Fanblogs.com: No debate - Pac10 is best conference
Mr2Bits
· 11 months ago
Is that why they went something like 1-6 v. the Mountain West this year? Drinking and posting is never advised Kevin.
They may have won the bowl trophy for their conference but the entire season the PAC-10 has been on the down and out besides USC and a late running Oregon squad. An additional note to their bowl record is that they landed extremely favorable match-ups with teams having to travel cross-country to what is essentially all home games for all the PAC-10 teams.
Wardboy3
· 11 months ago
BYU is closer to Las Vegas than AZ...by maybe 5 miles,,,,but still closer. Oregon State and Pitt both had to travel about the same distance to get to El Paso, TX.
Are you going to come down on the SEC for these same reasons? Both of LSU's BCS titles were played at the SUPERDOME, which is 80 miles away.
Same for this year...Gainsville is a lot closer to Miami than Norman, OK. So I guess this also is essentially a "home" game for FLA?
I guess the same for VANDY, which traveled about 4 miles. And ALA is closer to New Orleans than is UTAH. And the same for GA playing Mich St in Orlando.
Lame...
Mr2Bits
· 11 months ago
Never said anything about the SEC as I can recall. I simply commented on the fact that I take my conference strength spanning 14 weeks and not just a bowl season.
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 11 months ago
Let's all agree that the bowl teams from a respective conference represent the best (in general) that the conference has to offer. So... 5-0 in best vs best comparisons is significant.
To your point re: the MWC, four of those games were against the dregs of the Pac10 - Stanford, Arizona State, Washington and UCLA - teams that weren't bowl eligible. Is that a quality win for the MWC? Maybe not. In the two bowl team versus bowl team matchups (Cal-Colorado State and Utah-Oregon State), the conferences split 1-1. What does that mean? Hell... I don't know.
Down & out? I think that is media speak. The Pac10 put it to rest on the field in the bowls - no one can dispute that. They put away four out of four BCS opponents (and one BCS caliber opponent). They beat four our of four ranked teams.
I keep hearing our playoff advocates say "settle it on the field". Well... the Pac 10 did just that.
TigerEducated
· 11 months ago
The dregs of the PAC-10 are so bad that they can't beat other non-BCS conference. What that means is that the better teams of the conference can completely take those games off. They are not pressured nor worried about those teams, at all.
Which means they can concentrate better on their "real" opponents.
I put nothing into those bowl victories. The bottom of their conference is so bad, they can rack up wins, and bowl eligiblity.
loogy
· 11 months ago
And the OOC schedules of the SEC and Big-12 are top notch, right? The Citadel, Troy, Louisiana Laffayette, Southern Miss, Florida International, Memphis, Chattanooga, Cinci, Houston, Missouri Southern, Troy, Florida Atlantic, @UTEP, Rice, Eastern Washington, @Nevada, SMU and UMass...playing them all at home year in year out isn't racking up wins?
Your Tiger Education is really showing.
Lets look at Florida's "powerful SEC schedule"
HAWAII--about as overrated as it comes (exposed by a pathetic Notre Dame team)
MIAMI---This is the same team that nobody will give Cal credit for beating in a bowl (so we cant give Fla credit either)
TENN---Beat by the Pac 10 bottom feeding UCLA
MISS---Lost at HOME
ARKANSAS---finished 5-7, despite the SEC's cream puff OOC scheduling
LSU---Quality win
KENTUCKY---6-6, 2-6 in the SEC
GEORGIA---Lets say 2nd best win
VANDY---another .500 ball club...also lost to Duke at home
S. CAR---Embarrassed by Iowa
THE CITADEL---??????
FLORIDA ST----Quality Win. Rivalry game
ALABAMA----Quality Win
TigerEducated
· 11 months ago
What's interesting is that you act as if SEC teams can schedule based on year-to-year strengths.
A few years back, UCLA beat your USC, but that doesn't mean we can schedule them the NEXT year.
We can't anticipate whether or not Arizona will be good, or whether Oregon State will be bad, five years in advance.
You must liken BCS Conference scheduling to Basketball Scheduling.
The two are not analagous, in any way.
LSU has scheduled PAC-10 teams regularly, year by year. Tennessee scheduled Cal when they were what, preseason Top 10, last year?
LSU has scheduled Zona, Zona State, Oregon State, Washington, Virginia Tech, and we have Virginia Tech back out on us once before.
Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, LSU, Alabama, Arkansas, Vanderbilt, Kentucky...They all schedule BCS Conference out of conference opponents, and/or have traditional rivalries with BCS Conference teams (Florida/Miami or UF/FSU, UK/Louisville, Bama/Clemson, Arkansas/USC, etc.)...
Do yourself a favor, make some more really fresh and entertaining resets about my screen name. That's NEVER BEEN DONE HERE BEFORE in the, what, 5 years I've been posting and contributing here?
I mean, all those years of therapy, down the drain, with that biting stab at my ego...
Seriously, are you going to address the point I made in my original post? You load up on garbage teams in conference-the ones who got punked out by the MWC-and we load up on garbage teams out of conference...
Seriously, though, man, make some more personal cuts at me...That'll really advance your point, here, buddy.
loogy
· 11 months ago
FYI - I'm not a USC fan. Never wrote that I was. I'm just a fan of college football.
Also, teams don't schedule most of their OOC opponents year by year. Most of the home and homes are scheduled YEARS out.
You say: "We can't anticipate whether or not Arizona will be good, or whether Oregon State will be bad, five years in advance."
But then you say: "Tennessee scheduled Cal when they were what, preseason Top 10, last year?"
So which is it? So, you can't anticipate whether teams will be good, but Tennessee scheduled Cal when they were top-ten on purpose...right?
Tennessee scheduled Cal years prior when Cal was a bottom-feeder. If you think Tennessee scheduled Cal when it was apparent Cal was going to be pre-season top 10, you're kidding yourself.
So you're right, you can't tell that whether a team will be good or bad when you schedule to play them. So what is your argument,...that it just so happened, coincidentally, that almost all the PAC-10 vs. SEC games that have happened this decade just so happened to be at a time when the PAC-10 team was playing super good and the SEC team was having a down year?
Which is obviously not true. UCLA is a PAC-10 bottom feeder this year, but beat Tennessee. Cal finished the season last year going 1-6, but also beat Tennessee (who won the SEC East, btw)
Cal currently has a home and home with Ohio State scheduled to start in 2010. And that contract was signed at least a year ago. How good or bad will each team be when 2010 comes around? Who knows! That doesn't mean games shouldn't be scheduled. You can't "time the market" here as you seem to suggest.
And it's not as if none of the games played happened when the PAC-10 team was down. Arizona State vs. Georgia this year? Arizona St. isn't even a bowl team, but Georgia fans were hyping up this conf vs. conf showdown since Az St. was a top PAC 10 LAST YEAR.
I did address your original post. It's just that your logic was so dumb that I didn't think you were serious, but apparently you were. You're saying the top PAC teams just "take games off" so they can then "focus on real opponents" who they then beat? Never any pressure at all, right? But every SEC is focused every single game so every SEC game is a hard-fought smash mouth football game, right?
I'm going to assume that were there objective proof that the PAC-10 doesn't completely suck, that you would give that proof a fair shake in your thinking right? 'Cause otherwise that would make you, what, a biased homer that only believes what he wants to believe? So the PAC-10 goes 5-0 this bowl season, against ranked opponents and bowl-bound BCS conference teams, but you "put nothing" into those bowl victories. Not even one? How about just a little bit? No? Nothing? Can I ask why? What could the PAC-10 have done differently this bowl season to persuade you otherwise?
BTW - I like how half your entire post was dedicated to a one line comment I made about your screen name. I mean, your original post can bash and talk crap about my conference despite facts and statistics staring you in the face telling you otherwise, but make a one-line comment about your screenname and you throw a tantrum like a 2-year old.
TigerEducated
· 11 months ago
I didn't take a personal shot, you did...Please don't try to act like I'm a 2 year old because you devolved the discussion all on your own.
As for tantrum? Please...Let's just say it takes a 2 year old to know a 2 year old, LOL...
I notice you didn't touch on a single point I made earlier about the poor teams at the bottom end of your conference, nor you leaving out the decent competition we schedule.
I see you also trying to twist my words-which is a bit of a consistent angle on your end-so that you can actually argue a point that doesn't exist. That being that I mentioned Cal was pre-season #2.
My point-not the one you attempted to misconstrue my words into-was that you can't tell if they're going to be great or crappy when you schedule them. You agreed with most of the rest of what I said, so I'll accept that on its face.
Once again, I see the hypocrisy, as do the rest here. It's okay. You keep raging against the machine. Fight the good fight, and flail away at those windmills, Don Q....
loogy
· 11 months ago
How's this for addressing the bottom of the PAC-10:
It seems like the only chance anybody has at beating USC these days is if you're a bottom PAC-10 team. The SEC can't do it. The Big-10 definitely can't do it. So I guess it's up to the bottom of the PAC-10 to knock down the big dog.
My point is that any perceived weakness in the bottom half of the conference is more than made up for with the MUCH superior OOC schedule PAC-10 teams schedule. Even the most unbiased observer has to admit that the SEC OOC on the whole is pretty pathetic. At best I would assert that the bottom half of the PAC-10 this season and the annual OOC schedule of the SEC was a wash.
So I can say the same thing about the SEC that you say about the bottom half of the PAC-10. The SEC OOC schedule is bad, so they can rack up wins and bowl eligibility.
Luckily though, BCS conference teams are usually cyclical. It wasn't long ago when Washington/UCLA were national champion contenders, and Washington State embarrassed Texas in the Holiday Bowl. I fully expect them to rise again. Unfortunately for the SEC, teams like the Citadel usually stay crappy.
I'm not trying to twist anything. I QUOTED your words exactly and responded. It's not my fault if you say two different things in the same post.
I use NUMBERS and RECORDS to back up my claims, something you obviously don't know enough about since Cal was #9 pre-season that year, NOT #2 as you say.
TigerEducated
· 11 months ago
Cal moved to #2 at one point during the season.
As for your assertion about numbers and statistics, and me not knowing enough about them, well, all I can say is-again-I notice you very obviously left out all of our quality out of conference schedule opponents at first.
You only brought them up afterwards, and now you're spinning that.
Your circular logic is once again showing. You allege us to "perceive" inferiority in the PAC-10, and then you "allege" superiority at the top end of the PAC-10, since you face only junk teams from pretender conferences (Psst...The SEC's dismantled the Big 10 Champion two years in a row, before this year's blowfest by Herbstreit & Muffburglar in the Rose Bowl yesterday).
USC needs to actually get to a point where it overcome its sorry conference slate (Hey, the voters, the BCS, the polls, the fans...They all must be WRONG, in your book, since they all disagree with you, right? I sense a Richard Pryor "Who you gone' believe...me...or yo' lying eyes!" routine coming on, as I type this) and laying an egg annually, within said sorry conference slate.
Maybe then it could back up your assertion that nobody can beat USC.
When you face sorry conference opponents, and then crow about beating a team without its starter at RB-who got beat WITH its starter at RB the prior two years with national titles on the line by the same conference you disparage-its hard for folks to take you seriously.
Keep pointing out the numbers you WANT to point out, and then accuse others of subjective bias, while ignoring your original tack was to take the same route you're castigating others for.
Get upset and accuse others of throwing tantrums when you initiate personal attacks.
Your act here is already refreshingly awesome. I'm sure I speak for all of us when I ask, "Is your name Zig Ziglar?"
loogy
· 11 months ago
You're mushing seasons together again. Cal did not crawl up to #2 in the same season that Tenn played them as a pre-season top 10 team. You're no football authority, that's for sure.
TigerEducated
· 11 months ago
Check again, bonehead...They were #2 in America as of October 2007, and yes, Cal & Tennessee did play in September, 2007...
You were saying?
I'm going to warn you a few more times, to tone down the personal nature of your comments.
TommyT might need to get reminded again before referring to folks as stupid, idiots, and the like.
I'm not out to silence anyone, but we aren't going to have folks-whether its me, or anyone else here-taking personal shots at each other over the subject matter at hand.
You started down this path. I've taken my fair share of shots at you, and perhaps I'm to blame, but I'm warning you. Drop the personal angles.
loogy
· 11 months ago
DO YOU READ MY POSTS AT ALL?!
I said they were not #2 the SAME SEASON they were pre-season top 10!!
They went up to #2 in 2007. They were pre-season top 10 in 2006. They played Tennessee both years, which is what I think is confusing you.
It's hard NOT to be frustrated when it seems people don't even read what I write, and then respond by calling ME a bonehead.
TigerEducated
· 11 months ago
"Cal finished the season last year going 1-6, but also beat Tennessee (who won the SEC East, btw) "
That's the year you're talking about. That's the year they went to #2.
As I said, I apologize for doing my fair share of the name-calling. But, this is what I'm basing my statement off of, and you've actually switched seasons mid-discussion.
loogy
· 11 months ago
I was comparing that year to the previous year in which they were pre-season top 10. They were not #2 the same year they were pre-season top 10. They played Tenn both years.
Look, I'm really not a mean-spirited guy. I love college football, and I'm sure you can appreciate my passion for it. I think I just approach it different than a lot of people. I like to approach things with my head rather than my heart, and it frustrates me when I post something like "The PAC-10 went 5-0" and then somebody dismisses it as meaningless. It's NOT meaningless.
Or that the PAC-10 has a winning record vs. the SEC in the past decade, and then people just dismiss it as "it was all USC" without looking, and then even factoring out USC/LSU the PAC-10 is still 6-3, gives no credence to that FACT for no other reason than they don't want it to be true.
If my initial Tiger Educated comment was the catalyst that started a bombardment of personal attacks, then I apologize. I really just want to discuss football and defend my conference/team from what I perceive to be unfounded and baseless and really ignorant remarks/beliefs. But I can't do that if people aren't open-minded or willing to accept objective information, and it's for that reason I don't believe you or I can have a meaningful conversation about college football.
TigerEducated
· 11 months ago
Ignorant remarks & beliefs...You see, that's probably the most offensive thing you've said to me...But, again, I'll let it slide.
You see, you're focusing what EVERYONE is saying to you on what I've told you. If you'll go back through, I've clarified for others, made my own statements, but I never negated the fact that they went 5-0. Try as you might, that fact does not exist, on any Google Search, or elsewhere, for that matter.
It's because I didn't do it. Your passion is causing you to do some pretty ignorant things, yourself. You're taking all of the things everyone else has thrown at you here, and applying them to me, and you're off the plot when it comes to that.
Once again, you even reiterated what you meant, without acknowledging what I based my Tenn/Cal comment on in your own post. That was no mistake on my part.
I have just as much-if not more-passion than you do, and I try to look at things objectively, but I typically don't let my anger obfuscate my points, which you've obviously done. You've channeled what everyone in this thread said to you, and ascribed the comments to me. I've pointed that out elsewhere, and you still haven't figured that part out yet.
Let me say this. You'll find me a huckleberry for College Football talk, any day. Especially once the dry spell gets here after National Signing Day.
But, don't label me some backwoods ignorant hick who doesn't have the power of deductive reasoning or objectivity based on your own stereotypes, or your misconceptions about what I said or didn't say here.
No need to apologize. This will obviously not be the last time we butt heads, and believe me, if we were all babbling sycophants here, chirping from the same hymnal page and telling folks there were 4 fingers being held up, this would be no fun.
loogy
· 11 months ago
I started to write my reply refuting you, but then figured you'd write another reply refuting my refute, and so on. I agree, we will probably butt heads again. It makes college football fun. Lets agree to butt heads another time, another blog post? I'm growing tired of this one lol
Tommy_Trojan
· 11 months ago
TE:
Your the biggest jackazz ever on this blog. You are an extremely childish, immature, freakin' jealous little beeotch of a human being. You freakin' really think that Ohio State could have handled USC with Beanie Wells on the field? Your a moron! USC would wipe up every single team in the SEC. There is absolutely no question about that. You spoiled little brat. You want to come out and play Arizona State, Washington State - and pretend that your big time. Your a very little fish, son! Arizona State hasn't beaten us in about a hundred years - and you want to pretend that your two point win was meaningful. LSU would get spanked just like everybody else does. If you are so dayum jealous of USC - why don't you adopt them as your team? The only reason for all of this hatred for Southern Cal is straight up jealous envy. You only wish that your team was as good. The fact is: they are not. Aren't now, won't be next year, and won't ever be. Don't forget it, boy. Your only LSU - not USC. I thought all you "Southern Gentlemen" had respect? Get some. Or, better yet, shut for freakin' mouth.
TigerEducated
· 11 months ago
You see, I'm going to leave this up. I'm not going to remove it.
But, we're only LSU...You're right.
We only have twice as many Crystal Footballs as you have in your trophycase...
desertbill
· 11 months ago
I believe Georgia was pre-season #1. Where the hell did they go? They beat a really bad ASU this year in Tempe. I believe that one of SEC pre-season favorites was Tennessee. Well, we all know what happened to them against UCLA and monsignor Fulmer. I leave you with this: Utah 31-Alabayama-17. Nuff said. SEC is good, but not any better than the other major conference. Sure glad that they play football in the west.
Tommy_Trojan
· 11 months ago
loogy:
Where on earth did you come from? Another guy with a "real" brain to combat these morons from the SEC. I like it! I like it alot! Don't think for one minute that they will ever understand logic from down there - it simply does not exist. They only understand what it is that they're local sports columnist wrote in the newspaper. What is the most hilarious thing about it is, that these kinda nitwits couldn't recognize college football, if it died right on their own doorsteps. They actually think they have cornered the market on something. The fact of the matter is: the SEC has recently started getting better as a football conference in the last twenty years or so. Prior to that, other than Alabama football, they were a complete non-entity on the National stage. Now, they even want to believe that they have passed up Southern Cal for pageantry. What a farce! Win some games. Oh, I forgot, you beat two Big 10 teams and one Big 12 team. Give me a break! The PAC 10 has won hundreds of those games.
Loogy, your right on the money about every single thing you said. It's very refreshing to see that we have someone here who has real logic. TE, never could graduate from 5th grade, and he tries to play it all off like he's got "a big brain" - but he is a complete imbecile when it comes to fairly evaluating college football teams. He should just leave that all to the professionals.
loogy
· 11 months ago
Haha, awesome. I try to argue my points using stats and records, but even when trying to use numbers it's hard to change a lot of peoples' minds. Thanks for posting, thought I was the only PAC-10 fan on the board there for a while.
Tommy_Trojan
· 11 months ago
loogy:
I've been here for some years battling all of these knuckleheads. Your wasting your breath. They think that there is something in the water that makes "Southern Folk" run faster, jump higher, throw better, tackle better and whatever. Yeh, there is something in the water. I think that they put stupid pills in it.
loogy
· 11 months ago
Haha I get you. I love college football too much to stop trying though.
Tommy_Trojan
· 11 months ago
TE:
What is it that makes you so retarted? What's is it that makes you so uneducated? Didn't Kevin spell it out for you? Yes, this year, Washington and Washington State (both playing without their starting QB's) were pathetic. Were their any other years that the PAC 10's bottom feeders were bad? No. On the contrary. The bottom of the PAC has traditionally been better than most conferences. Out of the ten teams, usually only about one of them, is what you might call a bad team. Even when Washington hasn't been winning lately, they have not been a horrible team (maybe 1-11 but ranked 60th), until their starting QB went down this year. Washington State has been on the way down. Every other team, sans Arizona State, is on the way up.
Now, the SEC for many many years has had terrible bottom teams. Vanderbilt, Mississippi State, Kentucky, Mississippi have all been horrible for decades. Only just recently have Vanderbilt and Kentucky and Mississippi pulled themselves up from the "horrible" status. Other teams like South Carolina have never beed good. Out of the 12 teams that exist in the SEC, only six of them (LSU, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Auburn, Tennessee), have been consistantly winning for any period of time. The PAC 10 has had at least five teams every year that win also. The reason the SEC teams are composing better records of late, is the fact that, they have discovered that they can play many Division II and non-BCS conference games and have winning records. Hey dude, LSU is a great football program, why don't you just be content to understand that - and quit drinking up all that SEC BS about what a great conference they are? I would say that they are pretty damn good. But, for some strange reason (and I think the College Football Gods are behind this), no SEC team has ever played a PAC 10 team in a Bowl game since the inception of the BCS system. I truly believe that they do not want for your conference to be exposed by what would happen to them if that happened. Several times in recent memory, we should have has USC vs somebody (LSU 03', Auburn 04', Georgia 07' or Florida 08'), and it just isn't gonna happen. So, like Kevin said, we're willing to settle it all on the field. Why don't you shut your yap until that day happens. You got no proof about anything, and until you do, why don't you show us all how educated that you really are?
