Weak Pac 10???

[Scott4USC]

Avalanche

As always, I gladly will answer your question. I find it hilarious you have no counter arguments to my last post but then again, without any counter aguments you just showed me through your actions that I am right. Thanks. :thumb: All of yours and others replies is what I look forward too. Beaten down posters.

Before I answer your question.............

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

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?

I STRONGLY DISAGREE!!!!

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.

I strongly disagree again. How will it balance out in the long run? It will not. That is absurd.

I am a little confused on how I am suppose to answer this question. Please reply with instructions what I am suppose to do and I will answer it. How do you judge which would be an easier schedule playing all teams??? Do I just base it on last season or what my expectations are for the program in the future? Do I base it on the last 5 years? I need more info. What i will do instead is tell you of the 3 in each row who I think is the best team. I will rank 1,2,3.

SEC BIG 12 PAC 10

1 2 3
Alabama Arizona Baylor
Arkansas Arizona St Colorado (tough order to make)
California Auburn Iowa St
Oregon Florida Kansas (tough order)
Georgia Kansas St Oregon St (tough order)
Missouri Stanford Kentucky
LSU UCLA Nebraska
USC Oklahoma Mississippi
Washington Oklahoma St Mississippi St
Washington St Texas South Carolina
Tennessee Texas A&M
Texas Tech Vanderbilt

That system is flawd in that you can change any teams in any row but I thought for "fun" I would rank each row the teams 1,2, and 3. Maybe give me a list of the top 12 teams and top 10 teams in order from each conference and compare 1 vs 1, 2 vs 2, etc, might be more valid.

 

[Avalanche]

I dont care how you rank them or how you do it. In a 5-year span you will have played all the teams. What is the toughest road over a 5-year span playing EVERY SEC team and EVERY Big 12 Team and EVERY PAC 10 team.

What is the tougher road?

It is as simple as that.

 

[Mr Hockey]

I dont care how you rank them or how you do it. In a 5-year span you will have played all the teams. What is the toughest road over a 5-year span playing EVERY SEC team and EVERY Big 12 Team and EVERY PAC 10 team.

What is the tougher road?

It is as simple as that.

The clown won't give a real answer. It will be the usual fluff. You do see what others have seen with this idiot.

 

[Kdogg21]

a true class idiot....

i said this a couple of months ago, even when the AP Championship coach Pete Carroll of USC was on ESPN Radio, he even admitted that the SEC was a tougher conference than the PAC 10. he wished that the pac10 would get a little more respect but he was quoted as saying alot of talent has come out of those schools(SEC) and to have at least 1 or 2 schools in the top 5 every year is no suprise to him.

 

[Scott4USC]

I will say the SEC and PAC 10 are tied for first and Big 12 2nd.

SEC = Top heavy with some great elite teams but the rest of the conference is weak.

PAC 10 = A lot tougher top to bottom.

Big 12 = Same as SEC, very top heavy, but a lot weaker teams top to bottom.

Now if I am going to predict the future (next few seasons), I would have to say the Pac 10 as #1. I grade each conference by 1st, 2nd, and 3rd tier teams.

1st tier teams
USC, WSU, OREGON, CAL, and Washington all will be elite programs with all having great coaches. I really think CAL will be a top 10 program year in year out if Tedford stays at CAL. Awesome coach. 5 progams that I confident will be elite programs and can compete with anybody in the nation. Of the 5 UW is the question mark, but they have a ton of tradition and Gilby should have them as an elite program soon. You could downgrade Washington as 2nd tier.

2nd tier teams
Oregon St., UCLA, Arizona St.,
All 3 are very solid programs now and have had A LOT of success within the last 5-10 years, but question marks on the coaching staffs if they can take them up a notch. I have more hope for UCLA of the three and they could easily be a dominating program. Oregon St. could also become a 1st tier but who knows how Riley will pann out.

