Started By
Message
re: Why do SEC fans think the Pac 10 is weak?
Posted on 1/11/09 at 11:33 am to JohnStOnge
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!
1
Posted on 1/11/09 at 12:19 pm to bayoutigernutjob
I think we do college football a disservice by considering the Pac-10 as weak. It is a national perception that is carried by almost everyone who has a voice in the media...
The argument that considers BCS Championships is invalid because the aforementioned perception leads to fewer Pac-10 teams being selected for the top two spots. It is simply a circular argument.
The argument that a particular conference is strong because its members are strong is also circular. One needs only to look at the Big XII South this season to see an example of that.
The Big XII, Big11Ten and SEC always get the benefit of the doubt. Only the SEC recently has taken advantage of that. The ACC, Big East and Pac-10 do not recieve that benefit. Conversely, only the Pac-10 has stepped up to disprove that way of thinking.
The argument that considers BCS Championships is invalid because the aforementioned perception leads to fewer Pac-10 teams being selected for the top two spots. It is simply a circular argument.
The argument that a particular conference is strong because its members are strong is also circular. One needs only to look at the Big XII South this season to see an example of that.
The Big XII, Big11Ten and SEC always get the benefit of the doubt. Only the SEC recently has taken advantage of that. The ACC, Big East and Pac-10 do not recieve that benefit. Conversely, only the Pac-10 has stepped up to disprove that way of thinking.
Posted on 1/11/09 at 3:11 pm to rbdallas
I do not think this is an PAC 10 v. SEC debate. I believe the original contention is that the PAC-10 is not as nearly as weak as many heere prclaim. IMO, the poster used the record against the SEC to support that notion. I do not think he was trying to imply the PAC-10 was better than the SEC. many here proclaim the SEC to be the toughest conference year in and year out--by far. If, indeed, the PAC-10 was as weak as many here say, how in the heck could they have such a record like that against the toughest conference in the land?
Either A. the PAC-10 is not nearly as weak as most here believe, B. the SEC is not as strong as folks claim it to be, or C. both. While I do believe the SEC to be the strogest, IMO, it is C.
Either A. the PAC-10 is not nearly as weak as most here believe, B. the SEC is not as strong as folks claim it to be, or C. both. While I do believe the SEC to be the strogest, IMO, it is C.
This post was edited on 1/11/09 at 3:12 pm
Posted on 1/11/09 at 4:16 pm to LSUTANGERINE
quote:Agree. This year's SEC was predicted by many pundits to be the strongest overall conference in college football history. 3 of the components of the assumption --- Auburn, LSU, UGA --- disappointed. Bama, OleMiss, Vandy did better than expected. Still was the strongest conference, but underperformed. I would like to see USC vs SEC champ for the MNC one of these days.
While I do believe the SEC to be the strogest, IMO, it is C.
But overall, the major issue most of us have with the Pac10 is its resistance to a MNC playoff. That Pac10 company included until last year the likes of Pete Carroll who was VERY nonchalant about playoffs as long as USC was atop the rankings. High degree of PC weasel factor there as his story changed dramatically with USC being passed over a couple of years. USC has the conference prestige to push the playoff issue through the Pac10. Hasn't happened. It's about greed, money, and locking up the Rose Bowl along with the Big10. That's weak on SC's part.
Posted on 1/11/09 at 5:07 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
But overall, the major issue most of us have with the Pac10 is its resistance to a MNC playoff. That Pac10 company included until last year the likes of Pete Carroll who was VERY nonchalant about playoffs as long as USC was atop the rankings.
PC has always been a vocal proponent of a playoff. Yes, the PAC-10 did not support a playoff. However, what you failed to point out was that in the SEC's 2007 Spring meetings, the schools voted UNANIMOUSLY to keep the current system (i.e., BCS). With the prestige the SEC has that is extremely weak on their own part.
This post was edited on 1/11/09 at 6:00 pm
Posted on 1/11/09 at 8:16 pm to TigerOnTheProwl
JohnStOnge, you are a man of wisdom.
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 8:55 pm to King
The rest of the college footbal world better hope we don't have a playoff system. The SEC just might end up playing one another for the title more years than not.
If we'd had a playoff system in place from the start the SEC would probably have 7 NCs
If we'd had a playoff system in place from the start the SEC would probably have 7 NCs
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.
Posted on 1/11/09 at 9:26 pm to biglego
quote:
SEC fans think all other conferences are weak. Not based on any real statistical evidence, we just like to think the SEC rules.
I don't think that's entirely true. Many SEC fans thought the Big 12 was better until they saw UT, TTU, OK St, Mizzou, and OU all look mediocre to bad in their bowl games.
I think SEC fans are frustrated because it is hard to get through the conference without a loss. However in the Big 10 or Big East team with no losses will be in the championship game over a team who won the SEC. I think a few of the SEC teams could have gone undefeated in the Big East this year.
Posted on 1/11/09 at 9:28 pm to arwicklu
SEC fans like to think their athletes are all bigger, stronger, and especially faster than other teams' players.
Posted on 1/12/09 at 9:18 am to biglego
I don't think the Pac 10 is weak. I think the overrated conference is the Big 10. I'd like to see a Pac 10 / SEC shootout for a couple of years. Like some conferences have in basketball. One year SEC at home and one year away. Might lose a home game one year, but it would sure be better than scheduling the Citadel.
Posted on 1/12/09 at 9:55 am to mauser
It's not just SEC fans, it's the national media and the voters. If anyone thought the PAC 10 was tough USC would be in the NCCG this year.
USC is not weak but it's biggest advantage is its biggest weakness. They play in a weak conference and one that most fans (pac 10 fans)don't give a shite about.
You can't have it both ways, it would be in USC's best interest (and the pac 10's) to play a conference championship game but they wont make the change.
Stop blaming the SEC and take steps to fix your problem or you can continue to have fricksticks with nothing better to do start threads on and SEC chat board. What do you expect to accomplish? USC drops another meaningless game and gets left out again, when they could pound the likes of OU.
How frustrating it must be to know USC would crush OU and give FL (and the nation) a much better game but instead they get to beat another Big 10 softy????
It's not our fault so take it somewhere else
USC is not weak but it's biggest advantage is its biggest weakness. They play in a weak conference and one that most fans (pac 10 fans)don't give a shite about.
You can't have it both ways, it would be in USC's best interest (and the pac 10's) to play a conference championship game but they wont make the change.
Stop blaming the SEC and take steps to fix your problem or you can continue to have fricksticks with nothing better to do start threads on and SEC chat board. What do you expect to accomplish? USC drops another meaningless game and gets left out again, when they could pound the likes of OU.
How frustrating it must be to know USC would crush OU and give FL (and the nation) a much better game but instead they get to beat another Big 10 softy????
It's not our fault so take it somewhere else
Posted on 1/12/09 at 10:33 am to JohnStOnge
Here's the problem not just SEC fans have and know to be true as well as other conference fans and media outside of liberal land on the west coast know is that outside of USC, and even they would have a difficult time, could not compete week in and week out in the SEC and have a shot to win the SEC however you could plug LSU, Bama, Florida, Georgia, and outside of the down year UT and Auburn into the PAC and they would all have legit shot at winning the PAC every year just like USC does...
Page 3 of 3
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News