TigerEducated
· 11 months ago
Tommy,
You get one mulligan.
I like you. I like your psots. I don't like the personal BS.
I like the discussion. I don't like the delivery. You-and loogy-need to back off the personal insults and the like.
I'll do the same. As will EVERYONE in the discussion.
After your Katrina & Gustav-related comments, you'd think you would know better, man. But, if you didn't get it then, I'm telling you now.
This isn't the place for a flame-war or bitter personal disputes, unless its me & Bleed Crimson :)
Tommy_Trojan
· 11 months ago
TE:
Go take your panties off, put on a pair of gentlemen's briefs, and we can have a discussion. The only thing that ever comes out of your tight azz - is the non-stop constant PAC 10 bashing. I've proven 100's of times, that the PAC 10 has the best overall record against other BCS conference schools, since the inception of the BCS system in 1998. Yet, you are so mindless, that you are just completely stuck, on your SEC drivvle. Let me put it to you this way: if any SEC played in the PAC 10 - none would have the sterling records that they have had. Yes, they would all lose an additional game every single year. Do you know why? Because instead of getting to add an additional Division II team to play - they would have to play an additional conference opponent. There would be more injuries in that game. They wouldn't be able to play their bench for the entire game. Those additional injuries, might just cause any team, to lose an additional two games. And believe this or not, PAC 10 teams are never gonna get ready to play a PAC 10 schedule, by lining up three Division II cupcake teams to tune-up on. You'd actually have to play three additional solid teams to "get ready". Besides, on the West Coast, there just aren't that many completely lousy teams to beat up on each year. We don't have hundreds of Howards', North Texas', Lafayette's and whatnot to beat the crap out of. You'd have to play some real games. And, we all know that the SEC does not like to do that.
Further proof that your conference just isn't all that:
Why do you think that Nick Saban can waltz down from Michigan State, and Urban Meyer can blow in from Utah, and completely rearrange your conference landscape? It's because they can! It's because any decent coach can go in there and win the Conference Championship. Do you really think that Pete Carroll wouldn't toast that conference? Think dude! Think! Use that big brain of yours for something other than trying to pump up your own falling fragile ego. If you truly be educated, then why don't you begin to understand, what college football is really all about. I'll give you a clue: it's all about coaching administrations. It's not the water in the South that makes teams good. It's not that your players are any better athletes. Want proof? Why is it that the Big East dominates the basketball world? Does the particular water on the East Coast make for better basketball players? I hardly think so. I think that there is better coaching administrations in that Big East conference where it comes to basketball. Hey TE, check this out, there are some pretty dayum good coaches coaching in the PAC 10. There really are. And, we are recruiting all of the Samoan and Tongan players, from the island nations that the SEC isn't even hardly aware of. That is why Utah hammered Alabama. Those big boyz squashed that mighty Alabama team. They would have kicked their azz with the OT Smith on the field. The MWC and PAC 10 conferences are loaded with these players. How may do you got? Didn't think so. So, times are a passin' you by, and you don't even know it. Keep drinkin' up all that SEC kool-aide. Until you get on board with what is really goin' on - your gonna be a sad little pathetic man forever.
TigerEducated
· 11 months ago
Okay, I stopped reading at drivel...Please don't try to insult my intelligence while not spelling correctly the words you're trying to incite me with.
Seriously...
...and by the way...I RARELY discuss the PAC-10 here. Matter of fact, this is the first time I've discussed it here in some time...But, thanks for mischaracterizing me...
Tommy_Trojan
· 11 months ago
TE:
All I know, is that you have no problem minimizing USC's wins over Ohio State and Penn State, while at the same time maximizing your fortune in having got to play Ohio State for your beloved "Chrystal Ball". Fact is: if Florida in 2006, LSU in 2007 or Florida in 2008, had to go through USC, you would have no "Chrystal Balls". That is what I know. And, you know it too.
Tommy_Trojan
· 11 months ago
TE:
I forgot 2003. You were very fortunate in that year also. Amazing, how the SEC has managed to "duck" the PAC 10 Champion, four straight times. Coincidence? No way! It's the mindlessness that you exhibit, that has infected so many, which has created the wonderful system that we have today. Your a joke and so is the "system" that has managed to hand you your "beloved Chrystal Balls". Personally, I don't even recognize ours in 2004 - let alone any of yours. Both Auburn and Utah should have gotten an opportunity to earn a National Championship in 2004. I'll give mine back if you'll just please shut up!
TigerEducated
· 11 months ago
Amazing how you couldn't hold up your end of the bargain each time we "ducked you", except in 2004, when Auburn "ducked you" by getting jobbed by the same BCS you say protects us from you.
Spare me the histrionics, TT...You're at the point where you're actually responding to yourself, now...
In the famous words of Brian Fantana of Action News, "Why don't you stop talking for awhile. Sit the next few plays out."
kevindonahue
· 11 months ago
OK. I think we've reached the end, guys. The rest of us have run out of popcorn watching the show. Breathe.
gatorhippy
· 11 months ago
So, K-Hue...
Is it safe to say that maybe the PAC-10 being the "best" conference is debatable?
At least a little?
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 11 months ago
Nah....
wdbrown
· 11 months ago
Don't say anything about SEC OOC scheduling until they start playing those games away from home.
Ben Prather
· 11 months ago
Your Tiger Education is really showing.
This is going to be a fun read...
Welcome to Fanblogs.
HawgFanRN
· 11 months ago
Seriously, this story sounds like it was wrote by Lee Corso, Mussberger, and those other game day idiots. Last night watching the USC game I thought I was watching the USC show. Sure Penn State lost but I don't think it was a blowout. I'm an Arkansas fan and I've seen a USC blowout. Sure the Pac 10 went 5-0 in bowl games, big deal. I think it has been shown, time and time again, that the SEC is the most powerful conference in college football.
loogy
· 11 months ago
USC was up 31-7 at one point before taking the foot off the pedal. I'd call that a blowout. Only reason it didn't END a blowout is because Carroll has respect for Joe-Pa.
I'm not a USC fan btw. I'm a college football fan who so happened to watch the game.
HawgFanRN
· 11 months ago
Oh you sound just like Corso and the rest of them. So USC had to back off, that's why Penn State came back. Not that there a good team and came back with the true ability of their team. I must have missed that part of the game. Overall USC is over rated. Sanchez will be a bust in the NFL, by the way. Just to say it for everyone to here: Arkansas is Coming!! Go Hawgs!!!
Tommy_Trojan
· 11 months ago
HawgFanRN:
Your a moron! USC let the foot all the way off the pedal. There was absolutely no blitzing at all of the LB's. That's not USC football son. Penn State would not have scored one single point in the 2nd half if Pete Carroll didn't let them. Your a clown. That was the biggest "kneel down" in the history of college football. That score could have been 62-7 easy. What are you? Mental? You mentioned something that happened to Arkansas twice. You don't think that it could happen to Penn State? It happened to Oklahoma in the 04' National Championship game. It can happen at any time. USC played the 1st half and then let Joe Paterno and all the BIG 10 representatives leave with a little dignity. That's what happened.
desertbill
· 11 months ago
Actually, they were 4 and 4 against the Mountain West. Ask Alabama what they are against the MWC after tonights throttling against Utah.
Ben Prather
· 11 months ago
My count stands at 2-6 this year against the MWC.
This is a little better than the 0-2 record the SEC earned.
The Big 12 is the only conference with a winning record vs the MWC this year at 3-1.
oldcoachguru
· 11 months ago
Hey,Mr, 2bits, the beginning of the season is the roughest patch. Many new players under game conditions for the first time. Plus, Oregon had to start the season with the 3rd string quarterback. Every team proves their bonafides at the end of the season. The bowl game either proves or disproves the hype. (see Alabama-vs-Utah).
Skip1
· 11 months ago
Going undefeated in the bowl games is nice. But it doesn't mean the Pac 10 is ipso facto the best conference, for a whole host of reasons that others will surely hash and rehash here. I do happen to think the Pac 10 gets short shrift from the Evil East Coast Media, but bowl performances should be just one piece of evidence in a much larger picture.
GoCougs!
· 11 months ago
So what does that say about the Mountain West who went 6-1 against the PAC 10 this year? oh well 6-2 after the vegas bowl? I guess none of that will matter until what we see tonight
loogy
· 11 months ago
SEC OOC games include Troy, Louisiana Laffayette, Southern Miss, Florida International, Memphis and Podonk St.
Big-12 OOC Games include Chattanooga, Cinci, Houston, Missouri Southern, Troy, Florida Atlantic, @UTEP, Rice, Eastern Washington, @Nevada, SMU and UMass
At least the MWC has respectable teams, but the big "power" conferences still see fit to schedule home games against cupcakes and then revel in their victories against them.
You leave the decent ones out, & I'll include the decent ones...
1Tomcat
· 11 months ago
Your Right TE heck Loogy forgot those Even Rice and FAU won their bowls teams that Texas beat and Arkansas is SEC B-12 opponents that loogy omited Wake,UConn,TCU,Iowa,Illinois,Miami,West Virg,FSU, and Wash St Whats kinda funny is that of the teams that the B-12 faced Rice,Houston,FAU,FSU,West Virg,Iowa won their bowls
loogy
· 11 months ago
Right, and I also forgot these too then for the SEC: Middle Tenn St., SE Louisiana, L-tech, Louisiania-Monroe, Samford, Western Kentucky, Norfolk State, UAB, Wofford (seriously?), Rice, Miami of Ohio, Citadel, Duke, Central Michigan, Ark St, Georgia Southern, Tulane, Tulsa, Western Illinois, Wyoming, Northern Illinois, Troy, North Texas, App St., Tennessee Martin, Southern Miss,....
Trust me. You do NOT want to go into comparing the PAC-10 vs. SEC out of conference schedules.
Clemson_Joe
· 11 months ago
None of those teams (with an exception that I will get to in a second) do much to add to the strength of a BCS team's schedule. I'm not debating that.
What I want to know is why you singled out Wofford to pick on?
Wofford would beat most of the teams on that list. As a matter of fact, Wofford beat App State when Michigan could not. I'm guessing you've just never heard of the Terriers and are using that as your reasoning behind singling them out.
One last thing. Duke is not bad this year. Duke would beat 5 of the teams in the Pac 10 this season. This isn't your Duke team of the past.
loogy
· 11 months ago
So Duke is okay THIS year. But what about the last 10 years they've been OOC opponents? One year of being okay doesn't erase a decade of being somebody's bitch.
It wasn't my intention of singling Wofford out. It's just after typing all the first few schools I inserted that comment after I typed in Wofford. It really should have applied to all the schools in the list, really.
Bottom line is, the SEC claims to be the BEST conference in college football bar none. They consistently claim to have the toughest and the fastest players. Then why don't they prove it in their OOC schedules? Who cares if Wofford was 9-3 in Div-IIA this year? It's still Wofford and nobody cares. Prove it on the field and back up the annual "SEC is the best!" woofing.
The SEC is like the kid in 3rd grade who got held back a year or two in kindergarten and thinks he's so awesome for beating up on kids much smaller than him.
I'm not even saying they should play all BCS schools in OOC. I'm just saying,...get out of the Div-IIA ranks. Play some schools,...like,...I dunno,...UTAH and lets see what happens...
1Tomcat
· 11 months ago
loogy its me Tomcat I was using B-12 teams opponents not-SEC reread my post-BTW Rice finished 10-3 won their bowl and would whup half the teams in the PAC 1+9 Hookem-Horns
loogy
· 11 months ago
"Rice finished 10-3 won their bowl and would whup half the teams in the PAC 1+9"
Just because you say so and really want to believe it doesn't make it true.
Glad your longhorns got jumped in the BCS btw. Karma is a bitch.
1Tomcat
· 11 months ago
Hey loogy who's your team? Cal? Stanford ? Wash? Wash St? UCLA? Just be glad yall dont play Baylor,Rice or Houston, much less Texas or TCU
oldcoachguru
· 11 months ago
Hey, Loogy, you are right ! Nick Saban said last year that USC shouldn't be considered for the BCS because they played a bunch of weak sisters in the PAC 10. And this year he takes credit for Utah winning !! He says it was his pre-game rhetoric that made Utah unbeatable. ( "Utah isn't even from a real BCS conference") How about keeping your mouth shut, coach, until you prove you belong on the same field as Utah. (31 yards rushing, coach???) I guess the whole nation now knows the SEC is a bunch of weak sisters !
TigerEducated
· 11 months ago
Actually, Nick Saban did NOT make those comments.
Les Miles made those comments.
Last year, Les Miles backed up those comments by making it to- and pounding its opponent in-the National Championship Game.
USC, on the other hand, couldn't get the job done.
So, essentially, I hate to burst your bubble, but your entire point is completely invalid based on your initial mistake in attributing those comments to the wrong coach.
Way to show off the college football chops, though. Projecting LSU's old coach's comments on the new coach's compliments, but using the old coach's performance instead of the new coach's results.
Nice job!
Bevo_Boy
· 11 months ago
How does Troy make both lists?
loogy
· 11 months ago
Ran out of "good" teams so he had to try and sneak that one in hoping nobody would notice. Unless you think Troy is a "good" team...
TigerEducated
· 11 months ago
They were a bowl eligible team this year, if I'm not mistaken. If they weren't, they were the year prior.
loogy
· 11 months ago
But the PAC-10 beat 5 bowl eligible teams this bowl season, yet you've stated that you "put nothing" (your words) in that.
And now you're arguing that Troy is a "good" OOC team because they may have finally bade a bowl game this year?
This is why the rest of the country has a hard time understanding SEC-fan logic.
loogy
· 11 months ago
Lets compare the complete PAC-10 OOC schedule to the complete SEC OOC schedule.
Look, I know you love your team and conference and all, but you have stats, records and figures staring you in the face.
loogy
· 11 months ago
Are you combining years? Or are all those just THIS year? 'Cause I know Cal didn't play an OOC SEC opponent this year. They played Tenn LAST year. It doesn't count if you list all the "good" OOC teams (Troy???) from multiple years. We're talking about the number PER YEAR.
Go Blue Jeff
· 11 months ago
I agree with the two previous posters. These were favorable matchups for the Pac-10, which were essentially home games for them. USC can't say nothing (IMO) unless they beat someone after traveling more than 11 miles from their campus, and neither can the rest of the wack 10, who went just as far on their "trips" to bowl games. Too much credence is put into these matchups when the settings aren't the same for both teams. At least make these teams move outside of their normal time zones, for God's sake...
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 11 months ago
You realize that USC won outside the PTZ this season, right?
loogy
· 11 months ago
Please tell me all the "home games" the PAC-10 had this bowl season.
Was Oregon traveling to San Diego one of them?
How about Oregon State traveling to Texas?
How about Arizona traveling to Las Vegas?
Fact is, > 50% of of PAC-10 teams had what any logical person WOULDN'T call a home game, but for you that translates into the entire PAC-10 bowl squad making the same 11 mile trek that USC made.
Btw. Michigan sux.
Ben Prather
· 11 months ago
One could could even argue the Vegas Bowl should count more as an away game. This is the PAC 10's bowl game that surprised me most.
The PAC 10 had an excellent post season, unfortunately they did not have the regular season to match.
BamaBorn
· 11 months ago
How in Heaven's name did the national championship overlook this tough, tough conference this year?
oldcoachguru
· 11 months ago
Hey, Bamaboy, Utah thumped you guys pretty seriously. If I was you, I'd slink back down to the bayou and not peep til I had something to peep about. By the way isn't Utah some community college team out west somewhere???
TigerEducated
· 11 months ago
It'd be best not to emulate the posting styles of this johnny come lately character by the name of loogy, nor Tommy Trojan.
While he's been here awhile, Tommy doesn't seem to hold himself to the camraderie and good-natured back and forth we try to work for here.
Everyone here has the right to exercise their opinions, and telling people they should "slink back" anywhere would devolve and lessen the discourse.
Just an FYI
BamaBorn
· 10 months ago
Bayou? Let me guess. When you were in school, geography wasn't a good subject for you was it?
FanoftheGame
· 11 months ago
It might be more accurate to say that the Pac-10 is the best "Bowl" Conference. The title of best overall confence would probably have to go to the SEC or Big-12. We'll just let the OU/Florida game decide that one.
AUtigerman
· 11 months ago
I think ole miss will prove that SEC is stronger then big 12
loogy
· 11 months ago
Because one football game can prove the might or weakness of entire conferences? That is like judging an entire race based on the actions of a handful of its members. Which is the kind of thinking I thought we as a people were trying to steer AWAY from.
Mr2Bits
· 11 months ago
Because one football game can prove the might or weakness of entire conferences?
You must not have watched Ohio State in the NC game the last two years. It's because of them getting dismantled that the opinion of the Big 10 has gone down the deucer.
And yes the Big 12 is not getting treated very kindly in the Bowl games but I still think they are a top 2 conference this year.
loogy
· 11 months ago
"And yes the Big 12 is not getting treated very kindly in the Bowl games but I still think they are a top 2 conference this year."
It's this kind of thinking that really makes me mad. WHY do you think that? Do you have anything in your back pocket to prove your thinking? That doesn't sound silly to you at all?
I don't mean to pick on people or whatever, because I hear that kind of stuff ALL the time from people. "Well, they didn't do that great, but I still think they are top." It's like saying "The PAC-10 did great but I still think they suck." Does nobody else find this sad and/or funny?
Ben Prather
· 11 months ago
No, in fact you just summed up my opinion of the PAC 10.
1Tomcat
· 11 months ago
Ole Miss proved that they can beat TTech -thats all Can TTech pull an upset- yes Same can be said for Vandy I predicted this on here and also explained that every game is who won on that particular day and by in no means really proves anything else
Bevo_Boy
· 11 months ago
Tech hasn't been the same since they got destroyed by OU. They aren't the same same that beat Texas and destroyed Ok. St.
Tommy_Trojan
· 11 months ago
FanoftheGame:
Yeh, Big 12 looks great. Missouri barely squeeks by Northwestern - and should have lost! Texas Tech gets demolished by Mississippi. Oklahoma State gets mauled by Oregon. So far so good. Let's see how Oklahoma and Texas fare. I think we're gonna be able to put the Big 12 back to sleep pretty soon.
BamaDoty
· 11 months ago
Please stop making me laugh!! Pac 10 played a bunch of has beens, with the exception of Oklahoma St. They beat up on happless Pitt, so what. They got beat by Ball St among a few. then you want to throw in the ACC powerful Miami? Please they are a team past there prime, and in also a weak football conf. They are the best in basketball but that as far as Ill go with the ACC.can you say overated!!!!!! Also not forget the ever so tough conference of the WAC oppenents disguised as MWC member BYU. They are weak!!!! The other team the PAC 10 played was from the Big 11. Well we all know how they fare most of the time in bowl games. OHIO ST. last 2 yrs choking, and the fall of Michigan. I was rooting for Penn St to win, But that is asking way to much of the Big 11. Pac 10, 5 teams in bowl games, 50% of the league. Big 12, 7 teams in the bowls 58% of the league. SEC 8 teams in the bowl games and this is 66 % of their league. Clearly in my opinion they 2 best leagues this year is the BIG 12 and the SEC. The bowl trophy your boasting about. The way they do the award is by percentage, which is a little miss leading, because the MAC, WAC or Sunbelt conferences could have had 1 team in the bowls. And if they won that one bowl, They too can get this same trophy, but no one would seriouly think that they are the best conference. They would be laugh at, if any one tried to make that claim
Zac
· 11 months ago
"They beat up on happless Pitt, so what."
