Started By
Message
Why do SEC fans think the Pac 10 is weak?
Posted on 1/11/09 at 8:28 am
Posted on 1/11/09 at 8:28 am
I ask that because I hear that belief all the time on local sports talk radio but what's happened during the BCS era in interconference games between BCS league teams just doesn't support that perception. Take the Pac 10's head to head performance vs. the SEC, for example. The Pac 10 is 10-7 and it's not because it's been some of the better teams in the Pac 10 playing some of the poorer teams in the SEC. In fact, if anything, it's been more the other way around.
Below are the results of BCS era (1998 - 2008) games between the PAC 10 and SEC. The conference record of each team is in parenthesis. For example: The last line under "PAC 10 WINS" indicates that, in 2007, California, which finished 3-6 in Pac 10 play, had a 45 - 31 win over Tennessee, which finished 6-3 in SEC play. Then there's a note to indicate that one of Tennessee's three losses was in the SEC championship game.
PAC 10 WINS
2006 USC (7-2) 50, Arkansas (7-2) 14* - One UA loss in SEC championship
2005 USC (8-0) 70*, Arkansas (2-6) 17
2003 USC (7-1) 23, Auburn (5-3) 0*
2002 USC (7-1) 24*, Auburn (5-3) 17
2008 UCLA (3-6) 27*, Tennessee (3-5) 24
2001 UCLA (4-4) 20, Alabama (4-4) 17*
2000 UCLA (3-5) 35*, Alabama (3-5) 24
2003 Oregon (5-3) 42, Mississippi State (1-7) 34*
2002 Oregon (3-5) 36*, Mississippi State (0-8) 13
2007 California (3-6) 45*, Tennessee (6-3) 31 - One UT loss in SEC championship
SEC WINS
2008 Georgia (6-2) 27, Arizona State (4-5) 10*
2005 LSU (7-2) 35, Arizona State (4-4) 31*
2006 LSU (6-2) 45*, Arizona (4-5) 3
2003 LSU (8-1) 59, Arizona (1-7) 13*
2006 Tennessee (5-3) 35*, California (7-2) 18
2006 Auburn (6-2) 40*, Washington State (4-5) 14
2004 LSU (6-2) 22*, Oregon State (5-3) 21
*-Home Team
SEC teams involved have a slightly better overall conference winning rate (0.579) than the Pac 10 teams do (0.549).
There were 3 games such that the Pac 10 team and the SEC team had identical records within their respective conferences. Pac 10 teams won all 3 of those games.
There were 5 games such that both the Pac 10 team and the SEC team had winning records in their own conferences. The Pac 10 was 3-2 in those games.
There were 4 games such that neither team finished with a winning record in its own conference. The Pac 10 was 4-0 in those games.
There were 7 games involving Pac 10 teams that finished with winning conference records. The Pac 10 was 5-2 in those games. In comparison, there were 11 games involving SEC teams that finished with winning conference records (i.e., more of the games involved the SEC's better teams than involved the Pac 10's better teams). The SEC was 7-4 in those games.
Pac 10 teams that did NOT finish with winning Pac 10 conference records went 5-5 against the SEC. SEC teams that did not finish with winning SEC conference records went 0-6 against the Pac 10.
Pac 10 teams other than USC went 6-7 vs. the SEC. SEC teams other than LSU went 3-10 against the Pac 10.
Or look at it in your own ways. There's no way you're going to be intellectually honest and say that the head to head record suggests SEC superiority. I personally believe the SEC has generally been a little tougher (though not every year) because of power ratings and the small edge the SEC has in NFL players (26 to 22 per conference team averages). But I don't think the difference has been anything like people in this area seem to think it's been. If it had been, I don't think there's any way you could see head to head results like those above.
Below are the results of BCS era (1998 - 2008) games between the PAC 10 and SEC. The conference record of each team is in parenthesis. For example: The last line under "PAC 10 WINS" indicates that, in 2007, California, which finished 3-6 in Pac 10 play, had a 45 - 31 win over Tennessee, which finished 6-3 in SEC play. Then there's a note to indicate that one of Tennessee's three losses was in the SEC championship game.
