PDA

View Full Version : Les Miles on WWL Radio


Acreboy
06-27-2007, 03:39 PM
"I would like nothing better than to play USC for the National Championship this year. Of course they've got a lesser road to hoe than we do. They are going to have some hard fought battles against Oregon and Washington State. Then they have Cal Berkley and Stanford. Those are some juggernauts there. We have to play in the SEC".

Les is the man, calling out the Pac-10 for what they are.

YAYareaRB
06-27-2007, 03:42 PM
Les is the man, calling out the Pac-10 for what they are.

..Geaux Tigers! But I LOVE USC though..

reese
06-27-2007, 03:49 PM
i love it...besides usc..the rest of the pac 10 is mediocre

TigerBait45
06-27-2007, 03:54 PM
The Pac 10 is much better than you think. USC could win it all, but theres still UCLA, Oregon, Cal, and Arizona State to deal with.

Arizona looks like they're ready to be good, Washington and Washington State are improving rapidly..the only really bad team is Stanford.

reese
06-27-2007, 03:56 PM
The Pac 10 is much better than you think. USC could win it all, but theres still UCLA, Oregon, Cal, and Arizona State to deal with.

Arizona looks like they're ready to be good, Washington and Washington State are improving rapidly..the only really bad team is Stanford.

no im pretty sure there mediocre compared with the SEC...they just dont get the type of players the SEC does...

Jericho@SC
06-27-2007, 03:56 PM
What was the point of that cheap shot? What's he trying to prove? That the SEC is better than the Pac-10? No kidding. That didn't need further mentioning.

He might as well take a shot at the Texas' schedule in the Big 12 (easy as it gets), or Ohio State and their OOC combined with playing in the Big 10.

People knock USC and the Pac-10, but no conference besides the SEC can say they are considerably better top to botom. Plus, USC plays a tough OOC schedule every year.

doingthisinsteadofwork
06-27-2007, 03:57 PM
The Pac Ten isnt as bad you think.USC and Cal are always the top two teams.USC would crush LSU.

reese
06-27-2007, 03:59 PM
The Pac Ten isnt as bad you think.USC and Cal are always the top two teams.USC would crush LSU.

the fact that usc would or wouldnt crush lsu has nuthin to do with the rest of the pac 10...they are not a good conference...

doingthisinsteadofwork
06-27-2007, 04:06 PM
except for the fact that the Pac Ten would have the best team in the country.And while alot of people say the Pac Ten isnt good most of them dont even watch the games.

reese
06-27-2007, 04:11 PM
heres just a quick run down of last years recruiting just to kinda show what i mean when i say the pac 10 doesnt get the kinda players that the SEC DOES
i didnt count usc and i didnt count florida since those were the 2 best and im not arguing about usc cuz they are the only team that can recruit like an SEC school

5 star recruits that went to either tennessee, lsu, south carolina or auburn...8
4 star recruits that went to either tennseess, lsu, south carolina or auburn..57


5 star that went to CAL arizona oregon and ucla...0
4 star that went to CAL arizona oregon and ucla...27


so like i said outside of usc the pac 10 is just mediocre

TigerBait45
06-27-2007, 04:14 PM
I don't know if USC would crush LSU. LSU's defense will be scary good.

Honestly though, I think the PAC 10 is probably the second or third best conference in the country. The Big 10 is solid at the top, but I think the PAC 10 is a little deeper.

Acreboy
06-27-2007, 04:23 PM
In other news a guy LSU offered Matt Patchen recently made a comment.

“Right now it’s LSU, Miami, Florida State, Florida, Georgia, Auburn, Ole Miss and Notre Dame,” he said. “I like the SEC and ACC because I feel like they are the two best conferences. I wanted to like USC but they play in the Pac-10 and it’s just a weak conference. I mean Cal is good every now and then, but other than that it’s not a strong conference. The Big-10 is just a ridiculously slow conference. They are big but slow and we saw that during the national championship last year.”

draftguru151
06-27-2007, 04:31 PM
Duckseason needs to get in here and spread some knowledge.

RonnieRun23
06-27-2007, 04:35 PM
Patchan is a good kid. I think it's going to be a Miami, Florida, and LSU recruiting battle for him. His dad plays for the 'canes, so maybe that'll steer him the right way :)

elway777
06-27-2007, 04:39 PM
Reese your a tool. Your whole recruiting by conference theory is as bad as it gets.

The SEC is obviously the best conference. But if your gonna call SC out for their schedule then why not Texas? why not OSU?
Les is probably still upset over Joe Mcknight.

soybean
06-27-2007, 04:47 PM
In other news a guy LSU offered Matt Patchen recently made a comment.

um ok... he doesn't want to go to USC because they play in the pac 10? yet one of his choices is Notre Dame? huh?

elway777
06-27-2007, 04:52 PM
Patchan? psh... we have Matt Kalil & Tyron Smith. He's probably scared of competition. Patrick Johnson on the other hand...

reese
06-27-2007, 05:30 PM
Reese your a tool. Your whole recruiting by conference theory is as bad as it gets.

The SEC is obviously the best conference. But if your gonna call SC out for their schedule then why not Texas? why not OSU?
Les is probably still upset over Joe Mcknight.

please explain y its a bad theory....if ur gonna call me out for having a bad theory then at least have a logical explanation on why u think that


and what exactly is a "tool"

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
06-27-2007, 05:40 PM
IMO while USC is a great, great team, they are in a conference that isn't good. Sure, sometimes Oregon or Cal or UCLA are good, but they're the only consistently good team in that conference. And that isn't to take away from USC at all. If USC was in the Sun Belt, they still might be the best team in the country.

reese
06-27-2007, 05:41 PM
lol@ all the pac 10 fans neg. repping me

benchod
06-27-2007, 05:47 PM
heres just a quick run down of last years recruiting just to kinda show what i mean when i say the pac 10 doesnt get the kinda players that the SEC DOES
i didnt count usc and i didnt count florida since those were the 2 best and im not arguing about usc cuz they are the only team that can recruit like an SEC school

5 star recruits that went to either tennessee, lsu, south carolina or auburn...8
4 star recruits that went to either tennseess, lsu, south carolina or auburn..57


5 star that went to CAL arizona oregon and ucla...0
4 star that went to CAL arizona oregon and ucla...27


so like i said outside of usc the pac 10 is just mediocre

Like all 5 star prospects pan out. SEC is better, but your argument is flawed if you use this as your main tool.

reese
06-27-2007, 05:56 PM
Like all 5 star prospects pan out. SEC is better, but your argument is flawed if you use this as your main tool.

true they dont all pan out...but my point was the SEC brings in much more talent then the pac 10...thats the only thing i was using those numbers for..

elway777
06-27-2007, 05:58 PM
Recruiting stars are not always accurate,their opinions obviously. Not to mention Rivals is biased to east coast players.