"THEY", as in the PAC-10, did not "beat up" on happless (can't argue with you there) Pitt. OR St won against Pitt, by all of 3 lousy pts. Probably should have been more, but I digress. I mean, consider FL's 11 pt win over Bama. Is there a Bama fan out there willing to agree to FL having "beaten up" on your Tide? I'm not even a Bama fan, and in my opinion, FL didn't beat up on the Tide. So get off the OR St beat up on happless Pitt, already. Were it not for some respectable passing by OR St (still had 2 INT's), they too were happless. They just happened to be lucky enough to win.
JaredIsKing
· 11 months ago
Just in case you missed it; the MWC team called Utah beat you soundly.
oldcoachguru
· 11 months ago
Right on, man! If Utah represents the best of the MWC, and Alabama represents, almost, the best of the SEC, then the MWC is the better conference. Utah could probably take Florida too.
Ben Prather
· 11 months ago
What about the ACC? 83% of the teams in bowls?
Also, the Challenge Cup requires a conference to have at least 3 teams in bowls.
MattRyan
· 11 months ago
HaHa bamaborn, exactly, you would think the best conference in football would have 2 straight national titles and going for 3 this year... oh wait, they are! Championships matter, and it's a cold hard fact that the SEC produces championS (realize I put an S on the end of it) The Pac-10's champioN has been USC. As far as I'm concerned, in 04 (USC's only "outright") national title, was a fluke. They didn't even have to play US. That was Auburn's year, and USC didn't even have to play them. Oh yea, and in 03 USC can "claim" some of it but they didn't even have to play LSU.
S-E-C = #1 and by the way, the Best Conference in bowls can only be given to conferences who send a minimum 6 teams to bowl games. Oh yea, the Pac10 only sent 5.... oh well.
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 11 months ago
OK. All kidding aside... do you HONESTLY believe that any team in the country wants to play USC? I believe that both UF and OU are glad they've got the matchup that they do have and don't have to see the Trojans coming out of the tunnel.
AUtigerman
· 11 months ago
From what ive seen the big 10 is still a joke so beating Penn State isnt saying much.
And the pac 10 beat how many SEC teams in bowl games? Ive been saying all year that the SEC is down this year but they are proving otherwise in bowl games. Give the pac 10 there due in winning all there bowl games but noway are they to be crowned the best conference.
I dont think at this point that any team could beat Florida including USC but that would be a great game and USC did deserve a shot.
loogy
· 11 months ago
How about PAC-10 vs. SEC matchups this decade? Unless you think for some reason PAC-10 vs. SEC teams in bowl games this season would have more credence:
FYI, PAC-10 is 10-7 vs. SEC this decade,..and still 6-3 if you factor out USC and LSU, both conferences' "powerhouse" teams:
I don't know if Meyer or Stoops would want to play USC or not, but I bet Leach don't want to play Nutt again......Ole Miss is kicking TT's ass...
Tom_Blogical
· 11 months ago
Any team that has players with the right attitude does. It's called, "competitiveness", I believe.
Mr2Bits
· 11 months ago
I am dying for UF to play USC. This would be a dream matchup for any and all UF fans. If the Rose Bowl committee can get the sorry ass Big 10 v Pac10 matchup thrown to the wayside we may actually get to see this.
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 11 months ago
I think FSU & GA fans would enjoy that game quite a bit, as well.
Tommy_Trojan
· 11 months ago
Kevin:
Thank you! Finally somebody said it. That is reality. The SEC would have won no "Chrystal Balls" at all - had they had to play USC in 03', 06', 07' or 08'. They would be 0-4 - just like the BIG 10 conference. That is the cosmic joke. And, the NCAA damn well knows it. USC will never get back into that game no matter what.
Ben Prather
· 11 months ago
I can't think of anyone who would love to have that opportunity...
loogy
· 11 months ago
PAC-10 only has 10 teams. The SEC has 12 teams. Where di you pull your 6-team minimum figure? I'm guessing your butt. You do realize that different conferences have a difference number of teams in those conferences?
PAC-10 only has 10 members. Big-12 has 12. SEC has 12. Therefore, increasing the number of minimum teams across the board to be considered for "best conference" in post-season play only serves to help conferences with more members
But I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that that actually makes sense to some people.
loogy
· 11 months ago
The PAC-10 gets shortchanged every year. Why is it that everybody points to a "weak" PAC-10 as to why PAC-10 teams can just "skate" into bowl games, but nobody talks about the SEC and BIG-12 schedule numerous cupcake home games every year to fatten up their win/loss record? Sure, it's easy to point to the PAC-10's performance versus this MWC this past season, but if the SEC keeps scheduling teams like Troy, Louisiana Laffayette, Southern Miss, Florida International, Memphis and Podonk St. year in and year out.
FACT: PAC-10 has a stronger out-of-conference schedule than the SEC/Big-12. Apparently though it only serves to hurt them.
FACT: PAC-10 has a winning record vs. SEC teams in head-to-head matchups this past decade (10-7 record). Many SEC fans claim that winning record is only against USC. Take out the two powerhouse teams from each conference (USC and LSU) and the PAC-10 is still 6-3 versus the SEC this decade.
But, the PAC-10 gets no credit for this. Apparently, our losses our magnified, and our victories are discounted. We don't get credit for beating each other. And we don't get credit when beating everybody else.
The PAC-10 goes 5-0 in bowl games this year, and now everybody is clamoring about how they were all "home" games when it's simply not true (Oregon traveling to San Diego is a home game? Oregon State traveling to Texas is a home game? Arizona traveling to Las Vegas is a home game?). Cal beats a respectable 7-5 Miami squad and that win is discounted because Miami probably wasn't "that" good or the ACC is "down" this year. Florida plays for the NC in Miami, but I'm sure if the Gators win SEC fans won't be discounting their own win since it was a "home" game. Same goes with Texas Tech in the Cotton Bowl.
Basically, the PAC-10 can't win. I believe it stems from jealously. Despite the PAC-10 having a great OOC record, other geographic reasons can't stand that west-coast teams might be good at their beloved football. I mean, hell, the PAC-10 has some of the most academically elite universities around (Stanford, UC Berkeley, UCLA, possibly USC), so we can't let them be good at BOTH smarts and football right? Without football, what does the SEC or Big-12 have to hold onto? And as cynical as that viewpoint may seem, do not discount the prejudice and petty behavior that follows prejudice human beings can have over each other for some of the stupidest of reasons (such as, possibly, football proficiency) Again, this is just my opinion for what it's worth, but what cannot be disputed are the stats.
And the only reason any of this is up for debate is because of the lousy BCS post-season system. PAC-10 teams do NOT get a fair-shake when it comes to who is being considered fro the national championship.
Ole Miss beats Florida at Florida = Wow! SEC is so good even one of the worst teams can beat one of the top teams!
Oregon State beats USC at Oregon State = Wow! PAC-10 is soo bad that the top team can't even beat one of the worst teams!
This annual perception of the PAC-10 leads to pre-season rankings, which DO affect who is ranked #1 and #2 every year, being lower on average for PAC-10 schools than other schools...despite nobody even having played a down of football yet. Does that make sense to anybody! Why not wait 4 or 5 weeks before starting up the polls? Lets people actually get a CHANCE to watch some football before bestowing the #1 ranking on Georgia or the #9 ranking on Clemson.
My two cents, FWIW.
And in case you're wondering about my numbers for the PAC-10 vs. SEC matchups this decade:
Miami was missing players. Most significantly, they didn't have their QB, and the backup is not even close to playing at the same level. In reality, most teams wouldn't be half as good as they are if they lost their starting QB. See Boston College, for example. The fact that Miami only lost to Cal by 7 in itself is impressive for Miami.
loogy
· 11 months ago
I can't believe you are actually trying to spin PAC-10 win over Miami as STILL bad for the PAC-10 and impressive for Miami/ACC. That's about as biased as they come.
The bottom line is they lost. Injuries and suspensions happen to ALL teams throughout the season. It's something you factor in. People can always say "Well if ALL our BEST players were healthy, we would have won!" but in reality, how often does that happen for any team?
BTW, your freshman QB was 100x better than our version of Kyle Wright, so please don't use your freshman QB as an excuse. The damage was done by Jahvid Best. Who is an alien.
TigerEducated
· 11 months ago
Uhh...He's not saying its bad for the PAC-10, he's saying that its an impressive showing by the ACC and Miami.
If he's saying that it's bad for the PAC-10, then applying logic, one would assume it wouldn't be such a great showing by Miami & the ACC.
It's counterproductive to ascribe an opinion to someone and then argue against it when the opinion you're ascribing to them defeats the purpose of the opinion you're ascribing to them.
You keep up that circular logic, selective memory (Leaving out any BCS/Bowl game eligible opponents the SEC's had, and conveniently mentioning only the crappy teams we schedule), ascerbic wit-tinged angle you're taking here. Those of us that have a tad bit of perspective see through the hypocrisy of your angle.
Ascribing homerism to us, while using subjective statistics, omitting pertinent information to attempt to further your own opinion, and taking personal shots at others relative levels of intelligence.
Nice job, coming from a guy named loogy...
loogy
· 11 months ago
An impressive showing by the ACC/Miami, but of course, means nothing for Cal, who actually won the game, right? I mean, you've already said you gave the 5-0 PAC-10 bowl record no credence, but you agree to give something to the ACC/Miami in Cal vs. Miami,...even though they lost?
Please enlighten us with your statistics and facts then. I've posted every PAC-10 vs. SEC game this decade with scores to prove my point (how is that subjective btw?). You are just name calling.
TigerEducated
· 11 months ago
I'm explaining what he meant, since you're confused.
I'm not arguing his point for him.
You are here to merely bicker, and you're being a hypocrite.
Have at it, chump.
Clemson_Joe
· 11 months ago
Actually my point is that Cal beating Miami isn't really that impressive at all, since Miami is a mere shell of what they were this season. If it is impressive for either team, it is impressive for Miami, given the fact that they only lost by 7.
By the way, I attended summer school at Cal for 1 summer while visiting NorCal, and am a Bears fan. I am merely pointing out the reality of the situation. If you want to make a point for the Pac-10's strength, skip this game in your argument.
loogy
· 11 months ago
I use this game as only one data point. I'm just saying, Cal still won, and to discount it 100% is ludicrous. Florida played this same Miami team. I suppose they shouldn't get credit for the win either.
Clemson_Joe
· 11 months ago
Man, seriously, try to stay with me here. I am not attempting to take the win away from Cal. They won the game. That is not debatable. You are trying to show the strength of the Pac 10. I am saying that to do that with any level of effectiveness, you should not use Cal's victory over Miami as an example because it doesn't carry much weight at all.
"Florida played this same Miami team." How is this relevant? Is someone trying to say that Florida's win over Miami validates their strength this season? I don't think so.
loogy
· 11 months ago
Fine so just completely take out the Cal win, the PAC-10 is still 4-0 against ranked opponents this bowl season. Lets not give the PAC-10 credit for the Cal win over Miami even though it was between an 8-4 PAC-10 team and a 7-5 ACC team (comparable by my standards).
The Florida win is relevant. Show me a link to a single article that questions Florida's or the SEC's quality because they beat a decent but not great Miami team at home. Remember, Miami was only Florida's second game of the season, following a weak Hawaii team. Where's the questioning? There was none. So why is there a double standard now?
Clemson_Joe
· 11 months ago
No, I'm sorry, but NO ONE has tried to single out Florida's win over Miami as a justification of their strength. If you want to get into singling out individual games, lets discuss Maryland vs. Cal. That's a bottom tier ACC team who beat a so called top tier Pac 10 team.
loogy
· 11 months ago
Please read my reply.
"Show me a link to a single article that questions Florida's or the SEC's quality because they beat a decent but not great Miami team at home."
I never said anybody is using it to justify their strength, only that nobody had immediately discounted and dismissed that win as "whatever" immediately following the game like they've done for Cal. Do not put words in my mouth.
I never singled out the Cal game btw. I had used the PAC-10's aggregate 5-0 record,...YOU'RE the one who first singled out the Cal game. Now you're singling out Cal vs. Maryland. How about Maryland vs. Middle Tenn State. At least Cal lost to a BCS school across 3 time zones, right? Geez.
Clemson_Joe
· 11 months ago
Ok really all I was trying to do was help your original argument by stating a fallacy in it. That way, you could retract the weak point, and use only the strong ones. Now, I just don't care anymore.
The ACC was the best conference top to bottom this year, and we actually have Sagarin's numbers to back it up. Show me quantifiable proof that the Pac 10 was anywhere close.
Oh, by the way, the 9th (or so) best team in the ACC lost to Middle Tenn. State. That's 9th out of 12. Maryland went to a bowl. What did the bottom of the Pac 10 do?
loogy
· 11 months ago
Best conference?! The ACC had 10 teams in Bowl Games yet still only managed to win 4 games. That's fewer than the PAC-10, who had HALF the number of representatives. Is that proof enough that the PAC-10 was "anywhere close" to the "top to bottom" strength of the ACC?
I was really surprized that the PAC-10 was ranked so high as the #6 conference, because MWC is the best-no doubt and should move up taking Pac-10 back down to #7 were they earned a spot to belong- after next season they better watch out because C-USA has got better teams anyway
loogy
· 11 months ago
So then you think the ACC is #1 then.
Clemson_Joe
· 11 months ago
This year, from top to bottom, I know for a fact that they are.
If looking for the conference with the most very strong teams, then the ACC is not it. Top to bottom though, the ACC is it.
1Tomcat
· 11 months ago
They lost to Baylor
desertbill
· 11 months ago
Bull Pucky! You think Cal wasn't missing players, too? You sound like Kentucky when they lost the national championship to Texas Western in 1966 and ALL their players had been fighting the flu and most were sickly the night of the game. Tough noogies. That's the name of the game. Cal's players were flat out better, faster and stronger than Miami's this year. End of debate.
Clemson_Joe
· 11 months ago
Yes, you're right, I sound just like Kentucky, except for the fact that Kentucky wasn't missing their single most important play maker. If I recall correctly, Jahvid Best played for the Bears. Jahvid Best is Cal's single most important play maker this year. Take him out of the game, along with his 186 yards and 2 TDs, and do you think Cal still beats Miami?
loogy
· 11 months ago
Cal's #1 QB was hurt too and we used Nate Longshore who was a backup all year. Look at the QB stats for that game and you'll see why.
Every team faces injuries. That's why you have backups and depth matters. A team with more talented starters but loses due to less talented depth is still a worse team.
And for what it's worth, yes, I think Cal still beats Miami without Best, using backup RB, Shane Vareen, who still gouged the Miami defense while giving Best a rest. It's called depth.
Clemson_Joe
· 11 months ago
Nate Longshore used to be a starter for the Bears. Of course, that's fantastic depth to have a former starter as a backup. The vast majority of college teams don't have that luxury.
Miami with Marve at the helm was a much different, and better football team. Cal beat a Marve-less Miami team by 7, essentially at home. That is not impressive.
loogy
· 11 months ago
I never claimed it was "impressive." I claimed that an aggregate 5-0 PAC-10 is impressive.
I'd rather take an "ugly win" instead of an "impressive loss." A win is a win.
Mr2Bits
· 11 months ago
Ole Miss beats Florida at Florida = Wow! SEC is so good even one of the worst teams can beat one of the top teams!
Dude, you are an idiot. Just stop talking now before you make yourself look more toolish. That "worst SEC" team just dismantled one of the best the country had to offer.
loogy
· 11 months ago
So you didn't see any double standard at all in the media with respect to Ole Miss beating Florida, and Oregon State beating USC?
My point is not that Ole Miss sucks. They obviously don't. My point is that Oregon State doesn't suck either. Both Oregon State and Ole Miss, however, are USUALLY lower tier teams in their respective conferences, and the double standard with their victories over their respective conferences' top teams was pretty sickening. Two completely different spins.
Do you not agree? Or do you agree that Florida losing to Ole Miss proves SEC toughness and that USC losing to Oregon State proves PAC-10 weakness? Please explain.
Mr2Bits
· 11 months ago
I think that USC needs to stop losing to the beeves/trees/bruins and go to a NC game playing someone from outside of the Big 10 to flex their conference muscle. I also think that a team needs to give USC a run for their money to mix up the conference. I also think that the lower half of your conference cannot go 16-45(with one school not winning a damn game) and everyone look at the conference and think "strength".
loogy
· 11 months ago
Correct. The lower half of the conference is down this year, BUT that still doesn't explain the PAC-10 strength discounting that happens EVERY year. All those schools were also very good at one point, yet the PAC-10 still gets the finger pointed at annually and told that they suck.
Mr2Bits
· 11 months ago
I don’t know where you get your PAC-10 hate news from but this is the first year I've heard or said they have had a down year(same opinion I have with the SEC as Tenn, Auburn struggled making the conference look soft).
If I recall right, every year your beloved Pac-10's USC is picked to go and win the NC game without taking the field and 6 of their players will win Heismans according to ESPN and their beat team.
loogy
· 11 months ago
If you follow PAC-10 football like I do, there is more than enough PAC-10 hate nationwide to go around. Just look at all the comments on this board for example. The original post is about how the PAC-10 did something good, and like 90% of the posts are from people discounting the entire thing.
Every year the SEC is dubbed the best conference in college football as well, even though stats might say otherwise. It's just what the media does to put more people in front of the television set.
TigerEducated
· 11 months ago
Stats...Like the 5 national titles in the 12 years of the BCS Era?
All we can do is play whose in front of us, and on that national stage, we've got a chance to establish a 6th national title out of 13 chances to play for it...
That's what we've done, and we've succeeded on a national stage. I'm not sure what you expect us to do other than point to the trophy-case.
If you haven't heard Brett Musburger call out Les Miles during the UT/Cal game last year, "DeSean Jackson at the Cal Bears wanna have a word with you, Coach Miles!" or the unmitigated verbal blowjob that Herbstreit & Musburger gave to USC yesterday, I'm not sure what planet or rock you hid under while your conference champion played in its BCS Bowl.
I'm sure that fellation they got yesterday has NOTHING TO DO with the fact that the only BCS Bowl ABC has for the time being is the Rose Bowl?
Media bias against the PAC-10, my @ss hurts...
Clemson_Joe
· 11 months ago
"...unmitigated verbal blowjob..."
LMFAO! Dude, that is absolutely classic.
Tommy_Trojan
· 11 months ago
Mr2Bits:
What is the matter with you? Who are we gonna lose to? An OOC team? We're 29-1 against the last 30 non-conference teams. Who do you think has the best shot at beating USC, the teams that play them every single year (game film included), or the teams that see them every twenty years? How stupid are you? What do you expect - that USC should never lose a game? If that is your criteria - then you've already proclaimed them to be the greatest football program in the history of the game? You got a double-standard going here. You say we should never lose and that's why we suck! It's not good enough to have a record of:
Yes, that's 83-9 in the last seven years. By far and away the best record in college football. How many should we have won? How many more than 29 of the last 30 against OOC schools should we have won? Since the last loss to Texas in 2005, while we've lost five in the PAC 10 conference, the record is 12-0. How many wins is enough? Are so ignorant that you cannot understand that the PAC 10 teams do have an advantage when it comes to playing USC? Do you not understand that the PAC 10 coaches have been here awhile? That they do have a clue? That they do have prior film histories? This is not hard stuff, fella. For some strange reason - only the SEC has tough games against themselves. Your an idiot!
Zac
· 11 months ago
Loogy, this is all so incredibly familiar, it's laughable. A couple years back, the Big East was represented during the bowl season by 5 teams. Each won their respective bowl. As a result, the Big East won the "prestegeous" Presidents' Trophy. So, naturally, that year the Big East was the best conference, right? WRONG!!! I read the same arguments against the Big East that year, as I am reading against the Pac-10 this year. The point is, what's the criteria? It's awarded to that conference with the best winning percentage in the bowls. The Pac-10 has done that. No matter what anyone says, the Pac-10 did more with its representatives, than any other conference did with theirs. Congratulations to the Pac-10. I'm just relieved that the Big East & ACC aren't the only conferences to get picked on. Of course, lately, the Big Televen has been catching some serious "dissing" as well. Eh, ya take the good with the bad.
loogy
· 11 months ago
I'm not claiming the PAC-10 is the "best". I'm just trying to defend my conference against what seems like EVERYBODY saying the PAC-10 "still" sux despite going 5-0. I know about the Big-East. But was there this much crap in the media about the Big-East "still sucking" when they went 5-0?