PAC 10 WINS
2006 USC (7-2) 50, Arkansas (7-2) 14* - One UA loss in SEC championship
2005 USC (8-0) 70*, Arkansas (2-6) 17
2003 USC (7-1) 23, Auburn (5-3) 0*
2002 USC (7-1) 24*, Auburn (5-3) 17
2008 UCLA (3-6) 27*, Tennessee (3-5) 24
2001 UCLA (4-4) 20, Alabama (4-4) 17*
2000 UCLA (3-5) 35*, Alabama (3-5) 24
2003 Oregon (5-3) 42, Mississippi State (1-7) 34*
2002 Oregon (3-5) 36*, Mississippi State (0-8) 13
2007 California (3-6) 45*, Tennessee (6-3) 31 - One UT loss in SEC championship
SEC WINS
2008 Georgia (6-2) 27, Arizona State (4-5) 10*
2005 LSU (7-2) 35, Arizona State (4-4) 31*
2006 LSU (6-2) 45*, Arizona (4-5) 3
2003 LSU (8-1) 59, Arizona (1-7) 13*
2006 Tennessee (5-3) 35*, California (7-2) 18
2006 Auburn (6-2) 40*, Washington State (4-5) 14
2004 LSU (6-2) 22*, Oregon State (5-3) 21
*-Home Team
SEC teams involved have a slightly better overall conference winning rate (0.579) than the Pac 10 teams do (0.549).
There were 3 games such that the Pac 10 team and the SEC team had identical records within their respective conferences. Pac 10 teams won all 3 of those games.
There were 5 games such that both the Pac 10 team and the SEC team had winning records in their own conferences. The Pac 10 was 3-2 in those games.
There were 4 games such that neither team finished with a winning record in its own conference. The Pac 10 was 4-0 in those games.
There were 7 games involving Pac 10 teams that finished with winning conference records. The Pac 10 was 5-2 in those games. In comparison, there were 11 games involving SEC teams that finished with winning conference records (i.e., more of the games involved the SEC's better teams than involved the Pac 10's better teams). The SEC was 7-4 in those games.
Pac 10 teams that did NOT finish with winning Pac 10 conference records went 5-5 against the SEC. SEC teams that did not finish with winning SEC conference records went 0-6 against the Pac 10.
Pac 10 teams other than USC went 6-7 vs. the SEC. SEC teams other than LSU went 3-10 against the Pac 10.
Or look at it in your own ways. There's no way you're going to be intellectually honest and say that the head to head record suggests SEC superiority. I personally believe the SEC has generally been a little tougher (though not every year) because of power ratings and the small edge the SEC has in NFL players (26 to 22 per conference team averages). But I don't think the difference has been anything like people in this area seem to think it's been. If it had been, I don't think there's any way you could see head to head results like those above.
15
Posted on 1/11/09 at 8:31 am to JohnStOnge
Now some numbers on how the Pac 10 has done against other BCS leagues in general during the BCS era. Here are the records for the Big 12 vs. each other league:
Vs. SEC 10 - 7
Vs. Big 10 34 - 22
Vs. Big 12 27 - 27
Vs. Big East 10 - 7
Vs. ACC 6-6
Total w/l vs. other BCS conferences: 87 - 69
In short, at this point during the BCS era, no other BCS conference has a winning record in head to head competition against the Pac 10.
If you're thinking it's all because of USC, it's not. Here is how the group of Pac 10 teams OTHER than USC did in games against other BCS conference teams:
Vs. SEC 6 - 7
Vs. Big 10 26 - 22
Vs. Big 12 23 - 24
Vs. Big East 10 - 7
Vs. ACC 4 - 5
Total w/l vs. other BCS conferences: 69 - 65
So, even with its top program left out of the equation , teams from that league have held their own against teams from every other BCS conference. Yes, if you leave USC out, they've lost more than they've won against three other leagues. But in no case are they more than 1 game below 0.500. And, overall, they have a winning record in non conference play against other BCS leagues WITHOUT USC.
If you think the Pac 10 is a weak league, you're in "don't confuse me with the facts" mode.
Vs. SEC 10 - 7
Vs. Big 10 34 - 22
Vs. Big 12 27 - 27
Vs. Big East 10 - 7
Vs. ACC 6-6
Total w/l vs. other BCS conferences: 87 - 69
In short, at this point during the BCS era, no other BCS conference has a winning record in head to head competition against the Pac 10.
