i said this in a MTH post about PAC-10 football in general...
quote:watching Fowler, Corso & Herbie in front of waiving USC/Cal flags is getting me fired up! even though i am a UCLA fan, but enough of that...
i'm glad GameDay is making it out to the Pac-10 for a change... i'm sick of hearing about the Big-10, SEC, ACC, Big-12 and how the Pac-10 doesn't stack up.
the Pac-10 is 7-1 vs. the SEC since 2000, with the one loss being a (1-4) Oregon St. breakdown @ LSU. i know LSU isn't even the strongest in the SEC, but that's my point, OSU is at the bottom of the Pac-10. i'll take the top 5 of the Pac-10 vs. the top 5 of the Big-10 anyday. i mean geeze... Arizona St. ripped Iowa a new one 44-7!
i know that the Pac-10 loses to "Mid-Majors" but so does everyone else in the country. at least at the beginning of the season while the other conferences are scheduling Mississippi A&M St., North-South-East-West Dakota St., etc... the Pac-10 plays quality, compared.
hopefully this Saturday will showcase the Pac-10 as a quality conference, i doubt it, but that's my hope!
and i feel the same way about USC romping OU... i know OU helped the destruction themselves, but i don't think that takes away from the way USC dominated on both sides of the ball, and made OU's offense & defense look average. did anyone catch Stoops comment at the start of the game, the whole, "...without question, we know we're stronger & more aggresive running the ball by a long shot..."
i think Tuberville put it best at the VT / Auburn news conference BEFORE the Orange Bowl... "It'll over by the first half... You can't give Norm Chow 1 month to prepare for a team..."
Congrats to SC for a decisive, undisputed National Championship. It's too bad about that early OU gaffe; the game wouldn't have spun out of control so easily if not for that. And it's hard to have sympathy for Auburn if you take a look at their non-conference "opponents".
Certainly not to question the quality of the Pac-10, but one thing that always annoyed me was how the Pac-10 (and Big-10) undermined the BCS all these years by their exclusive $$$-motivated relationships to the Rose Bowl. Obviously a moot point now, much to the chagrin of Tuberville & co.
Posts: 192 | Location: Toronto | Registered: Apr 16, 2004
kumazam, What I had problems with in your initial thread and still have is your "window" of history of PAC-10 vs SEC.
Historically, with current conference alignments and through 2004-05 bowl games. PAC10 vs SEC = 61 loses 38 wins 7 ties 26 of those PAC10 wins were by USC and UCLA. The winning SEC teams are spread out much more evenly and have been throughout the history of the conference.
USC should have been playing Auburn for the Championship game. USC is a great team - but so is Auburn. USC barely beat Virginia Tech before the Hokies realized how good they were this year - and Norm Chow had the entire off-season to prepare for that one too.
___________________________________________________ It's good to try them young too and then let them age - James Suckling Infanticide can be very satisfying - Robert Parker I drink mine young to avoid disappointments - James Laube
Posts: 5058 | Location: Atlanta, GA | Registered: Jun 03, 2004
I only showed since 00' because it was a stat i quoted from ESPN, i didn't do any research to come up with that number... take away USC & UCLA and that makes it 35-38-7 against the SEC, still not a bad record against what's considered the toughest conference in College football... and as you stated, that's without the 2 most "successful" PAC-10 teams against the SEC.
as for your point about USC vs. VT... personally, i think VT was as good for that game as they were for Auburn. I really believe losing that game against USC put them in that 3 game funk after (if you can call 2-1 a funk) before they ran the table in the ACC & beat Miami... i think VT showed against Auburn they are a much better team than the rest of the country was giving them credit for, and just how impressive USC's win was in Blacksburg. I thought VT was a very good team going into the Auburn game, after the game my impression was they were even better, especially on defense.
kumazam, I believe VT to be an extremely good team. I think they could have beaten OU.
Just to clear things up about the data (you may have had a typo) PAC10 has 61 losses, 38 wins, & 7 ties vs the SEC. So if you take away the 26 wins by USC and UCLA, you are left with only 12 wins. Historically, the SEC strength has always been in the depth of quality teams. Every conference has it’s patsy’s, including the SEC.