I mean, look at the this original blog post on Fanblogs. It's obviously sarcastic. But nobody is calling it out. The post was obviously designed to elicit responses from people by asserting something the author obviously doesn't genuinely believe. That is what makes me angry. That even though the PAC-10 did go 5-0, and nobody is really saying the PAC-10 is the best (including me, I'm just defending it), people still seem fit to take their shots and discount everything the conference has done.
Mr2Bits
· 11 months ago
Defending your team and conference this time of year is respectable and what makes college football so great.
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 11 months ago
WTF?! Now you're calling me out for posting it? Dude.
The facts are the facts.... The Pac-10 is 5-0. They won every game they played in. They beat four BCS teams (and a very salty BYU, who is BCS caliber, in my opinion). They beat four ranked teams. They proved that they have the best team in the country in USC.
I can state my opinion. It may not be as verbose as yours, but it's still mine. Why else would I be defending it within the comments, dude???
This is my first time here, if that's true then I apologize. I'm incredibly passionate about college football, and even after the PAC going 5-0 I've been bombarded with nothing but negativity (e.g. like you say, what you hear on the radio, read in the papers, etc.) that after reading this post, I interpreted it as either an incredible breath of fresh air, or an incredibly sarcastic post. I interpreted it as sarcastic because I just couldn't believe somebody would actually be defending the PAC-10. If I'm wrong then I apologize, that's just how it came off when I read it and started reading all the comments from people continuing to bash the PAC like it was one big PAC-bashing party.
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 11 months ago
No sweat, dude. Just had to represent there. :-)
It's true that I'm no fan of the Pac10. It's like my fourth favorite conference, generally speaking. But you can't dispute what they've done. They can claim scoreboard this year, plain and simple.
Stick around. We do this crap all year... even in the "off-season". The only difference is we generally have some way off the chart posts (recipes?!?) come late July.
Mr2Bits
· 11 months ago
Just talk trash about FSU and you and Kevin will be BFF's
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 11 months ago
LOL!
Zac
· 11 months ago
I didn't say you said, and I know you didn't say I said you said, and I know that you know that I know that you didn't say I said you said...
Welcome to the blog, loogy. As Kev said below, stick around. While it may get as frustrating as you think it has, it gets way more frustrating, not to mention every bit, more so even, as funny. Enjoy!!!
OOPS! The way this got posted, that' above, isn't it. See, told ya.
Bevo_Boy
· 11 months ago
Yeah, give Kevin too much crap and you'll be sent off to meet Coondawg. I wonder what he'd say now after Utah's win over Bama...
Zac
· 11 months ago
Were it Boise St from the WAC, his favorite conference, not even TE could shut him up. But, it's jost little ole UT from the neighboring Mt West, So, he'd probably throw a little trash on Bama (and the entire SEC) before turning it over to his wife. (They used to tag team it.)
Gator_Babe812
· 11 months ago
ok but USC refuses to play LSU honey... and who has USC played in the SEC,, arkansas??? and auburn..... not impressive..... im not gonna get into it with you because you obviously have a stick up your @ss about something but you're argument is not strong enough to hold up in my mind.
loogy
· 11 months ago
How do you know it's USC who doesn't want to play LSU, and not the other way around? Did you ask Les Miles? Pete Carroll? Did you poll the players from each school.
Auburn was pre-season top 10 when USC shut them out in Auburn.
And the most recent year that Arkansas played USC, Arkansas went 7-2 in the SEC. You're comparing THIS year's Arkansas to previous years in which USC played them. Pretty ignorant.
And it's not like SEC teams haven't beaten bottom PAC-10 teams either. Georgia beat Arizona State (bowl ineligible) and LSU has beaten Arizona (previous years bottom PAC-10 school). Tennessee did beat a pre-season top-10 Cal, but Cal then returned the favor the following year. Then Tennessee loses to bottom-dweller UCLA. So, if you're not going to give credit for USC beating ranked SEC teams at the time they play them, you can't give the SEC credit for beating bottom-tier PAC-10 teams when they've played them. Geez.
And no, you're not going to get into it with me because you know what I've just said is true.
Gator_Babe812
· 11 months ago
I KNOW BECAUSE MY UNCLE IS A PRETTY HIGH UP DUDE IN THE LSU ATHLETICS DEPARTMENT. WE HAVE PROPOSED HOME-AND-HOME DEALS WITH USC BEFORE AND THE ONLY WAY THEY AGREED TO PLAY LSU IS IF THE TIGERS TRAVELED TO CALI AND USC DIDNT HAVE TO PLAY IN DEATH VALLEY......... I LIVE IN FL BUT MY FAMILY LIVES IN BATON ROUGE........ AND I SAID I WASNT GONNA GET INTO IT WITH YOU BECAUSE I KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.
loogy
· 11 months ago
There's a dude who works at the Taco Bell down the street from my house who says that his cousin is the team manager and he says all the LSU players are scared to play USC and pee in their pants whenever they think about having to line up against a real team out-of-conference that doesn't play in Div-IIA.
In other words, provide a link, and article, something, or stfu. There's a reason hearsay isn't allowed in court either.
OU_Ron
· 11 months ago
Hey man, you can trust that dude down at taco bell, his cousins name is Tommy T and he knows what he's talking about, if he tells you that a rooster can pull a bail of cotton, you better hitch him up, OK.......BTW, we serve up some pretty good tacos here at taco bell...;-)
TigerEducated
· 11 months ago
Verge Ausberry is the guy in charge of scheduling opponents at LSU. He's an Assistant Athletics Director, one of about a million over there, it seems.
Prior to that, he was a TAF (Tiger Athletic Foundation) member squeezing thick wads of sweaty money out of booster fat cats, and prior to that, he was an great defensive lineman for our football team during the Bill Arnsparger years.
USC does not want to discuss scheduling LSU, according to him. They've been contacted multiple times on our behalf by him and others in our AD officially and otherwise.
I'm waiting for you to call me a liar.
(BTW-Before you start pigeonholing everyone as an LSU fan, you DO realize she's a Florida Gator?)
loogy
· 11 months ago
Quote? Article? Not that I don't completely trust you with my life, but as you've probably noticed, I weigh objective stats, records, quotes,...you know, things that are VERIFIABLE much much more than somebody saying that her uncle said,...or that you say he said,...etc.
And you DO realize that I talk about LSU because she brought it up, right? Why do you question if I realize that she's a gator as if you just "zinged" me when (1) I never made mention of the fact that she WASN'T or WAS a Tiger, and (2) SHE brought up LSU in the first place?
TigerEducated
· 11 months ago
I'll defer to Gator_Babe812's comment just beneath this response...LMAO!
Do you get the whole antisocial label thrown your way much? Do you have ANY idea how to communicate without being caustic and anal? Do any of your responses come without invective?
I mean, let's hope this is just some message board schtick, and you're not a.) compensating for something, or b.) really this miserable in real life, or c.) See reason b. due to reason a....
The information I heard was on 1210AM WSKR, ESPN Radio in Baton Rouge, during an interview leading up to the season during Fall Camp this past year. It was just after Texas Tech's Mike Leach shot down & refused a home-and-home series with us after their AD accepted.
He made the statement that he learned his lesson about counting his chickens before they hatched, and then took a call about other out of conference opponents, and made the statement that LSU offered home-and-home, and even a neutral site situation, and that USC declined both offers.
I'm sorry I didn't save it on my .mp3...I'll try harder for you next time!
loogy
· 11 months ago
No worries, since I know how to do basic Google searches, I can answer for you.
LSUPimp: "He said we HAVE had discussions with USC-but will NOT play TWO BCS schools in one year."
So nice tho that GatorBabe chose not to really look into anything and said it was because USC didn't want to play LSU, and you seemingly defended her by posting all your info about Verge and this info on some radio show you heard in Baton Rouge, when in reality it was LSU who decided not to play USC. Nobody on the board seems to be saying that it was USC who shyed away.
And I'm not even saying that LSU was scared or anything, because playing two BCS schools in one OOC is pretty challenging (even though USC did it this season with Virginia and Ohio State), but that's besides the point. The point is that USC did not shy away, and it was LSU who shyed away, for whatever reason.
loogy
· 11 months ago
Some more nice quotes from the TigerDroppings board:
"Will NOT go on the road this year... "
(no surprise there)
"I know it's harder to play someone tough but I wish we could schedule Texas A&M, USC, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Ohio State, Michigan...you know....big time teams...."
(Maybe one day the SEC will schedule more big-time teams instead of the Troys and Woffords)
"wisconsin would be a fantastic team to play, always overrated."
(Just the kind of thinking you would expect from the "best conference in college football", right?)
"But at least the athletic department is starting to be more honest with us about scheduling. They used to claim it was all because of money or because teams were afraid to play us. I'm glad to see them finally admitting that it's because they don't want a tougher schedule."
(SEC mentality,..."teams are too afraid to play us" really means "we don't want a tougher schedule", exposed by LSU fans. Laughable)
"We're not going with fewer than 8 home games this year. They will not pull that money out of the budget, so you can forget about going on the road this year."
(Yes, everybody already knows the SEC doesn't like to travel outside their own time zones)
"Bring on Rutgers. Without Ray Rice we will stomp on them even worse then if he would have stayed (obviously). Second thought, who wants a bunch of New Jersey cheesedicks in Baton Rouge?"
(Right, lets not try to challenge ourselves or anything. Lets schedule a team we think will be hapless when we play them and then claim vast superiority.)
TigerEducated
· 11 months ago
TigerDroppings? You are CTRL+C & CTRL+V'ing from postings on a free message board called TigerDroppings?
So, my info is now less credible-or no moreso than-a website called Tiger Droppings?
LMAO...
Take it easy, loogy. We're through in terms of conversations, here. I'll respond here one last time, and remind you-yet again-to eliminate the personal nature of some of your posts and responses. The shots aren't what any of us are here for.
I have a lot of friends here, whether they're Utes, Plainsmen, Sooner's, Mayor's, Duck Fans, Seminoles, Gators, or even Alabama Fans...
If you're looking for animosity-laced tirades and bitter personal cutdown battles between users, this ain't the place, unless Bleed Crimson's posting :)
loogy
· 11 months ago
Are they not discussing the SAME radio show that you were citing earlier? So I'm supposed to believe your word about what was said on the radio show, but an LSU football message board with fans discussing the same radio show somehow has less credibility.....riight.
I post stats, records, etc. Stuff which I thought nobody could really argue with. I only get frustrated when people are WRONG about something and then act as if they are right, or choose to ignore objective data because they only want to believe what they want to believe.
Tommy_Trojan
· 11 months ago
TE:
I'll call you a liar. A straight up lyin' coward. How'z that?
We recruit everywhere in the South. We want any game you got down there. Your teams cannot recruit out here. We have whipped your chump azzez in Alabama, Auburn and Arkansas. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain by scheduling your teams in the South. You are a flat out liar, boy! We have no fear of losing recruits to you. You have all the fear in the world of losing them to us.
You better thank your lucky starz that your AD's are not as stupid as you are. Your AD's are bright enough to understand this. And, there is no amount of money, that is gonna be worth the consequences should you suffer any more serious beatdowns. The games will never happen - because your AD's do have some brains. Too bad you don't have none.
Gator_Babe812
· 11 months ago
wow you are such a d!ck lol.
loogy
· 11 months ago
Also, I don't think anyone is claiming that the Pac-10's 5-0 record made them the best conference this year, so the pre-emptive arguments are funny.
But the logic I love is this:
We believe the Pac-10 sucks.
Therefore, the Pac-10 gets crappy bowl matchups.
When the Pac-10 wins all their crappy bowl matchups, it doesn't mean they are underrated. They only win because they have crappy bowl matchups. They would lose if they had better bowl matchups.
How do we know? Because they can only win in crappy bowl matchups. The only good matchup they win is the Rose Bowl and well, that is because they always win that. Though they were undefeated, it was only in crappy bowl matchups + the matchup where the top Pac-10 team ALWAYS beats the top Big 10 team. And no, this does not mean the Big 10 sucks.
But of course the SEC is awesome and we know that because they always manage to achieve a .500 record against awesome SEC competition.
TigerEducated
· 11 months ago
Well, since the SEC has lost only one game-South Carolina-and they've embarassed nothing but Top 15 competition or better doing it, you'll be happy to construe that our record thusfar must be meaningless, as well...
loogy
· 11 months ago
Look, I never said the SEC wasn't a good conference. The SEC is obviously great. I just can't stand how everybody craps on the PAC-10 every year. I mean, we go 5-0 this bowl season, and nobody from the PAC-10 is really saying the PAC-10 is the BEST conference ever but everybody sees fit to pre-emptively discount those bowl wins and still say the PAC-10 sucks. I mean, seriously, give me a break. I can make judgements against others rhyme or reason every year as well.
Mr2Bits
· 11 months ago
Nobody crapped on the PAC-10. If you like getting two girls one-cupped then talk to the Big 10...they get crapped on and rightfully so. The PAC-10 has played well in the bowl games but did not have a great year all-around. I was happy to see Oregon and Cal come around but until there is more parity throughout the conference, it will be held down in the strength as a whole.
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 11 months ago
If parity is the goal, then the ACC must be the gold standard. The ACC makes me crazy.
Mr2Bits
· 11 months ago
That's a little too much. When you can go into the last week and 6 different teams can win the go to the championship game things can get out of control.
Clemson_Joe
· 11 months ago
...and I agree with that, too.
It was a bit too much parity for my liking as well.
Clemson_Joe
· 11 months ago
I second that. Hopefully next year makes more sense in the ACC.
TigerEducated
· 11 months ago
THIS POST NEEDS TO BE SAVED...Mr. 2 Bits stole my damned thunder!
I was trying to keep that "2 Girls, 1 Cup" reference "in the can" (Pardon the pun, PLEASE!) for my next run-in with Bleed Crimson...
Dammit, 2bits..That won you a Fanblogs comment award, but I'm p!ssed because you stole my material...LMAO!
Mr2Bits
· 11 months ago
I'd like to dedicate this award to my horny co-worker that made me watch said video a year ago. Becuase of him, my life has never been the same.
loogy
· 11 months ago
2 games now. Poor Alabama. Got beat my a "shitty" MWC team in their own backyard. Congratulations on the SEC's 5-2. They've managed to have the same number of wins as PAC-10 teams this season, but with more teams.
Mr2Bits
· 11 months ago
Florida has yet to play their game stat boy. That will make them 6-2.
loogy
· 11 months ago
True. Give the PAC-10 3 more games I'm sure we could win one too.
Mr2Bits
· 11 months ago
If only the other half of your conference could win more than 3 games
loogy
· 11 months ago
I'm sure UCLA could get lucky again, just like against Tennessee.
Clemson_Joe
· 11 months ago
This is dead on because NO ONE wants to play Washington, Washington State, Arizona State, UCLA, or Stanford.
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 11 months ago
LOL. Touche.
berkmar58
· 11 months ago
the pac-10 is underated but there's no way they are the best, the sec, big ten,acc big12, big east are ahead of them
1Tomcat
· 11 months ago
MWC is the best- IMHO Parity does exist throughoout CFB and there is no dominate conference Victory chains prove it- the Pac-10 is right up there with WAC,C-USA,Sunbelt,Big East,B-10/11,ACC, MAC, B-12 and SEC but nowhere close to MWC I gotta drink some more Utes koolade
berkmar58
· 11 months ago
Dude, i think you ate a bad hamburger or something, because mad cow diease messes with your thinking, bama played down just like oklahoma did to bosie state, if there was a rematch , bama would kill somebody on that utah team.
----- Original Message ----- From: Disqus To: berk@dellmail.com Subject: [fanblogs] Re: No debate - Pac10 is best conference Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2009 03:57:05 -0000
1Tomcat wrote, in response to berkmar58:
MWC is the best- IMHO Parity does exist throughoout CFB and there is no dominate conference Victory chains prove it- the Pac-10 is right up there with WAC,C-USA,Sunbelt,Big East,B-10/11,ACC, MAC, B-12 and SEC but nowhere close to MWC I gotta drink some more Utes koolade
I disagree berkman58 Utes beat Bama -MWC rules ask Ben OBTW Dont start that Mad Cow talk again prices are low enough without Oprah Whimphrey and others scaring folks- 7 days without beef makes one weak Hookem-Horns
1Tomcat
· 11 months ago
Man I actually agree with you, my previous post was made in jest BTW that year that Boise beat OU- no big deal Texas beat them too that year In fact that year the B-12 champ game had two teams that Texas beat OU vs Neb just like this year OU vs Missu Hookem-Horns
JaredIsKing
· 11 months ago
This guy is right. There is no superior conference (and never was). Some teams won big...that happens. USC always wins big in the Rose Bowl (i bet not having to travel has nothing to do with that). When all is said and done, it is a huge shame that Utah will not be a national champ after beating a SEC team in the south by 14. I don't think Andre Smith would have done enough to overcome that. Utah is undefeated and they are the national champs. Congrats.
SoonerTaft
· 11 months ago
Regarding PAC 10: The Big 12 North went 3-0 and that doesn't necessarily mean that they tie for 1st in Conference Divisions - it's all about who you are playing. Penn State sucks and got embarrased in USC's backyard and the Pokes choked like always, to the Ducks.
Regarding the SEC: The Utes sacked Bama 8 times and intercepted twice! (And won by 14 btw). Other than that the SEC looks fast and strong as always. Ole Miss is highly underrated. What's the deal with SEC players on the sidelines always talking sh*& on the camera when it points at them - absolutely no class.
Regarding the Big 12: Texas and Oklahoma (knock on wood) have yet to play and Tech is is overrated and haven't played the same since they got whacked by the Sooners. What I find funny about the haters is how people can say that we (the Big 12) have the best offenses and the worst defenses. The Big 12 Defenses are good but not great - but its not like you can have the "best offense" and "best defense" within the same conference, just think about it.
1Tomcat
· 11 months ago
Finally a good objective post from a Sooner no less Regarding Texas Tech- My cousin used to play for A&M- He said thats the toughest place that they played, they are one of those teams that when at home can on occasion knock off the big boys- OU 07 UT 08 these three teams play in the same division I agree with your assesment of B-12 offenses and defenses- most of these figures are based upon stats that cannot be compared- for example the Texas defense held OU to 35 points a season low for a team that runs up 60 against other teams. Also I've seen Mack Daddy Brown pull out the first string with over 10 minutes in the fourth quarter to give the younger guys game experience and try not to run up the score when the game is under control. So the opposition makes some plays and scores some towards the end of the game against the 2nd or 3rd string, because the starters are taking it easy on the bench. Hookem-Horns
desertbill
· 11 months ago
I find it interesting that USC, truly the best team in the nation top to bottom, lost out on a berth in the B_S championship game due to their loss to Oregon State, yet both Oklahoma and Florida have one loss a piece. Florida actually lost to a lower ranked team than USC. There will be NO real national champ again this year due to the 13-0 record of Utah and the exclusion of USC. Any system that eliminates USC and UTAH fom a chance at the national championship is NO system at all and no better than what we had before the B_S.
Also, any jerk that thinks the PAC-10 ISN'T the best this year has scrabble for brains just as surely as anyone who thinks that the MWC isn't tough is an idiot of the top order. You boys in the south, east and midwest need to wake up to the fact that we do play excellent football in the west, as good as any in the Big12 and SEC and better than either the Big East or ACC. The B_S certainly favors the ACC and SEC due to the location of the bowls, the odds makers, big business and their mythical power ratings, yet a 4-6 bowl record for the alleged GREAT ACC and at least 2 and probably 3 losses for the mythically TOUGH SEC should go a ways toward erasing the myth of their dominance.