If the Pac 10 is so weak then what does that say about the big 10 or the big 12? The Pac 10 is more competitive top to bottom then both those confrences.

reese
06-27-2007, 06:06 PM
Recruiting stars are not always accurate,their opinions obviously. Not to mention Rivals is biased to east coast players.

If the Pac 10 is so weak then what does that say about the big 10 or the big 12? The Pac 10 is more competitive top to bottom then both those confrences.

i dont think very highly of those conferences either...and the pac 10 is competitve with each other...that doesnt make them a good conference

doingthisinsteadofwork
06-27-2007, 08:09 PM
If the Pac Ten is so bad than why are they able to compete with USC?
Sep 2 - W at Arkansas, 50-14
Sep 9 - Open
Sep 16 - W vs. Nebraska, 28-10
Sep 23 - W at Arizona, 20-3
Sep 30 - W at Washington St, 28-22
Oct 7 - W vs. Washington, 26-20
Oct 14 - W vs. Arizona State, 28-21
Oct 21 - Open
Oct 28 - L at Oregon State, 31-33
Nov 4 - W at Stanford, 42-0
Nov 11 - W vs. Oregon, 35-10
Nov 18 - W vs. California, 23-9
Nov 25 - W vs. Notre Dame, 44-24
Dec 2 - L at U-C-L-A, 9-13
Jan 1 - W at Michigan, 32-18
USC only suffered two losses last year both to Pac Ten teams.

Acreboy
06-27-2007, 09:05 PM
If the Pac Ten is so bad than why are they able to compete with USC?
Sep 2 - W at Arkansas, 50-14
Sep 9 - Open
Sep 16 - W vs. Nebraska, 28-10
Sep 23 - W at Arizona, 20-3
Sep 30 - W at Washington St, 28-22
Oct 7 - W vs. Washington, 26-20
Oct 14 - W vs. Arizona State, 28-21
Oct 21 - Open
Oct 28 - L at Oregon State, 31-33
Nov 4 - W at Stanford, 42-0
Nov 11 - W vs. Oregon, 35-10
Nov 18 - W vs. California, 23-9
Nov 25 - W vs. Notre Dame, 44-24
Dec 2 - L at U-C-L-A, 9-13
Jan 1 - W at Michigan, 32-18
USC only suffered two losses last year both to Pac Ten teams.Some teams match up well with others.

Ole Miss always (for the most part) gives LSU fits.

Primetime21
06-27-2007, 10:21 PM
Yea we should get rid of all confrences besides the SEC and just let that division battle it out for the National Championship.[/sarcasm]

Noone is really trying to argue that Pac-10 >>SEC its just that with is as good as almost every other division besides the SEC. Lets see if the Pac-10 is as average as everyone thinks come bowl season.

YAYareaRB
06-27-2007, 11:28 PM
The strength of the Pac-10, at least to me, has always been questionable. Like in the SEC, it's a toss up each year between Florida, LSU, Georgia, Auburn, Tennesee and even Alabama or Arkansas. They're the most deep conference in the nation. In the Pac-10.. It seems like USC always comes out on top with Cal or UCLA trailing behind by a large margin.

But, I think this cheap shot was uncalled for and not needed. Les, just talk on the field bro. I'm sure LSU would give it to USC in Cali or in the Bayou. That LSU defense is impenetrable.

elway777
06-27-2007, 11:44 PM
Ha, just like Michigans did.
SC would kill Matt Flynn. In all honesty though I would love to LSU/USC. It would be a great match up IMO. As long as Flynn can manage the game vs. SEC defenses LSU should be in the big dance.

reese
06-28-2007, 12:52 AM
Yea we should get rid of all confrences besides the SEC and just let that division battle it out for the National Championship.[/sarcasm]

Noone is really trying to argue that Pac-10 >>SEC its just that with is as good as almost every other division besides the SEC. Lets see if the Pac-10 is as average as everyone thinks come bowl season.

what was the pac 10 record in bowl games last year?

gstock05
06-28-2007, 02:03 AM
Everyone knows rivals and scout have a southern bias in the recruiting department. So the whole star ranking system is good, but not great.

The SEC is the deepest conference, but never the most topheavy.

The big 10 and Pac 10 are more topheavy in terms of the overall talent on the top level teams. Only LSU and florida can match talentwise with OSU, Michigan, and USC.

Furthermore, SEC teams make it a habit to play terrible OOC teams. Lots of d1aa teams and such, so I dont buy into it tooo much.

Furthermore, when you try to throw the "Florida killed OSU tidbit" stop talking. The Big Ten went 3-1 vs the sec during the bowl season. They won the big one, but a piece of crap PSU team beat Tennessee, "Average" Wisconsin beat both Auburn at one of their best, and Arkansas the last two years. SEC is the best conference because there are more good teams, but not the overall top end talent IMO.

gstock05
06-28-2007, 02:04 AM
The PAC 10 will be very good this year. I wouldn't want to face a pac 10 team. UCLA is going to be very underrated, USC is obvious. Cal is always tough and will be better this year than last year. Oregon will be good as always too, and IMO will upset Michigan early on.

San Diego Chicken
06-28-2007, 03:52 AM
Southern Cal's schedule is harder than LSU's this season. I don't know what Les Miles is thinking about or why he even decided to chime in. LSU has 3 or 4 hard games at most, all at home. USC has a ton of hard road games and a few hard ones at home too. @ Cal, @ Nebraska, @ Notre Dame, @ Oregon. 4 (potentially) top 25 teams on the road. Plus UCLA and Or. St at home, two teams that beat the Trojans last year. I'm no USC fan (ASU 'til I die) but that's a pretty damn hard schedule. I wouldn't trade LSU's schedule for USC's if I was Les Miles. I know the SEC has lots of solid teams, but they have divisions and not all the top teams play each other. In the Pac-10 everyone has to play each other, no avoiding the best teams. LSU doesn't have to play Tennessee and Georgia this year unless it's in the championship game. So Les Miles is wrong here and he comes across as pretty ignorant.

YAYareaRB
06-28-2007, 10:49 AM
In the Pac-10, I always root for the underdog, but I'm never right as you can see. I will be a Cal fan for life! My favorite team in the conference right now is Oregon.

reese
06-28-2007, 12:43 PM
Everyone knows rivals and scout have a southern bias in the recruiting department. So the whole star ranking system is good, but not great.

The SEC is the deepest conference, but never the most topheavy.

The big 10 and Pac 10 are more topheavy in terms of the overall talent on the top level teams. Only LSU and florida can match talentwise with OSU, Michigan, and USC.

Furthermore, SEC teams make it a habit to play terrible OOC teams. Lots of d1aa teams and such, so I dont buy into it tooo much.

Furthermore, when you try to throw the "Florida killed OSU tidbit" stop talking. The Big Ten went 3-1 vs the sec during the bowl season. They won the big one, but a piece of crap PSU team beat Tennessee, "Average" Wisconsin beat both Auburn at one of their best, and Arkansas the last two years. SEC is the best conference because there are more good teams, but not the overall top end talent IMO.


how did u come to the conclusion that the pac 10 had more talent then the SEC?

benchod
06-28-2007, 12:48 PM
A better question would be why Les still has a job. He's had what can easily be considered the most talented team in the conference if not the country and they chronically underachieve.

