Top Conferences College Football

[tlongII]

You're right, the SEC will end up having better bowl games than the Pac-10. Portland State would put the Pac-10 over the top though.

As far as non-conference games go, you know better Schlong. Those games are irrelevant unless you have a good record at the end of the season. You don't receive a great bowl bid by losing two or three conference games and beating one good non-conference opponent. Plus, what non-conference success has the Pac-10 had besides the USC/Ohio St. game? Oregon over Utah doesn't count.

Go Beavers!

You see that is exactly my point! The Pac-10 is brutal. Texas and Florida would never get through a Pac-10 schedule without a loss!

[MajorMike]

You see that is exactly my point! The Pac-10 is brutal. Texas and Florida would never get through a Pac-10 schedule without a loss!

Except for the fact that UT and uo and Florida routinely make it thru their conference schedule, which includes other teams ranked in the top 10-20, and don't lose to unranked conference teams year in and year out.

Sure you can say Washington is now a ranked team; however, just like Houston after they beat OSU, neither would be ranked if they would have lost like they were supposed to.

Sc doesn't loose to unranked P10 teams because they are good: 4-8 Stanford in 2007 was not good; UCLA was not good in 2006; if not for wins over USC, Ore State would not have been ranked (twice) at 8-5; Cal finished 8-6 in 2003.

When UT and uo get beat by the middle of the road teams (atm, ttek, OSU) they more often than not don't play for the BCS, and that is in the best division in football. SC is normally just good enough to be collectively better than everyone else in the just barely better than ACC or Big East P10 to warrant a BCS bid every year.

As long as SC continues to be upset in conference games they obviously should win, they will not be rewarded with a BCS le game appearance. The football community is tired of the big game stars who can't play in the little game. Just the way it is. Until SC shows they can run the table in a second-rate conference, they don't deserve anymore than what they get, which is the annual Rose Bowl.

2008 Post, but still relevant:

There have been more teams from non-BCS confs in BCS Bowls (3) than 2nd P10 teams in the BCS as an at-large (2).

Only USC has multiple BCS Bowl bids - no other P10 school has more than 1.

Only twice this century have more than 2 P10 teams been ranked in the final AP poll (Az State #20 - 2004; UW #19 - 2001).

P10 only had one team in the top 20 in 1999 (Ore #19), 1998 (UCLA #8), 1995 (SC #12), 1990 (UW #5), 1989 (SC #8), 1985 (UCLA #6), 1983 (UCLA #13) and I got tired of looking.

P10 is only a better conf than the ACC or BEast in the BCS era because SC is in it. That's all, nothing more.

if ttek even got to play that schedule every year they'd have 11 wins 7 or 8 years in a row, let alone uo, UT, LSU, Fla, UGA, etc.

And to further prove how lucky SC is to have the P10, the reason they get to go to the BCS every year - because of the patsy P10 schedule, let's look at the records of the BCS Era:

Boise State - 103-24; 1 BCS Bid
UT - 103-25 2 BCS Bid; 1 le
uo - 102-28 6 Bids; 1 le
Ohio - 98-27 6 Bids; 1 le
Va Tech - 99-28; 3 Bids
UGA - 97-30; 3 Bids
Miami - 94-30; 4 Bids; 1 le
SC - 94-32; 6 Bids; 1 le

In the BCS era, the only other P10 team in the top 20 in record is Oregon (#17) and they have 1 BCS bid. To my suprise, Oregon State was next... at #31.

The B12 has 2 in the Top 3 (the top 2 if you aren't counting Boise), Neb (18), KSU (24) and ttek (28). atm is at 42 which is still above the next P10 team (UCLA 44).

SEC has 6, 10, 10, 16, 19.

ACC has 5, 7, 12, 19, 27.

BEast has 5, 14, 22, 26.