If the PAC-10 doesn't expand to enjoin Utah and Brigham Young, then they are as ignorant as the oddsmakers who picked 12 of the top 25 teams to win bowl games and lost. Not all, by the way to other top 25 teams. i.e. unranked Arizona over 16th ranked BYU. Oops! Guess the system isn't so reliable, huh? If there is ever to be a legitimate national champion there must be a legitimate playoff system and not thisbattle for dollars and regional pride that we currently have.
Clemson_Joe
· 11 months ago
Count me in that jerk category then, and very proud to be there.
BYU barely beat Washington. That is the Washington Huskies. BYU barely beat the Washington Huskies. So, how exactly is Arizona beating BYU impressive?
The bottom of the ACC, and SEC would beat up on the bottom of the Pac 10. Actually, the bottom of every other conference, not excluding the Sunbelt, stands a chance to beat up on the bottom of the Pac 10 this year. A conference, like many other things, is only as strong as its weakest link.
USC is great this year. Oregon and Oregon State are pretty solid. Cal isn't too shabby either. Arizona is halfway decent, although they did lose to lowly New Mexico. So, that's half of the Pac 10, and half of the Pac 10 is semi respectable. The other half, however, is abysmal. Line those 5 up against the bottom 5 of the ACC, SEC, or Big XII, and the Pac 10 will lose.
By the way, that's interesting logic (or is it lack thereof?) that anyone who doesn't agree with your opinion is a jerk.
1Tomcat
· 11 months ago
Good post CJ- and we thought the SEC fans were bias Baylor > Wash St Ok State > Wash st OU > Wash BYU > UCLA Maryland> Cal PSU > Org st Fresno st > UCLA Bois st > Oregon Texas A&M > N Mex OU > TCU Colo > Colo st There were alot of Pac-10 and MWC games other than Oreg> Ok st and UCLA > Tenn
Zac
· 11 months ago
"Line those 5 up against the bottom 5 of the ACC, SEC, or Big XII, and the Pac 10 will lose."
Loogy, I hope you're looking at this. My buddy, CJ, doesn't even consider the Big East in his argument, even though the Big East went 2-1 against the ACC in bowls. (God, I wish WVU had been in there against vA Tech; maybe next year.) So, relax, my new friend. The Pac-10 ain't the only red-headed step child. (By the way, CJ, it's all good here.)
Clemson_Joe
· 11 months ago
You're right. I should've mentioned the Big East as well. Really I only left them out because no one is claiming that the Big East was the best conference this year. You're right though, the Big East would also probably beat up on the bottom 5 of the Pac-10, as the bottom of the Pac-10 was record setting-ly horrific this season.
Tommy_Trojan
· 11 months ago
Clemson_Joe:
I'll tell you what, bright boy. Stanford, Arizona State and UCLA would have done very nicely in the ACC this year. Those three teams would have finished in the top of your conference. Just because they had to lose several PAC 10 games - does not mean that they wouldn't have won in yours. Arizona, Cal, Oregon State or Oregon - would have won your Conference Championship. That's a fact. You got no team that could handle Arizona - let alone Oregon or Oregon State (with a healthy Jacquizz Rodgers). Instead of just reading the box scores, why don't you (one of these days) stay up late, and watch the games - instead of trying to imagine them. Then, just maybe, you might know what your talking about.
Clemson_Joe
· 11 months ago
Lay off the intelligence shots, comrade. Let's raise the maturity level a bit, ok?
I do watch the Pac-10 games, and I do bet on them. As I have stated, I did attend a Pac-10 university during a visit out west. I don't have anything against the Pac-10, as I am a fan of the school I attended. Did you notice where I give credit to those schools that fielded teams in the top half of the Pac 10? I'm simply stating facts based on numbers.
Speaking of those, let's have a look: Stanford: lost to Notre Dame, who holds a 0-2 record against the ACC this season Arizona State: lost to 5 win UNLV who lost by 21 against San Diego State UCLA: might be able to be competitive against the very bottom of the ACC, but not against their "equal ranking" counterpart, Wake Forest. Sagarin has UCLA as the 3rd worst team in the Pac 10, but since they hold wins over the 2 above them, and based on what I saw on the field, I'd put them at 5th worst, or 6th overall.
Now, let's match them up: UCLA - Wake Forest Arizona State - Maryland Stanford - NC State Washington State - Virginia Washington - Duke
Let's assume all of these were played at a neutral (somewhere in the middle of the country) site. Obviously, the last 2 are gimmes for the ACC. Wake Forest would beat UCLA. I do believe the other 2 could go either way, however it'd certainly be viewed as a considerable upset if ASU were able to knock off Maryland.
A conference is only as strong as its weakest link(s). Period. With that said, Arizona, Oregon, and Oregon State aren't part of this discussion. Although, I'd gladly, and quite confidently, put money on any of our top 6 teams to beat Arizona.
Also, the last ranked ACC team in Sagarin's rankings is Duke, which comes in at 53rd. The 6th ranked Pac 10 team, comes in at 59th. So, clearly, I'm not the only one who believes what I said to be true.
By the way, I won the Pick'em for this group this year. I did very well betting real money this year as well. I'm not saying I'll win again, as there are some very good participants, but why don't you join next season? Let's have you back up your statements in a very visible and quantifiable way. Then, we'll see just exactly how good you are at forecasting match up results. Until then, I'm very inclined to take what you have to say cum grano salis.
1Tomcat
· 11 months ago
desertbill- If USC is truley the best team-why didnt they beat Oregon St Same can said for Oklahoma- they should have beat Texas Florida shoulda beat Ole Miss- Texas shoulda beat Texas Tech These teams all have one loss- Utah is undefeated and they beat Bama BTW I'm a jerk too because other than Ohio st & Oregon USC really didnt face the competition week in and week out like Texas,Florida and Oklahoma- I honsetly beleive that those teams would be undefeated in the Pac-10- Utah Utes 2008 Nat Champ- why not- they didnt get to play Texas or USC, they beat Bama worse than Fla- Fla will probably beat OU- heck Texas already has Hookem-Horns #1 from the B12 Florida Gators #1 from the SEC Utah Utes #1 from MWC USC #1 from PAC 1 +9
Kryx
· 11 months ago
Conference love opinions should be saved for something useful like starting bar brawls. Bottom line is once again we'll have a NC that any serious fan would agree should have an asterisk by their claim. Sigh...... Maybe we should eliminate all conferences and just let the BCS set schedules? After all, they've handily perfected rankings to the point where you never hear debate.
Damn shame that OK, FL, TX, USC, Utah, worked so hard and performed so well throughout the season, but all but two (the NC & the 2 loss) will have a mouthful of sour grapes.
As far as this post, although Loogy takes the long way around to get there, I agree that stats are stats and there's no reason SOS can't be mapped mathematically. It's a hell of a lot easier than getting to accurate national rankings.
JaredIsKing
· 11 months ago
A playoff would: nix the false belief in conference superiority as a result of bowl wins (any one who has played college bowl and traveled to a bowl game thousands of miled from where you live, during the holidays, would understand; partying in big city trumps football). The favoritism in choice of conference when selecting BCS bowl games. The concept of best defense/best offense. Plus...a championship require that you beat a team without having a month to prepare for a bowl which potentially resides in your own field.
The pre-BCS system is better than this. At least then Utah would be afforded the championship they are due.
desertbill
· 11 months ago
Amen brother. It won't happen because the SEC and ACC would have too much to lose. People from the SEC don't really want to know who the best really is anyway. Utah proved that they have been hallucinating in that hayseed conference for years. That is more than they can handle. Now maybe Saban will keep his damn mouth shut about playing a team from a non-BCS conference and how that the PAC-10 should "give up", as he stated when at LSWhoo a few years ago.
vtmechE
· 11 months ago
false
the sec and acc commissioners last year were the ones who introduced a playoff system to all 11 conference commissioners, the pac-10 and bigX immediately shot it down, that rose bowl everyone's talking about is the big roadblock to a playoff system, yes usc is damn good, so too are texas, okla, fla, utah, boise st, and tcu, and only 2 are playing for the right to be called "national champions"
desertbill
· 11 months ago
That's not even what I'm talking about. I am talking about the regional bias that allows the SEC and ACC to play in bowls close to home year after year. It is a travesty AND a joke and invalidates anything short of a true NON regionally allianced playoff system.
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 11 months ago
Your comment implies that you don't really understand one of the underlying premises of the college bowl system for the last 90+ years, going back to the 1916 Tournament East-West game.
Bowl games cropped up in warm locations to promote tourism during the winter months, hence the huge representation within California, Texas, and Florida. Central and Northern US games didn't come into existence until several decades later. With the increase in the number of bowl destinations, the emphasis among the bowl committees shifted from open invitations to one of two strategies - national invitations for exposure or regional invitations for attendance.
As far as "bias" goes... that's a fallacy in and of itself.
The bowls & conferences negotiate their own arrangements. The Big 10 holds a contract with the Rose, Capital One, Sun, Champs, Outback, etc... because those locations are important to the conference financially, to the schools for exposure and to their fans as a destination.
The ACC for example, is the most geographically spread BCS conference, with teams from the tip of Florida all the way up to Boston Harbor. Yet the bowl representations exist in Florida, Tennessee, North Carolina, Georgia, Washington DC, California, and Idaho. If you grab a map and mark those seven destinations, I think you'll find it to be a very diverse mix, more so than any other BCS conference.
The Pac10 has chosen its contracts as well, in California, Texas, Nevada, and Hawaii. Plot those on the map and you'll find them to be lacking geographic diversity. But that's what the Pac10 and the bowls have CHOSEN.
The ACC & Pac10 *chose* their alliances, just like the Pac10, Big10, SEC, MWC, etc.
The conferences enter into these arrangements with the bowls because it works for both parties. To say that there is some bias because a) conferences are located geographically and b) contracts are signed between bowls & conferences is Peter Pan silly.
Clemson_Joe
· 11 months ago
Very well said.
Clemson_Joe
· 11 months ago
What!? Arizona played in Las Vegas Cal played across the bay in San Francisco Oregon played in San Diego Oregon State played in El Paso Southern Cal played down the road in Pasadena
How are these games not close to home? I'll give you that Oregon State isn't very close to El Paso, but it's about the same as Boston College playing in Nashville.
You claim that the ACC plays games close to home. Maryland is not anywhere close to Boise, and Miami is barely on the same continent with San Francisco. How exactly are these games close to home?
TheMayor
· 11 months ago
I don't know if anyone noticed but most of the teams travel by air these days and stay in decent hotels. They also arrive in town a few days early. As a sales representative with clients all over the country I can state that travel is not that big of a deal. Unless you're traveling East and have to get to work early the next morning. That blows.
Those folks who think AZ, Oregon or Oregon State had a Home Field advantage over BYU, Oklahoma State or Pitt have never travelled out West. The travel distance is very similar once the wheels are up on your plane.
Holiday Bowl (Oregon 841 miles / OSU 1163 Miles) Sun Bowl (OSU 1265 miles / Pitt 1591 miles) Las Vegas Bowl (UA 369 Miles / BYU 339 miles plus a large local Mormon contingent in Las Vegas)
Granted Cal and USC played in their backyard. But they didn't control the number of seats that are sold.
Home field advantage applies when you only have a sliver of crappy seats in a hostile environment as in regualr season play.
In a Bowl Game, don't both schools get an opportunity to send the same amount of fans?
I certainly saw a lot of "white" at the Rose Bowl. The OSU Cowboys occupied as almost as many seats as the Ducks at the Holiday Bowl. So why would the Ducks have an advantage?
Also really who actually cares about winning the Bowl Challenger Cup anyway?
Clemson_Joe
· 11 months ago
I was responding to this statement: "I am talking about the regional bias that allows the SEC and ACC to play in bowls close to home year after year."
I used to travel quite a bit, and I agree with you. However, you can't say that the ACC plays in bowls close to home when we had Maryland in Boise, Miami in San Francisco, and Boston College in Nashville. Plane trips are basically the same for the teams, but usually the farther they are, the more expensive they are, and the fewer fans follow the team to the game, regardless of how many they have the opportunity to send.
"Also really who actually cares about winning the Bowl Challenger Cup anyway?" I certainly don't. It is a pretty big crock. It's just something else to discuss I guess.
TheMayor
· 11 months ago
I see where you are coming from. I do not believe there is a regional bias either. I would love to go to the Suagr or Orange Bowl...but I'll have to earn my way in via a NC game and that's not likely
As a fan, it's not the air miles or expense for me, it's the quality of the destination. I would be more inclined to fly to New Orleans at great expense rather than drive an hour into SF which I can do anytime. I have had the chance 3-4 times to go to El Paso for the Sun Bowl on New Years Eve...not a chance.
I have had a great time at the Rose, Cotton, Fiesta, Las Vegas and Holiday Bowls. Worth every dime.
Why not have "The Fan Alcohol Consumption Bowl" or "Best tipping conference?" It's almost as relevant.
Clemson_Joe
· 11 months ago
"Why not have "The Fan Alcohol Consumption Bowl" or "Best tipping conference?" It's almost as relevant." LOL. I like it, and it's very true!
Man, I'd love to make it out west for a game, and it'd be fantastic if it were a bowl game. There are a lot of destinations outside of my region at which I vow to attend a game sometime in my life, and I have yet to get started. Autzen is certainly one of them.
So far, I've only been to the Tangerine, Gator, Music City, and Peach (Chick-fil-a) bowls. I had a great, but very different, time at each of them. I had a chance to go to the Humanitarian, but flying out to Boise to watch a very average Tiger team play La. Tech wasn't terribly intriguing. I also thought I could find much better cities to spend my money on. I've heard Boise is a good time and all, but I think my money was better spent on the week long ski trip I went on instead.
TheMayor
· 11 months ago
Clemson Joe - Boise has some great skiing. Bogus Basin is about 15 minutes up the mountain and Sun Valley is less than 2 hours away as I remember. Just in case you have to choose between skiing and the Human. Bowl in the future!
Clemson_Joe
· 11 months ago
I will definitely keep that in mind in the future. Next year I'm hitting up Whistler/Blackcomb. It's a shame there isn't going to be a game in Vancouver or I'd stop in on the way there.
Mr2Bits
· 11 months ago
Guess I should have considered Arizona to be a home game for the Gators in the 2006 Championship then. If UF can make it back to the big dance next year, I'll make sure to petition so that they will skip the Pasadena and the Rose bowl and bring it to New Orleans so it can be a home game again.
desertbill
· 11 months ago
Don't think you need to worry about a repeat, just yet. They haven't won anything this year, yet. They will be VERY lucky to beat Oklahoma. Too bad the two best teams aren't playing, one of which is USC. Let you decide who is #2.
Mr2Bits
· 11 months ago
I know they haven't won yet that's why I explicitly express they still have some business to take care of. As for UF being "lucky" to beat Oklahoma, I’d suggest you lay off the meth. If you feel so very confident I encourage you to place a large wager on OK as I have done for UF. Id wait till right before kickoff as you will see all the big money being placed on UF raising the spread. I suspect you can get OK at a 5 maybe 5.5 underdog before game time.
desertbill
· 11 months ago
Probably; But talk about dreaming on meth, I believe something like 60-70% of the favorites have already lost their bowl games this year. UF could and probably will lose. Face it, any system based on the odds instead of performance is doomed to failure. Sorry. Those are the facts. It will be interesting.
TigerEducated
· 11 months ago
Pasadena being so far away from member institutions of the Pacific 10 Conference, of course...
Clemson_Joe
· 11 months ago
Wow, man, you're really on fire aren't you? The SEC and ACC are fine with a playoff. It's the Big Televen and Pac 10 that are the hold ups. Try backing up your claims with actual facts. That would seem to validate your statements a bit more.
Kevin @ Fanblogs
· 11 months ago
FACTS?!?! We don't need no stinking facts! ;)
1Tomcat
· 11 months ago
Welcome to fanblogs-desertbill- hayseed conference? your obviuosly new here LOL You ought to get along just fine with everybody here- hallucinating perhaps-hayseed- I dunno- sounds kinda bias. Hookem-Horns
desertbill
· 11 months ago
Go 'Cats. Arizona wildcats, that it.
JaredIsKing
· 11 months ago
And one final thing about bowls...unless it is for an NC, the bowl mean A LOT more to fans than it does to the player. A LOT more! Certainly than a reg season "fighting chance" game. In a bowl system that does not support (1) equal playing fields for all teams or (2) the potential to take it all-the-way (really the only motivating factor in post season athletics) you will never see neutral match-ups. Some teams may care more than others (Utah did today..it helps that many of them don't kill there body with booze from the 25th to the 1st). In the end, bowl games don't mean *#$% unless the result is a No1 to claim.
vtmechE
· 11 months ago
the pac-10 may have gone 5-0 in bowl games, but the mountain west went 6-2 on the pac-10
GeauxTigers0107
· 11 months ago
I'm just absolutely stunned that Tommy Trojan has not one single post in this thread....lol. Must be one serious hangover is all I can think.
Geaux Tigers Geaux SEC
MattRyan
· 11 months ago
Did anybody hear Nick Saban in the postgame interview? UTAH couldn't have proved themselves against a better opponent. Saban strikes me as arrogant, but that's just my opinion... Good Luck Coach Chizik in 09, and good luck pollsters living with yourselves after you make the big mistake of not ranking UTAH number 1.
2004 lives on, we will all be avenged one day.
Ben Prather
· 11 months ago
Since the Bowl Challenge Cup was started in 2002 only one conference has won it outright twice.
This would make the MWC the best conference of this era, with the ACC also having 2 with one split with the Big 12. The SEC has never won the cup and must then be inferior to the Big 10, Big East, PAC 10 and Big 12 over this time period.
For the record: The Bowl Challenge Cup has been an excellent indicator of the direction the conference went the following year.
Zac
· 11 months ago
I agree the Bowl Challenge Cup is a good indicator, but it's far from the end all. The regular season, not to mention a few years leading up to provides for a better statistical set. Just my opinion. (Still say the Utes looked awsome!)
U.of S.C.1978
· 11 months ago
A few points here. First, I would like to thank loogy for posting that USC east experienced an "embarrassing" loss to Iowa. It was quite a bit worse than that. It was so bad that the wife and I traversed the end zone (the one with the cool boat) and sat on Iowa's side for the second half. By this time it was WTF, might as well even the sunburn out. Second point, the next time Kevin declares a subject is settled and beyond debate. Make real damn sure the debate starter gun, ain't pointed at your ass. Finally, if Key West ever hosts a bowl game, I don't care who's playing, I intend to be there.
All Comments
They may have won the bowl trophy for their conference but the entire season the PAC-10 has been on the down and out besides USC and a late running Oregon squad. An additional note to their bowl record is that they landed extremely favorable match-ups with teams having to travel cross-country to what is essentially all home games for all the PAC-10 teams.
Oregon State and Pitt both had to travel about the same distance to get to El Paso, TX.
Are you going to come down on the SEC for these same reasons? Both of LSU's BCS titles were played at the SUPERDOME, which is 80 miles away.
Same for this year...Gainsville is a lot closer to Miami than Norman, OK. So I guess this also is essentially a "home" game for FLA?
I guess the same for VANDY, which traveled about 4 miles. And ALA is closer to New Orleans than is UTAH. And the same for GA playing Mich St in Orlando.
Lame...
To your point re: the MWC, four of those games were against the dregs of the Pac10 - Stanford, Arizona State, Washington and UCLA - teams that weren't bowl eligible. Is that a quality win for the MWC? Maybe not. In the two bowl team versus bowl team matchups (Cal-Colorado State and Utah-Oregon State), the conferences split 1-1. What does that mean? Hell... I don't know.
Down & out? I think that is media speak. The Pac10 put it to rest on the field in the bowls - no one can dispute that. They put away four out of four BCS opponents (and one BCS caliber opponent). They beat four our of four ranked teams.
I keep hearing our playoff advocates say "settle it on the field". Well... the Pac 10 did just that.
Which means they can concentrate better on their "real" opponents.
I put nothing into those bowl victories. The bottom of their conference is so bad, they can rack up wins, and bowl eligiblity.
Your Tiger Education is really showing.
