Same old SEC arguements!

[sc69er]

Well i just dropped by to see if anything new was happening on this board and I find a thread Which must have been ressurected from 2-3 years ago! Blue Hen(AKA Hokiehen) very reasonably points out the the SEC leads the BCS in OCC games against div-1aa and sunbelt opponents at home, which inflates the collective w/l of the conference, which results in higher rankings in the popularity polls, which results in more SEC schools going to bowl games and more money into the cofers of the SEC conference members!! Then some guy named Don (AKA Big Tiger?or BuLLDawg?) starts trotting out statistics that prove that playing patsies and rent-a-win OOC schedule at home doesn't prove anything about the SEC being overhyped? I know that every time USC goes down south they lay some serious hurt on SEC teams and now can't get any of them to schedule the Trojans. As Tommy Blubberville, the Auburn coach, said after his second loss to the Trojans in 2 years when asked if he was going to schedule them again he said"Why would anyone do that?"

[GatorGrad]

Don't you know how to reply under the thread on this subject that already exists? Why start a thread to discuss another thread? And while you're at it, what is the PAC 10's record against the SEC overall all time?

:)

[Blue Hen]

Actually, SC, since 2000, the B12 leads the SEC in scheduled 1AA opponents 53 -46....or something like that, but doesn't quite draw the scrutiny because the B12 fans don't generally pop off about being superior and dominant and all that balony. None of the other conferences are quite as bad as those two in rent-a-win scheduling but they are catching on to the scheme. The P10 continues to have the most scheduling 'balls'...kudos.

[Blue Hen]

Just for fun, I'd be interested in the SEC vs P10 all time records for :

a) Pac 10 home games
b) SEC home games
.....including relative 'home' games in PSEG match-ups.


I know the SEC leads all time and is 11-8-3 in PSEGs


There is one interesting factoid when comparing SEC and P10 relative FB strength........academic standards for scholarship players. From the last published NCAA admissions data for scholarship players :

P10 = 974.10 average ( best among BCS leagues )
SEC = 917.18 ( dead last among BCS leagues )


The dumbth factor is huge in relative strength in big time CF.

[GatorGrad]

Fun Facts:

Florida has never lost to USC (1-0-1.)

No conference has a higher winning % against USC than the SEC.

The PAC 10 has only beaten the SEC 39% of the time in the history of college football.

No wonder sc69er isn't too fond of the SEC.

[GatorGrad]

By the way, I'm not a PAC 10 hater. I admire the PAC 10 and think that they do a good job scheduling OOC games. I also admire that they went to a round robin schedule with nine conference games. I also think that USC is a great program. However, I view USC in the PAC 10 as I used to view Florida State playing in the ACC. There's really not much competition for them, and no team that is in the same tier. But since they do play a solid OOC schedule in most year, I can't bash them.

[Don]

Well i just dropped by to see if anything new was happening on this board and I find a thread Which must have been ressurected from 2-3 years ago! Blue Hen(AKA Hokiehen) very reasonably points out the the SEC leads the BCS in OCC games against div-1aa and sunbelt opponents at home, which inflates the collective w/l of the conference, which results in higher rankings in the popularity polls, which results in more SEC schools going to bowl games and more money into the cofers of the SEC conference members!! Then some guy named Don (AKA Big Tiger?or BuLLDawg?) starts trotting out statistics that prove that playing patsies and rent-a-win OOC schedule at home doesn't prove anything about the SEC being overhyped? I know that every time USC goes down south they lay some serious hurt on SEC teams and now can't get any of them to schedule the Trojans. As Tommy Blubberville, the Auburn coach, said after his second loss to the Trojans in 2 years when asked if he was going to schedule them again he said"Why would anyone do that?"

Get a clue! If that tactic fools the pollster then why does it also work for the computer polls? As our resident computer guru (James Howell) has pointed out to you folks in the past, the final AP and coaches polls are nearly identical to the computer polls. Apparently the only ones fooled are fools like you who can only trot out lame excuses for the final results that you don't care for.

By the way, what is USC's record against UF? For that matter what is the PAC 10 record vs the SEC?

[buckeyejim]

Since the SEC began in 1933, the SEC's record vs the major conferences is...

vs ACC...............245-114-10 .678
vs Pac-10............59-36-5 .615
vs Big Ten...........63-45-2 .582
vs SWC.............196-142-17 .576
vs Big 12............17-15-0 .531
vs Big Eight.........43-43-6 .500
vs Big East..........13-17-0 .433

These figure are for actual conference affiliation vs actual conference affiliation and not current conference affiliation vs current conference affiliation. I always thought that when Georgia Tech won a football game from 1933-1963 the SEC should get credit for ever and when Georgia Tech won a football game from 1983-2006 the ACC should get credit. Same with any other school that has changed conferences through the years. No need for the Big Ten to get credit for what Penn State did prior to 1993 or the ACC getting credit for what Miami (FL) did when the Hurricans were representating the Big East.

[CJHawkeyes]

Get a clue! If that tactic fools the pollster then why does it also work for the computer polls? As our resident computer guru (James Howell) has pointed out to you folks in the past, the final AP and coaches polls are nearly identical to the computer polls. Apparently the only ones fooled are fools like you who can only trot out lame excuses for the final results that you don't care for.

By the way, what is USC's record against UF? For that matter what is the PAC 10 record vs the SEC?

The problem with comparing polls to various computers (which I do with my own system) is that schools are motivated by the "rules" of polls. Therefore, the results produced by computers are due to teams playing by different rules. However, if for example, schools knew they were playing the by the rules of my system, the rent-a-win strategy would not work as well as it does with polls.`

[Don]

The problem with comparing polls to various computers (which I do with my own system) is that schools are motivated by the "rules" of polls. Therefore, the results produced by computers are due to teams playing by different rules. However, if for example, schools knew they were playing the by the rules of my system, the rent-a-win strategy would not work as well as it does with polls.`

Tell me how does your system rank the following schedules for 2006:
UF, Tenn, Kentucky, LSU, South Carolina, Arkansas, Auburn, Georgia, OSU, Texas, Oklahoma, BYU, Clemson, and throw in PSU, Wisconsin, and just for Blue Hen, VT.

Note that 5 of the SEC teams played "rent-a-win" opponents (i.e., non-D1A) as did PSU, Wisconsin, and VT. That means that 3 SEC teams plus OSU, Texas, Oklahoma, Clemson, and BYU did not play such teams.

