PDA

View Full Version : The Pac-10 vs SEC Discussion


Hwoarang
07-04-2008, 09:54 AM
This is being brought up by these articles.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/34231-pac-10-football-is-better-than-sec-football-part-one

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/34415-pac-10-football-is-better-than-sec-football-part-two

What say you?

duckseason
07-04-2008, 10:29 AM
I don't think there's any question that the Pac-10 as a whole plays the most difficult schedules in the nation right now.

However, I think it's tough to compare a 10 team conference to a 12 team conference. Especially without being specific as to what exactly it is you're comparing. A blanket statement such as "Pac-10 football is better than SEC football" seems impossible to prove.

As a whole, I believe the SEC has more talent.

From top to bottom, I believe the Pac-10 is more competitive.

Depending on the context, I could argue for either conference.

504 to ATL
07-07-2008, 03:00 AM
Who knows how the SEC would be without Vany or Ole Miss. That would be their form of a 10 team conference.

Nearly impossible to compare conferences without the same number of teams.

duckseason
07-07-2008, 03:11 AM
Who knows how the SEC would be without Vany or Ole Miss. That would be their form of a 10 team conference.

Nearly impossible to compare conferences without the same number of teams.

Why would it necessarily be two of the worst teams? Why not Auburn and Georgia?

In reality, both Vanderbilt and Ole Miss have been affiliated with the conference since its inception. The two new additions are South Carolina and Arkansas.

I mean, who knows how the Pac-10 would be with Texas and Oklahoma, right?

Iamcanadian
07-07-2008, 07:44 AM
The Pac 10 is way too top heavy. It's USC and then everybody else with Arizona, Washington St. and Stanford bring up the rear.
The SEC is stronger top to bottom. The HCing is the best in the country. The academic standards are the worst among major conferences allowing a lot of questionable athletes to attend their schools. Not all their schools have terrible standards but the majority do.
The SEC champion is always a threat to win the NC while only USC in the Pac 10 can make that claim.

fenikz
07-07-2008, 02:23 PM
You don't think a healthy Oregon last year had a chance to win the NC?

ASU has great coaching now btw and has a real good shot to be in the NC soon

DragonFireKai
07-07-2008, 03:38 PM
I'd say it's a bit closer between the two conferences than people would think, especially when you consider how the second place team in the SEC got laid out by a middling Pac 10 team last season.

The articles brought up valid points, but the author was far to antagonistic to be taken seriously.

diabsoule
07-07-2008, 03:51 PM
Why would it necessarily be two of the worst teams? Why not Auburn and Georgia?

In reality, both Vanderbilt and Ole Miss have been affiliated with the conference since its inception. The two new additions are South Carolina and Arkansas.

I mean, who knows how the Pac-10 would be with Texas and Oklahoma, right?

I don't think Texas would have ever gone over to the Pac-10. Colorado on the other hand I think has a real shot of possibly changing conferences. If the Pac-10 would expand Colorado, Utah, BYU, would probably at the top of their list in that order.

I do think it is practically impossible to compare both conferences but I do admit, that although I am an SEC fan, I think the Pac 10 is more competitive from top to bottom.

DragonFireKai
07-07-2008, 04:10 PM
I don't think Texas would have ever gone over to the Pac-10. Colorado on the other hand I think has a real shot of possibly changing conferences. If the Pac-10 would expand Colorado, Utah, BYU, would probably at the top of their list in that order.

I do think it is practically impossible to compare both conferences but I do admit, that although I am an SEC fan, I think the Pac 10 is more competitive from top to bottom.

The Pac 10's at stable state, It's not going to expand, nor should it.

duckseason
07-07-2008, 06:55 PM
I don't think Texas would have ever gone over to the Pac-10. Colorado on the other hand I think has a real shot of possibly changing conferences. If the Pac-10 would expand Colorado, Utah, BYU, would probably at the top of their list in that order.

I do think it is practically impossible to compare both conferences but I do admit, that although I am an SEC fan, I think the Pac 10 is more competitive from top to bottom.
Oh I agree. I was just matching the ridiculousness of Hwoarang's "what if" so he could see just how ridiculous it sounded.

I think the Pac-10 really wants Texas and Texas AM, but like you said that will likely never happen. I think the addition of the Utah schools would be the most likely scenario, if the Pac-10 were to expand. Sure hope they don't though.

duckseason
07-07-2008, 07:00 PM
The Pac 10 is way too top heavy. It's USC and then everybody else with Arizona, Washington St. and Stanford bring up the rear.
The SEC is stronger top to bottom. The HCing is the best in the country. The academic standards are the worst among major conferences allowing a lot of questionable athletes to attend their schools. Not all their schools have terrible standards but the majority do.
The SEC champion is always a threat to win the NC while only USC in the Pac 10 can make that claim.
Right. The Pac-10 is top heavy. SC and everybody else.

People are still spouting that crap?

Do yourself a favor and research which teams SC has lost to over the last handful of years.

Then go take a look at the elite teams that they've beaten from all across the country.

Now compare the lists.

While you're at it, take a look at how the rest of the Pac-10 has fared in OOC games in recent history. For every game you can find where a Pac-10 team looked bad in a loss, I can think of two that redeem them.

Oh, and go take a look at how many Pac-10 teams have won the conference title in the last 15 or so years.

Do the same for any other conference.

Do all that, then come back and tell everybody just how top heavy the Pac-10 is.

Brent
07-07-2008, 07:04 PM
People are still spouting that crap?
I grew up a Cal fan, so I feel like the only Pac 10 fan in Big 12 country but the number of times Pac 10 teams lose to Big 12 teams in recent bowl games isn't helping the cause (touting the Pac 10's strength).

duckseason
07-07-2008, 07:33 PM
I grew up a Cal fan, so I feel like the only Pac 10 fan in Big 12 country but the number of times Pac 10 teams lose to Big 12 teams in recent bowl games isn't helping the cause.
Like Oregon vs Texas or Colorado? Oregon St vs Missouri? Cal vs Texas AM? UCLA vs Texas AM? Arizona vs Nebraska? Washington St vs Texas?

Sure the Big-12 has come out on top a few times as well, but by my count the Pac-10 has fared well against the Big-12 in recent history.

Brent
07-07-2008, 08:17 PM
Like Oregon vs Texas or Colorado? Oregon St vs Missouri? Cal vs Texas AM? UCLA vs Texas AM? Arizona vs Nebraska? Washington St vs Texas?

Sure the Big-12 has come out on top a few times as well, but by my count the Pac-10 has fared well against the Big-12 in recent history.
I think it's more the ones that people expect them to win. Example, when Cal played Texas Tech during Aaron Rodgers last season, USC vs UT in that NC, and various other games (I dont remember them and dont care enough to do so). Not saying that I agree but that's just what I have seen. Personally, I think the Pac 10 has more talent, than most the Big 12 teams but the problem is that they beat up on each other.

Brent
07-07-2008, 08:23 PM
By the way, I think we can all agree ESPN sucks but what is sad is that they have a contract with the Big 10 to televise their games, and I think that creates a huge bias towards the Big 10. (Fox Sports has the Pac 10 contract, right?)

and that Cal/Tennessee game was fun to watch this year (I was rooting for Cal obviously), it was sad they lost the year before.

diabsoule
07-07-2008, 08:28 PM
I think it's more the ones that people expect them to win. Example, when Cal played Texas Tech during Aaron Rodgers last season, USC vs UT in that NC, and various other games (I dont remember them and dont care enough to do so). Not saying that I agree but that's just what I have seen. Personally, I think the Pac 10 has more talent, than most the Big 12 teams but the problem is that they beat up on each other.

The same could be said and is said about the SEC and it's teams.

DragonFireKai
07-07-2008, 08:35 PM
I grew up a Cal fan, so I feel like the only Pac 10 fan in Big 12 country but the number of times Pac 10 teams lose to Big 12 teams in recent bowl games isn't helping the cause (touting the Pac 10's strength).

The pac 10 still had a winning record in bowl games last season. And as for us constantly losing to the Big XII in bowl games, I would say our 4 bowl loses by 38 points are at least somewhat offset by our 4 wins by 80 points.

The thing that I hate about people using the "USC and everyone else defense" is that they don't understand that if you dropped USC into any other conference, that Conference would instantly become "USC and everyone else." Since 2002, USC has lost 8 games by 30 points, while they out scored their opponents 2981 to 1343, an average of 38-17. They did this in a BCS conference against a non conference schedule that included Auburn (twice), Colorado, Kansas State, Notre Dame (Six times), Iowa, Michigan (twice), Virginia Tech, Arkansas (twice), Texas, Nebraska (twice), and Illinois. USC never played an FCS team in that span.

There's no team in the past decade that can compare to that run.

Brent
07-07-2008, 08:35 PM
The same could be said and is said about the SEC and it's teams.
Arkansas had a pretty weak schedule this past year:
Kentucky, Auburn, South Carolina, Miss. State, Alabama, Ole Miss, Tennessee, LSU, Troy, North Texas, Chattanooga, Florida International

if I remember correctly, Bama's wasnt that bad either.

YAYareaRB
07-07-2008, 10:44 PM
I think the Tennesee vs Cal game should not be taken into consideration. Who knew Cal was gonna choke for the rest of the schedule?

These are two of my favorite conferences mainly because I'm an LSU Fan and I live in California.

504 to ATL
07-09-2008, 11:59 PM
Hopefully with the new blood in the Pac 10 other teams besides USC become successful for more than one season. Oregon had something going, but their QB went down and had no depth, and who knows if they can repeat that successful start again.

UCLA, who knows. New coach, hopefully big things to come.

Cal has never finished strong despite being highly touted at the beginning of the past few seasons.

JT Jag
07-10-2008, 02:07 AM
The PAC-10 is a two-team league. USC, and whichever team happens to have a lot of quality seniors and is making their little run that year.

The SEC, from top to bottom, has quality teams. I'd put Mississippi up against Stanford and Washington and I'd bet Mississippi would win most times.

Anyway, the SEC had 5 ranked teams last year, all in the top 16. The PAC-10 had 3, but one was #24.

duckseason
07-10-2008, 05:40 AM
The PAC-10 is a two-team league. USC, and whichever team happens to have a lot of quality seniors and is making their little run that year.
Right, it's somehow a knock on the Pac-10 for having the most dominant team in the nation over the past 6 years.

The SEC, from top to bottom, has quality teams. I'd put Mississippi up against Stanford and Washington and I'd bet Mississippi would win most times.

Are Arkansas and Auburn among those quality teams? How did they fare against mighty SC? Uh huh. You sure you want to put some of those SEC teams up against the Pac-10? Teams like Oregon St, UCLA, Oregon and Stanford? You know, the only four teams to have actually beaten SC in the past two years. Surely a team like Oregon State couldn't come into Baton Rouge and beat the Tigers, right? I mean obviously that would be a blowout. Big bad top-tier SEC team against little old middle of the road Pac-10 team Oregon State.

Surely a team who lost 6 Pac-10 games and finished 7th wouldn't survive against the 3rd place SEC team, right? They'd get smashed just as bad as Oregon State would against LSU in Baton Rouge, obviously. No way in hell would they win by a couple TD's.

Right. The Pac-10 is weak. SC and maybe some lucky senior-laden team each year, and then everybody else may as well play in the WAC.

A senior laden team like last year's Ducks, right? What with all those senior starters and everything. Surely they didn't rely on a bunch of underclassmen all season long at key positions on both sides of the ball. Nobody else in the Pac-10 could compete with them, ASU or SC, could they? Not Cal, not Stanford, not Oregon State, not Arizona, not UCLA....nobody. It was just SC and Oregon. Or was it ASU? Which team was it exactly that you had respect for last year other than SC? Remember, it can only be one per year. And they need to have a lot of quality seniors.

Because, you know, Arkansas and Auburn and Tennessee are much more impressive when they lose 4 games than Oregon State and Oregon are. Pac-10 is weak. Any team that doesn't win at least 8 conference games in the Pac-10 would lose at least 6 of 8 in the SEC. That's just obvious. The southeast is the only part of the country where they run fast and play real football. Everybody knows that.

Anyway, the SEC had 5 ranked teams last year, all in the top 16. The PAC-10 had 3, but one was #24.
Right. The unbalanced OOC schedules and the fact that the SEC has 12 teams has nothing to do with that meaningless tidbit, does it?

Funny how the Pac-10 beat up on each other all year to a greater degree than the SEC, yet somehow 83% of the SEC is bowl eligible. I guess that's what happens when your teams only play 8 out of 11 conference opponents and then fill in the gaping holes with AA teams like Wofford and directional this and directional that.

Seriously, other than Cal (loss), South Florida (loss), Missouri (loss), WVU (loss), and the ACC rivalries, who did the SEC play out of conference last year? You'd think with the extra space on the schedule from only having to play 8 of 11 conference opponents, that these teams would be eager to prove themselves against the best the nation has to offer.

Somehow, despite each team having 1 less available slot to fit quality opponents in and having two less teams to begin with, the Pac-10 as a whole managed to squeeze in Ohio State, Michigan, BYU (twice), Hawaii, Colorado (twice), Tennessee, Cincinnati, Utah (twice), Nebraska, TCU, Notre Dame (thrice), Boise State and Wisconsin.

And unlike the SEC, the Pac-10 actually fared quite well against their OOC opponents. Perhaps if the Pac-10 adopted the scheduling practices of the SEC, they'd have 80% of the conference in bowls as well, and therefore 5 teams in the top 25.

THE PAC-1O PLAYS A MORE DIFFICULT AND GRUELING SCHEDULE THAN THE SEC.

I'm not arguing that there is more overall talent out west. I'm not even saying that the Pac-10 is superior to the SEC. But I am saying that the Pac-10 is more competitive than the SEC, no question. Whether or not our 2 worst teams would lose to your two worst teams is a pointless argument that we'll never know the answer to. And the answer is fluid anyway.

If you take a look at the small number of games where these two conferences have faced off in recent history, the Pac-10 comes out on top. Not bad for a "two team league."

So talk bad all you want about the Pac-10, but just realize that by doing such, you're talking bad about the SEC in the same breath.

saintsfan912
07-10-2008, 06:17 AM
There's no team in the past decade that can compare to that run.

Actually LSU has a better record this past decade than USC, look it up. Oh yea, they also won 2 NCs, which no other team has. It would never be USC and everybody else in the SEC dude, that is a ridiculous and dilusional statement.

Iamcanadian
07-10-2008, 09:39 AM
Right. The Pac-10 is top heavy. SC and everybody else.

People are still spouting that crap?

---Of course, the list of NC's from the Pac 10 reads USC and ????

Do yourself a favor and research which teams SC has lost to over the last handful of years.

---They still finish 1st every year for quite some time and are the only Pac 10 team to win a NC in how many years???? In fact when is the last time a Pac 10 team other than USC even made it to the NC game????

Then go take a look at the elite teams that they've beaten from all across the country.

---Still waiting for a list of Pac 10 champions other than USC who won the NC?????

Now compare the lists.

While you're at it, take a look at how the rest of the Pac-10 has fared in OOC games in recent history. For every game you can find where a Pac-10 team looked bad in a loss, I can think of two that redeem them.

---Each year is different and I tend to agree that the Pac 10 is generally underrated nationally, however until the Pac 10 can get another of its schools into the NC game other than USC, it is always going to be considered a weaker conference who wins the occasional big game but rarely comes close to getting into the NC game(USC excepted).

Oh, and go take a look at how many Pac-10 teams have won the conference title in the last 15 or so years.

