SEC vs PAC 10

[GatorGrad]

Two fun links below. ESPN.com has had a conference "tournament bracket" going every day all the way down to a final four of the SEC, PAC 10, Big Ten, and Big 12. They had the SEC and PAC 10 in the final with the SEC finishing #1. I was kind fo surprised by this since ESPN/ABC usually tend to favor the Big Ten/Big 12/PAC 10 given their TV deals (the SEC's major TV deal is with CBS.) All for fun of course:

http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/sportsnation/story?id=2963011

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=2977178&sportCat=ncf

[TommyTrojan]

The things that is so funny is watching educated (I think...) college football fans argue over which the best conference is. As if there is some award for playing in a hard conference.

Nuts

[GatorGrad]

What's wrong with having conference pride? The conference you play in is the league you compete in. It is an identity. And since there is no playoff or true NCAA Championship in DI-A, conferences in college football mean much more than in most other sports such as college basketball or any other pro sport. Finally, discussing conference strength occurs so much because sometimes it is hard to compare teams from other conferences who have not played each other. People like to blame poor seasons on their conference being so tough, or diminish good seasons of other teams by saying that their conference is weak. It's all part of the fun. It's college football.

[TommyTrojan]

Finally, discussing conference strength occurs so much because sometimes it is hard to compare teams from other conferences who have not played each other.

Yeah, it's damn near impossible. So why is every other thread dedicated to something that is irrelevant? Conference pride means nothing to me. Stanford and Mississippi have no reason to be happy about the success of USC and Florida. In fact, the Trojans and Gators success just WEAKENS their chances to compete in their respective conferences.

[GatorGrad]

[B]Conference pride means nothing to me.

I have met a lot of PAC 10 fans, especially USC fans, who feel the same way as you do and that's fine. Everyone is different. I would explain why I think that this is the case out west, but I don't want to ruffle any feathers.

Most Big Ten and SEC fans that I have met take a lot of pride winning their conference championship. The Big 12, ACC, and Big East have had a lot of movement recently, so there's not as much tradition with the same consistent schools...yet.

I's a big deal down here. It was very exciting for me to see my Gators win the SEC last year, a conference that most would argue was probably the best in the country last season. I actually enjoyed winning the SEC Title Game more so than winning the BCS Title Game if you can believe that.

[Blue Hen]

I believe it and its really admirable !


Really interesting how the P10 and SEC have become such cyber rivals in these forums. I'm not sure why. Maybe because there is so little interaction between the two leagues......like only 22 PSEG meetings in PSEG history (ccc)

[TommyTrojan]

I have met a lot of PAC 10 fans, especially USC fans, who feel the same way as you do and that's fine. Everyone is different. I would explain why I think that this is the case out west, but I don't want to ruffle any feathers.

Most Big Ten and SEC fans that I have met take a lot of pride winning their conference championship. The Big 12, ACC, and Big East have had a lot of movement recently, so there's not as much tradition with the same consistent schools...yet.

I's a big deal down here. It was very exciting for me to see my Gators win the SEC last year, a conference that most would argue was probably the best in the country last season. I actually enjoyed winning the SEC Title Game more so than winning the BCS Title Game if you can believe that.

I am extremely proud of USC's 5 straight Pac Ten titles, don't get me wrong!! I just have very little interest in Oregon State's success(for example) as a football program, as it will make it more difficult for USC to reach its level of success it desires, should OSU have a good program. I know the team I follow is very good, and it wouldn't matter if they were playing in the Pac Ten or the WAC. It's the same team. USC plays anyone, anywhere, and has proven themselves enough over the history of college football, that winning some popularity contest among conferences seems pointless.

BTW - The Pac Ten has changed the LEAST as of late. The Last 30 years, it's been the same 10 teams.

[aufan59]

You hate Auburn? I always felt like Auburn/Georgia was one of those rivalries where we respect each other as much as we want to beat the hell out of each other.

[aufan59]

Ah. I know some people in Atlanta and they would rather beat Georgia than Alabama because of people they have to deal with.