Just for comparison, I looked up the SOS rankings of Sagarin, Anderson&Hester, Colley, Massey, and our own James Howell. And I looked up the computer composite rankings. In the final Composite rankings the SEC placed 6 teams plus #26 and #33. That is 8 SEC teams (5 of which played a "rent-a-win" team. All 8 SEC teams played schedules ranked by all 5 of these systems as being in the top 30 in difficulty even though they played "rent-a-win" opponents. All 8 were rated more difficult than the schedules played by OSU, Texas, BYU and Clemson which didn't play such opponents.

[CJHawkeyes]

Don,

For the record, I wasn't criticizing you. I even stated that I make comparisons between my system and polls. However, since all systems are generally motivated by wins and losses, its not surprising their results would be mostly similiar. That said, the results produced by my system are based on teams being motivated by another. Therefore, computers can be "fooled" by the rent-a-win strategy although I'm not sure fooled is a fair characterization. Furthermore, I'm not even attacking the SEC for employing this strategy as the rules in place encourage it. Nevertheless, the top 25 regular season schedule strengths under my system are listed below (I-AA games not included).

1 -Stanford
2 -Arizona
3 -Florida
4 -Southern California
5 -South Carolina
6 -Connecticut
7 -UCLA
8 -Kentucky
9 -Cincinnati
10 -Washington
11 -Minnesota
12 -Illinois
13 -Oregon State
14 -Michigan
15 -Mississippi State
16 -California
17 -Oregon
18 -Vanderbilt
19 -Tennessee
20 -Arkansas
21 -Washington State
22 -Indiana
23 -Mississippi
24 -North Carolina
25 -Louisiana State

[GatorGrad]

Don,

For the record, I wasn't criticizing you. I even stated that I make comparisons between my system and polls. However, since all systems are generally motivated by wins and losses, its not surprising their results would be mostly similiar. That said, the results produced by my system are based on teams being motivated by another. Therefore, computers can be "fooled" by the rent-a-win strategy although I'm not sure fooled is a fair characterization. Furthermore, I'm not even attacking the SEC for employing this strategy as the rules in place encourage it. Nevertheless, the top 25 regular season schedule strengths under my system are listed below (I-AA games not included).

1 -Stanford
2 -Arizona
3 -Florida
4 -Southern California
5 -South Carolina
6 -Connecticut
7 -UCLA
8 -Kentucky
9 -Cincinnati
10 -Washington
11 -Minnesota
12 -Illinois
13 -Oregon State
14 -Michigan
15 -Mississippi State
16 -California
17 -Oregon
18 -Vanderbilt
19 -Tennessee
20 -Arkansas
21 -Washington State
22 -Indiana
23 -Mississippi
24 -North Carolina
25 -Louisiana State

So 9 SEC teams are in your top 25 schedules from 2006? Lovely! So 75% of the SEC ranks in your top 25 SOS ratings. Florida at #3...and this was regular season, right? So if you included post season games, which would add Arkansas and Ohio State to Florida's schedule, would they have finished #1 in your SOS rankings, CJ? Just curious.

[CJHawkeyes]

I'll let you know when I get a chance to look. Don't remember but I'm sure Florida's SS ranked first.

[ktffan]

It's not just the same SEC arguments, it's the same old worn out, disproven, anti-SEC arguments as well. Hard to take anybody here seriously when everybody takes silly extremes in their arguments.

[sc69er]

USC's record against the current members of the SEC is:

16-10-1.

for the record USC is :

4-0 against tennessee

3-0 against UGa

4-1 against Arkansas

2-1 against Auburn

1-1 against LSU

1-1 against Souith Carolina

0-1-1 against Fla

and

2-5 against Alabama!!!!

Most of the SEC wins except for alabama, came in the USC dark ages--between McKay and Carroll--

three of the alabama wins came when the Bear was coach, the other 2 came in the 30's.

The problem now is that every one in the SEC is dodging USC, won't schedule them in a home and home. Can you explain why?

[terpintime]

Alabama, Arkansas, Auburn, LSU and Georgia played zero OOC road games. This coming season, Florida, Arkansas, Auburn, and Alabama play zero OOC road games. (The Ala-FSU matchup is on a neutral field.) And LSU boldly ventures to mighty Tulane. There is certainly little ambition or imagination when it comes to OOC scheduling for virtually every top SEC program. I guess we should feel fortunate to have traditional series like FLA-FSU and UGA-GaTech and some intestinal fortitude in Knoxville as the Vols prepare to visit Cal...Gee, I wonder if such OOC scheduling can help to inflate records, national rankings, and reputation.

[GatorGrad]

The problem now is that every one in the SEC is dodging USC, won't schedule them in a home and home. Can you explain why?

Didn't USC recently play SEC teams Auburn and Arkansas home and home? No one here is dissing USC. They're a great program. It's the rest of the "top" PAC 10 teams that I question. Cal shared the PAC 10 Title last year, and got smoked by Tennessee, an SEC team that had a good but not great season. The PAC 10 doesn't have any other top programs right now other than USC.

[Don]

Most of the SEC wins except for alabama, came in the USC dark ages--between McKay and Carroll--

three of the alabama wins came when the Bear was coach, the other 2 came in the 30's.

Of the 28 games USC was ranked in 21 of them. Their opponents were ranked only 12 times.

In games where both were ranked the record is 5-5-0. In games where USC was ranked and the SEC team was unranked 9-2-0. In games where the SEC was ranked and USC unranked (only 3 times!!!). 0-2-1.



The problem now is that every one in the SEC is dodging USC, won't schedule them in a home and home. Can you explain why?

Yes, you're DREAMING!!!

[sc69er]

USC has been ranked about 75% of the time since the Howard Jones era and would be favored in most games they play. You will notice that USC did not play the SEC non-entities(i.e Vandy, Kentucky, MSU, Ols Miss, etc).

[ktffan]

USC's record against the current members of the SEC is:

16-10-1.

for the record USC is :

4-0 against tennessee

3-0 against UGa

4-1 against Arkansas

2-1 against Auburn

1-1 against LSU

1-1 against Souith Carolina

0-1-1 against Fla

and

2-5 against Alabama!!!!



USC is 17-10 against current SEC teams. They are 2-4-1 against teams that finished top 10, 5-7-1 against teams that finished ranked, 2-3 in bowls and 10-7 against bowl teams. All in all a pretty average performance that you'd expect from an elite team against all the members of a conference (both good and bad). Certainly nothing to brag about.