---Prior to Pete Carroll, USC wasn't a National threat for quite awhile but none of those championship Pac 10 teams other than USC came close to finishing the task and winning the NC. After Pete Carroll, it is a foregone conclusion that USC is the only Pac 10 team really in the picture. Oregon and Cal may threaten but just cannot get over the hump. Really, since Washington vanished from the National scene, the Pac 10 is usually a 1 team race.

Do the same for any other conference.


---H....mmm, LSU(2 National titles recently), Florida( National title)( a serious contender during Spurrier's reign in Florida), Auburn(Undefeated team that got jobbed out of the NC game. Tennessee won a National championship. Georgia, currently one of the favourites to win the NC game. Alabama hired Saban who rebuilt LSU. South Carolina hired Spurrier who was responsible for Florida rise to power.
H...mmm, Pac 10, USC 2 National championships and a 3rd close loss to Texas, and then there is ????? although Oregon has come close but just couldn't get the job done.

Do all that, then come back and tell everybody just how top heavy the Pac-10 is.

---Sure looks like the Pac 10 is USC and then everybody else.
Look, I've supported the Pac 10 over the objections of others as a pretty decent conference who plays a tougher OOC schedule than almost any other conference, but to say they are equal to the current streak of the SEC is not proved by the facts and while I don't support the notion that the SEC is more powerful than any other team in the country, I do have to agree that they have recently dominated college football and are generally stronger top to bottom. They do have certain advantages including the lowest academic standards of any major conference although some of their schools aren't that bad like Florida, South Carolina and Vanderbilt. This fact makes it a lot easier for a # of their schools to recruit questionable student athletes but in the end they have dominated at least the last 5 years of college football and the Pac 10 hasn't outside of USC.
Myself, I'm a Michigan and Big 10 fan but I have to concede that the SEC has beaten us soundly in the last 2 NC games. I could give excuses but in the end they beat us and that is the simple facts. IMO, the BCS is a very poor way to judge who is the NC but given the current rules, that is all we can go by, and that has not been friendly to the other teams in the Pac 10 besides USC.
Oregon and the other Pac 10 schools will have to get to the NC game before they can lay claim to be the equal of the SEC. Oregon was very unlucky last year with the injury to their QB but that's life. Get a few more teams to the NC game and the facts will speak for themselves.

YAYareaRB
07-10-2008, 10:18 AM
Right, it's somehow a knock on the Pac-10 for having the most dominant team in the nation over the past 6 years.



Are Arkansas and Auburn among those quality teams? How did they fare against mighty SC? Uh huh. You sure you want to put some of those SEC teams up against the Pac-10? Teams like Oregon St, UCLA, Oregon and Stanford? You know, the only four teams to have actually beaten SC in the past two years. Surely a team like Oregon State couldn't come into Baton Rouge and beat the Tigers, right? I mean obviously that would be a blowout. Big bad top-tier SEC team against little old middle of the road Pac-10 team Oregon State.

Surely a team who lost 6 Pac-10 games and finished 7th wouldn't survive against the 3rd place SEC team, right? They'd get smashed just as bad as Oregon State would against LSU in Baton Rouge, obviously. No way in hell would they win by a couple TD's.

Right. The Pac-10 is weak. SC and maybe some lucky senior-laden team each year, and then everybody else may as well play in the WAC.

A senior laden team like last year's Ducks, right? What with all those senior starters and everything. Surely they didn't rely on a bunch of underclassmen all season long at key positions on both sides of the ball. Nobody else in the Pac-10 could compete with them, ASU or SC, could they? Not Cal, not Stanford, not Oregon State, not Arizona, not UCLA....nobody. It was just SC and Oregon. Or was it ASU? Which team was it exactly that you had respect for last year other than SC? Remember, it can only be one per year. And they need to have a lot of quality seniors.

Because, you know, Arkansas and Auburn and Tennessee are much more impressive when they lose 4 games than Oregon State and Oregon are. Pac-10 is weak. Any team that doesn't win at least 8 conference games in the Pac-10 would lose at least 6 of 8 in the SEC. That's just obvious. The southeast is the only part of the country where they run fast and play real football. Everybody knows that.


Right. The unbalanced OOC schedules and the fact that the SEC has 12 teams has nothing to do with that meaningless tidbit, does it?

Funny how the Pac-10 beat up on each other all year to a greater degree than the SEC, yet somehow 83% of the SEC is bowl eligible. I guess that's what happens when your teams only play 8 out of 11 conference opponents and then fill in the gaping holes with AA teams like Wofford and directional this and directional that.

Seriously, other than Cal (loss), South Florida (loss), Missouri (loss), WVU (loss), and the ACC rivalries, who did the SEC play out of conference last year? You'd think with the extra space on the schedule from only having to play 8 of 11 conference opponents, that these teams would be eager to prove themselves against the best the nation has to offer.

Somehow, despite each team having 1 less available slot to fit quality opponents in and having two less teams to begin with, the Pac-10 as a whole managed to squeeze in Ohio State, Michigan, BYU (twice), Hawaii, Colorado (twice), Tennessee, Cincinnati, Utah (twice), Nebraska, TCU, Notre Dame (thrice), Boise State and Wisconsin.

And unlike the SEC, the Pac-10 actually fared quite well against their OOC opponents. Perhaps if the Pac-10 adopted the scheduling practices of the SEC, they'd have 80% of the conference in bowls as well, and therefore 5 teams in the top 25.

THE PAC-1O PLAYS A MORE DIFFICULT AND GRUELING SCHEDULE THAN THE SEC.

I'm not arguing that there is more overall talent out west. I'm not even saying that the Pac-10 is superior to the SEC. But I am saying that the Pac-10 is more competitive than the SEC, no question. Whether or not our 2 worst teams would lose to your two worst teams is a pointless argument that we'll never know the answer to. And the answer is fluid anyway.

If you take a look at the small number of games where these two conferences have faced off in recent history, the Pac-10 comes out on top. Not bad for a "two team league."

So talk bad all you want about the Pac-10, but just realize that by doing such, you're talking bad about the SEC in the same breath.

I think he meant if you pit seeds together from top to bottom. Which would mean something like:

USC vs LSU #1
Arizona State vs Georgia #2
Oregon State vs Tennesee #3
Oregon vs Florida #4
UCLA vs Auburn #5
Arizona vs Arkansas #6
Cal vs Miss St. #7
Wash St. vs Alabama #8
Stanford vs Kentucky #9
Washington vs South Carolina #10

I may be wrong about the seedings but I just went off of records. Some Classic College Football potential right there

Turtlepower
07-10-2008, 10:21 AM
I think he meant if you pit seeds together from top to bottom. Which would mean something like:

USC vs LSU #1
Arizona State vs Georgia #2
Oregon State vs Tennesee #3
Oregon vs Florida #4
UCLA vs Auburn #5
Arizona vs Arkansas #6
Cal vs Miss St. #7
Wash St. vs Alabama #8
Stanford vs Kentucky #9
Washington vs South Carolina #10

I may be wrong about the seedings but I just went off of records. Some Classic College Football potential right there

But because the SEC has 12 teams, you can't do that. That is getting rid of the worst 2 teams in the SEC, but keeping the worst teams in the PAC-10.

YAYareaRB
07-10-2008, 10:40 AM
But because the SEC has 12 teams, you can't do that. That is getting rid of the worst 2 teams in the SEC, but keeping the worst teams in the PAC-10.

I was just clerifying what someone else wrote that was misunderstood. But I guess there's always an excuse.

Turtlepower
07-10-2008, 10:41 AM
I was just clerifying what someone else wrote that was misunderstood. But I guess there's always an excuse.

It really isn't an excuse when you try to compare two conferences, but you fail to include the 2 worst teams in one of those conferences.

YAYareaRB
07-10-2008, 10:46 AM
It really isn't an excuse when you try to compare two conferences, but you fail to include the 2 worst teams in one of those conferences.

I guess you could throw out the last 4 teams and have a Top 8.

USC vs LSU #1
Arizona State vs Georgia #2
Oregon State vs Tennesee #3
Oregon vs Florida #4
UCLA vs Auburn #5
Arizona vs Arkansas #6
Cal vs Miss St. #7
Wash St. vs Alabama #8

What ya got for this idea?

Turtlepower
07-10-2008, 10:50 AM
I guess you could throw out the last 4 teams and have a Top 8.

USC vs LSU #1
Arizona State vs Georgia #2
Oregon State vs Tennesee #3
Oregon vs Florida #4
UCLA vs Auburn #5
Arizona vs Arkansas #6
Cal vs Miss St. #7
Wash St. vs Alabama #8

What ya got for this idea?

You still don't get what I'm saying. You still took out the 4 worst teams in the SEC, but only the 2 worst in the PAC-10. It is impossible to compare the 2 conferences like that.

YAYareaRB
07-10-2008, 10:57 AM
You still don't get what I'm saying. You still took out the 4 worst teams in the SEC, but only the 2 worst in the PAC-10. It is impossible to compare the 2 conferences like that.

It's not impossible.. But in your view, it wouldn't be fair.

diabsoule
07-10-2008, 11:13 AM
You still don't get what I'm saying. You still took out the 4 worst teams in the SEC, but only the 2 worst in the PAC-10. It is impossible to compare the 2 conferences like that.

Your taking the top 8 teams from each conference. While it still may be an unfair comparison it's the only comparison that one could make until the Pac 10 adds two more teams.

Turtlepower
07-10-2008, 11:23 AM
Your taking the top 8 teams from each conference. While it still may be an unfair comparison it's the only comparison that one could make until the Pac 10 adds two more teams.

Why should the PAC-10 add more teams when we play a more well-rounded conference schedule than every conference in the country besides the Big East?

Also, 12 team conferences always seem to create an unbalanced conference where one division is much stronger than the other and thus weakens the conference as a whole.

diabsoule
07-10-2008, 11:39 AM
You still don't get what I'm saying. You still took out the 4 worst teams in the SEC, but only the 2 worst in the PAC-10. It is impossible to compare the 2 conferences like that.

Why should the PAC-10 add more teams when we play a more well-rounded conference schedule than every conference in the country besides the Big East?

Also, 12 team conferences always seem to create an unbalanced conference where one division is much stronger than the other and thus weakens the conference as a whole.

I feel the SEC is very balanced.
The ACC is very balanced as well.
The Big 12 I don't think is balanced that much because I think Oklahoma and Texas need to be in two separate divisions.

I think the Pac 10 is going to expand sooner or later. It just makes good business sense. Add two more teams, create a conference championship, and you can also get more teams in bowl games. I don't see how the conference loses when expanded to 12. The same goes for the Big 10.

duckseason
07-10-2008, 06:36 PM
I was just clerifying what someone else wrote that was misunderstood. But I guess there's always an excuse.

No. I didn't misunderstand anything. My response to his post reflects that.

Excuse?

What's the SEC's excuse for playing a bunch of nobodies on their non-conference slate despite having an extra 18 games to work with?

What's their excuse for failing to play at least 9 conference games?

What's their excuse for their recent performance against the Pac-10?

The Pac-10 consisting of 10 teams is not an excuse for anything. It's a fact. Just as much of a fact as the SEC consisting of 12 teams. Knowing these facts, reasonable minds can easily see that any basis for comparison is skewed in the SEC's favor.

Turtlepower
07-10-2008, 06:38 PM
I still love how people try to rank Georgia as the #2 team in the SEC even though they didn't even get to the championship game.

duckseason
07-10-2008, 06:39 PM
Your taking the top 8 teams from each conference. While it still may be an unfair comparison it's the only comparison that one could make until the Pac 10 adds two more teams.

Or until the SEC drops two teams. Not sure why it's the Pac-10 that needs changing when our system works better than that of the SEC or any other 11 or 12 team conference.

The bottom line is that you can't accurately compare a 10 team conference to a 12 team conference no matter how hard you try. The 12 team conference will always have all the advantages when it comes to abundance.

I think if someone wanted to compare them side by side like you guys were trying to do, the fairest way would be to remove the 6 and 7 teams from the SEC. Or, you could just remove the last two teams to join, which were South Carolina and Arkansas. But really, those teams are just as much a part of the SEC as anybody else. Just as the Mississippi schools are.

diabsoule
07-10-2008, 09:08 PM
No. I didn't misunderstand anything. My response to his post reflects that.

Excuse?

What's the SEC's excuse for playing a bunch of nobodies on their non-conference slate despite having an extra 18 games to work with?

What's their excuse for failing to play at least 9 conference games?

What's their excuse for their recent performance against the Pac-10?

The Pac-10 consisting of 10 teams is not an excuse for anything. It's a fact. Just as much of a fact as the SEC consisting of 12 teams. Knowing these facts, reasonable minds can easily see that any basis for comparison is skewed in the SEC's favor.

I know that for the 2008 schedule LSU was trying to add a top-tier team to play but no one wanted to play them. They extended invites to Texas Tech, Missouri, Rutgers, and one other school but all declined. That's how we ended up playing Appalachian State.

saintsfan912
07-10-2008, 09:45 PM
That's what I've told crap 10 fans but they never believe me. Its not like we can force someone to come play. Who wants to ruin their season with a loss to LSU?

Then there's the logistics of the situation. Money is the driving force when scheduling OOC games. Take the VT/LSU situation. We agreed to play back to back home and home games. We kept our end of the bargain, going to Blacksburg. They waited 4 damn years to return the favor, allegedly because 'they needed an extra home game for financial reasons'.

Then there's the realization that coaches and ADs get: No team with an outside shot of a great season wants to go to Death Valley. It is the most feared place in the nation to play, without a doubt.

So all in all, we can't force teams to play us. **** Colorado just cancelled their series with us. They realized they may have some good seasons coming up, why throw that away with losses to LSU in consecutive years?

YAYareaRB
07-10-2008, 10:47 PM
No. I didn't misunderstand anything. My response to his post reflects that.

Excuse?

What's the SEC's excuse for playing a bunch of nobodies on their non-conference slate despite having an extra 18 games to work with?

What's their excuse for failing to play at least 9 conference games?

What's their excuse for their recent performance against the Pac-10?

The Pac-10 consisting of 10 teams is not an excuse for anything. It's a fact. Just as much of a fact as the SEC consisting of 12 teams. Knowing these facts, reasonable minds can easily see that any basis for comparison is skewed in the SEC's favor.


THEIR recent performance against the Pac-10? Who is that you speak of? Tennessee lost to a good but underachieving Cal squad.. Who knew they would melt down during the mid season stretch? What else teams are you talking about?

DraftKidWonder
07-10-2008, 11:48 PM
I love how this thread is named the SEC vs. the Pac 10. More like how the SEC totally PWNS the Pac 10.

Juvenile Pac 10 fans. You all make me laugh.

duckseason
07-11-2008, 02:33 AM
That's what I've told crap 10 fans but they never believe me. Its not like we can force someone to come play. Who wants to ruin their season with a loss to LSU?

Then there's the logistics of the situation. Money is the driving force when scheduling OOC games. Take the VT/LSU situation. We agreed to play back to back home and home games. We kept our end of the bargain, going to Blacksburg. They waited 4 damn years to return the favor, allegedly because 'they needed an extra home game for financial reasons'.

Then there's the realization that coaches and ADs get: No team with an outside shot of a great season wants to go to Death Valley. It is the most feared place in the nation to play, without a doubt.

So all in all, we can't force teams to play us. **** Colorado just cancelled their series with us. They realized they may have some good seasons coming up, why throw that away with losses to LSU in consecutive years?

Is it that teams are afraid to come into Baton Rouge or is it that LSU is afraid to step outside Louisiana? From '04 to '12, there's a single away game on their OOC schedule. 1 freaking game in 9 years!! That's at Washington in '09. Funny how teams like ASU, Arizona, Oregon State and Washington seem so unafraid of that fearsome Death Valley. Perhaps after having to play in Autzen every few years, nothing seems all that scary.