But back on topic, this entire topic is basically comparing the other conferences now. Nobody is going to make the argument that the Pac10 is better than the SEC, but I would take the Pac 10 over the ACC, Big10, Big 12 or Big East this coming year. But most years, its a legitmate argument to have the Pac10 as the 3rd or 4th best conference.

JeffSamardzijaIRISH
06-28-2007, 01:08 PM
A better question would be why Les still has a job. He's had what can easily be considered the most talented team in the conference if not the country and they chronically underachieve.

Lmao are you serious? His first year here he had a Sophmore QB, Hurricane Katrina, and a hard-ass schedule. They went 11-2, destroying good team after good team. His second year he went to a BSC bowl and blows out Notre Dame. Underachieving? Hell no, this man is a damn fine HC.

Acreboy
06-28-2007, 01:22 PM
Lmao are you serious? His first year here he had a Sophmore QB, Hurricane Katrina, and a hard-ass schedule. They went 11-2, destroying good team after good team. His second year he went to a BSC bowl and blows out Notre Dame. Underachieving? Hell no, this man is a damn fine HC.We finally have the speed on D for Pelini to start blitzing.

TigerBait45
06-28-2007, 02:49 PM
back to back 11 win seasons is underachieveing?

2005 would've probably been totally different if not for Katrina. 2006 had way too many tough road games, and the team lost a good deal of talent.

doingthisinsteadofwork
06-28-2007, 03:40 PM
Lmao are you serious? His first year here he had a Sophmore QB, Hurricane Katrina, and a hard-ass schedule. They went 11-2, destroying good team after good team. His second year he went to a BSC bowl and blows out Notre Dame. Underachieving? Hell no, this man is a damn fine HC.
No hes an average coach at best.He inherited a very talented team and has won with them.
Before when he was coach at OSU his teams were a little bit above average.They were nothing special and neither is Miles.
His second year he went to a BSC bowl and blows out Notre Dame.WHo cares everybody knows ND is overated.IT wasnt at all a good matchup.ND shouldnt have been put in a BCS bowl the past two years in the first place.

TigerBait45
06-28-2007, 04:09 PM
In his defense, hes been recruiting really well. This year I think we'll see what hes all about, since most of Saban's players are starting to get outnumbered with his.

benchod
06-28-2007, 04:46 PM
11 wins is fine if you're a Cal or Oklahoma State, but we're talking about a team that easily has the talent to win the title every year. 11 wins is underachieving for this squad considering they aren't in the hunt for the national championship late in the season under Les.

Granted he's only been there 2 years and had to deal with Katrina and that situation his first year, but honestly, you're talking about a squad that is filled with 1st round NFL talent.

TigerBait45
06-28-2007, 11:59 PM
I think expecting him to win the national title last year would've been a stretch too. You can't expect to go into Auburn, Florida, Tennessee, and Arkansas and come out 4-0.

LEROY_FROM_YONDER
06-30-2007, 10:58 PM
Everyone knows rivals and scout have a southern bias in the recruiting department. So the whole star ranking system is good, but not great.

The SEC is the deepest conference, but never the most topheavy.

The big 10 and Pac 10 are more topheavy in terms of the overall talent on the top level teams. Only LSU and florida can match talentwise with OSU, Michigan, and USC.

Furthermore, SEC teams make it a habit to play terrible OOC teams. Lots of d1aa teams and such, so I dont buy into it tooo much.

Furthermore, when you try to throw the "Florida killed OSU tidbit" stop talking. The Big Ten went 3-1 vs the sec during the bowl season. They won the big one, but a piece of crap PSU team beat Tennessee, "Average" Wisconsin beat both Auburn at one of their best, and Arkansas the last two years. SEC is the best conference because there are more good teams, but not the overall top end talent IMO.


um judgin from the championship game OSU couldnt beat lakeland high...michigan was bout as overrated an notre dame...michigan played 2 tems last year an got beat by both...to say the SEC isnt topheavy is redundant...any given year FL,GA,TN,ARK,LSU,AL could win the SEC.....In the BIG 10/11 its always gonna be either OSU or MICH..PAC-10 is always USC an...BIG 12 is always either OU or UT...so rethink your not so smart statement

Sniper
06-30-2007, 11:30 PM
um judgin from the championship game OSU couldnt beat lakeland high...michigan was bout as overrated an notre dame...michigan played 2 tems last year an got beat by both...to say the SEC isnt topheavy is redundant...any given year FL,GA,TN,ARK,LSU,AL could win the SEC.....In the BIG 10/11 its always gonna be either OSU or MICH..PAC-10 is always USC an...BIG 12 is always either OU or UT...so rethink your not so smart statement

In English please?

From what I could decipher, Ohio State had a bad national title game, there's no denying that. I'm pretty sure Ohio State could beat Lakeland High considering they ran show in the Big 10. Glad to see one bowl game makes people forget about the first 12 again. Michigan beat Wisconsin by 2 touchdowns who beat your darling SEC squad Arkansas, so to call them overrated is a stretch. Michigan lost to Ohio State by 3 points. Do you really think that Florida would beat Ohio State 41-14 or whatever the hell it was every single time? No. The Buckeyes played an awful game without their second best RECEIVER and best returner and if Chris Wells gets that 4th and 1, we're looking at a whole different ball game. I also don't think the OSU O-line could play a worse game the next time around if they tried to. The SEC is the best conference in the country, there's no doubting this. However, let's not make every team in there out to be the second coming of the '72 Dolphins. By the way Arkansas has not won the SEC since 1989 so I wouldn't throw them in the discussion. Oh and since 1999 7 Big 10 teams have won at least a share of the conference title, so there goes another point.

By comparison, in that same time period 5 different teams (Nebraska, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Texas and Colorado) have won the Big 12 title, making another one of your points irrelevant. As far as the Pac-10 goes, 7 different teams have held at least a share of the conference title. Please try not to be so uneducated when posting something.

Sniper
06-30-2007, 11:33 PM
I missed gstock05's point about the Big 10 being 3-1 vs. the SEC. Toss that into my lengthy post too.

Primetime21
06-30-2007, 11:42 PM
"The Pac-10 compiled a stellar mark of 25-12 (.676) against non-conference foes. The Pac-10 finished 10-7 in games against BCS teams from automatic qualifying conferences. In non-conference matchups against Top 25 foes, the Pac-10 was an excellent 6-7 and in non-conference matchups where both teams were ranked, the Pac-10 held a 5-1 advantage."
Found this.

This shows that the Pac-10 should at least be mentioned with Big 10 and the ACC.

Sniper
06-30-2007, 11:53 PM
"The Pac-10 compiled a stellar mark of 25-12 (.676) against non-conference foes. The Pac-10 finished 10-7 in games against BCS teams from automatic qualifying conferences. In non-conference matchups against Top 25 foes, the Pac-10 was an excellent 6-7 and in non-conference matchups where both teams were ranked, the Pac-10 held a 5-1 advantage."
Found this.