B10/1 has 4, 9, 15,

SC makes a living feasting off of poor P10 teams to get the auto BCS bid. Have they won a good amount of games since then, yes; good on them. Getting the auto bid guarantees them a home game at the Rose Bowl where 4 of their BCS games have been and they are 3-1 (losing only to UT in the le game).

I'm sure Ohio and UT and uo would love to play a home game for a BCS Bowl, as well.

[THEOhioSt.University]

The pac 10 looked amazing this week. USC loses to a team that was winless all last year and Cal had a battle with lowly Minnesota before pulling away. The ACC is way overrated, as well. Just because you beat other crappy teams in the ACC doesnt make you good. Be prepared folks, I'll be here speaking my mind all year.

[mookie2001]

UT - 103-25 2 BCS Bid

dont you mean 3

[mookie2001]

oh i see from 2008

[tlongII]

5-0 in bowl games.

[Allan Rowe vs Wade]

I'm sure Ohio and UT and uo would love to play a home game for a BCS Bowl, as well

and not play a conference championship game

[vander]

and not play a conference championship game

of course the flip side of that is not having to schedule all the best teams in your conference every year, does Alabama play Florida this year? do Texas and Oklahoma play... wait that doesn't really matter because the Big 12 north sucks pretty hard

[TFloss32]

of course the flip side of that is not having to schedule all the best teams in your conference every year, does Alabama play Florida this year? do Texas and Oklahoma play... wait that doesn't really matter because the Big 12 north sucks pretty hard

Yes, Texas and OU play every year.

[vander]

Yes, Texas and OU play every year.

not where I was going with that

[TFloss32]

not where I was going with that

I know where you were going Vander. I was being sarcastic and making fun of your post because it's a null point. You were saying that it's more advantageous to schedule teams every other 2 years because teams can avoid the juggernauts in their respective conferences during regular season play and hope that they faulter somewhere along the line. However, you are saying, that idea doesn't apply to the Big XII because the North division sucks so badly. I get it...

But...realistically, a round robin is much more beneficial because you don't have to play an extra game each year and you get to sit pretty while the top dogs in other conferences take each other out. Plus, the SEC and Big XII conferences are the best overall each year anyway and that makes your argument irrelevant.

[johngateswhiteley]

I know where you were going Vander. I was being sarcastic and making fun of your post because it's a null point. You were saying that it's more advantageous to schedule teams every other 2 years because teams can avoid the juggernauts in their respective conferences during regular season play and hope that they faulter somewhere along the line. However, you are saying, that idea doesn't apply to the Big XII because the North division sucks so badly. I get it...

But...realistically, a round robin is much more beneficial because you don't have to play an extra game each year and you get to sit pretty while the top dogs in other conferences take each other out. Plus, the SEC and Big XII conferences are the best overall each year anyway and that makes your argument irrelevant.

thats not a complete perspective.

[vander]

I know where you were going Vander. I was being sarcastic and making fun of your post because it's a null point. You were saying that it's more advantageous to schedule teams every other 2 years because teams can avoid the juggernauts in their respective conferences during regular season play and hope that they faulter somewhere along the line. However, you are saying, that idea doesn't apply to the Big XII because the North division sucks so badly. I get it...

But...realistically, a round robin is much more beneficial because you don't have to play an extra game each year and you get to sit pretty while the top dogs in other conferences take each other out. Plus, the SEC and Big XII conferences are the best overall each year anyway and that makes your argument irrelevant.

flip side = more advantageous?
no, I wasn't making that argument at all.

[tlongII]

I know where you were going Vander. I was being sarcastic and making fun of your post because it's a null point. You were saying that it's more advantageous to schedule teams every other 2 years because teams can avoid the juggernauts in their respective conferences during regular season play and hope that they faulter somewhere along the line. However, you are saying, that idea doesn't apply to the Big XII because the North division sucks so badly. I get it...

But...realistically, a round robin is much more beneficial because you don't have to play an extra game each year and you get to sit pretty while the top dogs in other conferences take each other out. Plus, the SEC and Big XII conferences are the best overall each year anyway and that makes your argument irrelevant.