3rd tier teams
Arizona and Stanford.
Stanford was very very young team last season so if they have success next season (which i think they will) then take them up to the next level. Right now i put them on the 3rd level. Arizona right now is at the 3rd tier but with Stoops at coach, who knows, they easily could be a 2nd tier and maybe even 1st tier if Stoops is like his brother. Arizona has had a winning program. All the teams in the Pac 10 have had great success in the last 11 years.

SEC in the future.

1st tier teams
LSU, Florida, UGA,
LSU and UGA have great coaches and FL coaching is huge question mark. I put FL 1st tier because Leak is awesome prospect at QB and I have faith in Zook. Although FL was BADLY outcoached against IOWA in bowl game.

2nd tier teams
Tennessee, Auburn, Arkansas,
These 3 teams could become 1st tier teams but not quite in my book. Tennessee is a program in the decline in my opinion, but with a good year next year I will resume faith in Fulmer and easily put Tenn. as 1st tier. Auburn coaching staff is not very good and no way would I put them 1st tier. Arkansas also could eventually become a 1st tier program but right now they are 2nd tier.

2.5 tier teams
Alabama, South Carolina, Ole Miss, Kentucky,
These programs are not 3rd tier yet not 2nd tier IMO. I think Holtz did great job with S. CAR. but they will never become 1st tier. Alabama def. can be back in the 1st tier. Couple of these programs easily could decline to a 3rd tier program.

3rd tier teams
Miss St. and Vanderbilt
Miss. St. has good chance to be 2nd tier program, but i have little hope for Vandy.

Big 12

1st tier teams
Oklahoma, Kansas St., Texas
I do not feel these teams need much explanation. Texas has bad coaching staff but great talent which makes them 1st tier. Most 1st tier and 2nd tier programs could beat Texas because of their coaching liability.

2nd tier teams
Nebraska, Oklahoma St., Texas A&M, Missouri, Texas Tech, CO
Nerbaska easily could go back to being a tier 1 school and I am very confident A&M will become a tier 1 school in a few years.
OSU could easily fall back to being a 3rd tier program but right now I think they have earned being a 2nd tier program. Missouri has huge upside as I am a Pinkel fan. Texas Tech could also go back to being a 3rd tier program but right now i say a 2nd tier. CO should be a tier 1 program but right now they are 2nd tier and easily could fall further into becoming a 3rd tier if things get worse for them.

3rd tier teams
Baylor, Kansas, Iowa St.
I say Kansas and Iowa St. have good chance to become 2nd tier programs. Not much hope for Baylor.

So there you have it. Lets see how it graded out.

PAC 10
5 1st tier
3 2nd tier
2 3rd tier

SEC
3 1st tier
3 2nd tier
4 2.5 tier
2 3rd tier

BIG 12
3 1st tier
6 2nd tier
3 3rd tier

I think i was fair in grading it out. If you disagree with me thats cool, tell me why, and then give me your 1st, 2nd, 3rd tier teams in each conference and brief explanations. If you make a compelling argument for or against my analysis, I hve no problem modifying it. For example putting Washington as 2nd tier.

 

[Bob Stoops]

I love how you out Kansas who went to a bowl last year and Iowa State who went to a bowl in 2000, 2001 and 2002 as tier three teams.

But even better, is Nebraska as a tier two team. The played for the National Championship 2 years ago and won 9 games this season.

Oh wait, it gets better. Tennesse as a second tier team, below Washington + Cal.

Then you have Cal as first tier even though they were 1-10 in 2001, 7-5 in 2002 and 8-6 last year.

I could go on and on, but let me just echo the sentiments of the rest of this board:

YOU ARE A HOMER AND A MORON!

 

[mansa_musa]

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.

It wont balance out. Any team that faces Ole Miss or LSU next yr wont be seeing the same teams as last yr, since both teams have departing QB's. The personnel turnover in college football causes the strengths of teams (& conferences) to shift on an annual basis.

A better analysis, in my opinion, would be to take any one of the best three teams from either conf and trade it's place w USC. LSU, Georgia, Florida, OU, Texas & K St. Which of those teams could have run the table in the Pac 10 last yr? I definitely give LSU & OU a more than decent shot v SC's schedule. But, I dont think either of those teams were better than SC last yr & the Trojans couldnt do it! This argument has absolutely no way of being proven, but, I believe none of those teams could have run the table v SC's conf schedule.