[sc69er]

USC wins about 70% all time and is only 63% against the SEC. However they only play the SEC elite; no vandy, kentucky, MSU, Ole Miss etc. What I was just getting at was that the SEC teams contacted recently would not even discuss a home and home with the Trojans(neither would Oklahoma). We had to settle for home and home with Virginia!!

[GatorGrad]

USC is an eliete program. Unfortunately, no one else in the PAC 10 is right now. So it's a good thing that USC plays a solid OOC schedule. Otherwise, they wouldn't get as much respect. USC in the PAC 10 reminds me of FSU in the ACC during the 90's. Going 8-0 or 7-1 in the conference was pretty much a given, and FSU had to rely on OOC games against Miami and Florida to have a tougher schedule.

[CJHawkeyes]

GG,

I checked and Florida finished with the top SS under my system through all I-A games. BTW, Arkansas counted as a regular season game. That said, I should add that schedule strength does not indicate schedule difficulty.

FWIW, here are the non-conference schedule strength rankings for SEC teams under my system:

22 -Kentucky
53 -Mississippi
58 -South Carolina
68 -Florida
76 -Mississippi State
83 -Arkansas
91 -Vanderbilt
99 -Georgia
101 -Louisiana State
107 -Tennessee
110 -Auburn
117 -Alabama

[ktffan]

USC wins about 70% all time and is only 63% against the SEC. However they only play the SEC elite; no vandy, kentucky, MSU, Ole Miss etc. What I was just getting at was that the SEC teams contacted recently would not even discuss a home and home with the Trojans(neither would Oklahoma). We had to settle for home and home with Virginia!!

Vandy, Kentucky and Ole Miss were all elite at some point, you can't just look at the names and toss that out. The kind of numbers you have there are not odd for elite teams against conferences. Ohio State, for instance, is 28-4-1 against current Big 12 teams, being 10-3 against those that finished ranked and 16-3 against bowl teams. You act like USC compiled some sort of exceptional numbers here.

[terpintime]

This thread originally questioned the strength of OOC schedules in the SEC and how they padded records and rankings. Any intellectually honest fan of SEC football would admit that the OOC scheduling has been of dubious quality at best.

[ktffan]

This thread originally questioned the strength of OOC schedules in the SEC and how they padded records and rankings. Any intellectually honest fan of SEC football would admit that the OOC scheduling has been of dubious quality at best.

Ironic, don't you think, that somebody complaining about the 'same old arguements' would use the same old arguement again, don't you think.

The SEC has been inflated by their weak schedule, but anyone questioning that the conference has been the best conference since it formed in 1933 is either ignorant or just stupid. Not every year, not even recently, but overall there has been none better.

[GatorGrad]

The SEC has been inflated by their weak schedule, but anyone questioning that the conference has been the best conference since it formed in 1933 is either ignorant or just stupid. Not every year, not even recently, but overall there has been none better.

Agree!

[sc69er]

Since 2002 USC has lost 6 games and they have played 12 teams ooc who were ranked, 6 of whom were top 6 or better when they played. They have lost 6 games since 2002, to #1 texas in what was one of the better games ever played in the BCS championship game of 2005, and to Kansas st in 2002. Kst was a top ten team that year. The other 4 losses were to PX teams. They were all conference road games(the hardest on any teams schedule) for USC and all by margins of 3 or 4 points--2 were in OT. Guys back east don't get to see these teams very often, only if they are playing USC and are on ABC or ESPN hence develop little respect for the PX. Last year the PX was the 2nd or 3rd best BCS conference with the SEC being the best, this year the PX will be the 1st or 2nd best, keep an eye open.

[GatorGrad]

I don't think that the PAC 10 is a bad conference. I think it's a solid one. There aren't as many horrible teams as some other conferences have. They have a lot of good teams. Just not a lot of really good or great teams other than USC. There is a lot of parity and almost all of the teams can play. But just not enough great teams to challenge USC. Sure someone will upset USC once in a while, but not consistently enough to ever wonder who will win the PAC 10 in recent history. The rest of the PAC 10 is still playing catchup to USC, much like the ACC chasing FSU in the 90's. That's all I am saying.

[buckeyejim]

GG,

BTW, Arkansas counted as a regular season game.


No Conference Championship Game is not considered a regular season game, it's considered what it is, a Conference Championship Game, which is different from a regular season game and a Bowl Game. The participants in the 2007 SEC, ACC, Big 12, MAC and C-USA Championship Games are not known yet. They are to be determined, just like the bowl games, therefore they are kept in a separate catagory. There are...

Regular Season Game (predetermined games between two schools)
Conference Championship Games (participants to be determined)
Bowl Games (participants to be determined)

Obviously, not every conference has Conference Championship Games but then again not everyone goes to bowl games every year too.

[CJHawkeyes]

No Conference Championship Game is not considered a regular season game, it's considered what it is, a Conference Championship Game, which is different from a regular season game and a Bowl Game. The participants in the 2007 SEC, ACC, Big 12, MAC and C-USA Championship Games are not known yet. They are to be determined, just like the bowl games, therefore they are kept in a separate catagory. There are...

Regular Season Game (predetermined games between two schools)
Conference Championship Games (participants to be determined)
Bowl Games (participants to be determined)

Obviously, not every conference has Conference Championship Games but then again not everyone goes to bowl games every year too.

First, I only meant that I count it as a regular season game (an extension of the regular season). That said, I'm willing to bet that CCGs officially count as regular reason games. After all, these games count toward determining participants in the BCS title game without regard to their championship value to the relevant conference.

[ktffan]

First, I only meant that I count it as a regular season game (an extension of the regular season). That said, I'm willing to bet that CCGs officially count as regular reason games. After all, these games count toward determining participants in the BCS title game without regard to their championship value to the relevant conference.

Before I ask you to get out your checkbook, let me ask 'officially' according to who and for what purpose?

[CJHawkeyes]

Before I ask you to get out your checkbook, let me ask 'officially' according to who and for what purpose?

Perhaps there is no official someone, but I think these games are certainly treated as regular season games. Again, these games count toward the final BCS standings used to determine the title matchup and their value in the standings is the same as "other" regular season games. Therefore, whether or not we choose to call them regular season games is just semantics. From my POV, they are regular season games. If someone else wishes to place them in another category, so be it.

[GopherGuy]

Perhaps there is no official someone, but I think these games are certainly treated as regular season games. Again, these games count toward the final BCS standings used to determine the title matchup and their value in the standings is the same as "other" regular season games. Therefore, whether or not we choose to call them regular season games is just semantics. From my POV, they are regular season games. If someone else wishes to place them in another category, so be it.