USC & UCLA have historically had great teams. I just don’t think the rest of the conference has had the depth of the SEC.
___________________________________________________ It's good to try them young too and then let them age - James Suckling Infanticide can be very satisfying - Robert Parker I drink mine young to avoid disappointments - James Laube
Posts: 5058 | Location: Atlanta, GA | Registered: Jun 03, 2004
quote:Originally posted by kumazam: i think VT showed against Auburn they are a much better team than the rest of the country was giving them credit for, and just how impressive USC's win was in Blacksburg.
The game was not in Blacksburg... it was a neutral site (DC, still partial to Hokie fans, though).
Go HOKIES!!!
Posts: 4865 | Location: North Plainfield, NJ | Registered: Oct 24, 2001
sorry about that, u're right... my whole point with that game was that, initally, all anybody said after was, "Maybe USC isn't that good" & "VT was supposed to lose that game because they won't be that good this year" and in the end, it was a match-up of 2 of the best teams this year.
Green -
ahh, my bad here as well. My whole point with this thread going back to the inital MTH post, is that when the PAC-10 loses a game it wasn't supposed to, it's because the conference and teams are weak. However, when a Big-10, Big-12, SEC, & even ACC now, lose a game it's not supposed to, they just "played bad." Had USC lost to Stanford this year it would have been USC isn't that good after all, because Stanford sucks anyway, and for that matter the PAC-10 sucks too, blah blah, etc... BUT, had Texas lost to Kansas it would have been, well Texas didn't play well, and you always have to play well in the Big-12, blah blah, etc... and you just get tired of it on the west coast...
Traditionally, as you show, the PAC-10 isn't as strong as the other conferences top to bottom, year in and year out, but i think the recent emergence of USC as a perenial powerhouse has lifted the conference as a whole.
I think the Pac-10 was grossly underrated by the national media. Southern Cal proved that it not only deserved the national championship this year, but that they deserved the undisputed national championship last year.
Despite all that, we still need a playoff system for college football.
Posts: 1471 | Location: Rose Bowl | Registered: Nov 24, 2001
With some 20/20 hindsight, I think that Cal may have beaten Michigan in the Rose Bowl. Their depression from getting screwed by the BCS may be the same as Auburn trying too hard in their bowl game.
tomtom-By the East Coast media. The BCS works without the In-the-pocket bowl contracts. Auburn should have played #4 Cal. With a blowout + a sloppy game by #1 & #2, the case could be made.
quote:Originally posted by ronmc2: With some 20/20 hindsight, I think that Cal may have beaten Michigan in the Rose Bowl. Their depression from getting screwed by the BCS may be the same as Auburn trying too hard in their bowl game.
if you can't show up for a game to show the world they were wrong to leave you out of the Rose bowl what the hell game can you show up for and if you can't show up for ANY game you play are you really THAT good
and as for anyone with the "their 2 best recievers were out" arguemnet.....do their recievers play DB as well.....or block on the O line?
Cal got their ass handed to them by Tech....end of story
and further what is with the whole Cal belongs arguement....what because thay had 1 good year in the last hundred and suddenly they are so "worthy"
and what really drives me crazy is the dumbasses who say "usc UNDISPUTED national champs" .....then in the next breath it is "back to back national titles".......uh aren't these the same exact dumbasses who said it was LSU national champs last year....because they won "the game"
*************************** Originally posted by James Suckling: Guys. No one in Montalcino calls their grapes Brunello.
Posts: 999 | Location: Texas | Registered: Mar 01, 2003
Cal lost because they didn't have their best receivers & because they couldn't slow down Tech's spread offense... and few teams have the last few years... it happens, that's football.