Who wants to ruin their season with a loss to SC? Apparently plenty. Like Va Tech, BYU, Arkansas, Notre Dame, Colorado State, Hawaii, Syracuse, Nebraska, Ohio State, Virginia...etc

I mean, is LSU willing to travel to those places on a yearly basis like SC is? Or is it that all these schools fear LSU but not SC?

There is a lot of truth in what you're saying about the difficulty of coming to an agreement between two OOC opponents, but the facts remain.

duckseason
07-11-2008, 02:36 AM
THEIR recent performance against the Pac-10? Who is that you speak of? Tennessee lost to a good but underachieving Cal squad.. Who knew they would melt down during the mid season stretch? What else teams are you talking about?
When I say recent, I don't mean just this past year. I'm talking enough games to have a decent sample size. You go back a decade, the Pac-10 leads 9-6 in head to head match ups.

Now that stat certainly isn't the end all or anything like that, especially when you consider that one team was heavily favored in many of those matchups. But numbers like that combined with many of the other points made in this thread serve to counter the ridiculous claims that the Pac-10 is in any way weak or even inferior to the SEC. I'll say again that I don't believe the Pac-10 to be superior to the SEC. There are legitimate arguments to be made for both sides. Those who fail to see that aren't seeing things from an accurate or reasonable perspective.

Sniper
07-11-2008, 02:38 AM
I still love how people try to rank Georgia as the #2 team in the SEC even though they didn't even get to the championship game.

Oh my ******* God someone else actually gets it! ZOMGZ GEORGIA DAWWWWWGZZZZZ SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE NASHUNUL TYTIL GAMEZZZZZZ!

Oh whoops, they didn't even make the top 2 in their own conference? Oh, wow.

Turtlepower
07-11-2008, 02:40 AM
Oh my ******* God someone else actually gets it! ZOMGZ GEORGIA DAWWWWWGZZZZZ SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE NASHUNUL TYTIL GAMEZZZZZZ!

Oh whoops, they didn't even make the top 2 in their own conference? Oh, wow.

Win your ****ing division before claiming to be in the NC.

Sniper
07-11-2008, 02:41 AM
Is it that teams are afraid to come into Baton Rouge or is it that LSU is afraid to step outside Louisiana? From '04 to '12, there's a single away game on their OOC schedule. 1 freaking game in 9 years!! That's at Washington in '09. Funny how teams like ASU, Arizona, Oregon State and Washington seem so unafraid of that fearsome Death Valley. Perhaps after having to play in Autzen every few years, nothing seems all that scary.



To add to that, isn't this year's game at Arizona State the first time in 4,918 years that Georgia has left the South for an OOC game? Thought I heard something about that.

Sniper
07-11-2008, 02:42 AM
Win your ****ing division before claiming to be in the NC.

But but but but....THEY WUZ PLAYINZ DA BESTTTTTTTT EVARRRRRRRRR AT DA TYMUH OV DA NASHUNUL TAYTLE GAMEZZZZZZZZZZ! DUSINT DAT KOUNT 4 ANYTINGZ? UGA HAZ ESSSSSSSSSSSEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEECCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC CCCCCC SPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDDDDDDDDDDZZZZZZZZZ!

duckseason
07-11-2008, 02:49 AM
Same thing with Kansas in the Big-12. Somehow they deserved a BCS bid despite being the 3rd place team in the Big-12. They beat K-State, Colorado, Texas AM, Nebraska and Oklahoma State, and they get handed a BCS bid.

Missouri beats KANSAS, Illinois, Nebraska, Texas Tech, Colorado, Texas AM, K-State, oh but wait, they lost twice to Oklahoma. You know, the conference opponent that Kansas never had to face.

Turtlepower
07-11-2008, 02:55 AM
3 3rd place conference teams made the BCS last year (Kansas, Georgia, Illinois), but the PAC-10 co-champ didn't...

duckseason
07-11-2008, 03:13 AM
3 3rd place conference teams made the BCS last year (Kansas, Georgia, Illinois), but the PAC-10 co-champ didn't...
Dude, we totally need a conference championship game so we can start getting some respect and our third place team can play in a BCS game.

SuperKevin
07-11-2008, 04:37 AM
i hate when people compare conferences. They are all different and have their own strengths and weaknesses. Deal with it.

duckseason
07-11-2008, 06:15 AM
i hate when people compare conferences. They are all different and have their own strengths and weaknesses. Deal with it.
You can say that about anything though. Do you hate when people compare Chevy and Ford? Do you tell people to just "deal with it" when they're discussing the pluses and minuses of Macs and PC's?

I mean, I agree that all conferences have their own strengths and weaknesses, but I see nothing wrong with discussing or debating those differences. To me, that's just part of being a college football fan. And really, that's what this forum is all about. I mean you have your requisite 3 out of 4 threads where everybody is called upon to come in and announce the best player on their favorite team or best player at a particular position on their favorite team, and then you have threads like this where there's a bit of discussion about a specific topic.

And if you hate this type of discussion so much, why click the link? Is the thread title unspecific?

SuperKevin
07-11-2008, 09:39 AM
You can say that about anything though. Do you hate when people compare Chevy and Ford? Do you tell people to just "deal with it" when they're discussing the pluses and minuses of Macs and PC's?

I mean, I agree that all conferences have their own strengths and weaknesses, but I see nothing wrong with discussing or debating those differences. To me, that's just part of being a college football fan. And really, that's what this forum is all about. I mean you have your requisite 3 out of 4 threads where everybody is called upon to come in and announce the best player on their favorite team or best player at a particular position on their favorite team, and then you have threads like this where there's a bit of discussion about a specific topic.

And if you hate this type of discussion so much, why click the link? Is the thread title unspecific?

I click it to see if anyone has anything worthwhile to say but alas it's 50 posts of homer rants and bickering.

kmartin575
07-11-2008, 11:58 AM
I think it's more the ones that people expect them to win. Example, when Cal played Texas Tech during Aaron Rodgers last season, USC vs UT in that NC, and various other games (I dont remember them and dont care enough to do so). Not saying that I agree but that's just what I have seen. Personally, I think the Pac 10 has more talent, than most the Big 12 teams but the problem is that they beat up on each other.

I seriously doubt that. The combination of Oklahoma, Missouri, Kansas, Texas, and Texas Tech is better than any 5 teams the Pac-10 has to offer.

YAYareaRB
07-11-2008, 12:09 PM
What my point is is that the Pac-10 is not as balanced as the SEC. USC is ALWAYS the top team. Then there's the other team that's gonna make a run THAT season. It's always different in the SEC. There's always 3 or 4 really good and capable teams.

504 to ATL
07-11-2008, 09:47 PM
USC is ALWAYS the top team. Then there's the other team that's gonna make a run THAT season.

+1

I seriously dont see how fans cant agree with this. Oh Oregon, yep you were that hot team last year, what else have you done? Its a cycle for that second place team, while USC is always dominating the top spot.

DragonFireKai
07-12-2008, 12:46 AM
What my point is is that the Pac-10 is not as balanced as the SEC. USC is ALWAYS the top team. Then there's the other team that's gonna make a run THAT season. It's always different in the SEC. There's always 3 or 4 really good and capable teams.

Drop USC from 2002 to 2007 in the SEC, and they'd have the best record in the conference six years in a row. USC has had one of the most dominant stretches in college football history. They've outright flogged some very good SEC teams during that run. You put USC in any other conference, and it'll be USC and everyone else.

YAYareaRB
07-12-2008, 01:15 AM
Drop USC from 2002 to 2007 in the SEC, and they'd have the best record in the conference six years in a row. USC has had one of the most dominant stretches in college football history. They've outright flogged some very good SEC teams during that run. You put USC in any other conference, and it'll be USC and everyone else.

That doesn't make sense. USC has played 45 games against Pac-10 opponents over that 5 year stretch. You can't just say SEC teams will play USC exactly how Pac-10 teams did during that stretch. They would have let up some losses to the few good LSU teams, Florida teams, Georgia teams, Auburn teams.

504 to ATL
07-12-2008, 03:18 AM
Drop USC from 2002 to 2007 in the SEC, and they'd have the best record in the conference six years in a row.

Wow, someone makes a bold statement. Until USC proves they can play a physical style of game play they would also drop games in an SEC schedule. The reason the top tier SEC teams have one or two losses a season is because over stretches of the season they have to play teams like LSU, UGA, and UF back to back to back. In those stretches the week before weakens a team by a huge amount for the following game.

kmartin575
07-12-2008, 03:58 AM
Drop USC from 2002 to 2007 in the SEC, and they'd have the best record in the conference six years in a row. USC has had one of the most dominant stretches in college football history. They've outright flogged some very good SEC teams during that run. You put USC in any other conference, and it'll be USC and everyone else.

And that again proves the point that the SEC is better. USC has a better record because the majority of the rest of their conference is crap. SEC teams are better overall and therefor they will often lose more games due to better competition.

duckseason
07-12-2008, 04:22 AM
Wow, someone makes a bold statement. Until USC proves they can play a physical style of game play they would also drop games in an SEC schedule. The reason the top tier SEC teams have one or two losses a season is because over stretches of the season they have to play teams like LSU, UGA, and UF back to back to back. In those stretches the week before weakens a team by a huge amount for the following game.
Right. The SEC is clearly far too physical for them. You know who took the worst beating from the Trojans during this six year span? That's right, the SEC's very own Arkansas. They drop 70 on them, shut out Auburn, yet somehow they aren't quite physical enough for the big bad SEC, right? They haven't proven a damn thing over the past 6 years. The NFL is coveting a bunch of finesse guys when they cultivate those fertile grounds out in LA each year.

Oregon State, UCLA, Oregon, Cal, Stanford and Washington State all beat the Trojans during this run. SC scored 70 on none of them.

They have more trouble in their own conference than any SEC team does, because they play everybody every year. On top of that, they take on solid teams from all across the country to fill out their OOC slate each year, rather than patsies and AA's.

You got it backwards.

THE PAC-10 PLAYS A MORE COMPETITIVE SCHEDULE THAN THE SEC.

How was that UGA/LSU game this past year? What's that? They didn't play? I thought they were both SEC powers who claim each other as evidence to their grueling schedules?

See, you can't rattle off Florida, Tennessee, Georgia, LSU, Alabama and Auburn and point to how difficult it is in the Southeast, because for each of them, they miss one or two of each other each year. Where's Alabama and Arkansas on Florida's schedule last year? You think SC loses to Oregon State and UCLA in '06 if they're busy playing Wofford and Ole Miss instead?

All this talk about one-year wonders in the Pac-10. How is it a conference weakness to have fluidity at the top each year? In reality, this shows strength. When was the last time Ole Miss won the SEC? Vandy? Kentucky? Miss St? South Carolina? Arkansas?

1976. Kentucky won the damn thing over three decades ago. Hell, before that, you have to go back another dozen years, where Ole Miss won a few in the '60s. Are these teams not as much a part of this conference as the top 6? That's been a 6 team conference for as long as anyone can remember.

In the Pac-10, ALL TEN TEAMS HAVE AT LEAST TIED FOR THE CONFERENCE CHAMPIONSHIP SINCE 1993.

Which conference slate is tougher to grind through again? 9 conference games with tough OOC opponents sprinkled in between, or 8 conference games loaded with home games vs AA and inferior opponents?

You think LSU is more beat up after playing Tulane in the Superdome than SC is after traveling to Virginia or ND or VT or Nebraska?

You think it's easier for ASU to come into Autzen and get a win than it is for Georgia to step into Neyland?

You know what's funny is that I'm not even disrespecting the SEC here. Just presenting the truth. Sounds bad when it's all on paper. But really, I have a ton of respect for the teams in the SEC. I recognize that they are an elite conference, just as the Pac-10 is. I'm obviously a fan of the Pac-10, but I can't sit here and say it's a superior conference. Too many variables and swings from season to season. Why is it that SEC fans can't say the same about the Pac-10? Especially with the facts staring them in the face?

duckseason
07-12-2008, 04:27 AM
And that again proves the point that the SEC is better. USC has a better record because the majority of the rest of their conference is crap. SEC teams are better overall and therefor they will often lose more games due to better competition.

The SEC doesn't lose more games. They had 10 bowl eligible teams last year. The Pac-10 had 5.

And the majority of this "crap" conference has actually beaten SC during their current run. Stanford and WSU included. Unlike the SEC and most other conferences, there are no gimmes in the Pac-10.

THE PAC-10 PLAYS MORE COMPETITIVE SCHEDULES THAN THE SEC.

YAYareaRB
07-12-2008, 10:43 AM
The SEC doesn't lose more games. They had 10 bowl eligible teams last year. The Pac-10 had 5.

And the majority of this "crap" conference has actually beaten SC during their current run. Stanford and WSU included. Unlike the SEC and most other conferences, there are no gimmes in the Pac-10.

THE PAC-10 PLAYS MORE COMPETITIVE SCHEDULES THAN THE SEC.

If we play weaker schedules how was it that LSU (from the SEC of course) was the only team in history to play in and win the national championship with two losses getting marked up by two SEC losses along the way? I'd like to see USC lose two games to #5 and #7 in your tough conference and still be able to play in the NC.

DragonFireKai
07-12-2008, 12:19 PM
That doesn't make sense. USC has played 45 games against Pac-10 opponents over that 5 year stretch. You can't just say SEC teams will play USC exactly how Pac-10 teams did during that stretch. They would have let up some losses to the few good LSU teams, Florida teams, Georgia teams, Auburn teams.

Are we talking about the same Auburn that USC beat twice in a row by a combined score of 47-17? That Auburn?

How about in 06 when Arkansas finished 2nd in the SEC, and USC beat them 50-14 at Arkansas?

Given that over the past ten years, the Pac 10 has a winning record against the SEC, you can't simply write off the pac 10 as a weaker schedule. USC has proven itself against the SEC, they've proven themselves against the Big Ten, against the Big XII, and against the ACC. The only BCS conference that USC hasn't played during that run is the Big East. They've only lost two non conference games, and did so against a non conference slate that had no FCS teams.

If we play weaker schedules how was it that LSU (from the SEC of course) was the only team in history to play in and win the national championship with two losses getting marked up by two SEC losses along the way? I'd like to see USC lose two games to #5 and #7 in your tough conference and still be able to play in the NC.

And all it took was a historic streak of other teams dropping the ball. If LSU had dropped that last game to Tennessee, USC would have been in the Championship Game. Keep in mind that they were one spot below LSU when LSU got the jump to #2 in the rankings, if they had dropped the ball like everyone else did, it would have been USC making that jump, and doing it with loses to #4 and #9. LSU didn't get into the NC game of their own merits, they got in because everyone above them fumbled their way out of position. Being the weakest BCS championship team in history isn't a mark of a great team, it's the mark of a mediocre overall season on the national level.

saintsfan912
07-12-2008, 12:46 PM
Is it that teams are afraid to come into Baton Rouge or is it that LSU is afraid to step outside Louisiana? From '04 to '12, there's a single away game on their OOC schedule. 1 freaking game in 9 years!! That's at Washington in '09. Funny how teams like ASU, Arizona, Oregon State and Washington seem so unafraid of that fearsome Death Valley. Perhaps after having to play in Autzen every few years, nothing seems all that scary.

Who wants to ruin their season with a loss to SC? Apparently plenty. Like Va Tech, BYU, Arkansas, Notre Dame, Colorado State, Hawaii, Syracuse, Nebraska, Ohio State, Virginia...etc

I mean, is LSU willing to travel to those places on a yearly basis like SC is? Or is it that all these schools fear LSU but not SC?