On the other hand, what chance do I give SC to run the table in the SEC or Big 12? That depends on the schedule they played. If they played OU's schedule (obviously because the Sooners wouldnt be on it!) -- then yes! If they played Texas' or K St's schedules, then probably not! LSU's schedule (out of the top three -- including GA & TN) would give the best shot of running the table in the SEC because LSU saw the best teams at home! But LSU & OU also didnt run the table either so it depends on how good you thought SC was last yr?

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

USC played @ Auburn & Oregon played @ Miss St Aug 30 --UCLA played 2 days later @ Colorado. I decided to find out who your "heavy hitters" were playing that same weekend. First line will be the heavy hitters, 2nd line will be their opponents.

OU - TX - FL - GA - TN

N TX - NMSU - SJSU - @Clem - Fresno St

"Wife beaters" is a more relative term than heavy hitters, I'd say! It should say something about the strength of the Pac 10 that they find their N Tx's & SJSU's in the SEC!

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!!!!

You know what I found interesting about those #'s Mr Hockey. If you subtract the 6 losses to the Pac 10 you have a 32-36 record. So those SEC teams that you are saying are so bad, went nearly .500 v the rest of their schedule, which had to be majority SEC! They could only manage a .000 winning % v the "mediocre" Pac 10!

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.

If "the little guys have no chance," then that means the conf is not strong top to bottom. & thats the point I was trying to make in the first place. In all your attempts to spin & deflect & dodge you have eventually twisted your opinion into the reflection of mine & still refuse to modify your opinion. Thats a shame!

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.

I assume you're not imagining yourself as the coach at Vandy.

You ended up naming 6 teams from a 10 team conf. So more than half the Pac 10 is potential trouble to any team in your opinion. I'll accept that as a small victory also.

 

[Mr Hockey]

It wont balance out. Any team that faces Ole Miss or LSU next yr wont be seeing the same teams as last yr, since both teams have departing QB's. The personnel turnover in college football causes the strengths of teams (& conferences) to shift on an annual basis.

A better analysis, in my opinion, would be to take the best three teams from either conf and trade it's place w USC. LSU, Georgia, Florida, OU, Texas & K St. Which of those teams could have run the table in the Pac 10 last yr? I definitely give LSU & OU a more than decent shot v SC's schedule. But, I dont think either of those teams were better than SC last yr & the Trojans couldnt do it! This argument has absolutely no way of being proven, but, I believe none of those teams could have run the table v SC's conf schedule.

On the other hand, what chance do I give SC to run the table in the SEC or Big 12? That depends on the schedule they played. If they played OU's schedule (obviously because the Sooners wouldnt be on it!) -- then yes! If they played Texas' or K St's schedules, then probably not! LSU's schedule (out of the top three -- including GA & TN) would give the best shot of running the table in the SEC because LSU saw the best teams at home! But LSU & OU also didnt run the table either so it depends on how good you thought SC was last yr?



USC played @ Auburn & Oregon played @ Miss St Aug 30 --UCLA played 2 days later @ Colorado. I decided to find out who yor "heavy hitters" were playing that exact same day. First line will be the heavy hitters, 2nd line will be their opponents.

OU - TX - FL - GA - TN

N TX - NMSU - SJSU - @Clem - Fresno St

Child abusers is a more relative term than heavy hitters, I'd say! It should say something about the strength of the Pac 10 that they find their N Tx's & SJSU's in the SEC!



You know what I found interesting about those #'s Mr Hockey. If you subtract the 6 losses to the Pac 10 you have a 32-36 record. So those SEC teams that you are saying are so bad, went nearly .500 v the rest of their schedule, which had to be majority SEC! They could only manage a .000 winning % v the "mediocre" Pac 10!



If "the little guys have no chance," then that means the conf is not strong top to bottom. & thats the point I was trying to make in the first place. In all your attempts to spin & deflect & dodge you have eventually twisted your opinion into the reflection of mine & still refuse to modify your opinion. Thats a shame!