It all depends on what is being discussed - overall schedule difficulty or the quality of the scheduling. Clearly, a CCG should count toward any discussion at the end of the season of how difficult a schedule was. However, any discussion of the quality of a team's scheduling tendencies should only look at non-conference games. All conference games, CCG's and bowl games are out of the control of the school - the only part it controls is its non-conference schedule.

[CJHawkeyes]

It all depends on what is being discussed - overall schedule difficulty or the quality of the scheduling. Clearly, a CCG should count toward any discussion at the end of the season of how difficult a schedule was. However, any discussion of the quality of a team's scheduling tendencies should only look at non-conference games. All conference games, CCG's and bowl games are out of the control of the school - the only part it controls is its non-conference schedule.


I agree, but in this instance, I think the only thing being discussed is whether or not CCGs are regular season games. Gator Grad thought Arkansas was not counted toward Florida's SS under my system. I stated that Arkansas counted as a regular season game without clarifying that I counted it as a regular season game. My assertion that CCGs are regular season games was disputed and I'm only arguing the case that they are regular season games based on my observation that they are treated as such.

[ktffan]

Perhaps there is no official someone, but I think these games are certainly treated as regular season games. Again, these games count toward the final BCS standings used to determine the title matchup and their value in the standings is the same as "other" regular season games. Therefore, whether or not we choose to call them regular season games is just semantics. From my POV, they are regular season games. If someone else wishes to place them in another category, so be it.

Call them what you will, I don't care but the NCAA bylaws specify them outside of the regular season.

[ktffan]

And for the record, I usually call them regular season games as well. You did ask for the 'official' designation and I told you.

[aufan59]

The SEC has played all the BCS national champions out of conference except OSU this decade.

I guess that is weak OOC.

[terpintime]

The only SEC team in the top 50 is Kentucky! By the way, when will Auburn put Georgia Tech back on the slate?

[GatorGrad]

The only SEC team in the top 50 is Kentucky! By the way, when will Auburn put Georgia Tech back on the slate?

Yes, and 9 of the top 25 schools based on total SOS (CJ's rankings) were SEC schools...it all balances out...

[terpintime]

that top 25 reflects teams with inflated OOC records playing each other. The bowl data cast some questions on the validity of the rankings you cite. As I stated, there was nothing remarkable in the allegedly superior bowl record of SEC teams.

[GatorGrad]

that top 25 reflects teams with inflated OOC records playing each other. The bowl data cast some questions on the validity of the rankings you cite. As I stated, there was nothing remarkable in the allegedly superior bowl record of SEC teams.

Well, the SEC did go 6-3 in bowl games last year including a 41-14 win for the SEC Champs over the Big Ten Champs in the BCS Title Game. And here is some data cut and pasted by Don in another thread:

In the "BCS era" the Bowl records.

SEC (37-31)--0.54412
ACC (30-26-0)--0.53571
Big Ten (30-29)--0.50847
Big 12 (32-35-0)--0.47761
Pac-10 (22-27-0)--0.44898

AND the bowl records vs BCS teams

SEC (36-30-0)--0.54545 That's 66 bcs opp or 5.5 per conf member.
ACC (24-23-0)--0.51064 That's 47 bcs opp or `4.7 per conf member.
Big Ten (29-28-0)--0.50877 That's 57 bcs opp or 5.2 per conf member.
Pac-10 (19-19-0)--0.50000 That's 38 bcs opp or 3.8 per conf member.
Big 12 (26-31-0)--0.45614 That's 57 bcs opp or 4.8 per conf member.Note that means that the SEC has played more bowl games than any other conference, has played more BCS opponents than any other conference, and has a better record vs them than the other conferences!

[Blue Hen]

GG,
If you look, realistically, at the overall picture of SEC PSEG performance in the BCS era , you'll find only 3 'winning' bowl seasons since 1998.........and considering that the SEC has an overwhelming 'relative' home advantage...well, there's just no sign of any bowl dominance or superiority at all. No way around. It's pure myth.

[GatorGrad]

GG,
If you look, realistically, at the overall picture of SEC PSEG performance in the BCS era , you'll find only 3 'winning' bowl seasons since 1998.........and considering that the SEC has an overwhelming 'relative' home advantage...well, there's just no sign of any bowl dominance or superiority at all. No way around. It's pure myth.

Hen,

I'm aware of your opinion and respect it, even if I disagree with it.

Counting "winning bowl seasons" is not relevant. If the SEC goes 3-3 in one year, and then 6-0 in another year, their record is 9-3, yet you could claim that the SEC only had "one winning bowl season." You're smarter than that.

Regardless of how one can twist and turn stats, the SEC still currently has the best bowl record overall, and the best bowl record against BCS teams as shown above.

[GatorGrad]

Also, why does everyone like to start with the "BCS era?" What makes 1998 so special? At least go back to 1992 which is when the Bowl Alliance / Bowl Coalition was formed and they finally started attempting to slot #1 with #2 in bowl games. At any rate, I also find it interesting that since 1992, the SEC Champion is unbeaten when selected to play in the MNC Game, even when they didn't enter as the #1 team. So when the SEC produces a MNC contender, they have taken care of business in every single opportunity:

1992: #2 Alabama crushed consensus #1 Miami
(Alabama crowned MNC)

1996: #3 Florida crushed consensus #1 FSU
(Florida crowned MNC)

1998: #1 Tennessee beat #2 FSU
(Tennessee crowned MNC)

2003: LSU beat Oklahoma
(LSU crowned MNC)

2006: #2 Florida crushed consensus #1 Ohio State
(Florida crowned MNC)

* 2004 SEC Champion Auburn finished unbeaten and did not have a chance to prove themselves in the MNC Game.

So that's 5-0 in MNC games for the SEC. Three of the five were blowouts over the then-consensus #1 team. No wonder they didn't want to give Auburn '04 a shot. :)

[BigTiger72]

As the 2003 season unfolded, it was the strength of schedule category of the Bowl Championship Series Standings that ultimately did USC in, who finished behind LSU and Oklahoma. Many national pundits attributed USC's low strength of schedule to a soft PAC-10 conference.

LSU will face Oregon State 5 p.m. Saturday in an attempt to make a powerful statement on behalf of the SEC.

LSU is 3-0 all time versus Oregon State and 9-3 against current PAC-10 members.