This shows that the Pac-10 should at least be mentioned with Big 10 and the ACC.

This is true, but 6-7 isn't excellent. Sorry.

draftguru151
06-30-2007, 11:58 PM
What were the other conferences in that stat?

Primetime21
07-01-2007, 12:24 AM
This is true, but 6-7 isn't excellent. Sorry.

Not my words, and yes when I read that I shook my head.

"non-conference matchups where both teams were ranked, the Pac-10 held a 5-1 advantage"

This is really only excellent stat that was shown in my above post.

reese
07-01-2007, 01:28 AM
In English please?

The Buckeyes played an awful game without their second best RECEIVER and best returner and if Chris Wells gets that 4th and 1, we're looking at a whole different ball game.

a whole different ball game? come on now. u cant really think that a 4th and 1 changes a whole game. that would have nuthin to do with that fact osu's dbs couldnt run with uf's wrs. there de's had smith runnin for his life. mabe a 1 or 2 touchdown game and then u could say 1 play made a difference but this was a blowout. also the fact that multiple teams have won there respective conferences over the past few years in now way shows that those conferences are as top heavy as the SEC. just becuz 5 different teams won the big 12 doesnt mean all 5 had a shot at it this year. just cuz 7 teams have won the big 10 doesnt mean they all had a chance this year. the point being made was the SEC has alot of teams that can win it every year. in the east fl,ga,tn could have a real shot to win it every year. not to mention sc who is gettin better but not quite there yet. in the west lsu or auburn could get it any year and then this year ark jumps up and wins it...while in other conferences the talent shifts from team to team...its a 2 or MABE 3 team race from year to year rather then a 5-6 team race like the SEC

gstock05
07-01-2007, 01:53 AM
a whole different ball game? come on now. u cant really think that a 4th and 1 changes a whole game. that would have nuthin to do with that fact osu's dbs couldnt run with uf's wrs. there de's had smith runnin for his life. mabe a 1 or 2 touchdown game and then u could say 1 play made a difference but this was a blowout. also the fact that multiple teams have won there respective conferences over the past few years in now way shows that those conferences are as top heavy as the SEC. just becuz 5 different teams won the big 12 doesnt mean all 5 had a shot at it this year. just cuz 7 teams have won the big 10 doesnt mean they all had a chance this year. the point being made was the SEC has alot of teams that can win it every year. in the east fl,ga,tn could have a real shot to win it every year. not to mention sc who is gettin better but not quite there yet. in the west lsu or auburn could get it any year and then this year ark jumps up and wins it...while in other conferences the talent shifts from team to team...its a 2 or MABE 3 team race from year to year rather then a 5-6 team race like the SEC

Yeah, it was all those deep routes that our cornerbacks couldn't catch 4.65 dallas baker on.

For those who watched the game... they actually realize that Tressel got outcoached, and the OSU team wasn't ready to play. OSU played soft zone all game, and got killed by it.

The only time where florida "speed" hurt us was at the defensive end position since our offensive tackles were out of shape. Boone had balooned up to 340 prior to that game.

Not taking anything away from florida, but to say OSU lost because of talent is being ignorant. And to say that OSU couldn't run with florida's receivers is dumber. It's hard to "run" with florida receivers when they're catching the ball 5 steps in front of your defensive backs who are playing 10 yards off the line.

reese
07-01-2007, 01:57 AM
Yeah, it was all those deep routes that our cornerbacks couldn't catch 4.65 dallas baker on.

For those who watched the game... they actually realize that Tressel got outcoached, and the OSU team wasn't ready to play. OSU played soft zone all game, and got killed by it.

The only time where florida "speed" hurt us was at the defensive end position since our offensive tackles were out of shape. Boone had balooned up to 340 prior to that game.

Not taking anything away from florida, but to say OSU lost because of talent is being ignorant. And to say that OSU couldn't run with florida's receivers is dumber. It's hard to "run" with florida receivers when they're catching the ball 5 steps in front of your defensive backs who are playing 10 yards off the line.

the florida team was far more talented. and for those who kno football a big reason to play zone...expecially a soft zone is to make up for lack of speed. funny how u mention florida's slowest starting recievers 40 time but leave out the rest

Sniper
07-01-2007, 04:01 AM
a whole different ball game? come on now. u cant really think that a 4th and 1 changes a whole game. that would have nuthin to do with that fact osu's dbs couldnt run with uf's wrs. there de's had smith runnin for his life. mabe a 1 or 2 touchdown game and then u could say 1 play made a difference but this was a blowout. also the fact that multiple teams have won there respective conferences over the past few years in now way shows that those conferences are as top heavy as the SEC. just becuz 5 different teams won the big 12 doesnt mean all 5 had a shot at it this year. just cuz 7 teams have won the big 10 doesnt mean they all had a chance this year. the point being made was the SEC has alot of teams that can win it every year. in the east fl,ga,tn could have a real shot to win it every year. not to mention sc who is gettin better but not quite there yet. in the west lsu or auburn could get it any year and then this year ark jumps up and wins it...while in other conferences the talent shifts from team to team...its a 2 or MABE 3 team race from year to year rather then a 5-6 team race like the SEC

Yes I can really think that a 4th and 1 changes the whole complexion of the game. What was the score at the time of that play? 7-7? 14-7? Say Beanie Wells breaks that yard and Ohio State drives the field and scores. WHOLE NEW BALLGAME whether you like it or not. OSU's D-backs could run with the UF receivers, it's just playing a soft zone was not the way to go. OSU had some good backs, for the first time in a while Jim Tressel was outcoached and I was stunned to see him not make any kind of adjustments at halftime. And I may be one of the biggest anti-Teddy Ginn guys on this board, but you're dumb if you think that injury didn't affect the way the game ended. I think Kirk Barton was on the Antoine Walker diet before this game and OSU's o-line had one of their worst games ever. No way they'd play that badly again.

As far as the conferences go, no you're right, they're not as top-heavy as the SEC. However, one of the points you made is that the Big 10 is "always Ohio State and Michigan" and the Pac-10 is "always USC" which I definitely showed you why it isn't. And your SEC argument as to "everyone has a shot", I sort of beg to differ. Let's start with the Vols. They looked phenomenal in a 10 point loss to an very mediocre Penn State squad, one that OSU manhandled and Michigan physically abused. The 17-10 score in the UM/PSU game was no indication as to how close the game was. No one ever thought PSU had a shot after the first quarter. Georgia lost to Vanderbilt 24-22, a team Michigan smacked 27-7 in a game that was nowhere near that close. I was also impressed with UGA's impressive 14-13 win over mighty Colorado and their loss to powerhouse Kentucky. Also, there's no way in hell you're winning the SEC with a freshman QB. The "up and coming" South Carolina Gamecocks couldn't even score a single point vs. UGA as well.

