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 8:33 am to JohnStOnge
I dont think they are weak i just think the sec is more powerfull.
Posted on 1/11/09 at 8:34 am to JohnStOnge
Wow..I didn't know Pete Carroll had moved to Prairieville!! 
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 8:36 am to JohnStOnge
Your post is absolutely correct and logical.
You're way over the Rant's head.
You're way over the Rant's head.
Posted on 1/11/09 at 8:38 am to JohnStOnge
You've got a point. But why do you care?
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 8:41 am to Woody
If you typed all that out you wasted a whole lot of time. This is going to get blown up for having too much information in it. People won't care because people on the rant can't read!
LSU was technically the home team for this game. Actually they were the designated home team, even though the game was in Arizona State's stadium.
quote:
2005 LSU (7-2) 35, Arizona State (4-4) 31*
quote:
*-Home Team
LSU was technically the home team for this game. Actually they were the designated home team, even though the game was in Arizona State's stadium.
Posted on 1/11/09 at 8:46 am to offshoretrash
quote:
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)
The BCS championship game is not a good measure because the teams that get there aren't there because they went through a tournment involving all of the top teams from the various leagues.
None of those SEC BCS championships involved beating a top Pac 10 team.
If they ever go to a tournament with a field big enough so that all of the top teams from what are now BCS leagues are included a league winning five of those tournaments in 11 years or 3 in a row will provide a pretty compelling argument that at least the top teams from that league tend to be the strongest. But that hasn't happened.
In this case, no SEC champ has had to play USC because USC tends to get knocked off by teams in its own league so that it usually doesn't quite make it into the top 2 in the end. But they're getting knocked off by teams in a league that has clearly had the better of its head to head series with the SEC.
This post was edited on 1/11/09 at 8:49 am
Posted on 1/11/09 at 8:53 am to DocHog
quote:
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.
I don't think that's true. I think statistical "lying" can be detected and exposed.
But the perception is why I listed all the results including the record of each team within its own conference. It's objectively true that the record is 10-7 Pac 10. It's objectively true that the series involved more SEC teams with winning conference records (11) than Pac 10 teams of that type (7). It's objectively true that there were 9 games such that the SEC team had a better record in its own conference than the Pac 10 team did vs. 5 games where the reverse is true. It's objectively true that there were three games where the teams had identical conference records and the Pac 10 won all three of those games. So on and so forth.
Can you see any possible way to interpret the results, while taking how well each team did within its own conference into account, as suggesting SEC superiority?
This post was edited on 1/11/09 at 9:01 am
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 9:07 am to JohnStOnge
quote:
Pac 10 teams other than USC went 6-7 vs. the SEC. SEC teams other than LSU went 3-10 against the Pac 10.
Why do this? USC is above and beyond any other PAC-10 team, they could do well in the SEC. LSU is not the dominate force in the SEC like USC is in the PAC-10.
Posted on 1/11/09 at 9:28 am to FanInLA
Okay, I'll bite.
Unless you have records of head-to-head battles, yr-in-yr-out, enough years to have some degree of statistical significance, you have proven nothing.In fact, even WITH those I don't think you can PROVE anything. Pro-SEC folks can't either, which is my point. Do you really believe that these relatively small numbers prove anything? They show possible trends, nothing more.
This is the reason that people judge these issues with the potential for so much bias.
I think you have given some fun info that supports the view that most reasonable folks already have:the Pac 10, and SC specifically, are worthy adversaries for our SEC programs.
But you haven't PROVEN anything and aren't likely to
Of course, there are SO many variables
Unless you have records of head-to-head battles, yr-in-yr-out, enough years to have some degree of statistical significance, you have proven nothing.In fact, even WITH those I don't think you can PROVE anything. Pro-SEC folks can't either, which is my point. Do you really believe that these relatively small numbers prove anything? They show possible trends, nothing more.
This is the reason that people judge these issues with the potential for so much bias.
I think you have given some fun info that supports the view that most reasonable folks already have:the Pac 10, and SC specifically, are worthy adversaries for our SEC programs.