There is a lot of truth in what you're saying about the difficulty of coming to an agreement between two OOC opponents, but the facts remain.


What facts are you talking about?

saintsfan912
07-12-2008, 01:01 PM
I have no problem saying the Pac 10 is competitive. They are very competitive. I just don't see them with 3 BCS titles like the SEC does. They have 1 team in contention, period. The SEC has at least 2 every year. Don't say its because we play weaker schedules. That's a crap arguement.

None of us know the logistics that go into making a schedule so none of us can say anything about it. Who knows why UT, OSU, USC, ect haven't scheduled a home and home with LSU. I don't and none of you do either. The only reason VT set up the home and home with LSU a few years back was because we were still rebuilding and not a threat. Too bad they picked the wrong year to follow up and got their asses handed to them. Weren't they in the top 10 at the end of this year? Who knows why Colorado cancelled their home and home with LSU. I sure don't. It would have been nice though.

Don't throw that ASU game in LSUs faces either. You can't seriously take that game into account. You try coming off the worst natural disaster in history and play a football game. You try and support the state of LA in Baton Rouge everyday of the week in the days leading up to that game and then travel to Arizona to play a "home" game. Please.

Either way you look at it, the Pac 10 and SEC are both highly competitive conferences. Bottom line. They are the 2 elite conferences in the nation, sorry Big 10/XII. But until you add 3 BCS titles to any of those conferences the SEC is still KING.

saintsfan912
07-12-2008, 01:04 PM
Drop USC from 2002 to 2007 in the SEC, and they'd have the best record in the conference six years in a row. USC has had one of the most dominant stretches in college football history. They've outright flogged some very good SEC teams during that run. You put USC in any other conference, and it'll be USC and everyone else.

Next time you say they had one of the most dominant stretches in history, check your facts.

LSU this decade - 82-22 - 2 BCS titles
USC this decade - 81-21 - 1 BCS title

iworshipbender
07-12-2008, 03:36 PM
They've got two national titles though ;)

saintsfan912
07-12-2008, 03:39 PM
They have 1 BCS title, thats what counts.

iworshipbender
07-12-2008, 03:47 PM
No, I'm pretty sure being ranked #1 in both polls almost all season and missing out on the BCS championship game to an Oklahoma team that lost it's final game and dominating Michigan earned them a national championship.

saintsfan912
07-12-2008, 03:53 PM
Earned them an AP title, too bad its not the BCS title. Not LSU's fault they got jobbed by Bob Stoops' sorry ass. Just because you're #1 going into bowl games doesn't give you the right to just claim a title, doesn't work that way.

Iamcanadian
07-12-2008, 04:01 PM
I still think any argument that the Pac 10 is somehow equal to the SEC is absurd. I'm not an SEC fan but I have to give them their due after the last 2 NC's were won by SEC teams.
The Pac 10 remains USC and then everybody else until such time as the Pac 10 minus USC starts to get invited to more BSC Bowl games.
Oregon and Cal have been quite good over the last few years but neither has replaced USC as the top team in the conference nationally. I suspect both Oregon and Cal would do OK if they were SEC teams but I don't think they win that conference. The rest of the Pac 10 I don't think could be much of anything if they played in the SEC. Arizona St. is on the rise as well but that still leaves the Pac 10 well behind the SEC as a conference. Oregon last year might have brought the Pac 10 up in my eyes if injuries hadn't crippled that team but unfortunately for Oregon, your QB got hurt.
I do think the the Pac 10 has a legitimate claim to be one of the better conferences year in and year out but they are not as strong from top to bottom as the SEC, of course no other conference currently is either, so until the SEC is brought down to earth by either not making the NC game or losing in it, they remain alone at the top. College football is always in flux since each team's stars graduate year after year. The SEC doesn't look unbeatable this season but until some team gets it done they are on top and the rest of us are looking up. I give them their due.
I think the real strength of the SEC lies in their overall quality of their HC's, I just don't see another conference matching that strength but even that doesn't guarantee they'll win the NC this coming year. Sooner or later they stumble and some other conference will win the NC, and we will no doubt hear their fans claiming their conference to be #1.

Iamcanadian
07-12-2008, 04:24 PM
They have 1 BCS title, thats what counts.

No it's not. Everybody recognizes that they tied for the National Championship as they got screwed by the BCS. Oklahoma was simply overrated for a few years and it screwed Auburn and USC out of appearing in the NC game. We will never know who deserved to be BCS champions those years. By the rules, Michigan got screwed out of the NC game 2 years ago, that's the BCS folks and there is not a thing we can do about it. Even last year, LSU didn't make it to the BCS without controversy, there were a # of 2 loss teams all deserving of the invitation, they all got jobbed by the BCS but who cares. We have to live with what we have unfortunately and for now the SEC has won 2 in a row. I accept it but don't get carried away using the BCS system to prove anything, it's flawed as everybody knows.
As long as there is no playoff system, we have really no facts that can support any claims.
I will never support a playoff system unless the colleges are prepared to cut back on season games so student athletes aren't risking life and limb to get schools more revenue and satisfy the fans thirst for a playoff system. Thirteen games plus a bowl game is already far too much and any playoff system that adds say 3 games to a teams schedule means they are very close to playing a professional schedule. No other college sport comes close to approaching a professional schedule in total # of games played in a season. But alas that's another topic.

saintsfan912
07-12-2008, 04:33 PM
No doubt. 3 extra games is totally ridiculous. Football is by far the most grueling sport and adding 3 games would just be too much.

All the coaches in the nation agreed to this system right now so nobody can ***** and moan about the system. LSU has 2 BCS titles, 2 crystal trophies. That's what matters since '00 and that's the way everyone voted the way football champions are crowned. And we can only imagine how those votes would have gone in '03 if the AP voters weren't biased towards USC all season. Not saying it would have changed anything, just a thought.

YAYareaRB
07-12-2008, 05:31 PM
Are we talking about the same Auburn that USC beat twice in a row by a combined score of 47-17? That Auburn?

How about in 06 when Arkansas finished 2nd in the SEC, and USC beat them 50-14 at Arkansas?

Given that over the past ten years, the Pac 10 has a winning record against the SEC, you can't simply write off the pac 10 as a weaker schedule. USC has proven itself against the SEC, they've proven themselves against the Big Ten, against the Big XII, and against the ACC. The only BCS conference that USC hasn't played during that run is the Big East. They've only lost two non conference games, and did so against a non conference slate that had no FCS teams.



And all it took was a historic streak of other teams dropping the ball. If LSU had dropped that last game to Tennessee, USC would have been in the Championship Game. Keep in mind that they were one spot below LSU when LSU got the jump to #2 in the rankings, if they had dropped the ball like everyone else did, it would have been USC making that jump, and doing it with loses to #4 and #9. LSU didn't get into the NC game of their own merits, they got in because everyone above them fumbled their way out of position. Being the weakest BCS championship team in history isn't a mark of a great team, it's the mark of a mediocre overall season on the national level.

When was the last time USC played LSU? Florida? Georgia? Don't walk around here with falsified sense of accomplishments because USC beat a couple weaker SEC teams. Could I say Kentucky would be successful if they went around the Pac-10 beating teams like Stanford, Wash St., and Wash? No because they aren't playing the best teams in the conference. They haven't proven **** to me because you think proving yourself against a conference is beating two teams.

It wasn't USC making the jump because their schedule wasn't strong enough and they lost to Stanford. Because LSU lost twice to very capable SEC teams they were still in contention of the NC. Sure give them no credit, they didn't drop a late season conference game but still were strong enough to remain top 5. Nobody called them the weakest, they showed they weren't the weakest on gameday. Personally, I thought the season this year was pretty exciting and interesting.

iworshipbender
07-12-2008, 06:02 PM
The Pac 10 remains USC and then everybody else until such time as the Pac 10 minus USC starts to get invited to more BSC Bowl games.
The Pac-10 has been robbed of being in BCS games for 3 of the last four years. ASU last year, Oregon two years before that(Notre dame limped into the BCS by struggling against STANFORD, and had one more loss than Oregon) And Cal in 2004.

saintsfan912
07-12-2008, 06:04 PM
Blame Hawaii for that last year. Oklahoma 2 years ago.

iworshipbender
07-12-2008, 06:06 PM
No, I blame the goddamn Rose Bowl for taking Illinois instead of Georgia. Maybe if that had happened, ASU would have been invited to the Fiesta bowl.

Here's their thinking: HURR DURR, LETS KEEP TRADITION BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT A CAL/TEXAS SITUATION THIS YEAR DURRRRRR.

Cal had a real argument that year, but there was no reason to put Illinois in.

DragonFireKai
07-12-2008, 06:08 PM
Next time you say they had one of the most dominant stretches in history, check your facts.

LSU this decade - 82-22 - 2 BCS titles
USC this decade - 81-21 - 1 BCS title

from 2002 to 2007:

USC: 70-8, outscored opponents by average score of 38-17, 8 losses by average margin of 3.75 points. Played 0 FCS teams, played 6 mid majors, played 21 BCS non conference games. 1 undefeated season, 2 National Championships, 3 Heisman Trophy Winners.

LSU: 64-15, outscored opponents 32-16, 15 losses by an average of 12.27 points. Played 3 FCS teams, 13 Mid Majors, and 12 BCS non conference games. 0 undefeated seasons, 2 national championships, 0 heisman trophy winners.

You could take any six year slice of any schools history, and it'll have a tough time comparing to the six year run Carroll's put together.

When was the last time USC played LSU? Florida? Georgia? Don't walk around here with falsified sense of accomplishments because USC beat a couple weaker SEC teams. Could I say Kentucky would be successful if they went around the Pac-10 beating teams like Stanford, Wash St., and Wash? No because they aren't playing the best teams in the conference. They haven't proven **** to me because you think proving yourself against a conference is beating two teams.

Beating the second place team in the conference by 5 TDs on their home field is a statement of dominance. You can't write that off as a weaker SEC team, It was the second place team that year. How many of the SEC powerhouses hung half a hundred on Arkansas that season?

That doesn't make sense. USC has played 45 games against Pac-10 opponents over that 5 year stretch. You can't just say SEC teams will play USC exactly how Pac-10 teams did during that stretch. They would have let up some losses to the few good LSU teams, Florida teams, Georgia teams, Auburn teams.

Are we talking about the same Auburn that USC beat twice in a row by a combined score of 47-17? That Auburn?

You're contradicting yourself. USC shut out Auburn, at Auburn. Do you know how many teams have done that in the past 6 years? One. USC. We aren't talking about USC picking off Ole Miss. We're talking Auburn. War Eagle, shot out of the sky.

Turtlepower
07-12-2008, 06:28 PM
No, I blame the goddamn Rose Bowl for taking Illinois instead of Georgia. Maybe if that had happened, ASU would have been invited to the Fiesta bowl.

Here's their thinking: HURR DURR, LETS KEEP TRADITION BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT A CAL/TEXAS SITUATION THIS YEAR DURRRRRR.

Cal had a real argument that year, but there was no reason to put Illinois in.

Actually the Sugar Bowl claimed Georgia, so the Rose Bowl didn't have a choice to pick them.

iworshipbender
07-12-2008, 06:32 PM
I thought the Rose Bowl was able to pick it's teams first. Regardless, they had 10 teams they could have chosen that were more deserving than Illinois. Hell, even a rematch with ASU would have been a better game than Illinois.

Turtlepower
07-12-2008, 06:34 PM
I thought the Rose Bowl was able to pick it's teams first. Regardless, they had 10 teams they could have chosen that were more deserving than Illinois. Hell, even a rematch with ASU would have been a better game than Illinois.

Each bowl is allowed to claim one team usually due to conference affiliation. Sugar claimed Georgia.

iworshipbender
07-12-2008, 06:36 PM
I see. If the Rose Bowl HAD picked someone like Kansas or Missouri, then you'd think the Orange Bowl would choose ASU over anyone else.

Turtlepower
07-12-2008, 06:37 PM
I see. If the Rose Bowl HAD picked someone like Kansas or Missouri, then you'd think the Orange Bowl would choose ASU over anyone else.

The Rose Bowl should have picked Missouri or West Virginia.

DragonFireKai
07-12-2008, 06:40 PM
I see. If the Rose Bowl HAD picked someone like Kansas or Missouri, then you'd think the Orange Bowl would choose ASU over anyone else.

The problem was the BCS was contractually bound to take Hawaii. Missouri should have gone ahead of Kansas. Oklahoma should just be barred from BCS bowls from here on out, so should the ACC champions.

DragonFireKai
07-12-2008, 06:40 PM
The Rose Bowl should have picked Missouri or West Virginia.

West Virginia would have been a good game, Missouri... not so much.

iworshipbender
07-12-2008, 07:00 PM
The problem was the BCS was contractually bound to take Hawaii. Missouri should have gone ahead of Kansas. Oklahoma should just be barred from BCS bowls from here on out, so should the ACC champions.

I wasn't arguing about Hawaii, they deserved to get slaughtered because of their 12-0 record against crap competition. But had the Rose Bowl taken a team worthy of going to a BCS bowl game instead of Illinois, does anyone take Illinois over ASU? I'd hope not.

Bruce
07-12-2008, 11:25 PM
from 2002 to 2007:

USC: 70-8, outscored opponents by average score of 38-17, 8 losses by average margin of 3.75 points. Played 0 FCS teams, played 6 mid majors, played 21 BCS non conference games. 1 undefeated season, 2 National Championships, 3 Heisman Trophy Winners.

LSU: 64-15, outscored opponents 32-16, 15 losses by an average of 12.27 points. Played 3 FCS teams, 13 Mid Majors, and 12 BCS non conference games. 0 undefeated seasons, 2 national championships, 0 heisman trophy winners.

You could take any six year slice of any schools history, and it'll have a tough time comparing to the six year run Carroll's put together.



Beating the second place team in the conference by 5 TDs on their home field is a statement of dominance. You can't write that off as a weaker SEC team, It was the second place team that year. How many of the SEC powerhouses hung half a hundred on Arkansas that season?





You're contradicting yourself. USC shut out Auburn, at Auburn. Do you know how many teams have done that in the past 6 years? One. USC. We aren't talking about USC picking off Ole Miss. We're talking Auburn. War Eagle, shot out of the sky.
I have no bias either way but LSU is the team of the decade so far.

DragonFireKai
07-12-2008, 11:35 PM
I have no bias either way but LSU is the team of the decade so far.

How do you figure?

Bruce
07-12-2008, 11:36 PM
How do you figure?

BCS Titles.

Byrd430
07-12-2008, 11:47 PM
I enjoy watching the Pac 10 every year, but the SEC is hands down the best...

And I don't want to hear it, Pac 10 fans...

Holiday Bowls.... 'Nuff said...

Byrd430
07-12-2008, 11:55 PM
By the way, USC played Auburn before Auburn really emerged as a top SEC team.


2003 Auburn team was 8-5 and really struggled that season, particularly out of the gate.



That being said, I've been begging for USC to play an elite LSU-Florida-other SEC team to settle that argument once and for all.

Still, USC is all the Pac-10 offers...

504 to ATL
07-13-2008, 12:28 AM
I wonder if the day will ever come when duckseason finally sees the light and admits that the Pac 10 is only USC?

USC beat Auburn that year, big whoop who didnt. USC plays Virginia and Nebraska, please they blow.

Sniper
07-13-2008, 12:47 AM
I wonder if the day will ever come when duckseason finally sees the light and admits that the Pac 10 is only USC?

USC beat Auburn that year, big whoop who didnt. USC plays Virginia and Nebraska, please they blow.

You're right. The SEC's OOC schedule of Bumble **** Tech, Middle of Nowhere State, and a 2-10 1AA team is surely better than UVA and Nebraska.