So really the only two squads that had a legit shot at winning the SEC were the national champs as well as LSU, who for my money probably had the most talented team in the country. Auburn was in the running until their top-notch matchup with UGA where they got smacked around. So roughly two squads had a shot at the SEC title, same as the Michigan. Actually, you could lump Wisconsin in that group too. Now the top of the SEC doesn't seem so heavy anymore does it?

Sniper
07-01-2007, 04:10 AM
the florida team was far more talented. and for those who kno football a big reason to play zone...expecially a soft zone is to make up for lack of speed. funny how u mention florida's slowest starting recievers 40 time but leave out the rest

Your lack of speed argument is a crock of ****. Jim Tressel has always, ALWAYS employed a defense that is zone-heavy. It's been his defensive strategy both at Youngstown State and Ohio State that hasn't changed much throughout his years.

By the way, define how the Florida team was "far" more talented.
QB: Troy Smith vs. Chris Leak= Smith when he isn't running for his life
RB: Antonio Pittman/Beanie Wells vs. um...............DeShawn Wynn?= OSU
WR: Ginn/Gonzalez/Robiskie vs. Baker/Caldwell/Harvin= OSU
OL: I would say OSU has more pure talent, but they had an atrocious game that day. So for the sake of argument give it to UF.
DL: Florida had a hell of a game. Moss and Harvey are both first-rounders and normally I'd give OSU some major props since they will probably have the #1 line in the country, Florida's guys were all over the place. UF.
Secondary: Florida. LOVE Malcolm Jenkins, but the Nelson/Smith combo was sick.
Coaching: Usually a toss-up, but Meyer outcoached Tressel in this one. Give Meyer a slight edge because Tressel usually isn't that bad.

It comes down to executions. Florida made plays and got breaks, and it was just one of those days where everything goes wrong for the Buckeyes.

Wow that last post hurt. I hate Ohio State but your arguments were so dumb I had to say something.

reese
07-01-2007, 12:58 PM
Yes I can really think that a 4th and 1 changes the whole complexion of the game. What was the score at the time of that play? 7-7? 14-7? Say Beanie Wells breaks that yard and Ohio State drives the field and scores. WHOLE NEW BALLGAME whether you like it or not. OSU's D-backs could run with the UF receivers, it's just playing a soft zone was not the way to go. OSU had some good backs, for the first time in a while Jim Tressel was outcoached and I was stunned to see him not make any kind of adjustments at halftime. And I may be one of the biggest anti-Teddy Ginn guys on this board, but you're dumb if you think that injury didn't affect the way the game ended. I think Kirk Barton was on the Antoine Walker diet before this game and OSU's o-line had one of their worst games ever. No way they'd play that badly again.

As far as the conferences go, no you're right, they're not as top-heavy as the SEC. However, one of the points you made is that the Big 10 is "always Ohio State and Michigan" and the Pac-10 is "always USC" which I definitely showed you why it isn't. And your SEC argument as to "everyone has a shot", I sort of beg to differ. Let's start with the Vols. They looked phenomenal in a 10 point loss to an very mediocre Penn State squad, one that OSU manhandled and Michigan physically abused. The 17-10 score in the UM/PSU game was no indication as to how close the game was. No one ever thought PSU had a shot after the first quarter. Georgia lost to Vanderbilt 24-22, a team Michigan smacked 27-7 in a game that was nowhere near that close. I was also impressed with UGA's impressive 14-13 win over mighty Colorado and their loss to powerhouse Kentucky. Also, there's no way in hell you're winning the SEC with a freshman QB. The "up and coming" South Carolina Gamecocks couldn't even score a single point vs. UGA as well.

So really the only two squads that had a legit shot at winning the SEC were the national champs as well as LSU, who for my money probably had the most talented team in the country. Auburn was in the running until their top-notch matchup with UGA where they got smacked around. So roughly two squads had a shot at the SEC title, same as the Michigan. Actually, you could lump Wisconsin in that group too. Now the top of the SEC doesn't seem so heavy anymore does it?

1. i never said that usc always won the pac 10. i never said osu and michigan always won the big 12. someone else said those not me.

2. despite all the games u pointed out, surely u kno how meaningless it is for u to say well team A barely beat team B so and team C killed team A so that means.... u should kno better then to make such a comparison.

3. u said lsu and florida were the only 2 teams that had a shot at the SEC. did u forget ark? i mean they did play in the SEC championship game. i think that qualifies as a chance to win it. as u said auburn was in the running till the last 2 weeks of the season when they lost to georgia. i think they were ranked no. 5 in the country before that game. and tennessee also wasnt eliminated from the race in the east until 2 weeks to go.

LEROY_FROM_YONDER
07-01-2007, 01:05 PM
Yeah, it was all those deep routes that our cornerbacks couldn't catch 4.65 dallas baker on.

For those who watched the game... they actually realize that Tressel got outcoached, and the OSU team wasn't ready to play. OSU played soft zone all game, and got killed by it.

The only time where florida "speed" hurt us was at the defensive end position since our offensive tackles were out of shape. Boone had balooned up to 340 prior to that game.

Not taking anything away from florida, but to say OSU lost because of talent is being ignorant. And to say that OSU couldn't run with florida's receivers is dumber. It's hard to "run" with florida receivers when they're catching the ball 5 steps in front of your defensive backs who are playing 10 yards off the line.



jus curious if OSU wasnt worried bout florida's "speed" then why were the 10 yards off??..could be jus me but if i dont think the reciever is faster than me im less than 10 yards from him...if i think he might burn me i play further off...go back to your NCAA dynasty an try again

LEROY_FROM_YONDER
07-01-2007, 01:12 PM
Yes I can really think that a 4th and 1 changes the whole complexion of the game. What was the score at the time of that play? 7-7? 14-7? Say Beanie Wells breaks that yard and Ohio State drives the field and scores. WHOLE NEW BALLGAME whether you like it or not. OSU's D-backs could run with the UF receivers, it's just playing a soft zone was not the way to go. OSU had some good backs, for the first time in a while Jim Tressel was outcoached and I was stunned to see him not make any kind of adjustments at halftime. And I may be one of the biggest anti-Teddy Ginn guys on this board, but you're dumb if you think that injury didn't affect the way the game ended. I think Kirk Barton was on the Antoine Walker diet before this game and OSU's o-line had one of their worst games ever. No way they'd play that badly again.

As far as the conferences go, no you're right, they're not as top-heavy as the SEC. However, one of the points you made is that the Big 10 is "always Ohio State and Michigan" and the Pac-10 is "always USC" which I definitely showed you why it isn't. And your SEC argument as to "everyone has a shot", I sort of beg to differ. Let's start with the Vols. They looked phenomenal in a 10 point loss to an very mediocre Penn State squad, one that OSU manhandled and Michigan physically abused. The 17-10 score in the UM/PSU game was no indication as to how close the game was. No one ever thought PSU had a shot after the first quarter. Georgia lost to Vanderbilt 24-22, a team Michigan smacked 27-7 in a game that was nowhere near that close. I was also impressed with UGA's impressive 14-13 win over mighty Colorado and their loss to powerhouse Kentucky. Also, there's no way in hell you're winning the SEC with a freshman QB. The "up and coming" South Carolina Gamecocks couldn't even score a single point vs. UGA as well.