[Tombstone]

I am extremely proud of USC's 5 straight Pac Ten titles, don't get me wrong!! I just have very little interest in Oregon State's success(for example) as a football program, as it will make it more difficult for USC to reach its level of success it desires, should OSU have a good program. I know the team I follow is very good, and it wouldn't matter if they were playing in the Pac Ten or the WAC. It's the same team. USC plays anyone, anywhere, and has proven themselves enough over the history of college football, that winning some popularity contest among conferences seems pointless.

BTW - The Pac Ten has changed the LEAST as of late. The Last 30 years, it's been the same 10 teams.
So you admit to the PAC-10 having weaker conference. Also you would rather play easier teams than tougher teams? Not me! I want to play tough teams that way you know if you are "THAT GOOD" or not. Look at Ohio St last year and them getting waxed by Florida. Ohio st only tough games were Mich and Texas. Texas was good last yr but not great. Mich was probably their toughest scheduled opponent. Guess we just view things differently

[TommyTrojan]

So you admit to the PAC-10 having weaker conference. Also you would rather play easier teams than tougher teams? Not me! I want to play tough teams that way you know if you are "THAT GOOD" or not. Look at Ohio St last year and them getting waxed by Florida. Ohio st only tough games were Mich and Texas. Texas was good last yr but not great. Mich was probably their toughest scheduled opponent. Guess we just view things differently

The teams USC has beaten OOC the last 5 years speaks for itself.

BTW- If SEC schools wanted to play tough teams they would schedule better oppenents OOC. Their tough games, are games they're FORCED to play. Even the OOC rivalry games (SoCar-Clem, UF-FSU, UGA-GT)

[Don]

....Look at Ohio St last year and them getting waxed by Florida. Ohio st only tough games were Mich and Texas. Texas was good last yr but not great. Mich was probably their toughest scheduled opponent. Guess we just view things differently

As one of the resident UF fans here I feel I must respond to this. UF has won 2 "MNC" in the past 11 seasons. UF beat FSU 52-20 after the '96 season and beat OSU 41-14 after the '06 season. At first glance it might seem that UF's opponents were sorely outclassed. But, recall that DURING the '96 season UF LOST to FSU 24-21. That is a swing of 35 points! Suppose that the UF/OSU game was merely the last game of the season and NOW they are going to play a second game for the NC. This time a 35 point turn around would mean that in the replay OSU would win by 8 points. Just imagine the OSU fans dancing in the aisles and we would be discussing how strong the Big 10 and PAC 10 teams were last year. Don't read too much into that score.


The teams USC has beaten OOC the last 5 years speaks for itself.

Yes, and so does the collection of teams that USC has beaten in conference! ;)

... If SEC schools wanted to play tough teams they would schedule better oppenents OOC. Their tough games, are games they're FORCED to play. Even the OOC rivalry games (SoCar-Clem, UF-FSU, UGA-GT)

No, IF the SEC wanted to play tougher schedules they would schedule MORE SEC teams and fewer OOC teams! :)

[Bucs90]

TommyTrojan, another year, another round of SEC OOC schedule bashing. Well, you got a point on OOC rivalry games. UF vs FSU, USC vs Clemson, UGA vs GT, UK vs Louisville. But notice the teams without a major in-state OOC rival, LSU, UT, Bama, Auburn are also the teams in the conference that often play major OOC games. In recent years UT has faced Notre Dame and Cal, Bama vs Oklahoma, Florida State, Auburn vs USC, GT, and of course, LSU has continued it's absolute step-child-like beat down of all things Pac-10. But so conveniently, you always forget the Conference Championship Game. An UNSCHEDULED game vs a top 25 team. See, Tommy, the OOC strength of schedule matters ONLY when you are fighting for a BCS berth. ONLY THEN!! Grasp that for a moment. If you aren't going to qualify for a BCS game, then SOS DOES NOT MATTER. But, for SEC teams, if you ARE going to fight for a BCS game, then about a 99% chance you are going to make the SEC CCG. Which means that opening season cupcake 1-AA game is offset by a previously unscheduled game vs a top 25 SEC team in the CCG. Pac 10 and Big 10 schools don't have that late season schedule boost, so they play less 1-AA teams and add an extra BCS team in their OOC, maybe. Some still play the 3-4 softies anyway. And, because of this, some SEC teams get the stigma of having a "soft" schedule because the first impression of that schedule is the early 1-AA game or non-BCS game which is ingrained into the opinionated minds of most fans and voters. Hence the infamous 2004 Auburn season in which they lost the national championship by beating The Citadel.