Sniper
07-13-2008, 12:50 AM
I enjoy watching the Pac 10 every year, but the SEC is hands down the best...

And I don't want to hear it, Pac 10 fans...

Holiday Bowls.... 'Nuff said...

Holiday Bowls? Are you ******* kidding me?

Sniper
07-13-2008, 12:51 AM
That being said, I've been begging for USC to play an elite LSU-Florida-other SEC team to settle that argument once and for all.



They probably would but LSU, Florida etc...don't leave SEC country for OOC games. Heaven forbid they don't have the home field advantage (ahem, bowl games)

Paranoidmoonduck
07-13-2008, 01:27 AM
Realistically, as much as I love the Pac-10 and its style of football, I don't think anything beats the heart of most SEC teams' schedules. It's brutal. Overall, I do think that week to week the Pac-10 offers some of the most competitive football in the college game, and that is because it is the least likely conference to schedule creampuff teams in between big games.

Then again, if I'm an Athletic Director and my team has to face Tennessee, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, and LSU in a 6 week span, you better bet I'd be motivated to give the guys a break by scheduling the Northwesteastern Tech Manatees in between two of those games.

504 to ATL
07-13-2008, 04:12 AM
You're right. The SEC's OOC schedule of Bumble **** Tech, Middle of Nowhere State, and a 2-10 1AA team is surely better than UVA and Nebraska.

No SEC fan is touting their OOC schedule as murderous or anything like that. I'm just pointing out that those teams are weak, so dont use them as a statement saying your OOC schedule is brutal.

Nice triple post by the way you troll.

duckseason
07-13-2008, 04:48 AM
By the way, USC played Auburn before Auburn really emerged as a top SEC team. They also played in '02, when Auburn finished 9-4. Auburn was already a top-tier SEC team at that point, we all know that.

And you can't have it both ways. Auburn can't be rattled off as evidence to SEC superiority in one breath, while being claimed as mediocre in the next. During those two seasons, they beat LSU, Alabama, Penn State, Tennessee, Arkansas, Alabama and Wisconsin. If you remember, that shutout was considered very impressive at the time. Auburn was ranked 6th in both polls, and was considered a favorite to win the SEC that year.


2003 Auburn team was 8-5 and really struggled that season, particularly out of the gate.
Right, the first game of the season was SC. We all know they struggled in that one. A 6th ranked elite SEC team had their season derailed by a team from the Pac-10. Downplay it all you want, but SC played a damn impressive game. Are LSU's conference wins this past year unimpressive, or were all 8 teams they played better than that '03 Auburn squad? Not one of their conference wins was as impressive as SC's shutout of Auburn in '03.

That being said, I've been begging for USC to play an elite LSU-Florida-other SEC team to settle that argument once and for all.

Auburn was and still is an elite SEC team. If not, then tell all these SEC guys to stop including them in their lists of superior SEC teams. Can't have it both ways. Oh, and we don't need to see SC play LSU. Arizona State and Oregon State already thoroughly proved that even middle of the road Pac-10 teams can hang with the SEC's best. Between them, they lost to LSU by a total of 5 points in '04 and '05. We all know that everybody on the Beavers deserved the win other than Serna, who missed what was it? 3 PAT's? But a loss it was. No disputing that at all. But for big bad LSU to struggle so badly against a team that lost to SC, Oregon, Stanford and UCLA (ASU) and a team that lost to Boise St, Arizona St, Cal and USC (Oregon State)....how does that not show Pac-10 strength? Why is it that SEC fans can't respect a conference that has got the better of them over the past decade?

Still, USC is all the Pac-10 offers...
Allow me to refresh your memory-

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/boxscore?gameId=272510130

That's nothing though. I bet half the teams in the SEC could match that. Like maybe Florida?

http://scores.espn.go.com/ncf/preview?gameId=273072483

Notice how these are the #1 and #2 teams in the Pac-10, 8 weeks into the season. the 4th and 5th ranked teams in the nation at the time.

Wait, so the Trojans weren't dominating the conference? What happened to mighty SC? How quickly we forget-

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/boxscore?gameId=273002483

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/boxscore?gameId=272790030

Wait, wasn't Cal a major player as well?

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/boxscore?gameId=272440025

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/boxscore?gameId=272722483

Yep. Nothing to see out west but SC. There weren't 3 other Pac-10 teams with legit national title hopes in '07. Cal was 5-0 and #2 in the nation after their trip to Autzen. ASU was 8-0 and #4 in the nation prior to their trip to Autzen. Oregon was 8-1 and #2 in the nation after beating ASU. SC was a contender from the start, the #1 team in the nation for the first 4 weeks of the season.

Which 5 teams out in the SEC can say that? Florida, LSU...and who again? Is that all the SEC has to offer? Of course not. The SEC has much to offer in the way of contenders. I have tons of respect for many of their teams. Seems odd that so many don't feel the same way about a conference as great as the Pac-10.

But hey, everybody is entitled to their own opinion whether they understand the facts, or not.

duckseason
07-13-2008, 04:55 AM
Realistically, as much as I love the Pac-10 and its style of football, I don't think anything beats the heart of most SEC teams' schedules. It's brutal. Overall, I do think that week to week the Pac-10 offers some of the most competitive football in the college game, and that is because it is the least likely conference to schedule creampuff teams in between big games.

Then again, if I'm an Athletic Director and my team has to face Tennessee, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, and LSU in a 6 week span, you better bet I'd be motivated to give the guys a break by scheduling the Northwesteastern Tech Manatees in between two of those games.

Thing is, this scenario occurs very rarely. The norm for the SEC is actually for each team to miss 1 or two of those teams each year. Obviously none of those teams can face themselves, so realistically, 2 or 3 of those teams will show up on each of those teams' schedule each year, on average.

Compare that to having to play SC, ASU, Oregon and Oregon State if you're a team like Cal. Every single year. Half the teams play 5 conference road games each year. Most SEC teams play 5 road games total. Sometimes only 4.

Look at Oregon's conference slate this year, for example. SC, Cal, ASU, WSU and Oregon State, all on the road. Their break between trips to SC, ASU and Cal? A visit from UCLA. There are no breaks in the Pac-10. Sure you'll see some lopsided games here and there, but for the most part, it's any given Saturday. Most teams play their 3 OOC games consecutively, and then it's nothing but a grueling conference slate the rest of the way. No bye week visits from directional joe or AA jane. No missing out on SC and Oregon, ever.

In short, the odds of a good team losing a conference game is higher in the Pac-10 than it is in the SEC. They simply play more games, and they receive less breaks and more tests in between.

I realize it's been drilled into everybody's heads for so long that the SEC is superior in every way, but that perception does not match reality. That is one hell of a conference, but the same is true of the Pac-10.

keylime_5
07-13-2008, 10:08 AM
BCS Titles.

But they also only won like 3 conference titles. I think USC is the team of this decade so far with LSU, OSU, Oklahoma, Texas,Florida right behind.

Iamcanadian
07-13-2008, 10:50 AM
Thing is, this scenario occurs very rarely. The norm for the SEC is actually for each team to miss 1 or two of those teams each year. Obviously none of those teams can face themselves, so realistically, 2 or 3 of those teams will show up on each of those teams' schedule each year, on average.

Compare that to having to play SC, ASU, Oregon and Oregon State if you're a team like Cal. Every single year. Half the teams play 5 conference road games each year. Most SEC teams play 5 road games total. Sometimes only 4.

Look at Oregon's conference slate this year, for example. SC, Cal, ASU, WSU and Oregon State, all on the road. Their break between trips to SC, ASU and Cal? A visit from UCLA. There are no breaks in the Pac-10. Sure you'll see some lopsided games here and there, but for the most part, it's any given Saturday. Most teams play their 3 OOC games consecutively, and then it's nothing but a grueling conference slate the rest of the way. No bye week visits from directional joe or AA jane. No missing out on SC and Oregon, ever.

In short, the odds of a good team losing a conference game is higher in the Pac-10 than it is in the SEC. They simply play more games, and they receive less breaks and more tests in between.

I realize it's been drilled into everybody's heads for so long that the SEC is superior in every way, but that perception does not match reality. That is one hell of a conference, but the same is true of the Pac-10.

You make some valid arguments especially about scheduling. It's true that the SEC OOC scheduling generally sucks and the Pac 10 has a very good record against SEC teams. The Pac 10 does generally schedule a tougher OOC schedule than SEC teams although there are exceptions. however that doesn't explain why no team outside of USC has made the NC game. USC beats good teams consistantly on the OOC schedules, the rest of the Pac 10 is up and down in those games. It also doesn't change the fact that so many SEC teams have won NC's while only USC has accomplished it for the Pac 10 in the last 2 decades.
I agree that the SEC tends to get a lot more credit than maybe its teams deserve but the reverse has happened to the SEC as well, where their tough in conference schedule has kicked them out of the NC game.
The strength of a conference is in large part based on the # of teams from that conference that have won a NC game over the last 2 decades or so. If you play in a weaker conference where only a couple of teams are really strong, you have a far greater chance to reach the NC game than a team from the SEC. Hence Oklahoma makes it to the NC game when in fact their team may be only average as they generally only face stiff competition from Texas. Beat Texas and Oklahoma has a fair chance to come out of the Big 12 with at most 1 loss. This has led to a lot of huge losses for Oklahoma in Bowl games topped by Boisde St. beating them.
Nationally the Pac 10 is generally underrated because a lot of their games aren't seen on TV and especially recently, the SEC is overrated because a lot of their games are seen nationally on TV. IMO the Big 10 for instance, has mishandled theit TV packages which is going to make it more difficult for their teams to get into a NC when their records are tied with other conference records. Ohio St.'s failures will also weigh heavy on future decisions. Perception plays a huge part in deciding who goes and right now the SEC has the upper leg. Unfortunately with no real playoff system in existance, teams are often selected on perception when records are tied but that is another question. The fact remains that the BCS is totally flawed and favours greatly whichever conference has the higher perception of being good. However if you think the Pac 10 has problems getting valued, the Big East is a total loser in this realm. The last 2 years, its champion, West Virginia beat the SEC champion and the Big 12 champion pretty easily in Bowl games yet the perception remains that since the Big East lost Boston College, Virginia Tech and Miami, it must be weaker although the facts indicate it is actually stronger since those teams left.
Until the NCAA can come up with a playoff formula not involving anymore than a 13 game slate for college football players, we'll never have a true champion in most years just a make believe champion based on perception.

saintsfan912
07-13-2008, 10:50 AM
But they also only won like 3 conference titles. I think USC is the team of this decade so far with LSU, OSU, Oklahoma, Texas,Florida right behind.

That all goes back to stregnth of conference. Put Florida or Georgia in the Pac 10 and USC may not have 6 conference titles.

saintsfan912
07-13-2008, 11:05 AM
Please stop with that ASU/LSU game being a barometer of how well they play against the Pac 10. A "home" game in Tempe after the biggest natural disaster in history that rattled the foundation of 90 percent of the players on the team is really a good way to judge a team. I guess yall forget the massacre at Arizona? Not saying that's an accomplishment by no means but they are an Arkansas level program so and we beat the Cats just as handily as SC beat the Hogs.

Iamcanadian
07-13-2008, 11:18 AM
That all goes back to stregnth of conference. Put Florida or Georgia in the Pac 10 and USC may not have 6 conference titles.

Yes but the opposite could be true as well. Put USC in the SEC and maybe LSU and Florida aren't NC's. Florida after all only got into the NC game because the nation didn't want a Ohio St. - Michigan 2nd game. LSU beat a rather weak Oklahoma team but may not even get to the NC game if they had to face USC that year. Face the truth, the BCS is totally flawed so every NC can be questioned. Nobody knows how they would have fared in a playoff system.

Sniper
07-13-2008, 11:18 AM
Please stop with that ASU/LSU game being a barometer of how well they play against the Pac 10. A "home" game in Tempe after the biggest natural disaster in history that rattled the foundation of 90 percent of the players on the team is really a good way to judge a team. I guess yall forget the massacre at Arizona? Not saying that's an accomplishment by no means but they are an Arkansas level program so and we beat the Cats just as handily as SC beat the Hogs.

Arizona State are the Sun Devils

keylime_5
07-13-2008, 11:25 AM
That all goes back to stregnth of conference. Put Florida or Georgia in the Pac 10 and USC may not have 6 conference titles.

yes, but like canadian said if you put usc in the sec then florida and lsu probably don't get national championships either. SC has 6 conference titles in a row and a few rose bowls to go with 2 (well 1.5 :P) national championships and 3 NC apperances. Clearly the most successful team of this decade. I would say 2 is LSU and 3 is OSU.

Bruce
07-13-2008, 11:48 AM
But they also only won like 3 conference titles. I think USC is the team of this decade so far with LSU, OSU, Oklahoma, Texas,Florida right behind.It's easier to win your conference in a round robin schedule when you're the only elite team.

Please stop with that ASU/LSU game being a barometer of how well they play against the Pac 10. A "home" game in Tempe after the biggest natural disaster in history that rattled the foundation of 90 percent of the players on the team is really a good way to judge a team. I guess yall forget the massacre at Arizona? Not saying that's an accomplishment by no means but they are an Arkansas level program so and we beat the Cats just as handily as SC beat the Hogs.It was also Mile's first year at LSU.

saintsfan912
07-13-2008, 12:42 PM
Arizona State are the Sun Devils

I know they are, I was talking about the LSU/Zona game before the LSU/ASU game. I think it was in 03.

Sniper
07-13-2008, 12:44 PM
I know they are, I was talking about the LSU/Zona game before the LSU/ASU game. I think it was in 03.

My apologies then. I was thinking of the ASU/LSU game.

Iamcanadian
07-17-2008, 11:37 PM
It's easier to win your conference in a round robin schedule when you're the only elite team.

It was also Mile's first year at LSU.

If you examine the # of 1st round picks that come from USC, there can be no mistake that it would be successful in any conference if not totally dominating. IMO, it is very questionable whether LSU could have beaten USC if they had played that season. LSU simply lucked out having to face an overrated Oklahoma team rather than USC. Remember, before the BCS named Oklahoma and LSU to play in that game, USC was ranked #1 in both the major polls which if today's rules were used, would have put USC in the NC game not LSU. The Coaches Poll only changed to put LSU into the #1 spot after the NC game because they had a legal obligation to the BCS to rank their champion as #1 otherwise USC would have finished #1 in both major Polls despite LSU defeat of Oklahoma. That's why every fan outside of LSU and the SEC considers USC to have at least split the championship that year. It was just a plain stupid decision by the BCS which was so embarrassed that they quickly changed the rules so the #1 ranked team in the Coaches Poll would always be invited to the BCS championship.

yourfavestoner
07-22-2008, 10:05 AM
Yes but the opposite could be true as well. Put USC in the SEC and maybe LSU and Florida aren't NC's. Florida after all only got into the NC game because the nation didn't want a Ohio St. - Michigan 2nd game. LSU beat a rather weak Oklahoma team but may not even get to the NC game if they had to face USC that year. Face the truth, the BCS is totally flawed so every NC can be questioned. Nobody knows how they would have fared in a playoff system.

Personally, I thought the BCS was doing alright until the LSU and Oklahoma beat out media darling USC for a NC bid. Why? Because, up to that point, the entire system was run off of an unbiased computer formula. The formula now (with the votes having a two thirds influence) allows for way, way, WAY more bias. The voters saw an instance where they could capitalize and get more power on the final outcome of bowl bids and went for a power grab. Now, they're the ones ******* things up year in and year out.