I assume you're not imagining yourself as the coach at Vandy.

You ended up naming 6 teams from a 10 team conf. So more than half the Pac 10 is potential trouble to any team in your opinion. I'll accept that a small victory also.

I highly doubt USC would run the table in the SEC if they had to play Fla, Geo, LSU, & Ten. Not many teams would run the table if playing those 4 in a season so I'm not calling out just the Pac 10 on this point.


You bring up who the teams were playing but that is just looking at half the story still. We have a fool in Scott acting like these teams were afraid to play the Pac 10 yet he can't provide any proof. He is the one with the point to prove but we all know including you I'm sure that he can't.


I wouldn't sit here & brag about a conf vs conf record which excludes the best teams in the SEC over the last couple of seasons. Would you admit his chest thumping of that point is way off?


Unlike Scott, atleast you don't come off as totally being biased. You provide solid posts without the typical stupidity coming from him. I don't mind debating back & forth with you but his immaturity makes me not want to debate with him. He is biased & that has been proven since the beginning. I give you credit for coming off more open minded.

I don't think the Pac 10 is a bad overall conference. I do enjoy the style of play by most of the teams & they have some great athletes over there. I just don't believe they are the toughest conference from top to bottom. I will still vouch that Oregon got robbed though. They were robbed more then USC was imo. What do you think?

 

[Scott4USC]

mansa_musa

Solid post, and I enjoy reading it and you tearing Mr. Hockey apart. I also enjoyed Mr. Hockey's pathetic reply. Very entertaining.

Bob Stoops :nono:

Your in trouble, because I am going to tear your post apart because I cannot stand an unintelligent poster calling me a moron. This is going to be entertaining.

I love how you out Kansas who went to a bowl last year and Iowa State who went to a bowl in 2000, 2001 and 2002 as tier three teams.

Both Kansas and Iowa St. have earned being 3rd tier programs. I did say they could become 2nd tier programs but I am not going to grant them that. Why?

Kansas went 2-10 two years ago. The two teams they beat were SMS :lol: and Tulsa :lol:. That is like going 0-12 in my book.
Last season Kansas did make it to a bowl game. However, all you need to do is win games to make it to a bowl game. That does not translate into being a 2nd tier program. Last season out of conference games, Kansas beat Jacksonville St. :lol:, Wyoming, UNLV, and lost to Northwestern. Not very impressive at all. In their bowl game, Kansas got blown out by NC ST. and lost by 30 freaking pts. IS that a 2nd tier program? NO, this is a program that is trying to become a 2nd tier program but I do not see them as one. NO WAY!

Iowa St. last season was 2-10 and their 2 victories came against Northern Iowa and Ohio. PATHETIC!!!!!!! They did make it to bowl game in 2002, but remember, they lost to every ranked team they played (except Iowa) and often got blown out. In addition, they got blown out in their bowl game. That is not a 2nd tier program. NO WAY!

But even better, is Nebraska as a tier two team. The played for the National Championship 2 years ago and won 9 games this season.

YOU ARE NOT AN INTELLIGENT MAN. I said these were "my" rankings for the next few seasons. I DO NOT THINK NEBRASKA WILL BE A 1st TIER PROGRAM THE NEXT FEW SEASONS!!!! DO YOU? They are breaking in a new coach and installing the west coast offense. Let me tell you, it does NOT work well at the college level and in addition, Nebraska does not have the athletes to run it successfully. Nebraska did win 9 games last year, but their OOC the last 2 years was Utah St., Penn St., Southern Miss. and TROY ST. PATHETIC!!!!!!!!! In 2002 they played, Utah St. , Troy St., Penn St., ASU, and McNeese St. PATHETIC AGAIN. So i do not give a crap if Nebraska has 9 wins. Does not fool me.

Oh wait, it gets better. Tennesse as a second tier team, below Washington + Cal.

Then you have Cal as first tier even though they were 1-10 in 2001, 7-5 in 2002 and 8-6 last year.