Lets look at Florida's "powerful SEC schedule"
HAWAII--about as overrated as it comes (exposed by a pathetic Notre Dame team)
MIAMI---This is the same team that nobody will give Cal credit for beating in a bowl (so we cant give Fla credit either)
TENN---Beat by the Pac 10 bottom feeding UCLA
MISS---Lost at HOME
ARKANSAS---finished 5-7, despite the SEC's cream puff OOC scheduling
LSU---Quality win
KENTUCKY---6-6, 2-6 in the SEC
GEORGIA---Lets say 2nd best win
VANDY---another .500 ball club...also lost to Duke at home
S. CAR---Embarrassed by Iowa
THE CITADEL---??????
FLORIDA ST----Quality Win. Rivalry game
ALABAMA----Quality Win
A few years back, UCLA beat your USC, but that doesn't mean we can schedule them the NEXT year.
We can't anticipate whether or not Arizona will be good, or whether Oregon State will be bad, five years in advance.
You must liken BCS Conference scheduling to Basketball Scheduling.
The two are not analagous, in any way.
LSU has scheduled PAC-10 teams regularly, year by year. Tennessee scheduled Cal when they were what, preseason Top 10, last year?
LSU has scheduled Zona, Zona State, Oregon State, Washington, Virginia Tech, and we have Virginia Tech back out on us once before.
Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, LSU, Alabama, Arkansas, Vanderbilt, Kentucky...They all schedule BCS Conference out of conference opponents, and/or have traditional rivalries with BCS Conference teams (Florida/Miami or UF/FSU, UK/Louisville, Bama/Clemson, Arkansas/USC, etc.)...
Do yourself a favor, make some more really fresh and entertaining resets about my screen name. That's NEVER BEEN DONE HERE BEFORE in the, what, 5 years I've been posting and contributing here?
I mean, all those years of therapy, down the drain, with that biting stab at my ego...
Seriously, are you going to address the point I made in my original post? You load up on garbage teams in conference-the ones who got punked out by the MWC-and we load up on garbage teams out of conference...
Seriously, though, man, make some more personal cuts at me...That'll really advance your point, here, buddy.
Also, teams don't schedule most of their OOC opponents year by year. Most of the home and homes are scheduled YEARS out.
You say: "We can't anticipate whether or not Arizona will be good, or whether Oregon State will be bad, five years in advance."
But then you say: "Tennessee scheduled Cal when they were what, preseason Top 10, last year?"
So which is it? So, you can't anticipate whether teams will be good, but Tennessee scheduled Cal when they were top-ten on purpose...right?
Tennessee scheduled Cal years prior when Cal was a bottom-feeder. If you think Tennessee scheduled Cal when it was apparent Cal was going to be pre-season top 10, you're kidding yourself.
So you're right, you can't tell that whether a team will be good or bad when you schedule to play them. So what is your argument,...that it just so happened, coincidentally, that almost all the PAC-10 vs. SEC games that have happened this decade just so happened to be at a time when the PAC-10 team was playing super good and the SEC team was having a down year?
Which is obviously not true. UCLA is a PAC-10 bottom feeder this year, but beat Tennessee. Cal finished the season last year going 1-6, but also beat Tennessee (who won the SEC East, btw)
Cal currently has a home and home with Ohio State scheduled to start in 2010. And that contract was signed at least a year ago. How good or bad will each team be when 2010 comes around? Who knows! That doesn't mean games shouldn't be scheduled. You can't "time the market" here as you seem to suggest.
And it's not as if none of the games played happened when the PAC-10 team was down. Arizona State vs. Georgia this year? Arizona St. isn't even a bowl team, but Georgia fans were hyping up this conf vs. conf showdown since Az St. was a top PAC 10 LAST YEAR.
I did address your original post. It's just that your logic was so dumb that I didn't think you were serious, but apparently you were. You're saying the top PAC teams just "take games off" so they can then "focus on real opponents" who they then beat? Never any pressure at all, right? But every SEC is focused every single game so every SEC game is a hard-fought smash mouth football game, right?
I'm going to assume that were there objective proof that the PAC-10 doesn't completely suck, that you would give that proof a fair shake in your thinking right? 'Cause otherwise that would make you, what, a biased homer that only believes what he wants to believe? So the PAC-10 goes 5-0 this bowl season, against ranked opponents and bowl-bound BCS conference teams, but you "put nothing" into those bowl victories. Not even one? How about just a little bit? No? Nothing? Can I ask why? What could the PAC-10 have done differently this bowl season to persuade you otherwise?
BTW - I like how half your entire post was dedicated to a one line comment I made about your screen name. I mean, your original post can bash and talk crap about my conference despite facts and statistics staring you in the face telling you otherwise, but make a one-line comment about your screenname and you throw a tantrum like a 2-year old.
As for tantrum? Please...Let's just say it takes a 2 year old to know a 2 year old, LOL...
I notice you didn't touch on a single point I made earlier about the poor teams at the bottom end of your conference, nor you leaving out the decent competition we schedule.
I see you also trying to twist my words-which is a bit of a consistent angle on your end-so that you can actually argue a point that doesn't exist. That being that I mentioned Cal was pre-season #2.
My point-not the one you attempted to misconstrue my words into-was that you can't tell if they're going to be great or crappy when you schedule them. You agreed with most of the rest of what I said, so I'll accept that on its face.
Once again, I see the hypocrisy, as do the rest here. It's okay. You keep raging against the machine. Fight the good fight, and flail away at those windmills, Don Q....
It seems like the only chance anybody has at beating USC these days is if you're a bottom PAC-10 team. The SEC can't do it. The Big-10 definitely can't do it. So I guess it's up to the bottom of the PAC-10 to knock down the big dog.
My point is that any perceived weakness in the bottom half of the conference is more than made up for with the MUCH superior OOC schedule PAC-10 teams schedule. Even the most unbiased observer has to admit that the SEC OOC on the whole is pretty pathetic. At best I would assert that the bottom half of the PAC-10 this season and the annual OOC schedule of the SEC was a wash.
So I can say the same thing about the SEC that you say about the bottom half of the PAC-10. The SEC OOC schedule is bad, so they can rack up wins and bowl eligibility.
Luckily though, BCS conference teams are usually cyclical. It wasn't long ago when Washington/UCLA were national champion contenders, and Washington State embarrassed Texas in the Holiday Bowl. I fully expect them to rise again. Unfortunately for the SEC, teams like the Citadel usually stay crappy.
I'm not trying to twist anything. I QUOTED your words exactly and responded. It's not my fault if you say two different things in the same post.
I use NUMBERS and RECORDS to back up my claims, something you obviously don't know enough about since Cal was #9 pre-season that year, NOT #2 as you say.
As for your assertion about numbers and statistics, and me not knowing enough about them, well, all I can say is-again-I notice you very obviously left out all of our quality out of conference schedule opponents at first.
You only brought them up afterwards, and now you're spinning that.
Your circular logic is once again showing. You allege us to "perceive" inferiority in the PAC-10, and then you "allege" superiority at the top end of the PAC-10, since you face only junk teams from pretender conferences (Psst...The SEC's dismantled the Big 10 Champion two years in a row, before this year's blowfest by Herbstreit & Muffburglar in the Rose Bowl yesterday).
USC needs to actually get to a point where it overcome its sorry conference slate (Hey, the voters, the BCS, the polls, the fans...They all must be WRONG, in your book, since they all disagree with you, right? I sense a Richard Pryor "Who you gone' believe...me...or yo' lying eyes!" routine coming on, as I type this) and laying an egg annually, within said sorry conference slate.
Maybe then it could back up your assertion that nobody can beat USC.
When you face sorry conference opponents, and then crow about beating a team without its starter at RB-who got beat WITH its starter at RB the prior two years with national titles on the line by the same conference you disparage-its hard for folks to take you seriously.
Keep pointing out the numbers you WANT to point out, and then accuse others of subjective bias, while ignoring your original tack was to take the same route you're castigating others for.
Get upset and accuse others of throwing tantrums when you initiate personal attacks.
Your act here is already refreshingly awesome. I'm sure I speak for all of us when I ask, "Is your name Zig Ziglar?"
You were saying?
I'm going to warn you a few more times, to tone down the personal nature of your comments.
TommyT might need to get reminded again before referring to folks as stupid, idiots, and the like.
I'm not out to silence anyone, but we aren't going to have folks-whether its me, or anyone else here-taking personal shots at each other over the subject matter at hand.
You started down this path. I've taken my fair share of shots at you, and perhaps I'm to blame, but I'm warning you. Drop the personal angles.
I said they were not #2 the SAME SEASON they were pre-season top 10!!
They went up to #2 in 2007. They were pre-season top 10 in 2006. They played Tennessee both years, which is what I think is confusing you.
It's hard NOT to be frustrated when it seems people don't even read what I write, and then respond by calling ME a bonehead.
"
That's the year you're talking about. That's the year they went to #2.
As I said, I apologize for doing my fair share of the name-calling. But, this is what I'm basing my statement off of, and you've actually switched seasons mid-discussion.
Look, I'm really not a mean-spirited guy. I love college football, and I'm sure you can appreciate my passion for it. I think I just approach it different than a lot of people. I like to approach things with my head rather than my heart, and it frustrates me when I post something like "The PAC-10 went 5-0" and then somebody dismisses it as meaningless. It's NOT meaningless.
Or that the PAC-10 has a winning record vs. the SEC in the past decade, and then people just dismiss it as "it was all USC" without looking, and then even factoring out USC/LSU the PAC-10 is still 6-3, gives no credence to that FACT for no other reason than they don't want it to be true.
If my initial Tiger Educated comment was the catalyst that started a bombardment of personal attacks, then I apologize. I really just want to discuss football and defend my conference/team from what I perceive to be unfounded and baseless and really ignorant remarks/beliefs. But I can't do that if people aren't open-minded or willing to accept objective information, and it's for that reason I don't believe you or I can have a meaningful conversation about college football.
You see, you're focusing what EVERYONE is saying to you on what I've told you. If you'll go back through, I've clarified for others, made my own statements, but I never negated the fact that they went 5-0. Try as you might, that fact does not exist, on any Google Search, or elsewhere, for that matter.
It's because I didn't do it. Your passion is causing you to do some pretty ignorant things, yourself. You're taking all of the things everyone else has thrown at you here, and applying them to me, and you're off the plot when it comes to that.
Once again, you even reiterated what you meant, without acknowledging what I based my Tenn/Cal comment on in your own post. That was no mistake on my part.
I have just as much-if not more-passion than you do, and I try to look at things objectively, but I typically don't let my anger obfuscate my points, which you've obviously done. You've channeled what everyone in this thread said to you, and ascribed the comments to me. I've pointed that out elsewhere, and you still haven't figured that part out yet.
Let me say this. You'll find me a huckleberry for College Football talk, any day. Especially once the dry spell gets here after National Signing Day.
But, don't label me some backwoods ignorant hick who doesn't have the power of deductive reasoning or objectivity based on your own stereotypes, or your misconceptions about what I said or didn't say here.
No need to apologize. This will obviously not be the last time we butt heads, and believe me, if we were all babbling sycophants here, chirping from the same hymnal page and telling folks there were 4 fingers being held up, this would be no fun.
Your the biggest jackazz ever on this blog. You are an extremely childish, immature, freakin' jealous little beeotch of a human being. You freakin' really think that Ohio State could have handled USC with Beanie Wells on the field? Your a moron! USC would wipe up every single team in the SEC. There is absolutely no question about that. You spoiled little brat. You want to come out and play Arizona State, Washington State - and pretend that your big time. Your a very little fish, son! Arizona State hasn't beaten us in about a hundred years - and you want to pretend that your two point win was meaningful. LSU would get spanked just like everybody else does. If you are so dayum jealous of USC - why don't you adopt them as your team? The only reason for all of this hatred for Southern Cal is straight up jealous envy. You only wish that your team was as good. The fact is: they are not. Aren't now, won't be next year, and won't ever be. Don't forget it, boy. Your only LSU - not USC. I thought all you "Southern Gentlemen" had respect? Get some. Or, better yet, shut for freakin' mouth.
But, we're only LSU...You're right.
We only have twice as many Crystal Footballs as you have in your trophycase...
Where on earth did you come from? Another guy with a "real" brain to combat these morons from the SEC. I like it! I like it alot! Don't think for one minute that they will ever understand logic from down there - it simply does not exist. They only understand what it is that they're local sports columnist wrote in the newspaper. What is the most hilarious thing about it is, that these kinda nitwits couldn't recognize college football, if it died right on their own doorsteps. They actually think they have cornered the market on something. The fact of the matter is: the SEC has recently started getting better as a football conference in the last twenty years or so. Prior to that, other than Alabama football, they were a complete non-entity on the National stage. Now, they even want to believe that they have passed up Southern Cal for pageantry. What a farce! Win some games. Oh, I forgot, you beat two Big 10 teams and one Big 12 team. Give me a break! The PAC 10 has won hundreds of those games.
Loogy, your right on the money about every single thing you said. It's very refreshing to see that we have someone here who has real logic. TE, never could graduate from 5th grade, and he tries to play it all off like he's got "a big brain" - but he is a complete imbecile when it comes to fairly evaluating college football teams. He should just leave that all to the professionals.
I've been here for some years battling all of these knuckleheads. Your wasting your breath. They think that there is something in the water that makes "Southern Folk" run faster, jump higher, throw better, tackle better and whatever. Yeh, there is something in the water. I think that they put stupid pills in it.
What is it that makes you so retarted? What's is it that makes you so uneducated? Didn't Kevin spell it out for you? Yes, this year, Washington and Washington State (both playing without their starting QB's) were pathetic. Were their any other years that the PAC 10's bottom feeders were bad? No. On the contrary. The bottom of the PAC has traditionally been better than most conferences. Out of the ten teams, usually only about one of them, is what you might call a bad team. Even when Washington hasn't been winning lately, they have not been a horrible team (maybe 1-11 but ranked 60th), until their starting QB went down this year. Washington State has been on the way down. Every other team, sans Arizona State, is on the way up.
Now, the SEC for many many years has had terrible bottom teams. Vanderbilt, Mississippi State, Kentucky, Mississippi have all been horrible for decades. Only just recently have Vanderbilt and Kentucky and Mississippi pulled themselves up from the "horrible" status. Other teams like South Carolina have never beed good. Out of the 12 teams that exist in the SEC, only six of them (LSU, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Auburn, Tennessee), have been consistantly winning for any period of time. The PAC 10 has had at least five teams every year that win also. The reason the SEC teams are composing better records of late, is the fact that, they have discovered that they can play many Division II and non-BCS conference games and have winning records. Hey dude, LSU is a great football program, why don't you just be content to understand that - and quit drinking up all that SEC BS about what a great conference they are? I would say that they are pretty damn good. But, for some strange reason (and I think the College Football Gods are behind this), no SEC team has ever played a PAC 10 team in a Bowl game since the inception of the BCS system. I truly believe that they do not want for your conference to be exposed by what would happen to them if that happened. Several times in recent memory, we should have has USC vs somebody (LSU 03', Auburn 04', Georgia 07' or Florida 08'), and it just isn't gonna happen. So, like Kevin said, we're willing to settle it all on the field. Why don't you shut your yap until that day happens. You got no proof about anything, and until you do, why don't you show us all how educated that you really are?
You get one mulligan.
I like you. I like your psots. I don't like the personal BS.
I like the discussion. I don't like the delivery. You-and loogy-need to back off the personal insults and the like.
I'll do the same. As will EVERYONE in the discussion.
After your Katrina & Gustav-related comments, you'd think you would know better, man. But, if you didn't get it then, I'm telling you now.
This isn't the place for a flame-war or bitter personal disputes, unless its me & Bleed Crimson :)
Go take your panties off, put on a pair of gentlemen's briefs, and we can have a discussion. The only thing that ever comes out of your tight azz - is the non-stop constant PAC 10 bashing. I've proven 100's of times, that the PAC 10 has the best overall record against other BCS conference schools, since the inception of the BCS system in 1998. Yet, you are so mindless, that you are just completely stuck, on your SEC drivvle. Let me put it to you this way: if any SEC played in the PAC 10 - none would have the sterling records that they have had. Yes, they would all lose an additional game every single year. Do you know why? Because instead of getting to add an additional Division II team to play - they would have to play an additional conference opponent. There would be more injuries in that game. They wouldn't be able to play their bench for the entire game. Those additional injuries, might just cause any team, to lose an additional two games. And believe this or not, PAC 10 teams are never gonna get ready to play a PAC 10 schedule, by lining up three Division II cupcake teams to tune-up on. You'd actually have to play three additional solid teams to "get ready". Besides, on the West Coast, there just aren't that many completely lousy teams to beat up on each year. We don't have hundreds of Howards', North Texas', Lafayette's and whatnot to beat the crap out of. You'd have to play some real games. And, we all know that the SEC does not like to do that.
Further proof that your conference just isn't all that:
Why do you think that Nick Saban can waltz down from Michigan State, and Urban Meyer can blow in from Utah, and completely rearrange your conference landscape? It's because they can! It's because any decent coach can go in there and win the Conference Championship. Do you really think that Pete Carroll wouldn't toast that conference? Think dude! Think! Use that big brain of yours for something other than trying to pump up your own falling fragile ego. If you truly be educated, then why don't you begin to understand, what college football is really all about. I'll give you a clue: it's all about coaching administrations. It's not the water in the South that makes teams good. It's not that your players are any better athletes. Want proof? Why is it that the Big East dominates the basketball world? Does the particular water on the East Coast make for better basketball players? I hardly think so. I think that there is better coaching administrations in that Big East conference where it comes to basketball. Hey TE, check this out, there are some pretty dayum good coaches coaching in the PAC 10. There really are. And, we are recruiting all of the Samoan and Tongan players, from the island nations that the SEC isn't even hardly aware of. That is why Utah hammered Alabama. Those big boyz squashed that mighty Alabama team. They would have kicked their azz with the OT Smith on the field. The MWC and PAC 10 conferences are loaded with these players. How may do you got? Didn't think so. So, times are a passin' you by, and you don't even know it. Keep drinkin' up all that SEC kool-aide. Until you get on board with what is really goin' on - your gonna be a sad little pathetic man forever.
Seriously...
...and by the way...I RARELY discuss the PAC-10 here. Matter of fact, this is the first time I've discussed it here in some time...But, thanks for mischaracterizing me...
All I know, is that you have no problem minimizing USC's wins over Ohio State and Penn State, while at the same time maximizing your fortune in having got to play Ohio State for your beloved "Chrystal Ball". Fact is: if Florida in 2006, LSU in 2007 or Florida in 2008, had to go through USC, you would have no "Chrystal Balls". That is what I know. And, you know it too.
I forgot 2003. You were very fortunate in that year also. Amazing, how the SEC has managed to "duck" the PAC 10 Champion, four straight times. Coincidence? No way! It's the mindlessness that you exhibit, that has infected so many, which has created the wonderful system that we have today. Your a joke and so is the "system" that has managed to hand you your "beloved Chrystal Balls". Personally, I don't even recognize ours in 2004 - let alone any of yours. Both Auburn and Utah should have gotten an opportunity to earn a National Championship in 2004. I'll give mine back if you'll just please shut up!
Spare me the histrionics, TT...You're at the point where you're actually responding to yourself, now...
In the famous words of Brian Fantana of Action News, "Why don't you stop talking for awhile. Sit the next few plays out."
Is it safe to say that maybe the PAC-10 being the "best" conference is debatable?
At least a little?
This is going to be a fun read...
Welcome to Fanblogs.
I'm not a USC fan btw. I'm a college football fan who so happened to watch the game.
Your a moron! USC let the foot all the way off the pedal. There was absolutely no blitzing at all of the LB's. That's not USC football son. Penn State would not have scored one single point in the 2nd half if Pete Carroll didn't let them. Your a clown. That was the biggest "kneel down" in the history of college football. That score could have been 62-7 easy. What are you? Mental? You mentioned something that happened to Arkansas twice. You don't think that it could happen to Penn State? It happened to Oklahoma in the 04' National Championship game. It can happen at any time. USC played the 1st half and then let Joe Paterno and all the BIG 10 representatives leave with a little dignity. That's what happened.
This is a little better than the 0-2 record the SEC earned.