If you're thinking it's all because of USC, it's not. Here is how the group of Pac 10 teams OTHER than USC did in games against other BCS conference teams:
Vs. SEC 6 - 7
Vs. Big 10 26 - 22
Vs. Big 12 23 - 24
Vs. Big East 10 - 7
Vs. ACC 4 - 5
Total w/l vs. other BCS conferences: 69 - 65
So, even with its top program left out of the equation , teams from that league have held their own against teams from every other BCS conference. Yes, if you leave USC out, they've lost more than they've won against three other leagues. But in no case are they more than 1 game below 0.500. And, overall, they have a winning record in non conference play against other BCS leagues WITHOUT USC.
If you think the Pac 10 is a weak league, you're in "don't confuse me with the facts" mode.
Posted on 1/11/09 at 8:36 am to JohnStOnge
This is why WE the SEC think that we are the strongest conference and every other conference is weaker than ours.
Conference Championships Schools BCS Championship Game Record
SEC 5 Tennessee (1998), LSU (2003, 2007), Florida (2006, 2008) 5-0 (1.000)
Big 12 2 Oklahoma (2000), Texas (2005) 2-4 (0.333)
Pac-10 1 USC (2004) 1-1 (0.500)
Big Ten 1 Ohio State (2002) 1-2 (0.333)
ACC 1 Florida State (1999) 1-2 (0.333)[6] (2-4 current alignment)
Big East 1 Miami (2001) 1-2 (0.333)[7] (0-0 current alignment)
Conference Championships Schools BCS Championship Game Record
SEC 5 Tennessee (1998), LSU (2003, 2007), Florida (2006, 2008) 5-0 (1.000)
Big 12 2 Oklahoma (2000), Texas (2005) 2-4 (0.333)
Pac-10 1 USC (2004) 1-1 (0.500)
Big Ten 1 Ohio State (2002) 1-2 (0.333)
ACC 1 Florida State (1999) 1-2 (0.333)[6] (2-4 current alignment)
Big East 1 Miami (2001) 1-2 (0.333)[7] (0-0 current alignment)
This post was edited on 1/11/09 at 8:38 am
Posted on 1/11/09 at 8:39 am to JohnStOnge
quote:
Why do SEC fans think the Pac 10 is weak?
They have good teams but there is only one PAC 10 team that would be able to compete year in year out in the SEC. Occasionally they have 2 or 3 teams that could play with the SEC but not on a consistent basis. jmo...
Posted on 1/11/09 at 8:40 am to JohnStOnge
I truly resent your attempt to inject logic, reason, and facts into the discussion of this particular issue.
I'd prefer to be left alone in peace with my pro-SEC bias
In all seriousness though, as you probably already know, Mark Twain wrote one time something about lies, damned lies , and statistics. The point being of course that you can 'gerrymander' statistics to justify just about any position in a debate.
My intuitive sense is that the SEC is generally a stronger conf than the Pac 10 most years. Most FB writers that I've seen agree w/ this point of view.
I'd prefer to be left alone in peace with my pro-SEC bias
In all seriousness though, as you probably already know, Mark Twain wrote one time something about lies, damned lies , and statistics. The point being of course that you can 'gerrymander' statistics to justify just about any position in a debate.
My intuitive sense is that the SEC is generally a stronger conf than the Pac 10 most years. Most FB writers that I've seen agree w/ this point of view.
Posted on 1/11/09 at 8:54 am to JohnStOnge
It's not just SEC fans that think the Pac-10 is weak.
Posted on 1/11/09 at 9:45 am to JohnStOnge
quote:
Why do SEC fans think the Pac 10 is weak?
Because top-to-bottom the Weak 10 sucks. You have USuC, Oregon, Arizona, Oregon State, and really and truly every one else in that league just plain sucks wind.
Then you have the Not-so-big 10, errrrrrrrrrrr the Weak 11. There you have Penn State (every 2 or 3 years or so they are pretty good), tOSU (who couldn't win a bowl game against a team from the south even if they paid the refs off), Meeeeeeechigan has some good years and some bad, and really from there you have a large drop-off. Iowa can be good when they want to, Meeeeechigan State is just not that great of a program, Illinois is good once every 5 years or so and Northwestern has to score 50 points every game to win because their defense is terrible.