Let's crank up 2007......I'm not a USC hater either, but bring it on.

[Blue Hen]

Give 04 Utah a shot. Auburn ? Auburn's record ,outside the relative safety of the SEC, is 6-8 vs other BCS teams
:-)

[GatorGrad]

I agree that Utah '04 should have received a shot.

Same for Boise St '06.

But that's another discussion.

[aufan59]

that top 25 reflects teams with inflated OOC records playing each other. The bowl data cast some questions on the validity of the rankings you cite. As I stated, there was nothing remarkable in the allegedly superior bowl record of SEC teams.
SEC is always outmatched in bowls.

#3 SEC vs #2 Big 10 for Cap 1
#4-5 SEC vs #2-3 Big 12 for Cotton
#4-5 SEC vs #2 ACC for Peach

etc.

[Blue Hen]

Ok, fair enough. I disagree about the 'best overall' bowl record, but there are many ways to interpret them. BTW, the SEC's bowl performance in the BCS era :

98 (4-4)
99 (4-4)
00 (4-5)
01 (5-3)
02 (3-4)
03 (5-2)
04 (3-3)
05 (3-3)
06 (6-3)

Certainly no pattern of dominance.
Based on current conference configuration, the SEC is tied for 2nd in all time PSEG success :
.535 ACC
.521 P10
.521 SEC
.493 B10
.480 B12
.470 BEC

In this decade ( 2000-2006 seasons )

.610 ACC
.558 SEC
.513 P10
.481 B12
.467 BEC
.426 B10

[Blue Hen]

No way, Aufan. You shouldn't use "always"

The Cotton, for example featured a .750 SEC team (AU) vs a .667 B12 team ( Neb )

The relative match-ups tend to balance out over the bowl seasons

[aufan59]

Lets take last year. 2 of the 6 Pac 10 Bowls were against the WAC. 1 of the 9 SEC bowls were againts mid-majors. 2 of the 8 ACC games were againts mid majors.

The SEC fields 50-75% of its teams in a bowl every year resulting only two losing seasons(by only one game) in the last 9 years. No embarrassing bowl seasons like Pac-10 going 2-5 in 02 or the Big Ten's 2-5 last year.

The numbers show me that the conference is consistently deep in the last decade.

Combine that with 4 current SEC head coaches have won a National Championship and 7 that have won a BCS bowl and you get a impressively deep conference that is the best out there. (Off the top of my head the next best is Big 10/Big12 with 2 MNC coaches and I doubt more than 50% of coaches in any other conference have won a BCS bowl game.)

Dominant? No. The best? Obviously.

[Blue Hen]

I'm a 'parity' believer, AUfan. I don't think there is a 'best' conference . Conference strength fluctuates slightly, year to year. It's hard to imagine the SEC as consistently the best in the BCS era when it is 80-80 vs the other BCS leagues. You can't get more average than 80-80. ....and only 3 winning bowl seasons in the BCS era ? ...and 7 in the last 17 years ? ( since 1990)Also, the best conference wouldn't have a .342 bowl success rate vs the Big East teams...or a.449 bowl success rate vs B12 teams. There are lots of questions to be answered as far as proclaiming a 'best' conference.
Also, wouldn't you think that CF's best conference would have produced a linebacker, by now, that was good enough to go on to the pro hall of fame ? In 75 years of SEC FB, not a single one...........nor a single hall of fame defensive back !!
AS far as hiring big name coaches....sure, the SEC out spends everybody. I've always considered the SEC the best business model in CF with the most intensive 'win-at-all- costs' ideology.

I would find arguements against any other CF league claiming to be the best.
Parity, boys, parity

[Blue Hen]

Question, BigTiger
....about your SOS 'perceptions'

What was wrong with USC's 2003 SOS ? I just looked back at the Sagarin ratings and USC's SOS ( 19th toughest nationally ) was actually tougher than LSU's ( 28th ). Compare the SEC average SOS for 2003 - 23.5 with USC's 19th rated schedule.
How about sharing that 2003 BCS SOS rating with us just to compare with Sagarin, for fun.
Never forget that LSU won the 2003 BCS make believe NC because the coaches in the coaches poll were mandated to vote against their convictions.

[GatorGrad]

Again, the SEC has the best bowl record in the BCS era. Whether or not someone thinks that this proves "dominance" is up to the opinion of each of us. For the record, I don't think that the SEC has been dominant in the BCS era. But statistically speaking, the SEC has still been the best in bowl games despite many matchups which call for a lower ranked SEC team to play a higher ranked team from another conference when you look at conference standings. They have won the highest % of bowl games, and since 1992 when they first started trying to match up #1 with #2, the SEC Champion is 5-0 in MNC Games including three games where they destroyed the consensus #1 unbeaten team from another conference. I think that this is telling.

[footballfiji]

There are more 1-AA schools in the Southeast.

The Pac-10 gets aways with scheduling WAC and Mountain West Schools.

The Big Ten always plays the MAC.

THe SEC plays 1-AA and Sunbelt schools because they are closer. The games are easier to arrange and the schools hosting the game don't have to pay as much to get the games.

PAC-10 schools should be complaining about scheduling 1-AA schools. Because they are the only one's I can think of in the last 4 years that have actually LOST to 1-AA schools.

[footballfiji]

Oh and SC69er....

Here's some of the storied opponenents that USC has played:

Occidental (now a Division II school)
Cal Tech
Pomona-Pitzer
St. Mary's
Whittier
Santa Clara
Loyola
Pacific
Kamehameha Alumni (oh and that's Kamehameha High School)
St. Mary's Pre-Flight
San Diego Navy

[CJHawkeyes]

Question, BigTiger
....about your SOS 'perceptions'

What was wrong with USC's 2003 SOS ? I just looked back at the Sagarin ratings and USC's SOS ( 19th toughest nationally ) was actually tougher than LSU's ( 28th ). Compare the SEC average SOS for 2003 - 23.5 with USC's 19th rated schedule.
How about sharing that 2003 BCS SOS rating with us just to compare with Sagarin, for fun.
Never forget that LSU won the 2003 BCS make believe NC because the coaches in the coaches poll were mandated to vote against their convictions.

I would sure like to know how Sagarin determines SOS. I have LSU at 39 and USC at 65. 2003 is one of the weakest years at the top of the standings. BTW, if I were an LSU fan, it wouldn't bother me a bit that coaches were mandated to vote my team first as objectivity rather than subjectivity put the Tigers over the top.