So really the only two squads that had a legit shot at winning the SEC were the national champs as well as LSU, who for my money probably had the most talented team in the country. Auburn was in the running until their top-notch matchup with UGA where they got smacked around. So roughly two squads had a shot at the SEC title, same as the Michigan. Actually, you could lump Wisconsin in that group too. Now the top of the SEC doesn't seem so heavy anymore does it?

\ok yeah mayb the fourth an one does change the game so ill give OSU 7 points so now we'll say the score is 41-21 then no doubt not havin ted ginn did change it up also so ill give you another 7 points for that so now were at 41-28..tressel was very outcoached by a head coach that was in his first in a big time conference..also i said any given year any of those 6 teams could win the SEC i didnt say this past year any of those 6 could an to say you cant win the SEC with a freshman QB is dumb wat...you really think florida wouldve gotten to where they did without tebow??

benchod
07-01-2007, 01:20 PM
1. i never said that usc always won the pac 10. i never said osu and michigan always won the big 12. someone else said those not me.

2. despite all the games u pointed out, surely u kno how meaningless it is for u to say well team A barely beat team B so and team C killed team A so that means.... u should kno better then to make such a comparison.

3. u said lsu and florida were the only 2 teams that had a shot at the SEC. did u forget ark? i mean they did play in the SEC championship game. i think that qualifies as a chance to win it. as u said auburn was in the running till the last 2 weeks of the season when they lost to georgia. i think they were ranked no. 5 in the country before that game. and tennessee also wasnt eliminated from the race in the east until 2 weeks to go.

I saw a lot of Arkansas games this year and you seriously believe that a team with Casey Dick leading them had a chance to win? The McFadden/Jones duo was amazing, and that defense was sick, but we're talking about Casey Dick here. They beat an Auburn team that somehow was still recovering from the LSU game and an underachieving Tennessee team. That team has more questions coming into this season than Alabama, and that's a lot.

Now I'll give you the SEC isn't a 1 or 2 team race like some of the other conferences, but the teams that are serious contenders are essentially Auburn, LSU, and Florida with Georgia and another team being right on the cusp.

LEROY_FROM_YONDER
07-01-2007, 01:21 PM
Your lack of speed argument is a crock of ****. Jim Tressel has always, ALWAYS employed a defense that is zone-heavy. It's been his defensive strategy both at Youngstown State and Ohio State that hasn't changed much throughout his years.

By the way, define how the Florida team was "far" more talented.
QB: Troy Smith vs. Chris Leak= Smith when he isn't running for his life
RB: Antonio Pittman/Beanie Wells vs. um...............DeShawn Wynn?= OSU
WR: Ginn/Gonzalez/Robiskie vs. Baker/Caldwell/Harvin= OSU
OL: I would say OSU has more pure talent, but they had an atrocious game that day. So for the sake of argument give it to UF.
DL: Florida had a hell of a game. Moss and Harvey are both first-rounders and normally I'd give OSU some major props since they will probably have the #1 line in the country, Florida's guys were all over the place. UF.
Secondary: Florida. LOVE Malcolm Jenkins, but the Nelson/Smith combo was sick.
Coaching: Usually a toss-up, but Meyer outcoached Tressel in this one. Give Meyer a slight edge because Tressel usually isn't that bad.

It comes down to executions. Florida made plays and got breaks, and it was just one of those days where everything goes wrong for the Buckeyes.

Wow that last post hurt. I hate Ohio State but your arguments were so dumb I had to say something.

mayb if wynn got the ball as much as pittman or played in the weaker conference he wouldve had better stats...i like antonio pittman but floridas runnin game overall was better

reese
07-01-2007, 01:22 PM
I saw a lot of Arkansas games this year and you seriously believe that a team with Casey Dick leading them had a chance to win? The McFadden/Jones duo was amazing, and that defense was sick, but we're talking about Casey Dick here. They beat an Auburn team that somehow was still recovering from the LSU game and an underachieving Tennessee team. That team has more questions coming into this season than Alabama, and that's a lot.

Now I'll give you the SEC isn't a 1 or 2 team race like some of the other conferences, but the teams that are serious contenders are essentially Auburn, LSU, and Florida with Georgia and another team being right on the cusp.

i think casey dick is terrible. i was just talkin about how much he sucked a couple days ago. but arkansas did PLAY IN THE SEC CHAMPIONSHIP. so yes they had a chance to win it. they were in the west with auburn and lsu and still made it to the sec championship...even with casey dick/mustain

LEROY_FROM_YONDER
07-01-2007, 01:31 PM
I saw a lot of Arkansas games this year and you seriously believe that a team with Casey Dick leading them had a chance to win? The McFadden/Jones duo was amazing, and that defense was sick, but we're talking about Casey Dick here. They beat an Auburn team that somehow was still recovering from the LSU game and an underachieving Tennessee team. That team has more questions coming into this season than Alabama, and that's a lot.

Now I'll give you the SEC isn't a 1 or 2 team race like some of the other conferences, but the teams that are serious contenders are essentially Auburn, LSU, and Florida with Georgia and another team being right on the cusp.


casey dick...well he sucked..they shoulda kept mustain in thats not arguement there from me...but if you saw alot of the games thenyou know they didnt win because of him so he becomes a non factor why even bring him up??

LEROY_FROM_YONDER
07-01-2007, 01:47 PM
In English please?

From what I could decipher, Ohio State had a bad national title game, there's no denying that. I'm pretty sure Ohio State could beat Lakeland High considering they ran show in the Big 10. Glad to see one bowl game makes people forget about the first 12 again. Michigan beat Wisconsin by 2 touchdowns who beat your darling SEC squad Arkansas, so to call them overrated is a stretch. Michigan lost to Ohio State by 3 points. Do you really think that Florida would beat Ohio State 41-14 or whatever the hell it was every single time? No. The Buckeyes played an awful game without their second best RECEIVER and best returner and if Chris Wells gets that 4th and 1, we're looking at a whole different ball game. I also don't think the OSU O-line could play a worse game the next time around if they tried to. The SEC is the best conference in the country, there's no doubting this. However, let's not make every team in there out to be the second coming of the '72 Dolphins. By the way Arkansas has not won the SEC since 1989 so I wouldn't throw them in the discussion. Oh and since 1999 7 Big 10 teams have won at least a share of the conference title, so there goes another point.