The Big 12 is the only conference with a winning record vs the MWC this year at 3-1.
Big-12 OOC Games include Chattanooga, Cinci, Houston, Missouri Southern, Troy, Florida Atlantic, @UTEP, Rice, Eastern Washington, @Nevada, SMU and UMass
At least the MWC has respectable teams, but the big "power" conferences still see fit to schedule home games against cupcakes and then revel in their victories against them.
You leave the decent ones out, & I'll include the decent ones...
Even Rice and FAU won their bowls teams that Texas beat and Arkansas is SEC
B-12 opponents that loogy omited Wake,UConn,TCU,Iowa,Illinois,Miami,West Virg,FSU, and Wash St
Whats kinda funny is that of the teams that the B-12 faced
Rice,Houston,FAU,FSU,West Virg,Iowa won their bowls
Trust me. You do NOT want to go into comparing the PAC-10 vs. SEC out of conference schedules.
What I want to know is why you singled out Wofford to pick on?
Wofford would beat most of the teams on that list. As a matter of fact, Wofford beat App State when Michigan could not. I'm guessing you've just never heard of the Terriers and are using that as your reasoning behind singling them out.
One last thing. Duke is not bad this year. Duke would beat 5 of the teams in the Pac 10 this season. This isn't your Duke team of the past.
It wasn't my intention of singling Wofford out. It's just after typing all the first few schools I inserted that comment after I typed in Wofford. It really should have applied to all the schools in the list, really.
Bottom line is, the SEC claims to be the BEST conference in college football bar none. They consistently claim to have the toughest and the fastest players. Then why don't they prove it in their OOC schedules? Who cares if Wofford was 9-3 in Div-IIA this year? It's still Wofford and nobody cares. Prove it on the field and back up the annual "SEC is the best!" woofing.
The SEC is like the kid in 3rd grade who got held back a year or two in kindergarten and thinks he's so awesome for beating up on kids much smaller than him.
I'm not even saying they should play all BCS schools in OOC. I'm just saying,...get out of the Div-IIA ranks. Play some schools,...like,...I dunno,...UTAH and lets see what happens...
reread my post-BTW Rice finished 10-3 won their bowl and would whup half the teams in the PAC 1+9
Hookem-Horns
Just because you say so and really want to believe it doesn't make it true.
Glad your longhorns got jumped in the BCS btw. Karma is a bitch.
Cal?
Stanford ?
Wash?
Wash St?
UCLA?
Just be glad yall dont play Baylor,Rice or Houston, much less Texas or TCU
Les Miles made those comments.
Last year, Les Miles backed up those comments by making it to- and pounding its opponent in-the National Championship Game.
USC, on the other hand, couldn't get the job done.
So, essentially, I hate to burst your bubble, but your entire point is completely invalid based on your initial mistake in attributing those comments to the wrong coach.
Way to show off the college football chops, though. Projecting LSU's old coach's comments on the new coach's compliments, but using the old coach's performance instead of the new coach's results.
Nice job!
And now you're arguing that Troy is a "good" OOC team because they may have finally bade a bowl game this year?
This is why the rest of the country has a hard time understanding SEC-fan logic.
Wait, somebody already did that. See links below:
http://www.teamandras.com/personal/cupcakes01.jpg
http://www.teamandras.com/personal/cupcakes03.jpg
Look, I know you love your team and conference and all, but you have stats, records and figures staring you in the face.
Was Oregon traveling to San Diego one of them?
How about Oregon State traveling to Texas?
How about Arizona traveling to Las Vegas?
Fact is, > 50% of of PAC-10 teams had what any logical person WOULDN'T call a home game, but for you that translates into the entire PAC-10 bowl squad making the same 11 mile trek that USC made.
Btw. Michigan sux.
The PAC 10 had an excellent post season, unfortunately they did not have the regular season to match.
While he's been here awhile, Tommy doesn't seem to hold himself to the camraderie and good-natured back and forth we try to work for here.
Everyone here has the right to exercise their opinions, and telling people they should "slink back" anywhere would devolve and lessen the discourse.
Just an FYI
You must not have watched Ohio State in the NC game the last two years. It's because of them getting dismantled that the opinion of the Big 10 has gone down the deucer.
And yes the Big 12 is not getting treated very kindly in the Bowl games but I still think they are a top 2 conference this year.
It's this kind of thinking that really makes me mad. WHY do you think that? Do you have anything in your back pocket to prove your thinking? That doesn't sound silly to you at all?
I don't mean to pick on people or whatever, because I hear that kind of stuff ALL the time from people. "Well, they didn't do that great, but I still think they are top." It's like saying "The PAC-10 did great but I still think they suck." Does nobody else find this sad and/or funny?
Can TTech pull an upset- yes Same can be said for Vandy
I predicted this on here and also explained that every game is who won on that particular day and by in no means really proves anything else
Yeh, Big 12 looks great. Missouri barely squeeks by Northwestern - and should have lost! Texas Tech gets demolished by Mississippi. Oklahoma State gets mauled by Oregon. So far so good. Let's see how Oklahoma and Texas fare. I think we're gonna be able to put the Big 12 back to sleep pretty soon.
"THEY", as in the PAC-10, did not "beat up" on happless (can't argue with you there) Pitt. OR St won against Pitt, by all of 3 lousy pts. Probably should have been more, but I digress. I mean, consider FL's 11 pt win over Bama. Is there a Bama fan out there willing to agree to FL having "beaten up" on your Tide? I'm not even a Bama fan, and in my opinion, FL didn't beat up on the Tide. So get off the OR St beat up on happless Pitt, already. Were it not for some respectable passing by OR St (still had 2 INT's), they too were happless. They just happened to be lucky enough to win.
Also, the Challenge Cup requires a conference to have at least 3 teams in bowls.
S-E-C = #1 and by the way, the Best Conference in bowls can only be given to conferences who send a minimum 6 teams to bowl games. Oh yea, the Pac10 only sent 5.... oh well.
And the pac 10 beat how many SEC teams in bowl games? Ive been saying all year that the SEC is down this year but they are proving otherwise in bowl games. Give the pac 10 there due in winning all there bowl games but noway
are they to be crowned the best conference.
I dont think at this point that any team could beat Florida including USC but that would be a great game and USC did deserve a shot.
FYI, PAC-10 is 10-7 vs. SEC this decade,..and still 6-3 if you factor out USC and LSU, both conferences' "powerhouse" teams:
2000 Alabama 24, UCLA 35 {PAC10}
2001 UCLA 20, Alabama 17 {PAC10}
2002 Auburn 17, USC 24 {PAC10} Mississippi State 13, Oregon 36 {PAC10}
2003 USC 23, Auburn 0 {PAC10} LSU 59, Arizona 13 {SEC} Oregon 42, Mississippi State 34 {PAC10}
2004 Oregon State 21, LSU 22 {SEC}
2005 Arkansas 17, USC 70 {PAC10} LSU 35, Arizona State 31 {SEC}
2006 USC 50, Arkansas 14 {PAC10} Washington State 14, Auburn 40 {SEC}Arizona 3, LSU 45 {SEC} California 18, Tennessee 35 {SEC}
2007 Tennessee 31, California 45 {PAC10}
2008 UCLA 27, Tennessee 24 {PAC10}, Georgia 27, Arizona St 10 {SEC}
Thank you! Finally somebody said it. That is reality. The SEC would have won no "Chrystal Balls" at all - had they had to play USC in 03', 06', 07' or 08'. They would be 0-4 - just like the BIG 10 conference. That is the cosmic joke. And, the NCAA damn well knows it. USC will never get back into that game no matter what.
PAC-10 only has 10 members. Big-12 has 12. SEC has 12. Therefore, increasing the number of minimum teams across the board to be considered for "best conference" in post-season play only serves to help conferences with more members
But I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that that actually makes sense to some people.
FACT: PAC-10 has a stronger out-of-conference schedule than the SEC/Big-12. Apparently though it only serves to hurt them.
FACT: PAC-10 has a winning record vs. SEC teams in head-to-head matchups this past decade (10-7 record). Many SEC fans claim that winning record is only against USC. Take out the two powerhouse teams from each conference (USC and LSU) and the PAC-10 is still 6-3 versus the SEC this decade.
But, the PAC-10 gets no credit for this. Apparently, our losses our magnified, and our victories are discounted. We don't get credit for beating each other. And we don't get credit when beating everybody else.
The PAC-10 goes 5-0 in bowl games this year, and now everybody is clamoring about how they were all "home" games when it's simply not true (Oregon traveling to San Diego is a home game? Oregon State traveling to Texas is a home game? Arizona traveling to Las Vegas is a home game?). Cal beats a respectable 7-5 Miami squad and that win is discounted because Miami probably wasn't "that" good or the ACC is "down" this year. Florida plays for the NC in Miami, but I'm sure if the Gators win SEC fans won't be discounting their own win since it was a "home" game. Same goes with Texas Tech in the Cotton Bowl.
Basically, the PAC-10 can't win. I believe it stems from jealously. Despite the PAC-10 having a great OOC record, other geographic reasons can't stand that west-coast teams might be good at their beloved football. I mean, hell, the PAC-10 has some of the most academically elite universities around (Stanford, UC Berkeley, UCLA, possibly USC), so we can't let them be good at BOTH smarts and football right? Without football, what does the SEC or Big-12 have to hold onto? And as cynical as that viewpoint may seem, do not discount the prejudice and petty behavior that follows prejudice human beings can have over each other for some of the stupidest of reasons (such as, possibly, football proficiency) Again, this is just my opinion for what it's worth, but what cannot be disputed are the stats.
And the only reason any of this is up for debate is because of the lousy BCS post-season system. PAC-10 teams do NOT get a fair-shake when it comes to who is being considered fro the national championship.
Ole Miss beats Florida at Florida = Wow! SEC is so good even one of the worst teams can beat one of the top teams!
Oregon State beats USC at Oregon State = Wow! PAC-10 is soo bad that the top team can't even beat one of the worst teams!
This annual perception of the PAC-10 leads to pre-season rankings, which DO affect who is ranked #1 and #2 every year, being lower on average for PAC-10 schools than other schools...despite nobody even having played a down of football yet. Does that make sense to anybody! Why not wait 4 or 5 weeks before starting up the polls? Lets people actually get a CHANCE to watch some football before bestowing the #1 ranking on Georgia or the #9 ranking on Clemson.
My two cents, FWIW.
And in case you're wondering about my numbers for the PAC-10 vs. SEC matchups this decade:
2000 Alabama 24, UCLA 35 {PAC10}
2001 UCLA 20, Alabama 17 {PAC10}
2002 Auburn 17, USC 24 {PAC10} Mississippi State 13, Oregon 36 {PAC10}
2003 USC 23, Auburn 0 {PAC10} LSU 59, Arizona 13 {SEC} Oregon 42, Mississippi State 34 {PAC10}
2004 Oregon State 21, LSU 22 {SEC}
2005 Arkansas 17, USC 70 {PAC10} LSU 35, Arizona State 31 {SEC}
2006 USC 50, Arkansas 14 {PAC10} Washington State 14, Auburn 40 {SEC}Arizona 3, LSU 45 {SEC} California 18, Tennessee 35 {SEC}
2007 Tennessee 31, California 45 {PAC10}
2008 UCLA 27, Tennessee 24 {PAC10}, Georgia 27, Arizona St 10 {SEC}
The bottom line is they lost. Injuries and suspensions happen to ALL teams throughout the season. It's something you factor in. People can always say "Well if ALL our BEST players were healthy, we would have won!" but in reality, how often does that happen for any team?
BTW, your freshman QB was 100x better than our version of Kyle Wright, so please don't use your freshman QB as an excuse. The damage was done by Jahvid Best. Who is an alien.
If he's saying that it's bad for the PAC-10, then applying logic, one would assume it wouldn't be such a great showing by Miami & the ACC.
It's counterproductive to ascribe an opinion to someone and then argue against it when the opinion you're ascribing to them defeats the purpose of the opinion you're ascribing to them.
You keep up that circular logic, selective memory (Leaving out any BCS/Bowl game eligible opponents the SEC's had, and conveniently mentioning only the crappy teams we schedule), ascerbic wit-tinged angle you're taking here. Those of us that have a tad bit of perspective see through the hypocrisy of your angle.
Ascribing homerism to us, while using subjective statistics, omitting pertinent information to attempt to further your own opinion, and taking personal shots at others relative levels of intelligence.
Nice job, coming from a guy named loogy...
Please enlighten us with your statistics and facts then. I've posted every PAC-10 vs. SEC game this decade with scores to prove my point (how is that subjective btw?). You are just name calling.
I'm not arguing his point for him.
You are here to merely bicker, and you're being a hypocrite.
Have at it, chump.
By the way, I attended summer school at Cal for 1 summer while visiting NorCal, and am a Bears fan. I am merely pointing out the reality of the situation. If you want to make a point for the Pac-10's strength, skip this game in your argument.
"Florida played this same Miami team." How is this relevant? Is someone trying to say that Florida's win over Miami validates their strength this season? I don't think so.
The Florida win is relevant. Show me a link to a single article that questions Florida's or the SEC's quality because they beat a decent but not great Miami team at home. Remember, Miami was only Florida's second game of the season, following a weak Hawaii team. Where's the questioning? There was none. So why is there a double standard now?
"Show me a link to a single article that questions Florida's or the SEC's quality because they beat a decent but not great Miami team at home."
I never said anybody is using it to justify their strength, only that nobody had immediately discounted and dismissed that win as "whatever" immediately following the game like they've done for Cal. Do not put words in my mouth.
I never singled out the Cal game btw. I had used the PAC-10's aggregate 5-0 record,...YOU'RE the one who first singled out the Cal game. Now you're singling out Cal vs. Maryland. How about Maryland vs. Middle Tenn State. At least Cal lost to a BCS school across 3 time zones, right? Geez.
The ACC was the best conference top to bottom this year, and we actually have Sagarin's numbers to back it up. Show me quantifiable proof that the Pac 10 was anywhere close.
Oh, by the way, the 9th (or so) best team in the ACC lost to Middle Tenn. State. That's 9th out of 12. Maryland went to a bowl. What did the bottom of the Pac 10 do?
Here is a little proof in numbers
If looking for the conference with the most very strong teams, then the ACC is not it. Top to bottom though, the ACC is it.
Every team faces injuries. That's why you have backups and depth matters. A team with more talented starters but loses due to less talented depth is still a worse team.
And for what it's worth, yes, I think Cal still beats Miami without Best, using backup RB, Shane Vareen, who still gouged the Miami defense while giving Best a rest. It's called depth.
Miami with Marve at the helm was a much different, and better football team. Cal beat a Marve-less Miami team by 7, essentially at home. That is not impressive.
I'd rather take an "ugly win" instead of an "impressive loss." A win is a win.
Dude, you are an idiot. Just stop talking now before you make yourself look more toolish. That "worst SEC" team just dismantled one of the best the country had to offer.
My point is not that Ole Miss sucks. They obviously don't. My point is that Oregon State doesn't suck either. Both Oregon State and Ole Miss, however, are USUALLY lower tier teams in their respective conferences, and the double standard with their victories over their respective conferences' top teams was pretty sickening. Two completely different spins.
Do you not agree? Or do you agree that Florida losing to Ole Miss proves SEC toughness and that USC losing to Oregon State proves PAC-10 weakness? Please explain.
If I recall right, every year your beloved Pac-10's USC is picked to go and win the NC game without taking the field and 6 of their players will win Heismans according to ESPN and their beat team.
Every year the SEC is dubbed the best conference in college football as well, even though stats might say otherwise. It's just what the media does to put more people in front of the television set.
All we can do is play whose in front of us, and on that national stage, we've got a chance to establish a 6th national title out of 13 chances to play for it...
That's what we've done, and we've succeeded on a national stage. I'm not sure what you expect us to do other than point to the trophy-case.
If you haven't heard Brett Musburger call out Les Miles during the UT/Cal game last year, "DeSean Jackson at the Cal Bears wanna have a word with you, Coach Miles!" or the unmitigated verbal blowjob that Herbstreit & Musburger gave to USC yesterday, I'm not sure what planet or rock you hid under while your conference champion played in its BCS Bowl.
I'm sure that fellation they got yesterday has NOTHING TO DO with the fact that the only BCS Bowl ABC has for the time being is the Rose Bowl?
Media bias against the PAC-10, my @ss hurts...
LMFAO! Dude, that is absolutely classic.
What is the matter with you? Who are we gonna lose to? An OOC team? We're 29-1 against the last 30 non-conference teams. Who do you think has the best shot at beating USC, the teams that play them every single year (game film included), or the teams that see them every twenty years? How stupid are you? What do you expect - that USC should never lose a game? If that is your criteria - then you've already proclaimed them to be the greatest football program in the history of the game? You got a double-standard going here. You say we should never lose and that's why we suck! It's not good enough to have a record of:
2002 (11-2)
2003 (13-1)
2004 (13-0)
2005 (12-1)
2006 (11-2)
2007 (11-2)
2008 (12-1)
Yes, that's 83-9 in the last seven years. By far and away the best record in college football. How many should we have won? How many more than 29 of the last 30 against OOC schools should we have won? Since the last loss to Texas in 2005, while we've lost five in the PAC 10 conference, the record is 12-0. How many wins is enough? Are so ignorant that you cannot understand that the PAC 10 teams do have an advantage when it comes to playing USC? Do you not understand that the PAC 10 coaches have been here awhile? That they do have a clue? That they do have prior film histories? This is not hard stuff, fella. For some strange reason - only the SEC has tough games against themselves. Your an idiot!
I mean, look at the this original blog post on Fanblogs. It's obviously sarcastic. But nobody is calling it out. The post was obviously designed to elicit responses from people by asserting something the author obviously doesn't genuinely believe. That is what makes me angry. That even though the PAC-10 did go 5-0, and nobody is really saying the PAC-10 is the best (including me, I'm just defending it), people still seem fit to take their shots and discount everything the conference has done.
The facts are the facts.... The Pac-10 is 5-0. They won every game they played in. They beat four BCS teams (and a very salty BYU, who is BCS caliber, in my opinion). They beat four ranked teams. They proved that they have the best team in the country in USC.
I can state my opinion. It may not be as verbose as yours, but it's still mine. Why else would I be defending it within the comments, dude???
TRUST ME... you'll know when I'm being sarcastic.
It's true that I'm no fan of the Pac10. It's like my fourth favorite conference, generally speaking. But you can't dispute what they've done. They can claim scoreboard this year, plain and simple.
Stick around. We do this crap all year... even in the "off-season". The only difference is we generally have some way off the chart posts (recipes?!?) come late July.
Welcome to the blog, loogy. As Kev said below, stick around. While it may get as frustrating as you think it has, it gets way more frustrating, not to mention every bit, more so even, as funny. Enjoy!!!
OOPS! The way this got posted, that' above, isn't it. See, told ya.
Auburn was pre-season top 10 when USC shut them out in Auburn.
And the most recent year that Arkansas played USC, Arkansas went 7-2 in the SEC. You're comparing THIS year's Arkansas to previous years in which USC played them. Pretty ignorant.
And it's not like SEC teams haven't beaten bottom PAC-10 teams either. Georgia beat Arizona State (bowl ineligible) and LSU has beaten Arizona (previous years bottom PAC-10 school). Tennessee did beat a pre-season top-10 Cal, but Cal then returned the favor the following year. Then Tennessee loses to bottom-dweller UCLA. So, if you're not going to give credit for USC beating ranked SEC teams at the time they play them, you can't give the SEC credit for beating bottom-tier PAC-10 teams when they've played them. Geez.
And no, you're not going to get into it with me because you know what I've just said is true.
In other words, provide a link, and article, something, or stfu. There's a reason hearsay isn't allowed in court either.
Prior to that, he was a TAF (Tiger Athletic Foundation) member squeezing thick wads of sweaty money out of booster fat cats, and prior to that, he was an great defensive lineman for our football team during the Bill Arnsparger years.
USC does not want to discuss scheduling LSU, according to him. They've been contacted multiple times on our behalf by him and others in our AD officially and otherwise.
I'm waiting for you to call me a liar.