No they're not. The Pac-10 is clearly better than either of those conferences top to bottom. There's only one weak team in the Pac-10 this year.

[JamStone]

What one weak team is that?

Oregon?

They lost to a WAC team and barely beat a ty Purdue team at home. Is that the team you're referring to?

[mookie2001]

ignore


if 10 teams all went 5-5 this poster would be jacking off to how powerful they were

[johngateswhiteley]

No they're not. The Pac-10 is clearly better than either of those conferences top to bottom. There's only one weak team in the Pac-10 this year.

i love your passion...i do. but you aren't helping our cause by always saying the pac-10 is better and thats that. the pac-10 is not better than the SEC, but that doesn't mean we can't play with a lot of those teams. it is, however, on par or slightly behind the big 12. anyone, that suggests the pac-10 is, at minimum, not the 3rd best in the country...just doesn't watch enough CFB.

aside from all of that, back to the latest topic at hand, the current scheduling system is more difficult than most realize...and even a great team like USC is going to stumble. To be fair, i think part of it has to reside on Carroll's shoulders...even though he has been phenomenal. 6 of our last 7 losses, or something like that, have been to unranked Pac-10 teams on the road...that should tell anyone, with thought, all they need to know about Pac-10 scheduling. USC doesn't struggle, or even lose really, with out of conference opponents. the hating, if you want to be taken seriously, should stop...

[TFloss32]

thats not a complete perspective.

Elaborate...

[johngateswhiteley]

What one weak team is that?

Oregon?

They lost to a WAC team and barely beat a ty Purdue team at home. Is that the team you're referring to?

does beating utah not count?

[TFloss32]

of course the flip side of that is not having to schedule all the best teams in your conference every year, does Alabama play Florida this year? do Texas and Oklahoma play... wait that doesn't really matter because the Big 12 north sucks pretty hard

How are you not implying an advantage by saying this?

[tlongII]

What one weak team is that?

Oregon?

They lost to a WAC team and barely beat a ty Purdue team at home. Is that the team you're referring to?

I guess you forgot about #16 Utah that they just beat?

[tlongII]

i love your passion...i do. but you aren't helping our cause by always saying the pac-10 is better and thats that. the pac-10 is not better than the SEC, but that doesn't mean we can't play with a lot of those teams. it is, however, on par or slightly behind the big 12. anyone, that suggests the pac-10 is, at minimum, not the 3rd best in the country...just doesn't watch enough CFB.

aside from all of that, back to the latest topic at hand, the current scheduling system is more difficult than most realize...and even a great team like USC is going to stumble. To be fair, i think part of it has to reside on Carroll's shoulders...even though he has been phenomenal. 6 of our last 7 losses, or something like that, have been to unranked Pac-10 teams on the road...that should tell anyone, with thought, all they need to know about Pac-10 scheduling. USC doesn't struggle, or even lose really, with out of conference opponents. the hating, if you want to be taken seriously, should stop...

Nah dude, I know what I'm talking about. SEC and Big-12 honks think they're so good because they always have a couple of teams in the top 8. The joke is they never play anybody good out of conference and they don't even play everybody IN their conference. They only have a few tough games a year. Pac-10 teams always have at least 7 tough games on the schedule.

[johngateswhiteley]

I guess you forgot about #16 Utah that they just beat?

as i said above. also, losing to boise state at boise state isn't a bad loss, especially if they go undefeated the rest of the way. but, damn, i'm tired of boise state.

[tlongII]

ignore


if 10 teams all went 5-5 this poster would be jacking off to how powerful they were

Well OF COURSE! Parity is what the NFL is all about! Are you saying that the Big-12 is better than the NFL?


lol lol rofl rofl!

[JamStone]

I guess you forgot about #16 Utah that they just beat?

No I didn't. Does beating Utah change the other two games?