[CJHawkeyes]

Oh and SC69er....

Here's some of the storied opponenents that USC has played:

Occidental (now a Division II school)
Cal Tech
Pomona-Pitzer
St. Mary's
Whittier
Santa Clara
Loyola
Pacific
Kamehameha Alumni (oh and that's Kamehameha High School)
St. Mary's Pre-Flight
San Diego Navy


I'm afraid you have set yourself up to be hammered for this post. The last time USC played any of these teams was 1952. Also, some of these teams were wartime opponents. Furthermore, St. Mary's and St-Mary's Pre-Flight were ranked around that time. The HS opponent came in 1935 before the first AP poll. I doubt SOS was a concern then.

[footballfiji]

Doesn't matter, they still played them. Also, arguing schedule strength with 1A and 1-AA is flawed to begin with since 1-AA has only been around for 30 years.

USC has still benefited from being on the west coast and having a number of "easy" teams near them and having a constant OOC game in Notre Dame.

After scheduling the PAC-10 and Notre Dame, USC only has about 3 other spots to schedule. Then it's just a matter of which WAC or Mountain West teams want to go the lions.

And I have no problem calling out Auburn too.

Samford
Montgomery Athletic Club
Nashville
Davidson
Gordon
Mercer
Marion
North Alabama Athletic Club
Forth Sheriden

My point is this. Scheduling in the SEC is a lot more difficult than scheduling in the PAC-10.

You can knock the SEC for playing 1-AA opponents all you want but financially it makes sense.

[CJHawkeyes]

Doesn't matter, they still played them. Also, arguing schedule strength with 1A and 1-AA is flawed to begin with since 1-AA has only been around for 30 years.

USC has still benefited from being on the west coast and having a number of "easy" teams near them and having a constant OOC game in Notre Dame.

After scheduling the PAC-10 and Notre Dame, USC only has about 3 other spots to schedule. Then it's just a matter of which WAC or Mountain West teams want to go the lions.

And I have no problem calling out Auburn too.

Samford
Montgomery Athletic Club
Nashville
Davidson
Gordon
Mercer
Marion
North Alabama Athletic Club
Forth Sheriden

My point is this. Scheduling in the SEC is a lot more difficult than scheduling in the PAC-10.

You can knock the SEC for playing 1-AA opponents all you want but financially it makes sense.


First of all, I attack everyone for scheduling I-AA games and I attack a system that encourages easy OOC schedules while criticizing "weak" nonBCS schedules that are that way precisely because the system makes it so. That said, you are criticizing USC for playing defunct teams that were ranked at the time which is undoubtly much different than today's culture. Furthermore, I realize money makes this sport go, but SEC teams have options outside of scheduling I-AA competition. They, like everyone else, know they can sellout a sure win because of the popularity of the sport and the potential harm to national title aspirations really only happens if there are more than two unbeatens. For schools, these games are win-win. For the sport, they are lose-lose.

[EvilVodka]

First of all, I attack everyone for scheduling I-AA games and I attack a system that encourages easy OOC schedules while criticizing "weak" nonBCS schedules that are that way precisely because the system makes it so. That said, you are criticizing USC for playing defunct teams that were ranked at the time which is undoubtly much different than today's culture. Furthermore, I realize money makes this sport go, but SEC teams have options outside of scheduling I-AA competition. They, like everyone else, know they can sellout a sure win because of the popularity of the sport and the potential harm to national title aspirations really only happens if there are more than two unbeatens. For schools, these games are win-win. For the sport, they are lose-lose.

Its not like schools are scheduling 4 IAA teams for their OOC...in fact its rare to see schools schedule 2 IAA teams a year....

your outlook on OOC is "the glass is half-empty", and you completely ignore all the great match-ups out there despite playing in a system that has no incentive for playing tough games (as you say)

[EvilVodka]

This thread originally questioned the strength of OOC schedules in the SEC and how they padded records and rankings. Any intellectually honest fan of SEC football would admit that the OOC scheduling has been of dubious quality at best.

depends on what SEC team & what year

And the real thrust of this thread is that sc69er and hokiehen hate the SEC and will find any reason to bash the conference, but the truth is, all conferences are scheduling IAA teams

[footballfiji]

What options do the SEC have outside of scheduling 1-AA competition?

If the SEC schedules Sunbelt or Conference USA teams then they are knocked for scheduling "directional" school (which is an absurd knock to begin with, and using that phrase shows you have very little clue about college football)

Very few teams want to travel to the SEC, unless the games are set up by third parties (ESPN for example).

And for every example of a team who said, "Oh we wanted to play in the SEC, but they didn't want to play us" It's bull. Plain and simple. There are other factors involved.

[GatorGrad]

I don't even know why you guys spend so much time worrying about OOC games anyways. They are just for fun and money. OOC games don't mean much. It's all about the CONFERENCE RACES.

For me, it's all about those 8 SEC games plus the SEC Championship Game in Atlanta. The OOC games against cupcakes, playing Florida State, and the bowl game is just for fun. Hard to take them seriously. Of course it's always better to win those games than to lose, but they are centered around money, polls, etc.

I wish college football fans would learn to appreciate the value of a conference championship. Maybe in some conferences, it just doesn't mean as much...I don't know. But in the SEC, it's an honor to be crowned SEC Champion and winning in Atlanta is our Super Bowl.

[aufan59]

No way, Aufan. You shouldn't use "always"

The Cotton, for example featured a .750 SEC team (AU) vs a .667 B12 team ( Neb )

The relative match-ups tend to balance out over the bowl seasons

Both had the same conference record.

As far as the bowl slotting went, Auburn was # 4 in the SEC compared to Nebraska being #2 in the Big 12. Thats what I'm talking about.

[CJHawkeyes]

What options do the SEC have outside of scheduling 1-AA competition?

If the SEC schedules Sunbelt or Conference USA teams then they are knocked for scheduling "directional" school (which is an absurd knock to begin with, and using that phrase shows you have very little clue about college football)

Very few teams want to travel to the SEC, unless the games are set up by third parties (ESPN for example).

And for every example of a team who said, "Oh we wanted to play in the SEC, but they didn't want to play us" It's bull. Plain and simple. There are other factors involved.

Who said anything about directional schools? Is this post directed at someone else?

[CJHawkeyes]

Its not like schools are scheduling 4 IAA teams for their OOC...in fact its rare to see schools schedule 2 IAA teams a year....

your outlook on OOC is "the glass is half-empty", and you completely ignore all the great match-ups out there despite playing in a system that has no incentive for playing tough games (as you say)

Despite statements made long ago that I clarified regarding great OOC matchups, my opposition to I-AA games is due to their lack of competitive purpose. I'll state my case later when I have more time.