GO BACK TO THE COMPUTER! AND GET RID OF THE COACHES POLL!

duckseason
09-01-2008, 10:41 PM
Like I said, the Pac-10 is deep. The SEC is a great conference. So is the Pac-10. To say one is clearly superior to the other is to be ignorant of the other.

iworshipbender
09-01-2008, 11:09 PM
The SEC crowd will likely forget that two Pac-10 games were conference games and declare that their 10-2(3 1-aa games) record this week is better than the 7-3(5-1, one 1-aa game) record posted by the Pac-10

504 to ATL
09-01-2008, 11:17 PM
Tenn being a power is a thing of the past though, fat Phill is on the chopping block, and that OC they found is most likely the worst in college right now.

Who knows why they schedule cross continental games for week one, its pretty foolish.

UCLA showed some fight though.

Its still the PAC-1 though, no one is even close to USC and its not even funny.

BRAVEHEART
09-01-2008, 11:30 PM
Tenn being a power is a thing of the past though, fat Phill is on the chopping block, and that OC they found is most likely the worst in college right now.

Who knows why they schedule cross continental games for week one, its pretty foolish.

UCLA showed some fight though.

Its still the PAC-1 though, no one is even close to USC and its not even funny.

That's why Oregon beat them last year and would've been in the NC and Pac champs if Dixon didn't go down?

iworshipbender
09-01-2008, 11:34 PM
Tenn being a power is a thing of the past though, fat Phill is on the chopping block, and that OC they found is most likely the worst in college right now.

Who knows why they schedule cross continental games for week one, its pretty foolish.

UCLA showed some fight though.

Its still the PAC-1 though, no one is even close to USC and its not even funny.

And everyone in the SEC is a step below USC too.

duckseason
09-01-2008, 11:46 PM
Tenn being a power is a thing of the past though, fat Phill is on the chopping block, and that OC they found is most likely the worst in college right now.

Who knows why they schedule cross continental games for week one, its pretty foolish.

UCLA showed some fight though.

Its still the PAC-1 though, no one is even close to USC and its not even funny.
Right. Tennessee won the East last year but somehow they aren't a conference power anymore.

SC lost to Oregon last year, yet they are the only great team. Even if they went undefeated that wouldn't be true. I agree that SC is the favorite to win the conference this year, but they will again be challenged weekly during their conference schedule. Funny how easily we forget that they backed in to their conference title last season.

As I said, comments like those above show nothing but ignorance of this conference. The SEC is a great conference, and Tennessee is one of it's best teams. I'm not saying the UCLA/TENN game proves anything, but it definitely helps illustrate many of the points I made in this thread.

504 to ATL
09-02-2008, 12:17 AM
That's why Oregon beat them last year and would've been in the NC and Pac champs if Dixon didn't go down?

Minus their starting QB, and it was still a close game.

504 to ATL
09-02-2008, 12:25 AM
Right. Tennessee won the East last year but somehow they aren't a conference power anymore.

SC lost to Oregon last year, yet they are the only great team. Even if they went undefeated that wouldn't be true. I agree that SC is the favorite to win the conference this year, but they will again be challenged weekly during their conference schedule. Funny how easily we forget that they backed in to their conference title last season.

As I said, comments like those above show nothing but ignorance of this conference. The SEC is a great conference, and Tennessee is one of it's best teams. I'm not saying the UCLA/TENN game proves anything, but it definitely helps illustrate many of the points I made in this thread.

Tenn has been struggling lately, Phil has been on the hotseat for a few years. Everyone knows they won the SEC east last year because UF and UGA stumbled down the road. No one will tell you Tenn was a better team then those two last year.

SC lost to Oregon when they did not have their QB, and it was @ Oregon. Oregon should have beaten them if they were a top tier team, and they also should have beaten them by more.

USC is clear cut number one year in and year out, if you are disputing that then you are delusional. The only thing that stops USC out west is injuries or them over looking weak opponents, like Stanford last year. USC is always good for looking ahead in one game a year and loses to some crap team, nearly every team in college is guilty of that.

Tenn is probably 5th, 6th, or even 7th in the SEC this year buddy. They are not a great team. Last year they were not even the 4th best team in the conference, but somehow got into the SECCG.

I would not toss around the word ignorance, especially since you think Tenn is one of the SEC's best teams. Their own fan base will tell you they are not in the top tier of the conference.

I might not be a Jenius but at least I know Tenn is no power in the SEC.

duckseason
09-02-2008, 12:39 AM
Minus their starting QB, and it was still a close game.
We were missing 2 starting WR's, our starting WLB, our 1b RB, and our starting MLB tore his ACL during the game and was replaced by a freshman.

Seems to me we were at much more of a disadvantage due to injuries than they were, especially considering that Sanchez is no slouch. What's your excuse for us shutting down their running game?

duckseason
09-02-2008, 12:49 AM
Tenn has been struggling lately, Phil has been on the hotseat for a few years. Everyone knows they won the SEC east last year because UF and UGA stumbled down the road. No one will tell you Tenn was a better team then those two last year.
I believe Florida was a better team than Tennessee, but how do you explain Georgia losing to the Vols by 21 points? And how exactly did Georgia stumble down the stretch? They won 7 straight to close.

SC lost to Oregon when they did not have their QB, and it was @ Oregon. Oregon should have beaten them if they were a top tier team, and they also should have beaten them by more.

This just shows how little you know about Oregon football.

USC is clear cut number one year in and year out, if you are disputing that then you are delusional. The only thing that stops USC out west is injuries or them over looking weak opponents, like Stanford last year. USC is always good for looking ahead in one game a year and loses to some crap team, nearly every team in college is guilty of that. The teams that got stopped by injuries last year were Oregon and Cal. Remember, SC backed into the conference title.

Tenn is probably 5th, 6th, or even 7th in the SEC this year buddy. They are not a great team. Last year they were not even the 4th best team in the conference, but somehow got into the SECCG.
That's your opinion. But the fact remains that they won the East last year and they are still a very talented team. If they're no good, that doesn't speak well of the SEC.

I would not toss around the word ignorance, especially since you think Tenn is one of the SEC's best teams. Their own fan base will tell you they are not in the top tier of the conference.

I might not be a Jenius but at least I know Tenn is no power in the SEC.
I'm not saying that Tennessee is the best team in the SEC. I'm saying that they are still among the top teams in the conference. Who do you place above them? We can check back at season's end.

504 to ATL
09-02-2008, 01:03 AM
I believe Florida was a better team than Tennessee, but how do you explain Georgia losing to the Vols by 21 points? And how exactly did Georgia stumble down the stretch? They won 7 straight to close.

Sorry, I did not mean the stretch literally, that was just a form of speech. I meant they stumbled against Tenn and Vandy, despite beating Vandy.

This just shows how little you know about Oregon football.

I know for sure I do not know as much as you do, that is for certain.

The teams that got stopped by injuries last year were Oregon and Cal. Remember, SC backed into the conference title.

Was Oregon a one man offense? USC did okay without their starting QB, could Oregon say the same? USC did better with their back up than Orgegon. I guess what I am saying is that the best teams find a way to win.

That's your opinion. But the fact remains that they won the East last year and they are still a very talented team. If they're no good, that doesn't speak well of the SEC.

Tenn basically backed into the SECCG as well, if the season went on one or two games longer it would not have been the same. But that is an unfair statement. Tenn was not bad per-se last year, just not as good as some of the top teams in the conference. If the Game between UGA and Tenn was in the second half of the season who do you think would have won?

Tenn was gettin cold as the season went on, while UGA heated up. UF had the misfortune of losing close games to highly rated teams.


I'm not saying that Tennessee is the best team in the SEC. I'm saying that they are still among the top teams in the conference. Who do you place above them? We can check back at season's end.

I place UGA(tenatively though, due to their massive amount of injuries), UF, LSU, Auburn, and possibly USC, and Alabama.

The thing is these teams all do not play each other so it will be hard to judge. Anyway it is apparent that you and I will agree to disagree.

p.s. How do you get the multi quote to work, I can't get it working properly.

504 to ATL
09-02-2008, 01:37 AM
Off Topic, but just a little interesting tidbit I just noticed. I nearly have more negative rep than posts, I might be the only one no, hahah?

(I guess thats what happens when you speak your mind and are not afraid of hurting others feelings, or stepping on some toes)

BRAVEHEART
09-02-2008, 02:24 AM
I'm not afraid to speak my mind and I think I have more positive rep than posts, and I started off with neg rep.

fenikz
09-02-2008, 02:27 AM
Pac 10 - 1
SEC - 0

iworshipbender
09-02-2008, 02:33 AM
I'm not afraid to speak my mind and I think I have more positive rep than posts, and I started off with neg rep.

That's because you don't act like an idiot in every post you make.

BRAVEHEART
09-02-2008, 02:39 AM
That's because you don't act like an idiot in every post you make.


Well that sure is good to hear.

But to stay on topic, how do you UO fans feel about the game at SC this year.

SuperKevin
09-02-2008, 02:40 AM
Well that sure is good to hear.

But to stay on topic, how do you UO fans feel about the game at SC this year.

It'll be scary for Oregon fans. USC looked unstoppable against UVa

BRAVEHEART
09-02-2008, 02:44 AM
It'll be scary for Oregon fans. USC looked unstoppable against UVa

But then again...It was UVA (no direspect to UVA fans). I'm a die hard trojan fan, but I like to "keep it real". That's why I post at this site, so i don't get extremely biased opinions *cough* WeareSC.com *cough*. :rolleyes:

iworshipbender
09-02-2008, 02:50 AM
Well that sure is good to hear.

But to stay on topic, how do you UO fans feel about the game at SC this year.

I won't be in the least bit disappointed if you guys beat us. At the same time, I feel the game will come down to the wire again this year. Both teams are immensely talented, and it might come down to who the least injured team is.

BRAVEHEART
09-02-2008, 03:00 AM
I won't be in the least bit disappointed if you guys beat us. At the same time, I feel the game will come down to the wire again this year. Both teams are immensely talented, and it might come down to who the least injured team is.

Yeah, both teams were pretty banged up. As much as I love JJ, I don't think he'll
J-stew us, even though he is just as talented (on the college level).

I remember Stafon sayin JJ was the best player he'd ever played with/against in HS.

iworshipbender
09-02-2008, 03:07 AM
Yeah, both teams were pretty banged up. As much as I love JJ, I don't think he'll
J-stew us, even though he is just as talented (on the college level).

I remember Stafon sayin JJ was the best player he'd ever played with/against in HS.

JJ is actually a better fit for the offense, but Snoop was just so immensely talented, that it really didn't matter.

BRAVEHEART
09-02-2008, 03:25 AM
JJ is actually a better fit for the offense, but Snoop was just so immensely talented, that it really didn't matter.

that's basically what I was trying to say. I think JJ=J-stew on the college level, but J-stew>JJ on the pro level.

iworshipbender
09-02-2008, 03:39 AM
that's basically what I was trying to say. I think JJ=J-stew on the college level, but J-stew>JJ on the pro level.

I'm glad there's five weeks for this offense to fully calibrate before facing you guys. JJ will have his stiff arm back, we'll start throwing to the tight ends, and Jaison Williams. Jemere Holland and Justin Thompson will know the playbook. And hopefully the refs who officiated the UO/UW game will be looking for work :D

BRAVEHEART
09-02-2008, 04:03 AM
I'm glad there's five weeks for this offense to fully calibrate before facing you guys. JJ will have his stiff arm back, we'll start throwing to the tight ends, and Jaison Williams. Jemere Holland and Justin Thompson will know the playbook. And hopefully the refs who officiated the UO/UW game will be looking for work :D


Uh...did he..uh...lose it?:confused:

iworshipbender
09-02-2008, 04:58 AM
Uh...did he..uh...lose it?:confused:

I didn't see it during the last game. He'll bury someone's face in the turf in the next two games. Book it.

Iamcanadian
09-02-2008, 07:02 AM
IMO, Oregon was the #1 team last year by quite a margine. However, the injury G-ds simply put, recked that team, end of story. Overall, I don't see the Pac 10 as close to the SEC. The SEC has had 2 National Champions and a possible 3rd if an undefeated Auburn had been allowed into the National Championship game to face USC. In total 3 different teams.
The Pac 10 has also had 2 NC wins and yes I'm counting the tie with LSU as it was cleasrly a split champiuonship since again the BCS slipped up and left the #1 team in the country out of the BCS championship.
The difference between the 2 conferences is quite simple, one team is producing all of the Pac 10 trophys while numerous schools are providing the SEC with a competitive team. Oregon almost provided a 2nd team last year but unfortunately they didn't and until ther Pac 10 can consistantly give USC as run for its money on a yearly basis, it isn't going to be considered even close to the SEC in overall strength.
Pac 10 fans can argue until they are blue in the face, but almost every other college fan will tell you the Pac 10 is a 1 team horse named USC and a bunch of nobodies. Come back when at least 2 other Pac 10 teams have been champions of the Pac 10 other than USC if you want any respect as a top conference. Until then, people will look at the Oregon's and the Arizona St's as nothing more than cannon fodder for USC.

duckseason
09-02-2008, 11:31 AM
how do you UO fans feel about the game at SC this year.

After watching the UVA game and then our game, I'm definitely more impressed with SC as of right now. Wow is that team fast. They look like they're in mid-season form.

For us, the primary concern would be at QB, where you guys have the clear edge as of now. I don't trust them yet. Roper doesn't look confident to me, and he'll probably break in half after a few hits from the SC beasts. Masoli needs to win the job outright. He has the best arm on our team and looks very confident, but he's behind everybody else when it comes to learning the offense and developing rapport with the receivers. That includes the freshmen. I'm hoping he can get a good amount of reps over the next few weeks and find a rhythm. When (not if) he gets on track, I fully expect him to be the clear starter, with Harper seeing the field in a Tebow role.

Harper is the x-factor. The guy is unreal with the ball in his hands. He will play a big role in the SC game regardless of who the starter is, and he will produce on the ground. If Masoli has the job by then, I'll be a lot more confident than I am right now. Justin Roper is a good young QB, but he's one of the most overrated players in Oregon history as of now. He's got a lot to prove. Regardless of who the starter is, our gameplan needs to be centered around the running game. Keep the passes short and quick and let the downfield blocking and big-play ability of the WR's do the work. My biggest concern is the likelihood of INT's, based on what I saw against UW and what I saw from SC's defense. Ellison is such a badass. So is Maualuga. Who am I kidding, they're all badasses.

Outside of QB though, we're solid across the board. We can hold our own against you at every other position. We'll have to see what happens over the next few weeks, but as of now I give you guys the edge due to superior QB play and HFA. The rest of the team looks ready for you guys. Great running game, great defense, the WR's look great, and Chip Kelly is still Kasparov with a playbook.

Like last year, it'll likely come down to turnovers.

Oh, and our kicker could be a factor as well. He can boom it into the back of the endzone but he looks real shaky trying to put it through the uprights. He missed an extra point against Washington. If it comes down to the wire, I don't have much faith in him. You guys have the obvious edge there as well.

But yeah we'll have to revisit this topic in a few weeks when team strengths and weaknesses are more clearly defined. I'll write up an analysis the week before the game.

duckseason
09-02-2008, 11:41 AM
IMO, Oregon was the #1 team last year by quite a margine. However, the injury G-ds simply put, recked that team, end of story. Overall, I don't see the Pac 10 as close to the SEC. The SEC has had 2 National Champions and a possible 3rd if an undefeated Auburn had been allowed into the National Championship game to face USC. In total 3 different teams.
The Pac 10 has also had 2 NC wins and yes I'm counting the tie with LSU as it was cleasrly a split champiuonship since again the BCS slipped up and left the #1 team in the country out of the BCS championship.
The difference between the 2 conferences is quite simple, one team is producing all of the Pac 10 trophys while numerous schools are providing the SEC with a competitive team. Oregon almost provided a 2nd team last year but unfortunately they didn't and until ther Pac 10 can consistantly give USC as run for its money on a yearly basis, it isn't going to be considered even close to the SEC in overall strength.
Pac 10 fans can argue until they are blue in the face, but almost every other college fan will tell you the Pac 10 is a 1 team horse named USC and a bunch of nobodies. Come back when at least 2 other Pac 10 teams have been champions of the Pac 10 other than USC if you want any respect as a top conference. Until then, people will look at the Oregon's and the Arizona St's as nothing more than cannon fodder for USC.