Again you show your lack of intelligence. I SAID THESE WERE MY PREDICTIONS FOR THE NEXT FEW SEASONS. I am very confident CAL will be a 1st tier program in the VERY VERY NEAR FUTURE. I think CAL will win 10 games next season. Tennessee might have been a 1st tier program but I think they are now a 2nd tier program. I was not impressed last year with Tennessee (being a 1st tier team) and I do not see Tenn. being a 1st tier program the next few seasons. I did say if Tenn. has successful season next year, then I right away would put them back to being 1st tier. I agree you could put Washington as 2nd tier and I even said so in my post. Did you not read that?

could go on and on, but let me just echo the sentiments of the rest of this board:

YOU ARE A HOMER AND A MORON!

:nono:

NO, YOU ARE THE MORON!!!!!

 

[mansa_musa]

I believe SC had more rights to play in the BCS title game. SC was #1 in both polls at the end of the regular season. LSU was given their half of the championship due to the contractual obligation of the coaches poll to recognize the BCS title game. To say LSU played in a real title game is misleading, because for 2 days everyone of us knew that if LSU beat OU, the title would be split. Why? Because most people thought SC was a better team than both participants in the Sugar Bowl. Oregon, I think was deserving, but, if I remember correctly, there was alot of room for debate w a few teams nationally over who Miami's opponent should be.

I highly doubt USC would run the table in the SEC if they had to play Fla, Geo, LSU, & Ten. Not many teams would run the table if playing those 4 in a season so I'm not calling out just the Pac 10 on this point.

La Monroe
@ AZ
W Illinois
GA
@ Miss St
FL
@ S Car
Aub
La Tech
@ Bama
@ Ole Miss
Ark
GA (N)
OU (N)

I think SC could have run the table v LSU's schedule. GA, FL, Aub, Ark all at home & no LSU or Tenn. Doesnt mean they would have! GA & OU on neutral fields at the end of the season would be the most difficult stretch, but, again, I think SC was better than both of those teams. FL's & GA's schedules, however, contain trips to LSU, FL, Miami, TN -- & I dont think SC would have run the table in their places.

 

[Scott4USC]

I agree with you mansa_musa.

However, I think there would have been a 60% chance of running the table if USC played LSU's schedule. USC was VERY VULNERABLE in the beginning of the year (breaking in brans spanking new players at key positions), so playing GEORGIA for the 4th game of the year, USC could have lost. Although UGA has poor OL and USC has the #1 DL so that alone could give USC the victory. In addition, LSU played 3 HORRIBLE teams early in the year, so those are great games to get tuned up and break in new qb and new backfield. I also remember Georgia dominating that game against LSU and easily should have beat LSU. I had money on UGA and shouldn't have lost. Watched the whole game and LSU was damn lucky to win that game. USC lost their 4th game to CAL in triple OT. CAL did not miss FG's and UGA did miss i think 4 FG's and blew late lead. Weird game. If USC would have gotten by UGA, then no doubt in my mind USC would have won the rest of their games with LSU schedule. On top of that, USC would have blown OUT the rest of the teams on LSU schedule (unlike LSU who needed OLE MISS to miss 2 FG's to beat them). USC in the last 2 seasons hve played their best football at the end of the year and nobody would beat USC at the end of the year. This upcoming season, USC for the first time, should start off hot offensively from game 1. Lienart is returning starting QB familiar with the system. Should be exciting although due to NFL and SUSPENSIONS USC unfortunately again will be breaking in a lot of new guys.

Oh yeah, for people to say the SEC is so tough and how would you like to play LSU, UGA, TENN. , Florida, and AUBURN in one season. PLEASE PLEASE SHOW ME ONE TEAM THAT HAS PLAYED ALL THOSE TEAMS IN THE REGULAR SEASON???? In addition, if you somehow find a team that has played ALL of those teams in one regular season, THEY BETTER BE ONE OF THOSE 5 TEAMS I MENTIONED WHO YOU ALL CONSIDER TO BE THE POWERHOUSES IN THE CONFERENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :nono: