PAC 10 Fun Facts / Trivia

[GatorGrad]

This shocked the heck out of me:

The only school from the Pac 10 other than USC to win a MNC in the last 50 years was Washington in 1991, and that was shared with Miami. The next most recent was UCLA in 1954 which was also shared, this time with Ohio State. Does anyone know the last PAC 10 team, other than USC, to finish #1 in both major polls?

Also, some trivia...during the last four years, USC has signed 24 Rivals five-star recruits. How many Rivals five-star recruits have the other nine PAC 10 teams combined to sign during the same time period?

* The above fun facts / trivia are not meant to suggest that the National Championship in college football is anything but mythical or that the polls are a legit way to crown a champ or that recruiting rankings mean everything.

[Blue Hen]

Depends how restrictive your definition of MNC is, GG. If you allow for all the assorted MNC selectors out there, Washington can claim MNCs in 60, 84, 90, & 91. AZ st. can claim one in 1970. USC can claim to be the MNC in 62, 67,72, 74, 76, 78, 79,02, 03, & 04 & 05 (yep, -Harris poll)

That's 16 assorted MNCs for the P10 in the last 47 years.

[GatorGrad]

My question was:

Does anyone know the last PAC 10 team, other than USC, to finish #1 in both major polls?

Talking AP and Coaches Poll here...

[Blue Hen]

ahhhhhh....what do the major polls know. 'None' would be the answer, right ?

[Don]

This shocked the heck out of me:

The only school from the Pac 10 other than USC to win a MNC in the last 50 years was Washington in 1991, and that was shared with Miami. The next most recent was UCLA in 1954 which was also shared, this time with Ohio State. Does anyone know the last PAC 10 team, other than USC, to finish #1 in both major polls?

Also, some trivia...during the last four years, USC has signed 24 Rivals five-star recruits. How many Rivals five-star recruits have the other nine PAC 10 teams combined to sign during the same time period?

* The above fun facts / trivia are not meant to suggest that the National Championship in college football is anything but mythical or that the polls are a legit way to crown a champ or that recruiting rankings mean everything.

Here are the coached polls back to 1950
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coaches_Poll
Year School Head Coach
1950 Oklahoma Bud Wilkinson
1951 Tennessee Robert Neyland
1952 Michigan State Biggie Munn
1953 Maryland Jim Tatum
1954 UCLA Red Sanders
1955 Oklahoma Bud Wilkinson
1956 Oklahoma Bud Wilkinson
1957 Ohio State Woody Hayes
1958 LSU Paul Dietzel
1959 Syracuse Ben Schwartzwalder
1960 Minnesota Murray Warmath
1961 Alabama Bear Bryant
1962 USC John McKay
1963 Texas Darrell Royal
1964 Alabama Bear Bryant
1965 Michigan State Duffy Daugherty
1966 Notre Dame Ara Parseghian
1967 USC John McKay
1968 Ohio State Woody Hayes
1969 Texas Darrell Royal
1970 Texas Darrell Royal
1971 Nebraska Bob Devaney
1972 USC John McKay
1973 Alabama Bear Bryant
1974 USC John McKay
1975 Oklahoma Barry Switzer
1976 Pittsburgh Johnny Majors
1977 Notre Dame Dan Devine
1978 USC John Robinson
1979 Alabama Bear Bryant
1980 Georgia Vince Dooley
1981 Clemson Danny Ford
1982 Penn State Joe Paterno
1983 Miami (Fla.) Howard Schnellenberger
1984 Brigham Young LaVell Edwards
1985 Oklahoma Barry Switzer
1986 Penn State Joe Paterno
1987 Miami (Fla.) Jimmy Johnson
1988 Notre Dame Lou Holtz
1989 Miami (Fla.) Dennis Erickson
1990 Georgia Tech Bobby Ross
1991 Washington Don James
1992 Alabama Gene Stallings
1993 Florida State Bobby Bowden
1994 Nebraska Tom Osborne
1995 Nebraska Tom Osborne
1996 Florida Steve Spurrier
1997 Nebraska Tom Osborne
1998 Tennessee Phil Fulmer
1999 Florida State Bobby Bowden
2000 Oklahoma Bob Stoops
2001 Miami (Fla.) Larry Coker
2002 Ohio State Jim Tressel
2003 LSU Nick Saban
2004 USC Pete Carroll
2005 Texas Mack Brown
2006 Florida Urban Meyer

Here are the AP polls back to 1934
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ap_poll
Final AP football polls 1934, 1936-2006

1934—— Minnesota
1935—— No known poll
1936—— Minnesota
1937—— Pittsburgh
1938—— TCU
1939—— Texas A&M
1940—— Minnesota
1941—— Minnesota
1942—— Ohio State
1943—— Notre Dame
1944—— Army
1945—— Army
1946—— Notre Dame
1947—— Notre Dame / Michigan [1]
1948—— Michigan
1949—— Notre Dame
1950—— Oklahoma
1951—— Tennessee
1952—— Michigan State
1953—— Maryland
1954—— Ohio State
1955—— Oklahoma
1956—— Oklahoma
1957—— Auburn
1958—— LSU
1959—— Syracuse
1960—— Minnesota
1961—— Alabama
1962—— USC
1963—— Texas
1964—— Alabama
1965—— Alabama
1966—— Notre Dame
1967—— USC
1968—— Ohio State
1969—— Texas
1970—— Nebraska
1971—— Nebraska
1972—— USC
1973—— Notre Dame
1974—— Oklahoma
1975—— Oklahoma
1976—— Pittsburgh
1977—— Notre Dame
1978—— Alabama
1979—— Alabama
1980—— Georgia
1981—— Clemson
1982—— Penn State
1983—— Miami, (FL)
1984—— BYU
1985—— Oklahoma
1986—— Penn State
1987—— Miami, (FL)
1988—— Notre Dame
1989—— Miami, (FL)
1990—— Colorado
1991—— Miami, (FL)
1992—— Alabama
1993—— Florida State
1994—— Nebraska
1995—— Nebraska
1996—— Florida
1997—— Michigan
1998—— Tennessee
1999—— Florida State
2000—— Oklahoma
2001—— Miami (FL)
2002—— Ohio State
2003—— USC
2004—— USC
2005—— Texas
2006—— Florida

[GatorGrad]

Is it not shocking that with the great history and tradition of the PAC 10, the only school to ever win an undisputed MNC (AP and Coaches Poll) is USC? The PAC 10 may call themselves the "conference of champions," but they aren't talking about football.

The only other PAC 10 schools to win one of the polls was UCLA in 1954 and Washington in 1991. Both were shared as those PAC 10 teams won the Coaches Poll while the AP Poll chose Ohio State in 1954 and Miami in 1991.

Furthermore, I was reading on another site that in the last four years, USC has signed 24 Rivals 5-Star Recruits, while the rest of the PAC 10 has combined to sign 6 Rivals 5-Star Recruits. Six...spread among the other nine teams!

Just some fun facts to show why a lot of people view the PAC 10 as a one-team conference in football. Sure there are other decent programs, but only one of them can be considered "elite" and capable of competing for MNC's on a consistent basis.

[sc69er]

This shocked the heck out of me:

The only school from the Pac 10 other than USC to win a MNC in the last 50 years was Washington in 1991, and that was shared with Miami. The next most recent was UCLA in 1954 which was also shared, this time with Ohio State. Does anyone know the last PAC 10 team, other than USC, to finish #1 in both major polls?

Also, some trivia...during the last four years, USC has signed 24 Rivals five-star recruits. How many Rivals five-star recruits have the other nine PAC 10 teams combined to sign during the same time period?

* The above fun facts / trivia are not meant to suggest that the National Championship in college football is anything but mythical or that the polls are a legit way to crown a champ or that recruiting rankings mean everything.

That is good trivia and tends to rationalize why the Trojans dominate college football recently. If you went back a few years you would find that Stanford and Cal had MNC's. The big question to ask(it can't be answered) is do the rest of the teams in the PX really suck or is USC just that much better--the recruiting stats would support the latter agruement. Another question to ask is, if the Trojans had been in the BX or SEC over that time would the results have been simular in those conferences? Recent head to head meetings between USC and the BX and SEC would suggest yes is the right answer.

[GatorGrad]

The big question to ask(it can't be answered) is do the rest of the teams in the PX really suck or is USC just that much better--the recruiting stats would support the latter agruement. Another question to ask is, if the Trojans had been in the BX or SEC over that time would the results have been simular in those conferences? Recent head to head meetings between USC and the BX and SEC would suggest yes is the right answer.

It's a combination of USC being really good, and not enough PAC 10 teams being able to consistently compete at their level. USC landing 24 five-star recruits during the last four years while the other nine conference teams combine to land 6 such recruits is just silly. That means that the USC conference opponents average less than one five star recruit each while USC is playing with 24 of such recruits. That's not a good recipe for other PAC 10 teams to be able to compete w/ USC. It's a lot like FSU in the old ACC prior to ACC expansion where there was no other elite program for FSU to compete with in-conference. It would be nice for another couple PAC 10 schools to step up as a consistent elite program to give USC a run for their money in the PAC 10 race.

[sc69er]

is denser east of the Mississippi. And there are more schools recruiting in the dense populated area. As it stands now USC recruits 60% local(California) and 40% national(approximatly). Of the current starting line-up 10 of the starting 22 are from out of state and that could rise to 11 0f 22 if McKnight/Moody/Green start at RB later in the season and maybe to 12 out of 22 if Griffen lives up to his hype at DE. I think that the current USC staff would recruit well from anyfirst rate setting--you are never going be a winner at Miss St or Iowa st, etc

[Blue Hen]

7 different teams have won or shared P10 FB titles in the BCS era (UCLA, Stanford, Oregon, Oregon state, Washington, Washington State and USC)....70% of the league.

50% of the SEC has won conference titles in the BCS era.
50% of thye B12 has won conference titles in the BCS era.
42% of the ACC
73% of the B10

The P10 is one of the more competitive leagues out there.........far from a one team league. ...and remember, GG, you are always telling us that conference races are what's real and what really matters in big time CF...and you are 100% correct there ! League competitiveness is indicated by that, not MNCs , polls and all the perception driven, voted, opinionated, mythical $hit.

[Don]

.....USC landing 24 five-star recruits during the last four years while the other nine conference teams combine to land 6 such recruits is just silly. That means that the USC conference opponents average just 1.5 five star recruits while USC is playing with 24 of such recruits.

6 players spread over 9 teams = 2/3 players per team not 1.5.

[aufan59]

7 different teams have won or shared P10 FB titles in the BCS era (UCLA, Stanford, Oregon, Oregon state, Washington, Washington State and USC)....70% of the league.

50% of the SEC has won conference titles in the BCS era.
50% of thye B12 has won conference titles in the BCS era.
42% of the ACC
73% of the B10



Your statistical posts are hilarious Hokiehen. Lets just see why those numbers are like that:

13 teams have won a Pac-10 title in those 9 years. Only 9 SEC teams have won SEC titles in those 9 years(imagine that!). Of course a conference with less teams that hands out more titles will have a higher percent than a conference with more teams that hand out less titles.

You basically just proved that 13>9 and 10<12. Nice work.

Lets also consider the fact that since USC stepped up in 2002, only 2 other teams have won a Pac-10 title. If we ignore the ridiculous co-Champions who lost the tie breaker, that number goes to 1. The other 4 teams that won a Pac-10 title won it when there was no competition and it was up for grabs.

[GatorGrad]

Don - You are correct. I accidentally switched the numerator with the denominator in my division! This has been corrected now. So USC has 24 five-stars on their team, and the rest of the PAC 10 teams average less than one!

[GatorGrad]

7 different teams have won or shared P10 FB titles in the BCS era (UCLA, Stanford, Oregon, Oregon state, Washington, Washington State and USC)....70% of the league.

50% of the SEC has won conference titles in the BCS era.
50% of thye B12 has won conference titles in the BCS era.
42% of the ACC
73% of the B10

The P10 is one of the more competitive leagues out there.........far from a one team league. ...and remember, GG, you are always telling us that conference races are what's real and what really matters in big time CF...and you are 100% correct there ! League competitiveness is indicated by that, not MNCs , polls and all the perception driven, voted, opinionated, mythical $hit.

LOL...the PAC 10 has "co-championships" and thus award more PAC 10 Titles than the SEC on average. It would make sense that the Big Ten and PAC 10 would have a higher % of teams winning conference championships since they average giving away more than one championship per season.

USC has won five straight PAC 10 Championships and the last four of them would have been outright if there was a head to head tiebreaker in place for two teams that finish with the same record.

Really wish that all conferences either had a CCG or a tiebreaker in place to determine one undisputed champ. It's bad enough that we can have co-champs at the National Title level...there's no reason that we should have co-champs at the Conference Title level when there are never any more than 12 teams to sort out.

[buckeyejim]

From 1933 to 1991 (59 seasons) the SEC handed out conference titles just like the Big Ten and Pac-10 currently do.

Remember, the Big Ten and Pac-10 (by rule) can not conduct a conference championship game even if they wanted to. A conference must have 12 or more teams to have a championship game.

Is it right to force a conference to expand to 12 members just to play a conference championship game?

Maybe that rule should be changed.

[GatorGrad]

From 1933 to 1991 (59 seasons) the SEC handed out conference titles just like the Big Ten and Pac-10 currently do.

Remember, the Big Ten and Pac-10 (by rule) can not conduct a conference championship game even if they wanted to. A conference must have 12 or more teams to have a championship game.

Is it right to force a conference to expand to 12 members just to play a conference championship game?

Maybe that rule should be changed.

Yes, prior to expansion in 1992, the SEC could have co-champs as well. I didn't like it one bit. Especially when they only played 5, 6, or a max of 7 conference games. You could have 2-3 teams all finish 6-1 without playing each other and all claiming the title. What a mess. To me, the SEC "Modern Era" started in 1992 when we added SCarolina and Arkansas and went with the CCG format. That was also the year that the Bowl Coalition started matching up #1 with #2 (Big Ten and Pac 10 excluded.) Thus, I tend to use 1992 as a modern era for the SEC and current bowl system to some extent.

As for conference scheduling, they may still allow co-champs, but at least the PAC 10 now plays a round robin. I like that. I just wish that they had a tiebreaker format in place to crown one and only one champ. The Big Ten is the most out of wack. They could have two teams finish 8-0 without playing each other and both claim conference champs...crazy. In fact, last year, had Wisconsin not lost to Michigan, both Ohio St and Wisconsin would have finished unbeaten overall and 8-0 in Big Ten play. Both would have been declared Big Ten Champs and likely would have finished #1 and #2 in the BCS. So just because the Big Ten didn't have a round robin or CCG, the BCS Title Game would have had to act as the Big Ten Title Game. Now THAT would have been crazy!

[Blue Hen]

What ??

[Blue Hen]

Even considering the 'co-championships' can you admit, GG , that you are a little surprised that 70% of that conference's membership has won or shared the championship since 98 ???.....and can you concede ( just a little) that some 'perceptions' of the P10 being a "one team" conference might be predicated, somewhat, on ignorance. You're an honest guy, so I'll accept your answer as honest.

[GatorGrad]

I will admit that I am surprised that the % was so high at 70% but not that surprised that it was the highest given the era that you selected and the fact that the conference allows for co-champs. I expected the PAC 10 and Big 10 to have the highest since they allow for co-champs. Also, USC's run didn't really start until 2002 so given the fact that you used the BCS Era, it is not surprising. Since 2002, USC has won five straight PAC 10 Championships, and the PAC 10 has really been a conference with just one elite team IMO. But I give them credit for their OOC schedule so this is not a knock on USC or their schedule overall.

And while we both agree that the MNC is a sham, we both must also agree that teams who are crowned National Champs in either the AP or Coaches Poll usually are very deserving teams. These teams usually finish unbeaten as conference champs. For a PAC 10 team to be crowned #1, they probably needed to win their conference and go unbeaten while also winning the Rose Bowl. History has shown that the PAC 10 has not had any program outside of USC that has been capable of competing for the MNC on a consistent basis. No other school in the PAC 10 has finished #1 in both polls. That shocked the heck out of me. That is all.

[Don]

Don - You are correct. I accidentally switched the numerator with the denominator in my division! This has been corrected now. So USC has 24 five-stars on their team, and the rest of the PAC 10 teams average less than one!

It might be a similar situation in other conferences. I doubt it but it does need to be looked at to be fair to USC.

[aufan59]

Even considering the 'co-championships' can you admit, GG , that you are a little surprised that 70% of that conference's membership has won or shared the championship since 98 ???.....and can you concede ( just a little) that some 'perceptions' of the P10 being a "one team" conference might be predicated, somewhat, on ignorance. You're an honest guy, so I'll accept your answer as honest.

Since 2003 it has been a one team conference. Before that it wasn't. It was just based on who had the best QB in the pass happy, no defense conference.

[GatorGrad]

It might be a similar situation in other conferences. I doubt it but it does need to be looked at to be fair to USC.

I'll look at other conferences later if I get the time. I doubt the same would be the case in the SEC where teams like Florida, LSU, Georgia, and Tennessee are always signing top-ranked recruits year in and year out. Without looking, I would assume that the closest match to USC's recruiting dominance in the PAC 10 would be Texas in the Big 12.

[Blue Hen]

Now GG, you're a reasonable guy......especially for an SEC type. This perception of 'one team conference'...based on one member winning 4 consecutive outright championships...now, do you and your buddies perceive the SEC to have been a 'one team conference' in the 90's when your UF Gators pretty much dominated, including an .888 wp and 4 consecutive championships ?....and the 70s when Alabama waltzed through SEC without breaking a sweat ?..5 consecutive championships and 8 in a 9 year period ! Now that's a 'one team' league if there ever was one. If you do, indeed, apply the same standards to the SEC as to the P10 in formulating your 'perceptions' than the SEC has been a 'one team' league for about 27% of its history. Right ?

Also interesting - every single current P10 member can claim a P10 FB championship ( 100%). Now compare with the SEC , that you...again, 'perceive' to be ultra competitive - 75% of the current members can claim a conference FB championship.

'perceptions'

My view - neither is or has been a one team league. Both have featured powerful programs that had 'runs' in certain periods...that's all

[aufan59]

If the SEC did not play a Championship game, 8 different teams would have been considered SEC Champions.

Manipulating stats for arguments is fun!

[sc69er]

One team leagues. I think the Woody Hayes Buckeyes from 1968-1974 were BX champs or co champs 6 times in a row. I think Nebraska was BVIII/BXII champ 6 out of 7 years in the 90's and the year the didn't win the conference they won BXII north championship. Simularly with the FSU teams of the 90's. My take is these great teams have their runs in what ever Conference they play in. If USC was in the SEC it would be the Trojans and the eleven dwarfs that folks would talk about. Or if they were in the BX it would USC and the X dwarfs.

[GatorGrad]

Now GG, you're a reasonable guy......especially for an SEC type. This perception of 'one team conference'...based on one member winning 4 consecutive outright championships...now, do you and your buddies perceive the SEC to have been a 'one team conference' in the 90's when your UF Gators pretty much dominated, including an .888 wp and 4 consecutive championships ?....and the 70s when Alabama waltzed through SEC without breaking a sweat ?..5 consecutive championships and 8 in a 9 year period ! Now that's a 'one team' league if there ever was one. If you do, indeed, apply the same standards to the SEC as to the P10 in formulating your 'perceptions' than the SEC has been a 'one team' league for about 27% of its history. Right ?

Also interesting - every single current P10 member can claim a P10 FB championship ( 100%). Now compare with the SEC , that you...again, 'perceive' to be ultra competitive - 75% of the current members can claim a conference FB championship.

'perceptions'

My view - neither is or has been a one team league. Both have featured powerful programs that had 'runs' in certain periods...that's all

Not sure what "especially for an SEC type" means. Does that mean that other SEC fans are not reasonable? Please elaborate.

Yes, when Bama dominated the SEC, they were the king of the conference. Same for Florida's four straight SEC Championships from 93-96. I have no problem comparing those runs to USC's current dominance of the PAC 10. But when you combine the on-field results with the recruiting stats, can you not say that USC is in another league compared to the rest of their conference? The other nine PAC 10 teams average less than one 5* recruit each in the last four years, but USC along has 24 such recruits? Frankly, I don't know how they EVER lose a game in conference.

All I was trying to point out earlier, which I myself was shocked to learn, is that other than USC, the PAC 10 never had one other school finish #1 in both major polls. We both agree that using the polls to determine a champ is a joke, but you have to admit that if you finish #1, it usually means that you finished unbeaten, won your conference, and in this case won the Rose Bowl. You are certainly a "deserving" team. The PAC 10 has historically simply not produced any programs outside of USC that have been able to do this which I find shocking. Especially when you compare to some other conferences.

I actually admire the PAC 10. I think it would be a fun conference to be a part of. Their schools have great academics, beautiful weather, and I love how they play a round robin in football and most teams play a legit OOC schedule. They are also one of the best, if not the best, overall conference in most other sports...especially baseball. They are certainly the "conference of champions" as they claim...just not in football.

[GatorGrad]

Here's another fun fact since we're talking about the number of teams to "win a conference championship." Since 1992, the PAC 10 has had 24 teams fitted with Pac 10 Championship Rings. 24 teams claim a "Pac 10 Championship" in a 15-year span! That is silliness.

Their first good step was moving to a round robin schedule. Their second step should be implementing tiebreakers, similar to SEC/Big 12 Divisional tiebreakers that would crown one, and only one, champion. When two teams tie for the best record, head to head should determine the champ. There are also tiebreakers for when more than two teams tie.

[ktffan]

Here's another fun fact since we're talking about the number of teams to "win a conference championship." Since 1992, the PAC 10 has had 24 teams fitted with Pac 10 Championship Rings. 24 teams claim a "Pac 10 Championship" in a 15-year span! That is silliness.


It's not silly, it's tradition. College football is mostly about tradition. To me it's sad that money is taking over the sport and the conference championship game is just one example. From 1933-1991, the SEC has 71 champions (not counting vacated). To me, that's great:

http://www.sportslinknetwork.com/cfbtrivia/count.php?fry=1933&thy=1991&cch=on&fcn=on&desc=on

[buckeyejim]

I have contacts with several former college football players and something that they enjoy talking about are their conference championship rings. One of the guys played for Tennessee in 1989 and 1990. The 1989 ring doesn't say co-SEC Champion. It says SEC Champion. Tennessee tied both Alabama and Auburn for the SEC title in 1989. All 3 finished with 6-1-0 records in SEC play. It's not a real problem with me to have a tie for a conference championship. Heck, a 5-3 LSU team was SEC Champion in 2001 while the 7-1 Tennessee Vols were not. I guess the Tennesse players got an SEC Eastern Division Champions ring.

College football has a lot more problems than ties for conference titles.

[aufan59]

It's not silly, it's tradition. College football is mostly about tradition. To me it's sad that money is taking over the sport and the conference championship game is just one example. From 1933-1991, the SEC has 71 champions (not counting vacated). To me, that's great:

http://www.sportslinknetwork.com/cfbtrivia/count.php?fry=1933&thy=1991&cch=on&fcn=on&desc=on

Improvements in the game shouldn't be ignored because of 'tradition', if you can even call it that. Nobody likes a tie, especially if one is the clear cut winner. If A beats B and both end with the same record, having both as co-champions is ridiculous. The point of sports is to see who is the best, not hand out trophies like it's little league.

Championships are more valuable when 1/3 of the conference doesn't win one in one year.

[GatorGrad]

Well I disagree that co-championships is OK, whether it be "tradition" or otherwise. It's bad enough that we can have co-champs at the National Championship level. No reason to have them at the Conference Championship level when there are no more than 12 teams and enough games to determine a champ.

Yes, the SEC used to have the possibility of co-champs, and I hated it. I love the CCG format and the excitement it creates. This "everyone is a winner" mentality is for 7 yr old soccer leagues. It would be so simple to use head to head as a tiebreaker for two teams finishing tied for first (if they played each other.)

Just my opinion...

[buckeyejim]

Just for fun.

How about this. Let's say in 2008, Wisconsin beats Minnesota by 1 point in Madison and Minnesota win the rest of their Big Ten games to finish 7-1 in conference play.

Wisconsin also finishes 7-1 in Big Ten play losing at home to Indiana by a score of 28-3. Indiana goes 1-7 in conference play.

Both Wisconsin and Minnesota are tied for first place in the Big Ten with 7-1 records. Obviously, with 11 schools the Big Ten (by rule) can not have a conference championship game.

Does Minnesota deserve to be considered co-Big Ten Champions? They lost to Wisconsin head-to-head.
Does Wisconsin deserve to be considered co-Big Ten Champions? They lost to the last place Indiana Hoosiers.

[ktffan]

Improvements in the game shouldn't be ignored because of 'tradition', if you can even call it that. Nobody likes a tie, especially if one is the clear cut winner. If A beats B and both end with the same record, having both as co-champions is ridiculous. The point of sports is to see who is the best, not hand out trophies like it's little league.

Championships are more valuable when 1/3 of the conference doesn't win one in one year.


The conference championship game was not an "improvement". Nothing more than a money grab that cheapen the season and kill the tradition of the sport.

[Blue Hen]

Well, all that didn't really answer my question. Applying the same standards.....was the 70s SEC a 'one team' conference...and the 90s ?


That little quip ..."for an SEC type"..that's more of a compliment to SEC fans like yourself and NCT for engaging in reasonable debate and discussion....not all that common among SEC posters in these forums.

[GatorGrad]

Just for fun.

How about this. Let's say in 2008, Minnesota beats Wisconsin by 1 point in Madison and Minnesota win the rest of their Big Ten games to finish 7-1 in conference play.

Wisconsin also finishes 7-1 in Big Ten play losing at home to Indiana by a score of 28-3. Indiana goes 1-7 in conference play.

Both Wisconsin and Minnesota are tied for first place in the Big Ten with 7-1 records. Obviously, with 11 schools the Big Ten (by rule) can not have a conference championship game.

Does Minnesota deserve to be considered co-Big Ten Champions? They lost to Wisconsin head-to-head.
Does Wisconsin deserve to be considered co-Big Ten Champions? They lost to the last place Indiana Hoosiers.

This scenario is pretty simple in my opinion: Minnesota should be crowned Big Ten Champions by virtue of their 7-1 record and head to head win over Wisconsin. It's not a matter of who "deserves" it. It's a matter of who won based on the criteria of rules in place.

The head to head tiebreaker is used in some form in many sports and works. If two NFL teams tie for first place in a division, they go to head to head. If those teams split 1-1 (or in the Big Ten's case did not play) then the NFL goes to division record. In the Big Ten's case, record vs common opponents would make sense since teams don't play a balanced round robin schedule. There are other tiebreakers that can be used after this if needed as well. As long as everyone understands the rules from the start of the season, I don't think you would have people complaining in the end.

[GatorGrad]

Well, all that didn't really answer my question. Applying the same standards.....was the 70s SEC a 'one team' conference...and the 90s ?


That little quip ..."for an SEC type"..that's more of a compliment to SEC fans like yourself and NCT for engaging in reasonable debate and discussion....not all that common among SEC posters in these forums.

Hen - I thought I did answer your question in my prior post. The simple answer to your question would be yes - those teams dominated the SEC during that era and were head and shoulders above any other program at the time. More so Bama in the 70's IMO. Florida was good in 93-96 winning 4 straight SEC Titles and programs like LSU and Georgia were down, and Auburn was good but on probation half the time. But Florida also had good competition from Tennessee and Alabama in those years. Every season it seemed like the road to an SEC Championship was beating Tennessee to win the SEC East, and then beating Alabama in the SEC Title Game. It really was a three-team league at that time unlike now where there are 5-6 programs that can say they have a realistic shot at winning the SEC. I think Tennessee was almost right there behind Florida, especially 95 and 96 when Peyton was leading them. They just couldn't beat Florida during that time period. If they could, they would have probably won 2-3 SEC Titles in that same 4-year span.

Also, I hope that you don't stereotype all SEC fans just by this one forum. Pretty small sample size to go by. Sure we have our nut-jobs like BuLLdawg, but there are some other looney toons on these boards representing other teams/conferences other than the SEC as well. :)

[EvilVodka]

Just for fun.

How about this. Let's say in 2008, Minnesota beats Wisconsin by 1 point in Madison and Minnesota win the rest of their Big Ten games to finish 7-1 in conference play.

Wisconsin also finishes 7-1 in Big Ten play losing at home to Indiana by a score of 28-3. Indiana goes 1-7 in conference play.

Both Wisconsin and Minnesota are tied for first place in the Big Ten with 7-1 records. Obviously, with 11 schools the Big Ten (by rule) can not have a conference championship game.

Does Minnesota deserve to be considered co-Big Ten Champions? They lost to Wisconsin head-to-head.
Does Wisconsin deserve to be considered co-Big Ten Champions? They lost to the last place Indiana Hoosiers.

I think the head-to-head win trumps all...unless you made some kind of rule that selected the team with the highest ranking/best record