[Blue Hen]

It certainly should be viewed that way, imo..............however, in the 'mythical' world of big time CF, custom scheduling your way to the top has become an accepted strategy. Heck, in this system, conference divisional runner-ups can make a 2 team playoff field. No good.

[ktffan]

Certainly no pattern of dominance.
Based on current conference configuration, the SEC is tied for 2nd in all time PSEG success :


The SEC is tied for 3rd.

[ktffan]

The relative match-ups tend to balance out over the bowl seasons

You can be so full of crap sometimes, Hen.

[ktffan]

Again, the SEC has the best bowl record in the BCS era. Whether or not someone thinks that this proves "dominance" is up to the opinion of each of us. For the record, I don't think that the SEC has been dominant in the BCS era. But statistically speaking, the SEC has still been the best in bowl games despite many matchups which call for a lower ranked SEC team to play a higher ranked team from another conference when you look at conference standings. They have won the highest % of bowl games, and since 1992 when they first started trying to match up #1 with #2, the SEC Champion is 5-0 in MNC Games including three games where they destroyed the consensus #1 unbeaten team from another conference. I think that this is telling.

Statistically speaking, the SEC has been the best since 98. Since 2000, I'd say the PAC-10.

[ktffan]

There are more 1-AA schools in the Southeast.

The Pac-10 gets aways with scheduling WAC and Mountain West Schools.

The Big Ten always plays the MAC.

THe SEC plays 1-AA and Sunbelt schools because they are closer. The games are easier to arrange and the schools hosting the game don't have to pay as much to get the games.

PAC-10 schools should be complaining about scheduling 1-AA schools. Because they are the only one's I can think of in the last 4 years that have actually LOST to 1-AA schools.


Good grief, you've got to be kidding. The only conference in the last 4 years that has not registered a lost to a I-AA team is CUSA.

[GatorGrad]

Statistically speaking, the SEC has been the best since 98. Since 2000, I'd say the PAC-10.

I would agree that the PAC-10 has been very strong, probably the best since 2000. I was only talking "BCS Era" since 1998 since so many here like to use that year for some reason. I think 1992, the first year that the bowls started attempting to match up #1 with #2, is a good year to start with as well since the current BCS Bowl structure was technically in place already, just without the name and with the Big Ten/Pac 10/Rose Bowl difference. But yes, I would agree that with the emergence of USC, the PAC 10 has certainly been strong statistically speaking since 2000. I would also argue that the SEC was the best last season and has been the best historically overall.

[ktffan]

I would agree that the PAC-10 has been very strong, probably the best since 2000. I was only talking "BCS Era" since 1998 since so many here like to use that year for some reason.

Hen's a broken record on that. He doesn't like the BCS, but he's drawn to it for some strange reason. The last 90s can be said to be a down period for pretty much everybody but the SEC. Any numbers including the 90s are likely to favor the SEC for that reason and because the SEC has been fairly solid through the 2000s. The PAC-10 has been very solid through the 2000s, though and might possibly have an edge on the SEC.

[footballfiji]

Good grief, you've got to be kidding. The only conference in the last 4 years that has not registered a lost to a I-AA team is CUSA.

Let's See

ACC
2006 Richmond 13 Duke 0

Big East
2004 New Hampshire 35 Rutgers 24

Big Ten
2006 Southern Illinois 35 Indiana 28
2006 New Hampshire 34 Northwestern 17

Big XII
2006 Montana State 19 Colorado 10

CUSA
2003 Cal Poly-San Luis Obispo 34 UTEP 13

MAC:
2003 Villanoa 23 Temple 20
2003 Colgate 38 Buffalo 15
2004 Eastern Illinois 31 Eastern Michigan 28
2003 Western Illinois 34 Eastern Michigan 12
2006 NDSU 29 Ball State 24


Pac-10
2005 UC Davis 20 Stanford 17

Mountain West:
2006 Cal Poly-San Luis Obispo 16 San Diego State 14
2006 Portland State 17 New Mexico 6

WAC
2003 Eastern Washington 8 Idaho 5
2003 Montana 41 Idaho 28

SEC
2004 Maine 9 Mississippi State 7

Sunbelt
2005 Northwestern State 27 ULM 23
2003 SFA 23 ULM 21
2003 Northwestern State 14 ULM 10
2003 FAU 20 MTSU 19
2004 McNeese 30 FIU 27
2004 Georgia Southern 53 FIU 32
2004 WKU 35 FIU 14

So no conference is perfect.

[ktffan]

Let's See

ACC
2006 Richmond 13 Duke 0

Big East
2004 New Hampshire 35 Rutgers 24

Big Ten
2006 Southern Illinois 35 Indiana 28
2006 New Hampshire 34 Northwestern 17

Big XII
2006 Montana State 19 Colorado 10

CUSA
2003 Cal Poly-San Luis Obispo 34 UTEP 13

MAC:
2003 Villanoa 23 Temple 20
2003 Colgate 38 Buffalo 15
2004 Eastern Illinois 31 Eastern Michigan 28
2003 Western Illinois 34 Eastern Michigan 12
2006 NDSU 29 Ball State 24


Pac-10
2005 UC Davis 20 Stanford 17

Mountain West:
2006 Cal Poly-San Luis Obispo 16 San Diego State 14
2006 Portland State 17 New Mexico 6

WAC
2003 Eastern Washington 8 Idaho 5
2003 Montana 41 Idaho 28

SEC
2004 Maine 9 Mississippi State 7

Sunbelt
2005 Northwestern State 27 ULM 23
2003 SFA 23 ULM 21
2003 Northwestern State 14 ULM 10
2003 FAU 20 MTSU 19
2004 McNeese 30 FIU 27
2004 Georgia Southern 53 FIU 32
2004 WKU 35 FIU 14

So no conference is perfect.

UTEP was not in CUSA in 2003. CUSA is a perfect 22-0 since 2003:

http://www.sportslinknetwork.com/cfbtrivia/record.php?fry=2003&thy=2006&NIA=on&fcn=on

Neither was Temple in the MAC in 2003. You're also missing Hawaii losing to Florida Atlantic in 2004, though the were transitioning to I-A.

[footballfiji]

UTEP is a CUSA member now. You can't retroactively pick and choose to force your point.