But you haven't PROVEN anything and aren't likely to
Of course, there are SO many variables
Posted on 1/11/09 at 9:39 am to FanInLA
quote:
None of those SEC BCS championships involved beating a top Pac 10 team
Is this because the conference strength is weak and USC is the only chance and they usually slip up?
The SEC also beats up on each other and still manages to put a team in the MNC game.
Posted on 1/11/09 at 9:42 am to RedlandsTiger
I am definitely bias against the PAC-10, and I'm sure that will come out here. However, let me say that I like your post and understand your argument.
Just one quick counter (and I realize this is conjecture because it hasn't happened). USC, obviously the best PAC-10 team, is responsible for the most wins against the SEC - 4. Take them out and, I think that it does hurt your argument. You could do the same thing with LSU, I guess, since they have 4 wins over the PAC-10. There is one obvious team not included here that I think would really make a difference here... Florida. They haven't played a PAC-10 team during this time. They are arguably the best SEC team, and they aren't even in the argument. I think when a team that has won 2 national championships during this time gets left out of an argument, it obviously skewers the results.
Like we've done at other times on here, line up the conferences from top to bottom, then compare them.
Conjecture, I know, but Florida being left out of this is ridiculous. Remember also that Georgia has only played 1 game against the PAC-10 during this time. Had they played more, that would have probably helped the SEC as well.
Top 3 PAC-10 teams against the SEC are 7-0.
Two of the top 3 SEC teams (the other not having played any PAC-10 teams) are 5-0. If Florida is in the mix, don't you think there is a huge possibility that this could swing in the SEC's favor in a big way?
I'm done. Sorry for the length.
Just one quick counter (and I realize this is conjecture because it hasn't happened). USC, obviously the best PAC-10 team, is responsible for the most wins against the SEC - 4. Take them out and, I think that it does hurt your argument. You could do the same thing with LSU, I guess, since they have 4 wins over the PAC-10. There is one obvious team not included here that I think would really make a difference here... Florida. They haven't played a PAC-10 team during this time. They are arguably the best SEC team, and they aren't even in the argument. I think when a team that has won 2 national championships during this time gets left out of an argument, it obviously skewers the results.
Like we've done at other times on here, line up the conferences from top to bottom, then compare them.
Conjecture, I know, but Florida being left out of this is ridiculous. Remember also that Georgia has only played 1 game against the PAC-10 during this time. Had they played more, that would have probably helped the SEC as well.
Top 3 PAC-10 teams against the SEC are 7-0.
Two of the top 3 SEC teams (the other not having played any PAC-10 teams) are 5-0. If Florida is in the mix, don't you think there is a huge possibility that this could swing in the SEC's favor in a big way?
I'm done. Sorry for the length.
This post was edited on 1/11/09 at 9:44 am
Posted on 1/11/09 at 9:43 am to FanInLA
Ok, how many of those strong PAC-10 teams were actually strong enough to make it to the BCS Championship Game in the BCS era? USC is the only one, while the SEC has had 3 representatives in the BCS game with LSU, Tenn and Florida (All Winners). The SEC should have had a fourth in Auburn the year they got shafted.
Posted on 1/11/09 at 9:44 am to FanInLA
[/quote]Why do this? USC is above and beyond any other PAC-10 team, they could do well in the SEC. LSU is not the dominate force in the SEC like USC is in the PAC-10.[quote]
Because, sometimes when I've had this discussion in the past, people say the Pac 10 just has the edge because of USC. However, LSU's 4-0 record against the Pac 10 is just as "important" to the numbers as USC's 4-0 record against the SEC is.
But you're right. It's not quite the same thing. I do think LSU may have been the top SEC program overall during the 2003-2006 period during which it played its four games against Pac 10s but it's obviously not the same as the way in which USC has dominated the Pac 10.
Because, sometimes when I've had this discussion in the past, people say the Pac 10 just has the edge because of USC. However, LSU's 4-0 record against the Pac 10 is just as "important" to the numbers as USC's 4-0 record against the SEC is.
But you're right. It's not quite the same thing. I do think LSU may have been the top SEC program overall during the 2003-2006 period during which it played its four games against Pac 10s but it's obviously not the same as the way in which USC has dominated the Pac 10.
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.
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News