Texasvines -
And honestly, this 1 good year did make them worthy for the Rose Bowl, THIS YEAR... They were just as worthy as Texas was, and unfortunately were left out... If anything, Pitt didn't belong.
about USC, yeah they are National Champs, and yes they are back-to-back National Champions... and NO, i didn't say LSU was the Champion last year, the Coaches did... because they have to under contract from the BCS, except for those few who didn't...
quote:Originally posted by tomtom: I think the Pac-10 was grossly underrated by the national media. Southern Cal proved that it not only deserved the national championship this year, but that they deserved the undisputed national championship last year.
Despite all that, we still need a playoff system for college football.
I have no problems with calling USC the undisputed national champs this year, but not last year. The Pac-10 did not send its best team into the BCS until just this year, because they were more concerned with the Rose Bowl money.
I may be one of the few that's not convinced a playoff is the best answer. I'd prefer to give more weight to the computers. Then it's in each teams' hands -- go undefeated, play a tough non-conference schedule, and at the end of the day you'll be in the championship game. It'd certainly make riduculous politicking like that of the Texas coach irrelevant.
Posts: 192 | Location: Toronto | Registered: Apr 16, 2004
quote:The Pac-10 did not send its best team into the BCS until just this year
So there was a better PAC-10 team last year?!?
as for your scenario - i think Auburn showed the true problem... i think lets not have AP / Coach's rankings until the 4th / 5th week of the season (well, maybe AP doesnt matter anymore with their exclusion from future BCS standings)... USC, OU preseason rankings... #1 & #2, Auburn, #17... a lot bigger hill to climb
im telling you, 2 years... that QB transfer from BYU, plus Maurice Drew only a sophomore, plus remember these names - Marcus Everett & Ryan Graves... don't forget UCLA lost the ENTIRE starting D-Line from last year's defense...
UCLA will be at least be the runner-up in the PAC-10, 2006!
Sorry, I think my facts weren't straight. IIRC, the Pac-10/Big-10 champs were locked into the Rose Bowl, *unless* they were ranked #1 or #2, and last year SC was #3. (I forgot the "unless" part when making my previous comment).
I guess in general I'm of the school that to be national champs, you should not only be the best team, but also beat the best teams. That's why I disliked the historical Pac-10/Big-10 Rose Bowl moneygrab, because it led to split national championships, and also why I have no sympathy for Auburn & their cupcake non-conference schedule.
btw, my biases are the result of being a life-long Florida State fan.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: cubzac,
Posts: 192 | Location: Toronto | Registered: Apr 16, 2004
If you look at the PAC-10 and the SEC from top to bottom, you can only come up with one conclusion: the PAC-10 sucks. Do you think USC (or Cal for that matter) would have the same record if they played in the SEC East? No frickin way!
Having said that, I have to admit that I think USC was probably the best team this year. Would they have played in the Orange Bowl if they had Georgia, Florida & Tennessee on their schedule? Probably not. But damn, they sure did look good against Oklahoma.
And don't get me started on basketball...
----------------------- Le vin français est inférieur Du vin français est surestimé Le vin français suce
Posts: 3000 | Location: ATL, GA | Registered: Jan 10, 2004
G&ZN, oh please. SC played VA Tech, Cal, Arizona State and Oklahoma. To boot, they also played a good set of mid-range teams: ND (I think you'll recall them beating Michigan and Tenn), UCLA, BYU, Oregon St and Stanford. Tell me which one of those schools is an auto-win.
Compare that against Tenn, Georgia, Florida or anyone else's schedule and I think you will find it more than comparable. The thing about SC's schedule is that they play no Division II or III schools and no team on their schedule is an absolute patsy (with the possible exception of Arizona this year).
No one is claiming the Pac 10 was the dominant conference this year, but the disrespect they received nationally was completely unjustified.
Posts: 1471 | Location: Rose Bowl | Registered: Nov 24, 2001
quote:Originally posted by kumazam: don't forget UCLA lost the ENTIRE starting D-Line from last year's defense...
Kuz, I'm not sure that was a bad thing. I do think that UCLA will be a Top 25 team next year and a Top 10 in the near future. I'm of the opinion that a strong SC means a stong UCLA in football, sort of the way the Florida schools were all successful at the same time.
Posts: 1471 | Location: Rose Bowl | Registered: Nov 24, 2001