By comparison, in that same time period 5 different teams (Nebraska, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Texas and Colorado) have won the Big 12 title, making another one of your points irrelevant. As far as the Pac-10 goes, 7 different teams have held at least a share of the conference title. Please try not to be so uneducated when posting something.

hmmm thats funny considerin ARK wasnt even in the SEC in 1989 an by the way AL won it that year...ARK wasnt even brought into the SEC till 1992 along with SC...so your pretty much not allowed to talk

LEROY_FROM_YONDER
07-01-2007, 01:55 PM
im also curious who were the 7 teams from the big 10 to have a share since 99...im not disputing this statement i jus wanna know who they are is all

LEROY_FROM_YONDER
07-01-2007, 02:11 PM
oh an jus a lil FYI............
since 92-present
FL has played in 8 SEC championship game......TENN has been in 4......GA has been in 3.....ALA has been in 5....ARK has been in 3....LSU has been in 3....AUB has been in 3.....MISS ST has been in 1......so jus sayin the 6 teams i mentioned earlier pretty much are the ones competin in the SEC


MISS ST mustve had a fluke year the year they went...i know they suck an im not sayin they deserved to be mentioned in the arugment....they suck i know so dont bring it up

Sniper
07-01-2007, 08:02 PM
\ok yeah mayb the fourth an one does change the game so ill give OSU 7 points so now we'll say the score is 41-21 then no doubt not havin ted ginn did change it up also so ill give you another 7 points for that so now were at 41-28..tressel was very outcoached by a head coach that was in his first in a big time conference..also i said any given year any of those 6 teams could win the SEC i didnt say this past year any of those 6 could an to say you cant win the SEC with a freshman QB is dumb wat...you really think florida wouldve gotten to where they did without tebow??

But if OSU has the ball for longer that obviously means Florida doesn't have the ball as much, hence they don't score 41. As for your Tebow point, there's no way you win in the SEC with your starting QB as a freshman is what I meant to say. Tebow was nice on his 3rd and 2 situations, but Leak was their STARTING QB and led them to the SEC title.

Sniper
07-01-2007, 08:04 PM
1. i never said that usc always won the pac 10. i never said osu and michigan always won the big 12. someone else said those not me.

2. despite all the games u pointed out, surely u kno how meaningless it is for u to say well team A barely beat team B so and team C killed team A so that means.... u should kno better then to make such a comparison.

3. u said lsu and florida were the only 2 teams that had a shot at the SEC. did u forget ark? i mean they did play in the SEC championship game. i think that qualifies as a chance to win it. as u said auburn was in the running till the last 2 weeks of the season when they lost to georgia. i think they were ranked no. 5 in the country before that game. and tennessee also wasnt eliminated from the race in the east until 2 weeks to go.

1. Sorry then, I was caught up in the other points.
2. Yes, you're right. It doesn't mean that much but it's not like the SEC completely blew the doors off of the Big 10 is what I meant.
3. At any time in the SEC title game did you legitimately think Casey Dick was going to win the game for Arkansas? They had something like 5-6 guys throwing passes for them, there was no way they were winning that game, especially with guys like Reggie Fish playing for Florida wearing an Arkansas jersey.

Sniper
07-01-2007, 08:05 PM
hmmm thats funny considerin ARK wasnt even in the SEC in 1989 an by the way AL won it that year...ARK wasnt even brought into the SEC till 1992 along with SC...so your pretty much not allowed to talk

You're right about Arkansas. I was looking at two different things at once. Stop trying to be so e-tough "you're pretty much not allowed to talk". Until you can actually ******* spell properly you're in no position to tell people if they should talk or not. So Arkansas has never won the SEC title then is that correct? So then they wouldn't really be considered an annual contender for the title now would they?

LEROY_FROM_YONDER
07-01-2007, 08:48 PM
You're right about Arkansas. I was looking at two different things at once. Stop trying to be so e-tough "you're pretty much not allowed to talk". Until you can actually ******* spell properly you're in no position to tell people if they should talk or not. So Arkansas has never won the SEC title then is that correct? So then they wouldn't really be considered an annual contender for the title now would they?


well you can read wat im typin so i must spell jus fine...anyways the point i was makin earlier....

the SEC has many more teams in contention to win the conference title than does the PAC 10 year in an year out

Sniper
07-01-2007, 09:20 PM
well you can read wat im typin so i must spell jus fine...anyways the point i was makin earlier....

the SEC has many more teams in contention to win the conference title than does the PAC 10 year in an year out

Yeah but if the same teams win year in and year out what difference does it make?

Acreboy
07-01-2007, 09:34 PM
Yeah but if the same teams win year in and year out what difference does it make?
That the SEC is far more deeper than any conference NOW, not OVERALL.

Sniper
07-01-2007, 10:44 PM
That the SEC is far more deeper than any conference NOW, not OVERALL.

Eh works for me. I don't disagree that the SEC is the best and deepest conference. It's just some people make it seem like the Big 10, Pac 10, ACC etc....might as well be lumped in with the Patriot League and other 1-AA leagues. That is clearly not the case. Say what you want about Ohio State's performance in the NC (it was abysmal) but they were, along with Michigan and Wisconsin, one of the best teams in the country as were Florida (obviously) and LSU, and I would have put Auburn before they lost to Georgia.

TigerBait45
07-01-2007, 11:29 PM
Mississippi State won the west that year because they were running a dirty program. Once the NCAA started watching them they fell back to reality.

Although they're really starting to come around. They've got a really solid defense. If they could ever find a way to score they may win a few games.

LEROY_FROM_YONDER
07-02-2007, 01:11 AM
Eh works for me. I don't disagree that the SEC is the best and deepest conference. It's just some people make it seem like the Big 10, Pac 10, ACC etc....might as well be lumped in with the Patriot League and other 1-AA leagues. That is clearly not the case. Say what you want about Ohio State's performance in the NC (it was abysmal) but they were, along with Michigan and Wisconsin, one of the best teams in the country as were Florida (obviously) and LSU, and I would have put Auburn before they lost to Georgia.


i never said those conferences belong in the cellar all i said was they werent as top heavy as the SEC

LEROY_FROM_YONDER
07-02-2007, 01:14 AM
Eh works for me. I don't disagree that the SEC is the best and deepest conference. It's just some people make it seem like the Big 10, Pac 10, ACC etc....might as well be lumped in with the Patriot League and other 1-AA leagues. That is clearly not the case. Say what you want about Ohio State's performance in the NC (it was abysmal) but they were, along with Michigan and Wisconsin, one of the best teams in the country as were Florida (obviously) and LSU, and I would have put Auburn before they lost to Georgia.

so auburn had a bad game an your jus gonna throw away their entire season...if im not mistaken didnt AUB beat both FLA an LSU...im jus curious how you would disregard AUB when they were FLA only loss an they beat LSU

LEROY_FROM_YONDER
07-02-2007, 01:16 AM
Yeah but if the same teams win year in and year out what difference does it make?

same could be said bout the pac 10..big 10/11...same teams year in an year out so wat difference does it make??

Sniper
07-02-2007, 01:21 AM
so auburn had a bad game an your jus gonna throw away their entire season...if im not mistaken didnt AUB beat both FLA an LSU...im jus curious how you would disregard AUB when they were FLA only loss an they beat LSU

Because they got pummeled by a very mediocre Georgia team? I'm sorry. As impressive as the Florida and LSU wins are, there's absolutely no excuse to be losing by 3 touchdowns to a middle of the pack team, no matter what conference you're in. Auburn was a good team, not a great one.

