I am not foolish to think the SEC is strong conference because of that.

You did make some statements that just do not make sense.

Why am I not surprised that Scott picks & chooses what facts he brings up.

I WAS ASKED TO BRING UP THIS DATA!!!!!!!!! :nono:

Lets point out one HUGE fact as you notice on the list HE provided, you see no Florida, Georgia, or Tennessee. Hmm & this is your evidence Scott?

WAIT A SECOND, YOU HAVE PROVIDED ZERO EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE SEC BEING SUPERIOR TO THE PAC 10. YOU SURE CAN TEAR DOWN MY ARGUMENTS (weakly attempted) BUT YOU PROVIDE NONE TO SUPPORT YOUR OPINION. YOUR PATHETIC! :nooo:

You once again have been EXPOSED

:142lmao:

Exposed??? What the heck are you talking about???? :shrug:

How about you challenge all my "valid" arguments. COPY AND PASTE each argument i have against the SEC, and you counter argue each topic explaining why that does not downgrade the SEC and upgrade the Pac 10. If you somehow are successful at that, then go and tell me why you think the SEC is still superior with support behind it. Otherwise stop posting in this thread because you add nothing to it other than your worthless opinion with no support. Attacking other peoples opinions and analysis with nothing to back up yours is pathetic and shows a lack of intelligence. :nono:

 

[Mr Hockey]

Scott I've exposed your patheic self on numerous occassions. The S4U ammo is to hammer one point & when it blows up, run to the next one. You did it when USC got passed by LSU in the SOS department & that was a HUGE example right there. You were gloating how it was IMPOSSIBLE for USC to get passed by LSU but when they did, your new found love for the AP title appeared.

Why do you always ignore how you did this in front of everyone who viewed the threads? Last I check, you are the one who goes on & on with these ridiculous claims about the Pac 10 so the burden is on YOU to prove it. I just poke right through the crap you bring up.

 

[Scott4USC]

Mr Hockey

Scott I've exposed your patheic self on numerous occassions.

No you have not. :nono:

You did it when USC got passed by LSU in the SOS department & that was a HUGE example right there. You were gloating how it was IMPOSSIBLE for USC to get passed by LSU but when they did, your new found love for the AP title appeared.

Find my post where i gloated saying it was "IMPOSSIBLE" for LSU to pass USC. I do remember saying Miami and Ohio St. were the biggest road blocks for USC to get into the BCS NC game. Remember, LSU barely beat USC in the final BCS pts. EVERYTHING went against USC (except for OSU and Miami losing), and LSU was only had ahead of USC by .15 bcs pts. I would not say that was blown into my face. :nono: I would say it was a HUGE SUPRISE and I actually think it worked out for the best for college football. LSU got a share of the title (which they would not have) and BCS will get tweaked. LSU and USC fans are happy instead of just USC fans. I can give you a list of 5-7 things that went against USC in just the last 2-3 weeks that allowed LSU to be ahead of USC by .15pts and I can name at least 3 things that went LSU way to be ahead of USC. Nothing you can do about it and you cannot predict all that would happen against USC. I will give you the best example, WSU beating UW all game despite the starting QB for WSU not playing, UW had game winning last min. drive to beat WSU. If WSU would have won, USC would have been ahead of LSU in the final BCS pts by at least half a point because USC automatically would have recieved .5 pts for quality win. It is the system and both teams played by the rules. Again, I was not exposed and you really are showing your stupidity. I do not think I am going to reply to further posts by you, it is degrading.

Last I check, you are the one who goes on & on with these ridiculous claims about the Pac 10 so the burden is on YOU to prove it. I just poke right through the crap you bring up.

Do me and yourself a favore and please stay out of the threads. You do add anything postive to them. You show a lack of intelligence and I do not respect that.

 

[Avalanche]

Ok Scott4USC, here's all the evidence anyone needs to show that the SEC dominates the Pac 10:

SEC

Alabama
Arkansas
Auburn
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
LSU
Mississippi
Mississippi St
South Carolina
Tennessee
Vanderbilt

BIG 12

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

PAC 10 (Actually the PAC 3)

Arizona
Arizona St
California
Oregon
Oregon St
Stanford
UCLA
USC
Washington
Washington St

Do you think a trip through the PAC 10 conference is tougher than ANY combination of these other two conferences? Dont give me this excuse that you'd have to play more games. Take an even number of games even though there are more teams in the SEC and Big 12. In a few year's time, you'd play everyone on the schedule so dont tell me this fluff about this year vs that year. It will all balance out in the long run.

Take a hard, close look at these conferences from top to bottom. There's all the evidence we need to support our belief in the truth that the Pac 10 is NOT the toughest conference in the nation, which you claim.

We dont need to give you any more evidence than this. Its that simple. Take a look at the conferences. Which is a tougher road?

ANSWER THAT QUESTION. WHICH IS THE TOUGHER ROAD?

 

[Mr Hockey]

Scott you always deflect the issues when brought up. Everyone here knows your game already. Why do you think most find you ridiculous? Is it a coincidence that alot of people feel that way about you?

You post ridiculous claims one after another & then go into the I don't respect you crap when you get called out on something. You bragged about the Pac 10 beating the SEC yet you PURPOSELY LEFT OUT THE RECORDS OF THE TEAMS THEY BEAT.


You assume schools like Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, etc don't want to play the best of the Pac 10. Please PROVE with documents, etc showing where these schools showed fear in wanting to play the Pac 10. I DARE YOU TO SHOW ACTUAL PROOF & not just a quote or two from a fan site either.


Oh & last I check, I don't have to stay out of any thread. I don't have to follow anything you say. You just want someone like me out because I call you out on your stupidity.

 

[Mr Hockey]

If I were a coach, I'd salivate at the chance to play through the Pac 10. The only teams I would think would be a tough game would be an up & coming Cal team, Oregon, USC, & Washington State.


In a few years it could change with a Washington coming back into form as well as UCLA but as of this moment, I'd lick my chops to play these teams. As long as Riley is coaching at Ore St, I'd never fear him as I don't respect him as a coach.