So, long story short, top-to-bottom in the SEC, you can get beat by just about anyone if you don't bring your A game. The leagues mentioned above have a handful of good teams and then a HUGE dropoff.
Posted on 1/11/09 at 9:45 am to JohnStOnge
I think the PAC 10 is a very good conference, however there are way too many ups and downs with who is in the top tier of the conference. Their isnt the consistency that many people want to see, so they lose some respect. One year its Oregon, Cal, and Washington. Another year it might be OSU, Arizona St, and UCLA that is in the top tier of the conference with USC. USC, for the most part, has been the only steady power in the conference.
I also think that non-conference games early in the season might not be as indicative as games late in the season or bowl games for that matter. Who knows?
I believe most fans, even ours, truly have alot of respect for the Pac 10, but will never admit it because of their feelings about USC.
I also think that non-conference games early in the season might not be as indicative as games late in the season or bowl games for that matter. Who knows?
I believe most fans, even ours, truly have alot of respect for the Pac 10, but will never admit it because of their feelings about USC.
Posted on 1/11/09 at 10:00 am to JohnStOnge
I don't think the Pac is weak. I think that a Pac team going through the Pac 10 schedule has an easier time than an SEC team going through their SEC schedule. It's because the bottom half of the SEC is stronger than the bottom half of the Pac. So, there are no easy games. For example, this year Washington and Washington State were much weaker than any team in the lower half of SEC. Those games became similar to "rent-a-wins" for their opponents.
The bottom of the SEC this year was Auburn, Arkansas, Miss State and Tennessee. They are not close to gimmes.
The bottom of the SEC this year was Auburn, Arkansas, Miss State and Tennessee. They are not close to gimmes.
Posted on 1/11/09 at 10:55 am to JohnStOnge
it is not just sec fans, every sports reporter and writer in the country says the same thing every year...
Posted on 1/11/09 at 10:57 am to JohnStOnge
quote:
Why do SEC fans think the Pac 10 is weak?
Tell us what was the PAC-10's record against the Mountain West this year?
This post was edited on 1/11/09 at 10:58 am
Posted on 1/11/09 at 10:58 am to JohnStOnge
quote:
But I don't think the difference has been anything like people in this area seem to think it's been. If it had been, I don't think there's any way you could see head to head results like those above.
Now get ready to read a plethora of excuses and caveats to the records and objective data you posted.
Posted on 1/11/09 at 11:33 am to JohnStOnge
johnstonge-
Look @ the wins that the pac-10 posted and who they played.
usc beat arkansas twice
oregon beat moo state twice-everyone beats moo state.
ucla beat an awful bama team twice.
those six wins are not STRONG wins.
then on the flip side-
georgia vs. arizona state
and the two wins lsu had vs. arizona-
strong vs. weak doesn't give a complete picture of each conference.
look @ the BCS games-when it really counted!
Look @ the wins that the pac-10 posted and who they played.
usc beat arkansas twice
oregon beat moo state twice-everyone beats moo state.
ucla beat an awful bama team twice.
those six wins are not STRONG wins.
then on the flip side-
georgia vs. arizona state
and the two wins lsu had vs. arizona-
strong vs. weak doesn't give a complete picture of each conference.
look @ the BCS games-when it really counted!
Posted on 1/11/09 at 8:43 pm to JohnStOnge
quote:
Why do SEC fans think the Pac 10 is weak?
We don't think they are weak, they just have an inferiority complex and it appears that way.
Posted on 1/11/09 at 9:00 pm to JohnStOnge
The PAC 10 has some decent teams but the overall depth is awful.
These teams stink:
Stanford
Az State
UCLA
Washington
Washington State
These teams stink:
Stanford
Az State
UCLA
Washington
Washington State
Posted on 1/11/09 at 9:05 pm to JohnStOnge
quote:
Why do SEC fans think the Pac 10 is weak?
SEC fans think all other conferences are weak. Not based on any real statistical evidence, we just like to think the SEC rules.
Page 1 of 1
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News