You're talking about perception, and I'm talking about reality. I fully agree that the collective perception is that it's SC and everybody else. The point I'm making, is that in reality there are several very good Pac-10 teams each year, including a few that are on or near SC's level. Obviously nobody has been better than them over the last several years, but the same is true if you put them in any other conference. The bottom line is that they have been challenged weekly in the Pac-10, and lost several games to in-conference opponents while beating up on some of the best teams the rest of the nation has to offer.

It's odd that you mention Auburn's snub, yet fail to mention the infamous Oregon snub. Remember '01 (http://msn.foxsports.com/id/7894693_37_1.pdf)? Using today's BCS formula, Oregon would have been in the title game by a comfortable margin. The formula was so ridiculously flawed, that we actually ended up 4th in the final standings behind Colorado despite annihilating them 38-16 in the Fiesta Bowl.

But BCS titles or snubs aren't an accurate measure of the strength of an entire conference. Especially considering that the SEC as a whole plays the weakest OOC schedules in the nation, and a large percentage of the BCS formula is determined by an inherently biased poll which leans heavily toward the Southeast, and East in general. The Pac-10 has just 5 votes in the coaches poll, and it shows year after year.

Since the inception of the BCS, there have been 9 teams that have sat atop the Pac-10 standings at season's end. We've been over this countless times. It's a hell of a lot more difficult to make it to a BCS title game when you play in the Pac-10 than it is in any other conference in college football, whether you're SC and especially if you're not. We play a true round robin where anybody can beat anybody each year, and it's been shown that we play very difficult OOC schedules on top of that. Knowing this, it should be expected that we produce very few undefeated or 1 loss teams. There's just no arguing that it's not a lot easier to stack wins in the SEC.

This is especially true in the Big-10 and Big-12, where it's no coincidence that we've seen repeat appearances from a select few teams each year in the BCS. Wow. You went 11-1 in the Big-10. Congratulations. Not only did you beat up on Northwestern, Minnesota, Iowa and the like, but you also beat 3 smaller schools from your own state by an average of 40 points!! You're obviously much better than any 10-2 team the Pac-10 might offer up. If you're Wisconsin, you won't even have to play the top 2 teams in your conference! Lucky you! Now you can pretend like your 10-3 record is reflective of your true team strength despite the fact that you lost to Northwestern and got manhandled by Penn St!!

Oh, and Notre Dame is better than everybody and will get a BCS berth regardless of record or performance.

To illustrate this point, Oregon has not been to a BCS game in the past 5 years. Michigan has been to 3. In that same time span, Oregon has beaten Michigan twice. Michigan lost all 3 of those BCS games.

Seriously. You're using BCS titles as your only measure of conference strength? Even though you yourself just stated that Oregon was the best team in the nation last year, that means so much less to you than LSU's backing in to a title, that you'll just dismiss Oregon as an also-ran while touting LSU as evidence of SEC superiority?

Also, Auburn had a great team in '04, but so did Oklahoma. Funny how people seem to forget that Oklahoma was just as undefeated as Auburn was. When you consider the fact that there were 4 undefeated teams that year, it was hardly a snub. Playoff? Sure. Do I think Auburn was the better team? Probably. But that wasn't a blatant snub like we saw in '01. And to give credit for a title there is ridiculous. SC was clearly the superior team that year. They absolutely crushed a very good Oklahoma team. Auburn squeaked by VT. Very weak argument. Especially when you admit that Oregon was the best team in the nation last year, and you look at what we did to Colorado in '01.

It seems you've reached your conclusion and then attached the reasoning to it. Try doing it the other way around.

504 to ATL
09-02-2008, 02:27 PM
After watching the UVA game and then our game

Don't look too much into that USC game, UVA has such horrible O/D-lines it is not even funny. They were garbage last year and Long was their only bright spot, with him gone they are mediocre at best.

Yes USC was fast, but they were having their way in the trenches much too easily.

Sniper
09-02-2008, 02:43 PM
Wow an SEC team leaves the South for a OOC game and...loses? No way! Too bad bowl games are only played in the South at "neutral" locations.

duckseason
09-02-2008, 02:49 PM
Don't look too much into that USC game, UVA has such horrible O/D-lines it is not even funny. They were garbage last year and Long was their only bright spot, with him gone they are mediocre at best.

Yes USC was fast, but they were having their way in the trenches much too easily.

Yeah thanks for the pointer there genius. I had no idea who UVA was.

SC looked great. I don't care if it's against Virginia or tOSU or out at practice. They looked fast and they looked sharp. I'm not looking too much into anything. USC is who they are. It's plain as day.

504 to ATL
09-02-2008, 03:18 PM
wow way to be an ass, USC is USC they are a step ahead of the rest of their conference and ranked that high for a reason. When you have superior athletes and are expected to beat a team by a huge margin then by all means you should go out and do just that. What was the line on that game, probably 30 or so? Nothing really surprising in the game except for the play of Sanchez. But any QB can do well when they have no pressure what so ever.

UVA looked atrocious, USC looked blazingly fast. But then again Sanchez could have put up a tent with the amount of time he had back there in the pocket, UVA was just that bad.

soybean
09-02-2008, 03:24 PM
Still you're diminishing what they did because their opponent, even though the other top BCS teams played against worst competition.

Appalachian State
Georgia Southern
Youngstown state
Hawaii
villanova

duckseason
09-02-2008, 03:41 PM
wow way to be an ass, USC is USC they are a step ahead of the rest of their conference and ranked that high for a reason. When you have superior athletes and are expected to beat a team by a huge margin then by all means you should go out and do just that. What was the line on that game, probably 30 or so? Nothing really surprising in the game except for the play of Sanchez. But any QB can do well when they have no pressure what so ever.

UVA looked atrocious, USC looked blazingly fast. But then again Sanchez could have put up a tent with the amount of time he had back there in the pocket, UVA was just that bad.

Right, I'm being an ass. I responded to an SC fan who asked me what I thought of the Trojans. You read way too much into what I said, and assume I'm putting too much stock into one game and that I wasn't paying any attention to the competition level they were facing. My resulting response reflects all that.

I said SC looks fast and sharp. I didn't say Virginia was a great team or anything like that. It's odd that you'd feel the need to temper my vague comments about SC's current strength.

Again, stop assuming I don't know how good Virginia is. I watched the game. I'm more than capable of paying attention to two teams at once. Especially when they are playing each other.

504 to ATL
09-02-2008, 06:47 PM
I was just throwing out my input on UVA, I have watched this team for the past two years. My team even plays them, I just figured you guys wayyyy out west might not know enough about them.

Also How many times do the SEC and Pac-10 play against each other this year?

D-Unit
09-02-2008, 07:06 PM
I was just throwing out my input on UVA, I have watched this team for the past two years. My team even plays them, I just figured you guys wayyyy out west might not know enough about them.

Also How many times do the SEC and Pac-10 play against each other this year?
So you guys wayyyy out east know everything about the Pac-10, but it's assumed guys wayyyy out west aren't knowledgeable the other way around???

Sniper
09-02-2008, 07:09 PM
How come the SEC are such vaginas about OOC games outside of their Southern haven?

iworshipbender
09-02-2008, 07:13 PM
How come the SEC are such vaginas about OOC games outside of their Southern haven?

Because they tend to lose most of them

CashmoneyDrew
09-02-2008, 07:16 PM
How come the SEC are such vaginas about OOC games outside of their Southern haven?

Hmmm... that's why Tennessee is playing Oregon and Oklahoma (I think, pretty sure) in the coming years?

Sniper
09-02-2008, 07:23 PM
Hmmm... that's why Tennessee is playing Oregon and Oklahoma (I think, pretty sure) in the coming years?

Terrific, and the others? The SEC seems to struggle just a tad when they're not playing OOC and bowl games in their backyards.

SuperKevin
09-02-2008, 07:26 PM
Terrific, and the others? The SEC seems to struggle just a tad when they're not playing OOC and bowl games in their backyards.

Hasn't LSU played teams like Oregon State, Arizona State, and Arizona in recent years?

Sniper
09-02-2008, 07:31 PM
Hasn't LSU played teams like Oregon State, Arizona State, and Arizona in recent years?

LSU has played two ranked teams (at the time of the game) on the road in OOC games since 2002

LSU played @ #19 VT in 2002 and lost 26-8
LSU played @ #15 Arizona State in 2005 and won 35-31

BRAVEHEART
09-02-2008, 07:38 PM
Hmmm... that's why Tennessee is playing Oregon and Oklahoma (I think, pretty sure) in the coming years?

Tenn is the gold standard for doing the opposite. They have balls and I applaud them having them.

504 to ATL
09-02-2008, 08:20 PM
The SEC seems to struggle just a tad when they're not playing OOC and bowl games in their backyards.

I can't speak for every SEC team obviously, but when you fly across continental US its definitely hard to win for whomever the visiting team is. In the case of Tennessee.

CashmoneyDrew
09-02-2008, 08:22 PM
Yeah, road teams against BCS teams OOC are usually always tough unless the visiting team is just stacked like a USC or something.

CashmoneyDrew
09-02-2008, 08:22 PM
Terrific, and the others? The SEC seems to struggle just a tad when they're not playing OOC and bowl games in their backyards.

IDK about the others. I'll look them up later. Tennessee's just popped in my head first obviously.

Iamcanadian
09-03-2008, 01:30 AM
You're talking about perception, and I'm talking about reality. I fully agree that the collective perception is that it's SC and everybody else. The point I'm making, is that in reality there are several very good Pac-10 teams each year, including a few that are on or near SC's level. Obviously nobody has been better than them over the last several years, but the same is true if you put them in any other conference. The bottom line is that they have been challenged weekly in the Pac-10, and lost several games to in-conference opponents while beating up on some of the best teams the rest of the nation has to offer.

It's odd that you mention Auburn's snub, yet fail to mention the infamous Oregon snub. Remember '01 (http://msn.foxsports.com/id/7894693_37_1.pdf)? Using today's BCS formula, Oregon would have been in the title game by a comfortable margin. The formula was so ridiculously flawed, that we actually ended up 4th in the final standings behind Colorado despite annihilating them 38-16 in the Fiesta Bowl.

But BCS titles or snubs aren't an accurate measure of the strength of an entire conference. Especially considering that the SEC as a whole plays the weakest OOC schedules in the nation, and a large percentage of the BCS formula is determined by an inherently biased poll which leans heavily toward the Southeast, and East in general. The Pac-10 has just 5 votes in the coaches poll, and it shows year after year.

Since the inception of the BCS, there have been 9 teams that have sat atop the Pac-10 standings at season's end. We've been over this countless times. It's a hell of a lot more difficult to make it to a BCS title game when you play in the Pac-10 than it is in any other conference in college football, whether you're SC and especially if you're not. We play a true round robin where anybody can beat anybody each year, and it's been shown that we play very difficult OOC schedules on top of that. Knowing this, it should be expected that we produce very few undefeated or 1 loss teams. There's just no arguing that it's not a lot easier to stack wins in the SEC.

This is especially true in the Big-10 and Big-12, where it's no coincidence that we've seen repeat appearances from a select few teams each year in the BCS. Wow. You went 11-1 in the Big-10. Congratulations. Not only did you beat up on Northwestern, Minnesota, Iowa and the like, but you also beat 3 smaller schools from your own state by an average of 40 points!! You're obviously much better than any 10-2 team the Pac-10 might offer up. If you're Wisconsin, you won't even have to play the top 2 teams in your conference! Lucky you! Now you can pretend like your 10-3 record is reflective of your true team strength despite the fact that you lost to Northwestern and got manhandled by Penn St!!

Oh, and Notre Dame is better than everybody and will get a BCS berth regardless of record or performance.

To illustrate this point, Oregon has not been to a BCS game in the past 5 years. Michigan has been to 3. In that same time span, Oregon has beaten Michigan twice. Michigan lost all 3 of those BCS games.

Seriously. You're using BCS titles as your only measure of conference strength? Even though you yourself just stated that Oregon was the best team in the nation last year, that means so much less to you than LSU's backing in to a title, that you'll just dismiss Oregon as an also-ran while touting LSU as evidence of SEC superiority?

Also, Auburn had a great team in '04, but so did Oklahoma. Funny how people seem to forget that Oklahoma was just as undefeated as Auburn was. When you consider the fact that there were 4 undefeated teams that year, it was hardly a snub. Playoff? Sure. Do I think Auburn was the better team? Probably. But that wasn't a blatant snub like we saw in '01. And to give credit for a title there is ridiculous. SC was clearly the superior team that year. They absolutely crushed a very good Oklahoma team. Auburn squeaked by VT. Very weak argument. Especially when you admit that Oregon was the best team in the nation last year, and you look at what we did to Colorado in '01.

It seems you've reached your conclusion and then attached the reasoning to it. Try doing it the other way around.

If your arguing that there is a West Coast bias in the polls, well, I completely agree. It has a lot to do with the fact that a lot of your games simply aren't watched on the east coast because they run so late.
I've also noticed that the SEC is pretty well the only conference that has its games televised national with many other conferences going to cable TV. This makes it seem like the SEC's games are simply more important than the other conferences. ABC for obvious reasons has a vested interest in proclaiming the SEC as the best conference in America.
I'll predict right now that if the SEC continues to be the only conference where all its big games are on national TV, that within a decade, the other conferences will all be looked upon as poor cousins. This is also bound to lead to a huge decrepancy in revenue for SEC schools.
The Big 10 who has always done a p-ss poor job on CBS when picking the games to televise, finally went to cable and I didn't see one of their games on TV last year. I predict as well, that any conference that goes cable where the games aren't shown nationally is asking for its own demise. I did notice that the Pac 10 is beginning to pick up the void and I really think if this trend continues, the SEC and the Pac 10 will dominate the polls over time. It is bound to affect recruiting as well, because if kids never see a college on national TV, then over time the better kids will chose to attend SEC or Pac 10 schools with only the local kids chosing an Ohio St. or a Michigan.

P.S. I think it was Oklahoma that was overrated playing in a very weak Big 12 for a couple of years. USC should have played Auburn.

BNad
09-03-2008, 09:40 AM
Wow an SEC team leaves the South for a OOC game and...loses? No way! Too bad bowl games are only played in the South at "neutral" locations.

Let's not blame the SEC for the ineptitude of Phil Fulmer.. :p

DragonFireKai
09-03-2008, 01:10 PM
Let's not blame the SEC for the ineptitude of Phil Fulmer.. :p

You can't have it both ways. When the SEC uses the fact fact that they have five coaches that have won a national championship at some point in the distant past as a cudgel to bludgeon other conferences, you can't really complain when someone turns around and bashes you with the fact that a few of them are phenominal idiots.

BNad
09-03-2008, 01:29 PM
You can't have it both ways. When the SEC uses the fact fact that they have five coaches that have won a national championship at some point in the distant past as a cudgel to bludgeon other conferences, you can't really complain when someone turns around and bashes you with the fact that a few of them are phenominal idiots.

Oh trust me, if I was listing the best/better coaches in the SEC he wouldn't be on the list. Not really sure why this was directed at me, I'm not throwing around the generic SEC homer stuff, I was making a joke at Fat Phil's expense.