(BTW-Before you start pigeonholing everyone as an LSU fan, you DO realize she's a Florida Gator?)
And you DO realize that I talk about LSU because she brought it up, right? Why do you question if I realize that she's a gator as if you just "zinged" me when (1) I never made mention of the fact that she WASN'T or WAS a Tiger, and (2) SHE brought up LSU in the first place?
Do you get the whole antisocial label thrown your way much? Do you have ANY idea how to communicate without being caustic and anal? Do any of your responses come without invective?
I mean, let's hope this is just some message board schtick, and you're not a.) compensating for something, or b.) really this miserable in real life, or c.) See reason b. due to reason a....
The information I heard was on 1210AM WSKR, ESPN Radio in Baton Rouge, during an interview leading up to the season during Fall Camp this past year. It was just after Texas Tech's Mike Leach shot down & refused a home-and-home series with us after their AD accepted.
He made the statement that he learned his lesson about counting his chickens before they hatched, and then took a call about other out of conference opponents, and made the statement that LSU offered home-and-home, and even a neutral site situation, and that USC declined both offers.
I'm sorry I didn't save it on my .mp3...I'll try harder for you next time!
Straight from the TigerDroppings board: http://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/MessageTopic...
LSUPimp: "He said we HAVE had discussions with USC-but will NOT play TWO BCS schools in one year."
So nice tho that GatorBabe chose not to really look into anything and said it was because USC didn't want to play LSU, and you seemingly defended her by posting all your info about Verge and this info on some radio show you heard in Baton Rouge, when in reality it was LSU who decided not to play USC. Nobody on the board seems to be saying that it was USC who shyed away.
And I'm not even saying that LSU was scared or anything, because playing two BCS schools in one OOC is pretty challenging (even though USC did it this season with Virginia and Ohio State), but that's besides the point. The point is that USC did not shy away, and it was LSU who shyed away, for whatever reason.
"Will NOT go on the road this year... "
(no surprise there)
"I know it's harder to play someone tough but I wish we could schedule Texas A&M, USC, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Ohio State, Michigan...you know....big time teams...."
(Maybe one day the SEC will schedule more big-time teams instead of the Troys and Woffords)
"wisconsin would be a fantastic team to play, always overrated."
(Just the kind of thinking you would expect from the "best conference in college football", right?)
"But at least the athletic department is starting to be more honest with us about scheduling. They used to claim it was all because of money or because teams were afraid to play us. I'm glad to see them finally admitting that it's because they don't want a tougher schedule."
(SEC mentality,..."teams are too afraid to play us" really means "we don't want a tougher schedule", exposed by LSU fans. Laughable)
"We're not going with fewer than 8 home games this year. They will not pull that money out of the budget, so you can forget about going on the road this year."
(Yes, everybody already knows the SEC doesn't like to travel outside their own time zones)
"Bring on Rutgers. Without Ray Rice we will stomp on them even worse then if he would have stayed (obviously). Second thought, who wants a bunch of New Jersey cheesedicks in Baton Rouge?"
(Right, lets not try to challenge ourselves or anything. Lets schedule a team we think will be hapless when we play them and then claim vast superiority.)
So, my info is now less credible-or no moreso than-a website called Tiger Droppings?
LMAO...
Take it easy, loogy. We're through in terms of conversations, here. I'll respond here one last time, and remind you-yet again-to eliminate the personal nature of some of your posts and responses. The shots aren't what any of us are here for.
I have a lot of friends here, whether they're Utes, Plainsmen, Sooner's, Mayor's, Duck Fans, Seminoles, Gators, or even Alabama Fans...
If you're looking for animosity-laced tirades and bitter personal cutdown battles between users, this ain't the place, unless Bleed Crimson's posting :)
I post stats, records, etc. Stuff which I thought nobody could really argue with. I only get frustrated when people are WRONG about something and then act as if they are right, or choose to ignore objective data because they only want to believe what they want to believe.
I'll call you a liar. A straight up lyin' coward. How'z that?
We recruit everywhere in the South. We want any game you got down there. Your teams cannot recruit out here. We have whipped your chump azzez in Alabama, Auburn and Arkansas. We have nothing to lose and everything to gain by scheduling your teams in the South. You are a flat out liar, boy! We have no fear of losing recruits to you. You have all the fear in the world of losing them to us.
You better thank your lucky starz that your AD's are not as stupid as you are. Your AD's are bright enough to understand this. And, there is no amount of money, that is gonna be worth the consequences should you suffer any more serious beatdowns. The games will never happen - because your AD's do have some brains. Too bad you don't have none.
But the logic I love is this:
We believe the Pac-10 sucks.
Therefore, the Pac-10 gets crappy bowl matchups.
When the Pac-10 wins all their crappy bowl matchups, it doesn't mean they are underrated. They only win because they have crappy bowl matchups. They would lose if they had better bowl matchups.
How do we know? Because they can only win in crappy bowl matchups. The only good matchup they win is the Rose Bowl and well, that is because they always win that. Though they were undefeated, it was only in crappy bowl matchups + the matchup where the top Pac-10 team ALWAYS beats the top Big 10 team. And no, this does not mean the Big 10 sucks.
But of course the SEC is awesome and we know that because they always manage to achieve a .500 record against awesome SEC competition.
It was a bit too much parity for my liking as well.
I was trying to keep that "2 Girls, 1 Cup" reference "in the can" (Pardon the pun, PLEASE!) for my next run-in with Bleed Crimson...
Dammit, 2bits..That won you a Fanblogs comment award, but I'm p!ssed because you stole my material...LMAO!
Parity does exist throughoout CFB and there is no dominate conference
Victory chains prove it- the Pac-10 is right up there with WAC,C-USA,Sunbelt,Big East,B-10/11,ACC, MAC, B-12 and SEC but nowhere close to MWC
I gotta drink some more Utes koolade
diease messes with your thinking, bama played down just like oklahoma did
to bosie state, if there was a rematch , bama would kill somebody on that
utah team.
----- Original Message -----
From: Disqus
To: berk@dellmail.com
Subject: [fanblogs] Re: No debate - Pac10 is best conference
Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2009 03:57:05 -0000
1Tomcat wrote, in response to berkmar58:
MWC is the best- IMHO
Parity does exist throughoout CFB and there is no dominate conference
Victory chains prove it- the Pac-10 is right up there with
WAC,C-USA,Sunbelt,Big East,B-10/11,ACC, MAC, B-12 and SEC but
nowhere close to MWC
I gotta drink some more Utes koolade
Link: http://www.fanblogs.com/pac10/007984.php#commen...
--
You may reply to this email to post your response. To turn off
notifications, go to your Disqus settings at:
http://disqus.com/settings/notifications/
OBTW Dont start that Mad Cow talk again prices are low enough without Oprah Whimphrey and others scaring folks- 7 days without beef makes one weak
Hookem-Horns
BTW that year that Boise beat OU- no big deal Texas beat them too that year
In fact that year the B-12 champ game had two teams that Texas beat OU vs Neb just like this year OU vs Missu
Hookem-Horns
Regarding the SEC: The Utes sacked Bama 8 times and intercepted twice! (And won by 14 btw). Other than that the SEC looks fast and strong as always. Ole Miss is highly underrated. What's the deal with SEC players on the sidelines always talking sh*& on the camera when it points at them - absolutely no class.
Regarding the Big 12: Texas and Oklahoma (knock on wood) have yet to play and Tech is is overrated and haven't played the same since they got whacked by the Sooners. What I find funny about the haters is how people can say that we (the Big 12) have the best offenses and the worst defenses. The Big 12 Defenses are good but not great - but its not like you can have the "best offense" and "best defense" within the same conference, just think about it.
Regarding Texas Tech- My cousin used to play for A&M- He said thats the toughest place that they played, they are one of those teams that when at home can on occasion knock off the big boys- OU 07 UT 08 these three teams play in the same division
I agree with your assesment of B-12 offenses and defenses- most of these figures are based upon stats that cannot be compared- for example the Texas defense held OU to 35 points a season low for a team that runs up 60 against other teams. Also I've seen Mack Daddy Brown pull out the first string with over 10 minutes in the fourth quarter to give the younger guys game experience and try not to run up the score when the game is under control. So the opposition makes some plays and scores some towards the end of the game against the 2nd or 3rd string, because the starters are taking it easy on the bench.
Hookem-Horns
Also, any jerk that thinks the PAC-10 ISN'T the best this year has scrabble for brains just as surely as anyone who thinks that the MWC isn't tough is an idiot of the top order. You boys in the south, east and midwest need to wake up to the fact that we do play excellent football in the west, as good as any in the Big12 and SEC and better than either the Big East or ACC. The B_S certainly favors the ACC and SEC due to the location of the bowls, the odds makers, big business and their mythical power ratings, yet a 4-6 bowl record for the alleged GREAT ACC and at least 2 and probably 3 losses for the mythically TOUGH SEC should go a ways toward erasing the myth of their dominance.
If the PAC-10 doesn't expand to enjoin Utah and Brigham Young, then they are as ignorant as the oddsmakers who picked 12 of the top 25 teams to win bowl games and lost. Not all, by the way to other top 25 teams. i.e. unranked Arizona over 16th ranked BYU. Oops! Guess the system isn't so reliable, huh? If there is ever to be a legitimate national champion there must be a legitimate playoff system and not thisbattle for dollars and regional pride that we currently have.
BYU barely beat Washington. That is the Washington Huskies. BYU barely beat the Washington Huskies. So, how exactly is Arizona beating BYU impressive?
The bottom of the ACC, and SEC would beat up on the bottom of the Pac 10. Actually, the bottom of every other conference, not excluding the Sunbelt, stands a chance to beat up on the bottom of the Pac 10 this year. A conference, like many other things, is only as strong as its weakest link.
USC is great this year. Oregon and Oregon State are pretty solid. Cal isn't too shabby either. Arizona is halfway decent, although they did lose to lowly New Mexico. So, that's half of the Pac 10, and half of the Pac 10 is semi respectable. The other half, however, is abysmal. Line those 5 up against the bottom 5 of the ACC, SEC, or Big XII, and the Pac 10 will lose.
By the way, that's interesting logic (or is it lack thereof?) that anyone who doesn't agree with your opinion is a jerk.
Baylor > Wash St
Ok State > Wash st
OU > Wash
BYU > UCLA
Maryland> Cal
PSU > Org st
Fresno st > UCLA
Bois st > Oregon
Texas A&M > N Mex
OU > TCU
Colo > Colo st
There were alot of Pac-10 and MWC games other than Oreg> Ok st and UCLA > Tenn
Loogy, I hope you're looking at this. My buddy, CJ, doesn't even consider the Big East in his argument, even though the Big East went 2-1 against the ACC in bowls. (God, I wish WVU had been in there against vA Tech; maybe next year.) So, relax, my new friend. The Pac-10 ain't the only red-headed step child. (By the way, CJ, it's all good here.)
I'll tell you what, bright boy. Stanford, Arizona State and UCLA would have done very nicely in the ACC this year. Those three teams would have finished in the top of your conference. Just because they had to lose several PAC 10 games - does not mean that they wouldn't have won in yours. Arizona, Cal, Oregon State or Oregon - would have won your Conference Championship. That's a fact. You got no team that could handle Arizona - let alone Oregon or Oregon State (with a healthy Jacquizz Rodgers). Instead of just reading the box scores, why don't you (one of these days) stay up late, and watch the games - instead of trying to imagine them. Then, just maybe, you might know what your talking about.
I do watch the Pac-10 games, and I do bet on them. As I have stated, I did attend a Pac-10 university during a visit out west. I don't have anything against the Pac-10, as I am a fan of the school I attended. Did you notice where I give credit to those schools that fielded teams in the top half of the Pac 10? I'm simply stating facts based on numbers.
Speaking of those, let's have a look:
Stanford: lost to Notre Dame, who holds a 0-2 record against the ACC this season
Arizona State: lost to 5 win UNLV who lost by 21 against San Diego State
UCLA: might be able to be competitive against the very bottom of the ACC, but not against their "equal ranking" counterpart, Wake Forest. Sagarin has UCLA as the 3rd worst team in the Pac 10, but since they hold wins over the 2 above them, and based on what I saw on the field, I'd put them at 5th worst, or 6th overall.
Now, let's match them up:
UCLA - Wake Forest
Arizona State - Maryland
Stanford - NC State
Washington State - Virginia
Washington - Duke
Let's assume all of these were played at a neutral (somewhere in the middle of the country) site. Obviously, the last 2 are gimmes for the ACC. Wake Forest would beat UCLA. I do believe the other 2 could go either way, however it'd certainly be viewed as a considerable upset if ASU were able to knock off Maryland.
A conference is only as strong as its weakest link(s). Period. With that said, Arizona, Oregon, and Oregon State aren't part of this discussion. Although, I'd gladly, and quite confidently, put money on any of our top 6 teams to beat Arizona.
Also, the last ranked ACC team in Sagarin's rankings is Duke, which comes in at 53rd. The 6th ranked Pac 10 team, comes in at 59th. So, clearly, I'm not the only one who believes what I said to be true.
By the way, I won the Pick'em for this group this year. I did very well betting real money this year as well. I'm not saying I'll win again, as there are some very good participants, but why don't you join next season? Let's have you back up your statements in a very visible and quantifiable way. Then, we'll see just exactly how good you are at forecasting match up results. Until then, I'm very inclined to take what you have to say cum grano salis.
Same can said for Oklahoma- they should have beat Texas
Florida shoulda beat Ole Miss- Texas shoulda beat Texas Tech
These teams all have one loss- Utah is undefeated and they beat Bama
BTW I'm a jerk too because other than Ohio st & Oregon USC really didnt face the competition week in and week out like Texas,Florida and Oklahoma- I honsetly beleive that those teams would be undefeated in the Pac-10-
Utah Utes 2008 Nat Champ- why not- they didnt get to play Texas or USC, they beat Bama worse than Fla- Fla will probably beat OU- heck Texas already has
Hookem-Horns #1 from the B12
Florida Gators #1 from the SEC
Utah Utes #1 from MWC
USC #1 from PAC 1 +9
Damn shame that OK, FL, TX, USC, Utah, worked so hard and performed so well throughout the season, but all but two (the NC & the 2 loss) will have a mouthful of sour grapes.
As far as this post, although Loogy takes the long way around to get there, I agree that stats are stats and there's no reason SOS can't be mapped mathematically. It's a hell of a lot easier than getting to accurate national rankings.
Plus...a championship require that you beat a team without having a month to prepare for a bowl which potentially resides in your own field.
The pre-BCS system is better than this. At least then Utah would be afforded the championship they are due.
the sec and acc commissioners last year were the ones who introduced a playoff system to all 11 conference commissioners, the pac-10 and bigX immediately shot it down, that rose bowl everyone's talking about is the big roadblock to a playoff system, yes usc is damn good, so too are texas, okla, fla, utah, boise st, and tcu, and only 2 are playing for the right to be called "national champions"
Bowl games cropped up in warm locations to promote tourism during the winter months, hence the huge representation within California, Texas, and Florida. Central and Northern US games didn't come into existence until several decades later. With the increase in the number of bowl destinations, the emphasis among the bowl committees shifted from open invitations to one of two strategies - national invitations for exposure or regional invitations for attendance.
As far as "bias" goes... that's a fallacy in and of itself.
The bowls & conferences negotiate their own arrangements. The Big 10 holds a contract with the Rose, Capital One, Sun, Champs, Outback, etc... because those locations are important to the conference financially, to the schools for exposure and to their fans as a destination.
The ACC for example, is the most geographically spread BCS conference, with teams from the tip of Florida all the way up to Boston Harbor. Yet the bowl representations exist in Florida, Tennessee, North Carolina, Georgia, Washington DC, California, and Idaho. If you grab a map and mark those seven destinations, I think you'll find it to be a very diverse mix, more so than any other BCS conference.
The Pac10 has chosen its contracts as well, in California, Texas, Nevada, and Hawaii. Plot those on the map and you'll find them to be lacking geographic diversity. But that's what the Pac10 and the bowls have CHOSEN.
The ACC & Pac10 *chose* their alliances, just like the Pac10, Big10, SEC, MWC, etc.
The conferences enter into these arrangements with the bowls because it works for both parties. To say that there is some bias because a) conferences are located geographically and b) contracts are signed between bowls & conferences is Peter Pan silly.
Arizona played in Las Vegas
Cal played across the bay in San Francisco
Oregon played in San Diego
Oregon State played in El Paso
Southern Cal played down the road in Pasadena
How are these games not close to home? I'll give you that Oregon State isn't very close to El Paso, but it's about the same as Boston College playing in Nashville.
You claim that the ACC plays games close to home. Maryland is not anywhere close to Boise, and Miami is barely on the same continent with San Francisco. How exactly are these games close to home?
Those folks who think AZ, Oregon or Oregon State had a Home Field advantage over BYU, Oklahoma State or Pitt have never travelled out West. The travel distance is very similar once the wheels are up on your plane.
Holiday Bowl (Oregon 841 miles / OSU 1163 Miles)
Sun Bowl (OSU 1265 miles / Pitt 1591 miles)
Las Vegas Bowl (UA 369 Miles / BYU 339 miles plus a large local Mormon contingent in Las Vegas)
Granted Cal and USC played in their backyard. But they didn't control the number of seats that are sold.
Home field advantage applies when you only have a sliver of crappy seats in a hostile environment as in regualr season play.
In a Bowl Game, don't both schools get an opportunity to send the same amount of fans?
I certainly saw a lot of "white" at the Rose Bowl. The OSU Cowboys occupied as almost as many seats as the Ducks at the Holiday Bowl. So why would the Ducks have an advantage?
Also really who actually cares about winning the Bowl Challenger Cup anyway?
"I am talking about the regional bias that allows the SEC and ACC to play in bowls close to home year after year."
I used to travel quite a bit, and I agree with you. However, you can't say that the ACC plays in bowls close to home when we had Maryland in Boise, Miami in San Francisco, and Boston College in Nashville. Plane trips are basically the same for the teams, but usually the farther they are, the more expensive they are, and the fewer fans follow the team to the game, regardless of how many they have the opportunity to send.
"Also really who actually cares about winning the Bowl Challenger Cup anyway?"
I certainly don't. It is a pretty big crock. It's just something else to discuss I guess.
As a fan, it's not the air miles or expense for me, it's the quality of the destination. I would be more inclined to fly to New Orleans at great expense rather than drive an hour into SF which I can do anytime. I have had the chance 3-4 times to go to El Paso for the Sun Bowl on New Years Eve...not a chance.
I have had a great time at the Rose, Cotton, Fiesta, Las Vegas and Holiday Bowls. Worth every dime.
Why not have "The Fan Alcohol Consumption Bowl" or "Best tipping conference?" It's almost as relevant.
LOL. I like it, and it's very true!
Man, I'd love to make it out west for a game, and it'd be fantastic if it were a bowl game. There are a lot of destinations outside of my region at which I vow to attend a game sometime in my life, and I have yet to get started. Autzen is certainly one of them.
So far, I've only been to the Tangerine, Gator, Music City, and Peach (Chick-fil-a) bowls. I had a great, but very different, time at each of them. I had a chance to go to the Humanitarian, but flying out to Boise to watch a very average Tiger team play La. Tech wasn't terribly intriguing. I also thought I could find much better cities to spend my money on. I've heard Boise is a good time and all, but I think my money was better spent on the week long ski trip I went on instead.
But talk about dreaming on meth, I believe something like 60-70% of the favorites have already lost their bowl games this year. UF could and probably will lose. Face it, any system based on the odds instead of performance is doomed to failure. Sorry. Those are the facts. It will be interesting.
You ought to get along just fine with everybody here- hallucinating perhaps-hayseed- I dunno- sounds kinda bias.
Hookem-Horns
Geaux Tigers
Geaux SEC
2004 lives on, we will all be avenged one day.
This would make the MWC the best conference of this era, with the ACC also having 2 with one split with the Big 12. The SEC has never won the cup and must then be inferior to the Big 10, Big East, PAC 10 and Big 12 over this time period.
For the record:
The Bowl Challenge Cup has been an excellent indicator of the direction the conference went the following year.