My first post was a joke. A joke you obviously didn't get and if you are wanting to say that the CUSA is nations best conference because they haven't lost to a 1-AA school in the past years then you are gonna need more ammo.

[ktffan]

UTEP is a CUSA member now. You can't retroactively pick and choose to force your point.

First of all, what 'point'? I gave you a FACT. An indisputable fact. And how dare I go retractive when we're talking about the past. Do you even know what the word means? :rolleyes:



My first post was a joke. A joke you obviously didn't get and if you are wanting to say that the CUSA is nations best conference because they haven't lost to a 1-AA school in the past years then you are gonna need more ammo.

I love that you make a dumb statement and pass it off as a joke. And where did you get this CUSA is the best conference stuff. I gave you a fact, nothing more and you dream up this nation's best conference stuff. Excuse me if I think you're a little screwy in the head.

[footballfiji]

The point is disputable. UTEP is in the CUSA. They might not have been then, but that are now. Their records carry over.

[ktffan]

The point is disputable. UTEP is in the CUSA. They might not have been then, but that are now. Their records carry over.

Their records carry over? Why would you think that?

[footballfiji]

Their records carry over? Why would you think that?

Why WOULDN'T you think that?

When you join a new conference you don't just get a clean slate. When Louisville and Cincinatti went to the Big East do you think all their other wins and losses were just forgotten about?

[ktffan]

Why WOULDN'T you think that?


Because the conferences don't do it that way. Just who does, besides you, of course.

[footballfiji]

Where are you seeing that the conferences don't do it that way?

Admit it, you manipulated stats to force a point.

UTEP is a CUSA team. They've lost to a 1-AA school in the past 4 years.

[ktffan]

Where are you seeing that the conferences don't do it that way?

Admit it, you manipulated stats to force a point.

UTEP is a CUSA team. They've lost to a 1-AA school in the past 4 years.

Force a point? What are you a complete idiot? That would have better made my point, or did you miss the point altogether, that losing to I-AA teams is NOT that uncommon.

Where do I see conferences don't do it that? You've absolutely got to be kidding me. It's every where in every conference media guide. That you ask the question is an admission you know absolutely nothing about it.

Check out the Big Ten media guide. You can get the non-conference record of the Big Ten for every year all the way back to the 1800s. Of course, they aren't adding in Penn State or Michigan State before they were members and they were counting Chicago when they were. CONFERENCE statistics are made by teams that were in the conference. Or you can look up Big Ten National title, where they clearly differentiate titles won by teams now in the conference but won prior to joining. You can go to the Moutain West's conference guide and look up which if it's members played against what conference, neither being adjusted because of changing membership. Or go to the PAC-10 media guide, which also carefully gives non-conference records with teams that were members a the time.

Those are off the top of my head, but it's everywhere. Some will give you the histories of the schools in their conference, but that doesn't mean they count it part of the conference. Also, some conference will incorporate the history of another conference in with theirs, but that's if there's a shared history and the conference ends, such as the PAC-10 history including the PCC, and the Big 12, while not counting the stats, give info on the Southwest and the Big 8.

College Football, among all sports, is the one the most relies on history. Unlike college basketball, etc, 'tradition' is big part of the sport. Tradition is history and they know that the tradition of the sport is huge. Nobody is going to toss their history out the window just to make up stuff for the current membership. There's too much banking on the history.

The more you try to make the past seem exactly like it is today, the less sense things make. It's like fitting a square peg in a round hole, because things change. The more you do that, the less you'll look like you know what you're talking about because some things of the past, just don't make sense in today's game.

[footballfiji]

Considering that all of the major conferences have only had one school in the past four years lost to a 1-AA team. I'd say it's very uncommon.

I think you're getting too worked up over the fact that I found a hole in your theory.

[ktffan]

Considering that all of the major conferences have only had one school in the past four years lost to a 1-AA team. I'd say it's very uncommon.

I think you're getting too worked up over the fact that I found a hole in your theory.

Actually, I'm getting worked up over that fact that you're an idiot. Feel free to back up your mouth with something factual. Give me any record of a conference incorporating a teams past non-conference record into their conference records or shut up.

You are also incorrect (again) that all the major conference have only had one school in the past four years lose to a I-AA team.

[footballfiji]

Sorry I overlooked the Big 10 having two losses last year. Still it's not a common thing.

And do you really blame Northwestern? Their coach had just died. There were other things more important than football that season.

I did back up up my post with facts. Other than using a web search engine.

If you'd like to sit here and name call then that's all well and good.

[ktffan]

Sorry I overlooked the Big 10 having two losses last year. Still it's not a common thing.

And do you really blame Northwestern? Their coach had just died. There were other things more important than football that season.

I did back up up my post with facts. Other than using a web search engine.

If you'd like to sit here and name call then that's all well and good.

More common than you originally claimed (which was my point). And you've offered no facts to support your ridiculous claim that conference incorporate past stats into their conference records.

And I'm not 'blaming' Northwestern, as I pointed out, it happens. However, they weren't so down after losing their coach to even let Miami of Ohio in the game they played against them.

And if you indeed have to rely on a web search engine, that does explain why you make such silly claims.

[footballfiji]

I'm walking away from the keyboard. I'd advise you to do the same instead of threadjacking.

[ktffan]

I'm walking away from the keyboard. I'd advise you to do the same instead of threadjacking.

I don't blame you since you are making things up and then are refusing to back them up when asked.

[footballfiji]

There are more 1-AA schools in the Southeast.

The Pac-10 gets aways with scheduling WAC and Mountain West Schools.

The Big Ten always plays the MAC.

THe SEC plays 1-AA and Sunbelt schools because they are closer. The games are easier to arrange and the schools hosting the game don't have to pay as much to get the games.

PAC-10 schools should be complaining about scheduling 1-AA schools. Because they are the only one's I can think of in the last 4 years that have actually LOST to 1-AA schools.


Since you want to be a dick about it then here is my original statement.

Where did I claim that the Pac-10 was the only conference to lost to a 1-AA school? No where. I said they were the only one's I can think of that have lost to a 1-AA school.

[ktffan]

Since you want to be a dick about it then here is my original statement.

Where did I claim that the Pac-10 was the only conference to lost to a 1-AA school? No where. I said they were the only one's I can think of that have lost to a 1-AA school.

Seems you lack total recall. And like I said, "give me a break". Just feeding you reality, which you obviously need.

BTW, it's when you try to bluff your way through something that you're going to get into trouble.