Sniper
09-03-2008, 02:06 PM
Let's not blame the Big 10 for the ineptitude of Jim Tressel in NC games..


Look how switching a few things works.

soybean
09-03-2008, 02:31 PM
LSU has played two ranked teams (at the time of the game) on the road in OOC games since 2002

LSU played @ #19 VT in 2002 and lost 26-8
LSU played @ #15 Arizona State in 2005 and won 35-31

keep in mind that, that game was scheduled to be played in LSU. they had no say in playin at Tempe.

Turtlepower
09-03-2008, 02:32 PM
keep in mind that, that game was scheduled to be played in LSU. they had no say in playin at Tempe.

God damn miracle pass that I had to see every ****ing week for the rest of the year on ESPN. =(

BNad
09-04-2008, 08:49 AM
Look how switching a few things works.

Note to self: No jokes about the SEC or you'll be castrated

Sniper
09-04-2008, 08:56 AM
Note to self: No jokes about the SEC or you'll be castrated

No, it's just that if things like that work for one side, then they have to be taken into account for the other side.

Bruce
09-04-2008, 10:13 AM
Tenn is the gold standard for doing the opposite. They have balls and I applaud them having them.Texas Tech backed out of the opener this year with LSU. But keep believing what you want.

USC has been backing out of a game with LSU since 2003.

Sniper
09-04-2008, 12:01 PM
Texas Tech backed out of the opener this year with LSU. But keep believing what you want.

USC has been backing out of a game with LSU since 2003.

Link on USC/LSU please?

Turtlepower
09-04-2008, 12:26 PM
Texas Tech backed out of the opener this year with LSU. But keep believing what you want.

USC has been backing out of a game with LSU since 2003.

Your avatar makes me vomit. =P

Sniper
09-04-2008, 12:32 PM
Your avatar makes me vomit. =P

Seconded. Hey man, she ran the PTA! She's therefore fit to help run the country! Whoops, don't want to get political, my bad.

Go Pac-10!

duckseason
09-04-2008, 12:45 PM
Link on USC/LSU please?

Not positive on the details and I don't have a link, but I remember hearing that somebody in the athletic department at LSU said in an interview that USC declined to play LSU because they already had a full schedule playing 9 conference games and the likes of Arkansas, Notre Dame, Auburn and Ohio State each year.

It's not that SC is scared to play LSU, it's that they weren't available at the time of the offer. More so than any other team in the nation, USC has proven year in and year out that they will play anybody, anywhere. They have never played a sub-D1 team in the history of the program. LSU fans are delusional if they think SC is afraid to play them.

BRAVEHEART
09-04-2008, 12:54 PM
Texas Tech backed out of the opener this year with LSU. But keep believing what you want.

USC has been backing out of a game with LSU since 2003.

Your avatar already makes you look foolish, I won't believe anything before I see sauce.

sauce please.:rolleyes:

Sniper
09-04-2008, 01:00 PM
Not positive on the details and I don't have a link, but I remember hearing that somebody in the athletic department at LSU said in an interview that USC declined to play LSU because they already had a full schedule playing 9 conference games and the likes of Arkansas, Notre Dame, Auburn and Ohio State each year.

It's not that SC is scared to play LSU, it's that they weren't available at the time of the offer. More so than any other team in the nation, USC has proven year in and year out that they will play anybody, anywhere. They have never played a sub-D1 team in the history of the program. LSU fans are delusional if they think SC is afraid to play them.

I didn't believe it either, hence the link request.

A look at USC's OOC games since 2002...(ESPN's schedule only goes back that far, cut me some slack) All rankings are at time of the game

2002: Vs. #22 Auburn, @ #14 Colorado, @ #6 Kansas State, Vs. #12 Notre Dame
2003: @ Auburn, Vs. BYU, Vs. Hawaii, @ Notre Dame
2004: @ Virginia Tech (who played in a BCS game), Vs. Colorado State, @ BYU, Vs. Notre Dame
2005: @ Hawaii, Vs. Arkansas, @ #9 Notre Dame, Vs. #16 Fresno State
2006: @ Arkansas, Vs. #19 Nebraska, Vs. #6 Notre Dame
2007: Vs. Idaho, @ #14 Nebraska, @ Notre Dame
2008: @ Virginia, Vs. #3 Ohio State, Vs. Notre Dame

That's a ridiculously good OOC slate. I'd be hard pressed to find a traditional power who schedules like this OOC.

Sniper
09-04-2008, 01:16 PM
http://www.al.com/sports/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/sports/1220429779325250.xml&coll=2

A couple little snippets from the article...

Besides losing a payday, leaving home means this harsh reality for the SEC: It's pretty mediocre on the road. Since 1998, the SEC is 40-39 in nonconference road games. That mark drops to 24-31 at schools from BCS conferences.

The Pac-10, which SEC fans conveniently shoo aside, is now 10-6 this decade against the SEC. Whereas the SEC is 1-6 at Pac-10 schools, the Pac-10 has gone 4-5 at SEC stadiums.

The SEC takes its most important 2008 road trip on Sept. 20, when Georgia travels to Arizona State for its first trip west of the Mississippi since 1964. That traces back to Uga I, if you're counting in dawg years.

Once again, why is it that SEC teams don't leave their Southern haven? Wins in "neutral" sites at bowl games (Ohio State vs. LSU in New Orleans, Florida vs. Michigan in Orlando, Georgia vs. Hawai'i in New Orleans and the list goes on) are nice and stat padding at home is great, but man up and start winning road games.

504 to ATL
09-04-2008, 05:02 PM
I know A&M has been backing out of a home and away series for years.

Fresno State is the team that gets my respect for playing anyone anywhere, by the way.

Bruce
09-04-2008, 06:18 PM
I know A&M has been backing out of a home and away series for years.

Fresno State is the team that gets my respect for playing anyone anywhere, by the way.Plus Pat Hill is a hell of a coach.

504 to ATL
09-04-2008, 07:57 PM
That team really should be a part of the Pac-10, if they somehow go undefeated this year and make it to a BCS game I think that will give much food for thought.

duckseason
09-04-2008, 08:06 PM
That team really should be a part of the Pac-10, if they somehow go undefeated this year and make it to a BCS game I think that will give much food for thought.

If the Pac-10 were to expand, it would require 2 Texas schools or BYU/Utah. Fresno really isn't qualified. There's more to the equation than just football performance.

504 to ATL
09-04-2008, 08:13 PM
The teams I heard were some of the mediocre Texas schools, Colorado, BYU, Fresno and I forget the others.

But it definitely needs to happen. The Pac-10 and Big-10 need the conference championship games.

duckseason
09-04-2008, 08:17 PM
The teams I heard were some of the mediocre Texas schools, Colorado, BYU, Fresno and I forget the others.

But it definitely needs to happen. The Pac-10 and Big-10 need the conference championship games.
Texas schools that the Pac-10 would have interest in are Texas, Texas A&M and TCU. And no, it doesn't need to happen. 10 teams is the perfect amount for a conference. Round robin > Championship game. You have 12 teams, you're damn near two separate conferences.

504 to ATL
09-04-2008, 08:21 PM
Ha A&M, who knows about them. I'd rather take TCU over them at this point.

DragonFireKai
09-04-2008, 08:26 PM
But it definitely needs to happen. The Pac-10 and Big-10 need the conference championship games.

No. The Pac 10 has the most effective way of detirmining a conference champion right now. Everyone plays everyone. The number of games smooths out the fluctuations. Sure, we are giving up some money, but it's worth it to know we're getting it right.

duckseason
09-04-2008, 08:32 PM
Ha A&M, who knows about them. I'd rather take TCU over them at this point.

They have an average attendance of 79,000, they're a solid academic institution, they're in a big market, their athletic dept budget is nearly 3 times that of Fresno and would rank 4th in the Pac-10, and they're competitive in multiple sports, such as basketball and baseball.

Overall, they're far more qualified to join the Pac-10 than a school like Fresno or Boise is.

summond822
09-05-2008, 10:21 AM
I heard the Pac 10 was looking at adding Utah and Utah State. I don't really think that they are worth expanding for. I doubt that they will go down to Texas for any school. That just seems like it is too far away from the core of the conference.

Let's be honest though, Texas & Texas A&M are probably not going to be leaving the Big 12. We might get TCU and Baylor if we went down there.

Another thing is that the Pac 10 usually only has the two biggest schools in a state (with the exclusion of California, which is like two of the other states combined). Probably means that we're not taking TCU and Baylor or Northern Texas.

This sets up rivalry games that increase ratings. Getting two schools that aren't rivals doesn't seem to be in the style of the Pac 10. So you could probably rule out a TCU, BYU addition.

summond822
09-05-2008, 10:26 AM
They have an average attendance of 79,000, they're a solid academic institution, they're in a big market, their athletic dept budget is nearly 3 times that of Fresno and would rank 4th in the Pac-10, and they're competitive in multiple sports, such as basketball and baseball.

Overall, they're far more qualified to join the Pac-10 than a school like Fresno or Boise is.

Were you talking about TCU or A&M?

Quick note on the baseball topic, I believe that Fresno St. beat Georgia in the CWS this year, so I'd say they are competitive at least in baseball.

duckseason
09-05-2008, 11:08 AM
I heard the Pac 10 was looking at adding Utah and Utah State. I don't really think that they are worth expanding for. I doubt that they will go down to Texas for any school. That just seems like it is too far away from the core of the conference.

Let's be honest though, Texas & Texas A&M are probably not going to be leaving the Big 12. We might get TCU and Baylor if we went down there.

Another thing is that the Pac 10 usually only has the two biggest schools in a state (with the exclusion of California, which is like two of the other states combined). Probably means that we're not taking TCU and Baylor or Northern Texas.

This sets up rivalry games that increase ratings. Getting two schools that aren't rivals doesn't seem to be in the style of the Pac 10. So you could probably rule out a TCU, BYU addition.

No way in hell we'd add Utah State. It'd have to be BYU/Utah. Schools like Utah State, Fresno and Boise simply aren't qualified to join the Pac-10.

When I mention the Texas schools, I'm talking about Texas, A&M, and TCU. Again, those are the only schools that are qualified. No way in hell do I ever see that happening. I'm just letting it be known what the Pac-10 would and wouldn't accept.

You're right about it having to be a pair of schools from the same state. If the Pac-10 were ever to expand, it would likely be BYU and Utah that would join.

The first choice for the Pac-10 would be Texas and A&M. Second choice would be BYU and Utah. I really don't think there are any other options they would consider.

Btw, BYU and Utah share a pretty fierce in-state rivalry. Your last comment doesn't make any sense.

Having said all that, I'm staunchly opposed to any Pac-10 expansion scenario.

duckseason
09-05-2008, 11:09 AM
Were you talking about TCU or A&M?

Quick note on the baseball topic, I believe that Fresno St. beat Georgia in the CWS this year, so I'd say they are competitive at least in baseball.

A&M, obviously.

It's true that Fresno has a legit baseball team, but that's merely one of a multitude of factors to be considered. A minor one at that. Fresno simply is not qualified to join the Pac-10.

Bruce
09-05-2008, 11:14 AM
No way in hell we'd add Utah State. It'd have to be BYU/Utah. Schools like Utah State, Fresno and Boise simply aren't qualified to join the Pac-10.
Fresno St. will play you anywhere and then smack you in the mouth when they get there.

duckseason
09-05-2008, 11:17 AM
Fresno St. will play you anywhere and then smack you in the mouth when they get there.
I have much respect for Fresno State. I've always been a fan of them other than when they play Oregon.

DragonFireKai
09-05-2008, 11:18 AM
Fresno St. will play you anywhere and then smack you in the mouth when they get there.

ummm... I hate to burst your bubble, but Fresno State is 0-5 against the Pac-10 since 05.

504 to ATL
09-05-2008, 12:27 PM
How many times have they played USC? Its pretty damn hard to beat USC haha.

DragonFireKai
09-05-2008, 12:33 PM
How many times have they played USC? Its pretty damn hard to beat USC haha.

once. They lost once to USC, once to Washington, and 3 times to Oregon.

504 to ATL
09-05-2008, 12:37 PM
When did they lose to Wash? That team has been awful lately.

DragonFireKai
09-05-2008, 12:41 PM
When did they lose to Wash? That team has been awful lately.

September 16th, 2006. Washington was a 5-7 team.

summond822
09-06-2008, 11:30 AM
No way in hell we'd add Utah State. It'd have to be BYU/Utah. Schools like Utah State, Fresno and Boise simply aren't qualified to join the Pac-10.

When I mention the Texas schools, I'm talking about Texas, A&M, and TCU. Again, those are the only schools that are qualified. No way in hell do I ever see that happening. I'm just letting it be known what the Pac-10 would and wouldn't accept.

You're right about it having to be a pair of schools from the same state. If the Pac-10 were ever to expand, it would likely be BYU and Utah that would join.

The first choice for the Pac-10 would be Texas and A&M. Second choice would be BYU and Utah. I really don't think there are any other options they would consider.

Btw, BYU and Utah share a pretty fierce in-state rivalry. Your last comment doesn't make any sense.
Having said all that, I'm staunchly opposed to any Pac-10 expansion scenario.

I agree, that Boise, Utah State aren't qualified, their just not competitive enough to warrant even consideration. Fresno is more competitive, but it doesn't make sense to expand the Pac-10 with more schools from California. (I just mentioned the baseball thing for fun. It wasn't a serious proposal for Fresno St.)

I didn't know that BYU and Utah had a rivalry, my bad there.

I also don't want the Pac-10 to expand, but it seems a very real possibility with all the hype that the Big 12, SEC, & ACC get for their conference championship games. Media pressure to add two more teams is immense, they get more money broadcasting games, and especially a championship game. (Of course the Pac-10 would end up getting more money as well...)

YAYareaRB
09-06-2008, 04:08 PM
Btw, BYU and Utah share a pretty fierce in-state rivalry. Your last comment doesn't make any sense.


Pretty Fierce doesn't even begin to describe, my friend. Utes and Cougs just down right hate eachother.

diabsoule
09-06-2008, 04:59 PM
Utah, Colorado, BYU, and TCU in that order make the best case for a possible Pac 10 expansion although I don't see it happening any time soon.

yourfavestoner
09-06-2008, 05:13 PM
I agree that a ten team division with a round robin schedule is the way to go. I wish the SEC would dump two teams (like Miss. State and Vandy) and have a ten team conference. It'd be so much better. The conference championship game has no advantage for the favorite team and every advantage for the underdog, and is simply nothing but a money maker for the conference.

Sniper
09-06-2008, 07:57 PM
I agree that a ten team division with a round robin schedule is the way to go. I wish the SEC would dump two teams (like Miss. State and Vandy) and have a ten team conference. It'd be so much better. The conference championship game has no advantage for the favorite team and every advantage for the underdog, and is simply nothing but a money maker for the conference.

You want to dump the best academic school from your conference? Oh right, it is the SEC.

DragonFireKai
09-06-2008, 09:24 PM
To be honest, I think the two best schools to jettison are Kentucky and South Carolina. They both have traditional rivals in other conferences and they're kinda oddballs geographically.

diabsoule
09-06-2008, 10:40 PM
To be honest, I think the two best schools to jettison are Kentucky and South Carolina. They both have traditional rivals in other conferences and they're kinda oddballs geographically.

The same could be said about Arkansas. Their traditional rivals are Oklahoma and Texas from the old SWC.

Kentucky is a founding member of the SEC. There is no reason for them to leave. South Carolina, though, could leave but why would they? The same with Arkansas. Why would they leave and why would the SEC want either team to leave?