[Blue Hen]

Auburn didn't lose any NC because it played the Citadel. Auburn actually moved up in the polls after beating the Citadel.

[Bucs90]

Didn't catch the point? Auburn's schedule was pointed to as the reason they didn't go and OU did. Had Auburn not played The Citadel, which was the favorite OOC team for the masses to point to on AU's schedule, and instead beat a mid-1A team, say Memphis, then maybe Auburn gets the opinion votes needed and gets in. So, in a way, they lost the NC by beating The Citadel. (Although, by the "NC" I mean the BCS exhibition championship, at least we agree on that!)

[Blue Hen]

Nah, AU and Utah ( don't forget those guys ) didn't get an opportunity because they started 18th and 21st. USC and OU started 1 & 2. Any teams that get the free #1 or 2 start in August and don't lose, automatically appear in the BCS pretend NC game. It's never , ever failed to happen. Citadel wasn't a factor at all.

[Bucs90]

Agree and disagree. Agree the preseason ranking helped tremendously!! However, many people were outraged Auburn, and Utah, didn't get in. Although I'm all for both teams, Auburn was the popular spoiler for the BCS, and the BCS folks, and just about everyone outside the South, said "Auburn played a weak schedule", and most often pointed to The Citadel. Now, did that game actually affect the computer ratings? Doubt it, but you see my point that in popular opinion, The Citadel game was the overwhelming rally cry against Auburn's schedule that year. So, sure it wasn't a factor in technical and practical terms, but it was the excuse the BCS supporters gave for Auburn not "deserving" a chance.

But, IMO, the truth is the BCS, network TV people and everyone outside the South (and some in the South) were drooling for a shot to see 4 Heisman candidates on the same field and they hype machine that was involved in that game. I do say, OU prior to that game had a lot more star power than did the senior led but dull Auburn team. However, the NFL draft and production of those drafted since then has shown that it was just that, hype, and Auburn very well would have made it a better game than did OU.

[Blue Hen]

The unwritten law stands : If you start the season, pre-ranked either #1 or #2 and don't lose, you're locked into the BCS MNC game. Makes no difference, whatsoever, what any of the other Bowl div teams do. Heisman hype, Citadels.....no factor. Dumbest championship system in world team sports history.

[Bucs90]

Oh, I agree, hope I'm not giving the impression that I don't. 2004 USC vs OU was a lock because of the preseason 1 and 2 ranking.

However, the BCS people and NCAA don't want the people knowing that, they think we are dumb and don't know it already, and they won't say it. So, although it was in stone, there was still the uproar when Auburn and Utah didn't get in. So, there had to be a response, some kind of excuse as to why we should accept OU vs USC as a "legit" NC game.

And, the common points given in the excuse were Utah and Auburn played weak schedules. I know The Citadel game didn't actually prevent Auburn from getting in. Maybe the joke is just bigger down here in Charleston that The Citadel kept Auburn out of the NC game by losing to them! Technically not even close to true, but if you listened to any BCS supporter or OU/USC fan from that year, you'd hear "Auburn didn't get in because they had a weak schedule. I mean, the played the freakin' Citadel!"

When in fact, the truth is by being 1 and 2 in August, no team would have a shot unless OU or USC lost.

I'm with you Hen, I just like to throw out that joke time to time that Auburn lost the 2004 NC by beating The Citadel. Maybe the joke isn't as popular as us Charlestonians thought!

[Blue Hen]

so, B90, are you involved any with CSU fb this season ?

[Bucs90]

Nope. Long story, I'll have to PM you bout it some day.