Sniper
07-02-2007, 01:23 AM
same could be said bout the pac 10..big 10/11...same teams year in an year out so wat difference does it make??

I know that, but I'm not the one spouting off about how amazing the SEC is now am I? It kind of defeats the top heavy argument. USC will usually win the Pac 10, Michigan or Ohio State will usually win the Big 10 and Florida or LSU will usually win the SEC.

LEROY_FROM_YONDER
07-02-2007, 01:26 AM
really considerin..the past 3 season both teams have only played in 1 SEC championship... an since 2000 LSU has only been in 3 an FLA has only been in 2.. but yeah year in an year out either team usually wins it

LEROY_FROM_YONDER
07-02-2007, 01:27 AM
anD on that note since the SEC expanded to 12 teams in 92 LSU has only played in 3 SEC championship games...but they are annual contenders

Sniper
07-02-2007, 01:31 AM
anD on that note since the SEC expanded to 12 teams in 92 LSU has only played in 3 SEC championship games...but they are annual contenders

Edit to my earlier post now that I read it: Tennessee should be lumped into that pool. LSU may not always be there, but damned if you don't think to yourself before the season "**** LSU has a good team. They're contenders."

LEROY_FROM_YONDER
07-02-2007, 01:31 AM
Because they got pummeled by a very mediocre Georgia team? I'm sorry. As impressive as the Florida and LSU wins are, there's absolutely no excuse to be losing by 3 touchdowns to a middle of the pack team, no matter what conference you're in. Auburn was a good team, not a great one.

so i guess USC gettin beat by a good oregon state anD a good UCLA team knocks them out of the category of best in the nation in 07 then also huh??

LEROY_FROM_YONDER
07-02-2007, 01:35 AM
Edit to my earlier post now that I read it: Tennessee should be lumped into that pool. LSU may not always be there, but damned if you don't think to yourself before the season "**** LSU has a good team. They're contenders."


yeah i thought that when nick saban got there but not before that....before that they werent contenders by no means

Sniper
07-02-2007, 01:55 AM
so i guess USC gettin beat by a good oregon state anD a good UCLA team knocks them out of the category of best in the nation in 07 then also huh??

There's a difference between losing by 3-4 points and 22 now isn't there?

VY10
07-03-2007, 11:27 AM
Texas should win every game this year and so should USC. Even though LSU is a great team even Florida lost to Auburn. The SEC is stacked with teams that can upset your title runs. Unfortunately, the way the system is set up is that if USC and Texas go undefeated they will be playing each other in the NC without having to go through much competition. Even if LSU only looses 1 game thats enough to keep them out of the NC this year.

Man college football needs playoffs.

Acreboy
07-03-2007, 12:14 PM
Texas better not sleep on A&M again..

Sniper
07-03-2007, 04:15 PM
Texas should win every game this year and so should USC. Even though LSU is a great team even Florida lost to Auburn. The SEC is stacked with teams that can upset your title runs. Unfortunately, the way the system is set up is that if USC and Texas go undefeated they will be playing each other in the NC without having to go through much competition. Even if LSU only looses 1 game thats enough to keep them out of the NC this year.

Man college football needs playoffs.

I'm thinking Oklahoma will give Texas a run for their money. Their running game is sick and Stoops usually has a nasty defense to go along with it.I think Texas will lose to Oklahoma, so LSU could afford to lose one game unless a team like WVU goes undefeated. Doesn't matter anyway, Michigan's taking the whole thing ;)

Acreboy
07-03-2007, 04:33 PM
I'm thinking Oklahoma will give Texas a run for their money. Their running game is sick and Stoops usually has a nasty defense to go along with it.I think Texas will lose to Oklahoma, so LSU could afford to lose one game unless a team like WVU goes undefeated. Doesn't matter anyway, Michigan's taking the whole thing ;)Michigan was the most overrated team last year. I hope they got better.

P-L
07-03-2007, 04:55 PM
Michigan was the most overrated team last year. I hope they got better.
Yeah, it really sucks to be 11-2 playing one of the top 10-20 toughest schedules in the nation with our only two losses being to the (at the time) #1 and #8 teams in the nation. Beating our opponents by an average of 30-12 is pretty crappy too. And lastly, I agree with you that having one bad game makes a team the most overrated.

Primetime21
07-03-2007, 05:01 PM
Michigan was the most overrated team last year. I hope they got better.

No it was either Notre Dame or Rutgers.

Sniper
07-03-2007, 05:25 PM
Michigan was the most overrated team last year. I hope they got better.

Yeah, sure they were. You mean how they lost their 2 games to teams that finished the season #2 and #4 in the country both on the road? And destroyed the #5 team in the country? Please use your brain before posting, it tends to help. Explain to me how Michigan was overrated, I'm pumped to hear this.

VY10
07-03-2007, 05:33 PM
I'm thinking Oklahoma will give Texas a run for their money.

Of course OU will give Texas a run for their money but in the end Texas should win.... like they should have whooped both K-state and A&M next year.

Sniper
07-03-2007, 05:53 PM
Of course OU will give Texas a run for their money but in the end Texas should win.... like they should have whooped both K-state and A&M next year.

I agree, Texas is the favorite. But I'm not going to be stunned if Oklahoma pulls it out.

VY10
07-03-2007, 06:05 PM
I agree, Texas is the favorite. But I'm not going to be stunned if Oklahoma pulls it out.

Same. Texas does has a habit of choking...

TigerBait45
07-03-2007, 08:52 PM
I'm not too sure I'm sold on UT's defense. That secondary got shredded a lot last year, and they lost two first round picks.

VY10
07-03-2007, 11:38 PM
I'm not too sure I'm sold on UT's defense. That secondary got shredded a lot last year, and they lost two first round picks.

Exactly. The offense is going to be killer but the secondary is going to get torched is what Im afraid of.

Acreboy
07-09-2007, 09:10 PM
This is from another board, is Carroll serial?

I was listenng to drive time sports radio out here in Los Angeles and the Les Miles comments came up. The hosts basically said that Miles comments were out of line and that the SEC (specifically LSU) needs to go on the road and play some out of conference talent. Banged on LSU's schedule and said LSU and Miles are pissed off due to the fact we lost Booty and specifically McKnight. Also said we have a complex about USC and the fact they are top program in the country. Few minutes later Carroll came on via phone and said Miles comments were "LAME" and that Pac-10 from top to bottom is equal to SEC (hinting at Miss St, Vandy, etc.)
Welcomes to play anyone anywhere (i.e. Auburn, Arkansas).

elway777
07-09-2007, 09:18 PM
Well I was listening to that interview and Pete said the competition and intesity was the same. Not the talent. That comment is debatable, but the rest of what Pete said is in line. Unlike some of Les's complaining.